Climate change again

[vantexan]

Wrong...again.

Prove it.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Is climate change real, Z?

Absolutely. Are humans having an impact on climate? Maybe to probably. Is that impact enough to throw off the natural climate cycles? Extremely unlikely. With the combination of solar output cycles, and Milankovitch cycles, we actually had better hope that CO2 has the impact that the alarmists are claiming.

Without that, and maybe even with it, we are more likely facing a resurgence of glaciation on the planet. But the historical data and records indicate CO2 concentrations don't have an impact on temperature, so we likely have a very cold future ahead of us. Don't worry too much, though, it'll take about 10,000 years for Manhattan to accumulate over 200 meters of ice again.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Prove it.

He must be a propagandist for the Xinhua News Agency.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Absolutely. Are humans having an impact on climate? Maybe to probably. Is that impact enough to throw off the natural climate cycles? Extremely unlikely. With the combination of solar output cycles, and Milankovitch cycles, we actually had better hope that CO2 has the impact that the alarmists are claiming.

Without that, and maybe even with it, we are more likely facing a resurgence of glaciation on the planet. But the historical data and records indicate CO2 concentrations don't have an impact on temperature, so we likely have a very cold future ahead of us. Don't worry too much, though, it'll take about 10,000 years for Manhattan to accumulate over 200 meters of ice again.

Water vapor overshadows (pun intended) CO₂ effects on greenhouse gases effect by a huge margin.
We need to freeze the oceans, lakes and rivers and "poof" greenhouse gases is solved ... no really but LibTurds like MFE will believe it.

MFE ≠ SMART

 

[MrFedEx]

Absolutely. Are humans having an impact on climate? Maybe to probably. Is that impact enough to throw off the natural climate cycles? Extremely unlikely. With the combination of solar output cycles, and Milankovitch cycles, we actually had better hope that CO2 has the impact that the alarmists are claiming.

Without that, and maybe even with it, we are more likely facing a resurgence of glaciation on the planet. But the historical data and records indicate CO2 concentrations don't have an impact on temperature, so we likely have a very cold future ahead of us. Don't worry too much, though, it'll take about 10,000 years for Manhattan to accumulate over 200 meters of ice again.

If the glaciers are melting and disappearing (they are), how can we have a net accumulation of ice? We can't.

Solar output cycles and Milankovitch cycles are excuses that don't offer full explanation of how climate change has happened so quickly in such a tiny fraction of geologic time.

Keep trying. Have you heard of the Dystopian Granular Input Cycle? It states that Conservative Thinking Individuals (CTI) are disproportionate polluters that enable further pollution due to their inability to understand climate science and general ignorance overall.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

≅

Prove it.

He's Schiff!

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Water vapor overshadows (pun intended) CO² effects on greenhouse gases effect by a huge margin.
We need to freeze the oceans, lakes and rivers and "poof" greenhouse gases is solved ... no really but LibTurds like MFE will believe it.

Like I said in a previous post, burning fossil fuels also releases water vapor. Hotter air holds more moisture, more moisture in the air means more clouds, which lead to more snow closer to the poles, which, combined with increased clouds, leads to increased albedo index, which means more of the Sun's radiation being reflected back into space, which means colder temperatures. Add to that decreased solar output, and increased obliquity in Earth's orbit around the sun, and changes to the Earth's tilt, all equals a very cold future on Earth.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I know I'm right when @It will be fine gives me "funny" ratings. A perfect reverse barometer.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Like I said in a previous post, burning fossil fuels also releases water vapor. Hotter air holds more moisture, more moisture in the air means more clouds, which lead to more snow closer to the poles, which, combined with increased clouds, leads to increased albedo index, which means more of the Sun's radiation being reflected back into space, which means colder temperatures. Add to that decreased solar output, and increased obliquity in Earth's orbit around the sun, and changes to the Earth's tilt, all equals a very cold future on Earth.

Agree.
When that future arrives is unknown but that’s the natural course.
Try explaining that the the ignorant and stupid LibTurds on here like Itzy and MFE ... it’s a hopeless effort.

 

[MrFedEx]

Like I said in a previous post, burning fossil fuels also releases water vapor. Hotter air holds more moisture, more moisture in the air means more clouds, which lead to more snow closer to the poles, which, combined with increased clouds, leads to increased albedo index, which means more of the Sun's radiation being reflected back into space, which means colder temperatures. Add to that decreased solar output, and increased obliquity in Earth's orbit around the sun, and changes to the Earth's tilt, all equals a very cold future on Earth.

Sure. Why isn't this happening? If you were correct, ocean temperatures and sea levels would be falling and world temperatures would be cooling.

They aren't.

Source?

 

[MrFedEx]

Agree.
When that future arrives is unknown but that’s the natural course.
Try explaining that the the ignorant and stupid LibTurds on here like Itzy and MFE ... it’s a hopeless effort.

This is just the latest faux "science" explanation for why there is no such thing as global warming or climate change.

 

[vantexan]

This is just the latest faux "science" explanation for why there is no such thing as global warming or climate change.

No one is saying there is no such thing as global war, only the causes are a lot more complex than it's all man-made so we must take over all aspects of everyone's lives to make everything fair and just.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

 

[MrFedEx]

A lot of those scientists are included in that 97% whether they've acknowledged agreement or not. Already a known fact that some prominent climatologists were caught changing report stats because the numbers they came up with didn't fit the forecasts.

How convenient, merchant of doubt.

 

[MrFedEx]

Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

Ball is funded by Friends of Science, a Big Gas/Oil funded front group. His degree is in Geography, with an emphasis on Historical Climatology. He is NOT a climatologist, and has been successfully sued for false claims about both his credentials and his work.

3% nut farce.

 

[MrFedEx]

Prove it.

You fave faith in God, not science. How can I prove anything to someone like yourself?

 

[vantexan]

You fave faith in God, not science. How can I prove anything to someone like yourself?

Who says I do? You run around making assumptions without asking what it is that I truly believe.

 

[It will be fine]

Ball is funded by Friends of Science, a Big Gas/Oil funded front group. His degree is in Geography, with an emphasis on Historical Climatology. He is NOT a climatologist, and has been successfully sued for false claims about both his credentials and his work.

3% nut farce.

The article starts with the claim that scientific theories are just speculation. One has to be willing to accept that nonsense in order to take the rest of the article seriously. It’s pure garbage.

 

[MrFedEx]

Who says I do? You run around making assumptions without asking what it is that I truly believe.

Your track record of denial speaks to a strong disbelief in science.

 

[MrFedEx]

The article starts with the claim that scientific theories are just speculation. One has to be willing to accept that nonsense in order to take the rest of the article seriously. It’s pure garbage.

It's great for Conservatives because it serves their narrative. Your point is spot-on, and his funding sources confirm his status as a shill.