Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) has for the second year shown record ice growth across the Greenland Ice Sheet, but NASA shows a 281 gigaton loss, oops that off by 200 gt. Also new coloration on NSIDC Greenland ice changes now use red and orange to indicate ice gains and blue indicates losses. Now you will see what fake news is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwcW...

Last year, the world’s top particle physics research facility, CERN, turned the global warming debate upside down. CERN found, in the first-ever laboratory analysis of cloud chemistry, that solar variations—not CO2 molecules—were the biggest factor in the earth’s recent warmings!

Source: http://www.environmentguru.com/pages/...
© EnvironmentGuru.com

The abstract says the levels got up to 300 and current level is reported at 407. Maybe it's more from volcanoes than industry: https://www.earthmagazine.org/article...

Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.

Does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite.

The affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled.

I agree with all the stuff about not trusting gov't, and I see no relationship to indulging in wishful thinking regarding global warming.

Slippery slope here CG ...

So we should jump on-board anything the government says so as not to fuel its desire to expand its power? Disagreeing with its assessment, even if it is consensus "science", even if a chunk of the facts it built the hype over has been proven false/fraudulent (not empirical), even if anyone with science credibility who opposes their position is ridiculed publicly for speaking out, even if governments are paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to scientists and corporations who support the ambiguous/vaguely misleading "climate change" moniker?

Reminder to everyone: Government lies. Those things government champions are usually rife with schemes to amass personal wealth and retain/expand power.

Hell no. I can't see compliance for sake of compliance as a rational take, nor can I in any way see that stance as an objective stance.

It is not specific to the mountains nor is it more above the mountains. Open up the window of any airplane at an altitude above 10,000 feet and see if you can stay warm. Heat rises and cold falls. It doesn't make any difference if there is a layer of insulation, heat & cold still swap places. If they didn't, heating would not be required on the earth's surface. One would just need a layer of insulation and they'd be good to go.

"By denying we simply motivate the politicians who want to take charge."
Yes! Because the denials become more and more absurd as the evidence becomes more overwhelming. We have Naomi Klein licking her lips in morbid excitement arguing global warming is actually a good thing because the answer is socialism. Instead of responding that socialism is not the answer to anything, people resort to absurd denials of reality, as if we must choose between fantasy and socialism.

"like all Global Warming advocates"
I'm not an advocate. I just accept reality as it is.

"you talk about costs but not offsetting benefits"
I said "net costs" specifically to acknowledge the benefits.

"people do well when the climate warms"
The claim that global warming actually has a net benefit is not correct.

"because they want to herd the sheep in a specific direction."
That's the sheep-herders' issue. Their wishes don't affect reality either.

"the solution to "global warming" seems to be to give the people in charge trillions of dollars so that we can't afford energy. Seriously?"
You are responding to someone else's claims. I said there is no "solution" to prevent those costs. I Preventing all costs to others is not even a reasonable goal. Rather, we have to make people whole when our activities damage their property.

I am amazed at people's capacity to deny reality when the truth is unpleasant.

.CO2 is a govt control ploy...

but what is the link? why do you think CO2 is more "above the mountains"? and why has local (mountain) weather have anything to do with global climate?

Like the spotted owl...groups like to point the finger at just one small item, CO2, as being the major indicator of global warming (I didn't say climate change, because most respondents are talking about warming).

The fact, as I understand it, is that water vapor is the major contributor to this effect. Far more than the effect of CO2 levels, but nobody ever addresses that little issue.

Finally...few people are denying that the climate is changing. They're just having a hard time with the poor evidence that mankind is the major reason for it.

the real question is how much money will the government of the usa take from us to "fight" this problem which does not exist? aside from the government screwing up the economy which affects us how is this climate garbage affecting us in a negative way?

If the atmospheric CO2 (above the mountains) trapped heat, the higher elevations in the mountains would be the same temperature as the earths surface.

I think the key statement in the piece is that today's CO2 levels are "unprecedented" in the last 420,000 years. Am I misreading this? It would seem to say that CO2 is higher today than in the last 420,000 years. If true, it would appear to add credence to the Global Warming arguement. This is also significant that the "cycles" that they refer to have similar increases and decreases in CO2, and yet we are apparently higher today than what was found with regard to these cycles.
Am I wrong? Have I misread? Comments welcome.

OK sports fans. How much continental ice is present in liters and if completely melted how much of an influence will this have on sea levels. My Google search is not rewarding given all I read is scientific rhetoric with a gazillion qualifiers. Lots of puffery without substance.
Also, my dad worked for NASA (two masters degrees in engineering - nuclear physics) and really slammed the global warming religion. He pointed out a ton of flaws in the quasi science behind the hypothesis and even the tools used for data collection.

Please explain your link between the mountains and CO2.
Never heard that one before :)

One only has to go into the mountains to disprove the theory that CO2 traps heat. If atmospheric CO2 trapped heat then it would be hot in the mountains and that is just not true.

I dont believe anything that the liberal left says. They have no credibility, and only say things to further their agendas at the time.

It is interesting to watch the debate on both sides that ultimately must be decided by hard science not opinion. IF we look at earth's history that is stored in the geology of out planet these fluctuations have been ongoing since out planet has existed, sun co2 plate tectonics methane cosmic rays gamma rays. The interactions and the complexity fun to watch but assuming proof is too early on either side,

no need to read about it, since I believe you are understanding it correctly. also since global warming is not happening your education to further debunk it is unnecessary.
do you think if we gane gore the 15 trillion he wants that he would we have enough to end what is not happening? or would he further put jet exhaust in the air proclaiming victory? he as should 0 take a page out of the bush book and just shut up and go away.

A lot of assumptions behind this "data".
- Does the CO2 stay put? Or does it migrate? To where? How do we know?
- What are the sources of error in the calculations? (I don't mean "faulty addition", but instead "overlooked factors" and "faulty proxies".) How do we know?
- What are the protocols for handling the samples and how can we be certain they have not lost or gained CO2?
- What levels of CO2 are necessary in the atmosphere for plant life at the ages measured? C3 plants? C4 plants? That'll be the concentration for plants to reproduce, not just to survive.
-

The CO2 lag could be longer than 100yrs, this article says it could anywhere from 0 to 1000yrs. My point was only that the error margin is even larger. This article says the age difference between the air and the ice in a given sample was increased to 6000yrs from previous estimates of 4000yrs. Latching on to the "lag" suggestion, while ignoring wide error margin, it a good example of confirmation bias.

Yes, of course the solar cycles have an effect, but we cannot influence them. We do however influence the CO2 levels.

Actually, there doesn't seem to be a consistent lead-lag either way concerning CO2 and temperatures. Joe Bastardi, renowned meteorologist has a couple of interesting charts that support this fact in this piece https://patriotpost.us/opinion/48675 .

The maximum sea level rise is 215ft. That is only if ALL of todays continental ice melted, but that is not going to happen. But I would be interested to know what process you think will make the rise stop at a couple of inches.