Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Am I supposed to see a link in there?

Also the notion of being able to evaluate and contrast something on the timescale of 100-200 years because of a finding of what happened "roughly 400 million years ago" is absurd.

You claim that the CO2 dropped from 4500 to 3000...over what sort of time frame? Roughly 400 million years ago tells me nothing in terms of how long that drop happened?

Also, how the hell did they measure the average temperature from roughly 400 millions years ago?

 

Absolutely nobody makes that claim except for morons incapable of understanding the threat of climate change.

 

You asked for parameters. I gave them to you.

And you ran. Again. Right on cue.

 

That is a latitude, not a temperature.

LMAO!

 

Say the guy who keeps running each and every time his so called evidence humans are the primary cause of global warming is challegned.

Of course now you are saying The Earth is warming and humans are a significant, and almost certainly a majority, causal factor.

And the backtracking is so predictable

 

Yet you don't see a problem here? You are trying to create a model based on completely different methodologies with completely different levels of accuracy and pawning it off as 'scientific' proof of your hoax. Wow...

 

We emit twice the CO2 per capita, than does China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Yes, ships can burn high-sulfur fuels. Cars do not. That needs to change as it did for cars. It is a problem easily fixed if the will is there to change it.

For starters, we can and will convert to carbon-neutral fuels made from algae and or other microbes. It can completely replace petroleum fuels and it can be produced cost effectively, in the quantities needed. These fuels are also completely compatible with the existing energy infrastructure.



When an algae fuel was used in an actual test flight of a commercial aircraft, it outperformed standard aviation fuel.

The last time I checked, producers were claiming to be approaching and even breaking the $5 per gallon barrier. Fifteen years ago, it cost more like $30 a gallon. Scientists and engineers have been working on this for quite some time now. And it is almost there. It is all a matter of matching and then beating the price of petroleum fuels.

It is all about the price at the pump.

 

Hmmm? Going with the per capita to defend the ChiComms. You Oligarch Bloomberg?

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp

 

Anyway, CO2 is not a problem. Water vapor might be, but any change in climate is by far naturally occurring. The climate is always changing.

 

The algae concept is cool. I remember seeing it on modern marvel's 10 or so years ago maybe more. Happy to see a cost effective alternative coming. I'll have to do dome research on that.

We do emit twice the c02 per capita as china but the US has fallen from 20 to 16 metric tons per capita. Where as china has consistently gone up since 1960 even. Plus c02 emissions isnt the whole picture total polution means more to me overall. I would love to not pollute the world at all but we are far from that.

 

I have no problems understanding the conclusion for which you want to see support. You do not believe humans are a primary cause for the current global warming trend and you want to see proof of that assertion. I get that.

What I do not get, and what I have asked you to provide repeatedly and what you have failed to provide repeatedly, is an example - even a hypothetical one - of the type or amount of proof that would qualify as proof to you.

Let me put it to you a different way: Do you believe it is impossible for anyone to ever convince you that humans are the primary cause of the current warming trend? If you do not, how do you envision that moment where you change your mind taking place?

 

Yea...because saying something is "almost certainly a majority" is a retreat from my previous position when I quoted the IPCC and it said that humans are "very probably responsible for a majority of the warming."


Totally backtracking.

 

I see the problems. As does every other climatologist who uses this data in their models.

And yet the models - as confirmed by a NASA study published last month - have been largely accurate in their ability to predict the current warming trend.

The reason, as should be clear, is because we continuously collect new data and can use that new data to evaluate and correct previous errors. That process has been ongoing for decades with better technology and better access to more information.

You mentioned different methodologies, but that is another reason we can have greater confidence in the findings. Different groups of scientists are currently using different methodologies to evaluate and predict the climate. And yet, those different methodologies are yielding results that largely agree.

 

As the Earth warms because of an increase in greenhouse gases, the planet is able to hold onto moisture in the form of clouds for a longer period of time.

So in essence, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, like CO2 and methane, in the upper atmosphere, helps to make water vapor more of a problem in terms of the greenhouse effect.

 

You don't say.

 

An infrared thermometer?

 

They have political leadership that actually recognize the threat of climate change and are actively taking steps specifically towards mitigating that threat. The US is being led by a guy who think climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese and believes that we fight climate change by "having great numbers."

 

Nature can be more cruel than man, it doesn't have to think about it, it's like a dictator without any morality, nature is even adapting at Chernobyl without thinking about it. Democrats were cool and calculating when they handed out cigarettes to homeless people to induce them to the polls in 2000, just as they are with all their free stuff.

When I went to Seattle in the 70's I went downtown and it was deserted, being just off the ship I had no news, so when I heard the sound a thundering mass of runners reverbing off the buildings, little did I know that herd was carrying Soviet flags. Like the commie flags I saw when I visited Berkeley after the ship pulled into Alameda, or the commie flags the Union Members in a similar display as in Seattle were carrying as they ran through the defense plant. They are no longer an anomaly, they have multiplied, they are now Bernie's base.

Leading people to believe socialism is the only solution to Global Warming, and a necessary evil because the other side is not working to solve a problem, or Conservatives in mass don't believe in it because of some perceived flaw in Capitalism (greed...) or their intelligence, is not in our best interests.

 

If you don't know that, then why are you even discussing climate change, CO2/O2 levels? Maybe because it doesn't fit your political agenda.

You still haven't answered basic questions that punch holes in your theories.

Dinosaurs roamed Earth 250 million years ago with 5x more carbon dioxide than present on Earth today. What does that tell you?

 

Earth may be warming for many, many reasons and not just greenhouse gasses. Besides, cold water retains CO2 and as earth warms, it releases this into the atmosphere. It's a natural function of the planet warming and cooling and going through climate cycles that have been occurring long before humans walked the earth.

 

That life, specifically Dinosaurs, can live in a climate with 5x more carbon dioxide than present on Earth today.

But you dodged my question. How did scientists measure the average temperature from roughly 400 million years ago? Also, what was the time frame from when the CO2 dropped from 4500 to 3000 and yet the temperature increased?

Just provide a link.

 

Which is one of the threats posed by the currently human induced warming. As humans warm the planet, this leads to a melting of areas where CO2 and methane are locked away in permafrost. As those areas melt (again, because of human induced warming), those areas will release even more CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere.

But you mention that the Earth may be warming for many, many reasons. So I have two questions.

One - do you actually believe that the Earth is warming and is the rate of warming over the last 100 years any different than the previous 10,000?

Two - What are some of the many, many reasons that the Earth may be warming? Here is a list of reasons that I can think of, but please let me know if you can think of any others.
- Orbital Variability
- Solar Intensity
- Meteors
- Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
- Volcanoes (technically, this is still Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, but I'll put it as a separate reason)
- Deforestation/Land Use
- Albedo Effect
- Aerosols
- Ozone

 

I didn't dodge anything, it has been explained to you on numerous occasions because you keep running in circles looking for a way to apply your political agenda where it doesn't belong.

If dinosaurs were living with 5x the amount of carbon back then, why do you correlate reduced amounts of levels of CO2 today to burning fossil fuels? There were higher levels of CO2 and even O2 with no humans on the planet.

 

1) Why do you keep limiting yourself to 10K years? Earth, warming/cooling/CO2/O2, etc are covered over millions of years. You keep trying to stuff earth's climate into literally a few days of Geologic time which pretty much destroys your agenda. It also destroys the fact that humans are causing global warming on such a scale as it has done so in the past when no humans were on earth.

2) Albedo is merely a concept. Aerosols? Deforestation? Explain how these are causing the entire globe to get warmer.

 

Could you be more disingenuous? NASA uses data they collect, with their assets and within strict confines of their project parameters. It's you folks that are playing mix and match with all sorts of silliness and pasting their name to it. None of which puts the onus on humanity...