[W:#101]Climate Change Rapidly Intensified Hurricane Ian Before Landfall

[bubbabgone]

“The sun has been dimming slightly for the last half-century while the Earth heats up, so global warming cannot be blamed on the sun.

Volcanic sulfur in the stratosphere can be disruptive, but in the grand scale of Earth’s history it’s tiny and temporary.The U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2017 concluded that there’s “no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.”

You should read "The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe by Fritz Vahrenholt & Sebastian Luning

 

[watsup]

You should read "The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe by Fritz Vahrenholt & Sebastian Luning

I’m listing the reasons why “natural” sources are not the primary factor in the present global warming. That’s what you wanted. Please pay attention.

This is the article. Read it:

How Earth’s Climate Changes Naturally (and Why Things Are Different Now)

Earth’s climate has fluctuated through deep time, pushed by these 10 different causes. Here’s how each compares with modern climate change.

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[watsup]

liitle ice age graph - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

There’s a bunch of graphs there. Which one would you like us to peruse. A whole lot of them have a spike at the very end. What do you think might be causing that spike?

 

[watsup]

One, you ignored every influence that isn't CO2.

This is a follow-on of post #524. Let me restate that post:

“The sun has been dimming slightly for the last half-century while the Earth heats up, so global warming cannot be blamed on the sun.

Volcanic sulfur in the stratosphere can be disruptive, but in the grand scale of Earth’s history it’s tiny and temporary.

The U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2017 concluded that there’s “no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.”

Again, this comes from https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...ly-and-why-things-are-different-now-20200721/

Did you even read it? As above, it explains why the “nature” that you cite could not be responsible for the present spike in GLOBAL warming.

Here’s more about the FAR past:

“Occasionally, the evolution of new kinds of life has reset Earth’s thermostat. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria that arose some 3 billion years ago, for instance, began terraforming the planet by emitting oxygen. As they proliferated, oxygen eventually rose in the atmosphere 2.4 billion years ago, while methane and carbon dioxide levels plummeted. This plunged Earth into a series of “snowball” climates for 200 million years. The evolution of ocean life larger than microbes initiated another series of snowball climates 717 million years ago — in this case, it was because the organisms began raining detritus into the deep ocean, exporting carbon from the atmosphere into the abyss and ultimately burying it.

When the earliest land plants evolved about 230 million years later in the Ordovician period, they began forming the terrestrial biosphere, burying carbon on continents and extracting land nutrients that washed into the oceans, boosting life there, too. These changes probably triggered the ice age that began about 445 million years ago. Later, in the Devonian period, the evolution of trees further reduced carbon dioxide and temperatures, conspiring with mountain building to usher in the Paleozoic ice age.”

And more:

“Continent-scale floods of lava and underground magma called large igneous provinces have ushered in many of Earth’s mass extinctions. These igneous events unleashed an arsenal of killers (including acid rain, acid fog, mercury poisoning and destruction of the ozone layer), while also warming the planet by dumping huge quantities of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere more quickly than the weathering thermostat could handle.

In the end-Permian event 252 million years ago, which wiped out 81% of marine species, underground magma ignited Siberian coal, drove up atmospheric carbon dioxide to 8,000 parts per million and raised the temperature by between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius. The more minor Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event 56 million years ago cooked methane in North Atlantic oil deposits and funneled it into the sky, warming the planet by 5 degrees Celsius and acidifying the ocean; alligators and palms subsequently thrived on Arctic shores. Similar releases of fossil carbon deposits happened in the end-Triassic and the early Jurassic; global warming, ocean dead zones and ocean acidification resulted.

If any of that sounds familiar, it’s because human activity is causing the same effects today.“

Please read the last two sentences for understanding.

 

[Glitch]

“The sun has been dimming slightly for the last half-century while the Earth heats up, so global warming cannot be blamed on the sun.

Volcanic sulfur in the stratosphere can be disruptive, but in the grand scale of Earth’s history it’s tiny and temporary.The U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2017 concluded that there’s “no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.”

Actually, that is not true. The sun's luminosity and radius have been increasing over time. As the sun increases in both size and luminosity the amount of energy the sun delivers to the Earth (the solar constant) changes. In about 500 million years the luminosity of the sun will have increased by another 10%, which will be sufficient to boil off all the oceans and kill off all complex life on Earth.

The sun, along with Earth's ever changing orbit, plays a major role in Earth's long-term climate, determining the ice-ages, and even the glacial and interglacial cycles within each ice-age, but it does not play as big of a role in the short term. Meaning that it was not the sun that determined the Roman, Medieval, or Modern Warming, any more than it was the sun that determined the Dark Ages or the Little Ice-Age. However, it was the sun - and changes in Earth's orbit - that created the Saraha desert, but that took ~9,000 years to create. That ~9,000 year change in Earth's perihelion is really the smallest cycle the sun can be involved in.

Sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere reduces mean surface temperatures, it doesn't increase them. This was demonstrated in 1991 with the eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines. Global temperatures dropped by between 0.5°C and 1°C between 1991 and 1993. At no time in Earth's history has volcanic eruptions ever increased Earth's surface temperatures. They have only lowered them.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[Glitch]

This is a follow-on of post #524. Let me restate that post:

“The sun has been dimming slightly for the last half-century while the Earth heats up, so global warming cannot be blamed on the sun.

Volcanic sulfur in the stratosphere can be disruptive, but in the grand scale of Earth’s history it’s tiny and temporary.

The U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2017 concluded that there’s “no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.”

Again, this comes from https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...ly-and-why-things-are-different-now-20200721/

Did you even read it? As above, it explains why the “nature” that you cite could not be responsible for the present spike in GLOBAL warming.

Here’s more about the FAR past:

...

There is a lot of bogus information contained in this post. Considering this information comes from a blog and not anything based on actual science, that shouldn't be surprising.

During the Ordovician Ice-Age 85% of marine species went extinct as mean surface temperatures dropped by between 8°C and 10°C. Atmospheric CO2 was also between 8 to 12 times higher than today, averaging 4,500 ppmV.

The Carboniferous period did indeed sequester away a great deal of CO2. Beginning in the Devonian and continuing through the Carboniferous atmospheric CO2 dropped from being over 4,000 ppmV to under 500 ppmV by the beginning of the Permian 300 million years ago. However, that was about to change when the Carboniferous/Permian ice-age came to an end 270 million years ago. As a result of the formation of Pangaea the largest desert the planet has ever known was formed and surface temperatures began to skyrocket.

Between 270 and 250 million years ago mean surface temperatures ranged as high as between 35°C and 40°C with atmospheric CO2 ranging between 250 and 350 ppmV (much lower than today). Approximately 96% of all marine life (not 81%), and 70% of all terrestrial life disappeared during this period. It was also not just one mass extinction event, but rather three spaced approximately 10 million years apart between 270 and 250 million years ago.

What actually saved life on this planet was the eruption of the Siberian Traps. Which occurred 248 million years ago, not 252 million years ago. As already pointed out in this thread, volcanic activity has always lowered mean surface temperatures on the planet, and has never increased them. Because of the erruption of the Siberian Traps temperatures began returning back to normal and atmospheric CO2 began increasing again. By the beginning of the Triassic the atmospheric CO2 levels were back up to between 1,000 and 1,200 ppmV and mean surface temperatures had dropped back down to ~24°C, as Pangaea began to break up.

There is also no evidence of ocean acidification or anoxic oceans 250 million years ago. A 2013 study demonstrated that the oceans had plenty of oxygen and were not acidic.

Sources:
Rapid Eruption of the Siberian Traps Flood Basalts at the Permo-Triassic Boundary - Science, Volume 253, Issue 5016, pp. 176-179, 12 July 1991 (free preprint)
Molybdenum isotopic evidence for oxic marine conditions during the latest Permian extinction - Geology, Volume 41, Number 9, 1 September 2013
Benchley, Peter J & DAT Harper (1998), Palaeoecology: Ecosystems, Environments and Evolution. Chapman & Hall, ISBN-10: 0412434504, ISBN-13: 978-0412434501.
Ward, Peter D (2002), Rivers in Time, Columbia University Press, ISBN-10: 0231118635, ISBN-13: 978-0231118637

Next time try reading the actual science instead of some blog by an ignorant fool pushing an agenda.

 

[watsup]

Actually, that is not true. The sun's luminosity and radius have been increasing over time. As the sun increases in both size and luminosity the amount of energy the sun delivers to the Earth (the solar constant) changes. In about 500 million years the luminosity of the sun will have increased by another 10%, which will be sufficient to boil off all the oceans and kill off all complex life on Earth.

The sun, along with Earth's ever changing orbit, plays a major role in Earth's long-term climate, determining the ice-ages, and even the glacial and interglacial cycles within each ice-age, but it does not play as big of a role in the short term. Meaning that it was not the sun that determined the Roman, Medieval, or Modern Warming, any more than it was the sun that determined the Dark Ages or the Little Ice-Age. However, it was the sun - and changes in Earth's orbit - that created the Saraha desert, but that took ~9,000 years to create. That ~9,000 year change in Earth's perihelion is really the smallest cycle the sun can be involved in.

Since you are using NASA as a source:

“The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.

A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science

No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps

climate.nasa.gov

Also open this graph and see the narrative for it below.

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2502/

temperature vs solar activity updated July 2021
The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy received by Earth (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.”

Looks like you are wrong again.

 

[watsup]

Sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere reduces mean surface temperatures, it doesn't increase them. This was demonstrated in 1991 with the eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines. Global temperatures dropped by between 0.5°C and 1°C between 1991 and 1993. At no time in Earth's history has volcanic eruptions ever increased Earth's surface temperatures. They have only lowered them.

Everybody knows that. From the article cited: Volcanic sulfur in the stratosphere can be disruptive, but in the grand scale of Earth’s history it’s tiny and temporary.

 

[watsup]

There is a lot of bogus information contained in this post. Considering this information comes from a blog and not anything based on actual science, that shouldn't be surprising.

During the Ordovician Ice-Age 85% of marine species went extinct as mean surface temperatures dropped by between 8°C and 10°C. Atmospheric CO2 was also between 8 to 12 times higher than today, averaging 4,500 ppmV.

The Carboniferous period did indeed sequester away a great deal of CO2. Beginning in the Devonian and continuing through the Carboniferous atmospheric CO2 dropped from being over 4,000 ppmV to under 500 ppmV by the beginning of the Permian 300 million years ago. However, that was about to change when the Carboniferous/Permian ice-age came to an end 270 million years ago. As a result of the formation of Pangaea the largest desert the planet has ever known was formed and surface temperatures began to skyrocket.

Between 270 and 250 million years ago mean surface temperatures ranged as high as between 35°C and 40°C with atmospheric CO2 ranging between 250 and 350 ppmV (much lower than today). Approximately 96% of all marine life (not 81%), and 70% of all terrestrial life disappeared during this period. It was also not just one mass extinction event, but rather three spaced approximately 10 million years apart between 270 and 250 million years ago.

What actually saved life on this planet was the eruption of the Siberian Traps. Which occurred 248 million years ago, not 252 million years ago. As already pointed out in this thread, volcanic activity has always lowered mean surface temperatures on the planet, and has never increased them. Because of the erruption of the Siberian Traps temperatures began returning back to normal and atmospheric CO2 began increasing again. By the beginning of the Triassic the atmospheric CO2 levels were back up to between 1,000 and 1,200 ppmV and mean surface temperatures had dropped back down to ~24°C, as Pangaea began to break up.

There is also no evidence of ocean acidification or anoxic oceans 250 million years ago. A 2013 study demonstrated that the oceans had plenty of oxygen and were not acidic.

Sources:
Rapid Eruption of the Siberian Traps Flood Basalts at the Permo-Triassic Boundary - Science, Volume 253, Issue 5016, pp. 176-179, 12 July 1991 (free preprint)
Molybdenum isotopic evidence for oxic marine conditions during the latest Permian extinction - Geology, Volume 41, Number 9, 1 September 2013
Benchley, Peter J & DAT Harper (1998), Palaeoecology: Ecosystems, Environments and Evolution. Chapman & Hall, ISBN-10: 0412434504, ISBN-13: 978-0412434501.
Ward, Peter D (2002), Rivers in Time, Columbia University Press, ISBN-10: 0231118635, ISBN-13: 978-0231118637

Next time try reading the actual science instead of some blog by an ignorant fool pushing an agenda.

This particular screed in no way disproves that the primary driver in today’s global warming is human-produced CO2.

 

[Glitch]

Since you are using NASA as a source:

“The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.

A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science

No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps

climate.nasa.gov

I completely agree with that assessment, and even stated so. The sun's biggest influence on Earth is over a much bigger time period. On the scale of 9,000 years and more (that is how long it takes Earth's orbit to change). The changes in climate over a period of multiple decades to a few centuries cannot be attributed to the sun because the change has not been that big in such a short period.

The much shorter warming and cooling periods that only last a few centuries are caused by something else, other than Earth's orbit or the sun. What that other cause might be, I cannot say, but I can be certain it is not the result changes in Earth's orbit or the sun's luminosity. The Modern Warming period that began in 1850 had nothing to do with Earth's orbit or changes in the sun's behavior.

Also open this graph and see the narrative for it below.

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2502/

temperature vs solar activity updated July 2021
The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy received by Earth (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.”

How does that dispute anything I previously posted?

Looks like you are wrong again.

Looks like you can't comprehend what you read, because you just confirmed everything I previously posted.

Get a clue.

 

[Glitch]

Everybody knows that. From the article cited: Volcanic sulfur in the stratosphere can be disruptive, but in the grand scale of Earth’s history it’s tiny and temporary.

Then why are you erroneously claim that the eruption of the Siberian Traps increased temperatures 248 million years ago when they had exactly the opposite effect?

 

[watsup]

I completely agree with that assessment, and even stated so. The sun's biggest influence on Earth is over a much bigger time period. On the scale of 9,000 years and more (that is how long it takes Earth's orbit to change). The changes in climate over a period of multiple decades to a few centuries cannot be attributed to the sun because the change has not been that big in such a short period.

The much shorter warming and cooling periods that only last a few centuries are caused by something else, other than Earth's orbit or the sun. What that other cause might be, I cannot say, but I can be certain it is not the result changes in Earth's orbit or the sun's luminosity. The Modern Warming period that began in 1850 had nothing to do with Earth's orbit or changes in the sun's behavior.


How does that dispute anything I previously posted?


Looks like you can't comprehend what you read, because you just confirmed everything I previously posted.

Get a clue.

Tell it to Bubbagone. He’s the one who seems to think that the sun is an important factor in the present spike in atmospheric temperature.

 

[Glitch]

This particular screed in no way disproves that the primary driver in today’s global warming is human-produced CO2.

Of course it does. No climate is driven by atmospheric CO2, it is exactly the opposite. The climate (specifically increases in mean surface temperatures) is what determines an increase in atmospheric CO2. As you are well aware, since I posted the source multiple times, there is an 800 ± 200 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in atmospheric CO2. The increases in atmospheric CO2 we are seeing today are the result of the Medieval Warming period that occurred between 950 and 1250 AD. It has absolutely nothing to do with humanity.

 

[Peter]

This topic makes me wonder just how bad the climate has to get for some people to get the message?
Do we really need to see half the US become uninhabitable first?

 

[watsup]

What you said:

What actually saved life on this planet was the eruption of the Siberian Traps. Which occurred 248 million years ago, not 252 million years ago. As already pointed out in this thread, volcanic activity has always lowered mean surface temperatures on the planet, and has never increased them. Because of the erruption of the Siberian Traps temperatures began returning back to normal and atmospheric CO2 began increasing again.

What the article said:
“In the end-Permian event 252 million years ago, which wiped out 81% of marine species, underground magma ignited Siberian coal, drove up atmospheric carbon dioxide to 8,000 parts per million and raised the temperature by between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius.”.

Argue about 4 million years if you wish, but beyond that, both you and the article basically say the same thing. So why the whining?

 

[Glitch]

This topic makes me wonder just how bad the climate has to get for some people to get the message?
Do we really need to see half the US become uninhabitable first?

What message would that be?

 

[watsup]

Of course it does. No climate is driven by atmospheric CO2, it is exactly the opposite. The climate (specifically increases in mean surface temperatures) is what determines an increase in atmospheric CO2. As you are well aware, since I posted the source multiple times, there is an 800 ± 200 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in atmospheric CO2. The increases in atmospheric CO2 we are seeing today are the result of the Medieval Warming period that occurred between 950 and 1250 AD. It has absolutely nothing to do with humanity.

Sorry, but mainstream climate scientists disagree with you by noting that, at least in the present case, warming is following the relatively rapid increase in CO2 due to human engineering. This has been discussed before and your claims are just not that convincing. Would you care to add a cite beyond just your say-so?

 

[Peter]

What message would that be?

That climate change is a problem and we should probably try and fix it.
You already have record droughts and states on the brink of running out of water, yet you still deny reality.

 

[Glitch]

What you said:




What the article said:
“In the end-Permian event 252 million years ago, which wiped out 81% of marine species, underground magma ignited Siberian coal, drove up atmospheric carbon dioxide to 8,000 parts per million and raised the temperature by between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius.”.

Argue about 4 million years if you wish, but beyond that, both you and the article basically say the same thing. So why the whining?

No we aren't saying the same thing at all. Not only are they off by 4 million years, it was 96%, not 81% of marine species went extinct. The Siberian Traps eruption increased atmospheric CO2 by between 750 and 850 ppmV, bringing the total atmopsheric CO2 content to between 1,000 and 1,200 ppmV. At no time since the Cambrian has the planet seen 8,000 ppmV atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, temperatures increased by more than 15°C 270 million years ago when the Carboniferous/Permian Ice-Age ended, not between 5°C and 9°C. That 270 million years ago also marks the first of the three Permian extinction events.

So absolutely nothing you posted was correct, as usual. Like I said, stop reading blogs by those pushing an agenda and start reading the actual science.

 

[watsup]

What message would that be?

If we screw it up (and we are), then we have a responsibility to fix it.

 

[watsup]

No we aren't saying the same thing at all. Not only are they off by 4 million years, it was 96%, not 81% of marine species went extinct. The Siberian Traps eruption increased atmospheric CO2 by between 750 and 850 ppmV, bringing the total atmopsheric CO2 content to between 1,000 and 1,200 ppmV. Furthermore, temperatures increased by more than 15°C 270 million years ago when the Carboniferous/Permian Ice-Age ended. That 270 million years ago also marks the first of the three Permian extinction events.

So absolutely nothing you posted was correct, as usual. Like I said, stop reading blogs by those pushing an agenda and start reading the actual science.

Carbon increased and temps increased due to the eruption of the Siberian Traps and therefore assisted in the production of life. Same same basic idea. Argue about the rest of you wish, but the basics remain the same.

 

[Glitch]

That climate change is a problem and we should probably try and fix it.
You already have record droughts and states on the brink of running out of water, yet you still deny reality.

The climate is always changing, and it only becomes a problem if we fail to change with the climate.

There is no "fixing" the climate. As long as the planet rotates and has an atmosphere, there will be climate.

The temperature records being established today are at best 250 years old. Hardly a reasonable sample Earth's climate. There was once a time when the Sahara desert was lush with vegetation and dotted with thousands of lakes, but the climate changes. The proxy temperature records show a significantly greater swing in temperatures than anything we have been experiencing within the last couple of centuries. Judging by previous climate conditions, we have it damn good today. Humanity has always benefited from a warming climate. Unfortunately, we also know that it will not last. Eventually the Holocene Interglacial period will come to an end and once again there will be ~100,000 years of glaciation with mile deep glaciers covering between 20% and 25% of the northern hemisphere. That is also part of our climate history.

 

[Glitch]

Carbon increased and temps increased due to the eruption of the Siberian Traps and therefore assisted in the production of life. Same same basic idea. Argue about the rest of you wish, but the basics remain the same.

As usual, you have it backwards. Atmospheric CO2 increases after surface temperatures increase, not before. The Siberian Traps not only released CO2 into the atmosphere, it also released vast quantities of SO2. It was that sulfur dioxide (not the CO2) that lowered the surface temperatures back down to normal, combined with the breaking up of Pangaea during the Triassic.

 

[Glitch]

Sorry, but mainstream climate scientists disagree with you by noting that, at least in the present case, warming is following the relatively rapid increase in CO2 due to human engineering. This has been discussed before and your claims are just not that convincing. Would you care to add a cite beyond just your say-so?

That is not what science is saying at all. Only the idiot leftists in the media and in government (and those who read blogs for their information) are spewing that utter nonsense because they have an agenda. You will not find a single scientist anywhere that claims CO2 has any effect on the climate, much less humans being the cause. Whether you accept reality or not, science says atmospheric CO2 increases after temperature increases, not before. As I have repeatedly demonstrated.

You just another uninformed leftist science denier with an overwhelming desire to push a political ideology.

 

[Peacenik]

Yes. And warming has happened when there weren't any.

Look at the graphs. Sure, there has been warming. Like, if the Earth was a car and warming was speed, it might have been rising by 1 mph per century. Then, add human population explosion and industrialization and all of a sudden the gas pedal is floored.

This is not an either/or between natural and AGW. It's additive.