A picture of global warming

@DbDraad

They are not just looking at a couple hundred years of weather data. Climate scientists have investigated warming in the earths past and have a very good understanding of what caused warm periods in earth history.

For example past warming events have been caused by cyclical deviations in the earths orbit exposing it to more sunlight, or increased solar activity. However these are not the cause of the current warming because the earths orbit is currently stable and will be for another 16,000 years and solar activity has been measured and has been shown to have declined during this current period of warming. The rate of which the planet is currently warming is also far higher than previous natural causes.

Absolutely the climate changes naturally. But does not preclude mankind from changing the climate. The current warming does not have a natural cause

Just because CO2 only makes 0.4%  of the atmosphere, does not preclude it from having a massive impact on the planet. To suggest otherwise is just showing ones ignorance.

No other man made issue is as serious or will have the same impact on the planet and to humanity as man made climate change. Again to suggest otherwise is just a deflection.

@Plum

What else am I suppose to say to your logical fallacies. You brought up North Africa being a desert (and I said Africa, not North Africa) to imply that droughts occur naturally. I'm pointing out that doesn't prove anything. Its like saying human being die of natural causes therefore can not die of man made causes like.

CO2 increases temperature, higher temperatures evaporate more water in the earths soil, less water in the earths soil will result in more droughts as plants and crops need that water to live.

Is that clear enough for you?

‘No other man made issue is as serious or will have the same impact on the planet and to humanity as climate change’....there you have it, the Gospel according to the weathermen.

And if you don’t agree or ask for a shred of proof.....you are a Denier baby and the Inquisitors will deal with you,

And the US election was stolen.....50% of the voting public believed Trump colluded with Russia....if the media corrected their mistake Trump wins. But they didn’t because it suited them... that’s how the election was stolen.

Stav...I read all 4 articles you initially posted...typical jargon and half truths...

Its simple, we should look after the planet, we as humans have an enormous effect in general...making carbon the only or even the main culprit is dishonest to the extreme...slight of hand BS.

If you look at the hockey stick increase in CO2, the increase in temperature did not follow the trend as predicted...it went up, but not at the ratio predicted, so the model is wrong.

And if you look at the historic data over a million years, you will see that we will have to do something to buck the trend. We are on the brink of another major drop in global temperature. Most of the so called models ignore the big picture and focus on the short term data...it all smacks of fearmongering...why?...follow the money.

Latency sorry.

‘No other man made issue is as serious or will have the same impact on the planet and to humanity as climate change’....there you have it, the Gospel according to the weathermen.

What other man made issue could have as serious consequences as man made climate change and what is the evidence to support that claim.

When skeptics ask for evidence, climate scientists can provide it, you just choose to ignore or deliberately not understand to suite your own political agenda.

Its hilarious at times, help help scream the skeptics as they get called out on the lack of the evidence, we 're being persecuted! How dare these climate change proponents ask us for evidence to support our arguments its so mean and it makes us look bad.

Stav...I read all 4 articles you initially posted...typical jargon and half truths...

A.k.a you don't understand or don't want to understand them. Where are the half truths contained within them specifically?

"Its simple, we should look after the planet, we as humans have an enormous effect in general...making carbon the only or even the main culprit is dishonest to the extreme...slight of hand BS."

Why is it dishonest when its what the evidence indicates. To say its not the main cause when all the evidence indicates is is whats dishonest.

"If you look at the hockey stick increase in CO2, the increase in temperature did not follow the trend as predicted...it went up, but not at the ratio predicted, so the model is wrong."

Ah the hockey stick. One the classic climate skeptic go to argument is the hokey stick is broken but its long since been refuted.

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

"And if you look at the historical data over a million years, you will see that we will have to do something to buck the trend. We are on the brink of another major drop in global temperature. Most of the so called models ignore the big picture and focus on the short term data...it all smacks of fearmongering...why?...follow the money."

What are you talking about? What major drop in global temperature are you talking about, when its due to occur? What models are you referring too?.

And you end with a on a conspiracy note. 

Suppose if we are following the money what about the $ 2 billion the fossil fuel industry spent on lobbying to kill climate laws between 2000 and 20i6 in the US alone?

"A.k.a you don't understand or don't want to understand them. Where are the half truths contained within them specifically?"

Nope...go and read them again and see all the deliberate over simplifications...

"What are you talking about? What major drop in global temperature are you talking about, when its due to occur? What models are you referring too?."

No models needed. Look at the historical data over millions of years. A clear trend. I've posted the graph numerous times....if the data is wrong, please post the correct data.

The earth/moon analogy was a deliberate over simplification.

None of those articles looked like scientific palers...it was opinion pieces, supposedly backed by science, mentioning science in broad terms, but not being particular.

"A.k.a you don't understand or don't want to understand them. Where are the half truths contained within them specifically?"

So you ignore the graph of global temperatures over the last 1M years...or you can't interpret it?

Your graph proves nothing. As I said several times before the fact the planet has been warmer in the past and that warming has occurred naturally in the past does not preclude man from causing the climate to warm.

We know the causes of natural warming in the past and we know they are not the cause of the current warming.

Lol Star

"What else am I suppose to say to your logical fallacies. You brought up North Africa being a desert (and I said Africa, not North Africa) to imply that droughts occur naturally. I'm pointing out that doesn't prove anything. Its like saying human being die of natural causes therefore can not die of man made causes like."

Ok. 

Now, I'll try to be clear.

Show me the proof that the drought you referred to was caused by man-made CO2.

You brought up the drought in, I guess it's Somalia or Etheopia you're talking about, to support your view on man-made climate change. 

I'd like you to show me how that drought is a proven consequence of what you say it is.

PS, I don't think that you know what a logical fallacy is. 

Here's one for you; Appeal to authority(which, on a soft count, you've done at least five times on this thread).

Now, point out which one I'm guilty of.

I was not referring to any particular drought, I was just off the top of my head listing regions that where prone to suffering drought.

What I'm saying, is that yes droughts can occur naturally, but man made climate change will cause an increasing occurrence of droughts.

Just a brief check online and you can easily find lots of papers and research that supports that position.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076521

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324702167_Climate_Change_and_Drought_a_Perspective_on_Drought_Indices

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3858

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2017/5757238/

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0006-87052018000100201

https://brill.com/view/journals/tjis/2/1/article-p118_118.xml?language=en

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515727/

https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c047p123.pdf

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001502

On logical fallacies. What point where you trying to make when you brought up North African being a desert for 12,000 years?

On appeals to authority, its not an appeal to authority to cite climate scientists who over decades have spent hundreds of thousand hours conducting research, taking measurements/observations, preforming experiments and published their findings in peer reviewed scientific journals for the scrutiny of the world to see.

Now I suppose I could link to the research to back every claim I make but I have doubts for all the time and effort I put you will even read them let alone accept the findings in them and just move on to another red herring or eventually loop back to one you used before.

What your guilty is coming up with a load of unsubstantiated claims and red herrings.

Snarkhole...your graph spans over 2000 years, which is nothing in geological terms. Find me a graph over 500 000 years or a million years. Use any source site you like.

Has it ever occurred to you that the human population/civilization  exploded the way it did exactly because of the relative stability in E arth's climate during this time?

As you'll note, Star, I'm sticking with this particular red herring for now.

The last time earth was very hot and had extremely high(highest ever) CO2 levels, were there more or less droughts?

It's simple, the earth was 5-7 degrees warmer during the PETM and it rained about 4 times as much as today.

Rainfall patterns across regions did change. However, here are two key points that fly directly in the face of your idea of increased droughts...

1) There was no large scale die-off of tropical vegetation.  It had earlier been speculated that the PETM might have been too hot for the survival of tropical plants, but at least in Columbia/Venezuela, this doesn't appear to have been the case. The tropical forest persisted, and in fact became more diverse:

2) There is no evidence of increased drought stress from the composition of plants seen in the sediments analyzed:

You are adamant that global warming = drought and famine.

However, the fossil and geological record shows that even in the most extreme case of global warming, droughts were less abundant and plants thrived...as well as an increase in biodiversity.

You keep banging on about all the science but it does appear rather un-scientific to ignore hard evidence in favor of projections laden with confirmation bias.

Asia, South America and Europe saw more rain during the PETM. Those are from studies I've found. But I bet Africa saw similarly increased rainfall.

So, tell me, what is different now?

Where are the droughts going to come from this time?

"Weather- is when it contradicts the BS and climate- is when it supports the BS."

Haha

"

Right on cue......the NY times today:

By David Leonhardt

Good morning. A Times reporter explains the connection between frigid weather and global warming.

......

Hilarious and predictable.....this frigging dummy wouldn’t know a mathematical equation if it slapped him in the face.

Einstein - "I need a theory that explains everything."

Global warming lemming - "Hold my beer..!"

The storm in Texas is probably only a 1 in 100 year event, not even close to a 1 in 500 or 1 in 1000 year event.

In hydrology you zoom out quite a bit to 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 flood events...these things are normal in the long run, it only feels special/out of the ordinary to us humans because of our short life spans.

What is with this forum and it failing to upload posts. Sigh.

"I realize I’m repeating myself here, but scientists are still hashing out all of this. While the science underlying the links between human emissions and climate change is rock solid, some of the particulars, such as whether climate change will cause us to see more frequent blasts from the polar vortex, are still being debated. And that’s as it should be."

Meaning: they don't know what the effects, good or bad, will be...

"What is with this forum and it failing to upload posts. Sigh."

Can be infuriating if a long post just disappears into thin cyber-air!

It's auto-deletes BS, Star

Haha just kidding

I reckon its a conspiracy, the fossil fuel companies are deleting my posts!

You mean i shouldn't have forwarded your details to BP?

My bad

An issue that is being recycled by politicians, loonies and lefties.

Draad, this belongs on your bedside table...

Whatever Snarkhole bullshitter...keep on zooming in on 150 years in a 150 000 year cycle...you can't see the wood for the trees.

Snark...ever heard of a bio chemical reaction...?

The problem is not fossil fuels on it's own...the problem is too many humans as a whole...and the effect we have on the planet..CO2 is a minor in the bigger scheme of things.

...so it was the crayons then...thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever Snarkhole bullshitter...keep on zooming in on 150 years in a 150 000 year cycle...you can't see the wood for the trees.

The curve is not steeper than at any time.....it’s not as as steep as 1923 to 1948 when CO2 in the atmosphere hadn’t spiked. And the second spike has benefited from data ‘sanitizing’.....ie throwing out any piece of data you can that doesn’t work  And of course there’s the heat island effect.

Shark’s chart is the one I have referred to and demonstrates some heating....but only 0.7 degrees fell in the period where carbon could have made a difference....along with other things.