In response to you trying to claim that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.
Still waiting for you to prove it in a black car in the summer some day.
But you're really not willing to test your own theory, are you?
UN Secretary-General Says We Have A Year and a Half to Avoid 'Runaway' Climate Change
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Still waiting for you to prove it in a black car in the summer some day.
But you're really not willing to test your own theory, are you?
i didn't deny the greenhouse effect not only your are scientific illiterate you have poor reading skills
the U.S also allows racist anti-black terrorist nations like Sudan to be on human rights councils
Appparently, if it wasn't for man, then there would be no global-warming/climate change, and severe weather events would have been the same over the last millenia, and quite mild at that.
So variations in solar radiation has no effect on climate change?
Earth orbit excentricities have no effect on climate change?
Geothermal events have never had an effect on climate change?
What about the 'proof' that the earth warmed up by 2 degrees C since the mid 1850's? Where were the weather sensors for the next 100 years? And were there enough spread out throughout the world to record a meaningful result? They measured temperature only in populated regions of the Earth, minus the Arctic, Antartic, Polar regions, vast areas of desert and world's oceans; how can we be sure of any trends when so many areas were not measured if we're postulating about 'global warming'?
What about the encreachment of temperature sensors by urban expansion, influencing micro-climate, over the last 150 years?
What about the tolerance and accuracy of thermometers in the 19th century? Were they that accurate in 1850?
An increase of 2 deg C over 150 years is really an increase of 2/273 degrees Kelvin, or 0.73%. Is this increase that significant over 150 years?
The 9th century saw an absence of sea ice in the sub-arctic oceans. That allowed the Vikings to explore and colonize Iceland and Greenland, the latter for 400 years. Then it got colder and colonization became unsustainable and ceased in Greenland. That was global warming, but that wasn't because of human activity. How to explain that?
There is a purported increase in severe weather events throughout the globe. But we've had weather satellites only since the last 40 years. How could we know about severe weather events in zones beyond the means of detection until 40-50 years ago?
The Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years. Is this why they're calling it 'climate change' now instead of global warming? How is the purported increase in CO2 levels affecting climate change as opposed to global warming, if the Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years?
Water vapour has the greatest greenhouse effect. CO2 content is just a small factor compared to water vapor. So why the big fuss? We should then be controlling emissions of water vapour in the high atmosphere. Jet fuel combustion produces carbon and water. Why isn't there a problem when each day, tens of thousands of jet planes emit all that water in the upper atmosphere?
So variations in solar radiation has no effect on climate change?
Earth orbit excentricities have no effect on climate change?
Geothermal events have never had an effect on climate change?
What about the 'proof' that the earth warmed up by 2 degrees C since the mid 1850's? Where were the weather sensors for the next 100 years? And were there enough spread out throughout the world to record a meaningful result? They measured temperature only in populated regions of the Earth, minus the Arctic, Antartic, Polar regions, vast areas of desert and world's oceans; how can we be sure of any trends when so many areas were not measured if we're postulating about 'global warming'?
What about the encreachment of temperature sensors by urban expansion, influencing micro-climate, over the last 150 years?
What about the tolerance and accuracy of thermometers in the 19th century? Were they that accurate in 1850?
An increase of 2 deg C over 150 years is really an increase of 2/273 degrees Kelvin, or 0.73%. Is this increase that significant over 150 years?
The 9th century saw an absence of sea ice in the sub-arctic oceans. That allowed the Vikings to explore and colonize Iceland and Greenland, the latter for 400 years. Then it got colder and colonization became unsustainable and ceased in Greenland. That was global warming, but that wasn't because of human activity. How to explain that?
There is a purported increase in severe weather events throughout the globe. But we've had weather satellites only since the last 40 years. How could we know about severe weather events in zones beyond the means of detection until 40-50 years ago?
The Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years. Is this why they're calling it 'climate change' now instead of global warming? How is the purported increase in CO2 levels affecting climate change as opposed to global warming, if the Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years?
Water vapour has the greatest greenhouse effect. CO2 content is just a small factor compared to water vapor. So why the big fuss? We should then be controlling emissions of water vapour in the high atmosphere. Jet fuel combustion produces carbon and water. Why isn't there a problem when each day, tens of thousands of jet planes emit all that water in the upper atmosphere?
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/24/9765.full.pdf
The study, entitled “Abrupt Holocene climate change as an important factor for human migration in West Greenland,” reconstructed temperature records over the past 5,600 years based on lake sediments in West Greenland. It found that major temperature changes in the past 4,500 years occurred abruptly (within decades), and were coeval in timing with the settlement and abandonment of the Saqqaq, Dorset, and Norse cultures. This suggests that abrupt temperature changes profoundly impacted civilization in the region.
Kangerlussuaq lake water temperatures cooled by approximately 4 °C between 5,600 and 5,000 years ago, followed by warming of approximately 5.5 °C that culminated some 3,200 to 3,000 years ago, Then came another sharp temperature drop of approximately 5 °C by 2,800 years ago.
Analyses of lake sediments indicate peak warmth between 4,000 and 3,000 years ago followed by glacial cooling about 3,000 years ago. GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2) ice core results from Summit depict similar trends for millennial-scale.
The large cooling event centered at 2,000 years ago (lake water temperatures dropped by 2–3 °C) corresponds to the greatest glacial advance of inland ice near Kangerlussuaq. The study also found a cooling trend from 3,000–2,800 years ago, and another cold interval from 2,200–1,800 years ago
Arriving in Greenland about. 4,500 years ago, the Saqqaq would have experienced an interval of warmth. They survived transient episodes of warming and cooling, especially between 4,100–3,400 years ago. A cooler interval at about 3,400 years ago. coincides with a contraction in the Saqqaq population and a shift from subarctic to arctic conditions in the Disko Bugt region.
The Saqqaq departure from Sisimiut ca. 2,800 years ago is coincident with the culmination of a pronounced cooling trend (approximately 4 °C in 200 years).
The cooling during this climate transition was no more abrupt than the cooling during the previous approximately 1,500 years of Saqqaq occupation and suggests that the magnitude was more important than the rate of change to the Saqqaq abandonment of the region.
The Dorset disappearance may not be directly related to the intense warming from ca. 2,000–1,800 y B.P. Perhaps their disappearance is related
to a particularly cold interval beginning ca. 2,200 years ago and centered at about 2,000 years ago.
The study also revealed a warming period from about 1,100 to 850 years before present coincident with Norse migration to Greenland.
Then began an abrupt temperature decline (4 °C in approximately 80 years) with persistent cooler temperatures until approximately 630 years ago. This had an adverse effect on Norse farmers in West Greenland and likely contributed to the abandonment of the Norse settlement near Nuuk about 650 years ago.
Interestingly, temperature variations in West Greenland display an antiphased relationship to temperature changes in Ireland over hundreds to thousands of years, resembling the multidecadal temperature seesaw associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation.
I rather doubt that these drastic temperature changes in Greenland all came about because some farmer in Croatia burned too much fossil fuel in his tractor.
As far as I’m concerned, this study proves that the human-caused global warming hype is a total fraud.
The study, entitled “Abrupt Holocene climate change as an important factor for human migration in West Greenland,” reconstructed temperature records over the past 5,600 years based on lake sediments in West Greenland. It found that major temperature changes in the past 4,500 years occurred abruptly (within decades), and were coeval in timing with the settlement and abandonment of the Saqqaq, Dorset, and Norse cultures. This suggests that abrupt temperature changes profoundly impacted civilization in the region.
Kangerlussuaq lake water temperatures cooled by approximately 4 °C between 5,600 and 5,000 years ago, followed by warming of approximately 5.5 °C that culminated some 3,200 to 3,000 years ago, Then came another sharp temperature drop of approximately 5 °C by 2,800 years ago.
Analyses of lake sediments indicate peak warmth between 4,000 and 3,000 years ago followed by glacial cooling about 3,000 years ago. GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2) ice core results from Summit depict similar trends for millennial-scale.
The large cooling event centered at 2,000 years ago (lake water temperatures dropped by 2–3 °C) corresponds to the greatest glacial advance of inland ice near Kangerlussuaq. The study also found a cooling trend from 3,000–2,800 years ago, and another cold interval from 2,200–1,800 years ago
Arriving in Greenland about. 4,500 years ago, the Saqqaq would have experienced an interval of warmth. They survived transient episodes of warming and cooling, especially between 4,100–3,400 years ago. A cooler interval at about 3,400 years ago. coincides with a contraction in the Saqqaq population and a shift from subarctic to arctic conditions in the Disko Bugt region.
The Saqqaq departure from Sisimiut ca. 2,800 years ago is coincident with the culmination of a pronounced cooling trend (approximately 4 °C in 200 years).
The cooling during this climate transition was no more abrupt than the cooling during the previous approximately 1,500 years of Saqqaq occupation and suggests that the magnitude was more important than the rate of change to the Saqqaq abandonment of the region.
The Dorset disappearance may not be directly related to the intense warming from ca. 2,000–1,800 y B.P. Perhaps their disappearance is related
to a particularly cold interval beginning ca. 2,200 years ago and centered at about 2,000 years ago.
The study also revealed a warming period from about 1,100 to 850 years before present coincident with Norse migration to Greenland.
Then began an abrupt temperature decline (4 °C in approximately 80 years) with persistent cooler temperatures until approximately 630 years ago. This had an adverse effect on Norse farmers in West Greenland and likely contributed to the abandonment of the Norse settlement near Nuuk about 650 years ago.
Interestingly, temperature variations in West Greenland display an antiphased relationship to temperature changes in Ireland over hundreds to thousands of years, resembling the multidecadal temperature seesaw associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation.
I rather doubt that these drastic temperature changes in Greenland all came about because some farmer in Croatia burned too much fossil fuel in his tractor.
As far as I’m concerned, this study proves that the human-caused global warming hype is a total fraud.
Heresy! Sacrilege! Burn at the stake!
Such is the world of climate change nowadays, and to hell with scientific thought. Climate Change is now a science of consensus, which is not a science at all. Yes, if 1000 climatologists and meteorologists decide together that climate change is real, and the Earth is about to fall into a green house gas thermal runaway, then that's all the proof we need. Dissenters are ridiculed, banished. You will certainly not get a job as a climatologist at any government meteorological organisation, or any government funded research organisation, like universities, if you state in your CV that you're a climate change denier or agnostic.
The prominent latter tend to be retired professors, Nobel prize winners, and those climatologists and astrophysists who are either self employed, or who work for private weather forecasting companies.
So many kooky theories from you guys.
You should try reading the news.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/charts-climate-change-bar-codes-1.4802293
then why was CO2 levels were 400 parts per million in 1910?
why was Greenland warm 100 years ago which lead to Norse migrations to that island?
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NOT19100416.2.32.24
try reading stuff you disagree with for once i already posted this in a previous post
The words of a naysayer. It doesn't conform to the narrative, so it's dismissed out of hand, without any further thought.
BTW, all the CBC is, is a reporter of the narrative, given the way journalism has gone. Journalists are a dime a dozen now, and everybody is looking to further their careers; you're not going to move ahead by bucking the system.
Maybe the temperatures have been rising, but other than correlation with CO2 in the atmosphere (it's not proof; it's merely correlation, not causation), what proof is there that it's human caused? There have been lots of climate cycles in the past, where human industrial activity was non-existent. Why is this purported rise in temperature not the result of urban micro-climate encroachment on weather sensors? In fact, original sensors were located in remote rural areas that have since become urbanized. More recently, as weather sensors were located at airports, even those airports have been surrounded by an urban environment, with its micro-climate raising the temperature by a few degrees over time.
Why don't you start answering the questions I put up above, instead of just saying bah humbug.
Some of the most obtuse people I've ever met were climatologists at Environment Canada.
That's 1000 years ago. It's well established scientifically, but not by climatologists, it seems.
Like I said, that's a really fucking stupid claim, CM.
Here's a legit chart, note the numbers.
Oh god, do you really need the basics of climatology explained to you?
Here's a few links done by people smarter then me with access to all the studies and tech.
Bloomberg on all the other possible causes of climate change.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
A good summary for those who have no clue, provided by AAAS, the organization representing the largest group of scientists in North America.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
And I'd suggest you look at NASA's site as well, they cover the basics and have links to all the data and measurements.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
stop asking me to look at your sources when you dismissed mine because it disagrees with you
