Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Toddsterpatriot]

Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.

You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

How? I don't necessarily know.

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them.

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural,

Yes.

they're predictable

Really? When is the next one?

and humans have lived through them.

Yes. How many would live through the next one?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

How? I don't necessarily know.

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them.

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural,

Yes.

they're predictable

Really? When is the next one?

and humans have lived through them.

Yes. How many would live through the next one?

When is the next one? Or when should the next one be?

Also it depends what you mean by an ice age, there are real hard ice ages, then there are little ones.

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

How many would live through the next one? You know that's a silly question.

However you also don't know how many people would live through the impact of man made global warming.

So.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

How? I don't necessarily know.

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them.

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural,

Yes.

they're predictable

Really? When is the next one?

and humans have lived through them.

Yes. How many would live through the next one?

When is the next one? Or when should the next one be?

Also it depends what you mean by an ice age, there are real hard ice ages, then there are little ones.

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

How many would live through the next one? You know that's a silly question.

However you also don't know how many people would live through the impact of man made global warming.

So.....

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

When they happen, shorter growing seasons, hunger, famine, death.
If we can prevent one or delay one by burning fossil fuels, we'd save billions of lives.

 

[mamooth]

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

Because it would be like running my furnace full blast starting in July, because I know winter is eventually coming. I'd die of heatstroke before I saved myself from the winter cold.

The ice age is at least 25,000 years away. Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth is an extremely stupid and evil idea. Anyone wanting that outcome shows themselves to be a genocide-pusher looking for a body count that would outdo Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Is that really your goal?

 

[jc456]

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

Because it would be like running my furnace full blast starting in July, because I know winter is eventually coming. I'd die of heatstroke before I saved myself from the winter cold.

The ice age is at least 25,000 years away. Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth is an extremely stupid and evil idea. Anyone wanting that outcome shows themselves to be a genocide-pusher looking for a body count that would outdo Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Is that really your goal?

dude/dudette, my furnace is running today May17th. It's one month from summer, and I'm still running my furnace. Now that is truly sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

Because it would be like running my furnace full blast starting in July, because I know winter is eventually coming. I'd die of heatstroke before I saved myself from the winter cold.

The ice age is at least 25,000 years away. Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth is an extremely stupid and evil idea. Anyone wanting that outcome shows themselves to be a genocide-pusher looking for a body count that would outdo Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Is that really your goal?

The ice age is at least 25,000 years away

How do you know?

Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth

How would that kill billions?

 

[Old Rocks]

Going into the Younger Dryas, a very rapid drop in temperature, the North American continentant had

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

Because it would be like running my furnace full blast starting in July, because I know winter is eventually coming. I'd die of heatstroke before I saved myself from the winter cold.

The ice age is at least 25,000 years away. Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth is an extremely stupid and evil idea. Anyone wanting that outcome shows themselves to be a genocide-pusher looking for a body count that would outdo Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Is that really your goal?

dude/dudette, my furnace is running today May17th. It's one month from summer, and I'm still running my furnace. Now that is truly sad.

And here in Oregon and Washington we have had a record breaking warm winter and spring.

 

[jc456]

Going into the Younger Dryas, a very rapid drop in temperature, the North American continentant had

How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?

Because it would be like running my furnace full blast starting in July, because I know winter is eventually coming. I'd die of heatstroke before I saved myself from the winter cold.

The ice age is at least 25,000 years away. Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth is an extremely stupid and evil idea. Anyone wanting that outcome shows themselves to be a genocide-pusher looking for a body count that would outdo Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Is that really your goal?

dude/dudette, my furnace is running today May17th. It's one month from summer, and I'm still running my furnace. Now that is truly sad.

And here in Oregon and Washington we have had a record breaking warm winter and spring.

well not sure how that correlates into a global influence at all. Good for you, i'd take it.

 

[SSDD]

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

You were given that evidence, but you don't believe in science, so you don't understand it.

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

 

[RollingThunder]

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

You were given that evidence, but you don't believe in science, so you don't understand it.

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

The world scientific community is virtually unanimous in affirming the reality of human caused, or 'anthropogenic', global warming. You idiotically claim otherwise. Who should we believe.....trained professional scientists....or a confused brainwashed retard like you, SSoooDDuuumb?

The obvious answer may not be so apparent to you, of course.....because you are such a dumbshit....

 

[Wuwei]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How? I don't necessarily know.

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them.

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural,

Yes.

they're predictable

Really? When is the next one?

and humans have lived through them.

Yes. How many would live through the next one?

When is the next one? Or when should the next one be?

Also it depends what you mean by an ice age, there are real hard ice ages, then there are little ones.

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

How many would live through the next one? You know that's a silly question.

However you also don't know how many people would live through the impact of man made global warming.

So.....

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

When they happen, shorter growing seasons, hunger, famine, death.
If we can prevent one or delay one by burning fossil fuels, we'd save billions of lives.

Again, how many times do I have to say this? You don't know how many people would die from making the Earth warmer....

So your argument is ridiculous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.

An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them.

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural,

Yes.

they're predictable

Really? When is the next one?

and humans have lived through them.

Yes. How many would live through the next one?

When is the next one? Or when should the next one be?

Also it depends what you mean by an ice age, there are real hard ice ages, then there are little ones.

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

How many would live through the next one? You know that's a silly question.

However you also don't know how many people would live through the impact of man made global warming.

So.....

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

When they happen, shorter growing seasons, hunger, famine, death.
If we can prevent one or delay one by burning fossil fuels, we'd save billions of lives.

Again, how many times do I have to say this? You don't know how many people would die from making the Earth warmer....

So your argument is ridiculous.

Fewer than would die from a new ice age.
By orders of magnitude.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them.

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.

But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural,

Yes.

they're predictable

Really? When is the next one?

and humans have lived through them.

Yes. How many would live through the next one?

When is the next one? Or when should the next one be?

Also it depends what you mean by an ice age, there are real hard ice ages, then there are little ones.

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

How many would live through the next one? You know that's a silly question.

However you also don't know how many people would live through the impact of man made global warming.

So.....

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.

When they happen, shorter growing seasons, hunger, famine, death.
If we can prevent one or delay one by burning fossil fuels, we'd save billions of lives.

Again, how many times do I have to say this? You don't know how many people would die from making the Earth warmer....

So your argument is ridiculous.

Fewer than would die from a new ice age.
By orders of magnitude.

Again, you're telling me this as if you know. You DON'T KNOW. So stop pretending you do.

We know the impact of an ice age.

We DON'T KNOW the impact of man made global warming.

It's not difficult.

 

[SSDD]

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

Based on what? There are no historical proxies that provide enough resolution for you to say that during this 50 or 100 year period we should be cooling...there is simply no basis for such a claim other than simple baseless belief.

 

[SSDD]

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

You were given that evidence, but you don't believe in science, so you don't understand it.

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

The world scientific community is virtually unanimous in affirming the reality of human caused, or 'anthropogenic', global warming. You idiotically claim otherwise. Who should we believe.....trained professional scientists....or a confused brainwashed retard like you, SSoooDDuuumb?

The obvious answer may not be so apparent to you, of course.....because you are such a dumbshit....

Based on what when they have no observed, measured, quantified data to support the claim?

 

[SSDD]

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.

What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...

 

[frigidweirdo]

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

Based on what? There are no historical proxies that provide enough resolution for you to say that during this 50 or 100 year period we should be cooling...there is simply no basis for such a claim other than simple baseless belief.

Hence why it's my theory.

However, if there is natural global cooling along with man made global warming, what do you have?

People come on here and say things like "well we're not getting as hot as we should be, therefore there's no man made global warming", well, what if there's natural cooling going on with man made warming?

 

[Wuwei]

What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...

You wanted observed measured evidence. When you were given evidence you say people can be fooled by it. Go figure.

 

[jc456]

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

You were given that evidence, but you don't believe in science, so you don't understand it.

There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...

The world scientific community is virtually unanimous in affirming the reality of human caused, or 'anthropogenic', global warming. You idiotically claim otherwise. Who should we believe.....trained professional scientists....or a confused brainwashed retard like you, SSoooDDuuumb?

The obvious answer may not be so apparent to you, of course.....because you are such a dumbshit....

show the names of those who agree with that. Judith Curry doesn't have that belief. She believes that humans put CO2 in the atmosphere, hell, anyone who doesn't understand that is nuts. the fact is you can't show that the CO2 causes any warming. See, that is the argument. And since you can't present that evidence, than man can't be causing warming. DOH!