Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[rederob]

Oh good grief, I never said it was related to climate change, I said it was a chart showing the gases by importance (how much each contributes) to the greenhouse effect I provided the link so you can verify that. I also provided further links which were more relevant if you want links with authoritative data rather than a convenient visual aid.

So, we are talking about climate change in this thread, but you are not!
Take your nonsense elsewhere as this is now beyond a joke.
Figures 1 & 2 here are clear on GHG contributions to climate change, and water vapour in not a factor.

 

[rederob]

In case anyone is wanting a chart similar to the one I posted earlier, but with CO2 shown individually rather than lumped in with all others (the original chart was just to show that water was the most important), here is another chart which shows greenhouse gas by contribution to the greenhouse effect, with CO2 shown individually.

So if I told you that nitrogen was the most important gas affecting humans, I would be correct.
There's almost 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen, so it must be the most important.
Breathe a sigh of anguish!

 

[Sdajii]

So, we are talking about climate change in this thread, but you are not!
Take your nonsense elsewhere as this is now beyond a joke.
Figures 1 & 2 here are clear on GHG contributions to climate change, and water vapour in not a factor.

I am discussing climate change, spoke about something directly related to it and clearly stated the context.

Again, please try to word your posts without excessive baiting and emotional waffle.

I am familiar with the positions climate change scientists have on CO2 and water vapour and their affects on climate change as opposed to the greenhouse effect. You don't need to explain it to me.

 

[Sdajii]

So if I told you that nitrogen was the most important gas affecting humans, I would be correct.
There's almost 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen, so it must be the most important.
Breathe a sigh of anguish!

Your tantrums are becoming even more disconnected from anything relevant. The discussion will flow better if you just calmly stick to the topic.

 

[rederob]

I am discussing climate change, spoke about something directly related to it and clearly stated the context.

Climate change is about the factors affecting the energy imbalance.
WATER VAPOUR IS NOT A FACTOR.
So in the context of this thread, it was a complete nonsense.
It's apparent you are clueless here.

I am familiar with the positions climate change scientists have on CO2 and water vapour and their affects on climate change as opposed to the greenhouse effect.

If that were true then there was no point introducing water vapour into this discussion.

So can you tell us what you do know about the science of climate change, seeing so far it has amounted to ZERO.

 

[Sdajii]

Climate change is about the factors affecting the energy imbalance.
WATER VAPOUR IS NOT A FACTOR.
It's apparent you are clueless here.

You seem to be getting emotional. It's peculiar that you would be this way in response to someone saying something only in your imagination.

If that were true then there was no point introducing water vapour into this discussion.

The point was simply to put CO2 into perspective. You can imagine it was presented in some other way, but that's not reality, just your imagination.

So can you tell us what you do know about the science of climate change, seeing so far it has amounted to ZERO.

This request is completely silly. Read back through the discussion and leave your imagination behind and you may be able to continue in an appropriate way.

 

[rederob]

The point was simply to put CO2 into perspective. You can imagine it was presented in some other way, but that's not reality, just your imagination.

The climate change perspective is unequivocal - CO2 is the principal driver.
I have provided several links making that clear.
I had already mentioned to you that water vapour was a feedback and that it had no role in climate change, but you persisted with raining it time and again, and claimed it was in context - in context of what?

The clincher is that you think you have said something about the present state of climate that is consistent with what scientists agree on.
Yet every single time I ask, you change obfuscate.
Why not present us something sensible to discuss, and cease your aimless rants.

 

[Sdajii]

The climate change perspective is unequivocal - CO2 is the principal driver.
I have provided several links making that clear.
I had already mentioned to you that water vapour was a feedback and that it had no role in climate change, but you persisted with raining it time and again, and claimed it was in context - in context of what?

It's already been said multiple times. This is going around in circles, I'm going to leave it there.

The clincher is that you think you have said something about the present state of climate that is consistent with what scientists agree on.
Yet every single time I ask, you change obfuscate.
Why not present us something sensible to discuss, and cease your aimless rants.

Why would you want to make a huge deal out of finding something that everyone agrees on? It's just completely pointless. Okay, if you really must get an answer to such a pointless question, I agree with climate scientists on the approximate rate of change over the last few years and the approximate current average global temperature.

See, there's just no point in saying that. But hey, I hope it somehow made you happy.

 

[rederob]

Okay, if you really must get an answer to such a pointless question, I agree with climate scientists on the approximate rate of change over the last few years and the approximate current average global temperature.

That's basic maths.
The issue is if you understand the science.
Apparently not .

 

[Sdajii]

That's basic maths.
The issue is if you understand the science.
Apparently not .

You're asking what I agree with about the current state of the climate. The current state of the climate is easily observable and measurable. Why would anyone disagree with what we can directly measure? What do you even want?

 

[rederob]

You're asking what I agree with about the current state of the climate. The current state of the climate is easily observable and measurable. Why would anyone disagree with what we can directly measure? What do you even want?

You seldom ever addressed what was asked.
I don't care if you agree on the data, as in the past you have preferred to believe whatever you wanted, introduced time frames that were never in the initial premise, chosen to believe that peer reviewed science is unreliable, and despite being shown specific evidence that your claims were false, ignored the science.

In this instance I said, unequivocally, "the issue is if you understand the science."
Your posts suggest you do not.

 

[explod]

You're asking what I agree with about the current state of the climate. The current state of the climate is easily observable and measurable. Why would anyone disagree with what we can directly measure? What do you even want?

Aaa haar, now you are getting close, "observable" you say, of course. people and their homes being washed away in cities that have stood firm for over a 1000 years, heat spells that no one has experienced before and one can go on. We do not need science to tell us that climate change is a fact and it is accelerating dangerously.

 

[Sdajii]

Aaa haar, now you are getting close, "observable" you say, of course. people and their homes being washed away in cities that have stood firm for over a 1000 years, heat spells that no one has experienced before and one can go on. We do not need science to tell us that climate change is a fact and it is accelerating dangerously.

Oh dear.

This is just looking at something which happened today. As said repeatedly in this thread, massive fluctuations the likes of which have never been seen in the last 1,000 years happened completely naturally over the last 100,000 years quite a lot of times, and no scientists dispute this.

Climate has only been accurately measured for decades. If you watch absolutely any random system for any period of time, the odds of seeing a more extreme scenario in the next period of time of equal length is 50%. If you have only just started watching a system, the odds of seeing the most extreme scenario you have ever seen are... 100%. Of course we are seeing the most extreme stuff we have ever seen before - we have only recently started looking at it!

Your attitude only makes sense if climate change literally wasn't a thing until humans started influencing it. No scientist tries to make this claim.

The climate changes, I have never said otherwise. If humans had been living in the modern way for the last 150,000 years and hypothetically had not altered the climate at all, there would have been massive problems due to climate change. Alternatively, if hypothetically humans were having no affect on the climate and the climate had fluctuations similar to what happened over the last 150,000 years, there would be massive problems due to climate change. And lo, we can see problems occurring due to climate change today.

Actually, it's worth considering that in preindustrial times when humans were not altering the climate, climate change did indeed cause huge numbers of people to die. 70,000 years ago due to completely natural events, literally most of the humans in the world at the time were killed by it! Many species all over the world went extinct. It wasn't the most extreme event ever, but it's the most extreme climate change event of the last 100,000 years. You don't need to go back that far to find the most extreme rate of change though, and of course over the hundreds of millions of years it has happened countless times. Again, no scientists dispute this. Throughout the planet's history, natural events have caused the climate to change and wipe out huge percentages of all life on the planet. We haven't seen anything like that in the last 200 years. But we still have people claiming the current rate of change is the most extreme ever. Good grief. Not climate scientists of course, but laymen like those in this thread, and they incorrectly claim climate scientists say these things.

 

[MARKETWINNER]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Climate change: How do we know?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/earths-scorching-hot-history/566762/
Scientists Have Uncovered a Disturbing Climate Change Precedent

 

[rederob]

As said repeatedly in this thread, massive fluctuations the likes of which have never been seen in the last 1,000 years happened completely naturally over the last 100,000 years quite a lot of times, and no scientists dispute this.

This only applies to sea level change - events which occur at relative snails pace to begin and accelerate at century scales due to thermal inertia.
There are no other climate data at proxy level that agree with your claim.

If you watch absolutely any random system for any period of time, the odds of seeing a more extreme scenario in the next period of time of equal length is 50%.

So what?
What period of time are you looking at? Another 600 million years?
Your ideas have marginal relevance to understanding climate.

Your attitude only makes sense if climate change literally wasn't a thing until humans started influencing it. No scientist tries to make this claim.

The scientific concept of "climate change" does not mean the climate just changes over time - it must have statistical significance within a specified period which precludes other factors from negating it. I suspect you are unaware of this, as it is the premise of AGW and the complete opposite of your claim.

If humans had been living in the modern way for the last 150,000 years and hypothetically had not altered the climate at all,....

That is in science terms, an oxymoron. It is not possible for the modern way of life to be excluded from
impacting climate.

Again, no scientists dispute this.

This appears to be your mantra.
Yes, there were periods of extreme cold in the past - some things are obvious.

We haven't seen anything like that in the last 200 years.

You mean in the last 20 million years don't you?

 

[Sdajii]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Climate change: How do we know?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/earths-scorching-hot-history/566762/
Scientists Have Uncovered a Disturbing Climate Change Precedent

Notice if you read these links they talk about natural periods of time long long before humans where CO2 was far, far higher than at present or anywhere anyone expects humans to take the planet within however many decades. Times where there were crocodiles living in the tropical conditions within the arctic circle, references to abrupt changes, references to it being no more than millennia since the last rate of change greater than current, etc.

 

[Sdajii]

This only applies to sea level change - events which occur at relative snails pace to begin and accelerate at century scales due to thermal inertia.

This is simply not true. If you want to assert that it is, provide a reference.

There are no other climate data at proxy level that agree with your claim.

Except that there are, and several links containing references to such data have been put up in this thread.

So what?
What period of time are you looking at? Another 600 million years?
Your ideas have marginal relevance to understanding climate.

So considering we have only just started watching the climate and taking accurate records, it is obvious we are going to get the most extreme results ever recorded. This is in direct reference to climate.

The scientific concept of "climate change" does not mean the climate just changes over time - it must have statistical significance within a specified period which precludes other factors from negatingit. I suspect you are unaware of this, as it is the premise of AGW and the complete opposite of your claim.

The concept of climate change does literally mean the climate changing over time. I'm completely familiar with the concept of anthropogenic climate change and if you want to suspect otherwise despite me having repeatedly spoken about it it just makes you wrong.

That is in science terms, an oxymoron. It is not possible for the modern way of life to be excluded from
impacting climate.

As I said, it was a hypothetical. If you can understand this concept, the reason people use hypotheticals and how they can be useful even in describing impossible scenarios, read it again and try to catch the point. If not, please stop posting.

This appears to be your mantra.
Yes, there were periods of extreme cold in the past - some things are obvious.

And extreme heat too, far hotter than at present. It's not my mantra but I do say it a lot because you keep denying it despite it being what climate scientists do say. It's ironic that you complain about me not believing the climate scientists when I go on what they say and you dispute what they say.

You mean over 20 million years don't you?

Once again you missed the point of what I was saying. Yes, it has been millions of years, but my point was that it happened long before humans existed and not during the time in which humans have been interacting with the climate (less than 200 years). Yes, millions of years is more than 200. Good boy.

 

[rederob]

This is simply not true. If you want to assert that it is, provide a reference.

Read the IPCC AR5 on sea levels - it's all there.

Except that there are, and several links containing references to such data have been put up in this thread.

You say things like this all the time, and apart from some info on sea levels, there is nothing.

The concept of climate change does literally mean the climate changing over time.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
The IPCC refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity, and requires that changes in the mean and or the variability of particular properties that persist for extended periods, typically decades or longer, are statistically significant.

And extreme heat too, far hotter than at present.

How many millions of years are you now going back?
And how many people were on the planet for it to be relevant?
So you continue to make claims about the past which have zero relevance to the present situation.

And you continue to show you do not understand climate nor the science of climate.

 

[kahuna1]

The Milankovitch Cycles and their effect on Climate Change

You know the SUN around the earth .... nope ... Earth around sun, universally accepted even by NASA and every space agency on the planet.

What happens when every 35,000 years if you have Mega Fauna pumping out of massive trees and CO2 levels crash, and the event you seem to be alluding to is WHEN the last variation in the orbit around the sun, and its radiance FALLS and hence the Ice age you allude to. Not a real one, but yep, for a while ... things got cold.

Any scientist KNOWS this. Knows it without any doubt. Knows it was the cause of the ice age you allude to. CO2 measured via ice bubbles was at a low for the past million years when this one occurred. Hence the well known impact of CO2 on solar absorption was at ALL TIME lows in the last million years, then hit with a Milankoviitch cycle where the sun pumped out less energy to the earth and HENCE the double whammy of ultra low CO2, and the TILT and WOBBLE .... at this extreme occurs every 35,000 years or so !!

Enjoy ..


and YES this is addressing your ice age 100,000 years ago. Not invented, not able to be debated as the course and history of the Earth moving around SUN is not open for debate. Nor are CO2 levels via the bubbles in ice cores going back around 1 million years.

LOSS of 6% IRRADIANCE is about the norm ... basically a winter upon a winter ... the cycle 41,000 years, and another the earths actual cycle and its orbit ... again measurable ... two extreme periods ... one is where the TILT is at its maximum irradiance and the other extreme ... oblique and heliun furthest from the sun and MINIMUM solar irradiance.

The latter ... again, is called the WOBBLE of the orbit of the Earth around the SUN.
Its what causes seasons, and summer and winter, but in a bigger sense is this winter and summer ... is also in a massive cycle around the sun measured over 41,000 years.

This b the way has been know, accepted ... unchanged since I think 1690.

1690 !! The year 1690 ...

Oh and the next one is 10.500 years in the future.

Cores show the temperature cools and warms 4-10 degrees for a period of time years. But if one goes back ... temperature is a mere part of the climate change issue and naturally, YES we do warm and cool ... but CO2 is directly linked to the extinction events, clearly and without any doubt via fossil records of these extinctions. OR maybe that is to be also denied.

We warm and cool over a period of say 5000 years, NOT 200 years. The 5000 years of the apex and the other end, cooling are 5,000 years out of the 41,000 year cycle.

 

[Sdajii]

You say things like this all the time, and apart from some info on sea levels, there is nothing.

Except that there's a pile of links since the sea level stuff talking about extremity and rates of change. Saying it's not there doesn't make it not there. You ask for links, you get links, you ignore them, not my fault.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

That's lovely. You can pick some specific context and try to retroactively assign it to something that someone else said, but it's just a stupid thing to do.

The IPCC refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity, and requires that changes in the mean and or the variability of particular properties that persist for extended periods, typically decades or longer, are statistically significant.
How many millions of years are you now going back?
And how many people were on the planet for it to be relevant?[/quote]

Are you attempting to be irrelevant? If so, good job.

So you continue to make claims about the past which have zero relevance to the present situation.

You refusing to see what someone else is saying and being fixated on trying to relate it to something else is your own fault.

I think I'm about done with this. If you want to attempt intelligent conversation I'll respond, but if it's just this ridiculous going around in circles with you being irrational I've already wasted too much time.