And there is really no consistent scientific opinion what that really will do the the climate. What we do know from 150 years or so of photographic evidence, is that sea levels have not significantly changed.

The gas bubbles in the ice you mentioned. Exactly how do you know how old that gas bubble is or the ice the bubble is in. How do you know there wasnt something going on on the particular day the bubble formed that caused co2 levels to be higher than other days that year? The theory you are presenting is not the only theory out there explaining what youre talking about. The other theories also have evidence supporting them and scientist who believe in them. So far you have some gas in a bubble. I have no problem with the level of co2 in your bubble. But tell me how it got there, what was going on that day or even how long ago it was without a doubt? Thats where the theory comes into play, not the measurement of the co2.

I've seen more snow in South Bama in the last 10 years (even broke a record in mobile few years ago) than i did growing up in the 80s and 90s

Those pictures don't really prove anything......depending on time of day, the tide and weather conditions at the time each one was taken, water levels could have varied greatly. Someone who supports the idea of rising ocean levels could easily argue against the evidence those pictures are supposed to provide by saying that the old pictures could have been taken at high tide while the "current" ones were taken at low tide.

Gomer, I was going by the visible high water stains in both pictures. That is more indicative of the actual water level that tides or time of day.

Fair enough, but if you count down, from the window, to the first "dark row" of bricks in the first pic (of the gun tower), it's 12 rows down. In the 2nd pic, it's only 10 rows down...so, by that reasoning the average high water mark has risen roughly 2 rows, or several inches. If that were the case, that would be significant...

Great questions. I'll answer the best I can once I get a little free time today. I will follow up on this.

Let's assume for second that the global warming guys are 100 percent right. Do they honestly believe that they can can change the climate "back" to what is was 150 years ago by laws and regulations?

I hear them talk about worrying about their grandchildren. So let's look say 50 years out.

So let's give you 100 % control to change all the laws and regulations in the whole world. You think you can control the earth's atmosphere to what is was 150 years ago?

It' all pride folks. Pride is the downfall of man.

You can bet your last dollar that when politicians get involved, and try to influence public opinion on a topic, the driving force behind it is money and power. And if you do not fall in line and become a part of the group-think mentality, you are going to have a hard time getting funding to prove otherwise. There are numerous world re-known scientists that have been pushed out of their fields and out of academia all-together because they did not fall lock-step with the climate change crowd. Just the fact that this happens is enough for me to distrust man-made, world-ending, life-as-we-know-it-is-over climate change.

hey, bill Nye the global warming guy....why did noaa go back and falsify historical data to make temps look more “changed” than they were, before the previous pres went to the Paris summit??

This and this goes back to my point of the government wanting to create a doomsday scenario so taxes can save us all. It’s just a big scam.

Facts are not the real issue in these kinds of debates. Everyone has access to the same data. Real science gets real data that can be observed and tracked.
It is the interpretation of the facts and the application of the facts along with Progressive scientists manipulating facts fro their own agenda that are the real problem children in these discussions.
This is where the wheels come off for everyone.
We are only left with Faith and Hope. I'll put my faith and hope in Christ....anyone who wants to put faith and hope in "science" and the planet can go ahead but I can tell you a better way.

CO2 rising...ok. So? There is not a real authority to state what CO2 should be today...which date in history was the optimal CO2 level and who was there to test, measure, monitor and observe it and let me see that data.
Ice Melting? Ok, isn't that kinda of expected as the earth warms up post Ice Age....because Pre-Ice Age wasn't there much less ice per the "scientists" modeling? Less Ice...then Ice Age with More Ice..then a gradual change back to what it was before means more warmth so melting ice, right? Seems cyclical and natural at face value.
Temps rising? Ok....well sometimes but not always and we have seen multiple manipulations in science data over the years. Yes, science publishing false reports to push their new religion.
Would it surprise me to know the Earth is in a state of decay and chaos and change? Not at all, because that is consistent with Genesis. So maybe we are warming up due to God's work or his allowance for the curse to continue not just on mankind, but on the earth too. The fall of man had real consequences, so it would not surprise me that we may be in some state of permanent change of the climate.

I'm 100% for clean air and water and being a good steward of the earth that God created and ordained for us to take care of. But I also understand the Progressive Movement motives in using Climate Change/Global Warming as a platform to implement their political will on the masses. The evidence of the perversions and distortions are open and obvious....unless someone has an alternative agenda and they wish to go along with it. But some people don't follow an agenda on purpose...they have simply been honestly deceived and are following along on a false path. Good people who are just hooked into wrong thinking. Which is funny, because I get told that all the time from agnostics, atheists, and people I know who are agenda driven Progressives. It's all full circle and time will answer all questions...that is a certainty.

The claim of "man made global warming/climate change" is 100% propaganda Big Lie bs brought to planet Earth courtesy of the Atheist Globalist political elites.
They want Global government and control - and will do anything to achieve it.

Al Gore even publicly and famously stated that " GLOBAL WARMING IS ABOUT GLOBAL GOVERNMENT".

If you repeat a lie BIG enough, loud enough, and long enough - eventually most people will believe it to be true.
Such is the case with "global warming."

People need to not be so foolish and gullible.
There is no excuse for such stupidity.

Recommended reading for Americans who can think for themselves:



https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...S_rV_fDlmovnCIXu70#.XZSdZ6u6Ots.facebook


The climate is always changing - by God's design.
There has always been long term warming trends and long term cooling trends.
Ice ages.
Etc.
It is all normal.

An Angel too

"no excuse for such stupidity"....this is the truth. Only a liar or an idiot believes the money driven propaganda of human caused climate change.

It was the back water that froze over. But I have seen a picture of before the dam was built with a model A out on the river section when it was froze. Tigger you remember the first time we got gatorade at football practice? Our favorite manager was out there mixing it up in the cooler with his hand. Those couple sips sure were good!

Highest daily snowfall recorded at Birmingham each year
Inches Date Centimeters
2.0 March 01, 2009 5.1
0.1 March 08, 2008 0.3
trace February 17, 2007 trace
trace January 23, 2006 trace
trace April 22, 2005 trace
trace October 14, 2004 + trace
trace July 21, 2003 + trace
trace February 27, 2002 + trace
– 2001 –
3.0 January 28, 2000 7.6
trace January 02, 1999 + trace
– 1998 –
1.6 December 29, 1997 4.1
0.9 February 02, 1996 2.3
0.8 February 06, 1995 2.0
trace January 27, 1994 + trace
10.3 March 13, 1993 26.2
4.4 January 18, 1992 11.2
trace November 08, 1991 + trace
trace December 24, 1990 + trace
0.4 December 09, 1989 1.0
1.0 January 07, 1988 2.5
5.0 April 03, 1987 12.7
trace December 12, 1986 + trace
0.3 February 12, 1985 0.8
2.0 March 10, 1984 5.1
1.5 March 24, 1983 3.8
5.0 January 13, 1982 12.7
trace December 21, 1981 + trace
0.3 March 02, 1980 0.8
trace February 25, 1979 + trace
1.0 January 26, 1978 2.5
1.0 January 18, 1977 2.5
trace December 31, 1976 + trace
trace December 18, 1975 + trace
0.4 December 01, 1974 1.0
trace December 20, 1973 trace
trace March 03, 1972 + trace
0.5 February 13, 1971 1.3
1.1 January 19, 1970 2.8
trace December 22, 1969 + trace
1.0 January 14, 1968 2.5
0.8 February 09, 1967 2.0
1.2 January 29, 1966 3.0
trace March 20, 1965 + trace
0.4 January 01, 1964 1.0
8.0 December 31, 1963 20.3
3.5 January 09, 1962 8.9
trace December 27, 1961 + trace
2.3 February 13, 1960 5.8
trace December 07, 1959 + trace
3.3 December 13, 1958 8.4
0.7 March 08, 1957 1.8
trace December 29, 1956 + trace
trace December 09, 1955 + trace
trace December 19, 1954 + trace
trace December 14, 1953 + trace
trace January 07, 1952 + trace
0.2 February 01, 1951 0.5
1.0 November 24, 1950 2.5
1.0 January 30, 1949 2.5
3.8 January 23, 1948 9.7
trace December 12, 1947 + trace
trace December 19, 1946 + trace
1.5 December 18, 1945 3.8
2.0 December 11, 1944 5.1
trace December 14, 1943 + trace
2.5 March 02, 1942 6.4
2.0 February 28, 1941 5.1
9.5 January 23, 1940 24.1
trace December 29, 1939 trace
0.5 November 24, 1938 1.3
0.8 December 08, 1937 2.0
8.0 January 30, 1936 20.3
1.0 December 22, 1935 2.5
1.0 March 19, 1934 2.5
0.0 March 07, 1933 + 0.0
0.3 December 16, 1932 + 0.8
0.1 March 03, 1931 0.3
5.5 January 29, 1930 14.0

Snowfall is not an indicator of how cold the periods were. It can snow at 35 and not at 0.

Let's start with the age of the ice/bubbles/CO2. If you cut a tree down, it is very straightforward that the number of tree rings is directly related to the age of the tree. 35 rings means the tree is 35 years old. Trees are fairly simple as they grow during the spring/summer and go dormant during the winter, which results in contrasting layers and easy to see annual rings. Yeah, some trees don't make rings very well and trees typically don't live very long.

If you take a core into an ice cap (Greenland, Antartica), you also find "rings" in the form of layers, but these layers represent 1 year of snowfall. Fresh snow starts of soft, fluffy, and mostly air. As that layer of snow gets buried by more seasons worth of snow, pressure from the snow above compacts the snow (what was once maybe a couple feet of snow is now maybe 6 inches of snow). It's more of a slushie texture. More snow builds up above, more pressure, more compaction, and you end up with a layer of ice maybe a half inch thick or thereabouts. But it's not just pure ice, air bubbles are throughout the ice and preserve a sample of the atmosphere when that layer of snow was first deposited.



Take a core in 2019 for example and start counting layers down and you get the age of each layer, similar to counting the rings in a tree. Valid questions would be: How do you know each layer is one year? What if there are a bunch of layers missing? Confidence is added when you find anomalies in the ice core, such as a thin layer of volcanic ash. If you're in Greenland, then that ash layer might be due to a volcanic eruption in nearby Iceland. Maybe the eruption was in 1950 (just making up a random date), and the ash layer was 69 layers/years down. Maybe you find another ash layer that's a couple hundred layers down that's really close to a historical eruption, but they are off by 3-4 years. Do you throw out the whole idea because somewhere along the line you counted what should have been two separate layers as just 1? The age errors on these ice core records are usually accurate to about 1 or 2%. Ash layer shown below.



How do we know that something funky didn't happen on a particular year? Valid question. Scientists don't put all their eggs in one basket. We've collected many many ice cores from Greenland and Antartica and get similar records of CO2 and other gasses trapped in the ice. Are there subtle differences? Sure. Does not being an exact perfect match negate their records? No. Also, none of these analyzes are of a single air bubble.

For what it is worth, this is research that has been going on for decades, not some emerging science that we're still trying to figure out. If you want the research papers I can get them to you somehow. Below are a couple citations. For testing the reliability of the measurements, one would simply need to measure the gas trapped in a layer of snow from a particular year, let's say 1970, and then compare it to the CO2 concentration measured directly from the atmosphere from the same year. Then do the same for other years. The atmosphere is mixed well enough that the CO2 concentration in Alabama is about the same as it is in Hawaii, and Greenland, and Antartica, etc. for any given time.

U. Siegenthaler & H. Oeschger (1987) Biospheric CO2 emissions during the past 200 years reconstructed by deconvolution of ice core data, Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 39:1-2, 140-154, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v39i1-2.15331

1983 "Comparison of CO2 measurements by two laboratories on air from bubbles in polar ice" Nature

Here is a short video on the topic. Do we honestly think that people would go to some of the most miserable places on earth to collect these samples just to make up false or meaningless data?