Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is not the trend over the last 100 years when we have been adding record amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
And let us not commit the fallacy that Greenland is the entire world, andypro7Ya got me. You're right, let's look at the long-term trend
Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.
While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.
The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.
The problem is the consequences of global warming, andypro7 - see my previous post. For exampleAgain, what exactly is the problem?
Smith et al. (2009) (on which the late great Stephen Schneider was a co-author) updated the IPCC impact assessment, arriving at similar conclusions. For example,
"There is medium confidence that ~2030% of known plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 °C to 2.5 °C over 19801999"
"increases in drought, heat waves, and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency, and flood risks (starting at less than 1 °C of additional warming above 1990 levels) and adverse health effects (slightly above 1 °C)"
"climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding after a further 2 °C warming from 1990 levels; reductions in water supplies (0.4 to 1.7 billion people affected with less than a 1 °C warming from 1990 levels); and increased health impacts (that are already being observed"
What does climate science say about global temperatures, andypro7?And yet the change in global temps barely makes a blip when you look at the 10000 year trend.
This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.
What does climate science say about global temperatures, andypro7?
Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak (Scientific American 2013)
Steve McIntyre, the guy who uncovered Michael Mann's hockey stick fraud, also uncovered this fraud just days after it was released.
Part four: Climate change debate overheated after sceptics grasped 'hockey stick' | Environment | The GuardianWhat counts in science, however, is not a single study. It is whether its finding can be replicated by others. Here Mann has been on a winning streak. Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years.
Is that like your rapid belief that I just had to be wrong on the half-a-trillion dollar a year subsidy to fossil fuels?You should know that your rapid belief makes you susceptible to this kind of fraud.
Will you become skeptical now seeing multiple fraudulent claims from the warmists? Will you have an open mind?
The answer should be yes, but in my experience people who post stuff like this and get utterly and thoroughly destroyed just slink away, and never learn a thing.
blah, blah, blah.....
Maybe you didn't get it from my last post, so I'll spell it out: I stopped reading anything you posted about 30 posts ago, when you continually refused to provide any evidence for your wild claims. I don't care what you have to say, because I'm sure it isn't the least bit intelligent.
EXACTLY.
As you say, RECORD amounts; unheard, ungodly, devastating, massive, dangerous, run-for-the-hills amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere the last 100 years.
And yet the change in global temps barely makes a blip when you look at the 10000 year trend.
That's false. It is one of the most rapid increases in the record.
Not a shread of truth in that statement. Ok, maybe a shread. It would appear to be a rapid increase, just like many other times over the past 10000 years.
Then show us a 100 year span with a similar increase in temperature.
It's all in that graph.
For instance, look at the gridline between 7956 yrs ago and 8286 years ago.
Just to set the record straight since there is a major incorrect point here. Remember climate scientists do NOT PROVIDE A SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.
Then show us.
That's 330 years. Try again.
The ENTIRE PERIOD is 330 years. The rise begins JUST BEFORE the gridline and ends JUST AFTER IT, which anyone who knows how to read a graph can see takes up NOWHERE near the entire 330 years
We need more concrete data than "it looks like". Show us the data and the real time period.
I've done all I can do. You are intentionally being dumb because you're theory was proven false.
If you genuinely can't see that from the graph, then you won't have the intelligence to understand anything else I'd show you.
All right, you got me, you were trolling me the whole time. I admit it.
Good one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?