Exxon Scientists Predicted Global Warming in 1970’s

Interesting graph. It does not show anything contrary to what I just said. The prior highest peak on the graph, 1100 bc, took about 500 years from midpoint to peak and the graph indicates it was due to lower volcanic activity and solar cycles. The current upcycle has shot up even higher over a period of about 150 years, due to greenhouse gases, and not other causes. It will likely keep going higher.

But we can hope for a super volcano I guess.

I get it, understanding graphs isn’t something you cover in law school, so it’s ok.

 

there were 3 graphs. The first shows no discernible change over the lifetime of the planet. The second shows the planet has become 10° cooler over the last 100 million years and the pretty one shows the normal ups and downs of our planets climate over a shorter period.

In a nutshell the graphs show your cult leader, Al Gore, only got it partially right: there is an inconvenient truth, but it’s the hoax of global warming not the apocalypse.

 

Oh those two places where you held the underline key were graphs? My prior observation on law school graph training is confirmed.

 

when the graph is basically flat, like the first 2 graphs, the point is made by just drawing a straight line and calling it a day. For graph masters like myself, we refer to that in the industry as no seeums…because there is nothing there…like your theorem.

 

This is what happens when lawyers try science.

 

^^ and this is what happens when liberals don’t understand the difference between science and a cult. My facts TRUMP your pseudo religion.

 

1/2 mil years is an arbitrary number.

Climate is measured by an average that is longer than daily or weekly weather (e.g. monthly, yearly, decadal etc. variation).

 

whatever it is you tried to say here at the end, you failed. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

as for the 500,000 years comment, if you have an issue with that number take it up with NASA.

 

I have and NASA doesn't define climate by 500,000 years because that would be an arbitrary number. But it can be measured by 500k years.

Maybe you should take it up with NASA rather than making up your own definition?

By relatively longer, they're saying longer than minutes, days, weeks, or months (though monthly climate variation is a measurement that is sometimes used).

 

nobody said climate is measured by 500,000 years.

please, no apologies…I don’t care that you’re wrong…again.

FYI, by my calculations you are wrong 84.72% of the time. Try harder.

 

Other than that you wrote in post #116 "Looking at temperature variations for anything less than a 1/2 million years at a time is called weather"

What next, going to say 1/2 million years is not the same as 500k years?

 

so, let me see if I understand what you’re saying in this latest post. I re-post my quote from a previous post about a half million years, showing you that I did not say anything close to what you were suggesting, and in your latest response, you post the exact same post that I did, which of course, doesn’t say anything close to what you’re suggesting.
You are now wrong 91.66% of the time. Not good bro.

 

Again, your quote from #116:

1/2 million years=500,000 years.

If looking at variations in earth's temperature at anything less than 1/2 million years is "called weather" then are you not saying that to measure climate you need to do so at a minimum of 500k years?

Yes, that is exactly what you're saying.

And when I referred to 500k and how this was mistaken, you suggested I take it up with NASA. Also nonsense.

But go ahead and keep digging that hole.

 

my God, now you are up to 92.24% wrong. Just when I thought you peaked, you double down on being wrong.

 

What is old is now new again--ships are starting to use sails to supplement fossil fuel power. Cargill transports large amounts of fertilizer and other things around the world on many ships. They have started outfitting their ships with sails which provide as much as 20% of the power the ship uses.

Cargill Tests 123-Foot-Tall Sails in Effort to Slash Fuel Burn

 

Your dishonesty is shameless.

 

He hasn’t made a substantive argument in this thread. It’s 100% smack talk. The greater the level of his ignorance on a topic the greater the smack talk.

 

Don’t blame me, blame Archimedes. I just use my gift to bring Justice to the world.

 

When your brain has been washed of rational thought by propaganda it becomes difficult to grasp truth. It is a slow, but continuous regression. This is why I created a graph for you on the myths of climate change. The data behind the graphs is what is referred to in academia as “substantive”. Studies show that graphs can sometimes help kickstart higher learning. Spend a few moments and review my graphs and accompanying posts. See if that helps. Also, a great supplement for the brain is super beets. You can do this. #hugs.

 

If the left truly believes that Climate Change caused or exacerbated the Hawaiian fires, then the left owns the devastation and deaths. If climate played a role, the left has had decades to take corrective and mitigating action to prevent these fires through land management and preparation. Yet they did nothing!

So either the left is complicit in the death and destruction, or they are now and have always been full of crap.

Hawaii gov agrees climate change 'amplified the cost of human error' on Maui fires