It took 12 million years for the temperature to finally respond to CO2

[ding]

It took 12 million years for the temperature the predicted temperature of radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm. 12 million years. I don't know about you guys, but 12 million years seems like a long time to me.

 

[Crick]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

Leaving the last ice age

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

UHI... Land Use..

Its been proven by Anthony Watts and others..

THE US-CRN shows no such rise. Only cities and affected land use changed areas are showing temperature rise.

 

[ding]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

Not so fast, why do you believe it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

Not so fast, why do you believe it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2?

The paleo records show CO2 lagging temperature changes by 200-800 years. Our current solar down trend will only begin to be felt in the next 50 years unless future solar cycles stay quiet, at which time its going to be a rude awakening to many alarmists.

 

[Crick]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

UHI... Land Use..

Its been proven by Anthony Watts and others..

THE US-CRN shows no such rise. Only cities and affected land use changed areas are showing temperature rise.

UHI?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAaaahaahaahahahahaaaaaa... what a maroon!

 

[ding]

 

[Crick]

Do you have no comment for Billy Bob's contention that global warming is being caused by the urban heat island effect?

Are you going to tell us what you believe is causing the warming of the last 150 years? Your graphic does not do so.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you have no comment for Billy Bob's contention that global warming is being caused by the urban heat island effect?

Are you going to tell us what you believe is causing the warming of the last 150 years? Your graphic does not do so.

Crick is a dumb fuck moron..

The HCN (Historic Climate Network) has 86% of the data collection points in or around cities and inhabited areas. If you increase the temperatures at those points what will the result be on the record?

Will these data points also cause problems with terrestrial satellites as well?

The answer is yes in both instances. In both instances the average temperature will be affected by the strong bias.

When we look at the US CRN and balloon data sets taken in pristine areas. there is no warming.

Now why would that be? If the global temps were rising should these not also be affected?

The current warming trend is nothing more than an artifact of improper data handling.

 

[ding]

Do you have no comment for Billy Bob's contention that global warming is being caused by the urban heat island effect?

Are you going to tell us what you believe is causing the warming of the last 150 years? Your graphic does not do so.

Who are you talking to?

 

[ding]

CO2 does not drive the climate:

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]

Do you have no comment for Billy Bob's contention that global warming is being caused by the urban heat island effect?

Are you going to tell us what you believe is causing the warming of the last 150 years? Your graphic does not do so.

Who are you talking to?

You.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Silly Billy, Dale, and SSDD have found someone at their peer level in Ding. Next, they will be blabbering on about Chemtrails. LOL

Look, Dingleberry, whatever was the reason behind your graph, it is not relevant to the present rapid increase in ocean and air temperatures.

 

[ding]

Do you have no comment for Billy Bob's contention that global warming is being caused by the urban heat island effect?

Are you going to tell us what you believe is causing the warming of the last 150 years? Your graphic does not do so.

Who are you talking to?

You.

The natural effect of being in an interglacial cycle. How do you explain these events:

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.

 

[ding]

Well, Silly Billy, Dale, and SSDD have found someone at their peer level in Ding. Next, they will be blabbering on about Chemtrails. LOL

Look, Dingleberry, whatever was the reason behind your graph, it is not relevant to the present rapid increase in ocean and air temperatures.

Of course they are.

According to Raymond S. Bradley, Climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst "to anticipate future changes, we must understand how and why climates varied in the past."

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Silly Billy, Dale, and SSDD have found someone at their peer level in Ding. Next, they will be blabbering on about Chemtrails. LOL

Look, Dingleberry, whatever was the reason behind your graph, it is not relevant to the present rapid increase in ocean and air temperatures.

Of course they are.

According to Raymond S. Bradley, Climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst "to anticipate future changes, we must understand how and why climates varied in the past."

Well, one thing we have seen for certain is that abrupt additions of GHGs creates rapid heating.

 

[ding]

Well, Silly Billy, Dale, and SSDD have found someone at their peer level in Ding. Next, they will be blabbering on about Chemtrails. LOL

Look, Dingleberry, whatever was the reason behind your graph, it is not relevant to the present rapid increase in ocean and air temperatures.

Of course they are.

According to Raymond S. Bradley, Climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst "to anticipate future changes, we must understand how and why climates varied in the past."

Well, one thing we have seen for certain is that abrupt additions of GHGs creates rapid heating.

Oh... you mean volcanic events which threw up more than just CO2 when we had different landmass configurations than we do today?

What is your explanation for these events?

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]

Ding, these posts of your constitute SPAM.

 

[ding]

Ding, these posts of your constitute SPAM.

No. They are valid questions that you keep running from. Why don't you answer them?