So, we are talking about climate change in this thread, but you are not!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 if I told you that nitrogen was the most important gas affecting humans, I would be correct.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, 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.
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!
Climate change is about the factors affecting the energy imbalance.I am discussing climate change, spoke about something directly related to it and clearly stated the context.
If that were true then there was no point introducing water vapour into this discussion.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.
Climate change is about the factors affecting the energy imbalance.
WATER VAPOUR IS NOT A FACTOR.
It's apparent you are clueless here.
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.
The climate change perspective is unequivocal - CO2 is the principal driver.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.
That's basic maths.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.
You seldom ever addressed what was asked.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.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.
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.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.
So what?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%.
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.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.
That is in science terms, an oxymoron. It is not possible for the modern way of life to be excluded fromIf humans had been living in the modern way for the last 150,000 years and hypothetically had not altered the climate at all,....
This appears to be your mantra.Again, no scientists dispute this.
You mean in the last 20 million years don't you?We haven't seen anything like that in the last 200 years.
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
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.
So what?
What period of time are you looking at? Another 600 million years?
Your ideas have marginal relevance to understanding 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.
That is in science terms, an oxymoron. It is not possible for the modern way of life to be excluded from
impacting climate.
This appears to be your mantra.
Yes, there were periods of extreme cold in the past - some things are obvious.
You mean over 20 million years don't you?
Read the IPCC AR5 on sea levels - it's all there.This is simply not true. If you want to assert that it is, provide a reference.
You say things like this all the time, and apart from some info on sea levels, there is nothing.Except that there are, and several links containing references to such data have been put up in this thread.
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 concept of climate change does literally mean the climate changing over time.
How many millions of years are you now going back?And extreme heat too, far hotter than at present.
You say things like this all the time, and apart from some info on sea levels, there is nothing.
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.
So you continue to make claims about the past which have zero relevance to the present situation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?