Why is the climate changing. (Page 12)

theHating
theHating: yeah, ive seen some rough guys get money from heartland, watts isnt the roughest, but definitely rough nonetheless lol
7 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: i bet you had loads of articles to link me from that stupid website
7 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: im just glad we know better than to trust the face-value of a billionaire-backed nay-sayer
(Edited by theHating)
7 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: and before you pull another rabbit from your hat and laugh at me for knowing jack shit about science, answer me, do you believe everything anthony watts has put up on his blog? do you believe the claims he made about scientists's leaked climate emails in 2009?
7 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: anthony watts is a refrigerator repairman, not a climatologist, cherry-picking from science is not a useful tool to debunking science, although it is working, there is lots of effort from the US against climate change. the US is a global tycoon, the petrol is what gives the dollar its value and the environment, its collapse.
(Edited by theHating)
7 days ago Report
0
The flying Squirrel
The flying Squirrel: Im still waiting for someone to answer . Why there is Crude oil up to a mile down . If its old plant material . What did it drip between the cracks in the rocks
7 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Well, obviously Brian!
7 days ago Report
0
The flying Squirrel
The flying Squirrel: In the middle of the Oceans
7 days ago Report
0
The flying Squirrel
The flying Squirrel: No Oil is the Natural Life blood of the Plannet , It"s a consparicy that its Plant Material Oil wells fill themselves back up eventually ,

Just like the Bloke from Texico said all them years ago
lol
7 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: why are meteoroligists still challenging the anthropogenic climate change theory?
6 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: lol, squirrel wtf
6 days ago Report
0
The flying Squirrel
The flying Squirrel: Well your got to go to U tube , If you want to find any thing Out , Its all Quite simple , See




Oh we destroyed the Telemetry , we cant go back to the moon just yet
lol
6 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: haha, yeah i got a ph.d from youtube
6 days ago Report
0
The flying Squirrel
The flying Squirrel: Yeah exactly Scientists
lol
6 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: really? people still think dinos colonized titan?
6 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: this is gunna need a new thread, "dinos in space: reptilian empires and extraterrestrial origins"
6 days ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Answers, please, on this:

Photosynthetic plants originally evolved in an environment of atmospheric CO2 at several 1000’s ppmv. In the horticultural business plant growth is routinely enhanced by increasing the level of CO2 in greenhouses to three times or more than the normal atmosphere, ~1,200’s ppmv.

Current CO2 concentrations at 400 ppmv are low when compared with the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 300 million years or so which ranged between 1000 ppmv and 1200 ppmv.

So at present levels the earth’s biosphere is still only marginally above a minimal CO2 level for plant and thus planetary survival and any further concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can only have a positive entirely beneficial effect on plant growth.

[ https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-diminishing-effect-of-increasing-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/ ]
6 days ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: The physics of CO2’s effect on temperature is not linear, its potency falls off logarithmically with increasing concentrations.

Both Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics agree on this. IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is presented in the IPCC reports. However it is well disguised from any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).

[ https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/ ]
6 days ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Now as to money changing hands, consider the following:

Regarding funding, it is in fact the taxpayer (by way of government grants) who fund climate scientists to the tune of billions of dollars. It is in the interest of those parties who receive such grants to promote climate alarmism. These include bodies like NASA and NOAA too.

[ https://www.economist.com/node/21567342/comments ]

Billions of dollars is a good reason for scientists not to rock the boat on climate change.
6 days ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Long term planetary temperatures have a very high correlation with the intensity of the solar cycles, with the solar cycles in the late 20th century being the most intense in nearly 1,000 years (based on Carbon-14 isotope proxy data). ...

It is well known that the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings settled and raised sheep in Greenland, was warmer that it is today. The archeological evidence of this cannot be disproved.

[ https://www.economist.com/node/21567342/comments ]
6 days ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: So, if the current solar cycle is the most intense since the last time the planet was this warm, what conclusion would you draw from this information if you knew nothing about CO2? Might you not conclude that the sun had a direct effect on the climate of planet earth?
6 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: i am interested in how you understand the climate of gas giants
5 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: ghost, have you ever cross referenced any of your own claims with actual evidence? can you show me one scientist that got bankroll to be disingenuous? instead of saying "well scientists got paid billions of taxpayer money to do climate science", can you name a single scientist that was objectively given money to lie? ghost, that data you give still doesnt support your claims against the consensus agreement. its cherry-picked, misquoted, or otherwise ignores the larger picture.
5 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: please explain to me how you think the math supports your idea that co2 will essentially have no more warming effect once it has "saturated" the upper atmosphere. i encourage you to stop leaving out the rest of the details.
(Edited by theHating)
5 days ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: how do you explain the climates of mercury, closest to the sun average temp of 322F, and venus, 95% co2 saturated atmosphere, 864F average temp, 2nd planet out from the sun, thick cloudy atmosphere, by your cloud logic, shouldnt venus be in a perpetual ice age? the clouds are blocking out that special wavelength that you allege isn't warming earths "already" saturated co2 levels??? can you please explain??
5 days ago Report
0