More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

[justoffal]

Do you perhaps mean differential calculus? The rate of luminosity change?

Magnification will make the curvature disappear, not the slope.

I missed the beginning of this conversation. I don't know what you see happening as a result of the sun's stellar evolution.

No....I mean integral...
But I suppose either will do.
It's simple the sun's output is gaining...each daily loss of mass contributes to this process....it can't get to where it is going unless that happens...the increase in luminosity cannot be left out of the equation.

The sun won't die for 5 billion years, so why do humans have only 1 billion years left on Earth?

In a few billion years, the sun will become a red giant so large that it will engulf our planet. But the Earth will become uninhabitable much sooner than that. After about a billion years the sun will become hot enough to boil our oceans.

phys.org

 

[ding]

Did I not speak clearly enough that you could respond without another lie?

Yes, I heard you say you don't understand how the oxygen isotope curve shows the effects of glaciation on the planet's temperature.

 

[Crick]

Yes I am familiar with it...focus on the luminosity vector....it's tilted up. integral calculus...
Keep magnifying the segment until it appears to lose its slope....
I can't believe that it is not a factor. Yes I know it is said that loss of mass cancels increase in luminosity....
Does it?

A blast from the past.

Are you suggesting that the sun's increase in luminosity is a factor in global warming but that it might be offset by the mass the sun is losing? Well, the graphic indicates that the sun's luminosity will increase from roughly 0.75X to 2.0X over a period of 10 billion years. That's approximately 2.67 millionths of one percent increase per CENTURY. Here is another source that says solar luminosity is increasing about 10% every billion years (or 1 millionth of 1 percent per century)

The sun won’t die for 5 billion years, so why do humans have only 1 billion years left on Earth?

In a few billion years, the sun will become a red giant so large that it will engulf our planet. But the Earth will become uninhabitable much sooner than that. After about a billion years the sun will…

theconversation.com

So the sun's increasing luminosity is absolutely microscopic compared to the rate at which the Earth's temperature is rising. It might be interesting to see how it compares to the effect of saving the whales... ; - )

 

[ding]

View attachment 852782

A blast from the past.

Are you suggesting that the sun's increase in luminosity is a factor in global warming but that it might be offset by the mass the sun is losing? Well, the graphic indicates that the sun's luminosity will increase from roughly 0.75X to 2.0X over a period of 10 billion years. That's approximately 2.67 millionths of one percent increase per CENTURY. Here is another source that says solar luminosity is increasing about 10% every billion years (or 1 millionth of 1 percent per century)

The sun won’t die for 5 billion years, so why do humans have only 1 billion years left on Earth?

In a few billion years, the sun will become a red giant so large that it will engulf our planet. But the Earth will become uninhabitable much sooner than that. After about a billion years the sun will…

theconversation.com

So the sun's increasing luminosity is absolutely microscopic compared to the rate at which the Earth's temperature is rising. It might be interesting to see how it compares to the effect of saving the whales... ; - )

You can make the world is burning up error by extrapolating any climate fluctuation of the past that has a positive slope. Just as long as you don't wait to be proven wrong by the negative slope change that follows it.

You temperature extrapolation of 5C in 77 years will be proven wrong just as easily as your 10mm/yr sea level rise by 2030 will be proven wrong.

 

[Crick]

You can make the world is burning up error by extrapolating any climate fluctuation of the past that has a positive slope. Just as long as you don't wait to be proven wrong by the negative slope change that follows it.

If scientists have an ongoing process that will accelerate that positive slope and can find nothing that will turn it back down, then it is a reasonable projection. If you anticipate that negative turn when you actually have no reason to do so,then you are NOT making a reasonable projection

You temperature extrapolation of 5C in 77 years will be proven wrong just as easily as your 10mm/yr sea level rise by 2030 will be proven wrong.

They might both be underestimates for all you know.

 

[ding]

If scientists have an ongoing process that will accelerate that positive slope and can find nothing that will turn it back down, then it is a reasonable projection. If you anticipate that negative turn when you actually have no reason to do so,then you are NOT making a reasonable projection

That's the thing though, you are assuming it's not normal when all of the data say this is quite normal. Especially since the present interglacial period is still 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period.

If this interglacial period were 2C warmer than the previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 you would have a point. But that's not the case so you cannot know that this isn't just another normal climate fluctuation which the geologic record is littered with.

 

[otto105]

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

AND

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

The .01 percent of fuckup deniers can be found here.

 

[ding]

They might both be underestimates for all you know.

Not given that the planet cooled for millions of years with significantly more CO2 than today. Or that the previous interglacial periods were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

The more the planet warms the greater the loss of heat to space becomes. It's a natural compensation that exists. There's no chance the planet is warming up 5C in 77 years. That would be very close to melting all ice at both poles. It's like you people don't even check the geologic record. For this landmass distribution the sea level versus temperature and thresholds for glaciation at each pole are well established. You can literally read the threshold temperature for each pole from the oxygen isotope curve.

 

[ding]

The .01 percent of fuckup deniers can be found here.

You're hilarious even for a talking monkey.

 

[otto105]

Not given that the planet cooled for millions of years with significantly more CO2 than today. Or that the previous interglacial periods were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

The more the planet warms the greater the loss of heat to space becomes. It's a natural compensation that exists. There's no chance the planet is warming up 5C in 77 years. That would be very close to melting all ice at both poles. It's like you people don't even check the geologic record. For this landmass distribution the sea level versus temperature and thresholds for glaciation at each pole are well established. You can literally read the threshold temperature for each pole from the oxygen isotope curve.

When was CO2 over 442ppm again?

 

[ding]

When was CO2 over 442ppm again?

At the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Before that it was over 600 ppm for millions of years as the planet COOLED.

 

[otto105]

At the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Before that it was over 600 ppm for millions of years as the planet COOLED.

And how does that have relevance to our rapidly changing human caused climate today.

Explain

 

[ding]

And how does that have relevance to our rapidly changing human caused climate today.

Explain

That it's not a rapidly changing climate. It's a normal interglacial period just like all the others before it. Except it's 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.

 

[skye]

Liberal Climate Change Lunacy!

 

[otto105]

That it's not a rapidly changing climate. It's a normal interglacial period just like all the others before it. Except it's 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.

Explain normal climate change and contrast that with our situation.

I’ll wait

 

[jc456]

And how does that have relevance to our rapidly changing human caused climate today.

Explain

What is it you don’t understand? He stated what you asked.

 

[jc456]

Explain normal climate change and contrast that with our situation.

I’ll wait

Why can’t you?

 

[ding]

Explain normal climate change and contrast that with our situation.

I’ll wait

The planet's "normal" climate - for the past 3 million years - are long periods of frigid temperatures followed by brief intervals of warmth like today.

 

[jc456]

The planet's "normal" climate - for the past 3 million years - are long periods of frigid temperatures followed by brief intervals of warmth like today.

In other words, it’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter in both hemispheres. They can’t seem to explain what isn’t normal or what is abnormal

 

[otto105]

What is it you don’t understand? He stated what you asked.

No, no he did not.

Why Fido you think that he did.

Explain