Its called NATURE!!!!

[otto105]

I've forgotten more science than you ever knew.

Tell us again where science gets CO2 at 442ppm.

 

[ding]

Tell us again where science gets CO2 at 442ppm.

CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

And for every doubling of CO2 there will be a 1C rise in surface temperature absent convective currents. With convective currents it will be 0.22C. No big deal.

 

[ding]

Your just a doubt pusher and an idiot.

Again… Water vapor and clouds are a very complicated system. They are both positive and negative feedbacks. It's dynamic. The planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm of CO2. That fact right there says increased water vapor is not net positive. I also reject the magnitude of their net positive feedback. The entire atmosphere only traps 44% of its theoretical temperature surface temperature because convective currents whisks heat away from the surface into the upper atmosphere. There's no way that 120 ppm is going to be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical surface temperature.

Please learn some science.

 

[otto105]

CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

And for every doubling of CO2 there will be a 1C rise in surface temperature absent convective currents. With convective currents it will be 0.22C. No big deal.

WTF are you babbling about doubt dealer?

 

[otto105]

Again… Water vapor and clouds are a very complicated system. They are both positive and negative feedbacks. It's dynamic. The planet cooled for millions of years with 600 ppm of CO2. That fact right there says increased water vapor is not net positive. I also reject the magnitude of their net positive feedback. The entire atmosphere only traps 44% of its theoretical temperature surface temperature because convective currents whisks heat away from the surface into the upper atmosphere. There's no way that 120 ppm is going to be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical surface temperature.

Please learn some science.

Millions of years cooling? That seems pretty fast for change….doesn’t it.

 

[ding]

It’s your catalyst fuckup.

The moon must be in there somewhere too with all that tides thing making all those molecules rub against each other cresting heat.

Maybe you should learn why there’s no cumulative GHG effect from CO2 at the same frequencies as water vapor. Maybe compare all the GHG spectrums to the spectrum of the entire atmosphere of GHG’s. I can show you how if you don’t know how to do it.

 

[ding]

Millions of years cooling? That seems pretty fast for change….doesn’t it.

Given there was 50% more atmospheric CO2 than today why was it cooling at all?

 

[ding]

WTF are you babbling about doubt dealer?

Science.

 

[otto105]

Maybe you should learn why there’s no cumulative GHG effect from CO2 at the same frequencies as water vapor. Maybe compare all the GHG spectrums to the spectrum of the entire atmosphere of GHG’s. I can show you how if you don’t know how to do it.

Maybe you should understand CO2 and it’s affect on warming.

Instead of playing the confusion game.

 

[ding]

And those things must be increasing the CO2 to 442ppm so hard right.

No. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is responsible for that. But it doesn’t do much.

For every doubling of CO2 there will be a 1C rise in surface temperature absent convective currents. With convective currents it will be 0.22C. No big deal.

 

[otto105]

Given there was 50% more atmospheric CO2 than today why was it cooling at all?

Probably because CO2 was double or triple that prior to the cooling at 700ppm.


Right

 

[ding]

Maybe you should understand CO2 and it’s affect on warming.

Instead of playing the confusion game.

I do.

For every doubling of CO2 there will be a 1C rise in surface temperature absent convective currents. With convective currents it will be 0.22C. No big deal.

 

[otto105]

No. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is responsible for that. But it doesn’t do much.

For every doubling of CO2 there will be a 1C rise in surface temperature absent convective currents. With convective currents it will be 0.22C. No big deal.

Prove it.

 

[ding]

Probably because CO2 was double or triple that prior to the cooling at 700ppm.


Right

No. Atmospheric CO2 levels lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.

 

[ding]

Dude, don’t try to change a cut and paste to a giant boner.

No cut and paste needed. I know paleoclimates. Been studying them for over 20 years. How about you?

 

[ding]

Prove it.

The last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26 FEET higher seas with 120 ppm LESS atmospheric CO2 than today.

 

[ding]

Send me a bigger one next time.

 

[otto105]

No. Atmospheric CO2 levels lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.

Hilarious


Does temperature lag when CO2 falls too fuckup.

CO2 is a driver not a follower.

 

[otto105]

No cut and paste needed. I know paleoclimates. Been studying them for over 20 years. How about you?

So, how fast is our present warming over the last interglacial period 11,000 -17,000 years ago.

 

[ding]

Hilarious


Does temperature lag when CO2 falls too fuckup.

CO2 is a driver not a follower.

Do you understand that 94% of the planet’s CO2 is stored in the ocean? Do you know why that is? Have you ever heard of solubility of gas in water? Do you know what that means? Do you understand the relationship between solubility of a gas in water versus temperature?

Do you need for me to teach you about this? Because what you asked was a really stupid question and suggests you don’t understand any of this.