Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?

[ding]

Who want's them some CO2 now

Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere. So far as I know, we don't know for certain that CO2 is the cause or the effect of ice ages.

Let's be specific. Northern hemisphere glaciation. It initiates at a much lower atmospheric CO2 level than the south pole. Don't really know how anyone can argue against this which means they can't argue that CO2 doesn't play a major role in glaciation for the current landmass configuration.

Yes, it's a combination of things. CO2 is most certainly one of them. Listed as causes or necessary conditions are: polar regions being isolated from warmer marine currents and atmospheric CO2. Trigger events or conditions are orbital cycles and circulation patterns of the ocean. Specifically the gulf stream. Whether is switches off or not.

 

[ding]

Can't wait for mumblenuts and rainman to come make some unrelated and irrelevant comment.

 

[ding]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

Why would they? You can't handle an extra degree? Every day in the desert human beings enjoy temperature swings of up to 100 degrees. A degree isn't anything to freak out about.

Temperature is not the issue, climate is the issue. If droughts become common in the West, the old fights over water rights will only get worse. If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities. Chaos.

And none of that will happen.

Well that is a relief. But how do you know?

Because it has not happened when the planet was MUCH warmer in the past.

Again, it is climate not temperature. If, as you say, the planet was MUCH warmer in the past, you should also acknowledge that the Sahara was not a desert.

Agreed. And you should know the Sahara is regreening as the CO2 level is increasing.

​

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

James Owen for National Geographic News

July 31, 2009

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

As I said, winners and losers. If the rain is falling in the Sahara, where isn't it falling?

Wow, that's really deep. I don't know how I could have gotten through the day without reading this valuable and insightful scientific insight.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!

Have you figured out how to read published scientific papers yet?

I have noticed the conflux of dick waving going on.. Not much else of note from the self-flagellating contingent.

 

[ding]

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!

Have you figured out how to read published scientific papers yet?

I have noticed the conflux of dick waving going on.. Not much else of note from the self-flagellating contingent.

Dude, I think it's awesome that you deny the role CO2 plays in climate. I mean, if it doesn't cause glaciation then it doesn't cause global warming.

That's some brilliant argument you made.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!

Have you figured out how to read published scientific papers yet?

I have noticed the conflux of dick waving going on.. Not much else of note from the self-flagellating contingent.

Dude, I think it's awesome that you deny the role CO2 plays in climate. I mean, if it doesn't cause glaciation then it doesn't cause global warming.

That's some brilliant argument you made.

So now you're saying CO2 causes global warming?

You're melting down, son.

 

[ding]

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!

Have you figured out how to read published scientific papers yet?

I have noticed the conflux of dick waving going on.. Not much else of note from the self-flagellating contingent.

Dude, I think it's awesome that you deny the role CO2 plays in climate. I mean, if it doesn't cause glaciation then it doesn't cause global warming.

That's some brilliant argument you made.

So now you're saying CO2 causes global warming?

You're melting down, son.

I'm saying your arguing against CO2 as a necessary background condition for northern hemisphere glaciation argues against global warming, dummy.

 

[westwall]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

Why would they? You can't handle an extra degree? Every day in the desert human beings enjoy temperature swings of up to 100 degrees. A degree isn't anything to freak out about.

Temperature is not the issue, climate is the issue. If droughts become common in the West, the old fights over water rights will only get worse. If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities. Chaos.

And none of that will happen.

Well that is a relief. But how do you know?

Because it has not happened when the planet was MUCH warmer in the past.

Again, it is climate not temperature. If, as you say, the planet was MUCH warmer in the past, you should also acknowledge that the Sahara was not a desert.

Agreed. And you should know the Sahara is regreening as the CO2 level is increasing.

​

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

James Owen for National Geographic News

July 31, 2009

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

As I said, winners and losers. If the rain is falling in the Sahara, where isn't it falling?

Who says the rain has to stop anywhere? The facts are the whole world is most likely to get more rain. The Earth operates on vast cycles, cold/wet, cold/dry. warm/wet, warm/dry, etc. If the world is entering a warm/wet cycle the whole world will get more rain. And that is a good thing.

 

[westwall]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

There is no evidence to support your claim. There has been no land loss due to sea level increase in 100 years. There will be eventually, maybe, but photographs of the same areas world wide at the same tide level shows no difference over the last 100 years.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Early August is when we can usually start skipping the lawn mowing every other week. Not so any more. Blammo, five inches of rain on Tuesday. Tornadoes...

Chopper 6 video shows storm damage at daycare, Central Bucks West football field in Doylestown

Tropical Storm Isaias left widespread damage across the region, bringing flooding rains, high winds and tornadoes on Tuesday.

6abc.com

CC? AGW? Eh, no problem!

 

[westwall]

Early August is when we can usually start skipping the lawn mowing every other week. Not so any more. Blammo, five inches of rain on Tuesday. Tornadoes...

Chopper 6 video shows storm damage at daycare, Central Bucks West football field in Doylestown

Tropical Storm Isaias left widespread damage across the region, bringing flooding rains, high winds and tornadoes on Tuesday.

6abc.com

CC? AGW? Eh, no problem!

Correct, no problem. Here where I live we usually have to run the air conditioner at least 20 times by now, so far we have had to run it 5. It's called weather.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm saying your arguing against CO2 as a necessary background condition for northern hemisphere glaciation argues against global warming, dummy.

I believe you're attempting to communicate, but sadly,.. as usual,.. failing

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's called weather.

No, it's climate change.

Colorful autumn foliage, winter recreation, and summer vacations in the mountains or at the beach are all important parts of the Northeast’s cultural identity, and this tourism contributes billions of dollars to the regional economy. The seasonal climate, natural systems, and accessibility of certain types of recreation are threatened by declining snow and ice, rising sea levels, and rising temperatures. By 2035, and under both lower and higher scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5), the Northeast is projected to be more than 3.6°F (2°C) warmer on average than during the preindustrial era. This would be the largest increase in the contiguous United States and would occur as much as two decades before global average temperatures reach a similar milestone.36

The region’s oceans and coasts support a rich maritime heritage and provide an iconic landscape, as well as economic and ecological services. Highly productive marshes,37,38 fisheries,39,40 ecosystems,41,42 and coastal infrastructure43,44 are sensitive to changing environmental conditions, including shifts in temperature, ocean acidification, sea level, storm surge, flooding, and erosion. Many of these changes are already affecting coastal and marine ecosystems, posing increasing risks to people, traditions, infrastructure, and economies (e.g., Colburn et al. 201645). These risks are exacerbated by increasing demands on these ecosystems to support human use and development. The Northeast has experienced some of the highest rates of sea level rise46 and ocean warming39 in the United States, and these exceptional increases relative to other regions are projected to continue through the end of the century

 

[alang1216]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

There is no evidence to support your claim. There has been no land loss due to sea level increase in 100 years. There will be eventually, maybe, but photographs of the same areas world wide at the same tide level shows no difference over the last 100 years.

There actually is evidence to support my claim:

In an effort to communicate climate change indicators, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked with coastal management organizations to identify the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast. EPA’s analyses revealed that from 1996 to 2011, roughly 20 square miles of dry land and wetland were converted to open water along the Atlantic coast. Analysts also found more land was lost in the Southeast than in the Mid-Atlantic, and a greater loss occurred to dry land than nontidal wetland.​

 

[westwall]

It's called weather.

No, it's climate change.

Colorful autumn foliage, winter recreation, and summer vacations in the mountains or at the beach are all important parts of the Northeast’s cultural identity, and this tourism contributes billions of dollars to the regional economy. The seasonal climate, natural systems, and accessibility of certain types of recreation are threatened by declining snow and ice, rising sea levels, and rising temperatures. By 2035, and under both lower and higher scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5), the Northeast is projected to be more than 3.6°F (2°C) warmer on average than during the preindustrial era. This would be the largest increase in the contiguous United States and would occur as much as two decades before global average temperatures reach a similar milestone.36

The region’s oceans and coasts support a rich maritime heritage and provide an iconic landscape, as well as economic and ecological services. Highly productive marshes,37,38 fisheries,39,40 ecosystems,41,42 and coastal infrastructure43,44 are sensitive to changing environmental conditions, including shifts in temperature, ocean acidification, sea level, storm surge, flooding, and erosion. Many of these changes are already affecting coastal and marine ecosystems, posing increasing risks to people, traditions, infrastructure, and economies (e.g., Colburn et al. 201645). These risks are exacerbated by increasing demands on these ecosystems to support human use and development. The Northeast has experienced some of the highest rates of sea level rise46 and ocean warming39 in the United States, and these exceptional increases relative to other regions are projected to continue through the end of the century

Provably untrue.

 

[westwall]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

There is no evidence to support your claim. There has been no land loss due to sea level increase in 100 years. There will be eventually, maybe, but photographs of the same areas world wide at the same tide level shows no difference over the last 100 years.

There actually is evidence to support my claim:

In an effort to communicate climate change indicators, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked with coastal management organizations to identify the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast. EPA’s analyses revealed that from 1996 to 2011, roughly 20 square miles of dry land and wetland were converted to open water along the Atlantic coast. Analysts also found more land was lost in the Southeast than in the Mid-Atlantic, and a greater loss occurred to dry land than nontidal wetland.​

Nope. That is all due to the damming of the rivers and the subsequent loss of sediment load that would normally be deposited along the shoreline. That specific region was mentioned as far back as 60 years ago as being in particular danger of shoreline loss due to reduced sediment load.

 

[alang1216]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

There is no evidence to support your claim. There has been no land loss due to sea level increase in 100 years. There will be eventually, maybe, but photographs of the same areas world wide at the same tide level shows no difference over the last 100 years.

There actually is evidence to support my claim:

In an effort to communicate climate change indicators, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked with coastal management organizations to identify the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast. EPA’s analyses revealed that from 1996 to 2011, roughly 20 square miles of dry land and wetland were converted to open water along the Atlantic coast. Analysts also found more land was lost in the Southeast than in the Mid-Atlantic, and a greater loss occurred to dry land than nontidal wetland.​

Nope. That is all due to the damming of the rivers and the subsequent loss of sediment load that would normally be deposited along the shoreline. That specific region was mentioned as far back as 60 years ago as being in particular danger of shoreline loss due to reduced sediment load.

Silly me, here I thought geo-scientists would have taken that into account when they did their analysis. If only they had asked for your help.

 

[westwall]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

There is no evidence to support your claim. There has been no land loss due to sea level increase in 100 years. There will be eventually, maybe, but photographs of the same areas world wide at the same tide level shows no difference over the last 100 years.

There actually is evidence to support my claim:

In an effort to communicate climate change indicators, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked with coastal management organizations to identify the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast. EPA’s analyses revealed that from 1996 to 2011, roughly 20 square miles of dry land and wetland were converted to open water along the Atlantic coast. Analysts also found more land was lost in the Southeast than in the Mid-Atlantic, and a greater loss occurred to dry land than nontidal wetland.​

Nope. That is all due to the damming of the rivers and the subsequent loss of sediment load that would normally be deposited along the shoreline. That specific region was mentioned as far back as 60 years ago as being in particular danger of shoreline loss due to reduced sediment load.

Silly me, here I thought geo-scientists would have taken that into account when they did their analysis. If only they had asked for your help.

Amazingly enough when money and power became the motive all of that earlier science was ignored. Funny that. And that is the problem that the science of climatology has, they are all forced to appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy when those whose opinions are used have a monetary entanglement. And guess what. They ALL do.

 

[Grumblenuts]

For the second time...

No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.

O'Reilly? Better remind westwall. He's been calling obvious GHG effects "weather."

See that large, blue spike all the way to the right? Yeah, much higher than anything seen in the past 400,000 years or so. The hardcore deniers these days, just as here, never cease pointing out that the CO2 rise trails the rise in temperature. But note how no such rise in temperature leads that huge CO2 rise all the way on the right. Odd? Huh. Notice also how the largest temperature spikes tend to mark the beginning of each long cooling cycle. Except all the way to the right. Gee, perhaps experiencing this continued quick warming trend instead of the indicated cooling is what has been "alarming" climatologists.. Ya think!??

 

[westwall]

For the second time...

No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.

O'Reilly? Better remind westwall. He's been calling obvious GHG effects "weather."

See that large, blue spike all the way to the right? Yeah, much higher than anything seen in the past 400,000 years or so. The hardcore deniers these days, just as here, never cease pointing out that the CO2 rise trails the rise in temperature. But note how no such rise in temperature leads that huge CO2 rise all the way on the right. Odd? Huh. Notice also how the largest temperature spikes tend to mark the beginning of each long cooling cycle. Except all the way to the right. Gee, perhaps experiencing this continued quick warming trend instead of the indicated cooling is what has been "alarming" climatologists.. Ya think!??

If you blow up the resolution you will see that first the temp increases, and THEN the CO2 levels rise. 400 to 800 years after the warming has begun.

The Earth operates on vast time scales. Things happening today, won't actually present for at least 400 years.

Mankind has no clue how slow time passes for the Earth. We are mere fleas on her back.