Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

...so you know of a time frame when the rate of warming is the same as the current one, but you need to use a timescale of millions of years?

 

Because earth is billions of years old with the same warming and cooling trends, long before humans were around. Millions is the proper scale to use. Do you measure the climate of North America by using one state and 1 day in late October? Of course not.

 

No, but I measure global climate on a global and ~30 year time frame. That's a pretty broadly accepted definition for the time frame necessary to evaluate the climate.

 

So how many years do we have left OP? I got a bucket list.

 

I'm gonna bet that you are over the age 55. You'll be fine.

Your children and grandchildren might have a different outlook.

 

Yes, but you are unable to describe those things like warming just magically happens. There are only so many forcings that can change the Earth's climate. We've known since the time of Arrhenius, Tyndall and Langley that the greenhouse effect is a real thing and that CO2 has always been associated with a warming climate with the possible exception of the Ordovician when we are not quite sure what happened that seemed to moderate the warming. It may have been that the sun was orders of magnitude dimmer as documented by the GEOCARB study that was the primary source for
gballs's claim. We know that the Ordovician was a time of high geological activity. Recent studies have shown that the formation of the Appalachian Mtns caused a period of massive and detectable global cooling.

Other than that, orbital mechanics in the form of Milankovitch cycles, solar irradiance and the level of volcanic activity can all effect climate. But are those the main drivers today when we actually study what is happening with those - especially when we compare the graphs of CO2 Vs temp. over the last 400,000 years for which we have pretty good proxies for? All these forces can act together to influence climate and no one is denying that but can you detect the signal of any of these other forcings now?

The question is what is happening today?

Yes and almost all of those high periods of CO2 have coincided with periods of extreme warmth and in the most extreme periods mass species extinctions. Where do you think the CO2 levels were at during the Permo-Trassic extinction event? Catastrophic global warming and acidity caused by massive volcanic explosions wiped out between 70 and 90% of the species on Earth. CO2 was through the roof. This is proven science. CO2 and other greenhouse gases that act as positive feedback from warming cause changes to the Earth's climate - that is documented fact.

If you understand the science behind the greenhouse effect and how trace gases absorb infrared in the highest atmosphere you know that it would be magical thinking if the Earth was not warming due to the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere each year.

This is what I am trying to explain to you. Other forcings such as orbital mechanics and solar or volcanic activity certainly began the ball rolling and even released CO2 later as a positive feedback that increased the warming but that does not mean that that is what is happening today. You are trying to turn this into a zero sum game when in reality, all these forcings can work together in different ways to effect climate.

The question is what are those forcings doing today? I keep asking you this question for a reason. Just because humans weren't around back then does not mean that human activity cannot be the main forcing for climate today.

I'm going to give you the reasons orbital mechanics and solar irradiation or volcanic activity are not the source of the warming we have seen since the beginning of the industrial era but first I want to make sure you understand that we can quantify Milankovitch cycles and study solar activity as we never have been able to before with satellites and modelling and come to a good understanding of how these are effecting climate today.

But you are the ones making it a mystery by discounting all the work climate science has done to figure out what is happening with our climate through temperature readings, atmospheric and oceanic studies argo buoys, satellites and all the other technology we have at our disposal and saying that none of that matters because the Earth has warmed before and once, long ago, temperatures were cooler with higher CO2 - we think.

You are making it a mystery in your effort to pretend that man's fossil fuel based industrial economy is having no effect on climate or changing the chemical balance of the atmosphere .

You are saying that we don't have the technology or science to understand CO2's effect on our climate despite all the research and all the corresponding links we have throughout history that CO2 is a driver of climate change and that the greenhouse effect is real. (not just here on Earth either - we can see it's effect in our solar system)

Do you see how unscientific that is?

So the question again is, if not the 36 gigatonnes of CO2 we are emitting into the atmosphere each year, what is causing the warming we are seeing.

If we can't answer that then we are just whistling in the dark making guesses.

 

The link has been provided in this thread. You were given the post where the link was and you were flat out too lazy to look up the post. I'm amazed you actually think people are going to repost the same link twice just because you are flat out too lazy to go to the post you were given or read the thread you entered on your own

Your choice was to not look up the post. No one forced you to be lazy. You chose to be lazy then got emotional when someone didn't repost the same link that's already been posted.

Says the guy who can't look up the post provided where the link was already posted and dismissed it outright with no knowledge whatsoever. Your hyporacy is really amusing but certainly not surprising.

And this is far from my first argument with a flat earther who thinks just because a few scientists believe they way he does means he doesn't have to provide the evidence that his belief is right.

You're right. That was my mistake.

LOL No you haven't. You have never provided any study that states humans produce the only CO2 that effects climate change on a primary basis or that only human based CO2 is the primary source for climate change. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

If you want to fabricate another claim like that then quote any part of your "evidence" that proves your claim that only CO2 produced by humans is the primary source of climate change and how you eliminated all other types of CO2 from affecting climate change along with all other natural factors. Go ahead.

hahahaha You really don't read carefully do you. I'm not the one making the claim human based CO2 production is the primary source for climate change. You are. Did you really think that would work? Really?

You call me the ametur when you post a graph that doesn't even cover the time period of the evidence I posted. Right.

You've already admitted CO2 was higher from the time period I specified so what do you think you proved except that you agree with me CO2 is not the primary cause of climate change? Except when you do a 180 degree for the present of course.

You literally talk out of 2 faces depending on the time period with no evidence to support yourself for that reversal.

hahaha First sign of a losing argument? Do a spell check. You could not be more predictable if you tried.

So now I have to quote what you actually said since you are now fabricating a new argument?

No problem.

I said to you:


Since you are jumping into this discussion are you also under the belief that humans are the primary source of climate change by their CO2 output?

And you said

So which face am I talking to here? The one who claims human based CO2 is the primary cause of climate change or the one who denies it?

Your double talk is getting tiresome my little friend.

So you are going to lie about that as well. No problem I'll just post my answer from that post again:

You said

And I said:

I'm sure its a number of factors as its been throughout the millions of years of history.

I'm simply not stupid enough to believe humans are the primary cause especially when Co2 is claimed to be the culprit.

So once again I've caught you lying about my responses. And this is Post #538 on the same page. Did you really think you would get away with such an obvious fabrication?

So now we are back to multiple factors. This two faced strategy of yours is so remedial

To which I've already answered not once but twice in this thread including this reponse. Next time don't lie again or I'll just post the link and the quote again to prove you wrong.

See I am not the one making the claim that I know what drives climate change primarily. You are. You are on record claiming human based CO2 production is the primary cause of climate change which I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support that BS claim because you have not proven its the primary cause nor have you proven other factors cannot be the primary cause. This hole you are digging is one of your own design my little friend.

Because you cannot eliminate other factors as being the primary cause. You have a theory over an unbelievably short period of earth's history and no evidence you can eliminate other factors for its cause.

When you blame CO2 for temp change and I can show 14-17 times the amount in another period of earth's history during an ice age you bet it blows a massive hole in your CO2 = temp change BS.

Stop lying about the link. Its been posted. You refuse to read it even when the post where it exists is given to you. Why do you think that strategy will work?

All you would have to do is go back to the post and you can see the link. Why should I have to post it twice? Answer me that.

I love the pretentiousness of your posts. First you claim you are more educated than others then call me a denier while at the same time pretending you are above name calling. Do you actually operate on a level of narcissism that high or is just more delusional?

Of course you are.

LOL Its still not my argument my little friend. Its yours. You are the one claiming man is the primary reason for climate change through CO2 production.

I'll ask it again. Quote your own links where they state "yes human based CO2 is the primary reason for climate change and here is not only the evidence but how we eliminated all other factors from being the primary source."

Start there and dazzle us with your self described knowledge and educational level on the subject. Until then its just more petty insults from a person who can't back up their claims.

Actually you do and I've proven it quite easily.

You can't have it both ways my little friend. You can't be skeptical of CO2 being the primary reason for climate change in the past then turn around and proclaim it no longer applies now based on absolutely no research.

I'll say it for a 4th time since you can't read it. I'm sure its a number of factors as its been throughout the millions of years of history.

I'm simply not stupid enough to believe humans are the primary cause especially when Co2 is claimed to be the culprit.

Have you got it now or are you just going to fabricate another claim I haven't answered it?

My argument hasn't changed. You cannot use CO2 is a primary cause of climate change now when it is 17 times less than it was during an ice age. How in hell is that so hard to follow? You have not proven you can eliminate any other causes for climate change now vs then which would be a requirement for your argument to be sound that CO2 didn't matter then but it magically does now.

All you keep doing is asking the same question I've already answered now 5 times. Climate change has a number of factors that affect it. YOU are the only one here claiming you know the primary source and you claim its man made CO2. I said you are full of it because you have not proven:

#1 that CO2 is the primary reason for climate change now

#2 And that only CO2 human produced is the primary reason for climate change.

You keep running from proving your own argument that you have eliminated all other possible causes for climate change and are only left with human based CO2 production as the culprit. That's what you keep running from and I doubt very much that will change because you know you can't prove that belief.

You can educate yourself with this scientist who doesn't believe your flat earther beliefs.

Nice pretty graph for you at 3:20 showing off laughably off your junk scientists predictions are and 5:30 blows away your man made CO2 BS claim.

My favorite part is when he's asked what the primary reason for climate change is and its my answer

 

@guavaball You said, "And this is far from my first argument with a flat earther who thinks just because a few scientists believe they way he does means he doesn't have to provide the evidence that his belief is right."

I am wondering if you know of a single recognized group of national or international scientists who maintain a dissenting opinion or rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. As far as I know, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the last such group and they altered their stance in 2007.

 

It doesn't "magically" happen, it's called Geology and science. The earth has a history of billions of years and over the course of earth's history, we have had periods of warming and cooling and extreme weather and glaciers forming and melting and all of this has occurred before and during when humans have walked the earth.

Since levels of CO2 and O2 have been much higher in the past, how can you blame humans on the decreased levels of CO2 that we currently have?

It makes no sense to discount millions of years of history and only include when humans have been on earth. Especially since earth itself has gone through radical changes, most of them before humans.

As far as Mother Earth goes, business as usual.

 

No, earth is not billions of years old? Why do you fabricate such nonsense?

 

@guavaball You said, "I'm sure its a number of factors as its been throughout the millions of years of history."

This is a fairly exhaustive, but not complete list of potential causes for Climate Change.

Orbital Variations
Solar Intensity
Meteors
Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
Volcanic Activity
Deforestation
Albedo Effect
Ozone
Aerosols
Non-regular cycles like El Nino and La Nina

Two questions:

1) Are you aware of any other potential factors that could cause the current Warming Trend?

2) Can you provide any justification for believing that any of those factors, besides increases in Greenhouse Gas Concentrations over the last ~150 years, that does a better job of matching or explaining the current Warming Trend?

 

What? You asked whether I try to define climate based on one day in one location.

That is the question i answered.

 

30 years?? Try doing it on a scale of 3 million and more... This is Earth and Geology, not a daily weather forecast.

Come on, get real for a change.

 

I understand @MrTLegal you are upset because I exposed your argument for the failure that it is but do you really think it helps you to get this emotional?

Face reality. When you say all scientists agree with you that's already been exposed as an outright fabrication. When you cannot prove CO2 is the primary cause of climate change much less that humans by themselves are the primary cause of climate change your belief becomes a joke.

Your belief is that if I don't have an answer to what causes climate change I must accept yours. Sorry sport this isn't Salem in the 1600s we don't have to worry about being burned at the stake for not believing what you believe.

 

Other than the entire list of yours? No.

I'm not the one who wants to spend trillions of dollars based on a belief. My argument is that humans are not the primary cause of climate change because there is no evidence to support it. You are on the opposite side having zero evidence to back your claim up but your argument wants to spend trillions based on your belief making the lack of evidence far more dangerous and costly when we know you can't prove what you claim.

Are we clear now?

Your so called scientists have been abysmal failures at predicting future temperatures from the morons who claimed Florida and and New York would be underwater right now to the geniuses who said there would be no more polar bears by now either.

You rest your belief system on a pyramid of failure after failure and you expect the rational people out there to trust those same morons who keep getting it painfully wrong.

 

It is literally like arguing with the old Christian fundamentalists who believe the earth is 7,000 years ago and anyone who doesn't believe in man made climate change based on faith alone should be burned at the steak. This is literally religious fundamentalism for the far left.

 

It's hard to convince the flat earth crowd the earth is round. It's hard to convince the climate warming crowd that they have no actual evidence because they feel it in their hearts, not their heads. They want it to be true but they have no concrete evidence so they use their hearts and fancy talk and cherry picked data to sway arguments. But in the end, they always fail in the one area that means the most.


Data.

That is why we always win.

 

Broadly accepted isnt sufficient. Many things once broadly accepted in science is no longer broadly accepted .

That broad acceptance is subject to change as knowledge grows .The history of science and personality tells us this.

 

Well said. Hell the history of climate predictions on their own have been an abysmal failure.

The far left flat earthers are like an abused wife who keeps going back to her husband. No matter how many times their scientists get it wrong they keep coming back for more.

 

I love this one. Here is Bill Nye the fake science guy and flat earther climate advocate for the masses who actually said people should be jailed if they don't believe the way he does justifying climate scientists telling each other to delete emails from both sides about climate change because a FOIA request is coming.

Outright advocating the destruction of data on climate change for a FOIA request and the silencing of publications that don't believe in flat earth science of man made climate change.



And these are the people we are supposed to bow to to.

 

What time frame would you like to use as a reasonable range for evaluating climate if 30 years is not acceptable.

 

....30 years is a daily weather forecast? That's your position?

 

I dont see an attempt to answer, so I'm just going to repost.

@guavaball You said, "And this is far from my first argument with a flat earther who thinks just because a few scientists believe they way he does means he doesn't have to provide the evidence that his belief is right."

I am wondering if you know of a single recognized group of national or international scientists who maintain a dissenting opinion or rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. As far as I know, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the last such group and they altered their stance in 2007.

 

NASA just released a study that attempted to evaluate the accuracy of the models at predicting future temperature measurements. The models were largely accurate. You, I believe, made comments on the thread devoted to that study but I can grab you a link if you prefer.

Also, the notion that there is no evidence to support the claim when you have been presented with dozens of position statements from a host of globally recognized scientific organizations and the links to their justifications is just a form of abject denial that is wholly irrational.

 

I understand the desire to analogize climate change to flat earth and young earth theories because it helps you feel intellectually superior, but the analogy is really poor.

I would love for you to prove that there is a consensus among the relevant experts on flat earth or young earth theories. Hell, just find me a single recognized group of national or international scientists that has an official policy statement in support of either theory.