Meanwhile...in Antarctica...

Note the convenient excuse near the end...

Weather is not climate...unless the left wishes to make the weather an issue of climate.

But everywhere else in warming!

So we have to put our trust in Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, who have been highly incompetent in everything else save for corruption and surrendering to the Taliban, to solve a climate crisis ginned up by an amen corner posing as a science?

All this in the service of a group of leftists who just happen to own or invest in companies who rely on the largesse of government-fueled profits funding green energy quackery.

We're destroying the environment so we can save it. Killing whales to extinction with windmills (and lying about it) creating excess demand for generation of electricity for EVs, massive scars, pollution and human exploitation mining metals, deforestation for solar panels. What little respect I had for the so-called environmental groups is long gone as they turn their heads away from it all.

wxmanX said:

---

why oceans warming so fast then?

---

I'll play.

How much have they warmed? How much energy would be required to raise the 321 million cubic miles of ocean water by that amount? Why wasn't the land surface of the Earth incinerated to bare dirt during the time lag that it would take to transfer that amount of atmospheric heat to the water?

You and I both know that these idiots have the tail wagging the dog. The oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not the other way around.

ShinerAggie said:

---

You and I both know that these idiots have the tail wagging the dog. The oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not the other way around.

---

Whaaaa? Could that be the basis of El Nino & La Nina weather patterns?

Yeah, there's roughly 270 times the mass of the atmosphere in the ocean, and the ocean has a specific heat capacity roughly 4x that of air, but the air is the climate driver!

You cannot convince a man to find the truth when his livelihood depends on not finding it.

Spot on but anyone that believes in climate change will never listen to it. 90% will close their eyes and move on to the next line of bull**** to spew.

The few that do will skim to find something they can nitpick and they'll go after that as a way to dismiss all the rest. They can't be reasoned with because they're too consumed by it.

co2 blocks IR, limits radiation out to space thus oceans and land warm with time, this is a proven scientific fact.
1 gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of co2---> go look it up, it easily to calculate with basic college chemistry. We are producing way too much for plants to absorb, thus it goes up with time.


It that F simple, a 5th grader can figure this out.

Again, if we had no co2, our planet would be frozen solid, or about 255K.

This isn't about liberals; I don't like them either.

This is about science and fact.

We have been warned about road buckling and to be careful when driving next week. It will be over 100. Some say 105.

This isn't global warming.


This is MDOT doesn't care about fixing the crappy roads.

They just want to build ****ing round-a-bouts.

wxmanX said:

---

This is about science and fact.

---

So how much has the temperature of the oceans risen? You stated this as fact, so please share it.

I'm old enough to recall when politicians and media were scaring us into believing we were headed into an ice age. Now, these same entities are telling us the ice caps are melting and we are "on the verge". Those are facts too. The solution each time has been the same, give up money and control. Another fact.

I'd like to hear your explanation as to why none of the dire predictions have materialized? Another fact. Not one scientific model has been correct. Another fact.

Also, in regards to your above stated "facts" , those correlations have only been shown in a lab, and not within our environment (atmosphere). There are just too many variables in our atmosphere to say your correlations are factual.

There never has been any climate crisis the earth goes through changes due to the universe's changes
Like the sun having more solar flares
This is all just a way to extort money from the average person and give it to the people that are at the top the super rich elite

I'm waiting for the nut jobs to somehow argue we need to move the earth's orbit further back/more elliptical or something. It will happen at some point.

StrickAggie06 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

and 100,000 other scientists believe in man made climate change. this means nothing. when you burn fossil fuels that energy has to go somewhere, it just doesn't disappear. it is the ONLY explanation. there are no other natural factors that account for the rapid increase of greenhouse gases.

---

Scientists of what? The majority of articles I read that claim that "the vast majority of scientists" believe in significant man made climate change are climate scientists. As mentioned in my first post, climate scientists aren't actual scientists, plus OF COURSE climate scientists are going to believe their own studies.

Occasionally, some theoretical physicists throw their names into the mix. Unfortunately, their insights are often misguided, as they don't deal with large quantitative data sets, and don't consider the statistical flaws present in climate data. I've found they are particularly susceptible to having "tunnel vision" and just blindly believing studies put out by academics in other fields. But how many non-physics STEM researchers with backgrounds in big data and advanced statistics do you see speak out regularly? I rarely see engineers, biologists, or chemists loudly banging the climate change drum.

And did you not read my post at all, or just not understand it? Increases in greenhouse gasses don't automatically cause an equally corresponding temperature increase, and how we've measured them has changed over time. Again, correlation doesn't equal causation. If greenhouse gasses go up 30%, how much does the temp increase? You can point to the correlation all you want, but without an actual controlled study (which I'm not convinced is possible even with a a very complex artificial microclimate), you simply can't prove that one causes the other. And that "rapid" increase in greenhouse gasses uses ice core data as its early data points. As previously mentioned, ice cores are extremely unreliable for producing accurate data. There's also inconsistencies with the sites for data collection. You're taking early data from ice cores located at the poles vs newer data points located closer to civilization where CO2 emissions will be higher. This creates a significant positive bias in the trend.

Also, calling CO2 a greenhouse gas is disingenuous at best. CO2 encourages plant growth, which in turn reduces atmospheric CO2 levels. The Earth is essentially a living breathing organism, and like all organisms it strives for balance (homeostasis). CO2 levels also naturally increase as the Earth warms, so how much of that rise is due to the cyclic warming period we are? How does it correlate to the number of volcanic eruptions each year, which dump FAR more CO2 in the atmosphere than all of humanity does in an entire year?

Finally, you are still looking at a very very limited data set in historical terms. You simply can't claim unequivocally that greenhouse gas levels are at an all time high due to mankind and the sole driving factor of temp increases, without being able to accurately and comprehensively compare them to prehistoric times. Doing so violates the core mission of science.

Finally, any scientist that claims their findings are absolute facts is a fraud. Every climate report I've read does this. Actual scientists know there is ALWAYS uncertainty in the results, even with a 99%+ confidence interval. Valid publications use words like "could, might, plausible, etc" to describe their results, not definitive terms.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that man made climate change is 100% not real. My point is that we don't have the data to say one way or another. It's logical that humanity has had SOME effect on the climate. But how much? It could be a lot or it could be negligible. Should we really declare an emergency and bankrupt the country for a complete unknown, when it wouldn't make a significant difference anyway? There are positive, effective ways to move us away from fossil fuels, but the government refuses to pursue them.

---

This is the most confidently incorrect reply I have seen on this website. Ice core data only measures co2 levels before the 1950s. Since 1950 we have just used the regular atmosphere to collect data, and we can see that c02 is rising unprecedently with no natural events that can explain it.

Also, c02 is 100% a greenhouse gas. No one ever said greenhouse gases were bad for the environment. The balance of gases can be thrown off due to human activity and that is a bad thing.

Also, the reason engineers, biologists, and chemists don't speak on climate change is because they are engineers, biologists, and chemists. Being an expert in one field doesn't mean you can hope over and be an expert in another field.

Also, just because we cant fully understand the climate doesn't mean we cant draw conclusions on what is going on. We have evidence and we see patterns. Denying climate change is like looking at the correlation between smokers and lung cancer and coming to the conclusion that smokers are just getting unlucky since we don't know which factor caused the cancer to form.

Again, there is no man made climate change.

wxmanX said:

---

co2 blocks IR, limits radiation out to space thus oceans and land warm with time, this is a proven scientific fact.
1 gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of co2---> go look it up, it easily to calculate with basic college chemistry. We are producing way too much for plants to absorb, thus it goes up with time.


It that F simple, a 5th grader can figure this out.

Again, if we had no co2, our planet would be frozen solid, or about 255K.

This isn't about liberals; I don't like them either.

This is about science and fact.

---

A science based on consensus rather than contention and debate regarding data and conclusions is not a science at all. It is a religion.

A science frequently exposed manipulating data to conform to what those funding the science wish it to demonstrate, as has been the case with Michael Mann, Robert Hansen, the University of East Anglia and others, can hardly be called a science at all. That is mere propaganda in service to statist actors who want the population decimated and left in starvation conditions feeding off bugs (Owning nothing...and liking it!).

No one is denying climate variation. We are just arguing the factors that potentially have direct impact versus what we have control over.

Quote:

---

Also, just because we cant fully understand the climate doesn't mean we cant draw conclusions on what is going on

---

That one sentence tells us you don't have a clue how science works.

wxmanX said:

---

It that F simple, a 5th grader can figure this out.

---

You wanna try to type in complete sentences before you try and convince us you are a super knowledgeable scientist?

I can't believe no one believes this. It just so simple.

Did any of you guys take chem 101?

climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html

wxmanX said:

---

I can't believe no one believes this. It just so simple.

Did any of you guys take chem 101?

climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html

---

Yes, simple jack, I took chem 101. What's your point?

Can you type a 4 word sentence without ****ing it up?

YOU are so simple.

agent-maroon said:

---

wxmanX said:

---

why oceans warming so fast then?

---

I'll play.

How much have they warmed? How much energy would be required to raise the 321 million cubic miles of ocean water by that amount? Why wasn't the land surface of the Earth incinerated to bare dirt during the time lag that it would take to transfer that amount of atmospheric heat to the water?

---

To add to this, we only been measuring the ocean's temperature with accuracy for about 20 years now. The ARGO program uses diving bouys to sink into the water column and slowly surface while recording data. 20 years of history is kind of meaningless in data set of 4.3 billion years.

Climate Audit exposes Climate Quacks...

An oldie but a goodie. Stephen McIntyre exposed the tricks of the myth-makers trade.

Quote:

---

Did any of you guys take chem 101?

---

Yes. That's where I learned that if you want to measure the temperature of a solution then you use a thermometer rather than monitoring the CO2 level.

No one disputes that the CO2 levels are rising. How much has the temperature of the oceans risen?

wxmanX said:

---

I can't believe no one believes this. It just so simple.

Did any of you guys take chem 101?

climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html

---

Are you familiar with the works of Dunning and Krueger?

ssta.daily.current.png (17871085) (noaa.gov)

And?

U familiar with Occam's Razor?

wxmanX said:

---

And?

---

Quote:

---

wxmanX said:
BC Canada all-time record high yesterday.

42C = 108F!

---

Can you please highlight on this picture how much recorded data we have on earths "climate", please? You are saying all-time high, after all. All-time is....well, all of time.



As a hint, it's likely a fraction of a pixel of the grass beneath the front tire of the truck. Records go back to the mid 1800s, but measuring global climate with the use of satellites is obviously about 60 years, giving a great benefit of the doubt -- and to continue to give into the benefit of the doubt, lets pretend there is a satellite in existince that provides 100% accurate data for the entire planet, that this ONE satellite could take the temperature of the entire global climate accurately as a matter or proof, instantaneously.

Scientists believe that homo sapiens have existed as far as 350,000 years ago, so somewhere in the Pleistocene Era, so we should consider that it's possible for our species to exist, adapt, and thrive through much more deviant temperatures, when living in caves with basically zero technological advances, remedies to disease, heat, cold, famine, predation, or any other factors that would prevent them from becoming extinct.

See this graph:



So pretend to extrapolate this graph backwards 233 times as far back as you see right now, and that is how long scientists believe that homo sapiens have been living on Earth. Acknowledge how irrelevant the current peak in 5-6 generations is compared to Earth's "natural" temperature.

So..blade of grass is what we're measuring and you're alarmed about a 1.5C increase, even when its almost impossible to measure with any sort of accuracy due to too many variables....

And the only solution is not to just plant trees, but to gut the middle class with tax increases to "fix" the problem, while ignoring that India and China dont give any ****s about this at all and are increasing their CO2 emissions at an increasing rate.

You can also factor in human technological advances in that time period that means that we have air conditioning, health care, understanding of diseases that has only helped our longevity, not hurt it.

Well, with all due respect...

I dont apologize for thinking you're completely full of **** and dont know **** about "the science". You cant even think beyond what your TV tells you.

I will happily love for any Texas A&M professor or even Harvard Professor in "Climate Science" which is actually just an Liberal Arts subscription degree to prove this wrong.

Including Andrew Dessler, Aggie prof that went on Rogan's podcast and embarrassed himself.
[url=https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3392725/9][/url][url=https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3392725/9][/url]

.webp

planting trees won't solve it either, humans emit way too much carbon.

Remember, each gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Think hard about how much you put into the atmosphere each year. There are 1 B autos on this planet now.

No. Can you explain it to me?

wxmanX said:

---

planting trees won't solve it either, humans emit way too much carbon.

Remember, each gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Think hard about how much you put into the atmosphere each year. There are 1 B autos on this planet now.

---

Wow. LOL. What a dumb*****

My entire post was about how the "climate", even measured accurately (which it is not), doesnt mean *****

Attack my ideas. That's fair game. But you wont, because you cant.

honest question, are you a ******, or just pretend to be one on TexAgs?