What the science says

[ding]

Where do you see continent-scale glaciation in today's Northern Hemisphere?

Bipolar glaciation does exist at present, we are presently in an interglacial cycle, but there are still glaciers in the northern hemisphere today. They just aren't extensive as they are in a glacial cycle. 12,000 years ago the Great Lakes were formed when the glacier retreated. At that time New York was under 1000 ft of ice.

Why don't you try one more time and answer what I actually asked you.

My goodness, it really would be easier and more honest just to admit your mistake. Google northern hemisphere glaciers. You do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of extensive glaciation, glaciation and episodic ice sheets.

Besides why do you believe this matters? It has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the world we live in today is considered to be an icehouse world, that icehouse worlds are characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients. It has no bearing on the fact that bipolar glaciation is not the norm for our planet. It has no bearing on the fact that bipolar glaciation is rare and possibly unique. It has no bearing on there is no evidence of a previous bipolar glaciation in the geologic record. It has no bearing on the fact that the conditions which led to bipolar glaciation are the poles being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.

The reality is that you only read the abstract and you made an error in that. I have read and posted the full paper. I have taken the conclusions from the full paper. And those conclusions say you are full of shit. Funny how this has come full circle, isn't it?

 

[ding]

Where do you see continent-scale glaciation in today's Northern Hemisphere?

Bipolar glaciation does exist at present, we are presently in an interglacial cycle, but there are still glaciers in the northern hemisphere today. They just aren't extensive as they are in a glacial cycle. 12,000 years ago the Great Lakes were formed when the glacier retreated. At that time New York was under 1000 ft of ice.

Why don't you try one more time and answer what I actually asked you.

You are such a dope that you still don't know that the full paper has been posted like 4 times.

 

[Crick]

Dope? Is that you avoiding personal attacks once again?

 

[ding]

Dope? Is that you avoiding personal attacks once again?

That is me trying to get your attention and show you the error of your way. I tried doing it the easy way first, but you would have none of it. If you really want to understand the root cause failure of this, you will need to go back to your very first post to see where you started with assumptions and conclusions instead of questions. You can never go wrong asking questions. Unless of course they aren't really questions aimed at understanding the basis of what and why someone believes what they do. There will always be plenty of time for righteous indignation later.

 

[Crick]

I hope you don't actually believe anyone here is falling for such crap.

 

[ding]

I hope you don't actually believe anyone here is falling for such crap.

I don't worry myself about other people, but it seems that you must.

 

[Crick]

Got it. Not here for exchange of information or to test the veracity of your own conclusons. You're here to feed your ego.

 

[ding]

Got it. Not here for exchange of information or to test the veracity of your own conclusons. You're here to feed your ego.

No. That's not what that means. I believe that you are projecting.

 

[Crick]

That is what that means. This is a discussion board. People who come here not caring what anyone else has to say aren't here for discussions; they're here to see themselves in print.

 

[ding]

That is what that means. This is a discussion board. People who come here not caring what anyone else has to say aren't here for discussions; they're here to see themselves in print.

Discussion sure. Getting upset because someone doesn't agree with me? Not so much. Being tied to an outcome? No. So let me say again... you are projecting.

 

[Crick]

Fine.

Would it be correct to say that you believe the US need do no more to reduce its CO2 emissions or do you believe more should be done or even that no effort was ever required?

 

[ding]

Fine.

Would it be correct to say that you believe the US need do no more to reduce its CO2 emissions or do you believe more should be done or even that no effort was ever required?

No. I don't believe there is a problem and if there were we are not the problem. I would rather atmospheric CO2 be at 600 ppm rather than 250 ppm.

 

[Crick]

Really? And what effects do you think would take place as we moved to 600 ppm?

 

[ding]

Really? And what effects do you think would take place as we moved to 600 ppm?

That one of the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles would no longer exist.

 

[Crick]

My question was what effects do you believe would take place as a result of CO2 levels going from 400 to 600 ppm?

And just out of curiosity, what glacial-interglacial condition do you believe would no longer exist?

 

[ding]

My question was what effects do you believe would take place as a result of CO2 levels going from 400 to 600 ppm?

And just out of curiosity, what glacial-interglacial condition do you believe would no longer exist?

A 1.62 C increase, a sea level rise of 252 mm and an atmospheric CO2 level that was greater than that of the first glacial cycle.

 

[Crick]

And you say you would like to see those changes?

 

[ding]

And you say you would like to see those changes?

Yes. That is a much better state than a 1000 ft thick ice sheet over New York state. AND I don't think that the data proves that radiative forcing of CO2 is driving climate change in the first place.

 

[Crick]

And do you really believe a 280 ppm CO2 level would result in a 1000 ft thick ice sheet over New York state?

What do you believe is causing the observed warming?

 

[ding]

And do you really believe a 280 ppm CO2 level would result in a 1000 ft thick ice sheet over New York state?

What do you believe is causing the observed warming?

Don't be silly. CO2 doesn't cause climate change, it reinforces it. 250 ppm is the condition for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation to occur. That doesn't mean that it will occur. It is a complex system. I still can't believe the UN has set a target of 250 ppm though.