The Supermoon and Global Warming: A Taste of Things to Come

[Crick]

So, you think this is part of a cycle? Why don't you show us the last such spike and explain the driving mechanism?

 

[ding]

So, you think this is part of a cycle? Why don't you show us the last such spike and explain the driving mechanism?

You mean a temperature rise of 0.8C which corresponds to CO2 rising from 280 ppm to 400 ppm?

 

[Crick]

No. The question was directed at poster Tycho in response to his claim that the current warming is a "normal cycle". I want to see his cycle.

 

[ding]

No. The question was directed at poster Tycho in response to his claim that the current warming is a "normal cycle". I want to see his cycle.

Ok, well until then, what is the predicted rise in temperature from radiative forcing of CO2?

 

[Crick]

From WG-I, 1.3.1 Global and Regional Surface Temperatures, Page 131.

 

[Crick]

Sea level projections from the same document

 

[Old Rocks]

And, once again, I will take the evidence that the real scientists are presenting over the flap yap of an anonymous poster on a message board. GHGs do, indeed, drive climate change. We saw that in most of the major extinctions in geological history.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, you think this is part of a cycle? Why don't you show us the last such spike and explain the driving mechanism?

Reconstructed temperature?

Say what? How about actual temperature?

 

[ding]

View attachment 100075
From WG-I, 1.3.1 Global and Regional Surface Temperatures, Page 131.

That wasn't what I was asking. What is the predicted radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 rises from 280 ppm to 400 ppm?

 

[Crick]

View attachment 100075
From WG-I, 1.3.1 Global and Regional Surface Temperatures, Page 131.

And keep in mind that this graphic does NOT include the update from "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus", Karl et al, 2015 (Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus | Science)

 

[Crick]

View attachment 100075
From WG-I, 1.3.1 Global and Regional Surface Temperatures, Page 131.

That wasn't what I was asking. What is the predicted radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 rises from 280 ppm to 400 ppm?

You've presented your favorite equation repeatedly. Feel free to calculate it yourself and stop indulging in rhetorical bullshit.

 

[Crick]

So, you think this is part of a cycle? Why don't you show us the last such spike and explain the driving mechanism?

Reconstructed temperature?

Say what? How about actual temperature?

Use any reputable source you like. I just want to see a cycle. I want to see a spike like the one on the right (instrument data, not reconstructed). And I'll be curious how your going to show us temperature data from prior to the invention of the thermometer without making use of a proxy reconstruction.

 

[ding]

View attachment 100075
From WG-I, 1.3.1 Global and Regional Surface Temperatures, Page 131.

And keep in mind that this graphic does NOT include the update from "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus", Karl et al, 2015 (Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus | Science)

Do you know how to calculate the associated temperature from the radiative forcing of CO2? If so, can you perform that calculation for me using 280 ppm as the starting value for CO2 and 400 ppm for the ending value of CO2?

 

[Crick]

Give us a fucking break. Just make your point for god's sake. Your ego will live a day without a fucking stroke.

 

[Dale Smith]

Give us a fucking break. Just make your point for god's sake. Your ego will live a day without a fucking stroke.

Why is it that the leftard clown posse can never acknowledge the geo-engineering that is being done in NATO countries in earnest since 1997? We now have global dimming since the sun's light/heat has been reduced by as much as 20 percent in some places. The stratospheric aerosol injection program that CIA head John Brennan spoke of has been already in place. This "global climate change/ global warming is a big time sack of bullshit that was thought up the think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report in the late 60's that the Club of Rome used to write their "Limits To Growth" manifesto in 1972. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" and neither is coal. This whole environmental movement and the intentional pollution is being done for a reason.....let's see if you have the ability to figure it out.

 

[ding]

Give us a fucking break. Just make your point for god's sake. Your ego will live a day without a fucking stroke.

Here... let me help you out. The equation is in here...

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

 

[Crick]

Here... let me help you to the door. Do your own work.

 

[ding]

Here... let me help you to the door. Do your own work.

I have. I already know the answer. I want to see if you know the answer and then we can discuss how the actual observations don't match the theoretical calculations.