For the first time this year, I saw one white butterfly in my garden.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/james-hansen-...

From what I’ve read, sea levels currently fluctuate by 80mm annually due to seasonal temperatures (see graph at link below) but I assume this figure wouldn’t simply be doubled. Please note I’m not enquiring with regards to climate change year by year in this instance - this is solely relating to inter-annual effects of extreme seasons.

Best answer: I've not read my skeptical colleagues answers just yet but I'll have a stab at guessing what argument they've put forward.

It probably goes something like ... 'CO2 levels were WAY higher than they are now. Like, they were 1000s of ppm. And during those times plant life was amazingly abundant, ecosystems thrived. It was close to paradise! This piddling little 400 or 500 ppm level of CO2 we're experiencing today is tiny in comparison, nothing to worry about, and hence the implication I'm making is that we don't have to do anything about so-called "global warming"'.

Now let me read some of the answers. Ok, I'm not too far off the mark. Now let me paraphrase that argument in different terms ...

'There was an earthquake in California that was really, really big. But Californians thrived despite it. Look at them there with their toned bodies, high incomes, and a State economy equivalent to entire nations! A piddling little earthquake is nothing to worry about, and the implication I'm making is that we shouldn't spend any money on protecting buildings against smaller earthquakes'.

Now Solar Wind, my old mate my old pal, has kindly provided a graph showing you the last 600 million years with the aim of trying to convince you that there is no relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. Of course, no one, including Solar Wind argues that temperatures are ONLY dependent on CO2 - during that 600 million year timespan we've had changes in the output of the sun and changes in the earth's orbit. This is why you get those dips in temperature. What the graph also doesn't really show is the rate of change of CO2. These sorts of natural processes result in changes of 100 parts per million in CO2 concentrations over periods of many thousands or even tens of thousands of years. We've changed the CO2 concentration by 100 ppm in 120 years.

So it's pretty irrelevant because

a) we are living at a time when solar output and the orbital dynamics of the planet are going to be pretty stable over the next few hundred to a few thousand years
b) under these stable conditions (like the 50 million year bit in the graph between 250 and 200 million years ago) CO2 levels are well correlated with temperature changes
c) we've changed the CO2 concentration by 100 parts per million in 120 years, a rate which is nowhere reflected on this graph

So, at the present time, if we increase CO2 levels to 500 ppm the planet will get warmer and this warming will occur on century timescales not millions of years. What happened in the past isn't important in terms of global warming today because there weren't 7 billion people distributed across the planet.

Best answer: I don't hate I just have fun about such people.

unqualified relatives, attacked judges, praised dictators, promoted neo-fascists, and lied constantly—would end up putting young kids in cages?

Wouldn't it tend to remain constant; at least in the troposphere?

Arctic sea ice extent for May 2018 was 12.2 million square kilometers (4.7 million square miles). This was the second lowest May extent in the 39-year satellite record http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Best answer: Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s.

A wide range of other observations such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content and indications from the natural world such as poleward shifts of temperature-sensitive species of fish, mammals, insects, etc together provide incontrovertible evidence of planetary-scale warming.

Best answer: "use of photosensitive materials"
Cars surface is too small. Even if we get near 100% photovoltaic cells.

What would brine help?

What do you know about the biodegradability and general non-toxicity of nano-composites?

Rate: 2

Best answer: Why do Gores alarmunist disciples lie...
You can stop right there. They lie to push their alarmunism...
Elitist leftists pushing for increasing the power of the state to enrich themselves and control the behavior of everyone else. It is a very old game.

I checked page 224 and it does show what a convenient year 1979 is. Alarmists love to make graphs that look bad. They play games with the scale and color. It is a PR game and it is amazing how many clowns they get to fall for it. It is sad, really. All you have to do is say it is science. They love to think of themselves as up to date on the latest science.

Hillary illegally keeps her server unsecure with classified information so that she can keep the cash flowing into her slush fund and they took millions and millions from the Russian, trading away national interests with Uranium assets (maybe more), and now these same useful idiot alarmists think Trump is colluding with the Russians. It is just mind numbing stupidity.

Best answer: It is well known in the scientific community that every species on Earth, humans included, will reproduce until their population exceeds the resources needed to sustain it (food, space, etc.) unless something else trims its numbers. It is natural and it has occurred often with humans in historical times. Occurrences of human overpopulation have been local but is now worldwide.

It is also part of nature that after overextending the population, corrections will follow, often by famine during less than optimal seasons of food supply, along with other deaths caused by a weakened population and by acts of desperation. This also has happened with humans and will continue to occur.

For people, famine is only one possibility from a long list of natural and man-made disasters, at least one of which will destroy a very large percentage of the population.

Our population WILL be reduced, that is a certainty. When it occurs, for humans it will be the most terrible tragedy in recorded history.
For nature, it will just be normal processes.

Best answer: It's not the sun as much as it is the greenhouse gasses trapping the heat that our planet gets from both the sun and the earth's molten core. The heat on earth should gradually dissipate into space but greenhouse gasses trap the heat so it can't escape the earth's atmosphere.