No it has not been warming steadily for 15,000 years. It's been cooling steadily.
Your lifestyle is going to kill you. Without intervention and bypass surgery you would have died a long time ago.
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
- Thread starter Danbones
- Start date
No it has not been warming steadily for 15,000 years. It's been cooling steadily.
Your lifestyle is going to kill you. Without intervention and bypass surgery you would have died a long time ago.
he can't back up till you move yours
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
them damned Minoans and their damned factories
geez....
Congress Investigates Fraudulent Science Used by NOAA to Push UN Global Warming Treaty
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty
I would love to see a good paper written on the methodology used to measure the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years. There is likely to be a large offset of chemical analysis and more modern electronic means.
I designed and programmed a poison gas detector because too many soldiers were being injured by those "non-existent" WMD in Iraq. In the process of programming this thing I simply could NOT get it to operate properly. After working on it for days it finally came to me in a flash that the mathematics used by the physicists GREATLY overestimated the difference between the electronic version and the actual chemical analysis at low levels. Correcting it to my own calculations and it matched the actual values in the test chamber exactly.
So there possibly could be a large error between previously measured values by one method and the change of methods of measurement over the last couple of centuries.
I designed and programmed a poison gas detector because too many soldiers were being injured by those "non-existent" WMD in Iraq. In the process of programming this thing I simply could NOT get it to operate properly. After working on it for days it finally came to me in a flash that the mathematics used by the physicists GREATLY overestimated the difference between the electronic version and the actual chemical analysis at low levels. Correcting it to my own calculations and it matched the actual values in the test chamber exactly.
So there possibly could be a large error between previously measured values by one method and the change of methods of measurement over the last couple of centuries.
The short answer would be "there are countervailing mechanisms in the ecosystem that cause the increase in net CO2 to be less than the amount of CO2 generated."
The even shorter answer would be "plants."
Me, I figure that since the most important greenhouse gas is water, what we really need is a whole bunch of dehumidifiers working 24/7. That'll fix it. Well, that and cowfart capture bags.
Well, that would explain why those continental glaciers in Eurasia and North America kept on advancing, since then.
My advice to you is: Don't try to judge whether the ice advance has peaked or not by looking out you kitchen window in Saskatchewan in late February. It skews your data, a bit and the cabin fever affects your perception of it, a lot.
he can't back up till you move yours
The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings « JoNova
them damned Minoans and their damned factories
geez....
You do realize that Greenland is melting don't you?
Greenland Is Melting - The New Yorker
Is the ocean getting deeper yet ? I hear it is going to and Vanatu is going down down down , has it happened yet ? Good get back to me when it does .
You do realize it was covered by glaciers in the little ice age only some 400 years ago don't you? Or are you one of those who actually believe that it was named "Greenland" as a sales ploy to cause more Vikings to move there?
As the glaciers melt what are they finding? The remains of forests and farms from Viking settlers.
Are you aware that the Maldives are a string of Islands? That the majority of them are less than 3 feet above normal high tide? That the composition of these islands are the tops of a small undersea mountain range and are composed of almost entirely soil that is washed away in bad weather? That 9 months out of the year it rains over half of each month and that the average rainfall per month is over 10"? That these SAME conditions are what recently caused the horrendous flooding problems in California?
What is the proof that there is ocean rise? "When I was a child I used to play soccer on a beach that is now a deep lagoon". Don't look now but that doesn't mean a thing about sea level rise and means that the rains on the soft land and the occasional storm cuts away land areas.
On the other side of the globe the Solomon Islands are the same sort of island chain and they have gained land area.
Are you aware that the Maldives are a string of Islands?
Are you aware that my father was stationed there on and off during three years of WWII as a Costal Command pilot and he took pictures of little attoll islands that are gone, now? It wasn't erosion that suddenly made them "go away"in a handful of decades.
P.S, why should I or anybody else believe yet another hysterical conspiracy theorist like you? You're fake news, through and through.
Are you aware that my father was stationed there on and off during three years of WWII as a Costal Command pilot and he took pictures of little attoll islands that are gone, now? It wasn't erosion that suddenly made them "go away"in a handful of decades.
P.S, why should I or anybody else believe yet another hysterical conspiracy theorist like you? You're fake news, through and through.
How about the parts of the US coast that are now under water at high tide? Did the stupid citizens of the southeast coasts deliberately build their infrastructure so that it would be flooded or is something else happening?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/...used-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html
You can deny global warming all you like, but the evidence seems to be getting in your face.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08...ing-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/
How does the earth gain both land and water increases? Because of this thing called "glacial rebound". The earth is actually growing slightly in diameter with the loss of the huge loads of water on the continental shelves.
Of course there is a limit to this but that limit hasn't been reached yet and this latested warm period is near it's end. So we are likely to see the end of the melting of the lower latitude glaciers and a halt to sea level growth.
We have seen theories that the Medieval Warm Period wasn't caused by the Milankovitch Cycles but from a very large volcanic eruption in Indonesia I think. Surely there are geological markers of that. But that is probably not the reason because it wouldn't answer why the extremely complex climactic patterns over time that are also marked in our geology.
CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas in the manner in which it has been portrayed. It probably does have this effect at concentrations below a quarter of what they are now. But CO2 quickly reaches saturation with the available energy from the Sun since the absorption lines are so narrow and in areas where there really aren't much energy available.
Here is a reasonably simple article on what is going on. Fudge Factor.
Your father was there 65 years ago and little atolls disappeared. Aren't you the one that was telling me that I had to have the highest quality sources? But YOUR FATHER who is probably dead or senile now is YOUR source?
I was working at Sandia National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories while you were in diapers. Exactly what scientific credentials do you have?
Nobody seems to be concerned that the melting is coming from the land heating up from below rather than the sun doing all the warming.
Baffin Island is supposed to be the first place where signs of warming or cooling are happening.
For every few feet of the toes of the glacier ice that break off how much new snow falls and the main block of ice due to 'lake effect snow ' conditions but on a massive scale. The same would hold true for the south pole. Ice breaks off because the weight of the ice in the interior is increasing a large amount.
The Antarctic is a desert. It doesn't snow there except under unusual conditions. But there is a new volcano that has broken the surface in East Antarctica and the heat of that could be throwing a great deal of moisture into the air and creating conditions for heavy snow in central Antarctica. I haven't see any papers on it and the True Believers are avoiding the subject like it's poison since it could explain the rapidly growing glaciers there and the fracturing of sheet ice along the continental shelf.
I just read a paper on corrections to tree ring research. It turned out that data set has been used for a lot of calculations concerning levels of CO2 over the last 2000 years. It would appear that after the corrections are properly made that it appears that there have been higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 2000 years than at present.
This JUST what I was wondering about in my quoted posting. So claims of runaway global warming didn't happen after all. I'll bet that the chins of the True Believers are sagging lower today.
Or he's with the plotters to subvert Canadian institutions and foment civil unrest in support of one world government and CO2 taxation. This is obviously an international banking operative.
I was working at Sandia National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories...
I'm sure that you kept their toilets sparkly shiny
...while you were in diapers.
Well, I'll be 61 in a few months, which puts you somewhere in your eighties. That, of course, is not a crime but it begs the question of whether you are fully compos mentis at this point in your life .. sufficiently so to weigh in on complex questions such as how human activities affect the climate. You would have been educated primarily in the 1940s, before powerful enough computers were available to model the atmosphere or before mathmaticians even dreamt of being able to model the planet's climate. You were already doing whatever scientific wonders you were doing (you were unspecific ... janitor in a facility that was making atom bombs?). You also predated the remote sensing revolution that gave us the ability to look at our planet in sufficient detail to observe it thawing out, warming up. Essentially, you are totally obsolete, maybe in the early or middle stages of dementia and no longer qualified to pee in a toilet, let alone comment on the most pressing crisis that the human race faces.
t YOUR FATHER who is probably dead or senile now
My father would turn 100 this year, if he were still alive. He was not the least bit senile when he died and I would advise you not to smart-a55 your betters, like that. All that I see in you is a phoney baloney, perhaps an obsolete and washed up octogenarian technician who was born in the Age of Steam and purports to know something about modern science. Perhaps, your just another snot-nosed Alt-Reich troll, spreading their poison in an internet forum and who, upon closer examination, is really not the sharpest pencil on the drafting board (did you use one of those?)
Another possibility is ... which oil company's communications department employs you, again? Big tobacco did things like that, all of the time, denying a cancer link to their products. No one seems to wonder if the oil companies are using the same, time honoured technique.
Last edited:
Just wait it may just happen maybe .
Maybe he took pictures at low tide . Maybe he was somewhere else when he took those pictures . Maybe they are real . And just maybe you never had a dad .
Waaaa . How to hit the troll below the belt > insult his father . Waaa And a shot at his age always brings a quick response .