Satellite data show Earth's glaciers in massive decline

[mamooth]

Seasonal timing has changed. Plants will take a little longer to evolve to make use of that change. Say, a hundred thousand years or so.

where has seasonal timing changed?

Arbor Day Foundation

This official site of the Arbor Day Foundation provides information about planting and caring for trees, donating to plant trees in honor of others in a forest, and much more. Buy trees online or plant memorial & celebration trees as a gift in a forest in need.

www.arborday.org

 

[jc456]

Seasonal timing has changed. Plants will take a little longer to evolve to make use of that change. Say, a hundred thousand years or so.

where has seasonal timing changed?

Arbor Day Foundation

This official site of the Arbor Day Foundation provides information about planting and caring for trees, donating to plant trees in honor of others in a forest, and much more. Buy trees online or plant memorial & celebration trees as a gift in a forest in need.

www.arborday.org

explain what the fk that is supposed to illustrate exactly?

 

[mamooth]

explain what the fk that is supposed to illustrate exactly?

The USDA climate zones moving north, due to the warming climate.

Where I live used to be Zone 5. Now it's Zone 6. That's because it's gotten warmer, so the same type of plants will now grow further north.

 

[Crick]

And plants for which Zone 5 was their southern limit are now dying there.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.

 

[ding]

Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.

You are ******* idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.

 

[ding]

explain what the fk that is supposed to illustrate exactly?

The USDA climate zones moving north, due to the warming climate.

Where I live used to be Zone 5. Now it's Zone 6. That's because it's gotten warmer, so the same type of plants will now grow further north.

It's called an interglacial cycle.

 

[Crick]

Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.

You are ******* idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.

You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it ******* IS.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wow, so the dingbat called me {a} "******* idiot" for a fallacious reason. How shocking. No wonder I still ignore him.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's called an interglacial cycle.

It's called AGW >> Climate Change
Now continue trying like hell to ignore those dramatically increasing values on the far right where a gradual to steep decline similar to the oxygen curve is obviously indicated for all normally. Way beyond anything Milankovitch cycles or your sunspots can possibly account for. But, you know.. what else you got? Just your fellow butthurt, heavily fossil fuel invested, AGW deniers. Good luck with that bunch.

 

[ding]

Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.

You are ******* idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.

You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it ******* IS.

Great. Now do the radiative forcing calculation and compare that answer to the graph that you believe shows man made warming due to CO2.

Because you are the one with the emotional hunch. I am doing cold hard calculations and there's no room in math for emotions, chicken little.

 

[ding]

It's called an interglacial cycle.

It's called AGW >> Climate Change
Now continue trying like hell to ignore those dramatically increasing values on the far right where a gradual to steep decline similar to the oxygen curve is obviously indicated for all normally. Way beyond anything Milankovitch cycles or your sunspots can possibly account for. But, you know.. what else you got? Just your fellow butthurt, heavily fossil fuel invested, AGW deniers. Good luck with that bunch.

Can you do the radiative forcing calculation? Or do you need for me to do it for you? It's OK if you can't do the math. I would be glad to teach it to you.

 

[ding]

Why is it that these so called scientific minded global warming fanatics can't do simple math

 

[ding]

The thing I love about these graphs is how they show the relationship between temperature and CO2 is broken.

Prior to the industrial revolution temperature and CO2 moved together in lock step. But not so much since the industrial revolution.

 

[mamooth]

I am doing cold hard calculations

Where?

Making unsupported claims is not "doing cold hard calculations".

Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community here. We require evidence, and you only supply emotion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I am doing cold hard calculations

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's called an interglacial cycle.

It's called AGW >> Climate Change
Now continue trying like hell to ignore those dramatically increasing values on the far right where a gradual to steep decline similar to the oxygen curve is obviously indicated for all normally. Way beyond anything Milankovitch cycles or your sunspots can possibly account for. But, you know.. what else you got? Just your fellow butthurt, heavily fossil fuel invested, AGW deniers. Good luck with that bunch.

Post one single experiment that shows temperature increase as a result of increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm

Just one time

 

[Grumblenuts]

Post one single experiment that shows temperature increase as a result of increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm

You're looking at the results of one called "The Industrial Revolution"

 

[ding]

I am doing cold hard calculations

Where?

Making unsupported claims is not "doing cold hard calculations".

Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community here. We require evidence, and you only supply emotion.

I was giving you guys a chance to do it first but it seems none of you know how to do it. Do you?

 

[ding]

I am doing cold hard calculations

Do you need to phone a friend or ask the audience?