The religion of the left: Climate Change

[abu afak]

So you what you are really proving is that basing conclusions soley on CO2 concentrations is a fallacy and it is. That's why the majority of the last 10,000 years on earth was warmer than the present with less CO2, why previous interglacials were warmer than present with less CO2 and why the planet cooled with significantly higher levels of CO2.

I'm 50 steps ahead of you at all times.

You're an intentionally LYING ldiot with the same 'interglacial' stupid riddle posted thousands of times.
For you and olther in the thread,.
One MORON Using 600 million yeasrs to make or break whether a theory about 250 years - and the previous 10,000 tell us anything.

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""
`

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov​

 

[abu afak]

The reality is there is Nothing on that diagram that can Explain why it was Warmer for the Majority of the last 10,000 years with less CO2 or why the last interglacial was warmer with less CO2 or why the planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 greater than 600 ppm.

That's why you are upset. It's not my fault you believe a lie. I'm just exposing the lie using empirical climate data. Something you don't have and can't explain. So cry me a river.

YES THERE IS YOU LYING POS!

I'VE DEFEATED YOU SCORES OF TIMES.
YOU ARE DISHONEST TO YOURSELF AS WELL.
JUST HERE TO LIE AND POST RW MAGAt DOGMA.
See above post and Marcot et al:

Well knowN Marcot Stryder50 and his "600 million year" CLOWNERY TO PROVE OR DISPROVE 250 YR AGW!
What an idiot.. Wrong but an IDiot.

WHILE DING IS A KNOWING LIAR/TROLL.
""Most of the last 10,000 years"" doesn't include the MAN MADE Industrial Revolution Spike we just ROCKETED Through.
Dings thousands of DISHONEST ""Interglacial"" REPEATS defeated again.
the biggest Troll (shortest post) Liar on the board and knowing Liar has had it explained to him by me many times. But he only has one stupid riddle.


`

WHAT IS THAT?
COINCIDENCE OF MAN MADE CO2 AND TEMP SPIKE?
`

 

[ding]

You're an intentionally LYING ldiot with the same 'interglacial' stupid riddle posted thousands of times.
For you and olther in the thread,.
One MORON Using 600 million yeasrs to make or break whether a theory about 250 years - and the previous 10,000 tell us anything.

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""
`

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov​

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 that natural climate variation isn't a cause for the recent warming trend.

 

[ding]

YES THERE IS YOU LYING POS!

I'VE DEFEATED YOU SCORES OF TIMES.
YOU ARE DISHONEST TO YOURSELF AS WELL.
JUST HERE TO LIE AND POST RW MAGAt DOGMA.
See above post and Marcot et al:

Well knowN Marcot Stryder50 and his "600 million year" CLOWNERY TO PROVE OR DISPROVE 250 YR AGW!
What an idiot.. Wrong but an IDiot.

WHILE DING IS A KNOWING LIAR/TROLL.
""Most of the last 10,000 years"" doesn't include the MAN MADE Industrial Revolution Spike we just ROCKETED Through.
Dings thousands of DISHONEST ""Interglacial"" REPEATS defeated again.
the biggest Troll (shortest post) Liar on the board and knowing Liar has had it explained to him by me many times. But he only has one stupid riddle.


`

WHAT IS THAT?
COINCIDENCE OF MAN MADE CO2 AND TEMP SPIKE?
`

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.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Can you point out to me on your graphic where the human use of fossil fuels caused a 50% increase in atmspheric CO2 levels? I'm looking at this on a 27" monitor and that last 100 million years of your graph occupies about 1". So, the span since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution would cover 173/100,000,000 or 0.00000173 inches or roughly 2 ten-thousandths of a single pixel. So, what do you think this graph will tell us about the last 170 years?

Your argument of the large rise of CO2 is silly since its warm forcing power was high in the first 50 ppm or so then rapidly declines that becomes negligible at the 430 ppm level that is why CO2 doesn't drive weather or climate trends and hasn't been for a 1 BILLION years since CO2 has been above 160 ppm in all that time.

===

Showed you this several times now and you ignored it:

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

===

This you keep overlooking is the Logarithmic change over time:

The logarithmic nature of the CO2 greenhouse effect​

and third chart in the link,

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is NO climate Crisis it is a manufactured LIE by the media and the government here is the article warmist/alarmists are TERRIFIED of since they never address the CONTENT of the article showing no climate emergency developing in THREE forums, I posted this in.

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?​

LINK

=====

Meanwhile here is the Interglacial CO2 and Temperature chart based on the GISP2 core data:

C3 Headlines LINK

The Ice core data in this LINK.

No apparent relationship between CO2 and Temperature changes.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Climate Alarmist’s Greatest Fear​

LINK

======

From HERE

is a comment from the above article worth reading from Javier Vinos:

You have to think that over the years the ocean gets about the same amount of energy from the Sun on average because the Sun hasn’t changed much and the albedo of the planet hasn’t changed much. The planet is warming, and if the ocean is warming is because it is ceding less energy to the atmosphere. Because the ocean gets its energy from the Sun, not from the atmosphere. So the warming of the ocean is making the surface warm less than it would if it didn’t exist. The ocean is not only a huge store of energy, but it is also a brake on climate change in any direction. It has huge inertia.

When there is excess energy in the tropical Pacific, an El Niño takes place releasing a big part of it into the atmosphere and some to space. The Atlantic also has its Niño, only smaller. That heat into the atmosphere produces a lot of surface warming, and it has no place to go, as it cannot go back to the ocean. The planet’s surface, being warmer, will radiate more over time. Eventually, a large part of that heat leaves the planet. But if the planet is on a warming trend it will not cool down to the temperature before El Niño took place. So it only “looks” as if El Niño warms the planet, in reality, is moving heat from the ocean to space, so the climate system loses energy. If the planet was cooling, a strong El Niño would be really bad news, as it happened during the descent from the Medieval Warm Period to the LIA, when ENSO went crazy with Niños and people didn’t like the result.

When Cristopher Columbus got to America in 1492, a hurricane destroyed one of his ships. They were already within the LIA, and there was very little CO2. When the Spaniards built the first city in Cuba, a hurricane came and completely leveled it. So complete was the destruction that they moved to a better-protected place to build Santiago. The LIA had a very unruly atmosphere with the highest storminess in at least 6000 years, because a lot of heat was being transported poleward to cool the planet and keep it cold. Comparatively, we get far fewer Niños and storms nowadays, yet our fear is much higher. We’ve got soft.

 

[Crick]

The Climate Alarmist’s Greatest Fear​

LINK

======

From HERE

is a comment from the above article worth reading from Javier Vinos:

You have to think that over the years the ocean gets about the same amount of energy from the Sun on average because the Sun hasn’t changed much and the albedo of the planet hasn’t changed much. The planet is warming, and if the ocean is warming is because it is ceding less energy to the atmosphere. Because the ocean gets its energy from the Sun, not from the atmosphere. So the warming of the ocean is making the surface warm less than it would if it didn’t exist. The ocean is not only a huge store of energy, but it is also a brake on climate change in any direction. It has huge inertia.

When there is excess energy in the tropical Pacific, an El Niño takes place releasing a big part of it into the atmosphere and some to space. The Atlantic also has its Niño, only smaller. That heat into the atmosphere produces a lot of surface warming, and it has no place to go, as it cannot go back to the ocean. The planet’s surface, being warmer, will radiate more over time. Eventually, a large part of that heat leaves the planet. But if the planet is on a warming trend it will not cool down to the temperature before El Niño took place. So it only “looks” as if El Niño warms the planet, in reality, is moving heat from the ocean to space, so the climate system loses energy. If the planet was cooling, a strong El Niño would be really bad news, as it happened during the descent from the Medieval Warm Period to the LIA, when ENSO went crazy with Niños and people didn’t like the result.

When Cristopher Columbus got to America in 1492, a hurricane destroyed one of his ships. They were already within the LIA, and there was very little CO2. When the Spaniards built the first city in Cuba, a hurricane came and completely leveled it. So complete was the destruction that they moved to a better-protected place to build Santiago. The LIA had a very unruly atmosphere with the highest storminess in at least 6000 years, because a lot of heat was being transported poleward to cool the planet and keep it cold. Comparatively, we get far fewer Niños and storms nowadays, yet our fear is much higher. We’ve got soft.

This is ignorant poppycock.

There is an enormous amount of heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere, through conduction, advection, evaporation and conduction.

The LIA was restricted almost entirely to the North Atlantic.

Hurricanes took place before the Industrial Revolution

 

[jc456]

I will enjoy the climate change around here the first two weeks in April when it gets warm.

why will it get warmer?

 

[Shareprofit]

This is ignorant poppycock.

There is an enormous amount of heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere, through conduction, advection, evaporation and conduction.

The LIA was restricted almost entirely to the North Atlantic.

Hurricanes took place before the Industrial Revolution

No one has said they didn't.

 

[Crick]

No one has said they didn't.

There is a strong implication when they report one hurricane and note that CO2 levels were low. CO2 levels were where they had been for the prior million years.