2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

of course you dont like it.. it has about 4 billion years of evidence that counter acts the global warming doomsday scenarios..

 

yes true getting hit with an asteroid can also cause an "impact winter" so technically not an ice age.. but prolonged cold is prolonged cold and the exact opposite of a warming planet.

The fact of the matter is that when the planet warms and the CO2 level is high that life on the planet has thrived..

can you point to any mass extinction event that was caused by a warm planet and elevated CO2?

 

No. It is an incredibly simplistic and moronic talking point.

Seriously, you just implied that 4 billion years contained no doomsday scenarios for us. Do you have ANY idea how many doomsday events happened in those 4 billion years?

 

You, yet again, make the assumption that we are worried about "life on the planet."

We are not. No one is.

We are worried about life AS WE KNOW IT. Bacteria and cockroaches and jellyfish will thrive in a rapidly warming climate. We will not, nor will a very significant percentage of the currently existing plants and animals.

 

That was a failure of a citation.

 

What type of evidence would you like to see?

And dont give me that "indisputable evidence" bullshit tag line response. You want the raw temperature data tracked against greenhouse emissions? You want data on greenhouse emissions? You want the opinions of a massive group of relevant experts?

What would qualify as proof to you?

 

Lots of doomsday scenarios have happened in those 4 billion years.. The fact that you cant point to one that has happened because of higher temperature and higher CO2 speaks volumes..

You have a hypothesis, and real world data does not support your hypothesis

 

except that isnt the case at all.. as the CO2 level goes up plant growth has also gone up. And the absurdity of thinking humans will die off because we are looking at a 1deg rise in the next 100+ years! lol

humans live in some of the most extreme environments here on earth. People live in Death Valley which had the highest ever recorded temperature of 134f back in june of 1913 (all that extra co2 hasn't really done much to death valley now has it?) We also live in some of the coldest places on earth Oymyakon, Russia -58f

 

I absolutely can point to such a doomsday event. It is happening today.

The Holocene extinction is the ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch, mainly as a result of human activity. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates.

 

I did not say that we will die off. I said that we will not thrive in such a rapidly warming climate. And I also talking a very tiny time scale by geologic standards, say 1,000 years, but an incredibly long time scale for humans and the currently existing plants and animals. At the current rate of climate change (somewhere around 100-150x the natural pace), we will take a very tiny amount of that 1,000 years to reach levels of warming that will be extreeemely detrimental to the currently existing plants and animals. In part because they will not be capable of evolving and adjusting that quickly.

And there is a limit to how much plant growth you will see from rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations because you have forgotten that plants do not live in a green house. With increased CO2 also comes increased temperature, increased weather activity, increased pest activity, increased disease and fungal activity, etc.

 

The issue isn't a doomsday scenario. The issue is that life as it exists today is optimized for an ice age with glacial and interglacial cycles. Life, as it exists today, is not adapted to hothouse Earth with high CO2.

Just to clarify...a certain type of plant growth has gone up, specifically C3 plants that evolved to tolerate higher temperatures and use a type of photosynthesis that thrives on high CO2 concentrations. C4 plants evolved specifically as a way of coping with lower temperatures, lower precipitation, and lower CO2 concentrations.

No one is suggesting that humans will die off. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that rising temperatures will put pressure on life and more importantly humans to adapt. This will suppress GDP growth and could lower Earth's carrying capacity for humans.

 

non of that has been caused by co2 levels and warming. The basis of the hypothesis of GW.
Can Humans be detrimental to the environment? yes absolutely. Its just to bad that people like you are concentrating on CO2 rather then real environmental problems

 

well if there is no doomsday scenario then who the hell cares?

C4 plants only make up a very very small % of earths plant life like only 3% of spices are C4. And most tests show that in elevated CO2 like doubling and tripling the level (something we cant even do with burning all known fossil fuels) show that C3 plant growth skyrockets, and C4 growth has minimal increase or in some test show the growth is the same..

So basically your argument comes down to a few % of plant spices growth rate will be slightly better or worst case exactly the same

 

Humans were allowed to spread and thrive specifically because of increased CO2 levels and warming.

But if you don't want to address the influence of increased warming and CO2 on the Holocene extinction, let's address the Permian extinction event when massive coal deposits were ignited by a supervolcano and releasing an incredible amount of greenhouse gases.

 

People who want to maximize GDP growth or the Earth's carrying capacity for humans care.

Corn would be an example of a C4 plant. It's a staple crop in the midwest of the United States.

Anyway, my point wasn't that vegetation wouldn't thrive with higher CO2 all other things being equal. My point was two fold. First, some important crops wouldn't necessarily thrive under such a regime. And second, all things aren't necessarily equal. Higher CO2 also leads to climate change. Remember, plants adapt themselves to things other than CO2 concentration. Temperature, moisture, soil chemistry, etc. are all things species adapt to.

 

the warming and CO2 levels have increased minimally since the industrial revolution. The environmental problems that humans are causing are not from CO2 or from warming. you know this

Yes a super volcano causing the mass extinction event is what caused the mass extinction event. Im sure you know that the level of CO2 that peaked at 2000ppm during the end of the Permian period, was increasing millions of years before the volcano eruption. And the temperature spiked because of the volcano. but the temp stabilized all through the Triassic and Jurassic period even with CO2 levels dropping down to around 1200ppm and then increasing up to almost 3000ppm And then into an ice age..

 

Sure, depending on what time scale you are considering. If you take a very long view say 500 million years then yeah CO2 and temperature changes are fairly small. However, if you limit your view to the holocene then CO2 and temperature changes are quite dramatic.

 

Yes I would say that too if I was busted.

And I just proved it.

I know its hard for you but do try and keep up. The article's title
Hurricane Harvey Was No Surprise

The premise itself was already set. Harvey would be the focus of the article. Then they cited Harvey's "unprecedented rainfall and flooding." and then claiming "There is now so much evidence of increasing extremes that anyone who understands the science — or trusts the scientists in their government doing the research — should expect that records will continue to be broken."

Since they draw the conclusion that Harvey was extreme they've established the claim that extreme weather proves climate change is occurring Harvey is an example of that extreme weather they reference.

Now I know its hard since you've been owned by the very article you cited but its not going to save you from the catastrophic lack of critical thinking when you made your ridiculous claim that they didn't cite Harvey as a specific example of evidence to prove climate change is occurring.

lol says the guy who can't even read the article he linked to. You would benefit from actually reading the article next time instead of waiting for me to explain it to you once again.

 

Yes I'd say that too if I had no argument to counter it with. Fake conclusions are easy with no evidence as you prove quite often

 

Did I stutter? Proof that man is the primary cause of the climate changing.

Now stop stalling and provide it or admit you can't.

 

This has already been provided in this thread.

FACT: The troposphere and hydrosphere are warming simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere.

FACT: The only physical process that can explain this unique observation is an increase in greenhouse gas forcing.

FACT: Humans are responsible for nearly 100% of the increase in greenhouse gas forcing.

IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis

 

Yes, you stuttered because you just repeated the same thing without answering my question or elaborating on what type of proof would satisfy your demand.

I will note that @iamanonman has provided plenty of facts as proof (and links the IPCC AR5 which is the most up to date compilation of the data on this issue), but I will go about it in a different way. There are two main components that prove humans are the primary cause of the climate changing: 1) Increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the most probable and likely explanation for the amount of warming currently observed around the planet and 2) Human combustion of fossil fuels are overwhelmingly the source of the increase in CO2 concentration.

1) Scientists can track and measure the degree of warming. They can also track and measure several types of potential causes for that warming against the temperature plot. The only variable, the only cause, that does an extremely good job of explaining the current warming trend is the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Here is an easy to follow graphical representation of that point: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

2) The source of the CO2 concentration can be identified through an analysis of the concentration of the specific type of CO2 found in the atmosphere, via an analysis of its isotope. The vast, vast majority of the CO2 responsible for increasing the total CO2 concentration, year over year, is the type of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

Here is an easy to understand article written on the subject: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.XGL8SlxKhaQ

As an aside (and note that this is not direct proof), the fact remains that ~97% of all actively publishing climatologists agree with the basic tenets of AGW, namely that 1) The Earth is warming and 2) Humans are a significant contributor to that warming.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Additionally, there have been numerous studies which attempt to pinpoint the percentage of those climatologists who assign "most" of the blame for the warming to human activity. The overwhelming majority of those scientists agree that humans are "mostly" to blame.

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html

 

No, it hasn't. Claims not claims.

FACT: You cannot prove humans are the cause

FACT: You have no evidence to support that claim.

FACT:L Still no evidence whatsoever.

Come back when you have more than all caps claims.

Do you even know what evidence actually means?

 

Because there is only one type. A direct link with evidence to support it. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Not to me and you provide no number to any post where he did.

Not if you cannot prove humans are the primary causes of the increases.

Which once again you have not proved to be true. Its amazing how little you understand the term "evidence" Its not your opinion.

Nothing in that link proves humans are the primary cause of CO2 or climate change You disagree? Quote the proof directly to counter. Throwing out a link with no quotes only proves you can't do it.

Once again you don't read anything you quote. Nowhere do they claim they can prove the higher CO2 levels are specifically produced by humans. Nowhere since CO2 has no specific signature between its creation by fossile fuiel burning or nature.

You have got to start actually reading what you link to.

Oh please end this BS claim. Its been debunked countless times.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6370f2c03f9f

Come back when you can prove, actually prove not speculate but prove the majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is specifically produced by humans and not nature. Until then you've got nothing as usual.

Your snow jobs aren't going to work legal because the key piece of evidence to prove your claim is missing from every single article you cite. Direct evidence that can track human CO2 creation is the primary cause of climate change.

 

What does that "direct evidence" look like, in your mind?