or we can just move to mars.

Short answer: yes

Not-so-short answer: throughout the centuries, there was a cause-effect relation between temperature and CO2. The century or so, CO2 spiked up and the trend broke. So depending on whether you build a model based on the centuries past, or only the last 150 years has a huge implications on the near future.

Regarding your other comment from yesterday, life is estimated to have begun ~3.5 billion years ago. Homo Sapiens seems to have appeared around 315000 years ago. Whether humanity thrives or not depends largely on multiple factors - migration, survival in the new area, understanding of pathology, plagues, wars, etc.

OK... there is too much in here to refute, but let me start with this:

Since you've asked (Irace liked your comment, so he probably agrees with you), from now on, before you both post any link or image, please explain:

1. Where the temperatures were taken - local, global, water, landmass, etc.
2. Method of measurement - fossil records, thermometers, radio isotopes, etc. (If it's averaged, explain if the averaging takes into account the geographical weightage. For example, if Asian temperatures were averaged, did they have 1 measurement point in a small landmass like Japan and 1 in all of China? Or if the ocean temperatures are averaged, did they have 1 point in the Pacific and 1 in Arctic?)
3. How that certain location, method, and calculation are relevant to this whole phenomenon.

1. temps plotted are global average
2. Check the link. Short version: there are methods for developing realistic "global average" temps, and no, they're not taking 1 data point from Japan and 1 data point from China and weighting them equally (geez...)
3. relevant because we're gonna be living on this globe to the end of our days (except maybe ol muskie and some indentured servants)

NASA’s temperature analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from more than 20,000 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. These in situ measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heat island effects.

Are these measured at NASA stations, or developed using a methodology?

Isn't that the same graph I posted earlier, except in the larger picture?

The "Greenland air temperature" graph? No...

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

I don't get it - just a few pages ago, you 2 were citing an article against me saying that the method of measurement should be just as consistent in 1750 as it is now... Are you refuting your old argument?

If you want to address me, don't say "you 2".

Where did I cite an article saying that?

Obviously methods for determining temperatures prior to the 20th century are going to require different methods...

Scientists seeking the truth, who succeed or fail based on how right they are, are a lot more trustworthy than hacks given $$$ by fossil fuel industry, who reliably get paid specifically to spread bad info...

You liked Irace's comments, so I take it as you affirm his arguments.

I'm not even gonna comment on your post about crude industry lobbying and the wars that started as a result. That's Tcoat's department.

No hard feelings buddy! I don't treat you as an enemy. If I visit your area any time, I'll be happy to stop by and we'll have a drink together.
This is where I'm coming from: Science doesn't stand alone by itself. Reason and Logic are key to its existence. I can't blindly believe in anything labelled as "science". If it doesn't stand the test of logic, it's just another opinion to me. Especially there is a huge fallacy that surfaced up in modern scientific community these days: "Experts say...". Modern scientific communities to a great extent are void of critical questioning.

NGL, a lot of the likes that I throw on posts in this thread are to make sure I don't read them again :cheers:

Also, potential good news?

https://theconversation.com/tiny-pla...thought-136599

Hopefully good news, but if atmospheric CO2 is rising and twice as much carbon is pulled to the sea floor than thought (how much of a sink as a percentage of the whole is unclear from this article) then I wonder if that means even more emissions must be driving the rise in CO2, if they thought this natural CO2 sink was smaller.

The other thing they mention is that if this sink is disrupted then it could have an even bigger or two fold impact than previously estimated:

I'd be up fo dat!

Scientists use reason and logic *always*. Those who don't, well they don't make it...

Bullshit. I work with scientists week in week out. They are *very* inquisitive and *extremely* critical and questioning of *everything*.

The idea that the scientists are in an echo chamber is total baloney. They want to know the TRUTH. What's *really* happening. And if they get it wrong, they WILL be found out by *better science*. They have a powerful vested interest in getting it right. This does make them usually be a bit conservative in their claims (which is why warming trends are generally exceeding predictions). But nothing would make a climate scientist's career like *proving* something novel and different from what is currently accepted and establishing a new paradigm. But they have to be RIGHT.

Meanwhile you have a trillion-dollar industry that *wants* us to keep consuming as much as we possibly can, and you can rest assured they don't care a whit about the reality of what's happening or being "right". They are actively sponsoring *bad* "science" to fit their pre-conceived conclusion that "we're OK emitting as much as we want!" The days when they actually sponsored GOOD science and then simply buried it when it didn't fit in with their profit motives are long gone. Now they just sponsor known quacks to sell the idea that everything's fine to a public that largely wants to believe it.
Groan...