Satellite data show Earth's glaciers in massive decline

[ding]

Why would I need to eat crow. You got it a little closer but you are still 0.4 C below the predicted associated temperature and that's without the so called positive feedback. So where is the missing 0.4 C.

No idea why you imagine your one stupid calculation could demonstrate a damned thing, but at least you're on record now admitting that the bulk of the anomalous warming indicated in the charts is likely due to human activity (AGW). No returning to blanket denials for you, son.

That stupid calculation is the basis for the so called greenhouse effect, dummy. Do you even science?

 

[ding]

So you want to use an 1880 reference and pick the lowest temperature from the decade of 1880?

The linked source is Wikipedia which provides its sources in turn. You, otoh, are not a source. But even a glance at one of your shared charts shows that 1880 is neither the beginning of the Industrial Revolution nor the lowest temperature they could have chosen. Read the linked article if you really wish to know why they chose to start that one chart in 1880, jackass.

Why did you parse out the part that pointed out that you are still 0.4C short, dummy?

And that's without any of the predicted positive feedbacks. Which are obviously negative feedbacks.

 

[ding]

dRF=5.35ln(420/280) = 2.1692 W/m^2

2.169238328 W/m^2 x 0.75 C deg / W/m^2 = 1.6269 C deg

So why didn't the temperature rise by 1.6269 C deg when CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 420 ppm?

Why Grumblenuts , why?

 

[ding]

The answer is because CO2 does not drive climate change, dummy.

 

[Missourian]

270 Gt/yr for the last 20 years and accelerating at 48Gt/yr/decade. Enough meltwater each year to cover the island of Ireland 3 meters deep.

Climate change: World's glaciers melting at a faster pace

The meltwater produced now accounts for about a fifth of global sea-level rise.

www.bbc.com

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03436-z.epdf?sharing_token=y3StuCklUsfgVwU_3HH98dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MONuWp2CrGUw-S70alZlQTP4BVwuIOsfY2cAY_1JOvjN5tWgC4f4H4-mZYn1OYNz2fNKIQMMlXdHxUfngYucJ9XrexbEb-o2vzavbERFSasfrlX_k-8Gl2Vx8BtJi2DSTefWTO2s29JJ1OkNc0-mbK7ErW8D9a1fmXREJhvSsUlA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com

How much do we need to raise taxes by to fix this?

We need to eliminate GHG emissions. What that costs depends a great deal on you and I. I strenuously suspect that my way of doing it would cost a fraction of the manner you would end up doing it.

<Me> Excuse me sir...but why are you carrying around a car door?

<Crick> Isn't it obvious, fool? When it gets hot...I can roll down the window!

 

[Grumblenuts]

The answer is because CO2 does not drive climate change, dummy.

Yeah, it does in large measure. But as the man said, "We need to eliminate GHG emissions." The ones we humans contribute. Again, CO2 comprises a large portion of the total, but many others exist, some more potent pound for pound. Get a clue, Fool.

 

[Grumblenuts]

<Crick> Isn't it obvious, fool? When it gets hot...I can roll down the window!

Crick's window would be electric. He'd also be carrying a solar panel, an inverter, and a bat tree.

 

[ding]

The answer is because CO2 does not drive climate change, dummy.

Yeah, it does in large measure. But as the man said, "We need to eliminate GHG emissions." The ones we humans contribute. Again, CO2 comprises a large portion of the total, but many others exist, some more potent pound for pound. Get a clue, Fool.

Until the industrial revolution, CO2 has never led temperature. CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years. So throughout earth's history CO2 reinforced climate changes, CO2 did not drive climate changes.

And given that the predicted associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 does not match what has been observed, it does not appear that CO2 is driving climate change now. At a minimum we can say that the predicted positive feedbacks are in reality negative feedbacks. And given that we are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles we cannot reliably say that the less than 1 deg C of temperature gain over the past 1,000 years is due to man and not nature.

So I have a clue and you are the fool.

 

[Crick]

270 Gt/yr for the last 20 years and accelerating at 48Gt/yr/decade. Enough meltwater each year to cover the island of Ireland 3 meters deep.

Climate change: World's glaciers melting at a faster pace

The meltwater produced now accounts for about a fifth of global sea-level rise.

www.bbc.com

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03436-z.epdf?sharing_token=y3StuCklUsfgVwU_3HH98dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MONuWp2CrGUw-S70alZlQTP4BVwuIOsfY2cAY_1JOvjN5tWgC4f4H4-mZYn1OYNz2fNKIQMMlXdHxUfngYucJ9XrexbEb-o2vzavbERFSasfrlX_k-8Gl2Vx8BtJi2DSTefWTO2s29JJ1OkNc0-mbK7ErW8D9a1fmXREJhvSsUlA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com

How much do we need to raise taxes by to fix this?

We need to eliminate GHG emissions. What that costs depends a great deal on you and I. I strenuously suspect that my way of doing it would cost a fraction of the manner you would end up doing it.

<Me> Excuse me sir...but why are you carrying around a car door?

<Crick> Isn't it obvious, fool? When it gets hot...I can roll down the window!

That must be the new 1-60 model air conditioner... assuming I can run that fast.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Until the industrial revolution, CO2 has never led temperature. CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years. So throughout earth's history CO2 reinforced climate changes, CO2 did not drive climate changes.

Oh, you've been around that long? Far more likely, that sort of precision has never been possible until far more recently. Fahrenheit didn't even invent the first reliable thermometer until 1724. Does it really never occur to you shameless deniers that all the data you actually use is the exact same stuff real climate scientists have measured and used to achieve unparalleled consensus at direct odds with your amateurish arguments and interpretations? Of course not. You'd then be capable of experiencing shame.

 

[ding]

Until the industrial revolution, CO2 has never led temperature. CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years. So throughout earth's history CO2 reinforced climate changes, CO2 did not drive climate changes.

Oh, you've been around that long? Far more likely, that sort of precision has never been possible until far more recently. Fahrenheit didn't even invent the first reliable thermometer until 1724. Does it really never occur to you shameless deniers that all the data you actually use is the exact same stuff real climate scientists have measured and used to achieve unparalleled consensus at direct odds with your amateurish arguments and interpretations? Of course not. You'd then be capable of experiencing shame.

Congratulations, you just invalidated the oxygen isotope curve (which is well established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted by everyone as a proxy for past earth temperatures and climates) which means you have invalidated 500 million years of data and have no basis for making any comparison of your perception that the planet is warming faster than it has ever warmed before (a statement which is wholly invalidated without discrediting the precision of the oxygen isotope data, I might add).

I think you need to face the fact that you are a cherry picker of data to confirm your bias. The baseline temperature for the pre-industrialization of the warmest interglacial temperature (which is the proper way to baseline the comparison, you cherry picker) is less than 1deg C than today.

So again... where is all of this missing heat?

 

[ding]

The April 2021 temperature anomaly (relative to the highest temperature pre-industrialization) is 0.74 deg C.

 

[ding]

And is well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles which were prior to indstrialization.

 

[ding]

So rather than saying, yep, our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles AND our present warming doesn't match the temperature increase predicted by the radiative forcing equation of CO2, numb nuts like Grumblenuts choose to attack the validity of the oxygen isotope data instead which is the basis for understanding previous climates and history matching the climate models they so dearly love and elevate to a religious belief. And let's not forget that history matching is an incredibly important and vital step in calibrating climate models.

Congratulations, numb nuts on ass fucking logic, honesty and science.

 

[mamooth]

So why didn't the temperature rise by 1.6269 C deg when CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 420 ppm?

Because you don't understand the difference between TCS and ECS. You took the ECS formula and tried to compare it to TCS results.

This is basic stuff, and you completely faceplant at it. You faceplant at all of the basics. Given how bad you are at this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. As it is, you're just a fine example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, a person who is too clueless to understand how clueless they are.

Proceed to rage now. After all, it's not like any denier has ever said "Thank you for pointing out my fundamental error. I apologize for insulting people because I was so stupid."

 

[ding]

So why didn't the temperature rise by 1.6269 C deg when CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 420 ppm?

Because you don't understand the difference between TCS and ECS. You took the ECS formula and tried to compare it to TCS results.

This is basic stuff, and you completely faceplant at it. You faceplant at all of the basics. Given how bad you are at this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. As it is, you're just a fine example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, a person who is too clueless to understand how clueless they are.

Proceed to rage now. After all, it's not like any denier has ever said "Thank you for pointing out my fundamental error. I apologize for insulting people because I was so stupid."

I'm not familiar with any other equation than the one I posted. If that is the wrong radiative forcing relationship, then can you show me the equation I should have used, dear.

No face planting just yet.

 

[ding]

The IPCC literature assessment estimates that TCR likely lies between 1 °C (1.8 °F) and 2.5 °C (4.5 °F).[23]

So still missing heat. Oh dear!!

Where is all that heat?

 

[ding]

So dupes think they will need thousands of years before they are proven correct? Seems super convenient. And hilariously funny.

Does anyone even know how a choke works?

 

[jc456]

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.

What change?

 

[jc456]

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

Which ones