It's official: July was hottest month on record

I refer to the speed of onset rather than longevity. I do not "Hate" any part of these debates but instead try to correct ignorance and misconception. I do get the impression that you might perhaps be feeling a bit uncomfortable in your position however, as I have introduced certain data that makes your LIA fixation less than compelling.

 

What ???? kind of dressing do you prefer on you word salad ??

 

What data would that be exactly? Would it be your assertion that the LIA had periods of warming that you can't decide on the duration of and if those periods were weather or climate?
My assertion that you hate the inconvenient truth of the LIA is based on your following quote.

As for "speed of onset", once again I refer you to the LIA

 

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

As it is clear yo do not wish to discuss the thread Topic but instead play your LIA gambit....I believe we are done here.

Have A Nice Day

 

The alarmists apparently do not understand that all periods of warming and cooling have cyclical traces on an either warming or cooling trend. The current warming period is no different.

 

I believe you are indeed done here.

 

As I said the LIA is the inconvenient truth the warmers hate and run from

 

Yep, stuck a fork in him. He's done!

 

Thanks for posting that. Chaotic cycles have the additional inconvenient property that they can sometimes miss a beat or get out of phase. This makes them mathematically intractable, and less visible to standard analytical methods used for regular cycles like the year, Milankovitch cycles, etc., although they are plain as a pikestaff to the naked eye.

 

That is a great reference written by an oceanographer. And it’s free in searchable pdf format. Copying and pasting into word yields each word on a separate line but that is easily fixed by replacing all paragraph marks with spaces. Lots more on ocean cycles, LIA, cosmic rays, ...... etc.

 

Joseph, answer your questions, then we can talk about them honestly and sincerely.

 

Jake I'm an atheist asking believers why they believe. No way for me to answer that because I'm not a believer

 

Oh, yes, you are certainly a believer, so I will leave it at that.

 

uh
I'm am convinced the current warming on planet Earth is caused by the only creature aware of changes from year to year. .... ... Now for balance in the system... Many folks do not understand how a carbon balance..... Think about it.... Taking carbon out of the system as fast as we put it in. How would that be done ? Burn less.... Yes... Will we burn less??...no.... So every year we place ANOTHER...cubic kilometer of carbon in the air... That is ...if the carbon ... we're not combined with oxygen.... solid.... So.... We got all this carbon combined with oxygen..... we need to get rid of.... We have to break that bond... Then the carbon will be solid and not in the air. But this would take a world wide chemical reaction. Or chemical reactions happening all over the world. How in the world could this be achieved? A worldwide effort to increase farmland and take all the carbon possible and.... by decomposition of plants.... Place the carbon back in the soil where it belongs... Two things man won't do is quit using fossil fuels .... and hopefully ... he will not commit genocide. But we could take it further.

 

So you do indeed think man controls climate and do indeed think we need to have zero carbon emissions to " restore balance". Thank you for the answers.

 

How do you explain the previous 9 warming and cooling cycles ???

BYW take a chemistry class or buy a high school chemistry text book.

 

I do think if we understood all the variables we could... but.... it is easy with people using gas cars, etc... would it be as easy to get everyone to change back and forth - people tend to go with what is easiest, most convenient and cheapest

I also think with this kinda change will come to a learning curve, that mistake could cost ours or other countries $$$ in natural disasters, so would that cause wars, etc...

it's definitely a complicated issue, but I do hope someday science gets a better understanding of it

would be nicer if two earths in the solar system, cause we miss this up, there is no backup

 

You aren't getting it.

 

Global warming is benefiting us. Where are all these climate refugees ??

 

Yeah I get it. You believe man controls climate and it would be at least theoretically possible for us to pick a climate we consider desirable and hold earth at that temperature.

 

So to be clear you believe at least theoretically man could decide on the perfect climate and hold earths climate at that precise point with controlled C02 output.

 

Which of course means that alarmists believe that if we globally went 100% to wind and solar that the earth would begin to cool with reduced overall precipitation. That would be a real problem.

 

Exactly right. At least some of them say we should be cooling due to solar cycles so according to their hypothesis if we suddenly stopped adding any C02 to the atmosphere we risk going back into the LIA which was not a pleasant time to live. By making this argument they make the argument that at least some C02 contribution by man is a net positive. This puts them in a pro C02 contribution by man stance as they simultaneously label it a pollutant.

 

You would hope that alarmists would think things through but .... It’s situational alarmism or be careful what you wish for.