Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Too Good not to share!

The “climate crisis” is a lie, a hoax, a fraud, an affront to science and logic, a travesty, an economic and social sinkhole, a fake phoney baloney preposterous fabrication, a boondoggle, a massive waste of time and money, a pain in the arse, and it’s really silly too.

Dr Patrick Moore co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Addressing the question of changes in insolation & Milankovitch cycles:

In previous ice ages, without massive human release of CO2, the initial temperature increases weren't due to CO2, but once the temperature ball got rolling, CO2 was very much a contributor.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

More from the same source:
A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.

This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.

The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

In the current century, humans have raised CO2 levels by 10% already. Are you prepared to deny that much CO2 increase won't boost the greenhouse effect to a point where urban areas next to the ocean experience serious flooding?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues nice cut and paste too bad you don't understand what it says
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues As if the silly pictures prove anything beyond your naivete. Too funny. Guess what happens in the summer time? Ice and snow melt. Guess what happens when you take a picture of it and tell foolish people the the glaciers are melting. Idiots like you will post said pictures as proof positive. Sad that you don't realize that there are 4 seasons in the year and 3 of them include increased snowfall and below freezing temperatures.
@hippyjoe1955 Denial - that's all you've got?? SAD!!!
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues I obviously have a lot more logical explanations than your silly picture. Good grief. Almost as bad as that old polar bear the greenies used to scare the idiots. Guess what happens to old polar bears? They lose their teeth get skinny and die. It is call old age not global warming.
@hippyjoe1955
I obviously have a lot more logical explanations
Only when you get to define "logical" LOL!!!

Yet whenever I ask you for your scientific evidence and references, you never provide them.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues logic says a picture proves nothing without its context.
@hippyjoe1955 Then why not follow the links I provided? Oh, right, you're allergic to links, LOL!!!

Just in case you can manage your allergy to links, see
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/estimating-glacier-contribution-to-sea-level-rise/
For Antarctica, BEDMAP2 and Bedmachine provides the most complete and up-to-date estimate of ice volume, and it is derived by combining thousands of radar and seismic measurements of ice thickness [2,3].

In fact, BEDMAP 2 is derived from 25 million measurements. Fretwell et al. 2013 estimated that the Antarctic Ice Sheet comprised 27 million km3 of ice, with a sea level equivalent of ~58 m. BedMachine estimates the sea level equivalent of Antarctica to be 57.9±0.9m
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues I don't read your links because I am not stupid.
@hippyjoe1955 ... says the guy asking me for context but refusing to actually READ the context, ROTFL!!!
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues why would I waste time reading nonsense like you sources when a look at history debunks all your pet theories. 6000 ppm is a much higher number that 400 ppm. No runaway warming at 6000 ppm the likelihood of run away heating at 400 ppm is nil. Have a nice panic. You have a history of being wrong. Witness the vaxes.
@hippyjoe1955
why would I waste time reading nonsense
DUUUDE!!! Why do you waste time WRITING nonsense, LOL!!!

But I get it, you have to preserve your precious ignorance. After all what would you be without it???

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues Son, here is a clue. If you KNOW that something is false you don't try to make it true by reading fake theories that don't provide any solution to the situation even if they were true. CO2 IS NOT a driver of climate change. 6000 PPM in the past is proof of that. Anything else is just silly blather about a huge nothing burger. Climate is not driven by the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That you are so ignorant of basic physics as to believe other wise is your problem.
@hippyjoe1955 ... said the dictionary definition of a closed mind, LOL!!!
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues No it is the definition of wisdom to not believe every conspiracy theory the comes down the pipe. There is no evidence of AGW. All the evidence goes exactly against the theory so why would anyone waste time reading articles supporting the busted theory. The earth warms and cools naturally and there is nothing mankind can do about it except adapt. The ice age that killed the mammoths didn't happen because mankind suddenly stopped burning coal and the mile thick glacier that used to be over my house didn't melt because mankind started burning oil. The climate is not something man changes or controls.
@hippyjoe1955 ... but, but, but, you DO believe every conspiracy theory the comes down the pipe! That's EXACTLY what you do, LOL!!!

There is no evidence of AGW.
Riiiiiiiiight
The American Chemical Society can't do chemistry.
The American Physical Society can't do physics.
Only dippyjoe knows all the answers, and he knows because he read it on redstate, ROTFL!!!
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues so you have no idea how much science money can buy. Sad but true history shows CO2 plus not a driver of climate. Science to the contrary is contrary to science
@hippyjoe1955 Oil companies' total sales are about $100 billion per year. Ever wonder how much "science" that money can buy? No, I guess you never did ask that question, LOL!!!