A declining Colorado river

[Crick]

Over the past 150 years...

Sea level did not rise at an exponential rate.
Temperature did not increase at an exponential rate.
CO2 emissions did rise at an exponential rate.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations did rise at an exponential rate.

So the correlation for atmospheric CO2 is CO2 emissions. Prior to industrialization CO2 and sea level change correlated to temperature but now just sea level change does.

So you're either blitheringly stupid or a bald-faced liar.

You DON'T understand what the term "exponential" means, do you.

 

[ding]

So you're either blitheringly stupid or a bald-faced liar.

You DON'T understand what the term "exponential" means, do you.

I'm neither. Let me restate it so you will address the obvious disconnect in CO2

Sea level rise is linear and correlates to temperature.
CO2 emissions are non-linear
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is non-linear and correlates to CO2 emissions.

 

[Crick]

Let's see data supporting your contention because mine says otherwise:

 

[ding]

Let's see data supporting your contention because mine says otherwise:

View attachment 537372
View attachment 537373
View attachment 537374

I'm good with that data. Now curve fit it. But you have to use the same range for years.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Old Rocks]

That’s worldwide, not in the US. The world lags behind us. They will hit the ceiling too.

The last time I looked at the globe, it still included the US.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is the inference that it is because of increased atmospheric CO2?

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

 

[ding]

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Blaming natural variations of an interglacial cycle on CO2 is moronic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Blaming natural variations of an interglacial cycle on CO2 is moronic.

By the Milankovitch Cycles, we should be continuing the downward trend that we have observed for the last 6000 years. Instead, we are now in a very rapid rise in temperature, CO2, CH4, sea level, and extreme weather events. And a rapid decrease in mountain glaciers and continental ice caps. We are not in a natural interglacial cycle at all now.

 

[ding]

By the Milankovitch Cycles, we should be continuing the downward trend that we have observed for the last 6000 years. Instead, we are now in a very rapid rise in temperature, CO2, CH4, sea level, and extreme weather events. And a rapid decrease in mountain glaciers and continental ice caps. We are not in a natural interglacial cycle at all now.

That's only part of the equation. There are many variables at play. None of which are CO2. And this isn't very rapidly rising temperatures. D-O events during the last glacial cycle rose as much as 5C over several decades.

We absolutely are in a normal interglacial. We are still 2C below the temperatures of a normal interglacial.

The increased climate fluctuations that you mistakenly attribute to CO2 are in fact an artifact of a bi-polar glaciated world close the threshold for extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere which has been controlling earth's climate for the past 2.7 million years.

 

[ding]

You can see how much more northern hemisphere temperatures fluctuated than southern hemisphere temperatures during the last glacial cycle by studying ice core data from each hemisphere. The climate fluctuation of the northern hemisphere was much more frequent in timing and more drastic in magnitude than the southern hemisphere. Even today the northern hemisphere dominates the climate of the earth more so than the southern hemisphere as the warmest average temperature of the planet is when the sun is shining the most on the northern hemisphere and the coldest average temperatures of the planet occurs when the northern hemisphere receives the least sun light.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Well, if for no other reason, I cannot yet afford an EV, and virtually all of the electricity I use is from renewable sources. I drive my vehicles until the wheels fall off, so my next vehicles will be EV's. In the meantime, with that level of question and logic, have you considered being checked for dementia?

Have you considered that you don't understand how electricity is produced?