re: Your occasional reminder that global warming is real,

quote:

---

And before 450 years ago??

*most of those instances happened on isolated environments...not to be confused with a general loss of weak species*

---

Your point? It is obvious that the introductions of invasive species, loss of habitat, and hunting species to extinction will impact isolated environments heavily.

quote:

---

How many times has here been a record low and a record high in the same week, pig fricker? (Hint: it hasn't happened)

---

It has happened many times on the same day in the U.S., within the same week even more frequently.

LINK

"There may be many locations in Hawaii, Florida, and Pacific Coastal areas that have experienced record highs and lows on the same day that I am unaware of. This is because they are so unremarkable and consequently go unnoticed or unreported. Here are a handfull I do know about:
Eureka, California on September 23, 2006 from 42° to 82° (40°)

Vero Beach, Florida on September 14, 2005 from 70° to 92° (22°)

Olympia, Washington on March 14, 2005 from 25° to 67° (42°)

Hilo, Hawaii on May 25, 2003 from 60° to 91° (31°)

Hilo, Hawaii on May 26, 2003 from 60° to 88° (28°)

Melbourne, Florida on May 22, 1998 from 68° to 97° (29°)

San Francisco (airport) on December 23, 1990 from 28° to 64° (36°)

Astoria, Oregon on March 15, 1988 from 28° to 61° (33°)

Miami, Florida on August 11, 1984 from 70° to 96° (26°)

quote:

---

Your contention is atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. Increased temperature increases atmospheric concentration at equilibrium. As the contention hold CO2 to be a major (even catastrophic) warming agent, escalation of atmospheric CO2 in that circumstance would be unfettered.

For purposes here, given your equation where all variables are terrestrial, there would be no off-switch.

---

You do know that positive feedback and runaway feedback are not the same thing, right?

So if you're aware of the fact that positive feedback leads to asymptotic saturation (at about 10°C warming, theoretically) and not Venus 2.0 what do you mean by "no off-switch"?

Were not concerned about the earth not surviving and you know that. You do this in every climate debate.

quote:

---

ureka, California on September 23, 2006 from 42° to 82° (40°)

Vero Beach, Florida on September 14, 2005 from 70° to 92° (22°)

Olympia, Washington on March 14, 2005 from 25° to 67° (42°)

Hilo, Hawaii on May 25, 2003 from 60° to 91° (31°)

Hilo, Hawaii on May 26, 2003 from 60° to 88° (28°)

Melbourne, Florida on May 22, 1998 from 68° to 97° (29°)

San Francisco (airport) on December 23, 1990 from 28° to 64° (36°)

Astoria, Oregon on March 15, 1988 from 28° to 61° (33°)

Miami, Florida on August 11, 1984 from 70° to 96° (26°)

---

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 20° to 82° in the middle of January (62°). It's totally unnatural and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it if they aren't totally blinded by political ideology or clinical denial. Get your heads out of your asses.

Look at yourself, wearing your willful ignorance like a badge of honor. It's sickening.

quote:

---

Look at yourself, wearing your willful ignorance like a badge of honor. It's sickening.

---

What is your final solution for the numerous people who refuse to adopt your orthodoxy?

Imprisonment? Torture? Death?

quote:

---

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 20° to 82° in the middle of January (62°). It's totally unnatural and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it if they aren't totally blinded by political ideology or clinical denial.

---

There are plenty of good arguments to make to get your point across, but this is not one of them.

There are plenty of other weather related factoids that could "prove" the opposite.

Instead of talking about this as if it's a religion and the people who disagree with you are blasphemers, perhaps a legit discussion on the actually effects of global warming over the next 50 years. Hint: All of the projected results are not bad.