Climate Change Denial

[eevee-fan]

It means you lied about ocean temperatures dropping as well as arctic temperatures dropping. Just another of your arguments being destroyed once again. Funny thing is if you go to the link you provided and look at the graphs for the last 20 or so years you see that arctic temps have been consistently higher than the mean other than the summer months. Your own sources contradict you yet still you persist.

Seems the Mitch-bot is just pulling random articles/references to make its point. The earlier original description of ocean currents making Pacific NW warmer made zero sense until I posted a correction, then the Mitch-bot posts a description of air currents to support MY claim. LOL

 

[dhrivnak]

We have very little CO2 in the atmosphere based on the paleoclimate time scale.

And at that time the climate was much warmer with no ice sheets and sea levels some 200’ higher. Can you imagine the dislocations required to make that adjustment?

 

[dhrivnak]

If you think all scientists and engineers are singing from the same human-caused global warming hymn, you are flat-out wrong!

Not all but 98% is a very clear majority.

 

[MitchP85D]

What happened to Water Vapor being a GHG? So..... what exactly are you arguing if you agree the radiative forcing of CO2 is ~1.5w/m^2? Cumulatively that's not a small number. That's enough to add ~2E22J/yr to the oceans, make Venus hotter than Mercury and drive interglacial periods.... so..... CO2 blocks ~1.5w/m^2 AND there's nothing blocking heat on the surface from radiating away???? Which is it?

.... again.... you understand that your answer to Q1 and Q3 can't both be true..... right? Which is it?

Shut the sun off, IR radiation will be all gone.

 

[MitchP85D]

And at that time the climate was much warmer with no ice sheets and sea levels some 200’ higher. Can you imagine the dislocations required to make that adjustment?

Wrong, the CO2 correlation doesn't always fit on the paleoclimate time scale.

 

[MitchP85D]

Please point out the cooling trend:

As the heat content has been increasing since 1969 in this chart.

You think that will keep going up to infinity?

 

[MitchP85D]

???? No.... just math. 1.5w/m^2 is ~2E22J/yr. You think adding that much energy to a system has no effect? You understand the Law of conservation of Energy is a 'Law'.... right

So....... Increasing CO2 from 180 to 280 ppm would increase radiative forcing sufficiently with the help of a few feedbacks to warm the planet by 10C because math. We know CO2 actually DID increase from 180 to 280ppm... and that temperatures DID rise by ~10C but.... that's not the cause.... why? And there are also no other remotely plausible explanations. So..... CO2 isn't the cause..... why?

Your limited math.

 

[nwdiver]

Shut the sun off, IR radiation will be all gone.

ooookaaaaay..... but so long as the sun exists.... CO2 causes additional warming..... yes?

 

[nwdiver]

Your limited math.

No. Math is math. 2 + 2 = 4. It is what it is.

 

[MitchP85D]

Seems the Mitch-bot is just pulling random articles/references to make its point. The earlier original description of ocean currents making Pacific NW warmer made zero sense until I posted a correction, then the Mitch-bot posts a description of air currents to support MY claim. LOL

Flat out lie on your part!

 

[nwdiver]

You think that will keep going up to infinity?

..... you think there won't be problems long.... LOOONG before 'infinity'?

 

[MitchP85D]

ooookaaaaay..... but so long as the sun exists.... CO2 causes additional warming..... yes?

Not to the point of boiling us alive like you silly global warming worshippers think.

 

[MitchP85D]

No. Math is math. 2 + 2 = 4. It is what it is.

You left a few variables out of you previous equation.

 

[MitchP85D]

..... you think there won't be problems long.... LOOONG before 'infinity'?

What kind of problems are you talking about? 1/2 foot sea level rise per century?

 

[nwdiver]

You left a few variables out of you previous equation.

Not with CO2. ~1.5w/m^2 increase in radiative forcing is ~2E22J/yr. Math.

 

[nwdiver]

What kind of problems are you talking about? 1/2 foot sea level rise per century?

Depends. What's the radiative forcing of CO2? How high is too high? 400? 450? 500ppm?

Remember how a warmer atmosphere means exponentially more water vapor? What do you think that means for rainfall and flooding events? Hurricanes are heat engines. What do you think that means for Hurricane strength. Warmer air sucks up moisture from vegetation faster. What do you think that means for wildfires? Etc, Etc, Etc..... Etc.

 

[nwdiver]

Not to the point of boiling us alive like you silly global warming worshippers think.

Please cite where anyone has said we're going to 'boil alive'. Is a 3' rise in sea levels by 2100 'boiling alive'? Increase in wildfires ~3x? Change in weather patterns? More intense hurricanes?

It's cheaper to quickly wean ourselves off of fools fuel than to deal with the consequences of using fools fuel. That's the argument. It's that simple.

 

[traxila]

OK, I have seen enough.

There are way too many talented, smart people here wasting their time engaging with a premium troll.

This guy cannot be for real, and if he is, then best of luck to him. There is no point wasting anymore time trying to convince him of anything.

I am putting him on ignore and you would all probably be better off to do the same.

 

[MitchP85D]

And at that time the climate was much warmer with no ice sheets and sea levels some 200’ higher. Can you imagine the dislocations required to make that adjustment?

Are you trying to make the point that the human species will cause the sea level to rise 200 feet?

 

[MitchP85D]

Not all but 98% is a very clear majority.

That stupid ass 97% figure came from this guy, John Cook. Complete delusional nonsense!

The Truth about Skeptical Science

Source: Skeptical Science Forums Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist , John Cook (who ...

www.populartechnology.net