Good News. Global Warming Will Not End Life As We Know It

[Wrangler]

Perhaps you're unaware that a great number of early Christians were barbarians. Would you like to learn about that?

Presumptuous that I don’t know history. I consider embracing Christianity to be where the Barbarian ends.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, that seems like a testable belief. Show me scientific literature that cites this kid's research.

Show you?

Yes. If it's true, you should be able to show us that it's true. Can we expect to see that soon?

Do you admit there is something about global warming you do t know?

There's a great deal left to be learned about it. Climate scientists were surprised by a number of things, such as the unexpectedly rapid melting of Arctic sea ice, and the continuing warming even during a period of lowered solar output a few years ago.

I wouldn’t have believed it if I didn’t see it with my own eyes.

I'm not even a climate scientist. In this discussion, I had to go back and update my knowledge, since I haven't followed it for a few years.

But I do pay attention to the data. It may give the impression that I know everything...

I do know the secret for appearing to know everything.

Only talk about things you know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Presumptuous that I don’t know history.

You didn't know about all those Christian barbarians. Which perhaps they don't teach in school much. But it's true.

I consider embracing Christianity to be where the Barbarian ends.

Ironic then, that embracing Christianity is how I have the internet handle I do.

Perhaps this discussion would go better if we all put aside resentment and just talked about the evidence. Worth a try? If not, maybe it would be best if we didn't discuss this any further; I seem to be making some of you more and more upset.

 

[talons]

Evidently you need to be in the extreme climate think or you will be labeled a Climate denier .
******

How Tom Steyer deployed his billions to stifle climate dissent

“Progressive” activists are proud to stop a researcher from writing about what he knows — and lefty Tom Steyer funded their efforts.

nypost.com

Billionaire Tom Steyer used his money to attack a lone climate researcher.

Roger Pielke Jr.’s research on climate and disaster policy wins awards and is cited by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“My views are entirely mainstream,” said Pielke.

“My work is cited by all three working groups of the IPCC. There’s nothing contrarian.”

Both Steyer and Pielke agree that “greenhouse gases warm the climate,” but Pielke’s sin was saying, “it’s not the apocalypse.”

 

[Wrangler]

Perhaps this discussion would go better if we all put aside resentment and just talked about the evidence.

The evidence is that you are a fanatical alarmist in denial that your political agenda doesn’t depend on the evidence.

Even if 100% of alarmists claims were true, I would still totally oppose what you propose we do about this "problem." Some generation of humans has to be the last one and I hope they die free.

Did you read and comprehend the above post? Even if all the evidence supports your alarmism, what you politically advocate is immoral.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evidently you need to be in the extreme climate think or you will be labeled a Climate denier .

You're still listening to politicians and billionaires to learn about climate. Repeat: look at the data in scientific research.

You'll be a lot harder to fool.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps this discussion would go better if we all put aside resentment and just talked about the evidence.
(here's the response)

The evidence is that you are a fanatical alarmist in denial that your political agenda doesn’t depend on the evidence.

Well, it was worth a try...

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you read and comprehend the above post? Even if all the evidence supports your alarmism, what you politically advocate is immoral.

What did I politically advocate? Cite the post in which I did. I'm guessing you just imagined things. But let's see what you can find. I'm guessing we won't see a response. But let's see...

 

[Wrangler]

What did I politically advocate? Cite the post in which I did. I'm guessing you just imagined things. But let's see what you can find. I'm guessing we won't see a response. But let's see...

Watermelons pretend they have no political agenda. It’s laughable! I’ll return you to my ignore list.

 

[The Barbarian]

The evidence is that you are a fanatical alarmist in denial that your political agenda doesn’t depend on the evidence.

What did I politically advocate? Cite the post in which I did. I'm guessing you just imagined things. But let's see what you can find. I'm guessing we won't see a response. But let's see...

Watermelons pretend they have no political agenda.

So you couldn't find anything? I'm guessing you weren't being dishonest, but just assumed stuff that I never actually wrote.

I’ll return you to my ignore list.

Probably a wise decision. I'm not eliciting the best from you.

 

[talons]

You're still listening to politicians and billionaires to learn about climate. Repeat: look at the data in scientific research.

You'll be a lot harder to fool.

I am not denying climate change or science that may indicate that .

Go read the article the man attacked by the billionaire was someone like you a man of facts and figures , science .
Roger Pielke Jr. reporting the facts with no hyperbole and that was not working for the ones using climate change as a weapon of fear .

Roger Pielke Jr.’s research on climate and disaster policy wins awards and is cited by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The reason he was attacked and ostracized was he would not push the weather apocalypse narrative .
The problem I have is the climate change true or not is being used as a weapon of oppression on the public !

 

[Armour of God]

Well, that seems like a testable belief. Show me scientific literature that cites this kid's research. I'm guessing that you just trusted people who took advantage of your trust

There probably is no literature that cites the alarmist claims of Greta.

What I said is that media, governments, scientists, united nations and such, actually consulted her on the topic.

Do you at least admit that was wrong?

 

[Armour of God]

@Wrangler

A while ago I saw someone on the internet giving a talk about the global warming hoax.
He had two graphs, one of Co2 levels and one of temperature levels over time.
When he put one over the other it showed that rise in Co2 occurred after the rise in temps. Have you seen that?

So if anything they should be suggesting that a rise in temps is caused by high Co2 levels, not the opposite as they claim.

Besides isn't the biggest cause of temperature change the sun?
Increased solar activity causes higher temperatures and there is nothing man can do about that

 

[Armour of God]

WATERMELONS

GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE
RED IN THE MIDDLE

 

[ProDeo]

I'm no climatologist. But I do garden. And I notice that the hardiness zones have been moving north for decades.

Planting Zones Moving North | Climate Central

Planting zones are shifting north as the climate warms, affecting farmers and backyard gardeners alike.

www.climatecentral.org

So, yes those daisy climate pseudo-scientists are telling us about climate change. What were real climate scientists predicting? (Barbarian checks)

Lots of data out there:

Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist and Nobel laureate. In 1896, he calculated that “the temperature in the Arctic regions would rise 8 or 9 degrees Celsius if carbon dioxide increased to 2.5 or 3 times” its level at that time. Arrhenius’ estimate was likely conservative: Since 1900 atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen from about 300 parts per million to around 417 ppm as a result of human activities, and the Arctic has already warmed by about 3.8 C (6.8 F).

Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote

The results of Foote’s simple experiments were confirmed through hundreds of tests by scientists in the US and Europe. It happened more than a century ago.

theconversation.com

By the 1970s, most climatologists were predicting warming, based on rising CO2 levels.
View attachment 84338
And a bit later, James Hanson of NASA accurately predicted the level of warming depending on how much additional CO2 was added to the atmosphere:

View attachment 84339
Is there an explanation in actual physical mechanisms? (Barbarian checks)

Yes. Turns out CO2 isn't that strong an absorber of infrared, but it absorbs strongly at wavelengths other gases don't absorb:
View attachment 84341
A much greater concern in the long run is methane, which more strongly absorbs infrared radiation, and is now releasing from permafrost at an increasing rate.

So, are we all gonna die? Almost certainly not. In fact, there will at first be winners as well as losers. The Sahel region of Africa is getting wetter and greener as the southern edge of the Sahara desert retreats. This is a consequence of global warming. The American west is getting drier and hotter. Many coastal areas will be facing stronger storms. Already insurance companies in the United States are withdrawing from some Gulf coast states, because the losses are too unpredictable to underwrite properly.

Finally someone speaking knowledge.

 

[ProDeo]

Extreme cold has decreased sharply. Since the 1990s, the frequency and severity of record-cold winter temperatures have dropped substantially.

https://phys.org/news/2026-04-climate-decline-hot-cold-extreme.html

Weather is not climate. So you'll still expect to see a record cold for some area or another for a short time, even if the average temperature is climing. This is why you should see what climatologists say, not alarmists or deniers.



For one thing, you look at theories that have made predictions. In the late 1800s, scientists began to realize that more carbon in the atmosphere would mean warmer average temperatures. A few decades ago, a NASA scientist actually predicted the rate of increase as a consquence of increasing carbon. Both predictions have been confirmed.


Given that there are no humans on Pluto, we can rule out anthropogenic carbon as a cause. Also it has a very, very thing atmosphere, so that wouldn't be a factor, either. However, Pluto has a very eccentric orbit, sometimes coming closer to the Sun than Neptune. It was closest to the Sun about 30 years ago, and since it takes about 248 years to orbit the Sun, it's not surprising that it's warmer than usual now.

How do deniers deal with this fact? Generally, they don't know about it, so it's not a challenge to their assumptions.

Where I live (Europe) global warming goes twice as fast as in the rest of the world, not sure why that is. As a child I grew up in the Netherlands with cold and sometimes extreme cold winters every year. Since years we don't have winters any longer and every year new records regarding temperatures are broken in spring, summer and autumn.

Globally the sea warms up, coral reefs die because of that, the South Pole is melting, Greenland becomes more green every year, etc. etc.

 

[Armour of God]

Where I live (Europe) global warming goes twice as fast as in the rest of the world, not sure why that is. As a child I grew up in the Netherlands with cold and sometimes extreme cold winters every year. Since years we don't have winters any longer and every year new records regarding temperatures are broken in spring, summer and autumn.

Globally the sea warms up, coral reefs die because of that, the South Pole is melting, Greenland becomes more green every year, etc. etc.

In other parts of the world it's getting colder.
The overall global temperature has not changed much at all over the last few decades and Antarctica is not melting but getting bigger with more ice, as has been shown to be the case already on this thread.

In the 90s they said that sea levels would rise within 10 or 20 years, burying low lying lands in sea water. That never happened, they were wrong. Sea levels still remain the same

That's why they ditched the "global warming" term and changed it to "climate change" so that they can blame all weather events on humans, hot or cold or storms or drought.

But the idea that humans had a significant change to all of this is just laughable. It's the weather. It supposed to change. The globe has had cooler and warmer periods in the past. The sun is the main reason for changes in climate. Solar storms and flares. Humans cannot control the sun nor can they control the weather with wind and solar energy and EV vehicles.

Even Bill Gates says it's nothing to worry about and a big waste of money, and he was a big supporter of the climate change narrative in the past

 

[Wrangler]

RED IN THE MIDDLE

Red TO THE CORE on the inside. LOL

 

[Wrangler]

@Wrangler

A while ago I saw someone on the internet giving a talk about the global warming hoax.
He had two graphs, one of Co2 levels and one of temperature levels over time.
When he put one over the other it showed that rise in Co2 occurred after the rise in temps. Have you seen that?

There are a number of vids that show this time lag. This is why I've posted that the global warming hoax has cause and effect backwards - by about 800 years.

So if anything they should be suggesting that a rise in temps is caused by high Co2 levels, not the opposite as they claim.

Right. The central premise of Global Warming violates Henry's Law. A science school teacher on line didn't understand how Henry's Law applies to the Global Warming premise! Less gas is held in a liquid as it gets warmer.

Besides isn't the biggest cause of temperature change the sun?
Increased solar activity causes higher temperatures and there is nothing man can do about that

Of course the biggest cause of temperature change the sun! It explains why other planetary bodies have gotten warmer - including Pluto! Alarmists have no explanation for how a planet gets warmer if it doesn't have an internal combustion engine on it. LOL

Somewhere I have a graph of solar energy output compared to global temperatures on Earth. It even explains the cooling that began in 1998. I recall in the early 2000's talking to alarmists about this undeniable fact of cooling that began in 1998. I asked what alarmist predicted that. No answer.

I asked if these scientists failure to predict this global temperature dip causes you to lose confidence in their predictions of a century from now? No, they said.

I asked why not? It stands to reason that if their predictions in the short term are wrong, their compounding long term predictions are bound to be even less accurate. Silence.

 

[Wrangler]

@Armour of God, do you remember the alarmists hysteria that the heat was going into the ocean instead of the atmosphere?

In talking to a rabid alarmist who had all the facts of global rise in ocean temperatures, I asked what climatologist predicted this phenomena 5 years before? He couldn’t even look at me. LOL This is because he only wanted to be given credit for confidently delivering speculative statements - not put it to the test. Again, the power of science rests in its predictive power and he very reluctantly had to abdicate that ground.