Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Like the very first sentence on wikipedia. That's "peer reviewed".

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Contrary to superstition, the numbers do not lie:

I guess that the comment was about man-made global warming, because I believe there is not much argument that temperatures are on the rise, fluctuating as they have through the earths history.

With regard to man-made global warming - what happened between 1940 and 1980 in your chart? Did humans decrease industry and CO2 emissions during this time?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

You're probably talking areas with a decreasing amount of sand? There are already a lot of places where beaches are shrinking, islands getting flooded, tell them it's normal and not really happening.
It's okay, it's getting deadlier every year, but hey... hang in there buddy.
While less wants come through the rivers, because they're also huge sand collectors apparently. Now stopped on a damm. Imagine an earthquake there. Because of the collected mass of water and sand.

Enjoy. Happy New Year Pre Doom.

a reply to: Peeple

Ocean acidification-the latest in a chain of scare campaigns. Once again, the “science” is a sham. Buffering capacity of basalt in particular is ignored. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 does not cause a doubling in ocean CO2. How convenient to conveniently forget the oceans contain 48x more CO2 than the atmosphere. The effects are out by over a full order of magnitude. The figures I have seen are totally fraudulent- .4 pH points for a doubling of CO2 concentration suggests a very high percentage of the CO2 becomes carbonic acid-remember, pH is logarithmic. To add to the fraud, doubling the atmospheric CO2 does not mean doubling ocean CO2-far from it. Double atmospheric CO2-even if all the extra dissolves in the oceans is only a 2% increase – hardly likely to do anything, certainly not dissolve the planet.

Once again, scare mongering LIES to dupe the science illiterate in to surrendering their freedoms. Really, how science illiterate can anyone be to believe the ocean acidification scare-of-the-day.

Once again, the UN are the ones plugging the lies. Wake up, the UN is a massive fraud-one of the grandest if not the grandest in history. “Above all else, appear respectable”- one of the mottoes of the Fabian Society, one of the instigators of the UN.

a reply to: UKTruth

I guess the war industry blew a lot of stuff up in the air. Peeks at the firty and relaxes after the war until the next revolution. More people with wealth, more consum of luxury. Rising since the 80s.
We need some serious upcycling.


Get it? Recycling plus improvement. Upcycling.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Contrary to superstition, the numbers do not lie:

And you're lying through your teeth, or perhaps just ignorant on the issue.

You are taking a picture, showing the last 150 years ... yes, within that time there is a huge rise. Take a picture, that shows earths history and the temperature is falling, not rising. Claiming that our CO2 is causing it, is utter gibberish ... so much rubbish, that it is unbelievable that people swallow it. One volcanic eruption in Iceland, spews more *shet* into the atmosphere, than the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

We can only affect our own eco system. And this is the danger we face, not global warming. We face the fact, that we are overpopulated ... and natural eco systems, are shrinking fast. It's not "we" that cause anything, our overpopulation is a result of us NOT BEING MASTERS OF OUR UNIVERSE. We're still animals, that overbreed like rabbits, when the climate is favorable.

Now, how are we going to survive, when the climate changes back ... now, THAT is the right question to ask. You see, TPTB are not doing all they do, because they love you or me. Robotics, technology, is not a product to benefit the poor ... 90% of the population of this planet, will die ... one way or the other. Either in a controlled manner, by TPTB ... or ... in a natural catastrophy. Robotics, is the means which the elite will "keep" their way of life ... afterwards.

Now, THERE is a conspiracy theory worth probing into ...

A much more accurate climate change

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

You're probably talking areas with a decreasing amount of sand? There are already a lot of places where beaches are shrinking, islands getting flooded, tell them it's normal and not really happening.
It's okay, it's getting deadlier every year, but hey... hang in there buddy.
While less wants come through the rivers, because they're also huge sand collectors apparently. Now stopped on a damm. Imagine an earthquake there. Because of the collected mass of water and sand.

Enjoy. Happy New Year Pre Doom.

Show me an island that is disappearing, and I will show you an island with land subsidence or erosion. The tidal gages can't lie. There has been no statistically significant increase in the rate of sea level rise in the last 200 years.
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com...

TextThe loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. The minimum length requirement of 50–60 years to produce a realistic sea-level rate of rise is also discussed in other works such as Baart et al. (2012), Douglas (1995, 1997), Gervais (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2008), Knudsen et al. (2011), Scafetta (2013a, b), Wenzel and Schröter (2014) and Woodworth (2011).

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

You invent stuff like "doubling in CO2 means double acidification" and use that to come across superior, but I never said that. Nobody ever said that, except you. Stop right there and think about that.
I don't want to get all philosophical on you, but knowledge is no combat sport.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Okay so far they balance eachother out. You know what erosion means, right? They're still both disappearing into the oceans.

a reply to: bjarneorn

We live in an interglacial period and an era of near C02 starvation. If you let the lefties vote on it, they'd take all the C02 out of the air, it's evil ya know.

Good chart, might wake some up.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Okay so far they balance eachother out. You know what erosion means, right? They're still both disappearing into the oceans.

Yea, things change right, nothing is forever. To blame some islands erosion and land subsidence issues on C02 is intellectually dishonest.

a reply to: bjarneorn

I disagree, but that's the spirit
!!!

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: bjarneorn

We live in an interglacial period and an era of near C02 starvation. If you let the lefties vote on it, they'd take all the C02 out of the air, it's evil ya know.

Good chart, might wake some up.

I have never in my life seen such a racist, misogynist, homophobic chart in all my life!

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

You invent stuff like "doubling in CO2 means double acidification" and use that to come across superior, but I never said that. Nobody ever said that, except you. Stop right there and think about that.
I don't want to get all philosophical on you, but knowledge is no combat sport.

LMAO, yeah, just disregard everything I said. OK then, show me the actual evidence that the oceans are acidifying please. A peer reviewed paper in a major journal. Not a wikipedia entry.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Trump knows he only has to worry about another seven years. He is basically saying, "Not on my watch" as he wants to deliver a steroid injection to the U.S economy to beef it up in the body builder of the year contest.

As far as climate change goes what you are ALL not thinking about here is that:

Yes, we have wild fluctuation of climate change brought about by natural one off and cyclic events. We should remember that these events will continue, but will be totally exaggerated because they happen on top of climate change (that does not fluctuate, but keeps on growing).

Without doubt hard times will be made much harder and will be more extreme because of the background rise of climate disturbance that is a constant, not just a phase. Think hard about that.

The level of ignorance I have witnessed here by the American President and the American people is shocking. Y'all got hamburgers for brains?

Twice as many wild fires in California this year, twice as devastating. Israel in the biggest drought for 900 years. Some believe the Syrian conflict was initiated because of initial drought linked political pressures. May be just usual, may be a total exaggeration, may be the beginning of something profoundly long term destructive indeed? Let's play Russian Roulete shall we?





All the poison we put out into the climate is killing everything slowly, no doubt; US MOSTLY with horrible cancers and strange new illnesses that are making us die earlier and earlier.

Just the usual political ignorance and short term thinking, shirking off the inevitable.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

More Winds, more heavier local rain, less vegetation, there are lots of reasons for erosion, and the body of water as a hole likes to collect the mass where the most mass is, with help of the moon, etc, it builds up in the aequators (?I believe?) and levels start becoming lower in the far north and south.
(Maybe it's the other Way around I'm too lazy to search.)

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
...
With regard to man-made global warming - what happened between 1940 and 1980 in your chart? Did humans decrease industry and CO2 emissions during this time?

Industrial air pollution with aerosols which was increasing up to 1970 and began to decline afterwards due to regulations.

a reply to: Revolution9

I think the plastic in the sea will help do us all in also.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Is National Geographic good enough?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: UKTruth

I guess the war industry blew a lot of stuff up in the air. Peeks at the firty and relaxes after the war until the next revolution. More people with wealth, more consum of luxury. Rising since the 80s.
We need some serious upcycling.


Get it? Recycling plus improvement. Upcycling.

Damn, and here was me thinking that there were wars after 1940.

I guess the last 5 years of WW2 were pretty tame and Korea, Vietnam etc were not so bad after all, and nuclear bomb testing and actual use was not really an impact compared to 1 year of WW2 and WW1.

Who'd have thought it. Thanks for the explanation - I guess we can rest easy that CO2 levels dropped for 40 years from 1940 to 1980 because there were no wars and less wealthy people. I am glad the science cleared up my question.