Your questions have been answered over and over and over again. Once upon a time I thought perhaps you simply didn't understand that. Now I'm thoroughly convinced that you know full well they've been answered but have chosen to claim that they have not. In most parts, that's known as LYING.
Do you require pictures?
Which charts? What variance? Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Regionally? Nationally? By Hemisphere?
No, we don't. I know why, you do not.
You were talking about CO2. Why are you now talking about temperature. And why would PhDs make rounding errors? I bet someone as stupid as you doesn't even make rounding errors.
It required no daring whatsoever. The facts speak for themselves.
The chart gives the impression that the 120PPM additional CO2 raises temperature 1C, is that what you're too afraid to say?
But this NEVER happens in a lab, so the modeling must be wrong
You don't think CO2 has been shown, in labs, to absorb IR radiation precisely as shown in its absorption spectrum?
Are you familiar with the Principle of Uniformity? I think you should read up on that and then think how that affects what can and cannot be done with lab results. And you need to get over your distaste for models. It has been a primary tactic of the denier misinformation campaign to try to automatically reject out of hand any data that has been touched in any way by computer models. Models have limitations and no one is more aware of those limitations than the modelers themselves. But models also have value; number one being their ability to provide data unattainable by any other means. Think of a model as a virtual laboratory. The rejection of all model data, out-of-hand, by you and deniers like Westwall and SSDD is simply applied Luddism.
The same reason it always does. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
No, you are assuming a natural cooling trend would continue. Are you arguing that CO2 averted a glacial period?
I have no idea as to what you're saying "no". But I am assuming that the Holocene interglacial has peaked. So does almost everyone else familiar with these data. It is YOU that are the outlier in that regard. That is why we would like you to explain why you think every interglacial has to hit the same temperature. But you keep dodging the question.
The common prediction from folks who actually know state that the next glacial period would not have occurred for ten thousand years or so. I assume that one way or another AGW will end. Whether or not that will have pushed the Earth past a tipping point to a new, warmer stable state is unknown but possible. Obviously, the Milankovitch cycles continue, but they never accomplished what they did over the last 3 million years all by themselves. The feedback from CO2 was required. So, as long as CO2 levels are kept fully synthetic by human emissions, who knows what Milankovitch can do.
If it had peaked a glacial period would have occurred.
Hey Derp, demofks are the left!!! Derp
Where’s agw taking place?
He works hard trying to get you to let go of your cult
Earth. How did you not know that? Or, alternatively, why do you ask?
so you don't have any idea and yet use it over and over again. nonsense and more nonsense. No factual data set to share with the occupants of the earth huh? I take no man's word on anything. especially yours.
my ten years almost on here, and still today you have never presented one piece of data. interesting how you argue from a chart of nothing. post 158 is enough to show your errors.
