Maunder minimum

Originally posted by @metal-brain
There are too many factors involved. Humy has no idea how much co2 warms the atmosphere. He is just talking crap. The sad thing is that he knows it just as well as I do. Just another illogical humy bluff. That is why he doesn't provide any source of info.

The fact that humy never could explain why the Pliocene was so much warmer than today demonstrates his ignorance. Another moronic bluff!

Too many factors for what? Too many to understand what is going on? That's demonstrably false. Volcanic eruptions, for example, have extremely predictable effects in climate models.

We know more or less what is going. Excess CO2 is capable of warming our atmosphere. As humy points out, it's supported by multiple realms of science, including physics and geology and climatology. We're in the midst of a giant experiment where we dig up all the dinosaur skeletons and burn them to see what happens. Polar caps melting, temps increasing, water level rising and acidifying, currents changing etc. Of course, as the atmosphere does warm up, you'll certainly say "Well it was going to happen anyway and the Vikings did pretty well when it was warmer."

You should have some faith that science can figure it out. I'd like to know what steps we can take to maintain our current climate for as long as possible.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Too many factors for what? Too many to understand what is going on? That's demonstrably false. Volcanic eruptions, for example, have extremely predictable effects in climate models.

We know more or less what is going. Excess CO2 is capable of warming our atmosphere. As humy points out, it's supported by multiple realms of science, including physics and ...[text shortened]... I'd like to know what steps we can take to maintain our current climate for as long as possible.

I imagine his reply would be 'well it is all natural so it will all be better sometime in the future'

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Too many factors for what? Too many to understand what is going on? That's demonstrably false. Volcanic eruptions, for example, have extremely predictable effects in climate models.

We know more or less what is going. Excess CO2 is capable of warming our atmosphere. As humy points out, it's supported by multiple realms of science, including physics and ...[text shortened]... I'd like to know what steps we can take to maintain our current climate for as long as possible.

"We know more or less what is going. Excess CO2 is capable of warming our atmosphere."

How much? You and humy both are incapable of answering that question. This is a fact you have a lot of arrogance denying. You both had a chance to explain why the Pliocene was so warm. This undeniable failure is something you need to own up to before having blind faith in a clearly biased point of view. I told you many times that you are overestimating the amount of warming CO2 has in our atmosphere. The Pliocene is a clear indication of that, yet you ignore it. What is wrong with you? Do you have a habit of ignoring science when it fits your bias?

Post a source of information or admit you are talking crap.

Originally posted by @metal-brain

How much? You and humy both are incapable of answering that question. [/b]

It is only a trivial task to lookup what the science says. Why are you incapable of do so yourself?
Here is the answer;

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels
"...
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.) The full process could take hundreds of years—perhaps more than a thousand—to play out. ..."

You both had a chance to explain why the Pliocene was so warm.

Why must it be us two that explains it and not the scientist that have researched it for most of their lives?
Why must we babysit you by us looking it up for you?
Why cannot you look it up yourself?
Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 levels is the only thing determining climate temperatures (your strawman).
As usual, during the Pliocene, the causes were many and, in the case of Pliocene, is partly because the global geology was a bit different and the Earth orbit was slightly different and there was more vegetation etc. All these things would effect climate in different ways.

https://scitechdaily.com/smoke-wildfires-forest-emissions-explain-pliocene-hot/
"...Using sophisticated Earth system modeling, a team led by Nadine Unger of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) calculated that concentrations of tropospheric ozone, aerosol particles, and methane during the mid-Pliocene epoch were twice the levels observed in the pre-industrial era — largely because so much more of the planet was covered in forest.

Those reactive compounds altered Earth’s radiation balance, contributing a net global warming as much as two to three times greater than the effect of carbon dioxide, according to the study, ....

These findings help explain why the Pliocene was two to three degrees C warmer than the pre-industrial era despite atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that were approximately the same as today, ...."

So the latest research says the explanation is that, because of greater forest cover, there was more tropospheric ozone and methane and this resulted in most if not all of the greater warming.

So now you got your answer; what about it?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"We know more or less what is going. Excess CO2 is capable of warming our atmosphere."

How much? You and humy both are incapable of answering that question. This is a fact you have a lot of arrogance denying. You both had a chance to explain why the Pliocene was so warm. This undeniable failure is something you need to own up to before having blind f ...[text shortened]... g science when it fits your bias?

Post a source of information or admit you are talking crap.

Natural causes cannot explain the current warming trends. When human-induced drivers are included in the calculation, they can accurately predict recent temperature increases. The difference between the two (natural vs. natural + man made) is the "how much" you are looking for.

Do your own digging. You'll see this number vary depending on what variables and readouts are being analysed. This is true of almost any scientific inquiry. You cannot falsify a science because you think 49% man made warming is not significant and/or actionable but 51% would be. These numbers are completely arbitrary.

We would clearly have less warming if we didn't burn fossil fuels.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Natural causes cannot explain the current warming trends. When human-induced drivers are included in the calculation, they can accurately predict recent temperature increases. The difference between the two (natural vs. natural + man made) is the "how much" you are looking for.

Do your own digging. You'll see this number vary depending on what variable ...[text shortened]... are completely arbitrary.

We would clearly have less warming if we didn't burn fossil fuels.

"Natural causes cannot explain the current warming trends. When human-induced drivers are included in the calculation, they can accurately predict recent temperature increases."

You are arguing in circles. You took us right back to the same debate we have had before.
The current warming trend is debatable because of data cherry picking that the alarmists do. We could repeat that debate but what good would it do. You will just claim climate models are accurate when they are not just as before. You could not prove it then so I very much doubt you can do it now.

Originally posted by @humy
It is only a trivial task to lookup what the science says. Why are you incapable of do so yourself?
Here is the answer;

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels
"...
Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface te ...[text shortened]... esulted in most if not all of the greater warming.

So now you got your answer; what about it?

"Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 levels is the only thing determining climate temperatures (your strawman)."

Then why are you obsessed with reducing co2 emissions? You clearly claimed co2 levels are the main cause and you repeatedly dismissed the sun and methane as significant factors. You are being evasive as usual at the expense of contradicting your past statements.
CO2 levels are about the same as the Pliocene, yet we still have glaciers. You are overestimating co2 warming again. Why can't you just admit it?

Nobody knows how bright the sun shined during the Pliocene. Why are you ruling out the sun as a significant factor? You make no sense!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The current warming trend is debatable because of data cherry picking that the alarmists do. We could repeat that debate but what good would it do. You will just claim climate models are accurate when they are not just as before. You could not prove it then so I very much doubt you can do it now.

How can you argue that we don't know the current temperature of our earth (or "it is debatable"😉, but we know the Pliocene temperature?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
[b]"Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 levels is the only thing determining climate temperatures (your strawman)."

Then why are you obsessed with reducing co2 emissions? b]

WOW you ask stupid questions!
OK, I will humour you with the answer;

CO2 not being the only thing determining climate temperatures doesn't in any way logically imply man made CO2 emissions cannot have a significant warming effect on climate. Using your same stupid moronic 'logic' you are using here, you would conclude that the Sun not being the only thing determining climate temperatures means the Sun doesn't effect climate temperatures let alone have any significant effect! 😛

Man made CO2 emissions can have a significant and harmful (harmful to our future generations) warming effects on climate (such as more severe hurricanes and see level rise etc). Why would that not be a reason to won't reduced CO2 emissions?

Originally posted by @humy
WOW you ask stupid questions!
OK, I will humour you with the answer;

CO2 not being the only thing determining climate temperatures doesn't in any way logically imply man made CO2 emissions cannot have a significant warming effect on climate. Using your same stupid moronic 'logic' you are using here, you would conclude that the Sun not being the only thing ...[text shortened]... rricanes and see level rise etc). Why would that not be a reason to won't reduced CO2 emissions?

"Man made CO2 emissions can have a significant and harmful (harmful to our future generations) warming effects on climate (such as more severe hurricanes and see level rise etc). Why would that not be a reason to won't reduced CO2 emissions?"

Hurricanes do NOT become more severe because of global warming. You are stating a myth! Sea level rise is not alarming at all. It is slow and steady and fairly predictable based on past sea level rises. There is no sudden increase as many climate models falsely predicted.

The great hurricane of 1780 is a good example of your false assertions being nonsense. The most severe hurricanes happen when the upper atmosphere is colder, not warmer. Watch NOVA and see why you are wrong again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/killer-hurricanes.html

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"Man made CO2 emissions can have a significant and harmful (harmful to our future generations) warming effects on climate (such as more severe hurricanes and see level rise etc). Why would that not be a reason to won't reduced CO2 emissions?"

Hurricanes do NOT become more severe because of global warming. You are stating a myth! Sea level rise is not ...[text shortened]... VA and see why you are wrong again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/killer-hurricanes.html

Actually there is DIRECT link between ocean temperature and severity of hurricanes. Do you deny a warmer ocean leads to more evaporation of the surface of the ocean? Follow that thought and think what warmer waters will do to a growing hurricane.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"The most severe hurricanes happen when the upper atmosphere is colder, not warmer.

what has that got to do with the temperature lower down at the altitude around where we live? What was the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the ocean surface? The models from the basic laws of physics tell us that more atm CO2 will, with all else being equal, cause warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere. Therefore, if you are saying a colder upper atmosphere is what causes more severe hurricanes, by your own stupid logic, more atm CO2 would mean more severe hurricanes, not less; you make no sense.

It is scientific fact that, with all else equal, the warmer the ocean surface, the more powerful the hurricane is likely to be. What do you believe what fuels a haricane? Fairy dust? How would a warmer ocean surface NOT cause more evaporation to fuel a hurricane? When water warms, with all else being equal, it evaporates faster. You are clearly totally ignorant, opinionated and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by @humy
what has that got to do with the temperature lower down at the altitude around where we live? What was the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the ocean surface? The models from the basic laws of physics tell us that more atm CO2 will, with all else being equal, cause warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere. Therefore, if you ar ...[text shortened]... re clearly totally ignorant, opinionated and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You obviously did NOT watch the Nova episode. Until you do that you are being ignorant and close minded. Most hurricanes form during a colder climate, not a warmer climate. Your logic is clearly flawed!

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Actually there is DIRECT link between ocean temperature and severity of hurricanes. Do you deny a warmer ocean leads to more evaporation of the surface of the ocean? Follow that thought and think what warmer waters will do to a growing hurricane.

Nope. Not true at all. Watch it and learn.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/killer-hurricanes.html

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Most hurricanes form during a ...

strawman; I said "...the more powerful the hurricane ...", NOT "...the more hurricanes..." although more hurricanes might form over warmer oceans.
+ hurricanes rarely form over cold oceans. Why do you think that is?
Aren't you EVER even slightly curious about what is true rather than sticking to your own ignorant arrogant opinionated crap? Try learning something new just for once; just have a quick peek at what the science says...