And the worst is yet to come

[ding]

LOL Again you just proved what an ignorant ass you are. The space between -6 and +8 it 1.4. Any sixth grader knows that. LOL

In these graphs they commonly use a benchmark year and temperature which is why there is a zero line, dummy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And humans were emitting CO2 by the gigaton during that whole 2.7 million years so you can say, without a doubt, that human emissions don't cause warming. Right?

And surely you've seen the calculations that show without any CO2, the Earth's temperature would be almost 40C cooler. We would be an iceball planet.

And, surprise me: what do you think is driving the thousands and thousands of scientists who would disagree with you about CO2?

So if we do an experiment where one container is Earth atmosphere and the second is Earth atmosphere minus the 280 PPM CO2 the first will be 40C warmer than the second?

Really?

 

[skookerasbil]

So....what happened to those fire vids? C'mon now....get 'em up there. This thread losing steam....need some action!

 

[skookerasbil]

Old Rocks was trying to claim that Poland's historical and natural cycle of droughts was an example of climate change. Too fcking funny.

.

For 12 years in here, Old Rocks pulling the drought link to climate change fakery. Has changed nothing....still nobody cares.

 

[Old Rocks]

A world full of smoke;

 

[Old Rocks]

A portent of the future?

 

[ding]

More like natural disasters.

 

[Crick]

In these graphs they commonly use a benchmark year and temperature which is why there is a zero line, dummy.

Wow...

Suppose that for an entirely arbitrary reason, they put the zero line at 1950 but you want to know how much the temperature has changed since 1900. What would you do?

 

[ding]

Wow...

Suppose that for an entirely arbitrary reason, they put the zero line at 1950 but you want to know how much the temperature has changed since 1900. What would you do?

I would say pick a point before industrialization that was the highest temperature. Natural variability is the norm. So pick a temperature that can't be assailed.

 

[Crick]

The question was the effect of the Industrial Revolution. Thus we pick a date associated with its beginning. You are simply looking to influence the outcome to your own liking. That is the very DEFINITION of cherry picking you fucking idiot.

 

[ding]

The question was the effect of the Industrial Revolution. Thus we pick a date associated with its beginning. You are simply looking to influence the outcome to your own liking. That is the very DEFINITION of cherry picking you fucking idiot.

That's very convenient to pick the coldest point in the last 1000 years. Are you trying to claim that is the maximum temperature of an interglacial cycle?

Why not pick the maximum temperature of the previous interglacial cycle as the benchmark for an interglacial cycle without any effects from man?

 

[Crick]

I don't give two shits about the glacial cycle. Were it not for man-made global warming we would be getting colder, not hotter.

I have explained why I picked a temperature BY TIME and why you picking it by it's magnitude is blatant cherry picking. You're a fucking idiot. I begin to conclude that since you seem to be the primary denier these days, this argument has been won.

 

[ding]

I don't give two shits about the glacial cycle. Were it not for man-made global warming we would be getting colder, not hotter.

I have explained why I picked a temperature BY TIME and why you picking it by it's magnitude is blatant cherry picking. You're a fucking idiot. I begin to conclude that since you seem to be the primary denier these days, this argument has been won.

You don't care about understanding past climate changes? Interesting.

There is no man made-global warming. It's all natural variability.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[ding]

Were it not for man-made global warming we would be getting colder, not hotter.

So you are saying man made global warming saved the planet?

 

[Crick]

No.

 

[ding]

No.

It certainly sounded that way. You said the planet was cooling, right? What do you think would have happened if the industrial revolution had not occurred? Was it going to continue cooling? Was it going to start warming up? Or did you set the thermostat and it was going to say exactly the same? Given earth's climate history, which on do you think would have most likely happened?

 

[Crick]

You have my answer. More than I can say of you. When are you going to explain why you believe the increasing CO2 level is NOT warming the planet? When are you going to explain what the differences between the poles's glaciation potential have to do with warming? You mentioned D-O events several dozen times and then admitted you didn't think we were experiencing one. Then what DO you think we're experiencing? And why?

 

[ding]

You have my answer. More than I can say of you. When are you going to explain why you believe the increasing CO2 level is NOT warming the planet? When are you going to explain what the differences between the poles's glaciation potential have to do with warming? You mentioned D-O events several dozen times and then admitted you didn't think we were experiencing one. Then what DO you think we're experiencing? And why?

Actually I don't have your answer is your answer that CO2 stopped the planet from cooling?

 

[ding]

Actually I don't have your answer is your answer that CO2 stopped the planet from cooling?

CO2 contribution to warming is minor. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. No experiment exists that quantifies the warming of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 410 ppm. The warming that has occurred is occurring from natural causes. Primarily the sun.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

 

[gtopa1]

The question was the effect of the Industrial Revolution. Thus we pick a date associated with its beginning. You are simply looking to influence the outcome to your own liking. That is the very DEFINITION of cherry picking you fucking idiot.

So you pick a cold period to compare modern temps with; cool!!! Dishonest but cool.

Greg