Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

You dont need humans to do a damn thing.
The Sun has created all the water on earth, and you cant stop it no matter what you do.

No amount of money in my paycheck will change it.

 

You're simply an advocate, also absent the credentials that you assert you'd take as credible. So, why should anyone take what you've added as either credible or authoritative?

 

Globally? Really? Do tell....

 

Really?
Thanks for the music.

 

This sentence explains a lot about your understanding of atmospheric dynamics. You should start over at the beginning.

 

Yes, Really.

Youre welcome.

 

Gonna have to ask you to source that one.

 

I'm patiently awaiting your explanation.

 

Ah.. I get it... because an asteroid and a regular meteor are really the same things..... Way to advance the nth degree argument...

 

As an initial matter, I notice that you have chosen to phrase your concepts and conclusions with a grammar and syntax that is overly complex. I follow your points, but I believe you are intentionally trying to obfuscate by using language which is unnecessarily complex. When simpler language and structure will suffice, just use it.

Case in point. Total radiative forcing is a method of measuring the amount of energy created by these factors. Instead of recognizing that the graph measures and compares the amount of energy created by multiple types of human contributions against natural contributions, you (after insulting my ability to read the graph) take issue with the fact that they are "entire" as opposed to "differentiated." You then refuse to elaborate any further because it is not "in my wheelhouse."

At no point does the data I included "ignore the natural process entirely." As point of fact, the data explicitly recognizes and embraces the natural process to both explain why the fact that anthropomorphic contributions, which are roughly 4% of the natural contributions, still amount to roughly 90% of the accumulated CO2 that we have seen over the last 150 years.

I have yet to see anything to suggest that a warmer climate can, in turn, hold onto more CO2. I have seen such as regards to Water Vapor, but not CO2. But if you think that is "what we see today," then you present another reason why humans should immediately transition to a economy that produces much less CO2.

You want proof that human supplied CO2 is distributed throughout the regions of the upper atmosphere that contributes to global warming. And I don't take significant issue with that as a point of further research, but it does very little to refute the basic tenets of AGW.

There is no such thing as an "optimal global temperature." Instead, there is a range of temperatures during which the currently existing plants and animals evolved and learned to thrive. Significant deviations from that temperature range, especially if those alterations are made on a timescale that is roughly 75x the natural pace, will undeniably result in significant economic and ecological harm.

This is the global average surface temperature measurements from the last 120 years.

1900–1909 −0.259 °C (−0.466 °F) −0.005 °C (−0.00900 °F)
1910–1919 −0.276 °C (−0.497 °F) −0.017 °C (−0.0306 °F)
1920–1929 −0.175 °C (−0.315 °F) +0.101 °C (0.182 °F)
1930–1939 −0.043 °C (−0.0774 °F) +0.132 °C (0.238 °F)
1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F) +0.078 °C (0.140 °F)
1950–1959 −0.02 °C (−0.0360 °F) −0.055 °C (−0.0990 °F)
1960–1969 −0.014 °C (−0.0252 °F) +0.006 °C (0.0108 °F)
1970–1979 −0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F) +0.013 °C (0.0234 °F)
1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F) +0.177 °C (0.319 °F)
1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F) +0.137 °C (0.247 °F)
2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F) +0.200 °C (0.360 °F)
2010–2019 0.753 °C (1.36 °F) +0.24 °C (0.432 °F)

Collectively, the average temperature has increased by 1.007 Celsius. As the total radiative chart demonstrates, humans are responsible for approximately 95% of that warming. Thus, humans are responsible for nearly 100% of the warming seen over the last century. On the other hand, the global average temperature for the 1961–1990 period has been derived by spatial interpolation of average observed near-surface air temperatures from over the land, oceans and sea ice regions, with a best estimate of 14 °C (57.2 °F). So if you instead wanted to compare the 1 Degree of Celsius warming against that measurement, then humans are responsible for approximately 7% of the global average temperature.

 

Dinosaurs from 65 million years ago would like to explain it to you, but....

Oh I see. You take issue with me saying Meteor instead of Asteroid. Got it.

 

Because I repeatedly provide links to the data and opinions from individuals who have credentials and credibility on this subject.

That guy is trying to make the argument that AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Wouldn't you want someone to back that type of assertion up with a single reference to an individual with credentials or credibility on the subject?

 

...Your argument is that the Aurora Borealis creates water?

 

Source for what?

 

One can only hope—Homo Sapiens thrive in warm weather, whither in cold. Hip! Hip! Hurray! for Global Warming! And the “more-er” the sooner the better. Perhaps it can stop the coming Ice Age.

 

Only difference is size.

 

The Aurora Borealis is energy released when 2 protons (aka Hydrogen Atoms) from the sun, interact with an Oxygen atom in Earths atmosphere, specifically the Ozone layer.

https://www.space.com/15139-northern-lights-auroras-earth-facts-sdcmp.html

 

First off, protons are not "hydrogren atoms." Hydrogen Atoms have one proton. The word "proton" does not even appear in the article you linked.

Second, the Aurora Borealis is a colorful reaction created by energized particles from the sun interacting with different chemicals in the upper atmosphere. Oxygen is one of the chemical that it interacts with to create the color, but it does not also create water.

 

That we are getting more water.

 

You can join the scientists from the 1970s, approximately 1/7th of the actively publishing climatologists from that time by the way, who believe that a global cooling event is upcoming.

I will not join you in sounding the alarm because I currently get that Sweet, Sweet Cash from the Air Conditioning Lobby (tm).

 

Ah, water doesn’t have a reproductive system.

“Earth’s water is finite, meaning that the amount of water in, on, and above our planet does not increase or decrease.”
https://olc.worldbank.org/sites/def...187-5EDB-3EF2-897802DEA3BF/Nasa/chapter1.html

“The amount of water on the Earth is constant, or nearly so. Actually, the amount is increasing ever so slightly due to volcanic eruptions expelling water vapor into the atmosphere, but, for all practical purposes, the amount of water (as a gas, liquid and as snow and ice) can be considered to be constant. ”
https://wgntv.com/2017/08/09/if-the-amount-of-water-on-earth-is-constant-why-do-oceans-rise/amp/

 

The Aurora Borealis is energy released when 2 protons (aka Hydrogen Atoms) from the sun, interact with an Oxygen atom in Earths atmosphere, specifically the Ozone layer.

https://www.space.com/15139-northern-lights-auroras-earth-facts-sdcmp.html

 

Well, according to geological history, it has to happen at some point; just as the sun will enviably irradiate the Earth when it goes Super Nova. Now, that’s going to be a btch to fix.

 

Do you mean photon?
Cause protons are missing an electron needed to be hydrogen.