Hey Warmers!

[palerider]

Not only that, people who won't notice climate change and who will not alter their behavior are like the HIV stricken bath-house patrons, who shoved their fatal doses, all the way past AIDS, to a deadly epidemic. Don't be so surprised.

You seem to be preoccupied with aids? Are you perhaps a victim? Or maybe wondering if you should get tested but afraid to do so?

Such skeptic websites seem full of rants, decrying known outcomes and reporters. At least Watt has a graph or several. If Mr.Pielke has a doctorate, all he does at his website is quack, quack, the Greenland ice is frozen again. I have no respect, for this sort of media.

Do feel free to bring a rant from his website. He is an imminent scientist who, by the way, believes in AGW. Strange that you would dis him so. Certainly no one else does. The climate science community defended him when he was badly treated at skeptical science.

Starting at the end of the 18th Century, but accelerating, in the 1950s, CO2 concentration started skyrocketing, so it is all the way, to 400 ppm, when it was 280 ppm, c. 1800. There will be no global cooling, in our lifetimes, or for many lifetimes, thereafter, unless GHG emissions are controlled, and CO2 respirators somehow flourish, instead of succumb.

Nothing unusual there. Both the roman warm periods and the medieval warm periods warmed much more quickly and to a greater degree than the present and the holocene maximum saw more warming at a more rapid pace than either of those two. As to the cooling, I believe you are wrong. Now that it is clear that the claimed warmig is less than half of what has been claimed, it is impossible to tell whether it is actually warming or cooling as the claimed temperature changes are much larger than the margin of error.

Although I would like to see a warmer climate. The earth is quite cold right now relative to its normal temperature over the span of its existence.

GHGs now include a lot of industrial gases, and CH4 is out-gassing, as a direct result, of human industry and neglect of environmental degradation.

CH4 can no more trap and retain heat in the atmosphere than CO2. It absorbs, it emits. Emission tends to scatter that which was absorbed which is a cooling action as opposed to a warming one.

Gosh, ice isn't normal, except ALL THE TIME. Since we have been at a thermal maximum, with temperatures trying to move downward, on schedule, I suspect you didn't notice any of the other GHG-preceded warmings, such as the PETM or the P-T extinction.

You are thinking in very short terms. When the earth began to decend into the ice age that we are currently warming out of, the average temperatuer of the earth had been about 8 degrees C warmer than it is at present for the previous 75 million years or so with atmospheric CO2 numbers several orders of magnitude higher than they are today.

As to the PETM and PT extinctions, there isn't a whit of hard evidence that atmospheric CO2 had anything whatsoever to do with them. Such a claim is nothing more than fearmongering. If you can show some hard proof to support the claim, by all means, lets see it.

 

[GenSeneca]

...mommy can go ahead and leave baby, in the car, with the windows up, while she shops. If you don't think a greenhouse effect operates, at all, we are moving, in a circle.

I have a question for you.... But first... Name a gas that is NOT a Green House Gas... Now let's do the following experiment:

Fill the car with whatever NON Green House Gas you like, keep the windows rolled up tight, and let the car cook in the direct sunlight of a blacktop parking lot for a few hours at mid day.

Here's my question for you: Will the temperature inside the car go up, down, or remain the same?

According to your theory, and subsequent explanation, it is GHG's that cause the temperature inside the car to warm under such circumstances (not the giant ball of fire in the sky radiating heat to earth). So, if your theory is correct, the temperature will NOT increase (because there are no GHG's present) but instead the temperature inside the car will remain completely unchanged the entire time the car sits in the parking lot.

It would not surprise me to learn that warmers actually believe the temperature inside the car would not change as a result of that experiment.

 

[Gipper]

I have a question for you.... But first... Name a gas that is NOT a Green House Gas... Now let's do the following experiment:

Fill the car with whatever NON Green House Gas you like, keep the windows rolled up tight, and let the car cook in the direct sunlight of a blacktop parking lot for a few hours at mid day.

Here's my question for you: Will the temperature inside the car go up, down, or remain the same?

According to your theory, and subsequent explanation, it is GHG's that cause the temperature inside the car to warm under such circumstances (not the giant ball of fire in the sky radiating heat to earth). So, if your theory is correct, the temperature will NOT increase (because there are no GHG's present) but instead the temperature inside the car will remain completely unchanged the entire time the car sits in the parking lot.

It would not surprise me to learn that warmers actually believe the temperature inside the car would not change as a result of that experiment.

Did he/she/it really post this?

...mommy can go ahead and leave baby, in the car, with the windows up, while she shops. If you don't think a greenhouse effect operates, at all, we are moving, in a circle.

If so, that has to be one of the silliest arguments for AGW I have ever heard...and I have heard a lot. For one to think a closed car is analogous to Earth, one has to be terribly uninformed.

With the lack of scientific knowledge by the public, the AGW elites must have thought they could easily dupe all of us with this hoax. It must have really upset them when all did not go along with the big lie.

 

[GenSeneca]

NASA / IPCC Climate Models: Latest Global Temperature Data Confirm Computer Simulations Lack Of Predictive Skill​

​

The 'harmonic' model basically ignores CO2 levels and emissions, instead focusing on astronomical forces, primarily solar system planetary motions.​

As a result, the harmonic model better matches the known climate decadal and multi-decadal oscillations that create the global climate variations that are well documented throughout history. The CO2-centric models are totally incapable of doing the same. ​

​

 

[Gipper]

"The argument that global warming is causing more extreme weather is problematic because it presumes the globe is warming. In fact, the global temperature trend line has been stable for more than a dozen years, while carbon dioxide has increased 7%. If CO2 was the driver, then why have global temperatures stopped increasing? Keep in mind that CO2 represents 0.0395% of the Earth's atmosphere. Arguing that CO2 is driving the small temperature variations in our climate as opposed to the oceans, which cover 70% of the planet and have 1,000 times the heat capacity of air, or the output of our sun, is scientifically disturbing. ... The latest claims resulting from this series of hot and dry summers ignores the fact that more state heat records were set in the 1930s than all other decades of the last century combined. Anyone remember the Dust Bowl? ... The IPCC incorrectly predicted Arctic sea ice would disappear by now. After Katrina in 2005, more and stronger hurricanes were forecast to be the future. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index for the globe has instead declined to the lowest level in 30 years. ... Perhaps when the Atlantic flips cold, we will be hearing Ice Age scares again as we did in the 1970s." --meteorologist Joe Bastardi

I did not know CO2 is only .0395% of the Earth's atmosphere. That is a very small percentage and yet, warmers think it is destroying the planet.

We know the 1930s were warmer than today, yet the warmers persist. The AGW cultists lied about more hurricanes and melting of the Arctic. They lied about many things. Yet, the warmers continue to believe. What does that say about them?

 

[dogtowner]

I did not know CO2 is only .0395% of the Earth's atmosphere. That is a very small percentage and yet, warmers think it is destroying the planet.

We know the 1930s were warmer than today, yet the warmers persist. The AGW cultists lied about more hurricanes and melting of the Arctic. They lied about many things. Yet, the warmers continue to believe. What does that say about them?

they want it to be true for the usual tree hugger concerns.
i would like to see more green from outter space as eell but.i wont make dtuff up to justify it.

 

[Cruella]

I did not know CO2 is only .0395% of the Earth's atmosphere. That is a very small percentage and yet, warmers think it is destroying the planet.

We know the 1930s were warmer than today, yet the warmers persist. The AGW cultists lied about more hurricanes and melting of the Arctic. They lied about many things. Yet, the warmers continue to believe. What does that say about them?

GW is the new liberal religion. They can see the face of GW when they look at a piece of toast.