|
By:
its an eclusice club of utter......
TEXAN MUSIC. |
|
By:
ONE TIP:
Take your head out your bum and look at the bigger picture!! TEXAN MUSIC. |
|
By:
But to use 50 years of data is ok.
What a lemming. We already have 10's of thousands years of data. |
|
By:
Moon
You can't see the problem of waiting a million years until we gather more data before acting on the data already gathered. And you have the cheek to rudely say "look at the bigger picture " Do well at University Moon - seems like you must have aced your A levels. |
|
By:
I S
And that data is being used - although have very little data from 20,000 years ago compared to what is currently gathered every year. However what happened 40,000 years ago has very little to do with what has happened in past 100 years. No IS - what do you suggest- we seal up the last 50 years of data - don't bother to look at it, don't bother to use statistics on the data set - instead basically no F- All for the next thousand years . Then we will have a really nice data set to analyse? Nice plan IS - no problem with that plan is there IS. |
|
By:
Where have i stated we need a million years of data?
TEXAN MUSIC |
|
By:
However what happened 40,000 years ago has very little to do with what has happened in past 100 years.
wheres the proof of this? |
|
By:
Mexico is very good at making assumptions.
Rather like these scientists. |
|
By:
You do realise if temperatures rise then there will more moisture in the atmosphere which will lead to more places on the planet being able to grow crops ?
I bet you think camels originated in asia/Africa. |
|
By:
Moon
Are you still saying we should wait a million years before we should look at the data.? The Temperature has been observed to have risen recently, the chemical composition of the atmosphere has been observed to have changed recently, there is are observations at macro & micro levels that there is a cause & effect. Yet those not in the "elite " 99% think we bast wait a million years . |
|
By:
again ill ask the question, where have I said that?
also answer the 21:41 question. |
|
By:
IS
Yes , I actually posted a few hours ago than warmer temperatures will result in more moisture in atmosphere. So not only aware- actually published that established theory. WTF has history/ evolution of a f@@@king camel got to do with the observation that temperature has risen in past 100 years. |
|
By:
Deserts are deserts for a reason which is lack of rain. More moisture in the atmosphere will not change that. Deserts will still be deserts because of where they are located.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall On average, warming is expected to result in dry areas becoming drier and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in mid- and high-latitude areas. (This is not always true over land, however, where the effects of warming are a bit more complex.) |
|
By:
Moon ,
I really really haven't a clue what planet you are on. It is not my fault you failed your exams. There is loads of data regarding temp increases in past 100 years. We have almost no satellite or thermometer data from 40,000 years ago. There is zero evidence tgat events from 40,000 years ago effect what happened in past century. It is not my responsibility to "prove " what happened on Mars 98,000 years ago effects the camel population of Africa . Look at the darts we do have - there isn't any reason to wait a million years before studying the evidence. |
|
By:
dear god.
TEXAN MUSIC. |
|
By:
So more moisture in the atmosphere will lead to no more rain, are you serious ?
If global temperatures rise the temperature rises will affect the north/south peaks of the planet firstly and not mainly the equator, but moisture in the atmosphere will raise overall, resulting in more rain around the equator. Nice weblink, any thoughts of your own, lemming ? |
|
By:
Mars ?
What on earth are you on about. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
these climate activists do harbor a lot of aggression.
has the earths temperature fluctuated over a 100 year period at any other time in its existence? |
|
By:
Deserts are deserts for a reason which is lack of rain. More moisture in the atmosphere will not change that. Deserts will still be deserts because of where they are located.
At a guess you don't even know that the Sahara desert was once a green haven. Why am a lemming ? |
|
By:
MT, I would give up against mexico, he doesn't do common sense, he has one view. clearly he is on a trip that he has been educated or brainwashed, whichever way he sees it.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
yes IS perhaps hes gone to look at the % of accurate data he can view.
TEXAN MUSIC. |
|
By:
I have no idea of the link you gave or have read it.
So you are assuming...…….. |
|
By:
Moon
What does it matter if there has on hasn't been a period in Eart's history when there has been more temperature change than currently recorded? I suspect that when a huge lump of rock smashed into Earth then the temperature changed. So what.?? Are we saying that a 2 C rise in temperature isn't important because 1.5 million years ago there was a bigger change. It just isn't important to events today what unconnected events happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. |
|
By:
can you confirm they are not connected?
|
|
By:
with proper proof not assumption?
have the ice caps melted before? |
|
By:
Moon
I don't think there are any climate activists posting on this forum. So not sure where you are gathering your data about aggression? Pretty small base size- if you understood the basic points of statistics that would concern you. |
|
By:
People like mexico ignore the fact the the global population has doubled since 1970 but thinks co2 is a the major recent factor.
|
|
By:
You said I said that an increase in atmospherics moisture would not lead to more rain. You were wrong.
You said at a guess you don't even know that the Sahara desert was once a green haven. You were wrong. You accused me of being a lemming without reading the link I gave. You were wrong. You're not very good at this. |
|
By:
Almost certainly- I don't study Earth's history over billions of years.
So what if they have melted at some point a few million years ago. Does tgat mean it is good news if sea levels rise 20m. |
|
By:
Moon
I really don't know what you are on about. Are you asking for scientists to prove a negative without any data to help them. They are not even claiming to have "proved" that temp rise is caused by human activity. Their language is short of saying a proven link. |
|
By:
whats all the fuss about then?
|
|
By:
You said I said.
I said that warming would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere that would lead to more rain. FACT The Sahara desert was once green, history has proven this. I did not accuse you of anything, you are a lemming who only has access to twisted data via google, which I find alarming. Good at what, I don't get the question if their was one ? |
|
By:
Get your money on Wanders to win the FA Cup as they were the first team to win it. The fact they don't exist now is irrelevant.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
IS
I have not ignored the increasing population of humans on the planet. The number of humans is relevant to amount of pollution. I am aware that humans use energy, fuel, food etc. |
|
By:
Charlie just name where I have lied, then maybe we can discuss it more.
|
|
By:
Moon
I believe the "fuss" from the younger generation is concern that the planet is warming up & are worried that the older generation are reluctant to do much about it. Hence the "OK boomer" insult. Were you so out of touch that you didn't know "what all the fuss is about "? |
|
By:
yes mexico I am, I dont get too interested in things that are based on pure assumption.
|