Heat to soar to record levels in next 5 years.

[ding]

That would be at the very upper end of the estimate and that is not widely accepted. Most credible estimates I've seen have the CO2 ppm somewhere around 1000 ppm, which is still obviously quite a lot compared to today, obviously, but the 3500 ppm would put CO2 levels beyond what they were estimated to be even in the End-Permian period, which wiped out most life on the planet at the time.

But even if, for the sake of argument, accept that higher figure, then let's consider something obvious: life 48-53 million years ago was quite different from that today. We didn't evolve to live in those conditions, and alligators were living in the Arctic.

In any case, we're digressing, which I think is your purpose. You can come up with all the cites and historical footnotes about different geologic periods you want. Your opinion that humans aren't causing climate change is not accepted by mainstream science.

The azolla event is what drew it down to the 1,000 ppm level from the 3,500 ppm level. I've seen other estimates as high as 4,000 ppm. I don't know anyone who claims the maximum was 1,000 ppm. So, yeah, the 3,500 ppm is widely accepted. The citations are on the graph. You haven't provided any citations, right?

Yes, life was different. Here's a look at what the latitudinal thermal gradients looked like millions years ago compared to today. Which shows the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which didn't exist until a short 3 million years ago. Which is when the ICE AGE BEGAN. Which we are still in.

 

[ding]

Do I need to draw a red circle around the empirical climate data that shows when the ice age began?

 

[ding]

CO2 does not cause the planet to become cooler; the aerosols that come from volcanos and even modern industry can sometimes mask radiation, which may cause a reduction in temperature in the short-run, but carbon builds up in the atmosphere and as it does, it will lead to warming.

It was a joke to show how inaccurate your view is of CO2 controlling the planet's climate. The current temperature is 2C cooler than the last interglacial period with 120 ppm more CO2 than the last interglacial period. Which means that the last interglacial was 2C hotter than today with less atmospheric CO2. How do you explain that if CO2 is driving the earth's climate?

 

[ding]

CO2 does not cause the planet to become cooler; the aerosols that come from volcanos and even modern industry can sometimes mask radiation, which may cause a reduction in temperature in the short-run, but carbon builds up in the atmosphere and as it does, it will lead to warming.

Furthermore, how do you explain the earth cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm, if CO2 drives the climate of the planet?

 

[multivita-man]

It was a joke to show how inaccurate your view is of CO2 controlling the planet's climate.

Uh huh.

The current temperature is 2C cooler than the last interglacial period with 120 ppm more CO2 than the last interglacial period. Which means that the last interglacial was 2C hotter than today with less atmospheric CO2. How do you explain that if CO2 is driving the earth's climate?

I know you think you have a point, but you don't.

 

[multivita-man]

Furthermore, how do you explain the earth cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm, if CO2 drives the climate of the planet?

I don't know, how do you explain the earth's warming by almost 1.2C in the last 200 or so years? Sunspot activity?

 

[multivita-man]

The azolla event is what drew it down to the 1,000 ppm level from the 3,500 ppm level. I've seen other estimates as high as 4,000 ppm. I don't know anyone who claims the maximum was 1,000 ppm. So, yeah, the 3,500 ppm is widely accepted. The citations are on the graph. You haven't provided any citations, right?

Yes, life was different. Here's a look at what the latitudinal thermal gradients looked like millions years ago compared to today. Which shows the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which didn't exist until a short 3 million years ago. Which is when the ICE AGE BEGAN. Which we are still in.

View attachment 809445

Cool pictures.

But that's not what we're talking about.

 

[ding]

Uh huh.

Yeah, and a damn funny one at that.

 

[ding]

I know you think you have a point, but you don't.

The point is that CO2 does not drive the planet's climate. If it did, it wouldn't be 2C cooler today with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period. Did I mention the seas were 26 ft higher than today? How is that even possible if we have 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the planet had back then?

How do you explain that if CO2 is driving the earth's climate?

 

[odanny]

Incorrect. I've forgotten more about the earth's climate than you know or will likely ever know.

 

[ding]

I don't know, how do you explain the earth's warming by almost 1.2C in the last 200 or so years? Sunspot activity?

Again... natural climate variability. Just like every other warming and cooling trend that was not caused by orbital forcing or CO2 that has been recorded in the geologic record. The geologic record is littered with examples of such.

 

[ding]

View attachment 809461

 

[ding]

Cool pictures.

But that's not what we're talking about.

Think you meant to say... cool empirical climate data.

Of course you aren't interested in talking about empirical climate data that no one disputes. It hurts your cause and is making you look uninformed.

So.. are we in an ice age or are we in an ice age?

 

[multivita-man]

The point is that CO2 does not drive the planet's climate.

Nobody said it "drives" the planet's climate; it's a greenhouse gas that traps heat.

If it did, it wouldn't be 2C cooler today with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period. Did I mention the seas were 26 ft higher than today? How is that even possible if we have 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the planet had back then?

How do you explain that if CO2 is driving the earth's climate?

You seem to have a lot of irrelevant questions.

In any case, climate change due to carbon emissions was predicted by scientists dating back to the 1800s, and their predictions have turned out to be correct.

 

[multivita-man]

Think you meant to say... cool empirical climate data.

Of course you aren't interested in talking about empirical climate data that no one disputes. It hurts your cause and is making you look uninformed.

So.. are we in an ice age or are we in an ice age?

 

[multivita-man]

Again... natural climate variability.

Nope.

Just like every other warming and cooling trend that was not caused by orbital forcing or CO2 that has been recorded in the geologic record. The geologic record is littered with examples of such.

Nope.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Southwest gets some reprieve from the record-setting heat as high temperatures, though still extremely hot, return to more normal values for this time of year.

MSN

More credibility killing lies.

We are having "normal temperatures" They are well within the range youd expect this time of year.

Its' amazing this continues to go on.

 

[ding]

Nobody said it "drives" the planet's climate; it's a greenhouse gas that traps heat.

That is exactly what they are saying. That man’s GHG emissions are driving a climate change.

 

[ding]

You seem to have a lot of irrelevant questions.

It’s not possible for empirical climate data to be irrelevant to a climate discussion.

 

[ding]

In any case, climate change due to carbon emissions was predicted by scientists dating back to the 1800s, and their predictions have turned out to be correct.

No. They haven’t. Their models are flawed. And empirical climate data disagrees with their models. I’ve already given you two examples.