The fuck are you talking about, animals were just fine? Literally septillions of animals died during that time period.
In any case, nobody should give a shit about whether “animals” were “just fine.” What we should care about is whether human society is going to face lethal repercussions from climate change. And the signs certainly point toward those lethal repercussions–like, in the time I spent writing this post, it’s likely that climate change has killed several people.
The irrational driver behind the radical and dangerous actions many are asking for is based almost entirely on a " I tol you so mentality" They want to force a fix before it breaks so that they can claim they saved humanity. If we delay too long they will all look like they are full of shit.
Like, none of that is true. It’s just a bunch of unsupported nonsense. Don’t post bullshit.
Because waiting until after it breaks is the better move? You really are very fucked in the head, even for a racist troll.
Ounce of prevention and all, you’re totally right–but even in this regard he’s wrong. Does this current climate look like it’s not broken yet? Does five million dead each year sound like an unbroken climate?
Are you really this stupid? If they’re right, and they are (it’s fucking science) then if we delay too long there’s nothing we can do.
Well, I told him that we would find what kind of fool he was. 
What a nimrod!
I favor aggressive action toward alternative fuel sources as well as aggressive cleaning up of what we have. I just don’t favor radical change that we are not equipped to deal with. And no it doesn’t meet the criteria of science. Every article written is chalked full of disclaimers.
“Chalked full”?
As Isaac Asimov said about what was then called climate warming back in the 1970s, “The trick is to stop before you drive over the cliff. Screaming afterward is very easy.”
You just keep on whistling past the graveyard. As the COVID vaccine rollout demonstrated, science is messy like that.
As others pointed out, so are your grossly misinterpreted cites you looked at before, but it is clear you don’t link to them because you already know the chalked full bullshit you are applying to them.
The science papers I seldom find any issues that really bother me. It is the summaries that we are given because most won’t read the entire papers. Certain things you can’t even search for because they don’t publish it. When you ask how many times stronger as a greenhouse gas is water vapor over CO2. Based on typical humidities. You can’t get an answer, You have to search everything individually and figure it out. The papers seldom mention water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas, it has about 400 times the influence that CO2 has. The science gives us a lot of possibilities because that is about the best they can do right now.
I, too, hate it when smart people tell me things I don’t understand instead of things I want to hear.
This claim is patently absurd. When I google “water vapor and CO2 greenhouse gases”, the very first hit I get is this detailed and clear explanation from NASA:
There, that tells you exactly what you wanted to know about the comparative greenhouse-gas impacts of CO2 with water vapor versus CO2 alone. (And that your “400 times the influence” claim is off by at least two orders of magnitude.)
If you’re really trying to search on a question like “how many times stronger as a greenhouse gas is water vapor over CO2”, then it’s not surprising that you can’t get an answer, because it’s an incoherently formed question. You can’t get sensible answers to a question that you don’t know how to phrase in a sensible way.
Maybe what you were confusedly trying to get at is that the percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere is hundreds of times greater than the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? But, as the linked article clearly explains, that has nothing to do with the amounts of their relative impacts on global warming. (You are also ignoring the fact that the CO2 increase is what’s causing the water vapor increase in the first place. If it weren’t for humans putting more CO2 and similar emissions into the atmosphere, there wouldn’t be any increase in average atmospheric concentrations of water vapor.)
I am well aware of the feedback loop and that water vaper is considered reactive even though it is by far the most powerful and plentiful of the greenhouse gasses most of the current papers fail to list it as a greenhouse gas. From what I understand the feedback loop has a lot of theory built into it.
But what do you understand that word, theory, to mean exactly?
That too is sheer nonsense. Google “what are greenhouse gases” and you get hit after hit, leading with mainstream science-info sites such as NASA and NOAA, that list water vapor along with carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide as the main greenhouse gases. Can you provide even one example of what you call “current papers” that does not include water vapor in the category of greenhouse gases?
What do you mean by “has a lot of theory built into it”? All science “has a lot of theory built into it”, from the basics of Newtonian mechanics all the way out to the most extreme hypotheses of string theory. Developing consistent theories to accurately quantitatively model empirical phenomena is the majority of what science is.
Or are you fuzzily trying to insinuate that the phenomenon of the water vapor/CO2 feedback loop in global warming is somehow only speculative or a mere suggestion, in the colloquial sense of “just a theory”? That would be complete bullshit, so I hope that’s not what you’re trying to do.
Do you really not understand why people complain more about humidity in summer than in winter—namely, because warmer air holds more moisture on average than colder air? Or do you not understand why wetter air traps more atmospheric heat than drier air—i.e., more molecules in the atmosphere whose molecular bonds absorb photons carrying radiation that would otherwise go back out into space?
None of these basic climate phenomena are controversial or debated among scientists. The precise extent to which any specific part of the earth at any specific time will be affected climate-wise by these phenomena is indeed very hard to predict, but the general outline of what’s going on is well understood in terms of basic physics.
If you imagine that fundamental climate science facts such as the atmospheric water vapor feedback loop are somehow dubious or speculative, that indicates that you’re getting your information from science deniers and obfuscators instead of from scientific research.
AKA “liars and bullshitters”
He seems to be more on the same team as the Shit-kickers… and Methodists.
.
.
.
Management would like to apologize to the nice Methodists in the audience, who do accept climate science.
What papers? Citation needed.
So far from what I’ve seen, you are not interested in what scientists have to say, but rather you are critical that they don’t say what you think they should say. You’re replacing their expertise, with your expertise as a consumer and voter. If you’re legitimately interested the science behind climate change, and supposedly willing to accept what the experts have to say, then why are you not accepting what the experts have to say?
Interesting statement considering you are marching in step with the climate-change-denying Republicans on this issue.