If you reduce the stove setting, the water continues to heat ... but at a lower rate. What we saw on earth was that the "stove setting" was reduced ... and the rate of heating _increased_. Thus, your crank pseudoscience theory is debunked. Yes, yes, you'll rage and flail against reality, but you're just someone venting in an online SafeSpace, and nobody cares.
If all you've got is pretending that you don't understand basic English, there's really no point in continuing
Please see your #296 and my #297 and #300. You asked for a verifiable test (#296). I offered fulfillment of Hansen's prediction (#297). Skeptical Science confirmed Hansen's prediction (#300). Game, set, match.
Referring back to your previous inability to parse English is supposed to prove ... what? That you still can't see how you messed it up? Let me help you out. Examine the sentence: "With a new engine, my car will be faster." Now, does that mean my car is faster _now_? Does it mean my car will be faster next week, before the new engine is put in? No? Now, see if you can apply that logic to "with doubled CO2." Or just keep evading and running. Your choice. Since you're so good at the latter, I'm guessing you'll go that way.
So you call them "El Nino spikes" ... and then proceeded to base a new plateau at the top of every "spike". You don't seem to understand what the word "spike" means. Go on, tell us more about your groundbreaking "Every El Nino sets a new base plateau!" theory, and tell us why that wasn't the case before 1975. Then tell us why La Nina events don't set a new low-plateau. That is, why did you use such peculiar statistical trickery?
Irrelevant deflection. You made a flat error of fact in claiming Hansen never made the prediction. Own your mistake and learn from it. I offered Hansen's prediction to answer your challenge for a way to falsify my view. Skeptical Science confirmed the prediction. To quote James Cobern's memorable line in The Magnificent Seven: "You lost." Skeptical Science: "We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels)." Exactly.
That's a bald falsehood. They were very similar. Nope. Baldly false. We know from historical records that the onset of the MWP was rapid, and likewise the LIA. Those are claims without evidence. Again, that is just a bald falsehood. The directly observed temperature data accord with a primarily solar effect on surface temperature. It is only the data that have been altered to agree with CO2-centered theory that do not. I see. So, when temperature data are altered, repeatedly and retroactively, to conform to your proved-false theory, any challenge to that scientific malfeasance and fraud is to be dismissed because it's merely a "conspiracy theory"?? Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
It most certainly did not. The rapid heating was 1970-2000, when solar activity was at historic highs. It has slowed since then, with cooling since 2016. Thus, your crank pseudoscience theory is debunked. Yes, yes, you'll rage and flail against reality, but you're just someone venting in an online SafeSpace, and nobody cares.
Over half reached a higher temperature (including the last four) and half warmed at a faster rate and achieved a higher maximum. The global temperature has been warmer than today's temperature in ~ 6100 of the past 10,000 years. All of the species currently alive today evolved with CO2 between 1000 and 2000 ppm. That's data. Not handwaving. And as complete economic analysis shows - global warming is net beneficial. The best policy is to unleash the power of fossil fuels to maximize economic growth and wealth creation to maximize the capability to respond to localized warming issues. Most of the costs of warming will be increases in air conditioning expense. Cutting back the use of fossil fuels significantly enough to slow CO2 concentration increases is politically impossible. The Chinese Communist Party is doing nothing to curb global CO2 emissions except sell solar and wind equipment to the western democracies run by experts who couldn't figure out how to exit a wet paper bag. It's the age old question - would you rather have 99% of $500 or 9% of $1000?
But it's data that's not relevant, a red herring. The current natural cycle would have us slowly cooling. Instead, the world is warming quickly. That demonstrates how the current fast warming is not part of a natural cycle. Bjorn Lomborg -- a political scientist -- pushes that line, but almost all economists and scientists say his analysis of just about everything is wrong.
And I was right. That's not debatable. He did not predict what you claimed he did. Next time, when you get caught parroting a big lie propaganda point, just admit you got fooled and move on. Digging in deeper makes you look really bad. Also try to remember that gaslighting doesn't work on intelligent and honest people.
Hmmm. I'll stick with Skeptical Science on this one. Hansen made the prediction; it embarrasses you, as it should. I'm afraid you're not giving an accurate account of the topic. "We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels)." Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway https://skepticalscience.com › Hansen-West-Side-Highw...
Wrong. Nope. Wrong again. The sun has been dramatically and unexpectedly more active this year. The expected cooling is Milankovitch cooling, which only unfolds over many thousands of years, and does not affect the influence of century-scale solar variation on surface temperature. Nope. Wrong again. The world warmed quickly ~1970-2000, but has cooled since 2016. Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012, a full decade ago. The only "evidence" that the world is warming quickly is in grossly falsified temperature data like GISS, which has been altered retroactively, several times, to conform to the CO2-governs-temperature dogma. Wrong again. There is no current fast warming, and the warming we have experienced since the LIA is merely the result of sustained, exceptionally high solar activity in the 20th century returning the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. Again, that is just flat wrong.
Your statement is objectively false. The fact that decades-old temperature data have been altered retroactively to conform to CO2-centered climate dogma is indisputable.
The current warming is not any different than previous warmings. The consensus of economic analyses which consider both the benefits and costs of global warming clearly show that warming is net beneficial and will be so for the next 100 years at least. This is shiwn in Dr. Richard Tol’s college textbook “Climate Economics”. Lomborg is an economist.
It's different in the sense that our CO2 emissions are making the current warming even better than previous warmings
Yes. The extra CO2 is greening the planet and contributing to getting us back into the 1000 - 2000 ppm CO2 sweet spot. We came dangerously close to the ~ 180 ppm limit below which plants cannot survive.
CO2-induced greening ended in the 1990s. More CO2 now just mainly helps weeds, choking vines and poison ivy grow better, which is a net negative for humanity.
Blatant nonsense and NASA don't agree with you, and you have seen this several times before how come you forget every time? NASA April 2016 Last Updated: Mar 27, 2019 Editor: Karl Hille Excerpt: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States. LINK ===== You really think CO2 discriminates between "weeds, choking vines and poison ivy" over Trees, Lettuce, and Grapes in the photosynthesis process?
Here is another published paper at NASA Nov 23, 2020 Greening of the Earth Mitigates Surface Warming Excerpt: A new study reports that increased vegetation growth during the recent decades, known as the “Greening Earth”, has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of heat and water vapor transfer to the atmosphere. A new study published in the journal Science Advances titled “Biophysical impacts of Earth greening largely controlled by aerodynamic resistance” reports that the entire land surface would have been much warmer without the cooling effect of increased green cover during the recent decades. The study used high-quality satellite data from NASA’s MODIS sensors and NCAR’s state-of-the-art numerical earth system model. LINK ====== Don't forget that pesky Photosynthesis (LINK) problem the one that likes to use the increased availability of CO2 in the atmosphere for additional plant growth.
Please explain how increasing CO2 helps some plants but not others. Also please inform greenhouse owners that using supplemental CO2 does no good. Only a faith based opinion on CO2 can explain your response.
No, that is absurd nonscience with no basis in fact. Crop yields continue to increase and deserts to shrink. No, that is just more of your absurd nonscience with no basis in fact.