"An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California".

[westwall]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Everything considering you can't show even a one degree rise in the atmosphere. That's called an epic fail dude.

Liar

It’s official: 2015 ‘smashed’ 2014’s global temperature record. It wasn’t even close

“This is the first year where the record is clearly above 1 degree Celsius above the 19th century,” said NASA’s Schmidt. NOAA’s data also show that the planet is now more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than the average temperature between 1880 and 1899, said the agency’s Karl.

2015’s El Niño enhanced heat was accompanied by dramatic weather events across the globe, including a record for the number of Category 3 or greater tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere. That tally includes Hurricane Patricia, the most intense hurricane ever recorded by the National Hurricane Center.

And 2016 is warmer yet. Can't you get anything right?

Which is a farce as you well know. The only way they could get those numbers was by running them through a computer program which massaged them to the desired temps.

 

[Crick]

And you have a statement from one or more of the hundreds of scientists and technicians that would have to be aware of such a deception? Why... no, you do not.

 

[ding]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Ummm.... there is a GHG effect. Water vapor is by far the most dominant GHG. GHG across the same frequency are not additive. There is a logarithmic relationship between the radiative force of CO2 and associated temperature . The largest effect from CO2 is at very low concentrations. As atmospheric CO2 increases the the associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 diminishes. Throughout the geologic record CO2 has shown to lag temperature by 800 years. The cyclicity of CO2 reinforces climate change it does not drive climate change. It took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the predicted 7C drop when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm. There are a multitude of drivers for climate change. The ocean, the sun and water vapor all being much more dominant than CO2. You are shitting your pants over a 1C increase in surface temperatures over a 250 year period.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't it wonderful how the deniers work? Here we are with a week of temperatures at the North Pole above freezing during the polar night, over 100 million trees killed by fire and drought in California in the past few years, and three times that number killed in the Texas drought.

The Final Numbers Are In: Over 300 Million Trees Killed By the Texas Drought



PHOTO BY DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

Over 300 million forested trees have been lost to the Texas drought.

The tally of the Texas drought‘s toll continues. After an extensive survey, the Texas A&M Forest Service today puts the number of rural trees killed by the Texas drought at 301 million. That falls right in the middle of a December 2011 estimate by the service that between 100 and 500 million trees had been killed by the drought.

And the Arctic Sea Ice is down 3 standard deviations, same for the Antarctic Sea Ice. And they wish to change to subject to the accuracy of proxy measurements of the past GHG excursions, and whether the recovery took hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Dingleberry, it fucking doesn't matter! If we screw up big time and create an really bad environment for our descendants, even if it lasts only few hundreds of thousands of year, that is longer than our species has been alive.

And as Nature magazine explained in 2012, “climate attribution” — the attempt to link singular weather events to manmade global warming — “rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming.” As critics have observed, such attribution claims “are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”

Natural catastrophes and climate change - Swiss Re 2015 Corporate Responsibility Report

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

This general trend will continue. But crucially, losses will be further aggravated by climate change. The scientific consensus is that a continued rise in average global temperatures will have a significant effect on weather-related natural catastrophes. According to the Special Report on Extremes (SREX, 2012) and the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014) published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a changing climate gradually leads to shifts in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather events.

If climate change remains unchecked, the makeup of the main drivers will thus gradually shift, with climate change accounting for an increasingly large share of natural catastrophe losses.

To assess our Property & Casualty business accurately and to structure sound risk transfer solutions, we need to clearly understand the economic impact of natural catastrophes and the effect of climate change. This is why we invest in proprietary, state-of-the-art natural catastrophe models and regularly collaborate with universities and scientific institutions.

While attributing any one event may be dicey, the trend in increasing events, especially those that are related to a warming world, is well understood by the businesses that are most affected by such trends.

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

That's weird, none of these things are caused by more CO2.

That's weird, both Swiss Re and Munich Re state that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Climate change & climate protection | Munich Re
Swiss Re signs climate change pact - SWI swissinfo.ch

That's weird, both Swiss Re and Munich Re state that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Insurance companies explain why they have to charge more.......it's CO2. DERP!

 

[Crick]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Ummm.... there is a GHG effect.

There are actually a few people here who would challenge you on that, but you none of them seem to have responded to you. Perhaps they're the ones you sense "shitting their pants".

Water vapor is by far the most dominant GHG.

So you've told us repeatedly. And so we all knew many years back. I was in a restaurant in Chania, Crete a few weeks ago when a street vendor came in with a tray full of plastic junk. At the table with me were eight other middle aged men, dressed professionally. The man stood near us silently for some time until the most senior fellow there turned to him and said "Good lord, man, know your customer".

GHG across the same frequency are not additive.

That's why CO2's absorption and emission in the bands between 3.5 and 4.5 microns and between 11 and 17 microns, where water's absorption spectra has gaps, makes it a very effective greenhouse gas.

There is a logarithmic relationship between the radiative force of CO2 and associated temperature.

"Radiative force"? How about: there is a logarithmic relationship between ppCO2 and the climate's equilibrium temperature? There's no such thing as "radiative force" Mr My-Worst-Nightmare-Engineer

The largest effect from CO2 is at very low concentrations.

I think you mean there is an inverse relationship between delta ppCO2 and delta T.

As atmospheric CO2 increases the the associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 diminishes.

You don't write very well. This statement is actually false. I don't think it's what you meant to say but, hey, try proofreading your own work.

Throughout the geologic record CO2 has shown to lag temperature by 800 years.

Throughout the geological record, when has there been a source of CO2 to rival human use of fossil fuels?

The cyclicity of CO2 reinforces climate change it does not drive climate change.

Explain. Water vapor is certainly part of a cyclical process. Does that prevent it from "driving climate change"? Explain your comment here. I want to know how CO2-driven greenhouse warming is only allowed to reinforce warming and not to initiate it (which I presume is what you actually mean).

It took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the predicted 7C drop when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm. There are a multitude of drivers for climate change. The ocean, the sun and water vapor all being much more dominant than CO2. You are shitting your pants over a 1C increase in surface temperatures over a 250 year period.

You've really got a thing for "shitting your pants" don't you. Fetish? Unpleasant childhood experience?

The sun and our relationship to it (ie, TSI and Milankovitch) are obviously capable of driving climate change. Unfortunately, neither correlate AT ALL to the warming we have experienced and, in fact, that warming has taken place DESPITE a significant reduction in TSI on the order of the Maunder Minimum. Water vapor actually has relatively little to do with driving climate change because it cycles too quickly in the Earth's atmosphere. Where the lifespan of CO2 might run 30 years, the lifespan of water vapor might run 3 days. The Earth's climate cannot support a radical change in water vapor levels because excess rains out and shortfalls drive increased evaporation. Temperature has to change first. You will find the same sort of lag with water vapor and temperature as you've been touting for CO2. The result of their different lifespans is that water vapor is a reinforcing agent for CO2 or Milankovitch warming, not the other way around.

When, in that geological record you love to talk about, has CO2 been produced by anything at a rate to rival what humans have produced by burning fossil fuels? The one obvious occasion is the eruption of the Deccan Traps preceding the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event (The Great Dying). Do you still believe that the geological record PROVES that CO2 cannot be causing the warming observed over the last 150 years? Think hard before you answer dude.

 

[ding]

There are actually a few people here who would challenge you on that, but you none of them seem to have responded to you. Perhaps they're the ones you sense "shitting their pants".

I have yet to hear anyone argue there is no greenhouse effect only that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is driving our climate. It's way more complicated than that. No. The ones who are shitting their pants are the ones who are crying that the sky is falling because of a 1 C increase in temperature over the last 250 years while still in a interglacial cycle while simplistically boiling our climate down to CO2.

That's why CO2's absorption and emission in the bands between 3.5 and 4.5 microns and between 11 and 17 microns, where water's absorption spectra has gaps, makes it a very effective greenhouse gas.

Sure, like I wrote GHG which overlap are not additive.

Which curve most closely represents the total atmosphere wavelength? Water vapor. Which GHG is the dominant GHG? Water vapor.

"Radiative force"? How about: there is a logarithmic relationship between ppCO2 and the climate's equilibrium temperature? There's no such thing as "radiative force" Mr My-Worst-Nightmare-Engineer

Radiative forcing, lol. Climate equilibrium temperature = associated temperature.

I think you mean there is an inverse relationship between delta ppCO2 and delta T.

No. I meant what I wrote. I see you have been reduced to quibbling, lol.

You don't write very well. This statement is actually false. I don't think it's what you meant to say but, hey, try proofreading your own work.

That would be your opinion. It should have been understood that it was discussing the incremental effect. I've posted the graph and table enough times for you to understand that. Again... I see you have been reduced to quibbling, lol.

Throughout the geological record, when has there been a source of CO2 to rival human use of fossil fuels?

As far as nature is concerned, CO2 is fungible where it came from does not matter. The fact remains that we have ample examples from the geologic record and the oxygen isotope curve which prove that CO2 does not drive climate change and that the predicted radiative FORCING of CO2 has not led to the predicted CLIMATE EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE.

Explain. Water vapor is certainly part of a cyclical process. Does that prevent it from "driving climate change"? Explain your comment here. I want to know how CO2-driven greenhouse warming is only allowed to reinforce and not to initiate (which I presume is what you actually mean).

Sure, just as soon as you apologize for your error and behavior concerning the onset of bipolar glaciation.

You've really got a thing for "shitting your pants" don't you. Fetish? Unpleasant childhood experience?

The ones who are shitting their pants are the ones who are crying that the sky is falling because of a 1 C increase in temperature over the last 250 years while still in a interglacial cycle while simplistically boiling our climate down to CO2 and ignoring the data from past climate changes.

The sun and our relationship to it (ie, TSI and Milankovitch) are obviously capable of driving climate change. Unfortunately, neither correlate AT ALL to the warming we have experience and, in fact, that warming has taken place DESPITE a significant reduction in TSI on the order of the Maunder Minimum. Water vapor actually has relatively little to do with driving climate change because it cycles too quickly in the Earth's atmosphere. Where the lifespan of CO2 might run 30 years, the lifespan of water vapor might run 3 days. The Earth's climate cannot support a radical change in water vapor levels because excess rains out and shortfalls drive increased evaporation. Temperature has to change first. You will find the same sort of lag with water vapor and temperature as you've been touting for CO2. The result of their different lifespans is that water vapor is a reinforcing agent for CO2 or Milankovitch warming, not the other way around.

Water in all forms drives our climate. It is all connected together to regulate our climate's temperature. That and plate tectonics and the sun. CO2 serves to reinforce. All others regulate and control change.

When, in that geological record you love to talk about, has CO2 been produced by anything at a rate to rival what humans have produced by burning fossil fuels? The one obvious occasion is the eruption of the Deccan Traps preceding the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event (The Great Dying). Do you still believe that the geological record PROVES that CO2 cannot be causing the warming observed over the last 150 years? Think hard before you answer dude.

The fact remains that we have ample examples from the geologic record and the oxygen isotope curve which prove that CO2 does not drive climate change and that the predicted radiative FORCING of CO2 has not led to the predicted CLIMATE EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE. But I am glad that you have started looking at past climates. That is a start.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

"An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California". The big concern is the wildfires that this will likely cause in the fire season of the summer of 2017.

An astounding 102 million trees have now died in California

Extract: "Forest managers have never seen anything like it. Across California, an astounding 102 million trees have died over the past six years from drought and disease — including 62 million trees in 2016 alone, the US Forest Service estimates. Once-mighty oaks and pines have faded into ghastly hues of brown and gray. "

Sad...Something is seriously wrong with the environment in this area.

Yet the enviro-moonbats still refuse to allow them to be harvested.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"It's only a flesh wound"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Ummm.... there is a GHG effect.

There are actually a few people here who would challenge you on that, but you none of them seem to have responded to you. Perhaps they're the ones you sense "shitting their pants".

Water vapor is by far the most dominant GHG.

So you've told us repeatedly. And so we all knew many years back. I was in a restaurant in Chania, Crete a few weeks ago when a street vendor came in with a tray full of plastic junk. At the table with me were eight other middle aged men, dressed professionally. The man stood near us silently for some time until the most senior fellow there turned to him and said "Good lord, man, know your customer".

GHG across the same frequency are not additive.

That's why CO2's absorption and emission in the bands between 3.5 and 4.5 microns and between 11 and 17 microns, where water's absorption spectra has gaps, makes it a very effective greenhouse gas.

There is a logarithmic relationship between the radiative force of CO2 and associated temperature.

"Radiative force"? How about: there is a logarithmic relationship between ppCO2 and the climate's equilibrium temperature? There's no such thing as "radiative force" Mr My-Worst-Nightmare-Engineer

The largest effect from CO2 is at very low concentrations.

I think you mean there is an inverse relationship between delta ppCO2 and delta T.

As atmospheric CO2 increases the the associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 diminishes.

You don't write very well. This statement is actually false. I don't think it's what you meant to say but, hey, try proofreading your own work.

Throughout the geologic record CO2 has shown to lag temperature by 800 years.

Throughout the geological record, when has there been a source of CO2 to rival human use of fossil fuels?

The cyclicity of CO2 reinforces climate change it does not drive climate change.

Explain. Water vapor is certainly part of a cyclical process. Does that prevent it from "driving climate change"? Explain your comment here. I want to know how CO2-driven greenhouse warming is only allowed to reinforce warming and not to initiate it (which I presume is what you actually mean).

It took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the predicted 7C drop when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm. There are a multitude of drivers for climate change. The ocean, the sun and water vapor all being much more dominant than CO2. You are shitting your pants over a 1C increase in surface temperatures over a 250 year period.

You've really got a thing for "shitting your pants" don't you. Fetish? Unpleasant childhood experience?

The sun and our relationship to it (ie, TSI and Milankovitch) are obviously capable of driving climate change. Unfortunately, neither correlate AT ALL to the warming we have experienced and, in fact, that warming has taken place DESPITE a significant reduction in TSI on the order of the Maunder Minimum. Water vapor actually has relatively little to do with driving climate change because it cycles too quickly in the Earth's atmosphere. Where the lifespan of CO2 might run 30 years, the lifespan of water vapor might run 3 days. The Earth's climate cannot support a radical change in water vapor levels because excess rains out and shortfalls drive increased evaporation. Temperature has to change first. You will find the same sort of lag with water vapor and temperature as you've been touting for CO2. The result of their different lifespans is that water vapor is a reinforcing agent for CO2 or Milankovitch warming, not the other way around.

When, in that geological record you love to talk about, has CO2 been produced by anything at a rate to rival what humans have produced by burning fossil fuels? The one obvious occasion is the eruption of the Deccan Traps preceding the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event (The Great Dying). Do you still believe that the geological record PROVES that CO2 cannot be causing the warming observed over the last 150 years? Think hard before you answer dude.

There are actually a few people here who would challenge you on that, but you none of them seem to have responded to you. Perhaps they're the ones you sense "shitting their pants".

But they're morons.
Not dumb enough to want to spend trillions on windmills though, so they have that going for them

 

[Old Rocks]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Ummm.... there is a GHG effect.

There are actually a few people here who would challenge you on that, but you none of them seem to have responded to you. Perhaps they're the ones you sense "shitting their pants".

Water vapor is by far the most dominant GHG.

So you've told us repeatedly. And so we all knew many years back. I was in a restaurant in Chania, Crete a few weeks ago when a street vendor came in with a tray full of plastic junk. At the table with me were eight other middle aged men, dressed professionally. The man stood near us silently for some time until the most senior fellow there turned to him and said "Good lord, man, know your customer".

GHG across the same frequency are not additive.

That's why CO2's absorption and emission in the bands between 3.5 and 4.5 microns and between 11 and 17 microns, where water's absorption spectra has gaps, makes it a very effective greenhouse gas.

There is a logarithmic relationship between the radiative force of CO2 and associated temperature.

"Radiative force"? How about: there is a logarithmic relationship between ppCO2 and the climate's equilibrium temperature? There's no such thing as "radiative force" Mr My-Worst-Nightmare-Engineer

The largest effect from CO2 is at very low concentrations.

I think you mean there is an inverse relationship between delta ppCO2 and delta T.

As atmospheric CO2 increases the the associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 diminishes.

You don't write very well. This statement is actually false. I don't think it's what you meant to say but, hey, try proofreading your own work.

Throughout the geologic record CO2 has shown to lag temperature by 800 years.

Throughout the geological record, when has there been a source of CO2 to rival human use of fossil fuels?

The cyclicity of CO2 reinforces climate change it does not drive climate change.

Explain. Water vapor is certainly part of a cyclical process. Does that prevent it from "driving climate change"? Explain your comment here. I want to know how CO2-driven greenhouse warming is only allowed to reinforce warming and not to initiate it (which I presume is what you actually mean).

It took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the predicted 7C drop when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm. There are a multitude of drivers for climate change. The ocean, the sun and water vapor all being much more dominant than CO2. You are shitting your pants over a 1C increase in surface temperatures over a 250 year period.

You've really got a thing for "shitting your pants" don't you. Fetish? Unpleasant childhood experience?

The sun and our relationship to it (ie, TSI and Milankovitch) are obviously capable of driving climate change. Unfortunately, neither correlate AT ALL to the warming we have experienced and, in fact, that warming has taken place DESPITE a significant reduction in TSI on the order of the Maunder Minimum. Water vapor actually has relatively little to do with driving climate change because it cycles too quickly in the Earth's atmosphere. Where the lifespan of CO2 might run 30 years, the lifespan of water vapor might run 3 days. The Earth's climate cannot support a radical change in water vapor levels because excess rains out and shortfalls drive increased evaporation. Temperature has to change first. You will find the same sort of lag with water vapor and temperature as you've been touting for CO2. The result of their different lifespans is that water vapor is a reinforcing agent for CO2 or Milankovitch warming, not the other way around.

When, in that geological record you love to talk about, has CO2 been produced by anything at a rate to rival what humans have produced by burning fossil fuels? The one obvious occasion is the eruption of the Deccan Traps preceding the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event (The Great Dying). Do you still believe that the geological record PROVES that CO2 cannot be causing the warming observed over the last 150 years? Think hard before you answer dude.

Minor correction here. It was the Siberian Trapps during the PT Extinction event. The Deccan Trapps were during the KT event.

 

[ding]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Ummm.... there is a GHG effect.

There are actually a few people here who would challenge you on that, but you none of them seem to have responded to you. Perhaps they're the ones you sense "shitting their pants".

Water vapor is by far the most dominant GHG.

So you've told us repeatedly. And so we all knew many years back. I was in a restaurant in Chania, Crete a few weeks ago when a street vendor came in with a tray full of plastic junk. At the table with me were eight other middle aged men, dressed professionally. The man stood near us silently for some time until the most senior fellow there turned to him and said "Good lord, man, know your customer".

GHG across the same frequency are not additive.

That's why CO2's absorption and emission in the bands between 3.5 and 4.5 microns and between 11 and 17 microns, where water's absorption spectra has gaps, makes it a very effective greenhouse gas.

There is a logarithmic relationship between the radiative force of CO2 and associated temperature.

"Radiative force"? How about: there is a logarithmic relationship between ppCO2 and the climate's equilibrium temperature? There's no such thing as "radiative force" Mr My-Worst-Nightmare-Engineer

The largest effect from CO2 is at very low concentrations.

I think you mean there is an inverse relationship between delta ppCO2 and delta T.

As atmospheric CO2 increases the the associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 diminishes.

You don't write very well. This statement is actually false. I don't think it's what you meant to say but, hey, try proofreading your own work.

Throughout the geologic record CO2 has shown to lag temperature by 800 years.

Throughout the geological record, when has there been a source of CO2 to rival human use of fossil fuels?

The cyclicity of CO2 reinforces climate change it does not drive climate change.

Explain. Water vapor is certainly part of a cyclical process. Does that prevent it from "driving climate change"? Explain your comment here. I want to know how CO2-driven greenhouse warming is only allowed to reinforce warming and not to initiate it (which I presume is what you actually mean).

It took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the predicted 7C drop when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm. There are a multitude of drivers for climate change. The ocean, the sun and water vapor all being much more dominant than CO2. You are shitting your pants over a 1C increase in surface temperatures over a 250 year period.

You've really got a thing for "shitting your pants" don't you. Fetish? Unpleasant childhood experience?

The sun and our relationship to it (ie, TSI and Milankovitch) are obviously capable of driving climate change. Unfortunately, neither correlate AT ALL to the warming we have experienced and, in fact, that warming has taken place DESPITE a significant reduction in TSI on the order of the Maunder Minimum. Water vapor actually has relatively little to do with driving climate change because it cycles too quickly in the Earth's atmosphere. Where the lifespan of CO2 might run 30 years, the lifespan of water vapor might run 3 days. The Earth's climate cannot support a radical change in water vapor levels because excess rains out and shortfalls drive increased evaporation. Temperature has to change first. You will find the same sort of lag with water vapor and temperature as you've been touting for CO2. The result of their different lifespans is that water vapor is a reinforcing agent for CO2 or Milankovitch warming, not the other way around.

When, in that geological record you love to talk about, has CO2 been produced by anything at a rate to rival what humans have produced by burning fossil fuels? The one obvious occasion is the eruption of the Deccan Traps preceding the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event (The Great Dying). Do you still believe that the geological record PROVES that CO2 cannot be causing the warming observed over the last 150 years? Think hard before you answer dude.

Minor correction here. It was the Siberian Trapps during the PT Extinction event. The Deccan Trapps were during the KT event.

Sounds like really great examples of climate change brought on by cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. I am glad you guys are starting to look at real climate change events. Now can you explain why it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted from radiative forcing of CO2 when co2 levels fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

And while you are at it can you explain how Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

And lastly, can you explain why the temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

 

[Old Rocks]

Volcanic eruptions which spewed vast amounts of CO2 into the air. Also cooked some major deposits of coal, adding even more CO2 and CH4. So, first you had cooling from the volcanic ash and coal fly ash, then you had rapid warming from the CO2 and CH4, and then the clathrates in the oceans let go. Ocean acidity spiked, bacteria began producing hydrogen sulfide, further increasing the mortality rate on land and in the sea, and 95% of the species existing at that time became extinct.

As for your other question, have at it, boy. Then explain what relevance that has to the present situation where we see GHGs increasing as the temperature does the same.

 

[ding]

Volcanic eruptions which spewed vast amounts of CO2 into the air. Also cooked some major deposits of coal, adding even more CO2 and CH4. So, first you had cooling from the volcanic ash and coal fly ash, then you had rapid warming from the CO2 and CH4, and then the clathrates in the oceans let go. Ocean acidity spiked, bacteria began producing hydrogen sulfide, further increasing the mortality rate on land and in the sea, and 95% of the species existing at that time became extinct.

As for your other question, have at it, boy. Then explain what relevance that has to the present situation where we see GHGs increasing as the temperature does the same.

Right, how does that apply to today? It doesn't. Today it is just CO2. That's why looking at other non-volcanic events is the best proxy for today. See post #91.

 

[Crick]

And what events would those be?

 

[ding]

And what events would those be?

CO2 did not drive the climate when:

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

2. Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

3. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years began while atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm.

4. It took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

 

[Crick]

I was referring to your statement "That's why looking at other non-volcanic events is the best proxy for today.". What other "non-volcanic events"? The items you've listed would not generally be referred to as events and are certainly not temperature proxies.

 

[Moonglow]

All over the West, we have seen a tremendous kill of all species of trees, from disease, fire, and drought. Yet the deniers just yap on about how great and natural that is. Really disgusting.

So who put out the fires before modern man came around?

Time...

 

[Old Rocks]

Volcanic eruptions which spewed vast amounts of CO2 into the air. Also cooked some major deposits of coal, adding even more CO2 and CH4. So, first you had cooling from the volcanic ash and coal fly ash, then you had rapid warming from the CO2 and CH4, and then the clathrates in the oceans let go. Ocean acidity spiked, bacteria began producing hydrogen sulfide, further increasing the mortality rate on land and in the sea, and 95% of the species existing at that time became extinct.

As for your other question, have at it, boy. Then explain what relevance that has to the present situation where we see GHGs increasing as the temperature does the same.

Right, how does that apply to today? It doesn't. Today it is just CO2. That's why looking at other non-volcanic events is the best proxy for today. See post #91.

Exactly. Today it is just GHGs, CO2 and CH4, as well as manmade GHGs which have no natural analogs, and the temperature is spiking upward.

 

[Old Rocks]

And what events would those be?

CO2 did not drive the climate when:

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

2. Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

3. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years began while atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm.

4. It took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

At no time in the past 1 million years has the CO2 level been 400 ppm or above.


Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left side of the plot. This figure illustrates a range of events over the last 550 million years during which CO2 played a role in global climate.[22] The graph begins (on the right) with an era predating terrestrial plant life, during which solar output was more than 4% lower than today.[23] Land plants only became widespread after 400Ma, during the Devonian (D) period, and their diversification (along with the evolution of leaves) may have been partially driven by a decrease in CO2 concentration.[24] Toward the left side of the graph the sun gradually approaches modern levels of solar output, while vegetation spreads, removing large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The last 200 million years includes periods of extreme warmth, and sea levels so high that 200 metre-deep shallow seas formed on continental land masses (for example, at 100Ma during the Cretaceous (K) Greenhouse).[25] At the far left of the graph, we see modern CO2 levels and the appearance of the climate under which human species and human civilization developed.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

I was referring to your statement "That's why looking at other non-volcanic events is the best proxy for today.". What other "non-volcanic events"? The items you've listed would not generally be referred to as events and are certainly not temperature proxies.

Does that mean you have no answer for them?

CO2 did not drive the climate when:

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

2. Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

3. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years began while atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm.

4. It took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.