Its called NATURE!!!!

[otto105]

And yet the previous interglacial naturally warmed up to 2C WARMER than today with 26 ft HIGHER seas than today and 120 ppm of LESS CO2 than today. How was that possible?

Again, that is meaningless to our current human caused warming.

 

[otto105]

Incorrect.

The previous interglacial naturally warmed up to 2C WARMER than today with 26 ft HIGHER seas than today and 120 ppm of LESS CO2 than today. How was that possible?

By your lies.

 

[otto105]

Don't you wish you could discuss the science?

You’re not using science to debate anyone fuckup.

 

[otto105]

Will they be able to explain how it was possible for the previous interglacial period to naturally warm up to 2C WARMER than today with 26 ft HIGHER seas than today and 120 ppm of LESS CO2 than today?

Hilarious

 

[Grumblenuts]

Not only did that come from NASA but this came from NASA too.

View attachment 954099

And no link again! You really are a fuckup.

 

[ding]

But it doesn’t.

Prove human caused warming today isn’t our fault.

Does it.

It proves the planet hasn’t reached the temperature it has been naturally warming up to after each of the previous interglacial periods.

 

[ding]

And no link again! You really are a fuckup.

Clearly you must believe these graphs are damaging to your beliefs.

 

[ding]

Science answers for itself.

And you don’t have it.

You have bullshit crap.

The last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26 FEET higher seas with 120 ppm LESS atmospheric CO2 than today.

So don't tell me the current warming trend is unnatural. There's tons of evidence that say it isn't.

 

[ding]

You’re not using science to debate anyone fuckup.

The temperature record of the planet is science. Model outputs are not science.

 

[otto105]

It proves the planet hasn’t reached the temperature it has been naturally warming up to after each of the previous interglacial periods.

Hilarious

What catalyst is driving CO2 to 442ppm and warming our planet?

 

[otto105]

The last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26 FEET higher seas with 120 ppm LESS atmospheric CO2 than today.

So don't tell me the current warming trend is unnatural. There's tons of evidence that say it isn't.

Yes, it is unnatural to increase at 100x the rate of the last interglacial period. It’s unnatural to have the rapid warming that we’re experiencing currently.

The only fact here is that you’re a dumbass.

 

[otto105]

The last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26 FEET higher seas with 120 ppm LESS atmospheric CO2 than today.

So don't tell me the current warming trend is unnatural. There's tons of evidence that say it isn't.

Yes, it is unnatural to increase at 100x the rate of the last interglacial period. It’s unnatural to have the rapid warming that we’re experiencing currently.

The only fact here is that you’re a dumbass.

The temperature record of the planet is science. Model outputs are not science.

Yes, but your idiotic temperature graph is a lie.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Clearly you must believe these graphs are damaging to your beliefs.

You must believe your "graphs" are self-incriminating else you'd have provided a link to their source by now, fuckup.
{Hint: Plucked from your ass is "not science."}

 

[ding]

Hilarious

What catalyst is driving CO2 to 442ppm and warming our planet?

Same answer as before. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of temperature. As the planet warmed the ocean would release CO2, as the planet cooled the ocean would absorb CO2, with CO2 lagging temperature by 800 to 1000 years. After the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of emissions and the correlation to temperature was broken.

The most the incremental 120 ppm of CO2 has effected temperature is 0.5C, the least CO2 has effected temperature is 0.22C. The rest of the warming is due to the planet naturally warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it has been doing for the past 30 glacial cycles.

Thanks for the opportunity to educate people.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is unnatural to increase at 100x the rate of the last interglacial period. It’s unnatural to have the rapid warming that we’re experiencing currently.

The only fact here is that you’re a dumbass.

But it hasn't. The present warming trend is no different than any other warming trend of which the geologic record is littered with.

 

[otto105]

Same answer as before. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of temperature. As the planet warmed the ocean would release CO2, as the planet cooled the ocean would absorb CO2, with CO2 lagging temperature by 800 to 1000 years. After the industrial revolution CO2 was a function of emissions and the correlation to temperature was broken.

The most the incremental 120 ppm of CO2 has effected temperature is 0.5C, the least CO2 has effected temperature is 0.22C. The rest of the warming is due to the planet naturally warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it has been doing for the past 30 glacial cycles.

Thanks for the opportunity to educate people.

Do you even know how to spell science?

 

[ding]

Do you even know how to spell science?

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

 

[otto105]

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

View attachment 954687

Again, how does historical natural warm/cooling inform us on human driven warming?

 

[ding]

Again, how does historical natural warm/cooling inform us on human driven warming?

That there isn't as much human driven warming as you think there is. That's how. That what you are attributing to man is in reality natural warming that goes on in every interglacial period.

Now do you understand?

 

[Crick]

That there isn't as much human driven warming as you think there is.

And why is that? Explain how you - with no apparent qualifications whatsoever - have outsmarted thousands of actively researching, publishing, well cited PhDs.

That's how. That what you are attributing to man is in reality natural warming that goes on in every interglacial period.

But as you've been told on several occasions, the world was cooling off for 6,000 years before the Industrial Revolution. And that cooling was being driven by the Milankovitch cycles which were, and remain, in a state to drive cooling, not radically rapid warming unlike any Milankovitch effect ever seen. Additionally, our warming has come in very tight correlation with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, a coincidence in your universe with one-in-many-thousands odds. That you choose to say there is virtually no feedback mechanism and that the warming from CO2 itself is extremely weak, all without a shred of real evidence and in straight up contradiction to mainstream science, backed by basic physics, chemistry and enormous amounts of empirical evidence, does nothing but mark you as nothing but some sort of ignorant whack job.

Now do you understand?

Yeah. You're as stupid as a rock.