When you can't explain this, how can you explain climate?

Increase atmospheric temperate can lead to increased water in the atmosphere, increased droughts and increased floods. That would be all down to how it impacts the water cycle. Surely you learned about this at school.

In warm dry areas, water evaporates in to the atmosphere. Air currents cause the saturated air to move around and when it hits relatively cooler air and/or higher ground, the water condenses and falls as rain (or snow, hail etc.). If the overall atmospheric temperature increases, there will be, on average, more evaporation from the dry areas (causing more droughts) and therefore more water in the air so that when it does fall as rain, it is heavier and more intense (causing more floods).

That is, at a very basic level, why climate change can impact weather conditions in all sorts of different areas and in all sorts of different ways. It doesn't change the fundamental weather cycles, but it can add intensity to the entire system.

 

And your idea of of anything is mindlessly parroting Russia Limpboi.
April 3, 2007

RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

 

According to science, the earth has cooled and warmed a number of times before modern man and the industrial revolution. To think that we can control these fundamental changes is akin to thinking that we can control mortality itself. Granted we may contribute to an unhealthy existence or an early demise. But to think that healthy living gives us super powers to defeat death itself is wishful thinking and the cause of much grief. Not that we should live raucously, but rather to keep the truth in mind as we attempt to live rightly. And beware not to make our efforts to effect the climate just another fad of overindulgence in vanity.

 

Some might recognize that there are patterns that do NOT support the idea that all of Earth warms or cools in unison.

 

Over and over it has been told to YOU that climatologists, the IPCC, and the rest of science do NOT believe we can "control" climate.

You need to look into what is actually being said about climate before repeating total nonsense - again and again.

 

Just so long as it is acknowledged that the earth is going to continue to warm up, all on its own, no matter what we do.

 

Why should I believe you, a poster on this board?

>>Please CITE your evidence.

 

Because according to science the earth has cooled down and warmed up in cycles for billions of years. Clearly we are on the back side of the last ice age. Consequently it will continue to warm up until it begins to cool down again.

 

CITE your evidence proving why this Inter-Glacial Period should defy 800,000 years of Earth climate history and be colder with lower sea levels than the other 8 recorded previous Inter-Glacial Periods.

I have provide evidence to prove there is no global warming.

But being the Science Denier that you are, you have willfully refused to accept the peer-reviewed science conducted and published by impeccable sources.

The data from both the EPICA Dome Core is crystal clear. It contains a record of 8 of the previous Inter-Glacial Periods.

If we compare this Inter-Glacial Period to the 8 sequential prior Inter-Glacial Periods, two things prove you are wrong:

1) This is the coldest Inter-Glacial Period on record because sea levels are 4 meters to 14 meters lower than the 8 other Inter-Glacial Periods
2) This is the coldest Inter-Glacial Period on record because average global temperatures are 7.5°F-15.3°F colder than the 8 other Inter-Glacial Periods.

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

If sea levels rise another 3 meters, the only truthful accurate honest claim you can make is this Inter-Glacial Period is still colder than the other 8 Inter-Glacial Periods.

If sea levels rise another 5 meters to 10 meters, the only truthful accurate honest claim you can make is this Inter-Glacial Period is still colder than the other 8 Inter-Glacial Periods.

A temperature increase of 7.8°F does not prove global warming. It only proves this Inter-Glacial Period is normal, usual, typical, and ordinary.

 

Nearly 100% of climate science disagrees with you.

Claiming I'm a "denier" when I accept what science says (and you don't) is silly, isn't it?

Let's remember that changes we see today can be hugely problematic for humans WITHOUT being major deviations from historic oscillations.

And, historic oscillations don't provide evidence that industrial age affects aren't at play in the warming that IS happening.

 

That is not what your side says. Your side says co2 warms or cools all of earth.

That lie is blown out of the proverbial water by the truth of the data....

Greenland froze while North America thawed...

How did .co2 do both at the same time???

Lol...

 

Warming is happening.... On the surface of growing urban areas only.... Because of urban heat sink effect.

Atmosphere, oceans, and undeveloped land are not.... Which is why there is

No breakout in cane activity
No ocean rise
No net ice melt

And hence your side has to lie about islands in the South Pacific near the pacific ring of fire....

 

Lol...

No.

More atmospheric h2o = more humidity clouds and rain all over.

Your explanation is parroting desperate liars trying to say global warming causes both. It does not. Earth was warmer and wetter during Jurassic. That is the data.

Your explanation is on par with the warmer explanation of how Greenland froze while North America thawed... A Sith Lord waved his arm, and all co2 fled Greenland and jumped over to North America....

NICE

 

Data from satellites and balloons...

Co2 went up, atmospheric temperature did nothing....

 

If that were the case, why don't we see the same amounts of rain everywhere now? There are already very dry and very wet parts of the world.

 

No, science says the AVERAGE temperature of the Earth is increasing.

But, the effects of that additional heat are not uniform across the globe.

Some areas will get wetter. Some will get dryer. Some will find that growing seasons, etc. change enough or become less dependable so that agriculture is seriously impacted. Additional heat may power the creation of more hurricanes and typhoons - change that is not so associated with the temperature of the locations where these storms impact humans. The additional heat impacts the behavior of the La Nina and El Nino cycle, with the affected areas not experiencing the same kind of change.

 

LOL.

You really just don't even look at ANYTHING from science, do you.

Think about this: the ocean level can be measured!! Who knew, right??

Ice can be measured, too:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gl...al-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

 

Cooked satellite "data" by Russia Limpboi's official climate denier RoyBoi Spencer!
April 3, 2007

RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

 

Why should we acknowledge that when it is not true?

Climate, like your underwear, does not change all by itself

 

So - where is the Nobel peace prize? I can absolutely guarantee that anyone able to definitively prove that global warming is not happening would not just win a Nobel prize but would get so much funding from the oil and coal industries that they would neve have to work another day in their lives

 

There are a handful of dry places. Sand near the equator stays hot and makes it difficult to form and hold wet clouds. Add more h2o and it would still be drier than Vietnam but it would get more rain and have more humidity and more clouds....

 

Yeah, and data can be fudged, and parroting morons can parrot fudged data over and over and over...

 

Document how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. What data is used. Where did it come from? Is it disproportionately from he surface of growing urban areas?

The raw data has never shown any warming on earth in the atmosphere, the oceans, and undeveloped land, none.

 

Now you are proposing a conspiracy theory.

BUT, you don't have ANY of the elements or methods that could possibly pull off the kind of conspiracy you are claiming.

What do YOU think people should trust:
- your conspiracy theory that has NO explanation and NO foundation
- the scientists gathering data and studying the various fields of climatology that lead them to CLEAR evidence that Earth is warming and the sea IS rising.

You can fix this by citing sources that support your various contentions.

 

Temperature is measured by satellite, by surface stations, by sea measurements, by balloons at various elevations. Measurements are compared. For example, it was significant when satellite measurements first came on-line and confirmed surface measurements.

This is being done by various countries and institutions.

If your contention could be demonstrated, the entire fossil fuel industry would be promoting that with huge dollars.

All you have is your personal conspiracy theory, You don't even cite a source for THAT!!!