Climate and Weather

Listen up you three losers. I will be sending you three some information today for you guys to look over. This first video is to get the weekend started. TGIFF! BTW, I do not go to Gab.

Gab Social

Gab is a social network that champions free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online. All are welcome.
gab.com gab.com
 
dad4 said:
If the volcano is releasing too much CO2, then the answer is no. That volcano is active. You and your equipment will stop functioning when it erupts. Next life, choose a more geologically stable site for your observatory.

What’s with the stupid gotcha questions? If you actually have a brain, engage it. You’re acting like a kid on a school bus who wants to prove he’s smart.

I have given you an argument: Glacial cycles take far more than 200 years to do anything. Therefore, the last 200 years of warming is not a normal glacial cycle.

Agree with it, or come up with a counterargument.
Click to expand...
Seems like you and Richard don't agree. Or it seems like you don't agree with the Dicks experts.

You provided a graph that you don't even understand. Oh, you can copy and paste all you want but fact that you posted THAT graph and neither you nor Richard know what LGM is just proves my point.

You have been.provided with many counter arguments and all you do is say deny them.. as if you're an expert. That's a very scientific approach. Kinda like your spearman theory..
 
espola said:
"Gases from Mauna Loa’s crater, which is 4 miles (6 kilometers) away from the observatory, can temporarily raise the amount of CO2 in the air. Prevailing winds generally prevent volcanic gases from reaching the observatory, but when the wind is light, it can happen. However, the influx of volcanic CO2 is immediately noticeable because the readings jump upward sharply, and by amounts far larger than normal seasonal fluctuations. These brief spikes are not included in the final data because they’re caused by short-term, local variations, and they don’t reflect the long-term average that the observatory strives to measure."

climate.nasa.gov

How Do We Know Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Measurements Don't Include Volcanic Gases? - NASA Science

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, and all around the world. NASA also measures CO2 from space. Data from
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov
Click to expand...
Hi Richard... you know I can still see you're reading my post. Just because you have me on igmore don't think that you viewing my post as a guest hides you. I'm flattered that you would go to such lengths to read my post. I'm truly honored...
 
dad4 said:
He’s a lightweight pretending to know more than he does. People who actually have a scientific background don’t waste their time saying “Ha! You don’t even know what XXXXXXX is.”. They just define their term so they can talk about the science, because that’s what they find interesting.
Click to expand...

Added --

He acts like the bully in the 6th Grade schoolyard taunting the smart kids.
 
dad4 said:
Cool.

Mostly I was messing with him. That’s why I chose a useless response about active volcanos instead of actually answering his question.

He’s a lightweight pretending to know more than he does. People who actually have a scientific background don’t waste their time saying “Ha! You don’t even know what XXXXXXX is.”. They just define their term so they can talk about the science, because that’s what they find interesting.
Click to expand...




dad4 said:
Cool.

Mostly I was messing with him. That’s why I chose a useless response about active volcanos instead of actually answering his question.

He’s a lightweight pretending to know more than he does. People who actually have a scientific background don’t waste their time saying “Ha! You don’t even know what XXXXXXX is.”. They just define their term so they can talk about the science, because that’s what they find interesting.
Click to expand...
Mostly..

I'll do you and Richard one better.

People with a scientific background don’t waste their time posting over 4k and 15k messages on a forum about soccer.

You're easier to trip up then the Meat Beater or Ratboy because you just back yourself into it. And try to be more original if you're going to try to dis' me. Using the school bus after I already used an eighth grader to punk you is very unoriginal and in fact was very disappointing.

And here I thought you were the more intelligent of the three. My mistake... won't happen again.
 
Multi Sport said:
Mostly..

I'll do you and Richard one better.

People with a scientific background don’t waste their time posting over 4k and 15k messages on a forum about soccer.

You're easier to trip up then the Meat Beater or Ratboy because you just back yourself into it. And try to be more original if you're going to try to dis' me. Using the school bus after I already used an eighth grader to punk you is very unoriginal and in fact was very disappointing.

And here I thought you were the more intelligent of the three. My mistake... won't happen again.
Click to expand...
Meh. Time to kill.

Did you actually have a coherent thought about glacial maxima?

If not, keep going with the school bus debate tactics. It's kind of amusing to see an adult at that level.
 
dad4 said:
Meh. Time to kill.

Did you actually have a coherent thought about glacial maxima?

If not, keep going with the school bus debate tactics. It's kind of amusing to see an adult at that level.
Click to expand...
Yes. Of course. You don’t understand something so you try to, cough, inject witty sarcasm.

I get it, you're embarrassed for not knowing. Did you try using a different search engine yet? Maybe just try doing mutiple searches with different SEs and do a basic stare and compare? I know.. it's more effort then it's worth since you're just "killing time".

Hmm..maybe that explains your sloppiness?
 
Multi Sport said:
Yes. Of course. You don’t understand something so you try to, cough, inject witty sarcasm.

I get it, you're embarrassed for not knowing. Did you try using a different search engine yet? Maybe just try doing mutiple searches with different SEs and do a basic stare and compare? I know.. it's more effort then it's worth since you're just "killing time".

Hmm..maybe that explains your sloppiness?
Click to expand...
That would be a no. You don't have a coherent thought on glacial maxima. Nor do you seem to realize that I was referring to the GM from your favorite acronym.

Basic argument is there if you ever want to address it. Past warming cycles exist, but are far too slow to offer even a partial cause for the current warming trend.
 
dad4 said:
That would be a no. You don't have a coherent thought on glacial maxima. Nor do you seem to realize that I was referring to the GM from your favorite acronym.

Basic argument is there if you ever want to address it. Past warming cycles exist, but are far too slow to offer even a partial cause for the current warming trend.
Click to expand...
So.. did you change your search engine?

Did you figure out what's wrong with the graph you posted? Or are you just killing more time?
 
I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
 
watfly said:
I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
Click to expand...
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
 
Desert Hound said:
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting use of the word "optimum".

Which of the possible outcomes the IPCC talks about do you think is more likely? Or more preferable?
 
watfly said:
I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
Click to expand...
If people came to the table of climate change willing to listen to all viewpoints it would be much better for everyone. Having pre-conceived ideas or throwing around information without any knowledge of what you're posting muddies the proverbial waters.

Some are here just to "kill time"...
 
watfly said:
I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
Click to expand...
Ideal?

We aren’t really in a spot to declare an ideal temperature curve. It’s really more about how many meters of sea level rise we get, and how quickly we get them.

Eventually, we could focus on returning CO2 to 300 ppm or some other negotiated “ideal”. It’s far too early to have that discussion. Right now, it’s more about “can we gradually replace our coal plants with something that doesn’t cause massive coastal flooding?”
 
Desert Hound said:
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
Click to expand...
Other points I was trying to make are, what is the benchmark and how do you measure the expected results of each of the proposed "green" actions. The philosophy seems to be doing something is better than nothing. However, when the doing something has significant negative socio-economic impacts, doing nothing might be the better approach, especially when we have no evidence that the "green" actions will even move the needle in fighting global warming. It seems the strategy is to hope programs like the Green New Deal combat climate change, but hope is never a good basis for making policy.

I end up back in the same place, nuclear energy as the primary solution on global warming, or we punt altogether and just work on clean air and clean water.
 
Desert Hound said:
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
Click to expand...
Adaptation costs money, too. Can you imagine how much it would cost to build 3m dikes for every coastal city on earth? Or move the cities uphill?

Then even after you build all your dikes or move the coastal cities, some of your cities get too hot to live. You’ll need to move the hotter inland desert cities, too.

Even after you finish moving Riyadh and Kolkata, you‘re still not done. Every time you add another 100ppm of CO2, your semi-arid cities get too hot, and you need to move them as well.

This is not sounding like the cheaper option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top