has that never ever happen before....maybe before you were here? as many things like that happen. i got sloughs that were dry for 20 years and now in one of the worst drought in this country has seen these sloughs full with water 20 years ago and are still full....go figure....

@1patriot I figure it is climate change. But you are right, there was another year that it did not freeze...2001 (because of climate change) Last year "ice-in" (when it is frozen) and "ice-out" (when it is no longer frozen) were only 10 days apart (because of climate change). It rained in NH all summer last year. The rest of the country and even the rest of the world may be in drought, but not in northern New England. Vermont had two major floods this year, 6 months apart: once in the summer once in the winter. We have school closures here because of rain. It was not like that here until about 20 years ago. Our winters are not as snowy any more. We get a lot of rain and ice, but very little snow. Have you noticed the hurricanes that are hitting the west coast. That is new, because of climate change. But I know I am wasting my breath on you so good night.

@MyTVC15 and if you could look back there was more than likely more times that that in 100 years we have warmed what 1.5 degrees in the last 150 years. do you get any geo engineering i am quite sure you do planes that fly over head spraying Barium and aluminum. most people are listening the MSM and they lie for the shadow government. the world is at war with humanity and we need to find out who they are between AI in the wrong hands of those that want to inslave man kind have had the change to agenda 2030 or the Rockefellers Lockstep [thuletide.wordpress.com] [sdgs.un.org]

@1patriot It used to be a fluke. A lot of things use to be flukes. I saw the result of the Canadian forest fires last summer and the floods in Vermont first hand. One weather event that is a fluke is one thing, several flukes in one year after a year of flukes and another year of flukes is not natural.

@MyTVC15 we have caught 89 fire bugs last year in canada so maybe 1/2 of them how these guys get paid to do this i don't know but the courts are going easy on these fire bugs because government is asking them too!

@1patriot I could not find that they had made arrests in connection with the fires, but I did read that half of the fires were started by lightening (from an unusual amount of storms caused by climate change). The fires that were started by lightening cause 85% of the damage. The rest of the fires were cause by humans (in addition to the climate change we caused by burning excessive fossil fuels during the industrial revolution). The human causes included carelessly discarded cigarettes and sparks from trains. The fires burned so out of control because of excessive heat and drought (caused by climate change). Are you saying that 85 of the fires were started by arsonists? Anyway, here is the link to the article I paraphrased. [cbsnews.com]

@MyTVC15 by believe the shit that you want you don't believe there's a god.....which mean you use to fucking think at one time have good even you will have do some thinking you live in the city like that meat head flyingsaucer....you should leave the prison ones in a well go see Europe or something

Show me your proof

@1patriot The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 419.81 ppm. (Increased 11 ppm in only 5 years.) The CO2 concentration is now more than 100 ppm above the highest CO2 levels that occurred in the last 800,000 years. It started going beyond all historic levels during the Industrial Revolution.

@1patriot Notice how the temperature anomaly tracks the increase in CO2 concentration.

@1patriot The increase in Global CO2 emissions tracks the increase in fossil fuel burning.

@1patriot The increase in fossil fuel burning tracks the increase in human population size.

@1patriot The increase in average global temperature cannot be explained by a change in solar activity. The sun is not putting out more heat. The atmosphere is just getting better at holding on to heat.

@1patriot In 1822, Jean-Babtist Joseph Fourier calculated that Earth's atmosphere would be much colder than it is if the incoming radiation from the sun were the only warming effect. His idea that the Earth’s atmosphere acts like an insulator was the first formulation of what we now call the "greenhouse effect." Fourier, however, did not use that term.

In 1856, Eunice Newton Foote, an amateur scientist and prominent suffragette, for the first time tested the heat-trapping abilities of different gases.

In 1859, John Tyndall wrote, "...the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat; but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”

In 1896, Svante Arhenius was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming.

Around 1899, Nils Gustaf Ekholm wrote,
"The atmosphere plays a very important part of a double character as to the temperature at the earth’s surface, of which the one was first pointed out by Fourier, the other by Tyndall. Firstly, the atmosphere may act like the glass of a green-house, letting through the light rays of the sun relatively easily, and absorbing a great part of the dark rays emitted from the ground, and it thereby may raise the mean temperature of the earth’s surface. Secondly, the atmosphere acts as a heat store placed between the relatively warm ground and the cold space, and thereby lessens in a high degree the annual, diurnal, and local variations of the temperature.”

In 1958, while working under the direction of Roger Revelle at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Charles Keeling began monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from a station on Mauna Loa, in Hawaii. Keeling's data, when plotted on a graph, showed not only the annual fluctuation of carbon dioxide due to seasonal changes in photosynthesis, but also continuous year-to-year increases in overall CO2 concentration that roughly matched the human emissions from burning fossil fuels. This graph, which came to be known as the "Keeling curve," shows that atmospheric CO2 is not only increasing, but that the increase has been accelerating. While Keeling collected his data, other scientists around the world were measuring atmospheric and ocean temperatures. Eventually it became clear that temperatures are rising at a rate consistent with an increased greenhouse effect due to the burning of fossil fuels. Thus Svante Arhenius' hypothesis of anthropomorphic climate change was confirmed.

Scientists have extended the Keeling curve back into prehistoric times. They accomplished this by measuring the CO2 concentrations in air bubbles trapped in ancient ice from the Antarctic ice cap. By drilling cores to the very bottom of the ice cap, the scientists have been able to piece together a continuous record of CO2 concentrations stretching back over 800,000 years. This record shows that at no time during that period was the CO2 level higher than it is today.

In 2022, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration was the largest ever recorded. The current level is about 25% higher than it ever was in the last million years, and the highest in the last 4 million years.

Our species, Homo sapiens, has only existed for about two hundred thousand years.

Scientists around the world have, for decades now, been measuring the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. The effects are being seen everywhere. Ocean water temperatures are rising. Glaciers, sea ice, and permafrost are melting. Sea level is rising. Storm intensities are increasing. Heat waves are hotter and more frequent. Some areas on land are experiencing unprecedented flooding, while others are seeing unprecedented drought. A mass extinction of plants and animals is under way as climate conditions in their habitats change faster than they can adapt. Where possible, animal ranges are moving uphill or toward the poles to compensate for higher temperatures. All of this is happening on a global scale.

To go on burning fossil fuels is to commit ourselves to a murder/suicide pact. The climate system has natural feedbacks that will exponentially amplify the warming we cause. We have very little time in which to stop burning fossil fuels before these feedbacks are running so strongly that we can no longer halt them.

One feedback that is relatively easy to visualize involves Arctic sea ice. Unlike the South Pole, which lies in the middle of a continent, the North Pole is situated in the middle of an ocean. Normally, the Arctic Ocean is covered year-round by a thick layer (about 20 feet) of sea ice. Until recently, this ice typically melted a little around the edges in the summer time, but most of it remained intact year-round. Due to its high reflectivity, Arctic sea ice has an important role in regulating global climate. During the Arctic summer, when Earth's North Pole is tilted toward the sun, the white ice cap reflects 90% of the solar radiation that hits it. The ovean beneath the ice stays cool. If that ice cap is taken away by melting, however, then what is left is a dark ocean that absorbs 90% of the radiation that hits it. The ocean then warms up. That heat is distributed all around the world by ocean and atmospheric currents. Over the last half century, the thickness of the Arctic Ocean ice pack has diminished by about 90%, and the area that it covers in summer has steadily shrunk. If current trends persist, the Arctic Ocean will be virtually ice-free by 2050.

Another natural feedback loop involves the permafrost. The land surrounding the Arctic Ocean is normally frozen to a depth of over 200 meters year round. This permafrost is composed mostly of wind-blown silt, frozen water, and the largely intact frozen remains of plants. There are also some animal remains (you have undoubtedly heard of woolly mammoths being discovered in the melting permafrost), as well as bacteria and fungi which, when thawed, come to life and continue doing what they were doing before they froze. Bacteria and fungi play an important role in the recycling of organic matter. They break down dead organisms and return their atoms back to the environment. This recycling usually takes the form of gas emissions, specifically CO2 and CH4 (methane). Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, about 60 times more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. The permafrost covers vast swathes of land in Alaska and Siberia, and the organic material it contains is sufficient, if totally thawed and converted to CO2 and methane, to instantly triple the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

We are already seeing devastating warming effects resulting from an increase in CO2 concentration from about 300 ppm (parts per million) at the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 418 ppm today. Melting all the permafrost would bump the CO2 concentration up to around 1200 ppm.

There is evidence indicating that millions of years in the past, Earth's average atmospheric temperature has been as much as 15°C (27°F) hotter than it is today. That maximum temperature regime coincided with a mass extinction event that killed off 95% of the species then living on Earth.

we were talking about oil and gas your on about climate change.....

@Flyingsaucesir [earth.org] another soros funded .org companies that push what geo wants.

[21sci-tech.com]
4. The study is able to prove that responsible scientists Callendar and Keeling ignored scientific literature.

Patrick Moore, PhD
March 2015
Table of Contents:
Executive Summary
Introduction
The History of CO2 in the Global Atmosphere
The Rise of Terrestrial Woody Plants
The Second Long Decline of CO2
CO2 Rises from the Brink
The Distribution of Carbon Today
CO2 in the Oceans
CO2 in the Modern Era
Higher CO2 Concentrations Will Increase Plant Growth and Biomass
Discussion
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations in the Future
A Paradigm Shift in the Perception of CO2
Conclusion
Endnotes
Bibliography

Executive Summary
• This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but
which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change
policy.
• All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the
global atmosphere.
• As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation,
CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt
plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of
plants due to CO2 starvation.
• It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate
as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon
as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon
continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.
• The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has
reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that
are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of
plants, including food crops and trees.
• Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle,
thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
• This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against
the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic
warming of the climate in coming years.
• The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically
reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is
essential to life on Earth.
Introduction
There is a widespread belief that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for
energy are a threat to the Earth’s climate and that the majority of species, including the
human species, will suffer greatly unless these emissions are drastically curtailed or even
eliminated.1
This paper offers a radically different perspective based on the geological history of CO2.
CO2 is one of the most essential nutrients for life on Earth. It has been approaching
dangerously low levels during recent periods of major glaciation in the Pleistocene Ice
Age, and human emissions of CO2 may stave off the eventual starvation and death of
most life on the planet due to a lack of CO2.
2 This is not primarily a discussion of the
possible connection between CO2 and global warming or climate change, although some
mention must be made of it. There has been a great deal of discussion on the subject, and
it is hotly contested in both scientific and political spheres. There is no question that the
climate has warmed during the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age. There
is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions
would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere. Yet, there

is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 is a major factor in influencing climate in the
real world. The Earth’s climate is a chaotic, non-linear, multi-variant system with many
unpredictable feedbacks, both positive and negative. Primarily, this is a discussion about
the role of atmospheric CO2 in the maintenance of life on Earth and the positive role of
human civilization in preventing CO2 from trending downward to levels that threaten the
very existence of life.
The History of CO2 in the Global Atmosphere
It is an undisputed fact that all life on Earth is carbon based and that the source of this
carbon is CO2, which cycles through the global atmosphere. The original source of CO2
in the atmosphere is thought to be massive volcanic eruptions during the Earth’s early
history, the extreme heat of which caused the oxidation of carbon in the Earth’s interior
to form CO2.
3 Today, as a minor gas at 0.04 per cent, CO2 permeates the entire
atmosphere and has been absorbed by the oceans and other water bodies (the
hydrosphere), where it provides the food for photosynthetic species such a phytoplankton
and kelp. If there were no CO2 or an insufficient level of CO2 in the atmosphere and
hydrosphere, there would be no life as we know it on our planet.
On a relatively short-term basis (years to hundreds of years), the carbon cycle is a
complex series of exchanges among the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, living species and
decomposing organic matter in soils and sediments. Over the long term (millions to
billions of years), the majority of the carbon that has been absorbed from the atmosphere
by plants has been lost to the cycle into deep deposits of fossil fuels and carbonaceous
rock (minerals) such as chalk, limestone, marble and dolomite. By far the majority of the
carbon sequestered over the long term is in the form of carbonaceous rock.
We do not have a good estimate of the total amount of CO2 that has been emitted from
volcanic activity into the global atmosphere. We do not know the total amount of carbon
that has been lost to long-term sequestration in fossil fuels and carbonaceous rock, but we
do have order-of-magnitude estimates. We do have quantitative estimates of the level of
CO2 in the atmosphere going back more than 600 million years, i.e., the net result of
additions from volcanic events, losses to deep deposition in carbonaceous rocks and
fossil fuels, the biomass of living species and decomposing organic matter. These
estimates become more accurate the closer they are to the present. This paper will focus
on the past 540 million years and in particular the past 140 million years.
The best estimate of CO2 concentration in the global atmosphere 540 million years ago is
7,000 ppm, with a wide margin of error. (See Figure 1). For the sake of discussion, we
will accept that number, which indicates a mass of more than 13,000 billion tonnes (Gt)
of carbon in the atmosphere, 17 times the present level, during the Cambrian Explosion,
when multicellular life evolved. This is considered the advent of modern life, when both
plant and animal species diversified rapidly in warm seas and later colonized the land
during a warm terrestrial climate.4 Prior to this, for more than three billion years, life was
largely unicellular, microscopic and confined to the sea.

[fcpp.org]
we have been as high as 9000ppm of co2

@Flyingsaucesir [resilience.org] looks like other soros .org you seem to like that criminal.

Graham Zabel resilience not even scientist but hey you don't need to be one to know many things
he start off speaking on the united nation like that some god we are suppose to look up at....their a fucking terrorist organization along with the WEF, WHO

@Flyingsaucesir Geoscience Frontiers
Volume 14, Issue 6, November 2023, 101650
Highlights
•
The role of the Sun in climate change is hotly debated with diverse models.

•
The Earth’s climate likely influenced by the Sun through a variety of physical mechanisms.

•
Balanced multi-proxy solar records created and their climate effect assessed.

•
Factors other than direct TSI forcing account for around 80% of the solar influence on the climate.

•
Important solar-climate mechanisms to be investigated before developing reliable GCMs.

Abstract
The role of the Sun in climate change is hotly debated. Some studies suggest its impact is significant, while others suggest it is minimal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports the latter view and suggests that nearly 100% of the observed surface warming from 1850–1900 to 2020 is due to anthropogenic emissions. However, the IPCC’s conclusions are based solely on computer simulations made with global climate models (GCMs) forced with a total solar irradiance (TSI) record showing a low multi-decadal and secular variability. The same models also assume that the Sun affects the climate system only through radiative forcing – such as TSI – even though the climate could also be affected by other solar processes. In this paper I propose three “balanced” multi-proxy models of total solar activity (TSA) that consider all main solar proxies proposed in scientific literature. Their optimal signature on global and sea surface temperature records is assessed together with those produced by the anthropogenic and volcanic radiative forcing functions adopted by the CMIP6 GCMs. This is done by using a basic energy balance model calibrated with a differential multi-linear regression methodology, which allows the climate system to respond to the solar input differently than to radiative forcings alone, and to evaluate the climate’s characteristic time-response as well. The proposed methodology reproduces the results of the CMIP6 GCMs when their original forcing functions are applied under similar physical conditions, indicating that, in such a scenario, the likely range of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) could be 1.4 °C to 2.8 °C, with a mean of 2.1 °C (using the HadCRUT5 temperature record), which is compatible with the low-ECS CMIP6 GCM group. However, if the proposed solar records are used as TSA proxies and the climatic sensitivity to them is allowed to differ from the climatic sensitivity to radiative forcings, a much greater solar impact on climate change is found, along with a significantly reduced radiative effect. In this case, the ECS is found to be 0.9–1.8 °C, with a mean of around 1.3 °C. Lower ECS ranges (up to 20%) are found using HadSST4, HadCRUT4, and HadSST3. The result also suggests that at least about 80% of the solar influence on the climate may not be induced by TSI forcing alone, but rather by other Sun-climate processes (e.g., by a solar magnetic modulation of cosmic ray and other particle fluxes, and/or others), which must be thoroughly investigated and physically understood before trustworthy GCMs can be created. This result explains why empirical studies often found that the solar contribution to climate changes throughout the Holocene has been significant, whereas GCM-based studies, which only adopt radiative forcings, suggest that the Sun plays a relatively modest role.

[sciencedirect.com]

@Flyingsaucesir The increase in Global CO2 emissions tracks the increase in fossil fuel burning.
i just typed your post into a search engine here's the first thing that come up! [climatechangedispatch.com]

@Flyingsaucesir in reply....The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 419.81 ppm. (Increased 11 ppm in only 5 years.) The CO2 concentration is now more than 100 ppm above the highest CO2 levels that occurred in the last 800,000 years. It started going beyond all historic levels during the Industrial Revolution.

[notrickszone.com]

@1patriot
1patriot writes,
"we were talking about oil and gas your on about climate change....."

The meme you posted says "CO2 is fertilizer, not a pollutant," and "global warming mean life explosion, not extinction."

First, you should at least know what you posted.

Second, both of those meme statements are wildly off the mark.

CO2 in the quantities we are emitting IS a pollutant.

The extinction rate is WAY higher than ever in human history.

I addressed these issues in my comments. If you can't handle feedback relating to your posts, maybe you shouldn't be posting.

Don't worry, we won't miss you

@Flyingsaucesir well you still haven't answer the question either is the so called fossil fuel just hydrocarbons just formed from the earth mantel. and your likely to lazy to answer the question and really don't expect you to answer. your puppet for the woke crowd so you pushing for world communism and your so stupid you can't even see it.

@1patriot The "Hasselberger" chart is wrong. Human activity is currently producing 100 times more CO2 than the biggest natural source, which is volcanic activity.

@Flyingsaucesir its the oceans and no you bought in to al gore lie that way your so absurd and your a woke school teacher that's ashame you taught people you must have fought with many of them

@1patriot The oceans are acting as a CO2 sink, NOT a source!

Across my career I did see a number of students who were too lazy, complacent, or lacking in basic skills to take advantage of the education that was offered to them. (In most cases, the problem was laziness.) Its a sad sight indeed, and your poor spelling, broken sentence construction, sophomoric antics, lack of critical thinking, and eagerness to accept easy answers to complex questions reminds me of them very much. But I always acted on the assumption that every student can learn, and my door was always open to anyone who wanted help. It is in this spirit that I take time to carefully lay out the facts for you. I also know that you can lead a dehydrated horse to water, but you can't make him drink. So if you don't absorb the education that is offered to you,...oh well. Even if you never learn a thing, others will.

@Flyingsaucesir your wrong that all there is the oceans work both ways but emit more than take in. One day you might learn that, that's if your still learning your so smart you likely have nothing left to learn lol i never read your junk at the above messange because i guy like would put students down all day just feel like you are the boss....like trump likely why you don't like him. My fingers are to big for phone key pad so fuck off and have a good evvening

@1patriot The graph below shows how the oceans have become more acidic as they have absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere over the last 170 years.

When CO2 is dissolved in water it undergoes the following reaction:

CO2 + H2O → H2CO3

H2CO3 is carbonic acid.

Notice how the acidification tracks the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

This is only possible if there is a net increase in ocean water CO2 concentration.

The oceans are a CO2 sink.

@Flyingsaucesir you never answered the 7 or so reply to all the crap you sent me. I am not home but the oceans are not acidic that old news the pushed in the 80's but when i get home in a few days i might remember to answer this question

so does your MSM you love cnn etc. why can't you take a dna sample and get it. if it's dino and vegetation

There are two basic theories for the origin of crude oil: biotic and abiotic.

The origin of petroleum or natural gas may seem like a strange debate to have but determining whether this fuel is a fossil fuel or not is important.

If these fuels are truly fossil fuels, then they are limited in supply and alternative energy resources would need to be created at some point.

If they are not fossil fuels and are created through some form of abiogenesis – a natural process from non-living matter – then the need to develop alternative fuels is diminished.

The biotic theory is that oil and gas drilled out of the earth come from the remains of plants and animals trapped underground millions of years ago. These “fossil fuels” took aeons to form and we are using them up far faster than they can be replenished.

This fossil fuel theory is, however, just that – a theory. There are many features of the fossil-origin theory which still apparently puzzle some scientists. So, what if the whole theory is wrong?

The abiotic theory is an opposing view that has substantial evidence to back it up. This theory goes back centuries and includes as its prominent champions Dimitri Mendeleev, best known for inventing the periodic table.

This topic was over @Flyingsaucesir head so he changed subject to climate change useing a lame excuse