[Bored chemist]

,,, if you had no other information than the Vostok ice cores. Yes, there has been a rapid increase in recent history but nothing unprecedented in the geological record or out of the geological time sequence.

Those ice cores record CO2 concentrations and here's what they say.
 "The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. "

From
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

So, in fact, it is unprecedented.
It doesn't help things when you say "it's happened before" when it hasn't.

[Bored chemist]

The most important greenhouse gas is water.

Yes.
But it can not be responsible for a change in the greenhouse effect because the water concentration is pretty much fixed.
If you try to put more water vapour into the air, you just get rain.

So, yes, water is part of the reason why the Erath's surface is relatively warm.
But it can not be an explanation for a change

[Kryptid]

Sorry but the source has since disappeared.

If there was only one source for that, then it sounds more like the opinion of an individual rather than "NASA facts".

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

.

Let's face it global warming just means siberia and Canada will develop a pleasant climate.

I live pretty far north so yeah it is kind of nice to have warmer weather.  It is rather unfair for the billions that will have their homes under water though, if nothing is done.

Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The present temperature is almost exactly what you would expect it to be if you had no other information than the Vostok ice cores. Yes, there has been a rapid increase in recent history but nothing unprecedented in the geological record or out of the geological time sequence. There has also been a rapid increase in human population and activity, but it is still a one-way correlation.

What is the margin for error in the ice cores? It is very simple to give ice core data without accounting for any alterations over time whilst they where compressed. On the one hand vostok ice cores support the CO2 hypothesis, yet sediment cores and tree rings do seem to alude to periods of drought in very recent history, you cannot have drought in these places without an increace in temperature (very simple physics).

[Origin]

Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.

Seriously??  Your answer to global warming is don't sweat it, just move inland?

[Origin]

you cannot have drought in these places without an increace in temperature (very simple physics).

That is quite simply false.  Droughts are due to low rainfall.

[alancalverd]

Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.

Seriously??  Your answer to global warming is don't sweat it, just move inland?

It is the strategy that every plant and animal has used since time began. Unfortunately humans nowadays are too stupid and too numerous to do it.   

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.

Seriously??  Your answer to global warming is don't sweat it, just move inland?

The landmass es to the north are huge and sparsely populated, the only thing that keeps them sparsely populated is the weather. California isn't popular because of its witty banter.

Furthermore there is not a thing man can do about the ice age cycles anyhoo so catagoricaly sometime in the future makind will have to migrate, catagoricaly.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

you cannot have drought in these places without an increace in temperature (very simple physics).

That is quite simply false.  Droughts are due to low rainfall.

Lack of moisture means temperatures are higher, dry air is easier to heat. That is simple physics. Moisture in the soil cools the air, the latent heat is the device. Rain always cools things down, evaporative cooling has been used for millennium. Over a space like california, the irrigation of dry land and desert is enough to seriously alter weather patterns.

[Deecart]

The water question is extremely complicated and is actually not very well known.

Water can have various implications.
Per example the hight and the form of the cloud can warm or cool the soil depending of its transformation (rain or not etc).
When clouds are high and there is space between clouds, they can produce rain , the rain will produce clouds because the sun can shine on the humid soil (due to the rain just before) IF there is space between clouds.
BUT IF there is no space between the clouds, there will be no evaporation, so no lowering of temperature (evaporation produce cooling)).
So same quantity of clouds do not produce the same result. It depend on the form or the clouds (and this is very complicated to take in account).

But there is at least on thing we know.

When temperature if higher, then there is more evaporation of the sea (around 70% of earth).
There is also more water in the air (air can sustain more water if it is warm).
Therefore, warmer temperature imply more water in the air and the possibility to produce more rain (i say "the possibility"... some areas will be droought while some other will be flooded depending on the possibility to do condensation).
 

[Deecart]

It is the strategy that every plant and animal has used since time began. Unfortunately humans nowadays are too stupid and too numerous to do it.   

I would say that humans could also do the migration (like every animal), but unfortunatly they can not because of their sociological system : The majority of the soil is already own by someone.
You can not just migrate somewhere where you are not "the owner" (second problem we can not move with our home like the hermit crab, you have to buy a new one).

[Origin]

Furthermore there is not a thing man can do about the ice age cycles anyhoo so catagoricaly sometime in the future makind will have to migrate, catagoricaly.

Man-made global warming is not about the fluctuations in climate associated with the ice ages.  It is about the short term human induced climate effects that we are currently seeing.  Why is this distinction so difficult for you to understand?

[Origin]

Lack of moisture means temperatures are higher

No, this is not that difficult.  Lack of moisture means lack of moisture.  High temperature makes droughts worse, but high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.

[alancalverd]

Man-made global warming is not about the fluctuations in climate associated with the ice ages.  It is about the short term human induced climate effects that we are currently seeing.  Why is this distinction so difficult for you to understand?

Because the effect, if it is real, is added to the ongoing current increase in global temperature that began 15,000 years ago. It is by no means established that what we have seen  in the last 100 years is outside the noise amplitude of  a natural process. There is indeed a correlation with anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions but  in serious science correlation does not equate to causation.

[Deecart]

Saying we have absolute correlation between CO2 ppm and mean temperature is the worst scientifical proof since ... cave man.
CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.
But it is so simple for the everybody man to understand the (false) correlation.

[Kryptid]

CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.

Who ever said that it was?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Furthermore there is not a thing man can do about the ice age cycles anyhoo so catagoricaly sometime in the future makind will have to migrate, catagoricaly.

Man-made global warming is not about the fluctuations in climate associated with the ice ages.  It is about the short term human induced climate effects that we are currently seeing.  Why is this distinction so difficult for you to understand?

Mankind will be forced to relocate between ice ages, global warming is not at the speed of a tsunami or even costal erosion, it is very slow in mankind's time frame. Relocation is relocation, it is not difficult to understand. As you know I believe fossil fuels will end with a cold contraction that will happen almost immediately, unlike ice ages that happen slowly. We have 50 years worth of fossil fuels left, once expended there is no going back.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Lack of moisture means temperatures are higher

No, this is not that difficult.  Lack of moisture means lack of moisture.  High temperature makes droughts worse, but high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.

Please evail yourself with evaporative cooling.

[Origin]

Saying we have absolute correlation between CO2 ppm and mean temperature is the worst scientifical proof since ... cave man.

I don't know of anyone saying that.  I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.

So what.

But it is so simple for the everybody man to understand the (false) correlation.

Do you have evidence that there is no correlation?