cure for rising ocean levels

[Dukasaur]

July Was Hottest Month Measured on Earth Since Records Began

June of this year had already set a sizzling record for that month over the past 140 years. But meteorologists expect 2019 won't beat the current record for warmest year, set in 2016
By Frank Jordans
Published Aug 15, 2019 at 11:58 AM | Updated at 1:35 PM EDT on Aug 15, 2019


https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Latest-Climate-Crisis-Warning-July-Was-Hottest-Month-on-Earth-Since-Records-Began-544664781.html?fbclid=IwAR3cFQmLjLIVRYjJtCgaiXsfoxP7qOZHmTaorb0svqdNz_2SPTDqUMdm6XU

"July was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. The average global temperature last month was 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average"

this means you take all 100 july's in the 20th century. .and average them out to a single temperature..this july was hotter then that average temperature..

Because July is generally the warmest month on the calendar, meteorologists say this means it also set a new all-time monthly record for the past 140 years.

Last month's temperatures narrowly topped the previous July record, set in 2016, by 0.03 C (0.05 F).

(emphasis added.)

[NomadPatriot]

when you have to edit the news & add emphasized words in in order to maintain the narrative. .. you already lost the argument.

[mrswdk]

Well done for trying at least, Duk.

[Dukasaur]

when you have to edit the news & add emphasized words in in order to maintain the narrative. .. you already lost the argument.

Most people understood the article without needing anything emphasized. I just added the emphasis to help those who have more difficulty.

[NomadPatriot]

from the linked article:

"According to NOAA's records, 9 of the 10 hottest Julys on record have occurred since 2005 and last month was the 43rd consecutive July above the 20th century average."

hmmmm..
that's weird..

" last month was the 43rd consecutive July above the 20th century average."

43rd consecutive july ..
hmm what happened 43 years ago..?

--> Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

United State
The Toxic Substances Control Act is a United States law, passed by the United States Congress in 1976 and administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, that regulates the introduction of new or already existing chemicals. When the TSCA was put into place, all existing chemicals were considered to be safe for use and subsequently grandfathered in. Its three main objectives are to assess and regulate new commercial chemicals before they enter the market, to regulate chemicals already existing in 1976 that posed an "unreasonable risk to health or to the environment", as for example PCBs, lead, mercury and radon, and to regulate these chemicals' distribution and use.

strangley . guess what came out in 1975...

-->
1975 National Academy of Sciences report on Global Cooling

There also was a Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action".

The report stated (p. 36) that, "The average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880's until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter."

It also stated (p. 44) that, "If both the CO
2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO
2."

The report did not predict whether the 25-year cooling trend would continue. It stated (Forward, p. v) that, "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate," and (p. 2) "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know."

The Report's "program for action" was a call for creation of a new "National Climatic Research Program." It stated (p. 62), "If we are to react rationally to the inevitable climatic changes of the future, and if we are ever to predict their future course, whether they are natural or man-induced, a far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess. It is, moreover, important that this knowledge be acquired as soon as possible." For that reason, it stated, "the time has now come to initiate a broad and coordinated attack on the problem of climate and climatic change."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

seems to me like the earth was cooling and humans decided to stop that trend .. and inadvertently caused global warming by manipulating certain things intentionally in an attempt to stop the Global Cooling event.

[Dukasaur]

hmm what happened 43 years ago..?

{...}

seems to me like the earth was cooling and humans decided to stop that trend .. and inadvertently caused global warming by manipulating certain things intentionally in an attempt to stop the Global Cooling event.

That's one possible interpretation. There are others, though.

Look at the graph of temperatures since 1880:


You can see the cooling phase they're talking about, from about 1945 to about 1977. However, that only looks like a cooling phase if you take it in isolation. If you take the larger view of the graph, it's just a blip in a larger trend that's much more consistent. In fact, if you plot a course from about 1920 to about 1980, it's almost a straight line, in which the early-1940's peak is itself just a blip.

1975 was only cooler by comparing it to 1945. Compare it to 1920 and it's significantly warmer.

[NomadPatriot]

hmm what happened 43 years ago..?

{...}

seems to me like the earth was cooling and humans decided to stop that trend .. and inadvertently caused global warming by manipulating certain things intentionally in an attempt to stop the Global Cooling event.

That's one possible interpretation. There are others, though.

Look at the graph of temperatures since 1880:


You can see the cooling phase they're talking about, from about 1945 to about 1977. However, that only looks like a cooling phase if you take it in isolation. If you take the larger view of the graph, it's just a blip in a larger trend that's much more consistent. In fact, if you plot a course from about 1920 to about 1980, it's almost a straight line, in which the early-1940's peak is itself just a blip.

1975 was only cooler by comparing it to 1945. Compare it to 1920 and it's significantly warmer.

I think we can both agree the 1940's spike was due to the World War.. after that it leveled off or was dropping.. until Scientists in the 1970's were worried about Global cooling.. and they took steps to reverse that trend.. they wanted to warm up the earth..
apparently.. they succeeded..

but we can post charts if you want..
here's one.. for the past 425,000 years.. notice any trend...?
like.. roughly every 100,000 years Earth goes into a sudden hot phase for a few decades.. .notice the literal straight up spikes in temperatures.. .
then cools back off for about 99,000 years...
humans must have caused all of those events.. couldn't be a natural cycle..
couldn't be earth is on the cusp of the next ice age..

it's not like humans would try to profit off of a naturally occurring event like this by trying to extend it & Fear-Mongering
humans would never do that...…
-->


now put it into perspective.. 3 degrees above the zero normal mark is 110 degree summers..
now try to imagine 8 degrees below normal.. that is glaciers sliding over continents a few miles tall... the last glacier in the US stopped in Missouri..

[Dukasaur]

but we can post charts if you want..
here's one.. for the past 425,000 years.. notice any trend...?
like.. roughly every 100,000 years Earth goes into a sudden hot phase for a few decades.. .notice the literal straight up spikes in temperatures.. .
then cools back off for about 99,000 years...
humans must have caused all of those events.. couldn't be a natural cycle..
it's not like humans would try to profit off of a naturally occurring event like this by trying to extend it & Fear-Mongering
humans would never do that...…
-->

Yeah, those are natural cycles. However, they're not "a few decades". They're a lot of decades. Each of those large spikes, measured from base to base, is about 25,000 years. What we're seeing now is a spike of similar height but playing out over a period of only a few hundred years. That's a hundredfold increase in the speed of the temperature rise. None of those natural cycles you're showing there can hold a candle to this one.

It's not just about the height of the spike, it's about the speed.

When the climate changes over a period of 25,000 years, life has time to adapt. Even so, the extinction rate goes up, but new species evolve fast enough that overall biodiversity didn't seem to suffer too much in those. In the current spike, it's just too fast, at least for multicellular life. Single-celled organisms with short generation times will probably roll with the punch, but for multi-celled creatures it's nothing less than cataclysmic. We're already in to the 6th great extinction event. It's not a question of when it will happen or if it will happen. It's already happening: the current extinction rate is at least a hundred times the background extinction rate, and probably more.

That's of course not just climate change but all the other abuses we're heaping onto the ecosystem. And yet, the warming of the climate is a major component of it.

The only thing even close to the current rate of warming is the P-Tr extinction 250 million years ago, when it's believed the clathrate gun went off. In that one,

It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[6][7] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[8] It was the largest known mass extinction of insects. Some 57% of all biological families and 83% of all genera became extinct.

[NomadPatriot]

but we can post charts if you want..
here's one.. for the past 425,000 years.. notice any trend...?
like.. roughly every 100,000 years Earth goes into a sudden hot phase for a few decades.. .notice the literal straight up spikes in temperatures.. .
then cools back off for about 99,000 years...
humans must have caused all of those events.. couldn't be a natural cycle..
it's not like humans would try to profit off of a naturally occurring event like this by trying to extend it & Fear-Mongering
humans would never do that...…
-->

Yeah, those are natural cycles. However, they're not "a few decades". They're a lot of decades. Each of those large spikes, measured from base to base, is about 25,000 years. What we're seeing now is a spike of similar height but playing out over a period of only a few hundred years. That's a hundredfold increase in the speed of the temperature rise. None of those natural cycles you're showing there can hold a candle to this one.

It's not just about the height of the spike, it's about the speed.

When the climate changes over a period of 25,000 years, life has time to adapt. Even so, the extinction rate goes up, but new species evolve fast enough that overall biodiversity didn't seem to suffer too much in those. In the current spike, it's just too fast, at least for multicellular life. Single-celled organisms with short generation times will probably roll with the punch, but for multi-celled creatures it's nothing less than cataclysmic. We're already in to the 6th great extinction event. It's not a question of when it will happen or if it will happen. It's already happening: the current extinction rate is at least a hundred times the background extinction rate, and probably more.

That's of course not just climate change but all the other abuses we're heaping onto the ecosystem. And yet, the warming of the climate is a major component of it.

The only thing even close to the current rate of warming is the P-Tr extinction 250 million years ago, when it's believed the clathrate gun went off. In that one,

It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[6][7] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[8] It was the largest known mass extinction of insects. Some 57% of all biological families and 83% of all genera became extinct.

"The Sixth Mass Extinction, also known as the Sixth Extinction or the Holocene extinction event, is an ongoing extinction event perpetrated by human beings. It began about 50,000 years ago, when modern man first left Africa. Since then, it seems to have been nothing but havoc."

blaming climate change for the events of the 6th extinction event that began 50,000 years ago when humans 1st left Africa is a very bad argument... I know it's hard being cornered in a debate. maybe try posting data to back up your claims .

sorry my data didn't fit your narrative... at least you are now changing your argument to " it's more then just climate change"..

but I do not think you know how to read the chart. each upward line is 50,000 years. . not a single 1 of those above zero spikes covers half of 1 of those sections.. maybe 1 covers a 1/5th of one section and the top of the each spike covers a very minimal amount of time. --> a few decades at most.

so.. if humans were not around during all of those previous heat spikes. .what could have caused them. ?
hmm … the natural cycle of the earth seems obvious.. ..

[Dukasaur]

but I do not think you know how to read the chart. each upward line is 50,000 years. . not a single 1 of those above zero spikes covers half of 1 of those sections.. maybe 1 covers a 1/5th of one section and the top of the each spike covers a very minimal amount of time. --> a few decades at most.

No, you can't just look at the tip of the peak. You have to look at the whole thing, from it's base (when it starts upward) to the end (when it reaches bottom again). Each major segment is 50,000 years and each complete peak covers about half of that distance.

The very first one is cut off, but the first one that we see all of is, starts rising fast around 330,000 YA and ends (falls back down) around 305,000 YA. That's about 25,000 years. That's how long it took to rise from bottom to the top and back down again.

so.. if humans were not around during all of those previous heat spikes. .what could have caused them. ?
hmm … the natural cycle of the earth seems obvious.. ..

Of course there are natural cycles. Nobody, but nobody, has ever denied that. However, what is happening now is in excess of any natural cycle. With the possible exception of the P-Tr extinction, change has never gone this fast.

[NomadPatriot]

but I do not think you know how to read the chart. each upward line is 50,000 years. . not a single 1 of those above zero spikes covers half of 1 of those sections.. maybe 1 covers a 1/5th of one section and the top of the each spike covers a very minimal amount of time. --> a few decades at most.

No, you can't just look at the tip of the peak. You have to look at the whole thing, from it's base (when it starts upward) to the end (when it reaches bottom again). Each major segment is 50,000 years and each complete peak covers about half of that distance.

The very first one is cut off, but the first one that we see all of is, starts rising fast around 330,000 YA and ends (falls back down) around 305,000 YA. That's about 25,000 years. That's how long it took to rise from bottom to the top and back down again.

so.. if humans were not around during all of those previous heat spikes. .what could have caused them. ?
hmm … the natural cycle of the earth seems obvious.. ..

Of course there are natural cycles. Nobody, but nobody, has ever denied that. However, what is happening now is in excess of any natural cycle. With the possible exception of the P-Tr extinction, change has never gone this fast.

if you need to go to those extremes .. there is no point in continuing this conversation... because you just went full retard.
I am talking abut the spikes ABOVE the zero mark. which would be normal habitual temperatures. ( when the temperature color goes from purple to red.. red entailing too hot, purple being nice weather, blue being glaciers sliding over continents. )
anything below the zero mark is freezing weather..
you are talking about -8 below normal to -5 / -7 below normal habitual temperatures.
yeah.. ok.. 25,000 years in between 1 massive glacier 3 miles thick to the next glacier 1 mile thick...no need to reference anything else..

look at the chart you posted. .see that zero mark.. yeah it's the same zero mark on my chart..

[jusplay4fun]

Nomad said this:

humans decided to stop that trend .. and inadvertently caused global warming by manipulating certain things intentionally in an attempt to stop the Global Cooling event.

Do you seriously believe your above quote? REALLY?

and then Nomad goes on to say (in another post in this same thread):

because you just went full retard.

Who went full retard? hmmm.....

And you failed to connect TSCA to either Global Warming or Global Cooling. I fail to see that connection, Nomad. Please enlighten me on that.

JP

[NomadPatriot]

Nomad said this:

humans decided to stop that trend .. and inadvertently caused global warming by manipulating certain things intentionally in an attempt to stop the Global Cooling event.

Do you seriously believe your above quote? REALLY?

and then Nomad goes on to say (in another post in this same thread):

because you just went full retard.

Who went full retard? hmmm.....

And you failed to connect TSCA to either Global Warming or Global Cooling. I fail to see that connection, Nomad. Please enlighten me on that.

JP

read the literature.. enlighten yourself... I am not your teacher..

TCSA wouldn't be connected to Global Cooling if you could follow the conversation. TSCA would have been the catalyst that Scientists used to stop Global Cooling, inadvertently causing Global Warming. in my opinion.

but it's not like you would ever believe scientists or consider evidence or counterarguments that go againist your religious belief humans caused global warming.
you have made that evident many, many times.

that is why it is pointless to try to have a conversation with you..

[jusplay4fun]

.....so said the kettle to the pot.

I knew what TSCA is BEFORE I read your post because I actually know science and your opinion on the connection that you allege is tenuous, at best. You need better evidence for your conspiracy theory; it fails on many levels.

And I read the posts, and so who is the one who shows ignorance of science? Let the evidence speak for itself.

[NomadPatriot]

.....so said the kettle to the pot.

I knew what TSCA is BEFORE I read your post because I actually know science and your opinion on the connection that you allege is tenuous, at best. You need better evidence for your conspiracy theory; it fails on many levels.

And I read the posts, and so who is the one who shows ignorance of science? Let the evidence speak for itself.

nu-uh.. I already knew all about that.. your opinion is wrong.. it fails because I say it does.. I know science .. I use the word Fail in every comment

see.... Pointless

-------
Also, try taking some writing courses so you know how to construct legible sentences with proper English.

Talk about failing & ignorance.. geez..

" I knew what TSCA is BEFORE I read.."
"And I read the posts, and so who is..."

[Dukasaur]

but I do not think you know how to read the chart. each upward line is 50,000 years. . not a single 1 of those above zero spikes covers half of 1 of those sections.. maybe 1 covers a 1/5th of one section and the top of the each spike covers a very minimal amount of time. --> a few decades at most.

No, you can't just look at the tip of the peak. You have to look at the whole thing, from it's base (when it starts upward) to the end (when it reaches bottom again). Each major segment is 50,000 years and each complete peak covers about half of that distance.

The very first one is cut off, but the first one that we see all of is, starts rising fast around 330,000 YA and ends (falls back down) around 305,000 YA. That's about 25,000 years. That's how long it took to rise from bottom to the top and back down again.

so.. if humans were not around during all of those previous heat spikes. .what could have caused them. ?
hmm … the natural cycle of the earth seems obvious.. ..

Of course there are natural cycles. Nobody, but nobody, has ever denied that. However, what is happening now is in excess of any natural cycle. With the possible exception of the P-Tr extinction, change has never gone this fast.

if you need to go to those extremes .. there is no point in continuing this conversation... because you just went full retard.
I am talking abut the spikes ABOVE the zero mark. which would be normal habitual temperatures. ( when the temperature color goes from purple to red.. red entailing too hot, purple being nice weather, blue being glaciers sliding over continents. )
anything below the zero mark is freezing weather..
you are talking about -8 below normal to -5 / -7 below normal habitual temperatures.
yeah.. ok.. 25,000 years in between 1 massive glacier 3 miles thick to the next glacier 1 mile thick...no need to reference anything else..

look at the chart you posted. .see that zero mark.. yeah it's the same zero mark on my chart..

Do you need to add pointless ad hominems or would you rather converse like an adult?

Anyway, you're aware that rates of change can be estimated from the slope of the line? To get the best estimate of the slope of the line, you're best to take an entire segment, from inflection point to inflection point. That's why I'm going all the way from the bottom of the peak to the very top, and then back to the next bottom. Now, going back to that first complete peak (the others are similar, I'll just deal with that one and avoid repeating myself for the others.)

The bottom of the peak start at around -8 degrees at around 335 kYA (kilo-years ago, just abbreviating.) (I estimated it visually yesterday at around 330 kYA, but today I actually zoomed in and used a ruler on my screen to refine this as much as possible.) From there it goes up to about +3 degrees around 323 kYA. After that it falls back down to about -6 at around around 307 kYA.

So, you get the rate of change by Δy over Δx.

On the upward line, that is 11/(335000 - 323000) or 11 degrees in 12,000 years. It's 9.17E-4 to get technical, but as a rough approximation 1 degree per thousand years will do.

On the downward line, we have 9/(323000 - 307000) or 0.0005625 or as a rough approximation about half a degree per thousand years.

Spot checking a few other long line segments at random, and they seem to fall within that range -- somewhere between one degree and one-half degree per thousand years.

In your post you were very heated about going from the zero line. Using shorter segments leads to greater inaccuracies than using complete segments. Don't forget this is estimated data to begin with, and this is a very large-scale graph. Use the longest line segments you can to get any kind of decent conclusions from it.

In our current situation, we've gained about 1.2 degrees in the last hundred years. We can say that with more certainly, because now we have actual ongoing measurements instead of just working back from ice cores. The pace of change is still speeding up, but even if it doesn't, that rate of change is between 10 and 20 times the rates shown in your graph.

While the absolute level of the change is concerning in the long run, it's the rate of change that's really dangerous in the short run. (Again, with the possible exception of the time the clathrate gun went off during the P-Tr extinction, this is the fastest change the world has every seen.)

[NomadPatriot]

(not continuing the long quote strings. so resetting Duk. )

you posted a chart showing a +0.9 to -0.4 degree increase / decrease in temperature since 1880 above & below the zero mark. claiming that is due to humans causing climate change.

I posted a chart showing a similar reference to the zero mark with a vastly longer time frame and vastly larger variations of the temperature going from +3 to -8 degrees. showing this is a naturally occurring event throughout earth's history and has nothing to do with humans .

that was the point. earth goes through very long nearly 100,000 year cycles of continental covering glacial periods of cold with an almost predictable repetitive hot spike almost on cue every 100,000 - 125,000 years.

coincidentally . in current day , earth is experiencing 1 of those hot spikes that has occurred numerous times before humans were even a developed species.

all you have said is " Of course there are natural cycles. Nobody, but nobody, has ever denied that. However, what is happening now is in excess of any natural cycle."

do you have any proof it is not part of the natural cycle..?

your chart shows a +0.9 temperature increase today over the zero mark..
my chart shows a +3 temperature increase over the zero mark before humans were developed that occurred numerous times on cue . .

how is +0.9 over zero in excess of the +3 over zero natural cycle?
shouldn't your chart show a +3.9 over the Zero mark in order for it to be in "excess" of the natural cycle. ? oddly . it doesn't.

so I will just ask you the same question again . you can choose to explore answering it if you want too..
--> " if humans were not around during all of those previous heat spikes. .what could have caused them. ?

[Dukasaur]

(not continuing the long quote strings. so resetting Duk. )

you posted a chart showing a +0.9 to -0.4 degree increase / decrease in temperature since 1880 above & below the zero mark. claiming that is due to humans causing climate change.

I posted a chart showing a similar reference to the zero mark with a vastly longer time frame and vastly larger variations of the temperature going from +3 to -8 degrees. showing this is a naturally occurring event throughout earth's history and has nothing to do with humans .

that was the point. earth goes through very long nearly 100,000 year cycles of continental covering glacial periods of cold with an almost predictable repetitive hot spike almost on cue every 100,000 - 125,000 years.

Okay, and the point I'm making is is that what your chart shows are natural fluctuations with the temperature increasing about 1 degree (or less) in a thousand years. What we're experiencing now is the temperature increasing 1 degree (or more) in a hundred years. The current rate of warming is at least ten times more. Depending on where we go from here, it could be 20 times more or 100 times more.

This is the unprecedented part. Not the absolute height of the peak, but the rate of change. All changes result in an increase in the extinction rate, but the faster the change comes, the greater the extinction rate.

coincidentally . in current day , earth is experiencing 1 of those hot spikes that has occurred numerous times before humans were even a developed species.

Yes, but it's almost over. If the natural cycle was dominating, we'd be due for a cool-down now.

all you have said is " Of course there are natural cycles. Nobody, but nobody, has ever denied that. However, what is happening now is in excess of any natural cycle."

do you have any proof it is not part of the natural cycle..?

The unprecedented speed is one element.

The best proof I see, however, is how strongly CO2 concentrations correlate with the temperature rise.


Just one graph among many, which shows a powerful correlation between the CO2 rise and the temperature rise.

Add to that the fact that there isn't currently any natural process that could explain the rapid warming.

your chart shows a +0.9 temperature increase today over the zero mark..
my chart shows a +3 temperature increase over the zero mark before humans were developed that occurred numerous times on cue . .

how is +0.9 over zero in excess of the +3 over zero natural cycle?
shouldn't your chart show a +3.9 over the Zero mark in order for it to be in "excess" of the natural cycle. ? oddly . it doesn't.

Again, it's not absolute numbers that are really dangerous (*yet), it's the rate of change.

But if current rates keep up, the absolute numbers will eventually be dangerous, too.

so I will just ask you the same question again . you can choose to explore answering it if you want too..
--> " if humans were not around during all of those previous heat spikes. .what could have caused them. ?

There's quite a number of things:

• Long-term solar cycles. Of course everybody knows about the short-term 11-year sunspot cycles, but there are probably long-term solar cycles. We don't know for sure yet, but it is very likely.
• The wobble in the earth's orbit. Planetary orbits are not perfect ellipses -- over time the pertrubate quite a bit. Even a small difference in how far the earth is from the sun has a significant effect on the climate.
• Volcanism -- the rate at which volcanoes erupt may go through a long-term cycle, which affects temperature.
• Plate tectonics -- when the plates are colliding, high mountain ranges like the Himalayas are formed, causing winds to push higher into the atmosphere and surrender more heat, resulting in cooling. When the plates are moving further apart, strong winds stay lower in the ground and surrender less heat, resulting in a warmer earth.

There's more, but those are the strongest four. The point is they are all Long Term effects, taking place over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years. In the short term, the hundred or so years that we have good data for, none of those things have had any significant effect. The things that have had major effects are all man-made: deforestation, burning fossil fuels, and farming ruminants.

[NomadPatriot]

way too long to respond too..

obviously we are not going to be able to agree on anything.
you have your point of view.
I have mine.


"The best proof I see, however, is how strongly CO2 concentrations correlate with the temperature rise."

correlation is not proof.

here's an example why -> people started using computer in the 1980's.. and the number of people using computers has massively increased over time.
it correlates with the climate changing .. so computer use is causing climate change ….
apply it to that chart you just posted. the green line would be Computer Use . the red line would be the temperature.
see I correlated them. .

fun chatting though.

glad I could get you to acknowledge natural weather cycles cause massive heat spikes in the earth's climate regularly.. and we are in the midst of one of those spikes currently.

[jusplay4fun]

Terrible analogy. The # of computers did not affect temperatures before 1940.

Again, your logic and arguments are weak. Do you want to try again?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I will let you read the CORRELATION and CAUSALITY of that connection, NP. You need an education, so I will let you research that for yourself. That means computers are not a greenhouse gas.

Based on your weak arguments, the logical conclusion is that your point of view is wrong.

way too long to respond too..

obviously we are not going to be able to agree on anything.
you have your point of view.
I have mine.


"The best proof I see, however, is how strongly CO2 concentrations correlate with the temperature rise."

correlation is not proof.

here's an example why -> people started using computer in the 1980's.. and the number of people using computers has massively increased over time.
it correlates with the climate changing .. so computer use is causing climate change ….
apply it to that chart you just posted. the green line would be Computer Use . the red line would be the temperature.
see I correlated them. .

fun chatting though.

glad I could get you to acknowledge natural weather cycles cause massive heat spikes in the earth's climate regularly.. and we are in the midst of one of those spikes currently.

[jusplay4fun]

And nomadP, you continue to show your 1) ignorance; 2) bad logic; 3) poor evidence; 4) terrible conclusions (based on poor data). You need an education on how to think better.

You try to point out my grammatical mistakes that are not even there. BUT again, your presentation of those things is so nebulous that I am led to ask: What are you talking about?

Wow, and you wasted all that time to add all that color. For what purpose? To make your arguments even more obfuscated?

.....so said the kettle to the pot.

I knew what TSCA is BEFORE I read your post because I actually know science and your opinion on the connection that you allege is tenuous, at best. You need better evidence for your conspiracy theory; it fails on many levels.

And I read the posts, and so who is the one who shows ignorance of science? Let the evidence speak for itself.

nu-uh.. I already knew all about that.. your opinion is wrong.. it fails because I say it does.. I know science .. I use the word Fail in every comment

see.... Pointless

-------
Also, try taking some writing courses so you know how to construct legible sentences with proper English.

Talk about failing & ignorance.. geez..

" I knew what TSCA is BEFORE I read.."
"And I read the posts, and so who is..."

[jusplay4fun]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEppFUWLfc

JP

[NomadPatriot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEppFUWLfc

JP

I already said it's pointless to conversate with you JP.. no clue why you keep trying...

but I will toss you a bone..
when you are wanting to post a YouTube video..
you have to delete the front portion of the link and insert it into the YouTube brackets..

you claim to be so smart.. yet .. you do not know how to do the simplest of things..


step #1: take the YouTube link you copied from the share function on YouTube --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEppFUWLfc

step #2; shorten it to this --> NAEppFUWLfc

step #3: insert it into the middle of these --> [YouTube][/YouTube]

step #4: and voila.. you get this
-->

-----------------------

ok, lesson over for today JP.. come back anytime you need me to teach you something else..

[riskllama]

you like the rasslin', NP?