And the worst is yet to come

[CrusaderFrank]

So how much "extra heat" is created when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM? How much of a temperature increase is observed? 0.01F?

 

[Crick]

So how much "extra heat" is created when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM? How much of a temperature increase is observed? 0.01F?

This much and, since we haven't reached equilibrium, even more!: Looks like 1.4C (2.5F).

 

[Unkotare]

Because in the 77 years I have been alive, I have seen the climate change in many regions of the US. Virtually in every mountain range, the snows come later, and leave earlier now. Fire seasons are 2 to 6 months longer than they used to be for the western states. That is direct observation. People like you that accept as gospel the spews of a fat old treasonous asshole are the one in a religion, the Cult of Trump.

77 is hardly geological time, grandpa.

 

[Crick]

Thus it is nonsensical to claim that current global warming is a geological process.

 

[ding]

Thus it is nonsensical to claim that current global warming is a geological process.

Given that the warming is because we are in an interglacial cycle and that the transition to our present ice age was due to the polar regions being isolated from warmer marine currents, our present climate most assuredly is a function of a geologic process.

 

[ding]

This much and, since we haven't reached equilibrium, even more!: Looks like 1.4C (2.5F).

View attachment 533613

Why are you ignoring the zero line? Do you even know what the benchmark temperature is based upon?

 

[Crick]

What evidence do you have that the current warming is part of an interglacial cycle? What is FORCING it? Things don't happen without causes. WHAT do you believe is causing the world to warm up?

 

[Crick]

Why are you ignoring the zero line? Do you even know what the benchmark temperature is based upon?

You think I ignored the zero line? That's very entertaining. What do you believe that line means?

 

[ding]

You think I ignored the zero line? That's very entertaining. What do you believe that line means?

It means you are dishonest in claiming a 1.4C temperature gain.

Looks like 1.4C (2.5F).

Looks more like 0.8C to me.

 

[ding]

You think I ignored the zero line? That's very entertaining. What do you believe that line means?

What would the radiative forcing equation predict? You do know how to use that equation, don't you?

 

[ding]

What evidence do you have that the current warming is part of an interglacial cycle? What is FORCING it? Things don't happen without causes. WHAT do you believe is causing the world to warm up?

 

[Crick]

So, you believe it is being driven by CO2?

 

[ding]

So, you believe it is being driven by CO2?

Don't be silly. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. We are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacials. It's being driven by the natural variation of a icehouse world whose climate is mainly driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. It's been going of for 2.7 million years for crying out loud.

 

[Crick]

And humans were emitting CO2 by the gigaton during that whole 2.7 million years so you can say, without a doubt, that human emissions don't cause warming. Right?

And surely you've seen the calculations that show without any CO2, the Earth's temperature would be almost 40C cooler. We would be an iceball planet.

And, surprise me: what do you think is driving the thousands and thousands of scientists who would disagree with you about CO2?

 

[ding]

And humans were emitting CO2 by the gigaton during that whole 2.7 million years so you can say, without a doubt, that human emissions don't cause warming. Right?

And surely you've seen the calculations that show without any CO2, the Earth's temperature would be almost 40C cooler. We would be an iceball planet.

And, surprise me: what do you think is driving the thousands and thousands of scientists who would disagree with you about CO2?

It's because humans weren't emitting CO2 by the gigaton during that whole 2.7 million years AND that temperatures were 2C higher than today that tells me without a doubt, that human emissions aren't causing the warming you are attributing to them.

 

[Crick]

When did logic leave your day-to-day life?

 

[ding]

When did logic leave your day-to-day life?

Can you explain the flaw in my logic?

Rather than just wave your arms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And humans were emitting CO2 by the gigaton during that whole 2.7 million years so you can say, without a doubt, that human emissions don't cause warming. Right?

And surely you've seen the calculations that show without any CO2, the Earth's temperature would be almost 40C cooler. We would be an iceball planet.

And, surprise me: what do you think is driving the thousands and thousands of scientists who would disagree with you about CO2?

OMG!! "by the gigaton!!! That's what Doc Brown used to power his DeLorean time machine!!

Crick that's such a big number! It's so scary!!!

Does that mean your CCP pals emit twice the gigatons of the USA?

 

[Old Rocks]

77 is hardly geological time, grandpa.

You are so right. So that means the changes I have seen are not the normal progression in climate. In fact, for the prior 6000 years we have been in a slowly cooling climate. But after the industrial revolution when we started putting GHG's into the atmosphere, that changed. And the last 80 years it has been evident that the change was accelerating. And the last 20 years we have seen major evidence in extreme weather events and rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctica's ice caps.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why are you ignoring the zero line? Do you even know what the benchmark temperature is based upon?

It means you are dishonest in claiming a 1.4C temperature gain.


Looks more like 0.8C to me.

LOL Again you just proved what an ignorant ass you are. The space between -6 and +8 it 1.4. Any sixth grader knows that. LOL