Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.So you are saying that the physical processes somehow changed? That they are somehow different today?The geologic record never had to contend with what humans are doing today, so the jury is still out on what CO2 might do now.I am saying that if you study the geologic record, you will find that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.So you're trying to say that humans aren't impacting climate in any way?Reason #10 why I don't buy into their pseudo-science bullshit.
The inability to represent the earth's climate with a single temperature.
The inability to accurately estimate a single temperature for the planet for each of the last 2000 years.
The misuse of the greenhouse gas effect to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change.
The inability to show how CO2 has effected previous climates throughout the geologic record.
The overestimation of feedback in their climate models.
Blaming global warming for natural events such as heat waves, droughts, blizzards, floods, hurricanes and forest fires.
The overestimation of temperature and sea level in their models.
The overestimation of the impact on life and property of climate change.
The overdramatization of climate change.
The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings of climate change.
You do realize the calculation for associated temperature from CO2 is just a formula, right?
I can show you the formula they use and no where in it does the rate of change enter into the calculation, bro.
Do you want me to send it to you?