Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

I supplied your fellow believer with th link showing you NASA admits 90% of all glaciers are growing.

Click to expand...

You haven't supplied jack shit your links are bogus. You cherry pick your data. Glaciers are created by snow fall. As I stated earlier earth's weather isn't uniform. As the weather changes it increases precipitation in some areas. If a glacier expands in Antarctica it doesn't mean the earth is cooling. And it doesn't help farmers in California. Overall glaciers are retreating far far more then they are expanding.

https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Busted!

If you believe glaciers aren't method why are you arguing that it's good that they're melting? Maybe because you are F.O.S.H. In case you forgot that means Full of Shit!

that makes more energy leak out of the rock it makes less leak into.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating this over and over for some reason. The idea that the greenhouse gasses would refect sunlight back out into space at the same rate it holds the sunlight in. For someone who pretends to be a science expert with a degree at Butthole University you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have a college degree, just a high school education and I can understand this stuff. You think you're smarter then everyone else and nobody has thought of this idea. In fact it's a very simple thing to test and prove or disprove.

Let's say you're growing some ganja. Yamaha hasn't grown ganja so he won't understand this. You decide to release some CO2 gas to increase the plants' growth rate. Do your grow lights have difficulty penetrating the CO2? No. Sunlight easily penetrates it.

But unless you have a bunch of light reflectors, something like mirrors or snow to reflect the light back up towards the plants and the grow light. The containers, plants, and ground between the containers will absorb the light energy. You can touch them and feel they are warm.

So the ground and the oceans absorb the energy and radiate it back into the atmosphere. And some of it bleeds back out into space. Most of the atmosphere is made up of simple molecules like Nitrogen and Oxygen. These molecules only have two atoms which are tightly bound together. This structure cannot hold much heat so the radiation easily passes their simple structure and radiates off into space.

Greenhouse gasses are different. They have complex molecules made of 3 or more atoms that absorb heat and keep it in the environment. This is very easy to test and prove or disprove. In fact it was tested and proved a long time ago. In fact this is the reason they are called Greenhouse Gasses. It is not faith or magical gassiness or Yamaha's farts or whatever other bullshit he bandies about.

When global warming was just a theory humans discovered Venus. Venus has massive amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and other similar stuff in it's atmosphere. The planet is covered in clouds of sulfuric acid. Venus is almost the same size as earth but the surface temperature is 467 degrees C. When scientists figured out this was caused by CO2 and it's family of gasses they called them greenhouse gasses. Before they figured out that there was a similar effect happening on earth.

Here is a link to a site that explains this stuff.

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

Click to expand...

Of course Yamaha will write pages of crap saying how this is wrong with no links or evidence using science, just the nonsense that pours out of his deranged mind. He still hasn't proven that biodiversity increases during a thermal maximum, or that glaciers melting is good.

More whining, crying and cursing from the name callers' brigade.

It's NASA's paper. Squeal about the burn to them not me.

therevverend said:

You haven't supplied jack shit your links are bogus. You cherry pick your data. Glaciers are created by snow fall. As I stated earlier earth's weather isn't uniform. As the weather changes it increases precipitation in some areas. If a glacier expands in Antarctica it doesn't mean the earth is cooling. And it doesn't help farmers in California. Overall glaciers are retreating far far more then they are expanding.

https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Busted!

If you believe glaciers aren't method why are you arguing that it's good that they're melting? Maybe because you are F.O.S.H. In case you forgot that means Full of Shit!

Click to expand...

You're beside yourself with religious fervor. You're asking questions that don't really have any basis in adult ration. It's a warm period with low ice and that's good. If you don't like it, too bad.

You argue for your own hilarious beliefs, and I'll show you what I know about the planet.

If you thought you had a point you wouldn't be having fits. Would you.

Would you.

Now. The planet's base climate values were first resolved and published by the French, in 1864.

These values were checked by millions upon millions of temperature records generated between 1864 and 1952 when the entire planet agreed that

the climate isn't changing and that

we can warranty and calibrate our instruments against those same values first discovered and published by the French.

Those data were updated by the Americans in '76,

extending these data upward another couple of hundred thousand feet, in order to help the countries of the world entering the field of orbital flight.

America's computerized and updated American Standard Atmosphere,

and more particularly the International Standard Atmosphere,

are critical to management of this space age buzzing about, because accurate temperature readings are required to give accurate density calculations. Density or rho, is a critical element of flight parameters and space ages can't be calibrated and flown, without accurate standards.

So there goes your ''we calculate the temperature of the planet 33 degrees off but we think the space age is flying around calibrated on faked measurements so it looks like climate isn't changing.''

It's ridiculous on it's face but then again, so is ''Pot's like Heroin and makes you crazier than being strung out on Meth,''

and Court systems and Academic systems, the American Medical Association, all agree it's true.

You need to contact NASA and tell them 90% of the world's glaciers aren't growing, it's their paper.

Stop being an embarrassment Reverend.

The very first step of resolution of the temperature of this planet is removing what doesn't warm it.

What doesn't warm it is 29% of otherwise available warming firelight energy from the Sun.

When your handlers tell you the very same gases making 29% less energy go into a rock,

make more than 100% come out, they just violated the most fundamental of principles: more energy can never leak out of an object less energy leaked into, because less leaked into it.

You believe that can happen, even when someone reminds you repeatedly if someone EVER tells you 29% less energy went into a rock,

the very first INSTANT they tell you more than 29% less came out,

it's

over

for their bullshoot being anything but fraud. You're gonna deal with it however you will, but deal with that underlying law in thermodynamics you will.

Less energy in,
always means
less energy out.

therevverend said:

You keep repeating this over and over for some reason. The idea that the greenhouse gasses would refect sunlight back out into space at the same rate it holds the sunlight in. For someone who pretends to be a science expert with a degree at Butthole University you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have a college degree, just a high school education and I can understand this stuff. You think you're smarter then everyone else and nobody has thought of this idea. In fact it's a very simple thing to test and prove or disprove.

Let's say you're growing some ganja. Yamaha hasn't grown ganja so he won't understand this. You decide to release some CO2 gas to increase the plants' growth rate. Do your grow lights have difficulty penetrating the CO2? No. Sunlight easily penetrates it.

But unless you have a bunch of light reflectors, something like mirrors or snow to reflect the light back up towards the plants and the grow light. The containers, plants, and ground between the containers will absorb the light energy. You can touch them and feel they are warm.

So the ground and the oceans absorb the energy and radiate it back into the atmosphere. And some of it bleeds back out into space. Most of the atmosphere is made up of simple molecules like Nitrogen and Oxygen. These molecules only have two atoms which are tightly bound together. This structure cannot hold much heat so the radiation easily passes their simple structure and radiates off into space.

Greenhouse gasses are different. They have complex molecules made of 3 or more atoms that absorb heat and keep it in the environment. This is very easy to test and prove or disprove. In fact it was tested and proved a long time ago. In fact this is the reason they are called Greenhouse Gasses. It is not faith or magical gassiness or Yamaha's farts or whatever other bullshit he bandies about.

When global warming was just a theory humans discovered Venus. Venus has massive amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and other similar stuff in it's atmosphere. The planet is covered in clouds of sulfuric acid. Venus is almost the same size as earth but the surface temperature is 467 degrees C. When scientists figured out this was caused by CO2 and it's family of gasses they called them greenhouse gasses. Before they figured out that there was a similar effect happening on earth.

Here is a link to a site that explains this stuff.



Of course Yamaha will write pages of crap saying how this is wrong with no links or evidence using science, just the nonsense that pours out of his deranged mind. He still hasn't proven that biodiversity increases during a thermal maximum, or that glaciers melting is good.

Click to expand...

You're also completely wrong about the laws of physics not working right one planet over on Venus.

We used standard calculations,

and we landed 13 craft there called the VENERA series.

We have sent more than 25 craft to Venus and of the 25 which were

part of the actual 25 Venera related flights, again, Mr fervently believes more comes out, every time less goes in,

we landed, 13 on the surface.

We know if there is anything unusual there and there's no where to hide about it for you

because it was originally, mainly, a Russian program. We just helped them with them.

We did all of them together and if one single syllable of your illucid beliefs about the laws of physics being different on Venus or Earth

were true,

they would be let slip by either the Russians or the Americans.

Particularly the leaders of your fake movement.

They'd be trotting out that Venera data like it was a $1500.00 lap dog with a silk bow.

Don't try to TELL me,
don't try to TELL these people,
that both the Americans and the Russians are hiding that there is a magical gassiness on Venus, that makes it hotter than properly calculated temperatures predict,

we

landed

13 craft there.


Do you SEE anything about ''We dun discovered a magical gaissiness ''SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES'' of Wikipedia's little article on them?

Why not? Who's broken into Wikipedia and wiped out all knowledge of the magicall gassiness the 29 craft we've sent past or directly set on the surface of Venus, were desperately trying to reveal to humanity, but ''dark illuminati'' just whisked all that data away to - where, reverend?

Do you see,
any mention
of there being special gas law related discoveries

from the TWENTY FIVE CRAFT that the Americans and Russians sent there TOGETHER?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera#Scientific_findings

There's the section: scientific findings.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/venera.html

Nasa's got the news about the magical gassiness but they're hiding it from you due to dark illuminati?

Here's the Wikipedia page for Venera missions in case you start cursing and screeching they're fake, too.

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

And here's the web page proving we have in fact been there and that everybody knows it.

Go through there and show us the part where someone starts talking about how the magical gassiness makes it hundreds of degrees hotter than calculated.

LoL Nah not really, actually because CO2 has a lower energy density than Air, it's got a lower Energy Constant. When you add it to air it cools it and Venus' temperature is actually several dozen degrees cooler than it would be if Earth-class atmosphere were there on Venus.

I already showed you the only chart in the world assigning both CO2 and Air their energy constants, it's called the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases. It's the one with subchart R there, which

names CO2
and
names Air,
and assigns CO2 the lower energy constant.

That chart's part II of the law used to calculate the temperature of gases and the Atmosphere and it's name is the Ideal Gas Law.

Oh here's the proof I'm not making up the fact we know whether there's a magical gassiness on Venus.

Scores of pages of google links admitting that of course we know what is going on in the Atmosphere of Venus,

between the Americans and Russians and together there have been something like 29 missions sent there.

And again we have set 13 craft down on the planet.

We'd know of atmospheric conditions were different than the laws we used to fly there and land, and these data would be published.

You'll not that's not true because - that never happened. The laws of physics aren't different, one planet over on Venus.

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

Go to John KooK's Skeptical Signts and ask him to dig up that stunning data about the magical gassiness the Venera probes reveal.

And watch the silence get so loud the hair stands up on your arms as you realize uh oH, I believed people who comprise what's called ''The Sewer of Science''

who told me every time the GHGs make less light reach the Earth,
because they're the ones that made it not go in,
it made more and more come out.
Every time less went in.

Go look on NASA's Energy Budget page.

You don't believe their data abut 90% of the world's glaciers growing so maybe you're gonna say they're lying about that too, but then that's what I say.

They tell you in one paragraph the Atmosphere makes 29% less energy reach the planet and that it's got to account for 71%.

A few paragraphs later they declare that the gases making about 23% less come in as part of that 29 that never goes in,

more than 100% comes out: there's more energy coming out of the Earth than 100% of sunlight, because of the gases that stopped it from ever going in.

Here's their page I don't know why you can't simply go find it yourself but it's on all their webpages about the magical gassiness that makes more energy come out because it made less go in.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance

Halfway down the page, there it is: "About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system.

About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and

48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface.

Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system."

Thats your handlers confessing they can't hide that. 71% of sunlight energy is absorbed by the Earth System.

Now go on down a little farther, ostensibly keeping your mouth guard in so you don't chip a tooth in your fervor,

and look where they tell you clearly:

"Effect on Surface Temperature


The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere."

It's your story, you explain how 29% less going in

makes more than 100% come out.

When you get through calling names, Reverend, explain to me how 29% less in, makes the planet warmer than if there were no atmosphere at all, till it's 33 degrees hotter than if it received 100% sunlight.

Start out with ''First, 29% less energy comes in''

and wind up with ''and that's how the very gases making 29% less go in, are making so much more come out, it's 33 degrees warmer than if 100% went in. "

Or something like that. Just put it in your own words. "Every time less goes in, more comes out. When there were no GHGs the planet received 100% sunight and was that warm. But every time the GHGs rose, less and less light went into and warmed the Earth. Today with GHG levels at what they are, they make the majority of 29% not go in,

and

so much less light has entered the planet that with only 71% of sunlight energy going in,
way more than 100% is coming out. And it's because of these gases not letting as much go in.
If we put more of these gases into the atmosphere,
making even less light reach and warm the planet,
it will make even more light come back out of the planet.''

Just explain it however you think you can make the average person understand how making less go in makes more come out.

Seriously I had time today because I wasn't doing anything so I'm able to keep up with your spam. But I've been hovering around my computer all day. This must be a full time job for you sitting around the internet spamming your bullshit about climate change.

The planet's base climate values were first resolved and published by the French, in 1864.

These values were checked by millions upon millions of temperature records generated between 1864 and 1952 when the entire planet agreed that

Click to expand...

You're citing works you don't provide links to from 1864. And from 1952. Weak.

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Is this necessary? Do you ever take a day or two off? You made your points which are:

1. The sun's energy hits the earth and bounces back into space. This is wrong.

2. Hot climates are better then cool climates. The world would be a better place if it was hot all the time. There is more biodiversity when it is hot. Glaciers are bad because they are cold. This is wrong.

3. There more ice globally accumulating then melting. Worldwide glaciers are expanding. This is wrong.

This is your argument. You keep posting over and over saying the same thing dozens of times. It is spam. You made your point.

It's ridiculous on it's face but then again, so is ''Pot's like Heroin and makes you crazier than being strung out on Meth,''

Click to expand...

You keep bandying this about. It has nothing to do with climate change. There are no citations or links. Are you quoting someone? Who? Are you quoting a scientific paper or a specific politician? If you cannot do this you are full of shit. You made it up.

Science has understood the effects of opiates for a long time. Physical addiction is well understood. There are no scientific papers saying cannabis is as addictive as heroin.

I'm assuming you're alluding to 'Reefer madness' and the Movement by the Hearst newspapers and politicians like Henry Anslinger to link cannabis to Mexicans and Blacks in the 1930s? Or Richard Nixon and other politicians in the 1970s who were demonizing cannabis as part of their campaign against The New Left? And the DEA making cannabis a Schedule 1 drug with no medical value along with heroin, LSD, etc.

The only link between this and climate change is attempts by politicians and corporations to change public opinion by ignoring scientific data. Here's a link to an article you may find interesting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/

To quote from the article:

'Disgraced Attorney General John Mitchell of the Nixon administration placed marijuana in this category in 1972 as part of the ranking or “scheduling” of all drugs under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Cannabis has been there ever since. “As of today, marijuana has never been determined to be medicine,” says Russ Baer, staff coordinator in the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at the DEA. “There’s no safe, effective medical use, and a high abuse potential, and it can’t be used in medical settings.” This determination has come to be insulated by a byzantine, Kafkaesque bureaucratic process now impervious to the opinion of the majority of U.S. doctors—and to a vast body of scientific knowledge—many experts say.'

So the same science that says climate change is happening are also disagreeing with the DEA's stance on cannabis staying a Schedule 1 drug. Another quote:

'Marijuana’s placement in Schedule I did not happen in a vacuum, historians note. Overt racism, combined with New Deal reforms and bureaucratic self-interest are often blamed for the first round of federal cannabis prohibition under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which restricted possession to those who paid a steep tax for a limited set of medical and industrial applications. (Cannabis was removed from the official U.S. Pharmacopeia in 1942.) “In segregated America newspapers were saying, ‘this stuff makes white women and black men have sex,’” notes historian Martin Lee, author of Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana.
The American Medical Association initially opposed prohibition. Cannabis was medically useful, says William Woodward, association counsel. “Congress being what it was at the time, you could ram things through just by bullshitting,” Lee adds. “Who’s going to be stepping up to the plate [in 1937] to defend a drug that blacks, Latinos and jazz musicians use?”'

In 1937 doctors opposed cannabis being made illegals. But congress rammed the legislation through by bullshitting. Reminds me of you Yamaha.

So there is a link here! People like you, along with the wealthy oil corporations deny science and use bullshit arguments the same way wealthy corporations and politicians denied that marijuana had medical value.

There's a misconception I'd like to correct you see a lot in discussions of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug. You see it here in this article as well. Because heroin is a Schedule 1 drug it's logical to think that because marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug it's 'just as dangerous'. This is not how Schedule 1 drugs work.

There is a variety of drugs classified as Schedule 1 with varying effects and uses and dangers. Peyote is also a Schedule 1 drug, as is Ecstasy, psilocybin, and quaaludes. No one says 'Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug the government is saying it's just as dangerous as psilocybin'.

Drugs are classified as Schedule 1 because the DEA claims they have no medical value and pose a high risk for abuse. It has nothing to do with ranking as dangerous or non-dangerous.

I think I'm through with you Yamaha you haven't proven any of your points and I'm not interested in arguing with you about your weirdo paranoid crank shit. I don't think there's anything more you or I have to add here for now. You will now be classified as Schedule M which means: A Moron who brings nothing to a discussion on climate change and who is Full of Shit.

I said I was done here but this nut writes up several posts in the time it takes a sane person to write one. What the fuck is this?

You're also completely wrong about the laws of physics not working right one planet over on Venus.

Click to expand...

I don't remember ever discussing the laws of physics. Or talking about how they work on Venus where the laws of physics are the same as on earth. You are a serious nut job dude. Take your medications!

You probably thought the Atmosphere is transparent to incoming sunlight because frauds told you that. And that it's the infrared that can't get out, that's making more come out every time less goes in. That there's not very much infrared in sunlight.

Nope, the vast majority of what those cooling GHGs don't let in, is infrared in spectra like Earth's own. In fact you can see Carbon Dioxide there participating in that cooling, in all the charts showing you the truth about the scam.

They're called "Sunlight Top of Atmosphere vs Mean Sea Level."

They show you clearly just as NASA informs you on their own page called 'N.A.S.A. Earth Energy Budget' that the VAST majority of all that cooling is done by the GHGs.

NASA's Energy Budget Page clearly tells you this.

This is also what's shown on all those charts, Top of Atmosphere vs @mean Sea Level.

You've seen them, you were shrieking they were fake, too. NASA admitting the Atmosphere cooling the planet 29%, they're lying,

but when a few paragraphs later they tell you making 29% less energy go in made more come out, and that if the gases make even less energy come in they'll cause even more to come out, that makes sense.

https://goo.gl/2KMwvQ Which gases do all these charts show predominating in that 29% cooling? Here's a hint. The cooling GHGs.

In the NASA budget page which gases do they list creating 23% less energy in, of the 29%? The main green house gas and 'some other gases' like the CO2 shown you on the charts.

Whenever you have answers for how making that 29% less go in, makes anything but 29% less go out please explain it with a little hand drawn chart or something.

Also explain how it's not again - Reverend - a violation of Conservation of Energy for someone to tell you magical insulation making 29% less energy into a rock is creating more than 100% - and by a large margin, - come out.

And remember the entire time you have your hands hovering over the keyboard that - this story comes from the identical people who have the American Medical Association agreeing that pot's a dangerous drug, a gateway to opioids so we better all git own us some opioids.

Don't pretend that the very scale of it makes you find it difficult to believe. Obviously when you have to sign in here, encrypted because most of the world lives on the run from a giant, global chemistry scam called ''Pot's a gateway to Opioids so we awl gotta git own us summa thim opioids!. Yaw.''

Uhm, no it's not a gateway to opioids and no we don't awl have two git own us summa thim opioids, because I said so. Ok because reality said so.

Reality also said there's no such thing as insulation making 29% less light leak into a rock, cause more than 100% to come leaking back out. There's just not.

We know the temperature of the Atmosphere and it oddly doesn't jibe with the fake temperature for the planet given you by the people of the magical gassiness.

You're just ludicrous with your claims 29% of sunlight isn't reflected back to space.

This is NASA's image on the page I linked you to.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/reflected_radiation.jpg

You're simply acting like you've lost control of your senses. You've been shown several different peoples' work telling you the Atmosphere lets 29% less energy warm the planet.

Here's another couple of charts showing this clearly, your handlers can't lie about that because all the sciences, particularly the flight sciences, know all these facts like the backs of their hands.

https://goo.gl/LVtM1a

therevverend said:

I said I was done here but this nut writes up several posts in the time it takes a sane person to write one. What the fuck is this?



I don't remember ever discussing the laws of physics. Or talking about how they work on Venus where the laws of physics are the same as on earth. You are a serious nut job dude. Take your medications!

Click to expand...

You are doing a really wonderful job here today bro! Wish i could give you more rep!

LoL.

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=optimum+define&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

1G12 said:

You are doing a really wonderful job here today bro! Wish i could give you more rep!

Click to expand...

Word Origin & History
1879, from Latin optimum, neuter singular of optimus "best" (used as a superlative of bonus "good"), probably related to ops "power, resources" (in which case the evolution is from "richest" to "the most esteemed," thus from PIE root *op- "to work") or to ob "in front of," with superlative suffix *-tumos.

Originally in biology, in reference to "conditions most favorable" (for growth, etc.). As an adjective from 1885.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/optimum

For days he's been in here squealing that ''Optimum" doesn't refer to the best biological conditions possible.

I've let it go on for days, because I knew what it meant, and why the term was invented: to describe the very best biological conditions

possible, and that in fact the word was first coined in English, in relation to these warm periods.

And that his insane shrieking of course was going to splatter like a bird hitting a brick wall the first tim I simply typed ''Optimum define.''

I did ONE single search for ''Optimum define.''

He's been in here squealing and swearing for days. Cursing and squealing like some sort of insane person, for days: about something that all he had to do was type the word one time.

Instead he's postured and contorted and slobbered and screamed, all to find out he couldn't have been more wrong.

The word was I.N.V.E.N.T.E.D. as DEFINITION for the VERY BEST BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS POSSIBLE: For PLANTS and ANIMALS.

The reason I know about it is because when I was a kid I did dozens of papers on every aspect of Environment, Environmental Chemistry, Biological Chemistry and Paleo-environmental studies, when I was working in my mother and fathers' fish and animals breeding businesses.

I went to school for the most difficult courses and worked professionally breeding and conserving fish and animals from around the world, when I took off school half time through almost three grades, about two and a half.

One of the main things driving Evolution forward at a very high rate in the 1800s was the invention of the hydraulic mining jet.

Men would pull water from a river and using a steam engine they cut wood for, along the river, they'd jet water in enormous - TRULY enormous streams against exposed banks.

What this meant was that for the very first time in human history, in just a couple of hours men could have more freshly revealed cut-away sub strata than any particular scientist would see in a decade or more.

People had to wait for the land to break open just right so they could see finally the way everything had lain, over a rather large area.

The men who drove a lot of this evolution forward were actually plant specialists like we are who grow pot. Botanists drove MUCH of evolution forward in these days. It definitely bears repeating because there's a reason the world reveres good botanists.

They had all the necessary psychological profiles and training, - and often the leisure or drive - to travel the world and investigate rumored discoveries and events.

It became very swiftly clear although obviously not nearly as clear as today, that much of Earth's time was spent in very low plant & animal population density periods and they figured out that it was ice, driving the biology out.

They looked around for a term and since these sorts of terms are supposed to be properly invoked Latin, they named the periods where there WAS a lot of biology - again, by far the vast majority of what was found this way was plant related material, so these investigative fields drew a lot of botany-interested researchers -

they named the periods when particularly the pollen, and other more obvious plant counts went up because it was known obviously that many animals live well in the cold: but the types of plants found were obviously the kind that grew in warm weather.

Neither the word optimum nor optimal were in widespread usage at the time and in fact, whenever they encountered these ''one-off'' warm periods, the term ''optimum''

meant exactly what they coined the word to mean. A warm time, and particularly, a time suitable for a whole lotta plant life, which then in turn obviously would support animals too.

Because one thing they learned was that there was a L O T of this plant life. hundreds of meters thick. The animals were there too but THE REASON

these periods were named Optima

was because of the PRoDiGiOUS amounts of PLANT life they found, - and again plant life OBVIOUSLY - of the warm-weather varieties.

Welcome to the forum do you have something you'd like to talk about related to the North Pole and the way it looks lately?

That's the topic of the thread. I've informed these people it looks great; and that for practical purposes we're in what's known to be a mild climate optimum: low ice and high temperatures with a wide diversity of life globally due to that warmth and general lack of ice.

This isn't a very warm optimum we're in and is really only defined as such because it's well known life exists almost, globally.

Antarctica is of course at near record ice levels in recent history but it shows little sign of spreading further;

particularly with global base climate values rock solid.

When the ice starts growing, the critters stall out. And when the critters stall out it's because the plants stall out and there's no escaping it.

It's over. Glaciation is beginning and it's gonna be a cold dark f***n winter, bet your new-to-here,

best fur mittens.

ForumGod said:

@ yamaha im not really into that. outta all those post i dislike yours the most for how you reversed the information. does not matter the topic. im not staying around till the end for that and you should pick one first. instead of typing it twice. that your naturally saying it twice is a problem.

Click to expand...

Would you like to add insights or maybe information to the discussion?

Feel free to pitch in whatever and whenever you like but remember: a conversation is more than simply skirting the issue every time someone asks you something about your belief in a particular element of it: so don't be surprised if someone expects you to be able to discuss it,

and emphasize the more important parts somehow.

That way if people just skip over what you say, you can say ''I mentioned it twice in the post above and you hid from it because you don't have answers. Please answer my question.''

That's why the conversations get skewed in literary style ForumGod, it's debate, and debate has a set of tools of it's own.

You become well-versed in the issues
and you begin to be able to arrange your usage of the words
so your position as being opposite the other person's, is highlighted. Okay? That's what you're seeing going on, debate.

As opposed to simple information sharing, which obviously doesn't have the same dynamics: people's reasons for talking together are way different.

Matter of fact FG, one of the kinda marks of the non self-aware person is they hang around people using words and making funny jokes about what others say,and they get into a thread, see someone say something wrong and they just launch,

like a bass hitting a little garter snake on top of the water.
This is like... as bad as it gets.

It gets kinda rough. And particularly sometimes people just treat you, rougher than you deserve to be treated.

Fret not. We tried doing it hand to hand, spear to spear, war elephant to Legions, and lots less people die arguing on the internet.

Peace.

Don't be daunted by these arguing people, either. A lot of people here are still left in, or over from the era of fist fighting over pot being like heroin, spitting on cops and cursing them out, fighting and losing all they ever had or wanted, just for the simple truth

that pot's not like Heroin and no, it's not better for you to get a methamphetamine habit. They're f**g murderous fraud barking liars. Just like they seem to be.

You're kinda among the people who found the world with no states having legal pot

who systematically f***d with and out-argued the world's most powerful, far reaching and glorious empireS. SEVERAL of them.

At ONCE.

They didn't like f***n with us much either. So... you've made your bed with outlaws and freedom fighters.

Bear it in mind buddy and welcome.

You really need to get over yourself homie....

We're workin the muthaf**as on this FAKE drug WAR ForumGod.

If we get a little testy it's the helicopters flyin over our houses. They put out on the news that it's us they're lookin for, so..

How many people in Western Civilization have black helicopters flying around over their houses because their neighbors have been so brainwashed

that as they sit there addicted to opioids,

they're snitching their neighbors out because pot's a gateway to opioids,

so we all gotta quit using pot, and get on opioids?

LoL...


ForumGod you're dealing with the people that stood up to that lie. THE ones.

The ones of us that are still alive.

It's a thought about why we seem to get so upset about everything. It takes strong people to do that shit.

So seriously man... take very _blankin_ little of it, personal.

You're hilarious, I gave you a thumbs up.

Ignignokt said:

You really need to get over yourself homie....

Click to expand...

The other day wasn't it you I saw layin the line down about the war on people over pot?

I was like 'WuhL HeLL YeAH," I did a couple of thank yous.

War over pot? Not me.

looks like the thread has an infestation of trollbots
hmm, suppose that's a compliment of sorts, thread has attracted attention from those that create such things
back to climate news, the latest from the IPCC via cnn



Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn

By Brandon Miller and Jay Croft, CNN
Updated 4:18 AM ET, Mon October 8, 2018


(CNN)Governments around the world must take "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society" to avoid disastrous levels of global warming, says a stark new report from the global scientific authority on climate change.

The report issued Monday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.
The date, which falls well within the lifetime of many people alive today, is based on current levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree C. Avoiding going even higher will require significant action in the next few years.
"This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.
Global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" around 2050 in order to keep the warming around 1.5 degrees C.
Lowering emissions to this degree, while technically possible, would require widespread changes in energy, industry, buildings, transportation and cities, the report says.
"The window on keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees C is closing rapidly and the current emissions pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement do not add up to us achieving that goal," added King.
Consequences of past inaction

The report makes it clear that climate change is already happening -- and what comes next could be even worse, unless urgent international political action is taken.
"One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1 degree C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes," said Panmao Zhai, co-chair of IPCC Working Group I.
Even if warming is kept at or just below 1.5 degrees C, the impacts will be widespread and significant.
Temperatures during summer heatwaves, such as those just experienced across Europe this summer, can be expected to increase by 3 degrees C says the report.
More frequent or intense droughts, such as the one that nearly ran the taps dry in Cape Town, South Africa, as well as more frequent extreme rainfall events such as hurricanes Harvey and Florence in the United States, are also pointed to as expectations as we reach the warming threshold.
Coral reefs will also be drastically effected, with between 70 and 90% expected to die off, including Australia's Great Barrier Reef.
Countries in the southern hemisphere will be among the worse off, the report said, "projected to experience the largest impacts on economic growth due to climate change should global warming increase."
The report underlines how even the smallest increase in the base target would worsen the impact of recent natural disasters.
"Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5 degrees C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems," said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
The report cites specific examples of how impacts of global warming would be lessened with the 1.5 degrees C increase, compared to the 2 degrees C increase:

• Global sea levels would rise 10 cm lower by 2100.
• The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century, instead of at least once per decade.
• Coral reefs would decline by 70% to 90% instead of being almost completely wiped out.

Special Report: What it's like at the ground zero of climate change
This chart from the IPCC shows how global temperatures would respond to a sudden and drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Even with immediate action, global temps will still overshoot the goal, but could reduce back to the target over time.




'Possible with the laws of chemistry and physics'


Monday's report is three years in the making and is a direct result of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. In the Paris accord, 197 countries agreed to the goal of holding global temperatures "well below" 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C.
The United States was initially in the agreement, but President Donald Trump pulled the country out a year and half later, claiming it was unfair to the country.
To limit global warming to 1.5 degree C is "possible within the laws of chemistry and physics," said Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III. "But doing so would require unprecedented changes."
"International cooperation is absolutely imperative to limit emissions and therefore global warming and its impacts, as well as coordinating effective and widespread adaptation and mitigation," said Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a fellow at the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales. "The next few years will be critical in the evolution of these efforts."
One key issue will be negative emissions, large scale carbon-scrubbing technologies that can reduce the amount in the atmosphere and act to counter continued pollution.
According to the report, there are two main ways of removing carbon from the atmosphere: increasing natural processes that already do this, and experimental carbon storage or removal technologies.
However, all methods "are at different stages of development and some are more conceptual than others, as they have not been tested at scale," the report warned.
They will also require considerable political engagement globally, as will reducing the amount of carbon being emitted. Despite the report's dire warnings, there is no indication such cooperation will be doable, particularly given the Trump administration's stance on this issue.
"Today the world's leading scientific experts collectively reinforced what mother nature has made clear -- that we need to undergo an urgent and rapid transformation to a global clean energy economy," former US Vice President Al Gore said.
"Unfortunately, the Trump administration has become a rogue outlier in its shortsighted attempt to prop up the dirty fossil fuel industries of the past. The administration is in direct conflict with American businesses, states, cities and citizens leading the transformation."

i wonder how normal people dealt with morons before "ignore" was an option ???