You should be afraid and you should act

[jc456]

The model outputs and the measured temperatures are clearly labeled in the legends of all those graphs. Did you miss that? And, pray tell, what evidence do you have that the current warming trend is "natural"?

Cool, show the data used for the graph! always a graph with no data, fudged graphs

This is a strawman fallacy. I have not been screaming about a climate emergency and you are not addressing the data I HAVE been presenting. The world is getting warmer and that is having consequences which are getting worse as temperatures continue to climb.

every graph you post is a strawman

Willis Eschenbach is a massage therapist. He has no scientific credentials AT ALL

Forecasting, satellite observations and improvements in construction have all dramatically reduced weather related casualties.

what does that have to do with AGW and climate change? Technology exists that didn't. whooptido!

There have been virtually no such improvements in response to earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. This and the rest of your 62 graphs are all Willis Eschenbach bullshit. When someone chooses to present deceptive and only indirectly related data rather than address the basics like temperatures and GHG levels you should know they're spouting pseudoscientific BS. Everyone else with even a basic science education does.

yawn

No, it is not. You keep repeating this line but it is complete nonsense. The Earth's current temperature has ZERO to do with CO2 levels from a billion years ago. How many ice ages have we been through since then? The Earth's CO2 levels were stable for 3 million years before the Industrial Revolution began boosting them. That was more than enough time to reach ECS equilibrium.

CO2 is good for the planet and you want to destroy it. There's that. BTW, stop referencing rates of temperature and CO2 if you don't want to discuss the past. Seems typical for demofks.

It's not alarmism, it's BASIC SCIENCE.

yet you can't show the science. Because science is about questioning and you demofks hate being questioned.

That 278 ppm is responsible for the 59F of warming which prevents the planet from more closely resembling our partner at this location, the Moon. How is it that you do not see the deceptive intent of this graphic? Per the analysis below, the current 50% increase in CO2 is responsible for 1 centigrade degree of the observed warming.

again, unsupported by any data.

 

[jc456]

No one denies a warming trend which I have made clear many times on my own.

no one, especially crick, has yet explained how it warmed enough to melt ice sheets over what is chicago and the other regions of the norther hemisphere.

 

[Mac-7]

Some folks just want to see the world burn.

And some folks just like being freaked out all the time by the climate change doomsday scam

 

[jc456]

Some folks just want to see the world burn.

they're the same ones killing babies because they hate humans. They hate human beings, PERIOD!

 

[Delldude]

Where do you get that idea?

Actually looking pretty good.

 

[Crick]

Actually looking pretty good.

The exchange was your claim that I could not corroborate that the current warming trend was more rapid than anything in the last 500-1,000 years. This doesn't help you at all. The data graphic I provided and a dozen others you've seen here clearly demonstrate - clearly corroborate - my point.

 

[mamooth]

no one, especially crick, has yet explained how it warmed enough to melt ice sheets over what is chicago and the other regions of the norther hemisphere.

Of course we have. We've done it here many times, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying, very badly, all for the glory of their loopy authoritarian political cult.

Remember, you being a cult imbecile only makes you look bad. There's a reason you all have to come here to cry together in a SafeSpace. You've all been laughed out of every other venue.

they're the same ones killing babies because they hate humans. They hate human beings, PERIOD!

You're one sick cult loser.

By raving about a totally unrelated topic, you confirm our ongoing point, which is that denialism is just one of the many deranged beliefs that right-wing authoritarian-followers are ordered to parrot.

If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it, because denialism is entirely political.

If left-wing politics vanished, AGW science wouldn't change a bit, because it's actual hard science.

 

[mamooth]

He doesn't know the difference

So Crick rips apart your idiot cult propaganda, and your response is to just repeat it again.

You are one gutless political cult crank.

 

[jc456]

Of course we have. We've done it here many times, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying, very badly, all for the glory of their loopy authoritarian political cult.

a demofks famous words, but never a post number or the actual evidence. Watch, so lead me to this location with the explanation since there are so many locations. But watch, won't happen.

 

[mamooth]

a demofks

As my ongoing point is that you're a brainless and butthurt political crank, I thank you for proving that point so conclusively.

I'll let you know when I want any more of my points proven.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If left-wing politics vanished, AGW science wouldn't change a bit, because it's actual hard science.

We'd waste a lot less money on stupid solutions that don't work.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So Crick rips apart your idiot cult propaganda, and your response is to just repeat it again.

You are one gutless political cult crank.

Mamooth being deceptive and dishonest as usual here is the entire paragraph:

He doesn't know the difference between models and the real natural warming trend thing he is that deluded oh and he continues to ignore hard evidence of NO Climate Emergency developing which he ignores all the time.

I gave him full reply which he hasn't responded on posts 218-219

I notice you stopped posting at another forum on climate stuff, could it because of the beatings you get there...... you the fool who kept denying that ACE data is from the NOAA even when the NOAA website was shown to you by Jack .... simply because you can't handle the fact that Tropical storm/hurricane strength and frequency are not increasing at all.

Neither YOU nor Crick understand that there are two parts to the AGW crappola the first part is the CO2 molecule warm forcing impact that was already 95% factored in a BILLION years ago that helped make the planet habitable the additional warming amount since the 280 ppm level is negligible as already shown several times, the second part is the Positive Feedback Loop which after several decades still doesn't exist outside of modeling fantasies this was supposed to where run-away warming would spring from.

FACT: NO Lower Tropospheric Hot Spot exists.

FACT: NO Positive Feedback Loop exists.

FACT NO Climate Emergency exists.

Cheers.

By the way Mamooth called me this:

You are one gutless political cult crank.

I am a full independent have been for 30 years now while you are a yellowbellied wild eyed drooling leftist whackjob.

 

[Delldude]

The exchange was your claim that I could not corroborate that the current warming trend was more rapid than anything in the last 500-1,000 years. This doesn't help you at all. The data graphic I provided and a dozen others you've seen here clearly demonstrate - clearly corroborate - my point.

Blip on the earth time scale. Try again.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Blip on the earth time scale. Try again.

He will ignore the massive increase in temperature that ended the glaciation phase as shown here according to Greenland Ice core data:

and the large temperature swings while CO2 sits around the 260-280 ppm level for the 10,000 years:

 

[Crick]

Blip on the earth time scale. Try again.

Do you still claim that I cannot corroborate that the current warming trend is taking place more rapidly than any such trend in the last 1,000 years? YOU are the one who brought up that time scale, not me.

 

[Delldude]

Do you still claim that I cannot corroborate that the current warming trend is taking place more rapidly than any such trend in the last 1,000 years? YOU are the one who brought up that time scale, not me.

Current warming trend is a blip on the earth scale, why is this a sudden issue when compared to other temperature events over time?

 

[Crick]

Continuing:

I already explained this at POST 22 in another thread

LINK

Here is the chart again you couldn't understand:

View attachment 942881

Already showed you the doubling CO2 rate effect is minimal at the 400 plus ppm level,

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

View attachment 942885

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

bolding mine

Then this recent FULL ACCESS paper showed up:

Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases​

Abstract​

This article provides a brief review of research on the impact of anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on Earth's climate. A simplified analysis of resonant radiation absorption in gases is conducted. Building upon the material from the cited articles, theoretical and empirical relationships between radiation absorption and the mass of the absorbing material are presented. The concept of saturation mass is introduced. Special attention is given to the phenomenon of thermal radiation absorption saturation in carbon dioxide. By comparing the saturation mass of CO2 with the quantity of this gas in Earth's atmosphere, and analyzing the results of experiments and measurements, the need for continued and improved experimental work is suggested to ascertain whether additionally emitted carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas.

LINK

278 ppm produces 59F degrees of warming. A further 140 ppm of CO2 produces another 1 degree. If CO2 were doubled at this point and equilibrium were reached, would produce approximately 3C of warming. This is ALL Strawman bullshit you're pushing. You (Eschenbach) have not actually countered a single piece of mainstream science with this crap. He simply presents it in graphics - most of which are utterly irrelevant - that make you THINK it does and he can get away with that because the lot of you are as dumb as rocks. As. Fucking. Rocks.

 

[Crick]

Current warming trend is a blip on the earth scale, why is this a sudden issue when compared to other temperature events over time?

Because of the rapid pace at which it is taking place and the near complete failure to address the actual cause.

 

[Delldude]

278 ppm produces 59F degrees of warming. A further 140 ppm of CO2 produces another 1 degree. If CO2 were doubled at this point and equilibrium were reached, would produce approximately 3C of warming.

Why is this level of theoretical 'GW' an issue?

Because of the rapid pace at which it is taking place and the near complete failure to address the actual cause.

How would we address the actual cause if it was proven?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only climate emergency is that there’s a side by side dataset showing CO2 LAGGING temperature on both increase and decrease for 450,000 consecutive years.

450,000 consecutive years

And the AGW Cult has no way to refute it