Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

I see no link to co2 and temperature in this graph

This one is more current. Strong correlation.



http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
[snowstorm deleted]

ONLY the percentage of human-derived CO2 vs. total CO2 already in the atmosphere."

So what's the percentage [of CO2], and how much actual scientific consensus supports it? Anyone?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

One doesn't need to read any website to calculate the result of 400ppm / 260 ppm.

One does need to be somewhat ignorant of the science (or to be wilfully deceiving) to claim that a 40% increase in CO2 is "small".

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40+% over 200 years, after sitting under 300ppm for like hundreds of thousands of years. There's no dispute about this.

The only observed phenomenon so far that has caused this increase is human activity - accelerating use of fossil fuel, depletion of carbon sinks, modern agricultural activity. You can speculate all you like, but until we find those elusive natural significant contributions that happened to have picked the same 2 centuries as industrialization to occur, after taking millenia upon millennia off... human activity remains the most plausible and likely cause of CO2 increase. All the evidence so far supports this. There really isn't any dispute about this either.

Can you find anyone who claims otherwise?

Why are simple facts alarming to you?

As you say, the area of most disagreement is the extent to which additional CO2 is causing, or will cause, warming. I guess that will remain unsettled til we can find a big enough Coke bottle for Reefie's experiment. Or we wreck the climate enough to satisfy the doubters.

It looks like you should have weathered the snowstorm. Errrr . . . I mean while you still have the chance that is. One of the more blizzardy patches pointed out that the question was NOT about the 40% increase in CO2 after "like 100s of 1000s of years." And when you're relying exclusively on Skeptical Science for your science propaganda, who needs to do calculations?

Speaking of, did you know that, as of a few minutes ago, "our climate has accumulated 2,775,844,673 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998?"
https://skepticalscience.com. There's even a graph to prove it, so who could dispute THAT science??

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

UN Puts $2.4 Trillion Annual Price Tag On Mitigating Climate Change




https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

FINALLY! Some honest-to-goodness ALARMISM!!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

I see no link to co2 and temperature in this graph

Originally Posted by jackdale

This one is more current. Strong correlation.



Berkeley Earth

...Which is an unusual correlation to make considering that the relationship of CO2 content to warming is inversely exponential.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This one is more current. Strong correlation.



Berkeley Earth

from the article

Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions.

( what is the proxy used?)

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years

After accounting for volcanic and human effects, the residual variability in land-surface temperature is observed to closely mirror (and for slower changes slightly lead) variations in the Gulf Stream.

But nowhere does it state what part is being blamed on humans.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

from the article

Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions.

( what is the proxy used?)

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years

After accounting for volcanic and human effects, the residual variability in land-surface temperature is observed to closely mirror (and for slower changes slightly lead) variations in the Gulf Stream.

But nowhere does it state what part is being blamed on humans.

It was explained earlier in this thread (or previous) but you ignored it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

It was explained earlier in this thread (or previous) but you ignored it.

no the question I asked was specifically in reference to the Berkley study jack referenced .
Perhaps you should pay attention to what is being spoken about specifically.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

no the question I asked was specifically in reference to the Berkley study jack referenced .
Perhaps you should pay attention to what is being spoken about specifically.

Perhaps you should seek that study then yourself and stop crying about it.. To quote you freely "I'm not to do your homework"

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Perhaps you should seek that study then yourself and stop crying about it.. To quote you freely "I'm not to do your homework"

it was a rhetorical question specifically about the study . Thought I made that clear it was specifically about that study and its lacking.

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This one is more current. Strong correlation.



Berkeley Earth

This shows no correlation to temperature and co2 other than co2 levels rising after the temperature climbed as oceans release the co2, look at the bigger picture, it supports no correlation of co2 levels and earths temperature, with co2 falling dramatically for millions of years from huge levels and no temperature drop.

[stevensuf]

I would love for a BELIEVER to explain how we can have similar temperatures at 7000pm of co2 vs 1000 ppm of co2.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

I would love for a BELIEVER to explain how we can have similar temperatures at 7000pm of co2 vs 1000 ppm of co2.

Becouse 2 billion years ago the Sun luminosity was 80% of todays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#/m..._(English).svg
Not that I'm a believer but the absence a plausible and better explanation..

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Becouse 2 billion years ago the Sun luminosity was 80% of todays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#/m..._(English).svg
Not that I'm a believer but the absence a plausible and better explanation..

FYI, the chart being referred to only covers the past 600 million years.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

FYI, the chart being referred to only covers the past 600 million years.

So what? You see the that too on the chart on my link..

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

I see no link to co2 and temperature in this graph

The source of that graph is from a skeptic website from 2001. That original website doesn’t even seem to have the graph posted any more. Please see if you can find a similar graph in a scientific journal. Records of CO2 levels 100 millions years ago are pretty sketchy, as there are no ice cores with bubbles dating back that far.

Sort of amazing the lengths people will go to try to “disprove” basic physics [emoji3]