Climate change has been happening for 5 billion years, you and your kids have nothing to do with it. Grow up, why do you ignore the warming of the last 20,000 years that was far more rapid than anything on your fake graph. According to your graph the Earth will be a SUN in 5000 years. Grow up
Dude, insults and patronizing do not change the facts. The graph is from NASA. Are you a science denier? Your extrapolation is non-scientific since it doesn't take into account an upper limit such as the effect of the Atlantic Conveyor Belt shutting down. Obviously you are more into politics than science. No problem. Many people do the same thing. https://pangea.stanford.edu/news/in...l-pacific-could-help-drive-global-circulation BTW, I don't have any kids. You and yours will have to suck up the results of me buying a Ram 3500 4x4 dually to tow my fifth wheel. Rots'a Ruck! LOL
Your photo means something to you, but not to anyone else who does not share your delusions. You can not comprehend the meaning of this Now, the World was a lot lot colder 20,000 years ago as this image shows, it melted all without human help, which you need
It must be very important to you to say NASA is wrong, that it's all political and we have nothing to worry about. Great! I'm not worried. I'll be dead before anything bad happens. Flail around all you like with your science denial and conspiracy theories. It doesn't affect me.
Correct. The climate is in a perpetual state of change. All change prior to ~1900 was non-anthroprogenic. That's obvious. No one denies that. Since the industrial revolution, however, we have been pumping huge amounts of aerosols and greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) into the atmosphere. The aerosols have a cooling effect while the greenhouse gases have a warming effect. There are natural sources and sinks for both aerosols and CO2 that contributed to the changes in the past. The laws of physics didn't change once humans showed up. Aerosols still cool and CO2 still warms. And we are pumping huge amounts of both into the atmosphere now. It just so happens that the sensitivity to CO2 is about twice as much as the sensitivity to aerosols so the net effect is warming. No one denies the warming the last 20,000 years. You are building a strawman. That graph is not fake. I've already given you more than a half dozen different datasets that you can look up. They all confirm the same thing. The Earth is warming and there's no known natural cause for it. Remember, heat does not spontaneously appear. So if you have a convincing argument that this heat is natural show your hand and make the argument. It's that simple. It's only fair that I reciprocate so if there's something you don't understand just ask. I'll try to point you to the information so that you can verify it yourself. No, it won't. That's not how this works. There's a limit to the amount the Earth can warm anthroprogenically from CO2. Do you know what the limiting factors are?
It might mean something to you too if you spent some time learning the science of it. I too was skeptical of AGW until I took the plunge and learned the atmospheric sciences. It was hard. It took me many years, but I stuck with it. And even before I began studying the specialized subtopic of climate I realized that it would be theorectically possible to alter it. Then I started studying climate change and that's when I realized we're actually doing it now both on more regional scales and global scales.
LOL, you are clueless. Kid you just said that in the year 1900 all natural climate change ended and that all new climate change is caused by mankind. This is not based on any fact, it is a philosophical belief. Seriously kid, what mechanism stopped all natural change. See a doctor
In other words you are in high school and study hard and want to be just like fat al bore You been kissed by a girl yet
Is the mountain in NJ, the highest point on the East Coast of the USA that was pushed into place by the glacial maximum wrong? NASA once said that the speed of sound could never be exceeded, they don't talk so much about that stupidity, DO THEY? LOL, if NASA said I was your father would you believe it LOL why did NASA fill a space capsule with pure Oxygen burning the astronauts alive when a circuit shorted out PURE STUPIDITY
I trust NASA more than someone desperate to compensate for tiny hands. @iamanonman Your debate opponent has run out of intellectual ammunition.
You are probably not aware that the climb of CO2 has been gradual since the beginning of the Holocene and the change in rate started in the 50’s which is clearly stated in the IPCC which is supposed to correspond to the rise in temperature between the 70’s and 2000 before the slowdown started.
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, skeptics think I'm being misleading and dishonest when I use 1970-2016 as basis for computing the warming rate even though it is more representative of the warming rate we can expect going forward.
First, I used a tilde to indicate that 1900 is not meant to be taken literally. That is standard nomenclature by the way. I'm making a fuzzy boundary (rounded to the nearest century) in which CO2 concentration dC/dt began increasing and the rate at which those concentrations increases accelerated d^2C/dt > 0. Second, I did not say that climate change post industrial revolution is entirely attributed to humans. I did not say that natural mechanisms have stopped. What I said is that the warming that is occurring now is mostly attributable to humans through the net effect of aerosols, greenhouse gases, and land use changes the bulk of which has occurred after 1900. There is no known natural cause that can explain it where "it" is the current warming. Let me repeat...natural forcing mechanisms for climate change have not ceased. It's just that we believe they are a smaller percentage of the net forcing now.
Lol...I'm a little older than that. I specifically do not want to be like Al Gore. I don't know why you talk about him so much. I study hard both in a formal academic setting and in my own time because I'm genuinely interested in science. My passions are the atmospheric sciences and physics. I understand that not everyone shares my passions, but I do enjoy talking about science and learning more about it. Just remember, you came to this thread voluntarily. If the discussion isn't satisfactory for you (it actually seems like you're upset by it) you can bow out at any time. No one is forcing you to stay.
Agreed, probably due to the proliferation of life across the planet after the last major ice age. OTOH, as the NASA data shows, the CO2 have sharply risen far higher than in the past 650,000 years, not just the last 11,700 years since the beginning of the Holocene. To what do you attribute this sharp, record-setting rise in CO2? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Except for the fact that the rate was almost identical from 1900 to 1940's when CO2 was not increasing like it has been since 1950.
For one, modern instrumentation. Like Mike's Nature Trick for Michael Mann's hockey stick, the fact that it was even an issue is that the proxy record did not correspond to the modern instrument record. Proxies are not modern instrument readings and also come with their own issues. Another good question is, what is the pre-industrial temperature record? What is 'normal'? Is it 7,000 years ago when it was warmer during the Holocene Optimum? Was it during the last inter-glacial when temperatures were warmer and seas 5-7 meters higher? What is used now is the coldest period during the Holocene and that was The Little Ice Age which means it may be the wrong pre-industrial temperature to use for comparison.
Yes, that and there's inertia, which is estimated to be somewhere in the 30-40 year range, before the anthroprogenic effects ramp up. Though it's not like a light switch turns on. It's more like a gradual ramp up with embedded variability. This is why most of the warming in the early 1900's is probably just natural variability. Even up to 1950 the anthroprogenic and natural components may be on par with each other. Actually, it's possible the natural component was still dominating at the time. Today the anthroprogenic component is estimated to be contributing 50-90% of the current warming rate. Pinatubo is a good example of how natural mechanisms are still at work. It released enough aerosols to temporarily pause the warming and it even cooled the planet as well. This is one failing of climate models. They assume no volcanic activity going forward because they can't be predicted with reliability...or at all really. But, even that omission isn't enough to explain why models are overestimating the warming. Afterall, they've assumed no volcanic activity and we haven't had any significant activity recently so the divergence is caused by something else. In other words, if a volcano were to erupt today we would probably continue to diverge from what's observed vs forecasted. That's expected.
Modern instrumentation is how we know CO2 has spiked higher in the mid-20th century than the previous 650,000 years. We were discussing CO2 levels, but as for temperature, NASA's modern instrumentation covers that too: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php Note the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Again, while I find all of this very interesting, I'll be dead in 20-30 years, there's little I can do about it until most people recognize there is a problem and, like most problems, we're kicking the can down the road past our lifespans so I'm not going to become emotionally vested in the problem.
Yeah, the problem there is that tree ring growth rates began diverging from expectations about the same time CO2 really started to ramp up after 1950. This leaves experts with only a small window (of about 1880 to 1950) in which the stitching procedure can be applied and the tree ring data calibrated. Since Mann used tree species from the higher latitudes where the warming is more extreme and the CO2 doesn't pool as much experts think that may be playing a role in how the trees grow and why their model starts breaking down around 1950...at least that's they theory I read...maybe they have a better idea of the problem today. By the way, I have no love for Mann. He claimed to have won a Nobel Prize when, in fact, he never did. If for no reason that right there is enough to repudiate him.
Throughout the past proxy data, temperature preceded CO2, not the other way around. CO2 has been rising slowly but steadily since the beginning of the Holocene.
