Post

This is such a stupid chart.

Show me yours

This is such a stupid answer.

Haha. It’s so stupid. No one makes decisions over 100000 years…

NOAA stated ~540ppm CO2eq. Can you explain, why your graph shows 573ppm? Thanks. gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html

They explain it themselves: "not included are the radiative forcings arising from spatially heterogeneous, short-lived, climate forcing agents, such as aerosols, clouds and tropospheric ozone, because theay are highly variable and have uncertain global magnitudes and also are not included here."

As I mentioned before, I think @climate.noaa.gov should have included other greenhouse gases. This creates a lot of confusion. The IPCC methodology they use provides a tropospheric ozone FORCING estimate of +0.5 W/m²:

This graph uses the same data but uses the unit W/m² for the total greenhouse gas forcings relative to 1750. It looks somewhat less extreme than the CO₂-equivalent graph, because the forcing of CO₂ increase non-linearly with concentration increase.

Tropospheric Water Vapor increases because of warming and is therefore a possitive FEEDBACK, amplifying warming from forcings. Stratospheric Water Vapor and tropospheric ozone are FORCINGS, because they form (mainly) because of methane emissions. Crucial IPCC graphs:

more like a scythe than a hockey stick

Trump is not only getting rid of climate change initiatives at the federal level, he is also threatening climate policies in the states.

Not disputing this great graph, but where does the 573 number come from? Manua Loa show ~430 (and ~426 global), or am I missing something? gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/...

It's CO₂ equivalent, taking into account the increase in other greenhouse gases.