A 1 degree rise in global temperatures causes a 7% increases in water vapour in the atmosphere and we all know what that leads to !

My prediction is that nothing properly will be done about GHG emissions until it is too late and then the brain dead rightards will start blaming everyone else except themselves. As long as they can keep their fake oily economies going by flogging coal and fossil fools to the gullible punters for their energy needs then they are happy :(

What needs to happen to all rightards before they get the message. A regular 6-10 feet dose of faecial contaminated water flowing through their house and ruining all of their belongings !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uOk3erdEWs&t=8s

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

A 1 degree rise in global temperatures causes a 7% increases in water vapour in the atmosphere

What is the start temperature? Or don't you think it matters? ;)

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:50am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:29am: A 1 degree rise in global temperatures causes a 7% increases in water vapour in the atmosphere What is the start temperature? Or don't you think it matters? ;)

It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet !

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:53am:

It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet !

So how did they determine it?

So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental?

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 12:06pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:53am: It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet ! So how did they determine it? So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental?

Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles ;)

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I'm not interested in this tit for tat bullsh.t debate that you denialists always engage in. You can't expect to set fire to all of the fossil fools in the period of a couple of hundred years that has taken nature tens of millions of years to sequester and then expect absolutely no consequences !! That is essentially your perverted argument. "AGW doesn't exist so we can feel good about setting fire to the remaining reserves of fossil fools on the planet and carry on with our fake economies."

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:06pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:53am: It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet ! So how did they determine it? So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental? Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles ;) https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php I'm not interested in this tit for tat bullsh.t debate that you denialists always engage in. You can't expect to set fire to all of the fossil fools in the period of a couple of hundred years that has taken nature tens of millions of years to sequester and then expect absolutely no consequences !! That is essentially your perverted argument. "AGW doesn't exist so we can feel good about setting fire to the remaining reserves of fossil fools on the planet and carry on with our fake economies."

If you're that worried sir lastnail I would advise you to go back through our climate history so you can see how atmospheric CO2 and temperature interact with each other.

All will be revealed, all you need to do is look into the past to understand the future...... ;)

Ajax wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:46pm: lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:06pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:53am: It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet ! So how did they determine it? So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental? Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles ;) https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php I'm not interested in this tit for tat bullsh.t debate that you denialists always engage in. You can't expect to set fire to all of the fossil fools in the period of a couple of hundred years that has taken nature tens of millions of years to sequester and then expect absolutely no consequences !! That is essentially your perverted argument. "AGW doesn't exist so we can feel good about setting fire to the remaining reserves of fossil fools on the planet and carry on with our fake economies." If you're that worried sir lastnail I would advise you to go back through our climate history so you can see how atmospheric CO2 and temperature interact with each other. All will be revealed, all you need to do is look into the past to understand the future...... ;)

That's all been debunked time and time again >:( Instead of using denial as an excuse to do nothing except make yourselves feel better what are you lot going to do about f..king up the planet with your polluting muck out of the ground ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 5:26pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:52pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:46pm: lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:06pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:53am: It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet ! So how did they determine it? So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental? Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles ;) https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php I'm not interested in this tit for tat bullsh.t debate that you denialists always engage in. You can't expect to set fire to all of the fossil fools in the period of a couple of hundred years that has taken nature tens of millions of years to sequester and then expect absolutely no consequences !! That is essentially your perverted argument. "AGW doesn't exist so we can feel good about setting fire to the remaining reserves of fossil fools on the planet and carry on with our fake economies." If you're that worried sir lastnail I would advise you to go back through our climate history so you can see how atmospheric CO2 and temperature interact with each other. All will be revealed, all you need to do is look into the past to understand the future...... ;) That's all been debunked time and time again >:( Instead of using denial as an excuse to do nothing except make yourselves feel better what are you lot going to do about f..king up the planet with your polluting muck out of the ground ?

Well then how about leading the way.

Get out of your home and go live in some cave in the mountains, while Al Gore burns more electricity than the city of Melbourne.

If that's what float your boat be my guest...... :-*

Quote:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, small electric appliances, home and work place air- conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable .…  A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental damaging consumption patterns.” Maurice Strong who spearheaded the 1991 Rio Earth Summit wrote in the U.N.’s Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED) report "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme "If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine

Maurice saviour of the world
http://i67.tinypic.com/nn41uf.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GykzQWlXJs

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles Wink https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

oh dear. SKS? ;D ;D

36      "Polar bear numbers are increasing"      Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.

"What is causing the death of the polar bear as a climate change icon? Fat bears are part of it, but mostly it’s the fact that polar bear numbers haven’t declined as predicted.

Western Hudson Bay polar bears around Churchill, Manitoba appear mostly in good shape this summer despite the very late freeze-up last fall, including the very fat bear caught on camera below (see more great pictures here):"

"Not only have we been seeing pictures of fat bears rather than starving bears in recent years but there are lots of them, in Western Hudson Bay and other seasonal sea ice regions where there should be none (if the models had been correct). No wonder polar bears are falling out of favour as an icon for catastrophic human-caused global warming."

"But none of these apologists acknowledge the simple truth: the models that  predicted catastrophe for polar bears due to diminished summer sea ice turned out to be wrong. The sea ice declined but polar bears flourished. Polar bears in seasonal sea ice ecoregions like Western Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay didn’t die off due to climate change as people were told would happen — why should they believe any of the other scare stories?"

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/08/23/fat-polar-bears-and-lots-of-them-drive-public-confidence-in-future-of-the-species/

I can't be bothered debunking the rest. Believe what you want.

Ajax wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:46pm: lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:06pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:53am: It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet ! So how did they determine it? So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental? Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles ;) https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php I'm not interested in this tit for tat bullsh.t debate that you denialists always engage in. You can't expect to set fire to all of the fossil fools in the period of a couple of hundred years that has taken nature tens of millions of years to sequester and then expect absolutely no consequences !! That is essentially your perverted argument. "AGW doesn't exist so we can feel good about setting fire to the remaining reserves of fossil fools on the planet and carry on with our fake economies." If you're that worried sir lastnail I would advise you to go back through our climate history so you can see how atmospheric CO2 and temperature interact with each other. All will be revealed, all you need to do is look into the past to understand the future...... ;)

Are you saying climate history was only dependant on two variables?

You are a dead set con-artist brother!!

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

Are you saying climate history was only dependant on two variables?

Better than the IPCC, SKS and others, who insist it is one.

Ajax wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 5:26pm: Ajax wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:52pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:46pm: lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:06pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:53am: It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet ! So how did they determine it? So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental? Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles ;) https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php I'm not interested in this tit for tat bullsh.t debate that you denialists always engage in. You can't expect to set fire to all of the fossil fools in the period of a couple of hundred years that has taken nature tens of millions of years to sequester and then expect absolutely no consequences !! That is essentially your perverted argument. "AGW doesn't exist so we can feel good about setting fire to the remaining reserves of fossil fools on the planet and carry on with our fake economies." If you're that worried sir lastnail I would advise you to go back through our climate history so you can see how atmospheric CO2 and temperature interact with each other. All will be revealed, all you need to do is look into the past to understand the future...... ;) That's all been debunked time and time again >:( Instead of using denial as an excuse to do nothing except make yourselves feel better what are you lot going to do about f..king up the planet with your polluting muck out of the ground ? Well then how about leading the way. Get out of your home and go live in some cave in the mountains, while Al Gore burns more electricity than the city of Melbourne. If that's what float your boat be my guest...... :-*

It's not up to Sir Lastnail to save the world  :o :o

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 6:19pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 6:17pm: Are you saying climate history was only dependant on two variables? Better than the IPCC, SKS and others, who insist it is one.

Ajax is on his own with this one  :) :)

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

A 1 degree rise in global temperatures causes a 7% increases in water vapour in the atmosphere and we all know what that leads to ! My prediction is that nothing properly will be done about GHG emissions until it is too late and then the brain dead rightards will start blaming everyone else except themselves. As long as they can keep their fake oily economies going by flogging coal and fossil fools to the gullible punters for their energy needs then they are happy :( What needs to happen to all rightards before they get the message. A regular 6-10 feet dose of faecial contaminated water flowing through their house and ruining all of their belongings !!

You are way off the mark. You need to be plugged in to the Hollywood Think Tank:



It what might be a new low in dumb political statements, “A List” star Jennifer Lawrence is now declaring that the hurricanes in Texas and Florida  are punishing America for electing Donald Trump.

Seriously. She actually said this.

Perhaps this is only logical for the star who said this in 2015…. “  a victory by Trump would “be the end of the world”. 

Obviously being a world famous movie star (Hunger Games, American Hustle, Joy, etc.) does not have an intelligence requirement.

http://americantruthproject.org/hollywood-stars-just-keep-saying-really-stupid-things/

Ajax wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 5:26pm: Ajax wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:52pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 4:46pm: lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:06pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:53am: It's whatever it was before we started to pollute the f..k out of the planet ! So how did they determine it? So taking into account CO2 has been both higher and lower in the past, before this "pollution"; and CO2 apparently the "control knob" of temperature, what changes in atmospheric water vapour occurred in the past? Was it detrimental? Here you go. Knock yourselves out. The answers to all of your silly rebuttles ;) https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php I'm not interested in this tit for tat bullsh.t debate that you denialists always engage in. You can't expect to set fire to all of the fossil fools in the period of a couple of hundred years that has taken nature tens of millions of years to sequester and then expect absolutely no consequences !! That is essentially your perverted argument. "AGW doesn't exist so we can feel good about setting fire to the remaining reserves of fossil fools on the planet and carry on with our fake economies." If you're that worried sir lastnail I would advise you to go back through our climate history so you can see how atmospheric CO2 and temperature interact with each other. All will be revealed, all you need to do is look into the past to understand the future...... ;) That's all been debunked time and time again >:( Instead of using denial as an excuse to do nothing except make yourselves feel better what are you lot going to do about f..king up the planet with your polluting muck out of the ground ? Well then how about leading the way. Get out of your home and go live in some cave in the mountains, while Al Gore burns more electricity than the city of Melbourne. If that's what float your boat be my guest...... :-*

Many times I suggested electric cars as a way to transition away from fossil fools as a start, but oh no you can't drive from melbourne to sydney on one charge so lets can the idea all together :( It's all or nothing with you lot. No compromises at all so as long as you are in total denial then it's ok to deplete the worlds fossil fool resources until the planet is a basket case :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

but oh no you can't drive from melbourne to sydney on one charge

Poor diiddums. You do realise not everyone lives in Melbourne or Sydney? Some of us live in the country, and range is a big factor in the vehicles we purchase.

Hey did you know the last elephant this big to hit Cuba was in 1924....  what were carbon levels then? :D

Grendel wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 7:29pm:

Hey did you know the last elephant this big to hit Cuba was in 1924....  what were carbon levels then? :D

How do you know?

Attention seeking by trying to sensationalize fake news by the LotSnail. Must be upset by the swing to Clean Coal here in Australia.

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 3:05am:

Grendel wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 7:29pm: Hey did you know the last elephant this big to hit Cuba was in 1924....  what were carbon levels then? :D How do you know?

Why don't YOU know?
look it up....

TRY using google...


Quote:

The 1924 Cuba hurricane is the earliest officially classified Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale, and one of two hurricanes to make landfall on Cuba at Category 5 intensity, the other being Hurricane Irma in 2017.

Am I wrong in thinking extreme weather events are increasing in frequency ?

:'(

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:35am:

Am I wrong in thinking extreme weather events are increasing in frequency ? :'(

Yes.

Over 11 years without a cat 3 hurricane or higher hitting the USA.

Contrary to reports there were three hurricanes at the same time in 2010.

And in 1998 there were four at once in the Atlantic Basin.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/cyclone_chart.jpg

ACE - Accumulated Cyclone Energy. Not showing any trend.
It is a measure of intensity.

Grendel wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:22am:

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:05am: Grendel wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 7:29pm: Hey did you know the last elephant this big to hit Cuba was in 1924....  what were carbon levels then? :D How do you know? Why don't YOU know? look it up....

How do you know?

Grendel wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:23am:

TRY using google... Quote: The 1924 Cuba hurricane is the earliest officially classified Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale, and one of two hurricanes to make landfall on Cuba at Category 5 intensity, the other being Hurricane Irma in 2017.

Sounds like science  :o

When will they ever recognize that Global Warming is nothing more than a GIGANTIC HOAX designed to fool the gullibles ? And there are plenty of those here!!!

Another dog's breakfast by the Leftys. They just can't help themselves.

But it is really that they just cannot focus on any single issue. Socialist indoctrination at skool instead of education ?

Christiana Figueres UN Climate propagandist was on you guessed it the ABC tonight...  7:30 Report.  She says we have 3 years to turn things around and of course we also had Australian Greenies showing their ignorance about the Hurricanes O/S...  oh dear.

No one else was invited on just more biased reporting and agenda pushing from the ABC...

Christina Figueres -

""This is  probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. "

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

or -
"And as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/3/#74d5d65b1474

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:35am:

Am I wrong in thinking extreme weather events are increasing in frequency ? :'(

YES YOU ARE WRONG....