"An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California".

[ding]

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Or by its religious followers who don't understand and can't discuss the science beyond what they can copy and paste. They don't understand radiative forcing or the past climate changes and have no idea what the CO2 record is throughout time or what that tells them. They are like the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm who can only bleat out the party line. They run on emotion rather than logic and make statements like....

Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers. - Crick

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. - Crick

That's because, ultimately, those who are pushing the agenda are totalitarians at heart. They don't care about science save in how they can pervert it to their end. They only care about power, and how to amass it.

Sure enough, old man, and everything is politics to you, and you nor Ding give a damn about real scientists. Well, the real scientists don't give a damn about ignoramouses like you either.

Old man, AGU convention coming up again. Who is going to present the definitive proof that AGW is not real? LOL

Can you tell me why the temperature change did not occur immediately after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?
Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

Can you tell me why it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2 after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?

 

[ding]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Earth would be a frozen ball of ice if it wasn't for the green house effect.

"These greenhouse gases keep the surface of the Earth approximately 60F warmer than we would expect without these gases present."

Greenhouse Effect | Climate Education Modules for K-12

Can you tell me why the temperature change did not occur immediately after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?
Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

Can you tell me why it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2 after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?

 

[Crick]

Cooling did begin with the drawdown.

 

[ding]

Cooling did begin with the drawdown.

How long did it take to get a 7C decrease, Einstein?

 

[ding]

If that were true that CO2 drives climate change then there should have been an immediate decrease of 7C in temperature when CO2 dropped from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm. There wasn't. It took 12 million years for that to occur. 12 million years. Since there was not the predicted response in temperature as calculated by the radiative forcing of CO2, then we know that other factors drove temperature change and that CO2 only reinforced that change.

 

[Crick]

Why do you believe it would have been immediate?

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't it wonderful how the deniers work? Here we are with a week of temperatures at the North Pole above freezing during the polar night, over 100 million trees killed by fire and drought in California in the past few years, and three times that number killed in the Texas drought.

The Final Numbers Are In: Over 300 Million Trees Killed By the Texas Drought



PHOTO BY DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

Over 300 million forested trees have been lost to the Texas drought.

The tally of the Texas drought‘s toll continues. After an extensive survey, the Texas A&M Forest Service today puts the number of rural trees killed by the Texas drought at 301 million. That falls right in the middle of a December 2011 estimate by the service that between 100 and 500 million trees had been killed by the drought.

And the Arctic Sea Ice is down 3 standard deviations, same for the Antarctic Sea Ice. And they wish to change to subject to the accuracy of proxy measurements of the past GHG excursions, and whether the recovery took hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Dingleberry, it fucking doesn't matter! If we screw up big time and create an really bad environment for our descendants, even if it lasts only few hundreds of thousands of year, that is longer than our species has been alive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do you believe it would have been immediate?

Odd, how the minds of these people work. Constantly we are reminded that the CO2 is at 400+ ppm, and we are not seeing the oceans where they were the last time the GHGs were this high. Mention thermal inertia of water, and they look at you like you are speaking greek. The deniers seem universally stuck on only one thing going on in nature at a time.

 

[ding]

Why do you believe it would have been immediate?

Then why do you believe it is immediate today?

 

[ding]

Isn't it wonderful how the deniers work? Here we are with a week of temperatures at the North Pole above freezing during the polar night, over 100 million trees killed by fire and drought in California in the past few years, and three times that number killed in the Texas drought.

The Final Numbers Are In: Over 300 Million Trees Killed By the Texas Drought



PHOTO BY DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

Over 300 million forested trees have been lost to the Texas drought.

The tally of the Texas drought‘s toll continues. After an extensive survey, the Texas A&M Forest Service today puts the number of rural trees killed by the Texas drought at 301 million. That falls right in the middle of a December 2011 estimate by the service that between 100 and 500 million trees had been killed by the drought.

And the Arctic Sea Ice is down 3 standard deviations, same for the Antarctic Sea Ice. And they wish to change to subject to the accuracy of proxy measurements of the past GHG excursions, and whether the recovery took hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Dingleberry, it fucking doesn't matter! If we screw up big time and create an really bad environment for our descendants, even if it lasts only few hundreds of thousands of year, that is longer than our species has been alive.

And as Nature magazine explained in 2012, “climate attribution” — the attempt to link singular weather events to manmade global warming — “rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming.” As critics have observed, such attribution claims “are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”

 

[ding]

Why do you believe it would have been immediate?

Odd, how the minds of these people work. Constantly we are reminded that the CO2 is at 400+ ppm, and we are not seeing the oceans where they were the last time the GHGs were this high. Mention thermal inertia of water, and they look at you like you are speaking greek. The deniers seem universally stuck on only one thing going on in nature at a time.

If that were true that CO2 drives climate change then there should have been an immediate decrease of 7C in temperature when CO2 dropped from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm. There wasn't. It took 12 million years for that to occur. 12 million years. Since there was not the predicted response in temperature as calculated by the radiative forcing of CO2, then we know that other factors drove temperature change and that CO2 only reinforced that change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do you believe it would have been immediate?

Then why do you believe it is immediate today?

It is not immediate. The last time we were at 400 ppm, 15 million years ago, it was much warmer, and the seas were 50 to 75 feet higher. In fact, in the Eemian, with CO2 only 300 ppm, sea levels were about 20 ft higher. A huge amount of thermal inertia to overcome, either way. And probably not the only impediment to immediate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't it wonderful how the deniers work? Here we are with a week of temperatures at the North Pole above freezing during the polar night, over 100 million trees killed by fire and drought in California in the past few years, and three times that number killed in the Texas drought.

The Final Numbers Are In: Over 300 Million Trees Killed By the Texas Drought



PHOTO BY DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

Over 300 million forested trees have been lost to the Texas drought.

The tally of the Texas drought‘s toll continues. After an extensive survey, the Texas A&M Forest Service today puts the number of rural trees killed by the Texas drought at 301 million. That falls right in the middle of a December 2011 estimate by the service that between 100 and 500 million trees had been killed by the drought.

And the Arctic Sea Ice is down 3 standard deviations, same for the Antarctic Sea Ice. And they wish to change to subject to the accuracy of proxy measurements of the past GHG excursions, and whether the recovery took hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Dingleberry, it fucking doesn't matter! If we screw up big time and create an really bad environment for our descendants, even if it lasts only few hundreds of thousands of year, that is longer than our species has been alive.

And as Nature magazine explained in 2012, “climate attribution” — the attempt to link singular weather events to manmade global warming — “rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming.” As critics have observed, such attribution claims “are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”

Natural catastrophes and climate change - Swiss Re 2015 Corporate Responsibility Report

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

This general trend will continue. But crucially, losses will be further aggravated by climate change. The scientific consensus is that a continued rise in average global temperatures will have a significant effect on weather-related natural catastrophes. According to the Special Report on Extremes (SREX, 2012) and the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014) published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a changing climate gradually leads to shifts in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather events.

If climate change remains unchecked, the makeup of the main drivers will thus gradually shift, with climate change accounting for an increasingly large share of natural catastrophe losses.

To assess our Property & Casualty business accurately and to structure sound risk transfer solutions, we need to clearly understand the economic impact of natural catastrophes and the effect of climate change. This is why we invest in proprietary, state-of-the-art natural catastrophe models and regularly collaborate with universities and scientific institutions.

While attributing any one event may be dicey, the trend in increasing events, especially those that are related to a warming world, is well understood by the businesses that are most affected by such trends.

 

[ding]

Isn't it wonderful how the deniers work? Here we are with a week of temperatures at the North Pole above freezing during the polar night, over 100 million trees killed by fire and drought in California in the past few years, and three times that number killed in the Texas drought.

The Final Numbers Are In: Over 300 Million Trees Killed By the Texas Drought



PHOTO BY DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

Over 300 million forested trees have been lost to the Texas drought.

The tally of the Texas drought‘s toll continues. After an extensive survey, the Texas A&M Forest Service today puts the number of rural trees killed by the Texas drought at 301 million. That falls right in the middle of a December 2011 estimate by the service that between 100 and 500 million trees had been killed by the drought.

And the Arctic Sea Ice is down 3 standard deviations, same for the Antarctic Sea Ice. And they wish to change to subject to the accuracy of proxy measurements of the past GHG excursions, and whether the recovery took hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Dingleberry, it fucking doesn't matter! If we screw up big time and create an really bad environment for our descendants, even if it lasts only few hundreds of thousands of year, that is longer than our species has been alive.

And as Nature magazine explained in 2012, “climate attribution” — the attempt to link singular weather events to manmade global warming — “rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming.” As critics have observed, such attribution claims “are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”

Natural catastrophes and climate change - Swiss Re 2015 Corporate Responsibility Report

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

This general trend will continue. But crucially, losses will be further aggravated by climate change. The scientific consensus is that a continued rise in average global temperatures will have a significant effect on weather-related natural catastrophes. According to the Special Report on Extremes (SREX, 2012) and the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014) published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a changing climate gradually leads to shifts in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather events.

If climate change remains unchecked, the makeup of the main drivers will thus gradually shift, with climate change accounting for an increasingly large share of natural catastrophe losses.

To assess our Property & Casualty business accurately and to structure sound risk transfer solutions, we need to clearly understand the economic impact of natural catastrophes and the effect of climate change. This is why we invest in proprietary, state-of-the-art natural catastrophe models and regularly collaborate with universities and scientific institutions.

While attributing any one event may be dicey, the trend in increasing events, especially those that are related to a warming world, is well understood by the businesses that are most affected by such trends.

Dear God... all because of this? Really? At what point will you realize how stupid you sound?

 

[ding]

Why do you believe it would have been immediate?

Then why do you believe it is immediate today?

It is not immediate. The last time we were at 400 ppm, 15 million years ago, it was much warmer, and the seas were 50 to 75 feet higher. In fact, in the Eemian, with CO2 only 300 ppm, sea levels were about 20 ft higher. A huge amount of thermal inertia to overcome, either way. And probably not the only impediment to immediate change.

If it was not immediate then, then it won't be immediate now. And what do you know... their models keep underestimating the radiative forcing of CO2. Surprise! Not really.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't it wonderful how the deniers work? Here we are with a week of temperatures at the North Pole above freezing during the polar night, over 100 million trees killed by fire and drought in California in the past few years, and three times that number killed in the Texas drought.

The Final Numbers Are In: Over 300 Million Trees Killed By the Texas Drought



PHOTO BY DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

Over 300 million forested trees have been lost to the Texas drought.

The tally of the Texas drought‘s toll continues. After an extensive survey, the Texas A&M Forest Service today puts the number of rural trees killed by the Texas drought at 301 million. That falls right in the middle of a December 2011 estimate by the service that between 100 and 500 million trees had been killed by the drought.

And the Arctic Sea Ice is down 3 standard deviations, same for the Antarctic Sea Ice. And they wish to change to subject to the accuracy of proxy measurements of the past GHG excursions, and whether the recovery took hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Dingleberry, it fucking doesn't matter! If we screw up big time and create an really bad environment for our descendants, even if it lasts only few hundreds of thousands of year, that is longer than our species has been alive.

And as Nature magazine explained in 2012, “climate attribution” — the attempt to link singular weather events to manmade global warming — “rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming.” As critics have observed, such attribution claims “are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”

Natural catastrophes and climate change - Swiss Re 2015 Corporate Responsibility Report

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

This general trend will continue. But crucially, losses will be further aggravated by climate change. The scientific consensus is that a continued rise in average global temperatures will have a significant effect on weather-related natural catastrophes. According to the Special Report on Extremes (SREX, 2012) and the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014) published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a changing climate gradually leads to shifts in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather events.

If climate change remains unchecked, the makeup of the main drivers will thus gradually shift, with climate change accounting for an increasingly large share of natural catastrophe losses.

To assess our Property & Casualty business accurately and to structure sound risk transfer solutions, we need to clearly understand the economic impact of natural catastrophes and the effect of climate change. This is why we invest in proprietary, state-of-the-art natural catastrophe models and regularly collaborate with universities and scientific institutions.

While attributing any one event may be dicey, the trend in increasing events, especially those that are related to a warming world, is well understood by the businesses that are most affected by such trends.

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

That's weird, none of these things are caused by more CO2.

 

[Crick]

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

That's weird, none of these things are caused by more CO2.

The natural catastrophes were enhanced by anthropogenic warming. The economic development, population growth and increased asset density simply made the catastrophes more costly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

That's weird, none of these things are caused by more CO2.

The natural catastrophes were enhanced by anthropogenic warming. The economic development, population growth and increased asset density simply made the catastrophes more costly.

The natural catastrophes were enhanced by anthropogenic warming.

Cool story bro!

 

[ding]

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

That's weird, none of these things are caused by more CO2.

The natural catastrophes were enhanced by anthropogenic warming. The economic development, population growth and increased asset density simply made the catastrophes more costly.

What he said...

Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows

 

[longknife]

"An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California". The big concern is the wildfires that this will likely cause in the fire season of the summer of 2017.

An astounding 102 million trees have now died in California

Extract: "Forest managers have never seen anything like it. Across California, an astounding 102 million trees have died over the past six years from drought and disease — including 62 million trees in 2016 alone, the US Forest Service estimates. Once-mighty oaks and pines have faded into ghastly hues of brown and gray. "

Sad...Something is seriously wrong with the environment in this area.

It's Bush's fault!

Now, watch. the environmentalists will do everything they can to force government agencies to fight the wildfires that will come. They are nature's way of clearing out the old and replenishing the soil with the ashes.

All because stupid people have moved into areas they have no business in.