The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
And then we're as hot as Venus?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
Nope. The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback -- the way each new bit of CO2 has less of an effect than the previous bit -- puts an upper limit on the feedback.And then we're as hot as Venus?
The current natural factors are pushing towards cooling, therefore the current fast warming is not natural variation.If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.
But we don't. We don't believe in a magical climate variation fairy randomly waving a wand about. That's your bizarre religous belief, and we just laugh at it.If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling
As it should have. After all, the feedback cycle goes the other way on the downside of the cycle. You're really bad at this.for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm
You seem confused. The planet is _warming_ now.then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
See? Feedback. Do I need to paste another thousand repetitions, or are you figuring it out?
Since the dataset shows CO2 driving temperature, you sound kind of insane. CO2 doesn't give the initial push, but then it takes over.
Seriously, I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.
And it's also leading temperature, except at the very beginning.Here's a 450,000 year side by side dataset that refuses to listen to your explanation and has CO2 LAGGING TEMPERATURE
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
The warmer oceans emit CO2.
That CO2 causes more warming.
See? Feedback. Do I need to paste another thousand repetitions, or are you figuring it out?
Since the dataset shows CO2 driving temperature, you sound kind of insane. CO2 doesn't give the initial push, but then it takes over.
Seriously, I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.
And this bothers you ... why? It doesn't bother anyone who understands the science.CO2 peaks as temperature declines.
Exactly what did the voices tell you about this genetically mutating CO2?IS this the same CO2 or are you thinking of some genetic mutation?
And this bothers you ... why? It doesn't bother anyone who understands the science.
I know you think that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, but nobody else thinks like that.
Exactly what did the voices tell you about this genetically mutating CO2?
I've done so many times before. Pay attention this time.
Orbital factors heat the oceans a little.
That causes them to release CO2.
Then the CO2 feedback takes over from there.
This is basic stuff, but all deniers faceplant at it.
Now, your turn. Explain how ice age cycles work without invoking CO2. After all, the orbital cycles and albedo changes don't even have close to enough power to make it happen. Something else has to be reinforcing it.
I won't be paying any attention to that deflection. If you actually want to know, go look up Milankovitch Cycles.Which orbital factors? ... I hope you understand these matters better than to say obliquity ...
They're not. Where did you come up with that crazy idea?Why do you think the oceans are completely saturated with carbon dioxide ...
What was the point of your big-lie-about-saturation deflection? Your posts seem to have no point, except that you want to catch me in some kind of "gotcha", so you make up dumb stories. Is there anything more to it than your butthurt?No ... you've never answered these questions before ...
The charts also show that after CO2 drops, temperature drops. After CO2 rises, temperature rises. CO2 preceeds temp, except at the beginnning. But then, we've already established that CO2 is not what starts the cycle.The charts describes the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of what you believe -- over a 450,000 year period too!
I won't be paying any attention to that deflection. If you actually want to know, go look up Milankovitch Cycles.
They're not. Where did you come up with that crazy idea?
The oceans used to be saturated for the 280 ppm level. It will take centuries for the oceans to reach equilibrium with the new higher level.
What was the point of your big-lie-about-saturation deflection? Your posts seem to have no point, except that you want to catch me in some kind of "gotcha", so you make up dumb stories. Is there anything more to it than your butthurt?
So are you saying that other forces cause the warming, or cooling and CO2 increase or decreases in response?The charts also show that after CO2 drops, temperature drops. After CO2 rises, temperature rises. CO2 preceeds temp, except at the beginnning. But then, we've already established that CO2 is not what starts the cycle.
Your charts back up the science. Your inability to understand that is only your problem.
And no, repeat your error for the hundredth time won't make it any less dumb.
Which orbital factors? ... and please show your math ...
On the upside ...So are you saying that other forces cause the warming, or cooling and CO2 increase or decreases in response?
Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming
In the last few months, a number of questions have come in asking if NASA has attributed Earth’s recent warming to changes in how Earth moves through space around the Sun: a series of orbital motions known as Milankovitch cycles. What cycles, you ask? Milankovitch cycles include the shape of...climate.nasa.gov
On the upside ...
Orbital factors cause a bit of warming.
That warms the oceans.
That makes the oceans release CO2.
That causes more warming.
CO2 feedback continues until the warming tops out.
On the downside ... it works the other way, though more slowly.
Orbital factors cause a bit of cooling.
The oceans cool off.
The oceans absorb CO2.
That causes more cooling.
Again... If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.The current natural factors are pushing towards cooling, therefore the current fast warming is not natural variation.
That was easy.
Natural cycles have causes. If the natural cycle is pushing warming, there's a cause to that. Since you won't explain your cause, it means you're just invoking magic. That's religion on your part, not science, so you get ignored.
But we don't. We don't believe in a magical climate variation fairy randomly waving a wand about. That's your bizarre religous belief, and we just laugh at it.
As it should have. After all, the feedback cycle goes the other way on the downside of the cycle. You're really bad at this.
You seem confused. The planet is _warming_ now.
Again... If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.
If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.