# Arctic heat



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2016)

View image on Twitter






 Follow


Zack Labe 

✔@ZLabe


Today's latest #Arctic mean temperature continues to move the wrong direction... up. Quite an anomalous spike!

12:24 PM - 15 Nov 2016 · Irvine, CA





'Climate Emergency': North Pole Sees Record Temps, Melting Ice Despite Arctic Winter


"Folks, we're in a climate emergency," tweeted meteorologist Eric Holthaus.






*Sea ice at both poles at about three standard deviations below normal. Overall sea ice level at a major record low for this time of the year. The temperatures in the arctic way above normal. Keep a watch on this, folks, could get very interesting.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2016)

It's called weather


----------



## Crixus (Nov 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> View image on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> ...




See? This is Gawd getting pissed over Hillary losing.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 19, 2016)

Meanwhile we froze our ass off in TX last night...

So let me get this right, OldCocks posts a graph which should leave one to conclude that the Northern Ice cap has lost about 1/3 of it's ice JUST THIS YEAR.

Logically then one can assume the sea level would have increased noticeably.

Of course it hasn't, and the pattern of deceit by the MMGW hoaxers continues unabated.

Now lets suppose you're the newly elected POTUS, and you're about to outline a budget for the next FY.

I wonder how terrified bed wetters are that a lot of the government funding that advanced this hoax may be cut off.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> Meanwhile we froze our ass off in TX last night...
> 
> So let me get this right, OldCocks posts a graph which should leave one to conclude that the Northern Ice cap has lost about 1/3 of it's ice JUST THIS YEAR.
> 
> ...


Oh my, Petey is another dumb fuck that thinks that melting floating ice can raise sea level. And if you read that into the graph, perhaps you need to repeat the third grade.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2016)

Since the satellites of many governments are showing the same thing, why do you think that Trump working to make the US a third rate nation in science will affect that scientific efforts of other nations?

And as far you freezing your ass off, had you a clue concerning the present science, you would know that the temperatures in the Arctic are very much the reason that we are seeing East Coast cold.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

LOL..

Sensor drift... That satellite has been unreliable for over 3 years now..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Since the satellites of many governments are showing the same thing, why do you think that Trump working to make the US a third rate nation in science will affect that scientific efforts of other nations?
> 
> And as far you freezing your ass off, had you a clue concerning the present science, you would know that the temperatures in the Arctic are very much the reason that we are seeing East Coast cold.



All those "governments" use the same damn satellite.  LOL

Ground based stations do not reflect the anomalous readings from the satellite.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2016)

And why is the ice melting? Perhaps because the temperatures you're displaying here are right at the melting point of water when by this time of the year, normal temps would be near zero Fahrenheit.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Oh'shit


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

Must be from a bad satellite...


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..



Good work, Billy.  You saw all that blue and decided this must show some frigid shit when in fact it shows exactly what Matthew posted.  The Antarctic is ~30F above normal.  Thanks, Billy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Oh'shit


sensor crash...  and they know about it... fucking retard!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..
> ...


tell me retard, the graph is showing *anomaly* and its at 0 to -1.5 deg C.. Which means the true temp is below average and not above..


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

Bullshit.  I made my own copy of that graph. Those are temperatures, not anomalies.

And I'm the one who can't read a fucking graph?


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

Here's the link to the NOAA page that makes those graphs

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_newdisp_sst_north_pole_stereo_ophi0.png

Here is the text from "Details on how the analysis is performed"

The word "anomaly" does not appear anywhere in this text.

You're stupid and an asshole.


*Description of the RTG_SST_HR analysis*

*NOTE for frequent visitors: *Go to Changes to the RTG_SST_HR analysis for information on changes in the operational 1/12 deg. Real-Time Global SST analysis. 

A daily, high-resolution, real-time, global, sea surface temperature (RTG_SST) analysis has been developed at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/Marine Modeling and Analysis Branch (NCEP / MMAB). The analysis was implemented in the NCEP parallel production suite 16 August 2005. It became fully operational on September 27, 2005. 

The daily sea surface temperature product is produced on a twelfth-degree (latitude, longitude) grid, with a two-dimensional variational interpolation analysis of the most recent 24-hours buoy and ship data, satellite-retrieved SST data, and SST's derived from satellite-observed sea-ice coverage. The algorithm employs the following data-handling and analysis techniques: 

Satellite retrieved SST values are averaged within 1/12 o grid boxes with day and night 'superobs' created separately for each satellite;

Bias calculation and removal, for satellite retrieved SST, is the technique employed in the 7-day Reynolds-Smith climatological analysis;

Currently, the satellite SST retrievals are generated by a physically-based algorithm from the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation. Retrievals are from NOAA-19 and METOP-A AVHRR data; 

SST reports from individual ships and buoys are separately averaged within grid boxes;

The first-guess is the prior (un-smoothed) analysis with one-day's climate adjustment added;

Late-arriving data which did not make it into the previous SST analysis are accepted if they are less than 36 hours old;

Surface temperature is calculated for water where the ice cover exceeds 50%, using salinity climatology in Millero's formula for the freezing point of salt water:t(S) = -0.0575 S + 0.0017 S3/2 - 0.0002 S2,with S in psu.

An inhomogeneous correlation-scale-parameter _l_, for the correlation function: exp(-d2/_l_2) , is calculated from a climatological temperature gradient, as_l_ = min ( 450 , max( 2.25 / |grad T| , 100 )),with d and _l_ in kilometers. "grad T" is in oC / km
Evaluations of the analysis products have shown it to produce realistically tight gradients in the Gulf Stream regions of the Atlantic and the Kuroshio region of the Pacific, and to be in close agreement with SST reports from moored buoys in both oceans. Also, it has been shown to properly depict the wintertime colder shelf water -- a feature critical in getting an accurate model prediction for coastal winter storms.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

*Amid higher global temperatures, sea ice at record lows at poles*


For what appears to be the first time since scientists began keeping track, sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic are at record lows this time of year.


"It looks like, since the beginning of October, that for the first time we are seeing both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice running at record low levels," said Walt Meier, a research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, who has tracked sea ice data going back to 1979.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Amid higher global temperatures, sea ice at record lows at poles*
> 
> 
> For what appears to be the first time since scientists began keeping track, sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic are at record lows this time of year.
> ...




LOL @ CNN


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Amid higher global temperatures, sea ice at record lows at poles*
> ...



CNN is one of the best news sources there is...I guess you think anything outside of Breitdick is a fraud.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



CNN?

You mean the Globalist Network (Clinton News Network) that lies about everything to promote socialism and a new world order?

Anyone who does anything with Satellites knows the sensor crashed in early September.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..


Damn, Silly Billy, you are beyond stupid. That shows much of the Arctic above the freezing point of salt water, which is -2 C.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Since the satellites of many governments are showing the same thing, why do you think that Trump working to make the US a third rate nation in science will affect that scientific efforts of other nations?
> 
> And as far you freezing your ass off, had you a clue concerning the present science, you would know that the temperatures in the Arctic are very much the reason that we are seeing East Coast cold.




Oh yeah that Cuban and Iraq satellite shows us some interesting stuff..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Since the satellites of many governments are showing the same thing, why do you think that Trump working to make the US a third rate nation in science will affect that scientific efforts of other nations?
> ...


Oh my, Bear, your intellectual prowess is approaching that of Frankie boi.


----------



## Yarddog (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> View image on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Artic Heat !   that would make a great band name


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




All you post is the same bull shit hoping it sticks.. 



"since the satellite of many countries "

Talk about a bullshit statement old rocks


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Let's see 175 countries signed the Paris accord only 12 have satellites so lets see old rocks where do the other 163 countries get there information from?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..
> ...


Another moron who doesn't know how to read a graph...  You took Cricks class and passed I see...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

The shit that flows out of the mouth of the libertarians in this thread is truly a sight to behold...A sight of stupidity.

Our satellites, dumbasses. NOT IRANS. Goddamn.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Too damn funny:  NASA and NOAA satellites show critical failures in their sensors and idiots start shouting OMG! WERE GONNA DIE!!!!!!  And isn't it odd that they happened right when they started a final push to get regulations passed before Obama leaves office?

The sheep here keep tolling the bell...


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Show us where it identifies those values as anomaly you stupid ass.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The shit that flows out of the mouth of the libertarians in this thread is truly a sight to behold...A sight of stupidity.
> 
> Our satellites, dumbasses. NOT IRANS. Goddamn.



Your getting your information from Iran's satellites not ours Matthew.. 

Not impressed


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2016)

No one here has presented a single factoid throwing the slightest doubt on Matthew's original post.  What has been demonstrated is that our atmospheric physicist is almost as stupid as you Bear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2016)

Our atmospheric physicist has about the same creds as our Phd geologist.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Today's latest #Arctic mean temperature continues to move the wrong direction... up. Quite an anomalous spike!



It's called weather.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2016)

Well yes, the present extreme heat in the Arctic is weather. Made much more likely by the 30+ years of increasing temperatures in the Arctic, which is climate.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well yes, the present extreme heat in the Arctic is weather. Made much more likely by the 30+ years of increasing temperatures in the Arctic, which is climate.


Yes, it is called an interglacial cycle.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

You note the reinforcing effect of CO2 coming out of solution from a warming ocean, but you failed to note that the warming _from _that CO2 will eventually extend the duration of radiative forcing, taking over from the Milankovitch cycle.  Late in that cycle, CO2 will _lead_ warming.  See http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
or CO2 concentration and temperature. : Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation : Nature : Nature Research


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> You note the reinforcing effect of CO2 coming out of solution from a warming ocean, but you failed to note that the warming _from _that CO2 will eventually extend the duration of radiative forcing, taking over from the Milankovitch cycle.  Late in that cycle, CO2 will _lead_ warming.  See http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
> or CO2 concentration and temperature. : Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation : Nature : Nature Research


They are one in the same.  That's what reinforcing means.  It also happens the other way around when the absorption of CO2 reinforces the glacial cycle.  That's how we know that other mechanisms are the bigger drivers than CO2 because the cycles do reverse even though CO2 is acting to extend it.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

Do you believe that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of warming observed over the last 100 years?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you believe that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of warming observed over the last 100 years?


No.  I believe they do have an effect though.  Why do I believe that?  Because temperatures did not reach the level predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

How much do you believe temperatures have risen?


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

I believe this is accurate:






https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/2016temperature.png


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> I believe this is accurate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, and how much associated temperature does radiative forcing predict using the starting and ending CO2 levels for this time period?


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

To which component of radiative forcing do you refer?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> To which component of radiative forcing do you refer?


Ok, so 1.68 C, right?


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

If you actually want an answer to your question, you're going to have to supply the particular prediction to which you refer and the actual start and end dates of the "period" you mention.  Given that isotopic analysis shows virtually every bit of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of fossil fuel combustion and methane and CFCs are also there as a direct or indirect result of other human activity and the warming it has produced, I would say that virtually all of the warming seen since 1750 is the result of the Greenhouse effect acting on atmospheric GHGs whose levels have been increased almost solely due to human activity.  Solar activity is down.  If you have another source, please let us know.

Ps: I would have said ~1C was closer than 1.68C.  Where did you find that number?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you actually want an answer to your question, you're going to have to supply the particular prediction to which you refer and the actual start and end dates of the "period" you mention.  Given that isotopic analysis shows virtually every bit of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of fossil fuel combustion and methane and CFCs are also there as a direct or indirect result of other human activity and the warming it has produced, I would say that virtually all of the warming seen since 1750 is the result of the Greenhouse effect acting on atmospheric GHGs whose levels have been increased almost solely due to human activity.  Solar activity is down.  If you have another source, please let us know.
> 
> Ps: I would have said ~1C was closer than 1.68C.  Where did you find that number?


Sorry, that was 1.68 W/m2 in the table in post #44.  Which equates to 1.26 C.   If we use C= 5.35*ln400/280*.75 we get 1.43 C.  This assumes that CO2 is the only forcing and it still overestimate the temperature gain that you posted in post #46.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

So, what's your point?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, what's your point?


That their models are flawed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 23, 2016)

Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 23, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?



Physics and models..There's no way to do what you're saying in a fish tank.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?


There is a GHG effect.  This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations.  That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature.  Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2016)

ding said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?
> ...


Please, link to your source.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2016)

Ding, which models showed what we are seeing in the Arctic right now? Seems to me that the models have all been on the conservative side in relation to the cryosphere.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Ok.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

Carbon dioxide radiates within  a narrow frequency spectrum.  The first parts per million has the strongest effect. The more CO2 you add, the smaller the outcome.  Each additional doubling has the same effect on temperature. From 0 to 280 ppm the increase is the same as from 280 to 560, and the same as from 560 to 1120, and so on.  It’s like adding layers of blankets when it really cold. The first one does most of the work. The logarithmic relationship is accepted by the IPCC and is used in their models.

Guy Callendar, an English engineer, was the first person to discuss this in paper he wrote in 1938.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

*Forcing due to atmospheric gas[edit]*
For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations can often be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.

For instance, the simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide is:





where _C_ is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and _C_0 is the reference concentration.[6] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic[7] and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

A different formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that can be found _e.g._ in the IPCC reports.[8]

To convert forcing to temperature, multiple F which is in W/m^2 times 0.75 which is in degrees C per W/m^2


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Ding, which models showed what we are seeing in the Arctic right now? Seems to me that the models have all been on the conservative side in relation to the cryosphere.


I'm glad you brought that up. Global warming is an inaccurate term. It really should be called polar warming. I suspect all of the models will show increased polar temperatures at the polar region. The question I have is the time between CO2 change  and temperature change. This is why I don't believe that CO2 drives the climate.  It reinforces the climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2016)

Just polar heating? Then how do you explain the worldwide recession of the alpine glaciers?


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Just polar heating? Then how do you explain the worldwide recession of the alpine glaciers?


You are an idiot.  The temperature changes are mainly at the polar regions.  That's where the greatest changes will occur.  If you don't believe me go ask your high priests of climate religion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2016)

Yes, of course, the greatest changes occur in the polar regions. But the alpine glaciers are going away, also. And that will have major effects in areas dependent on summer melt for agriculture. And, of course, the melting of the alpine glaciers adds a bit to the sea level rise.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, of course, the greatest changes occur in the polar regions. But the alpine glaciers are going away, also. And that will have major effects in areas dependent on summer melt for agriculture. And, of course, the melting of the alpine glaciers adds a bit to the sea level rise.


That's what happens in an interglacial period.   Nothing new there.


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

So, you believe the negative glacier ice mass balance is simply due to the glacial cycle?  You believe it has nothing to do with global warming?  You look at these data and you believe the time scale correlates with the glacial-interglacial cycle?  Nothing to do with AGW?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 25, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> Meanwhile we froze our ass off in TX last night...
> 
> So let me get this right, OldCocks posts a graph which should leave one to conclude that the Northern Ice cap has lost about 1/3 of it's ice JUST THIS YEAR.
> 
> ...



yes more so when the president elect 

said he wants folks like nasa get into the real sciences again like space exploration 

--LOL


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

So we can stop all that useless satellite data gathering they've been feathrbedding themselves with all these years.  Weather, crops, ocean... all useless.  Right?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, you believe the negative glacier ice mass balance is simply due to the glacial cycle?  You believe it has nothing to do with global warming?  You look at these data and you believe the time scale correlates with the glacial-interglacial cycle?  Nothing to do with AGW?


Again... who are you talking to?  Yourself?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> So we can stop all that useless satellite data gathering they've been feathrbedding themselves with all these years.  Weather, crop, ocean... all useless.  Right?


Same question... who are you talking to?


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

The public.  You?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, of course, the greatest changes occur in the polar regions. But the alpine glaciers are going away, also. And that will have major effects in areas dependent on summer melt for agriculture. And, of course, the melting of the alpine glaciers adds a bit to the sea level rise.
> ...


By the Milancovitch Cycles, we should already be in a very gradual cooling, not a rapid warming. And you are beginning to sound like the rest of the ignoramouses here, flapping yap with no basis. 

*Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation*

*NATURAL CYCLE DEPARTURE*
The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.

*Natural vs. Modern Forcing*




*Natural vs. Modern Climate Path*


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Given that we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was above 400 ppm, they are wrong.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> The public.  You?


I see.  I believe that everything that has occurred is because we are in an interglacial period and that CO2 does not drive climate change, it reinforces climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


*
We entered the present glacial, interglacial period about 2 1/2 million years ago, not 15 million years ago. *

http://phys.org/news/2009-10-carbon-dioxide-high-million-years.html

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal _Science_.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The public.  You?
> ...


Argue with they physicists. And the Geo-physicists. They say otherwise.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Actually the oxygen isotope curve would indicate that we entered it as early as 5 million years ago when the saw tooth behavior began.  It is through climate models that the 2.7 million year threshold was established.  What's your point?  CO2 and the oxygen isotope curve prove that CO2 does not drive climate change.


----------



## Crick (Nov 26, 2016)

Ding said:
			
		

> CO2 and the oxygen isotope curve prove that CO2 does not drive climate change.



Really?  They prove it?  Please explain how.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And... when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2.

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ding said:
> ...



Your talking above their heads.. They do not understand how a buffered system works. Or why we would glaciate at near 6,700ppm global CO2 levels.  They can not fathom how or why. Their religion is paramount.

A new study, being prepared, shows that LWIR above >6um is being absorbed by water near ground level and then released at could top in the 12-18um band. Trenbreth's missing heat has been found in space. The mid troposphere hot spot, which the AGW hypothesis demands must occur, is nonexistent due to other atmospheric energy escape routes..

Again, they have no understanding of how buffered systems work.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > To which component of radiative forcing do you refer?
> ...


LOL.. Crick's paper has been shown to be inaccurate by almost 100% exaggeration in the CO2 emitted bands and power.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any lab work at all showing how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature by 1C?
> ...



I'm not sure of your attribution..

But here is one done by Boulder Co Atmospherics lab. It has also been used in many publications.





In any event you are correct about 95% of what CO2 can do is already done.  It currently appears that temp rise of below 1 deg C/doubling is where we reside (0.78 Deg C) by empirical observation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

If polar heating is the result of AGW, why are we setting low temperature records in Antarctica?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I used the radiative forcing equation in wiki and converted it to temperature using the 0.75 C per W/m^2 conversion factor to prepare my plot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Use wiki with caution!

It is highly adjusted to support the AGW premise and unreliable.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 I know.  I am ashamed to have admitted it, but I figured the religious fanatics needed for someone to explain radiative forcing to them.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

ding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Trust me when I say you could try and teach them until you die and it wont sink in...  You must first overcome their belief system. The farce is strong with them..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

LOL  Well, Ding, it looks like you have found your peer level in Silly Billy. LOL


----------



## tycho1572 (Nov 26, 2016)

The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.

The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic.

Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming.
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past

The world has been through many cycles of climate change. Leave it to some dopey libs to cry about it being something we can change. smh


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

tycho1572 said:


> The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


God, are you really that stupid?

*"The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about **climate change,** they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic".*

Scientist greatly underestimated the power of heat trapping gasses to warm the Arctic. The difference between continental glaciers at 180 ppm CO2, and as low as 50 ppb CH4, to the interglacial 280 ppm CO2 and 700 ppb CH4 is the difference between continental glaciers and the present interglacial period. At present, CO2 is 400+ ppm, and CH4 1800 ppb. Were it not for the thermal inertia of the oceans, it would already be much hotter. And what we are seeing right now is a forerunner of what will come. 

We put that additional 120 ppm of CO2 there, and the additional 1100 ppb of CH4. Not only that, we are continuing to put more of both gases into the atmosphere, as well as other GHGs for which there is no natural analog. We have changed the climate. Right there in the article you quoted. And you seem to be too blind to see it.


----------



## tycho1572 (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> > The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.
> ...


While they say "*much remains to be learned about **climate change*", you seem to think you know everything about it. lol

Have you always had problems understanding the obvious?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2016)

tycho1572 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > tycho1572 said:
> ...



No Worries... He's a legend in his own mind...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

55 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum *the co2 levels were in the thousands of parts ppm.*..  Global avg temperatures were a good 7c warmer then pre-industrial age. Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia

Sea levels would be at least 220 feet higher then now! So we don't want it to happen.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> 55 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum *the co2 levels were in the thousands of parts ppm.*..  Global avg temperatures were a good 7c warmer then pre-industrial age. Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia
> 
> Sea levels would be at least 220 feet higher then now! So we don't want it to happen.


Don't worry.  The herd will be thinned out long before then.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

Really?  The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling.  It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150.  By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling.  It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150.  By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.


Not likely.  Climate models predict that we will still have extensive continental glaciation at the south pole at 600 ppm.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

Are you unfamiliar with the destabilization of the WAIS?  It seems so.  Why don't you read up on it and get back to us.  The process is presently unstoppable, no matter what the climate does.


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you unfamiliar with the destabilization of the WAIS?  It seems so.  Why don't you read up on it and get back to us.  The process is presently unstoppable, no matter what the climate does.


Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

Care to explain what relevance that has regarding the WAIS destabilization?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> And why is the ice melting? Perhaps because the temperatures you're displaying here are right at the melting point of water when by this time of the year, normal temps would be near zero Fahrenheit.


Cause it's water?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> And why is the ice melting? Perhaps because the temperatures you're displaying here are right at the melting point of water when by this time of the year, normal temps would be near zero Fahrenheit.


The water might be warm? It ain't cause air temperature isn't causing any melting


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling.  It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150.  By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2016)

tycho1572 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > tycho1572 said:
> ...


Well, you knownothing asshole, we are going to learn much about climate change in the coming decade. And a whole lot more after that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling.  It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150.  By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.


Honestly, Crick, I think that is an optimistic estimate.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 27, 2016)

Even if we have to learn it the hard way as the oceans eat entire cities...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is completely destabilized and crumbling.  It's bedrock is below sea level; the collapse is unstoppable and could be complete as early as 2150.  By itself, irrespective of thermal expansion or eustatic changes, it will raise sea level in excess of 3 meters.


 

3

4

9

MORE


The catastrophic collapse of the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet is underway, researchers said today (May 12).

The biggest glaciers in West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice without any way to stem the loss, according to two independent studies. The unstoppable retreat is the likely start of a long-feared domino effect that could cause the entire ice sheet to melt, whether or not greenhouse gas emissions decline.


"These glaciers will keep retreating for decades and even centuries to come and we can't stop it," said lead study author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "A large sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has passed the point of no return." [Vanishing Glaciers: See Stunning Images of Earth's Melting Ice]

Catastrophic Collapse of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Begins

You are full of bullshit, jc.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Even if we have to learn it the hard way as the oceans eat entire cities...


Just a three foot rise will have a major impact on port cities, not to mention Florida and Bangladesh.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


You have shit that can prove any of that. So I'll continue to disregard any material you provide cause it's all


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Care to explain what relevance that has regarding the WAIS destabilization?


That the threshold for extensive glaciation at the south pole is 750ppm.


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2016)

Did you not read up on the destabilitzation?  It has become a mechanical process.  Warm ocean waters have undermined the foundation of the ice shelf at its sill.  The bedrock it sits on is below sea level.  Sea water is now moving into the interface and unless you think the ocean will freeze down to a few thousand feet, it can not and will not be stopped until the entire WAIS is floating away (and sea level has risen more than 3 meters).

It no longer has anything to do with CO2 or glaciation.


----------



## ding (Nov 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Even if we have to learn it the hard way as the oceans eat entire cities...


You are being overly emotional, Matthew.  Which cities do you believe the oceans will eat?


----------



## ding (Nov 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Did you not read up on the destabilitzation?  It has become a mechanical process.  Warm ocean waters have undermined the foundation of the ice shelf at its sill.  The bedrock it sits on is below sea level.  Sea water is now moving into the interface and unless you think the ocean will freeze down to a few thousand feet, it can not and will not be stopped until the entire WAIS is floating away (and sea level has risen more than 3 meters).
> 
> It no longer has anything to do with CO2 or glaciation.


I read that extensive continental glaciation occurs at 750 ppm.  What is our current atmospheric CO2 reading?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2016)

God, you are every bit as stupid as La Dexter! If just a little bit of Antarctica melts, we can get 10 ft of sea level rise. Current level of CO2 is 400+ ppm. At 300, in the Eemian, we have about 20 more feet of water than we have today. The last time the level was at 400 ppm, they estimate that we had 40 to 60 feet more. Even a melt of just the ice shelves dooms all the major port cities in the world.


----------



## ding (Nov 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> God, you are every bit as stupid as La Dexter! If just a little bit of Antarctica melts, we can get 10 ft of sea level rise. Current level of CO2 is 400+ ppm. At 300, in the Eemian, we have about 20 more feet of water than we have today. The last time the level was at 400 ppm, they estimate that we had 40 to 60 feet more. Even a melt of just the ice shelves dooms all the major port cities in the world.


So now you are saying the sea level will rise more than 3 meters?  Oy vey!  Which IPCC forecast is forecasting that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2016)

Yes, I am stating that absolutely that sea level will rise over 3 meters. What is not known is how long that will take. Three centuries? Or will we get one of those inevitable surprises that adrupt climate change brings, and see that much sooner? This years melt back of the two poles polar ice has certainly caught everyone by surprise.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, I am stating that absolutely that sea level will rise over 3 meters. What is not known is how long that will take. Three centuries? Or will we get one of those inevitable surprises that adrupt climate change brings, and see that much sooner? This years melt back of the two poles polar ice has certainly caught everyone by surprise.


My goodness... now you are arguing against your own authorities.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> > The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.
> ...



So you're saying the Arctic temperature should be 74F Year round?


----------



## waltky (Dec 2, 2016)

Yeah...

... some o' dat arctic heat...

... comin' this way next week...

... an' wind chills s'posed to get down inna `teens.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2016)

As clearly demonstrated in the ice cores, a warmer climate causes higher CO2 levels


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2016)

A point that no one has ever disputed.  Unfortunately for you, that has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not CO2 causes warming.  That is does is universally accepted science.  That you think it doesn't simply paints you as a complete fool.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> A point that no one has ever disputed.  Unfortunately for you, that has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not CO2 causes warming.  That is does is universally accepted science.  That you think it doesn't simply paints you as a complete fool.


hey, dumbfuck, we are in an interglacial cycle.  Stop looking at just the last 200 years.

Global Warming : Feature Articles


Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!






Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> A point that no one has ever disputed.  Unfortunately for you, that has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not CO2 causes warming.  That is does is universally accepted science.  That you think it doesn't simply paints you as a complete fool.



Can you show us the lab work on how much warming is caused by an additional 120PPM of CO2?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2016)

ding said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A point that no one has ever disputed.  Unfortunately for you, that has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not CO2 causes warming.  That is does is universally accepted science.  That you think it doesn't simply paints you as a complete fool.
> ...


By the very charts you present, the last 1000 years we were headed slowly down in temperature as would be in keeping with where we are in the Milankovic Cycles. Then came the industrial revolution and the massive use of fossil fuels, and we see the very rapid rise in temperatures. Even by your chart, one can clearly see that is not natural, there has to be a forcing agent. And physics quite clearly tells us that forcing agent is the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere that we have created. That you refuse to accept that reality is simply a reflection of your limited intellect.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> As clearly demonstrated in the ice cores, a warmer climate causes higher CO2 levels



which makes sense


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > As clearly demonstrated in the ice cores, a warmer climate causes higher CO2 levels
> ...


Well, maybe to those that have none.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



the record shows it


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2016)

The record of the Milankovic Cycles show that. The longer geological record shows that rapidly adding GHGs to the atmosphere creates a very rapid warming, and that very rapid warming creates extinction events. PT event, as well as others.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Honey Boo Boo thinks the ice cores got it wrong


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2016)

One can find agreement at one's peer level.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




exactly


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2016)

Well, you three make quite a team for logic. LOL


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A point that no one has ever disputed.  Unfortunately for you, that has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not CO2 causes warming.  That is does is universally accepted science.  That you think it doesn't simply paints you as a complete fool.
> ...



Let's start at the more basic question.  Do you believe CO2 increases the greenhouse effect and warms the planet? Yes or no.


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A point that no one has ever disputed.  Unfortunately for you, that has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not CO2 causes warming.  That is does is universally accepted science.  That you think it doesn't simply paints you as a complete fool.
> ...



Just as soon as you put the Earth into a lab.  Until then, do you believe CO2 causes greenhouse warming?  Yes or no.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I can see the exact same saw tooth behavior in ALL interglacial cycles, you dumbfuck. But what these graphs really prove is your intellectual dishonesty when you only posted the first graph in the other thread and did not fully disclose all of the information.  So that not only makes you a dumbfuck but a dishonest dumbfuck too.

Global Warming : Feature Articles


Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!







Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Frank?  Got an answer for that?  It's just a simple yes or no.  How tough can that be?  You don't have to put the planet into a bell jar.


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2016)




----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The record of the Milankovic Cycles show that. The longer geological record shows that rapidly adding GHGs to the atmosphere creates a very rapid warming, and that very rapid warming creates extinction events. PT event, as well as others.


Actually it doesn't show that.  It shows that climate changed first, then CO2 changed.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2016)

ding said:


> Actually it doesn't show that. It shows that climate changed first, then CO2 changed.


Your final graph summarizes, "... _so glacial or interglacial phases are triggered by Milankovitch cycles._" There is a controversy about that and a number of problems as given in Wikipedia:
_100,000-year problem...
Stage 5 problem...
Effect exceeds cause...
The unsplit peak problem...
The transition problem...
Identifying dominant factor..._​
The "_100,000-year problem"_ with Milankovitch cycles is that the glacial cycles are not correlated so much with insolation due to the orbit, but correlated with Earth eccentricity variations that have a rather small impact on insolation. Why this correlation with a weaker variable happens is unknown.

"Effect exceeds cause" refers to data that shows the climate more radically changes than Milankovitch insolation would normally allow.

Unless the authors have a better explanation that considers the above problems, I think that, at best, all they can say is there is simply a correlation. Correlation without causation seems to be a bugaboo for a lot of the climate controversy.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it doesn't show that. It shows that climate changed first, then CO2 changed.
> ...


Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

Ghosts of Climates Past – Part Ten – GCM IV


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2016)

ding said:


> Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
> 
> Ghosts of Climates Past – Part Ten – GCM IV


Your first reference refers a model for Cenozoic CO2 levels and the effects of orbital forcing. The model in the paper claimed that CO2 can rapidly change during the warm up period, but did not mention other time periods or Milankovitch cycles.

The second paper mentioned Milankovitch cycles, but did not seem to favor them over global current models.

Neither paper addresses the problem that more recent glaciation is synchronized with the Earth's eccentricity, which has a much smaller insolation effect than precession and obliquity.

Let me know if I am missing something.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
> ...


Both mentioned orbital forcing and both used orbital effects in their modeling.  Earth's eccentricity is an orbital forcing.  The orbital forcing (i.e. earth's orbital eccentricity) triggers the cycles (i.e. synchronized) which in turn affects insolation at critical locations.  What exactly are you saying that is different?  


METHODS SUMMARY
The GCM and thermomechanical ice-sheet models are interactively coupled, whereby net annual surface mass balance on the ice sheet is calculated from
monthly mean GCM meteorological fields of temperature and precipitation horizontally interpolated to the higher-resolution ice-sheet grid. Simulations
in Fig. 3 were run to equilibrium (30 kyr) using a cold boreal summer orbit with high eccentricity (0.05), low obliquity (22.5u) and precession placing aphelion in
July. The simulations producing large ice sheets (Fig. 3d, h) were repeated in asynchronous coupled mode accounting for climate–ice feedbacks and time-
continuous orbital forcing to confirm that the fixed-orbit results in Fig. 3 are representative of those with orbital variations.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
> ...


Models of intermediate complexity.. and flux- corrected GCMs have typically been able to simulate a connection between orbital forcing, temperature, and snow volume. So far, however, fully coupled, nonflux- corrected primitive equation general circulation models (GCMs) have failed to reproduce glacial inception, the cooling and increase in snow and ice cover that leads from the warm interglacials to the cold glacial periods.

Milankovitch (1941) postulated that the driver for this cooling is the orbitally induced reduction in Northern Hemisphere summertime insolation and the subsequent increase of perennial snow cover. The increased perennial snow cover and its positive albedo feedback are, of course, only precursors to ice sheet growth. The GCMs failure to recreate glacial inception, which indicates a failure of either the GCMs or of Milankovitch’s hypothesis.

Of course, if the hypothesis would be the culprit, one would have to wonder if climate is sufficiently understood to assemble a GCM in the first place. Either way, it appears that reproducing the observed glacial–interglacial changes in ice volume and temperature represents a good test bed for evaluating the fidelity of some key model feedbacks relevant to climate projections.

The potential causes for GCMs failing to reproduce inception are plentiful, ranging from numerics on the GCMs side to neglected feedbacks of land, atmosphere, or ocean processes on the theory side. It is encouraging, though, that for some GCMs it takes only small modifications to produce an increase in perennial snow cover (e.g., Dong and Valdes 1995). Nevertheless, the goal for the GCM community has to be the recreation of increased perennial snow cover with a GCM that has been tuned to the present-day climate, and is subjected to changes in orbital forcing only.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
> ...


A *Milankovitch cycle* is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession.

Are you arguing that orbital forcing is not a trigger for the glacial cycle?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2016)

The arctic heat is coming to the United States this week! 

I'll laugh my ass off again


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Even if we have to learn it the hard way as the oceans eat entire cities...


Where has that happened in your lifetime?

And if you are predicting the future are you saying in your lifetime?

Where's that excess water coming from?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Even if we have to learn it the hard way as the oceans eat entire cities...
> ...


Where's it coming from?


----------



## Crick (Dec 6, 2016)

Do you read NOTHING?

Where do you think it might be coming from?  Asteroids?  Comets?  Magic?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> A Milankovitch cycle is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession.
> 
> Are you arguing that orbital forcing is not a trigger for the glacial cycle?


No. The science is too complicated for me to make a blanket statement to that effect.

Yes, I know what Milankovitc cycles are. What I am saying is that I don't think the authors have a compelling argument that trumps all others. There are also large historical forcings by asteroids or super volcanic eruptions correlated with large species extinctions, which can radically change the atmospheric mix.

Also the M-cycle that fits much of the historical data best is the precession period, not the eccentricity or axial tilt. The precession period has the least influence on insolation, so why does climate "choose" to sync with precession?

So there are problems with that model. There are other climate models such as rising CO2 that also involves complex modelling. So the choice of one over the other is to me a bit arbitrary at this point. I am willing to wait another 10 years to see where our current climate is heading before a more reliable decision can be made.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > A Milankovitch cycle is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession.
> ...


We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.



Those three different aspects of M cycles have different periods, If I understood it correctly, I read that the the recent glacial cycles are synchronized only with the eccentricity, and not the precession and tilt. Looking at eccentricity alone does not synchronize with high insolation, as much as the other two aspects. So the M cycle model is iffy to some. 

As far as the controversy today, the deep geologic history doesn't really matter to me as much as it would to a climate "historian". Today's rapid rise of CO2 is an independent concern.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > We know that asteroids or super volcanos are not the trigger for the glacial-interglacial because what we are seeing are cyclical events. Milankovitch cycles incorporate eccentricity, precession and axial tilt. So I still don't get what you are trying to say.
> ...


We know that they were triggered by something.  Most likely by orbital forcing.  That isn't the point I was making.  The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles.  We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles.  CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> We know that they were triggered by something. Most likely by orbital forcing. That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles. We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles. CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.


To the historian, orbital forcing may be interesting, but it doesn't matter where we are in the glacial cycle. The temperature rise of  the last 100 years is much more than any glacial cycle could manage. Of course I understand that there is no evidence that CO2 would necessarily trigger glacial cycles, but it had a strong part in contributing to the details of climate in the past.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > We know that they were triggered by something. Most likely by orbital forcing. That isn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that the current temperature trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past glacial cycles. We know that CO2 does not trigger the cycles. CO2 merely reinforced the climate change.
> ...


No. It is not.

Global Warming : Feature Articles


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> No. It is not.
> 
> Global Warming : Feature Articles


Can you look at the time between tic marks in the upper graph and see that they represent 100 yrs.
Then look at the tic marks in the lower graph and see they represent 100,000 years. 
That is a factor of 1000 difference. Then compute the size in terms of pixels.

Obviously something is wrong somewhere if the area you circled is supposed to be the upper graph.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. It is not.
> ...


You are not looking at the total picture.  The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years.  Not 100 years.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. It is not.
> ...


Look at the AGT on both graphs for the past 1500 years.  They are the same reading on both graphs.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> You are not looking at the total picture. The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years. Not 100 years.





ding said:


> Look at the AGT on both graphs for the past 1500 years. They are the same reading on both graphs.


Yes I know what the time scales are and what the AGT is. Of course the zero base line could be different, but that doesn't matter to this argument.
Did you look at the tic marks? they are easier to compare than the full span of the graphs. The top is 100 years and the bottom is 100,000 years. The upper graph would be less than a pixel if scaled to the lower graph. Do you disbelieve that?


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are not looking at the total picture. The time scale of the first graph is 1500 years. Not 100 years.
> ...


Are you serious?  AGT has been standardized.  Do the AGT's match for the last 1500 years on both curves?  Yes or no?  You keep saying 100 years, but you need to be saying 1500 years.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



 I really don't know where you are coming from and what you believe. Yes. The AGT's match. But the time scales are 3 orders of magnitude apart. That is crucial.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


No.  They are not.  The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.


The top graph spans 1,500 years.
The bottom graph spans 800,000 years.
Divide the two and see that the bottom spans 533 times more in years than the upper graph.
If both graphs are 1000 pixels wide on your monitor, the top graph would only span 2 pixels.
The area you circled is much bigger than 2 pixels.
You were confused by the similarity of the shape and didn't pay attention to the scale differences.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.
> ...


You need to forget that pixel shit and make divisions on the graph.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> You need to forget that pixel shit and make divisions on the graph.


I did exactly that and you kept saying I should consider the full 1500 years. I did that an now you say I should make divisions on the graph. 

All I am trying to say is that the section you circled on the lower graph was way way too big. 

Can you tell me what is wrong or misleading about the "pixel shit"?


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. They are not. The last 1500 years is the part that I circled in red on my previous post.
> ...


Here you go...  It's not perfect but it is close and it makes perfect sense too.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You need to forget that pixel shit and make divisions on the graph.
> ...


Gridlines are better way of visualizing it.  The bottom line is that a graph is not digital,  It is analog.  What you are really trying to describe is resolution.  We have plenty of resolution with this graph.  Yes, the last 1500 years are a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right?  Does that make sense to you?  And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?


The divisions you made are 20,000 years span. 1,500 is .075 times that size. The upper graph would be fit in a section .075 the size of the divisions you made. You are confused by the similar shapes at the end which are clearly unrelated.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Gridlines are better way of visualizing it. The bottom line is that a graph is not digital, It is analog. What you are really trying to describe is resolution. We have plenty of resolution with this graph. Yes, the last 1500 years is a small portion of the graph but we can see from this that temperatures began to rise 20,000 years ago rather sharply, right? Does that make sense to you? And since that time we have had two saw tooth events where temps fell and then rose again, right?
> ...


Sure, so what?  Are you still arguing that the last 1500 years are not in this graph?  What is today's AGT?  Are you arguing that we did not enter an interglacial cycle ~20,000 years ago?  Are you arguing that today's AGT is not inline with the past 4 interglacial cycles?


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)




----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


About two pixels of the upper graph are on the end of the lower graph. Too small to see any of the structure that you outlined. So, no in essence the upper graph is visible as the end point tips, and not the circle you outlined.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years.  But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do.  And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Furthermore, I believe the part I circled in red are the last 1500 years based upon AGT and scale.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> What is today's AGT? Are you arguing that we did not enter an interglacial cycle ~20,000 years ago? Are you arguing that today's AGT is not inline with the past 4 interglacial cycles?


No, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that you did not read the graphs correctly.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Furthermore, I believe the part I circled in red are the last 1500 years based upon AGT and scale.


You are really quite wrong. Did you do the arithmetic? It should not be a matter of belief. It's a matter of simple arithmetic.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years. But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do. And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.


I'm arguing that the extreme rapid rise of the last hundred years is much much faster than a glacial cycle. And therefore different physical principles could be in operation.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Look, I agree that if you want to greater resolution that you can't graph 800,000 years. But if you want to compare today's climate with past climate changes that's exactly what you must do. And that is my point, that our current climate is in line with past interglacial cycles and that we can naturally expect to see at ~2C of further warming just from being in an interglacial cycle.
> ...


Not according to the data NASA presented its not.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I'm arguing that the extreme rapid rise of the last hundred years is much much faster than a glacial cycle. And therefore different physical principles could be in operation.
> ...


Can you tell me the rates of temperature rise at the ends of each graph?  All you have to do is take the last sections of each graph where the rise is a reasonable straight line; divide the temperature change by the time span of each line and tell me the slopes you get for each graph. It should be enlightening.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


No.  And neither can anyone else, that's why the claim for rate of change of temperature and CO2 is bullshit.  You want to talk about lack of resolution, there it is.  The best anyone can say is that throughout the geologic record CO2 has lagged temperature change with the exception of cataclysmic geologic events.  Unlike today where CO2 is leading temperature increase.  But what is still unclear is if that is having an effect on temperature,  I say it isn't because the heat capacity of the ocean is huge and that effect takes centuries to be felt, if at all because there are other factors at work that will most likely affect the outcome.  Specifically, gulf stream switch off.  I believe the increases we are seeing are still the effects of the interglacial cycle.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> No. And neither can anyone else, that's why the claim for rate of change of temperature and CO2 is bullshit. You want to talk about lack of resolution, there it is. The best anyone can say is that throughout the geologic record CO2 has lagged temperature change with the exception of cataclysmic geologic events. Unlike today where CO2 is leading temperature increase. But what is still unclear is if that is having an effect on temperature, I say it isn't because the heat capacity of the ocean is huge and that effect takes centuries to be felt, if at all because there are other factors at work that will most likely affect the outcome.



I take no issue with the above with one exception. I and anyone else can look at each graph and come up with a reasonable estimate of the rate of temperature rise. It's simple pre-calculus: delta temp / delta time. That simple type of reading from a graph has been done by millions of students. It has nothing to do with CO2 or AGW, or anything other than time and temperature. I am quite surprised that you don't think anyone can do that.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. And neither can anyone else, that's why the claim for rate of change of temperature and CO2 is bullshit. You want to talk about lack of resolution, there it is. The best anyone can say is that throughout the geologic record CO2 has lagged temperature change with the exception of cataclysmic geologic events. Unlike today where CO2 is leading temperature increase. But what is still unclear is if that is having an effect on temperature, I say it isn't because the heat capacity of the ocean is huge and that effect takes centuries to be felt, if at all because there are other factors at work that will most likely affect the outcome.
> ...


It's not that they can't.  It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so.  They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

Let me copy your images here:








Aside from an order of magnitude scale mismatch, here is another reason the circled part can't be the blue part in the upper graph. 

In the upper graph the red section is flat and streams to the left off of the base of the blue graph. That section is roughly constant within one degree.

In the lower graph, to the left of the circled part, the graph still drops rapidly and immediately down several degrees. The blue part of the upper graph cannot be the circled part of the lower graph. It simply doesn't fit!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> It's not that they can't. It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so. They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.


It doesn't matter what the graphs represent. The slopes are still easily calculable from the data that they do show.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It's not that they can't. It is that the data from past climates does not have the resolution to do so. They can't tell you what it was from year to year or even decade to decade with any precision.
> ...


Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.


Exactly. the two slopes have the same "look". But when you look at the far right sections, and at the x and y axis legends, you see the top graph increases about 1 degree in 100 years and the bottom graph (where you circled) increases about 10 degrees in 20,000 years.  With that you can calculate the slopes.

If you do the arithmetic the *current rise is .01 degrees per year*
The *glacial rise is about .0005 degrees per year.
*
That doesn't look the same anymore does it. Are you following this? Have you come across the definition of "slope" in any of your classes? If not you can find a mathematical definition of slope in thefreedictionary.com


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. By inspection I don't see any difference either.
> ...


Yes, I am.  I'll look at, but I believe it is how you drew your line that mattered.  How far below the AGT are we from the previous four interglacials?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 7, 2016)

Pete7469 said:


> Meanwhile we froze our ass off in TX last night...
> 
> So let me get this right, OldCocks posts a graph which should leave one to conclude that the Northern Ice cap has lost about 1/3 of it's ice JUST THIS YEAR.
> 
> ...






Old Rocks said:


> View image on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, so you're telling us that this wasn't a Weather  event, but the climate of the Arctic is now 35F warmer. Is that still true today, can you update up on Arctic climate


----------



## Crick (Dec 7, 2016)

"update up on"????

Here's what it's been doing

Air temp from November 23, 2016





Air temperature trend in the Arctic






Here's what air temperature has been doing on a longer scale:






Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, 03 Dec 2016  Land and Ice in white





Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomaly, 03 Dec 2016


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 7, 2016)

Arctic Weather - AccuWeather.com

-8F Baffin Bay. I guess the climate of the Arctic hasn't changed permanently to 35F Warmer, right?

Charts back in 1880 accurate to a tenth of a degree = LOL


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Arctic Weather - AccuWeather.com
> 
> -8F Baffin Bay. I guess the climate of the Arctic hasn't changed permanently to 35F Warmer, right?
> 
> Charts back in 1880 accurate to a tenth of a degree = LOL


well I'd sure be interested in where the heat comes from for the arctic.  It isn't sunlight.  So what produces their 35 degree F?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well now, if CO2 reinforces climate change, then what exactly do you think that the result of adding more than 43% additional CO2 is going to do to the climate? That is a lot of reinforcement.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Weather - AccuWeather.com
> ...


Now jc, breathe deeply. Feel that stuff going in and out? That is called air. It is what the atmosphere is made of. And when a mass of that air in the Arctic, cold of course at this time of year, moves down south, then a mass of air has to move in to replace it. And that, of course, comes from the south. So, at the time that some area is getting a shot of Arctic temperatures, the Arctic is getting a shot of temperate temperatures.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Fuck, but you are an idiot, Dingleberry! That last section goes from 200,000 to zero. So one percent of that section would be 2000 years. 1500 years would 0.75% of that section. That is much, much less than the section you have indicated. Engineer?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Exactly. Then you must have the intellect to interpret what the graphs are saying. And, no, there is absolutely no reason that we can expect more warming from the present interglacial. And certainly not at the rate of warming that we are presently seeing. If the upper graph were on the same scale as the lower graph, the slope of the warming lines would be about 10 degrees. It warmed 8 C in about 10,000 years. That is about 1 degree per thousand years. It has warmed one degree in the last 150 years. Your interpretation of the graphs is not even up to high school level.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


LOL Goddamn! Engineer, eh? Lordy, lordy. The slopes of the lines are very different on a graph with the same scales for time and temperature. That you cannot grasp that puts a lie to your claim to be an engineer.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 8, 2016)

From recent research of drilling ice cores-

But Schaefer found cosmogenic nuclides in the bedrock, indicating it had been exposed at some point in the relatively recent past. The specific timing of this exposure is still uncertain. In the most stable scenario, Greenland was nearly ice-free for 280,000 years, before it started freezing over again about 1.1 million years ago. But the data collected by Schaefer and colleagues could also indicate that the ice sheet melted and refroze more than once over the past few million years, which might mean the ice sheet is far less stable than previously assumed.

and this-

Greenland’s ice has grown and shrunk over time, driven by variations in the climate, but mapping out the history of those changes is a remarkably difficult task. The deeper that researchers dig into Greenland's past, the more tangled the icy narrative becomes.

Two new studies published today in Nature illustrate the complexity that faces scientists studying changes to the Greenland ice sheet. One study led by Joerg Schaefer finds that Greenland was almost entirely ice free for extended periods of time during the last 2.6 million years. The other study, led by Paul Bierman, finds that there has been a stable ice sheet over East Greenland for the past 7.5 million years.



So anyone trying to blame the recent icemelt on agw is full of themselves.  There have been cycles, always will be cycles.  Can we change those cycles?  No.  It is what it is, whether anyone likes it or not.  

Can the modles accurately  predict the future?   Noo, particularly  because they like to play with the datasets to try to show agw.  Each threshold they have predicted has been wrong.

The mystery of Greenland’s icy history could help us survive climate change




“It is certainly surprising,” Schaefer says of his results. “Most importantly, there is not a single model that can show that Greenland’s ice sheet has been gone several times over the past few million years or for one period over that time”

The fact that the current models used by glaciologists appear to be too stable and conservative could be bad news for future estimates of ice loss and sea level rise, which rely on models of what happened in the past to figure out what will happen in the future.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> "update up on"????
> 
> Here's what it's been doing
> 
> ...



Lemme see..accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1880, off by 35F in December 2016.

Yeah, that's science


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, no, your group states it's warm in the arctic, not sure how with no heat, but it's your sides pledge!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 8, 2016)

Crick said:


>


Why do you insist on attaching a series of yearly CO2 outputs onto a graph that has a spatial resolution of 500 years?  Why are you doing a Michael Mann lie parlor trick? 

Do you realize that spikes of CO2 shorter than 500 Years in duration can not be seen? SO the current spike is possible in previous temperature rises yet can not be seen..

You lying pricks are so predictable..  Trying to get a fear response from a lie..


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Have you done the radiative forcing calculation?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

No, but the scientists that study the cryosphere all have. And their results are far more credible than yours. After all, they are just doing science, not trying to peddle their silly politics.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> View image on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We did all of this already. In a mis-placed thread in the Science forum..   Here is the answer... 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15905573/

The shills at this University let the undergrads run their REANALYZER. Got a hot spot in Siberia that lasted a day or two from MODELED data. Starting tweeting about the entire Arctic on fire. 

I posted the daily, weekly, monthly Arctic temperatures from REAL data in that other thread. Nothing to see here, but another grant getting the desired propaganda produced so that NASA/NOAA don't have to be the liars all the time..


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


You are literally rejecting NASA data.  As for your scientific analysis that the last 1500 years would be 0.75% of the section, that is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.  Look at the gridlines, Einstein.  Use your eyes to read the scale.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Sure we can.  We are still below the peak temperature of the past four interglacial cycles.  Use your eyes.  Besides isn't the current AGT 1C?  Can you see on this graph where it shows the AGT temperature at 0 time (i.e. the present) to be 1C?


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


No.  The slopes are not very different.  Use your eyes.  But even if they were, that doesn't mean diddly squat.  The reality is that we are still below the peak temperatures of the last 4 interglacial cycles.  What part of this do you not understand?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Sure we can. We are still below the peak temperature of the past four interglacial cycles. Use your eyes. Besides isn't the current AGT 1C? Can you see on this graph where it shows the AGT temperature at 0 time (i.e. the present) to be 1C?


The current AGT is not 1C. It is around 15C.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Sure we can. We are still below the peak temperature of the past four interglacial cycles. Use your eyes. Besides isn't the current AGT 1C? Can you see on this graph where it shows the AGT temperature at 0 time (i.e. the present) to be 1C?
> ...


lol, what do you believe AGT represents?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> lol, what do you believe AGT represents?


Average global temperature. 
What do you think it represents?


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > lol, what do you believe AGT represents?
> ...


lol, and what is the reference point for AGT?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> lol, and what is the reference point for AGT?


The Celsius scale. It is defined by ice at 0C, and the boiling point of water at 100C.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > lol, and what is the reference point for AGT?
> ...



Except that AGT is hardly ever mentioned. The whole metrics for GW is based on "normalized" GMAST.  And usually, the GMAST baseline is much shorter than anything that should be used for climate change.  EVEN if -- it becomes a century average and not just a 30 year running average.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

The NASA graph of more recent temperatures that Ding was concerned with looks like a 100 year average. Ding referred to it as a GMT so I went with that. It seems that the GMAST is a (slowly) moving target, and the GMT is a faster moving target. Thanx for the info.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > lol, and what is the reference point for AGT?
> ...


Don't be stupid, that is the unit of measure not the reference point. 

The reference point is a temperature from a specific year.  The AGT is a delta temperature from the reference temperature.  Which is why I spewed coke all over my keyboard wen you stated that the AGT was 15C.  It appears from post #200 that you believe the current average global temperature is 15C. 

What do you do for a living exactly?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




[/QUOTE]
Good God, again, you claim to be an engineer?











In the upper graph, on the Y axis, the distance for ten degrees is the same as the distance for one degree on the bottom graph. On the X axis, the distance on the upper graph for 200,000 years is only about 700 years on the bottom graph. So the slopes are very different if you put them on the same scales. It took, on the upper graph, a minimum of ten thousand years to warm from the bottom of the glacial, to the maximum warmth of the interglacial. That is less than a degree every thousand years. 

So, on the bottom graph, put a dot at -1 degrees at 500. Now put a dot at 0 degrees at 1500. Draw a line between them. That is your slope for the glacial to interglacial warmup. Now look at that slope on the last 150 years. That is a fairly accurate comparison of the two slopes. Dingleberry, you are rapidly demonstrating that you intellect is in the same class as SSDD and Frankie boi.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, I would guess that he failed to put the decimal point in. As for what he does for a living, which McD's do you flip burgers for? No engineer would make that mistake of stating that the slopes on the two graphs you repeatedly post are the same.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> It appears from post #200 that you believe the current average global temperature is 15C.


I was referring to the yearly global average temperature. Flacaltenn set us both straight with his post:


flacaltenn said:


> Except that AGT is hardly ever mentioned. The whole metrics for GW is based on "normalized" GMAST.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Good God, again, you claim to be an engineer?











In the upper graph, on the Y axis, the distance for ten degrees is the same as the distance for one degree on the bottom graph. On the X axis, the distance on the upper graph for 200,000 years is only about 700 years on the bottom graph. So the slopes are very different if you put them on the same scales. It took, on the upper graph, a minimum of ten thousand years to warm from the bottom of the glacial, to the maximum warmth of the interglacial. That is less than a degree every thousand years.

So, on the bottom graph, put a dot at -1 degrees at 500. Now put a dot at 0 degrees at 1500. Draw a line between them. That is your slope for the glacial to interglacial warmup. Now look at that slope on the last 150 years. That is a fairly accurate comparison of the two slopes. Dingleberry, you are rapidly demonstrating that you intellect is in the same class as SSDD and Frankie boi.[/QUOTE]
My goodness. You are an idiot. Slope is a calculation. The difference you are trying to distinguish is resolution.  There is not enough resolution from ice core data to make a valid comparison. Furthermore, even if there were it would meaningless.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It appears from post #200 that you believe the current average global temperature is 15C.
> ...


Not quite. You were so far from what agt is that your statement was idiotic and showed that you have no idea what we have been discussing. What do you do for a living?


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Lol. Right. He failed to put the decimal in. You do realize that both graphs were plotting temperature in agt, right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


My goodness. You are an idiot. Slope is a calculation. The difference you are trying to distinguish is resolution.  There is not enough resolution from ice core data to make a valid comparison. Furthermore, even if there were it would meaningless.[/QUOTE]
So, you have a rise of about 1 degree in a thousand years, and you have a rise of over 1 degree in 150 years, and you are stating that you cannot see them on the lower graph? Man, no way you are an engineer. Yes, you can calculate the slope of a line, but you can also graph that line. And the line on that graph from -1.0 degrees at 500, to 0 degrees at 1500, a span of 1000 years, has a far lower slope than the line on that graph that shows the slope of the rise in the last 150 years. That you would argue with that demonstrates you are completely unable to read simple graphs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Gotta love it when the deniers double down on stupid.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


The boy is an idiot.  He knows it was no decimal error.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I guess I am going to have to show you graphically what I am saying for you to understand.


----------



## gipper (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


DAMN ITS COLD OUTSIDE!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Well, make it worthwhile.


----------



## gipper (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, make it worthwhile.


Great tune.  Buble is not a kooky loony dupey warmer like you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


LOL. So you are going to show me how one degree in a thousand years has the same slope as over one degree in one hundred and fifty years. This should be fun.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He graduated from the Crick School of Graph Reading..  He doesn't have a dam clue.. You could use Crayolas and make a bunch of squiggly lines and he would find a way to make it support AGW and the liberal agenda..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You don't have a dam clue... 

What happens to that 150 years of data points when it is added to 500 years of data points and averaged to create a single data point? The warming is still there its is just not visible due to SPATIAL RESOLUTION...

This is the same reason that you can not show CO2 has never risen as fast as it has the last 100 years..  The resolution hides the rates of increase by consolidation into larger spatial resolution.

You alarmist idiots are lost causes..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 9, 2016)

*Arctic Air Temperatures are Set to Hit 35 to 55 F Above Average by Thursday — Out of Season Sea Ice Melt Possible, Again*
_“It looks like a triple whammy – a warm ocean, a warm atmosphere, and a wind pattern all working against the ice in the Arctic.”_ — NSIDC director Mark Serreze.

_“Unfortunately, Arctic sea ice extent growth has once again slowed this week…”_ — Zack Labe

_“Huge surface air temperature anomalies over the Arctic this working week… over 25C warmer than average in parts.” — _James Warner

****

This year, it’s a challenge to find a time when the Arctic Ocean has ever represented anything resembling normalcy. Record low sea ice extent values have occurred for more than 50 percent of days measured. And well above average temperatures have invaded the Arctic during winter, spring, and fall. With another huge wave of ridiculous warmth building up over eastern Siberia this week, the hits just keep on coming.

_*Major Warming Over Siberia, Chukchi and East Siberian Seas *_

The present big warm air invasion has its origins in the Pacific Ocean. There, a large high pressure system over the Bering Sea is facing off with a strong low moving up across Kamchatka. Running between the two is a powerful south-to-north wind pattern.





(A major warm wind invasion of the Arctic on Thursday is originating in the subtropical Pacific. A ridge in the Jet Stream extending all the way to the North Pole is pulling this big bulge of warm air north. As a result, extreme temperature departures and out of season sea ice melt for the impacted zones are likely. Image source: Earth Nullschool.)

As we can see in the image above, the flood of warm air has its origin around the 30 north latitude line. It flows directly over hundreds of miles of ocean, at times reaching a storm-force intensity near 70 mph. As it crosses into Siberia, the wind slows down. But it inexorably continues north, ever north — driven on by a serious pulse of atmospheric steam. By early Thursday, the leading edge of this warm air outburst from the Pacific side will have crossed the Pole and led to a flushing of Central Arctic air out into the Barents Sea and North Atlantic (you can view an animation of the predicted warm air pulse here).

This strong northward flood of warmth from the Pacific is running up under an extreme high amplitude wave in the Jet Stream that is bellowing out into the Arctic Ocean through the Bering and Chukchi seas. At its peak northward extent, the big Jet Stream wave is predicted to look something like this. And it is this severe contortion in the upper level wind pattern that has enabled this most recent extreme warm wind event to occur.

This pattern is now in the process of injecting above-freezing air temperatures into Eastern Siberia. By tomorrow, the warm air mass will encounter the coastal regions of the Chukchi and East Siberian seas. There, it will push temperatures as high as 2.5 C  (37 F) over zones that typically see readings in the -20s to -30s (Celsius). As a result, temperatures will range between 20 and 30 C (35 to 55 F) or more above average for many locations.





(Climate Reanalyzer has added a new color — white — for tracking extreme departures in temperature. In the positive anomaly column, we find departures hitting 30 C, or 54 F, above average for regions of East Siberia and the local Arctic Ocean.)

To be clear, these temperatures are highly abnormal. If a similar temperature departure happened in Gaithersburg, Maryland on December 8, it would produce 80 to 100 degree (F) readings. Of course, this anomaly is not happening in Gaithersburg. Due to a global warming related process called polar amplification in which the poles are more sensitive to alterations in rising greenhouse gas levels (due to fossil fuel and related emissions), extreme temperature anomalies tend to occur at the poles as rates of relative warming are 2-3 times faster in those regions. And the factors that we observe associated with this new Arctic warm wind event — powerful south-to-north meridional air flows coupled with extreme high amplitude waves in the Jet Stream — are also evidence of a number of weird new atmospheric circulation patterns that can tend to pop up as polar amplification intensifies.

_*Warm Winds May Cause Unprecedented Back-to-Back Fall Sea Ice Melt*_

The Pacific side of the Arctic has already been gaining heat ahead of the oncoming warm wind event over the past few days. And what we have seen, as a result, is a pretty severe loss of ice in the Chukchi Sea during early December. To be very clear, Arctic sea ice should be advancing at this time of year. But what we see in the image below (provided by A-Team over at the Arctic Sea Ice Forum) is advance followed by retreat as the warm wind event starts to ramp up.





(Ice refreeze in the Chukchi advances until it is rolled back by the most recent onrush of warm air flowing in from the Pacific. Image provided by A-Team at Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Forum.)

Of course, the retreat seen above has occurred before the main force of warm southerly winds — due to hit the Arctic Ocean region by tomorrow. So the risks for continued losses in the Chukchi extend for at least the next few days. Losses there could be offset by large enough gains elsewhere to continue an overall seasonal freeze trend. But so far, with abnormal warmth also periodically building in over the near-Svalbard region and with Hudson Bay refreeze continuing to lag, that does not appear to be happening.

Looking at the larger monitors, we also find that, as happened during October and November, the pace of overall sea ice growth has stalled. According to JAXA, over the past 4 days, sea ice extent has only grown by 50,000 square kilometers. During a typical similar four day period for this time of year, growth would tend to average around 400,000 to 500,000 square kilometers. And with values at current record low levels, the inertial impetus for ice growth would be higher. That is, unless the climate state of the Arctic has radically changed — which appears to be the case.





(According to JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent has again hit a plateau when it should be freezing — this time at around 10 million square kilometers. As sea ice follows that line, record lows are again deepening — hitting near 750,000 square kilometers below previous lows for the day in 2006. Considering the fact that another major warming event is building into the Arctic Ocean, this plateau could again tip into melt as happened during the middle of November. Image source: JAXA.)

During mid November, a period of unprecedented warming produced an almost unprecedented period of fall melt. A similar November melt occurred during 2013. But the amount of melt then was smaller. And that melt did not occur at a time when Arctic sea ice values were at new record lows — as they were throughout the entire month during 2016. Similarly, during October, abnormally warm conditions produced an odd re-freeze plateau similar to the one we are now experiencing.

Given current conditions, there’s a risk that we could see a December melt event following the November melt event. For the amount of heat hitting the Pacific side of the Arctic is predicted to fall far outside of normal temperature ranges. And, barring major refreeze on the Atlantic side, we are at a rather higher risk of seeing the present plateau in sea ice values carry on for a number of days.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Damn. You know, I think that 2017 is going to be an even more interesting year than 2016. And I do mean that in the Chinese sense of that statement.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn. You know, I think that 2017 is going to be an even more interesting year than 2016. And I do mean that in the Chinese sense of that statement.


Damn, you know AGW is going down in 2017, fk n a!!!!


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Arctic Air Temperatures are Set to Hit 35 to 55 F Above Average by Thursday — Out of Season Sea Ice Melt Possible, Again*
> _“It looks like a triple whammy – a warm ocean, a warm atmosphere, and a wind pattern all working against the ice in the Arctic.”_ — NSIDC director Mark Serreze.
> 
> _“Unfortunately, Arctic sea ice extent growth has once again slowed this week…”_ — Zack Labe
> ...











Hmmmmmm.  Who to believe.....


*"Siberia Is Being Clobbered With Snow Already, and That Could Mean a Harsher U.S. Winter Ahead*
By Jonathan Belles
Published Nov 4 2016 02:43 PM EDT
weather.com



Siberia is known to be one of the coldest places on the planet, but exactly how cold and snowy it gets each year has big ramifications elsewhere on the globe.

In North America, a more snow-covered Russia means that colder air will have an easier time harvesting in Siberia and departing for our continent's heartland. Early in the calendar year, the air coming from Siberia can be cold enough to bring snow to even more southern reaches of the United States if the pattern sets up correctly."

Siberia Is Being Clobbered With Snow Already, and That Could Mean a Harsher U.S. Winter Ahead


----------



## gipper (Dec 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn. You know, I think that 2017 is going to be an even more interesting year than 2016. And I do mean that in the Chinese sense of that statement.


What was so interesting about 2016?  Could you please lay it on me?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2016)

Well now, third year in a row of record warm temperatures, each year being warmer than the last. Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice at record lows through the fall. A few floods here and there in the 500 and thousand year range. A major forest fire after Thanksgiving that burns a town in Tennessee. Just to start.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2016)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Arctic Air Temperatures are Set to Hit 35 to 55 F Above Average by Thursday — Out of Season Sea Ice Melt Possible, Again*
> ...


Now old liar, what do you mean, 'who to believe'? Look at the map in the article. It show extreme warmth in the Arctic, and cold in both Siberia and North America. Jennifer Francis has explained exactly how this occurs in many lectures and they have been posted on this board many times. As you well know.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2016)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Arctic Air Temperatures are Set to Hit 35 to 55 F Above Average by Thursday — Out of Season Sea Ice Melt Possible, Again*
> ...



I'll go with the actual temps recorded on the few land based stations which say the warming is all a bunch of BS. Ever since the September failures of the sensors on two satellites they have been scrambling to realign their "MODELS" to reflect what is really happening..

The actual empirical ground stations and balloon data shows the warming is a fantasy. I would not put it past the Obama admin to be creating a deception in order to try and keep the AGW lie going.. It's way past time to clean out the left wing ideologist in NASA and NOAA.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2016)

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Damn. You know, I think that 2017 is going to be an even more interesting year than 2016. And I do mean that in the Chinese sense of that statement.
> ...



*EL NIñO Year.*... That had natural variation warming due to it, which alarmists like Old Fraud are trying to attribute to AGW...  Epic Fail..


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...









No, it shows cute colors based on COMPUTER MODELS you halfwit.  That's not factual data.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


LOL  The dumb fuck that kept telling us that we were not into an El Nino for most of the duration of the El Nino is now trying to tell us about El Nino's? LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Awww  Poor little libtard..

You need your aroma therapy room?  Hot Chocolate? or a diaper pin?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2016)

LOL  Playing stupid again. LOL


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 11, 2016)

Cold air forced further southward with warmer than avg air over the polar regions


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2016)

westwall said:


> No, it shows cute colors based on COMPUTER MODELS you halfwit.  That's not factual data.



Of course its a model.  It's a forecast for regional temperatures within less than a week.  You reject such things?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Playing stupid again. LOL


Nope.  That's what you do.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Playing stupid again. LOL


So... how many data points do you believe they had for the four previous interglacial transitions?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL  Playing stupid again. LOL
> ...



Its rather amusing that you show these retards that the speed of warming is the same and that the current spike is at the same rate of change as previous (even though it is so small its hard to discern) warm ups.

What is more concerning to me is the rate of cooling which always follows at the same rapid rate of decline.. For some reason they don't like to talk about that half of the equation..  Its as if they deny what empirical evidence says will happen and that man will magically make the temp runaway...


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Their problem is that they are calculating the slope off of a graph that has way more data points than what we have from the oxygen isotope curve and assuming that if we had more data available to us that it wouldn't change the slope.  The reality is that it is unrealistic to assume that we had the same slope for thousands of years.  Given the complexity of the climate system, I would expect to see slip stick differential behavior during the thousands of year march from the glacial to interglacial transition.

Besides, their argument is a red herring anyway.  The only thing that matters is that we are still well inside the norm of the interglacial temperature rise.  Everything we see today, with the exception of rising CO2 levels, can be explained by the transition from glacial to interglacial cycle.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if our temperature rose another 1.4 C to 2.4 C before the next glacial cycle were triggered.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



They hate the words "Natural Variation" because it implies that what were seeing is not controlled by man... which means they can not use it to create populace control..


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Population control is their dirty little secret that they do not want to discuss but is the thing that keeps them up at night.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2016)

*How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?*
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.









Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center.NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring _much more rapidly_ than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.





Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
Global Warming : Feature Articles

*One can clearly see what NASA is graphing for us here. The Arctic is rapidly warming exactly as the graph shows. Now whose interpretation of these graphs do we believe? NASA or Dingleberrys?*


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years.



How many data points did they have over that 5000 year period?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?*
> Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.
> 
> See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.
> ...


When are you going to acknowledge that the present interglacial cycle is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?


----------



## peabody (Dec 11, 2016)

I knew he was a liberal !!

Trump shifts position on climate change 

He is "open-minded" about human impact on climate change, and what can be done about it.

"Look, I'm somebody that gets it and nobody really knows," Trump said. "It's not something that's so hard and fast."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...egations-russian-election-tampering/95297756/


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?*
> ...


NASA itself states your interpretation is pure shit. Oh, who to believe, an anonymous poster, or NASA?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


When are you going to acknowledge that the present interglacial cycle is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2016)

When are you going to acknowledge those higher temperatures occurred far slower than the changes we are seeing today? When are you going to acknowledge that there was far higher sea levels at those times, levels that were accomplished with only a CO2 level of 300 ppm? And we are past 400 ppm right now? When are you going to acknowledge that your failure to post links to the articles that are the original sources of the graphs is a form of lying when your interpretations of the graphs are 180 degrees from those of the scientists?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> When are you going to acknowledge those higher temperatures occurred far slower than the changes we are seeing today? When are you going to acknowledge that there was far higher sea levels at those times, levels that were accomplished with only a CO2 level of 300 ppm? And we are past 400 ppm right now? When are you going to acknowledge that your failure to post links to the articles that are the original sources of the graphs is a form of lying when your interpretations of the graphs are 180 degrees from those of the scientists?


Never because there are not enough data points from the oxygen isotope to determine that.  We only have two points for each of the slopes I drew.  For all we know there were periods within those 5000 year plus intervals where they were.  

I haven't seen any sea level data for the past 400,000 years but I found this and the peak at 125,000 years ago corresponds to the timing of the last interglacial cycle which had a 2.4C higher peak temperature than we do now and the sea level is roughly the same as it is now.  But I would be happy enough to acknowledge that warmer temperature will correlate to higher sea levels if it will make you happy.  






As for CO2 levels during the glacial-interglacial cycles, CO2 lags temperature by 800 years and is due to the cyclicity of CO2 and the ocean temperature.  But if it will make you happy, I will be glad to acknowledge that man is responsible for rising CO2 levels.  

I have already explained to you that you know where my link came from because I got the link from you.  I'm not hiding anything.  I am happy to acknowledge that link you had pointed to their belief that temperatures are rising faster than they have in the past.  I disagree because based on the number of data points it is not possible to make that determination, nor is it relevant to the fact that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C lower than the peak temperatures of three of the four past interglacials.  

Now when are you going to acknowledge that the present interglacial cycle is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2017)

What was human culture like during those previous interglacials?  What was the world population?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> What was human culture like during those previous interglacials?  What was the world population?


All we know is that they were able to pump massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Maybe they exhaled twice for every inhale?


----------



## westwall (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> What was human culture like during those previous interglacials?  What was the world population?







Who cares.  The changes that happened back then were NATURAL.  Thus, any changes today must likewise be construed as NATURAL, unless you can find truly compelling evidence that says otherwise.  Merely wishing it to be so, and concocting computer derived fictions to bolster your wanting, don't cut it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 8, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> When are you going to acknowledge those higher temperatures occurred far slower than the changes we are seeing today? When are you going to acknowledge that there was far higher sea levels at those times, levels that were accomplished with only a CO2 level of 300 ppm? And we are past 400 ppm right now? When are you going to acknowledge that your failure to post links to the articles that are the original sources of the graphs is a form of lying when your interpretations of the graphs are 180 degrees from those of the scientists?







They didn't.  There are more than a few peer reviewed studies for the Sierra Nevada that show during the MWP the temp skyrocketed up faster than today, and attained a temp at least 2.5 degrees warmer than the present time.  The warming we enjoyed over the last 150 years has been nice, but far lower than the average level of warmth the planet is usually basking in.  Well, when it ain't freezing to death that is.


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2017)

Show us these "more than a few peer reviewed studies" showing the MWP skyrocketing up.  And, if you're talking about an isolated region and not the planet as a whole, take your pile and shovel it elsewhere.

From Wikipedia's article on the Medieval Warm Period

Despite uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere very likely occurred between 950 and 1100. Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change.[7] Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.[4]

4. Mann, M. E.; Zhang, Z.; Rutherford, S.; et al. (2009). "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly". _Science_. *326* (5957): 1256–60. Bibcode:2009Sci...326.1256M. doi:10.1126/science.1177303. PMID 19965474.

7.  Solomon, Susan Snell; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "6.6 The Last 2,000 Years". Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ISBN 0-521-70596-7. Box 6.4

Further analysis of the bulk compilation of all paleoclimatology studies that were done in various areas around the globe appear to indicate a global trend of warming, particularly in the northern and southern peaks but less towards the equator.[16] More recently, a study by the Pages-2k consortium suggests the warming was not globally synchronous: "Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."[17]

17. https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Pages_2013_NatureGeo.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Show us these "more than a few peer reviewed studies" showing the MWP skyrocketing up.  And, if you're talking about an isolated region and not the planet as a whole, take your pile and shovel it elsewhere.



Sure crick..but just to be fair...you name the region of the world and I will go out and find you both level one and level two studies supporting the statement that the MWP was both global in nature, and warmer than the present..


----------



## westwall (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Show us these "more than a few peer reviewed studies" showing the MWP skyrocketing up.  And, if you're talking about an isolated region and not the planet as a whole, take your pile and shovel it elsewhere.
> 
> From Wikipedia's article on the Medieval Warm Period
> 
> ...







Here is one...

 Quaternary Research, vol 66, p. 273. 



"Deadwood tree stems scattered above treeline on tephra-covered slopes of Whitewing Mtn (3051 m) and San Joaquin Ridge (3122 m) show evidence of being killed in an eruption from adjacent Glass Creek Vent, Inyo Craters. Using tree-ring methods, we dated deadwood to AD 815–1350 and infer from death dates that the eruption occurred in late summer AD 1350. Based on wood anatomy, we identified deadwood species as Pinus albicaulis, P. monticola, P. lambertiana, P. contorta, P. jeffreyi, and Tsuga mertensiana. Only P. albicaulis grows at these elevations currently; P. lambertiana is not locally native. Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry to be significantly warmer (+3.2°C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (−24 mm annual precipitation) than present, resembling values projected for California in the next 70–100 yr."


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2017)

You have data there for a single location.  Your claim was a global one.


----------



## westwall (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> You have data there for a single location.  Your claim was a global one.







Wrong, I very clearly said IN THE SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS, where I happen to live so am very familiar with the local studies.  As far as global, in the polar regions it was warmer than in the equatorial, which makes sense.  Polar was 5 degrees warmer than today, and equatorial regions were 1/2 a degree warmer.  I have posted dozens of studies over the years to support it.  Go find them again.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

Westwall said:
			
		

> There are more than a few peer reviewed studies for the Sierra Nevada that show during the MWP the temp skyrocketed up faster than today, and attained a temp at least 2.5 degrees warmer than the present time.



Why yes, that is what you said.  Now then: so the fuck what?


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> Westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







The fuck is your assertions are shit.  Have always been shit.  And will always BE shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2017)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What was human culture like during those previous interglacials?  What was the world population?
> ...


What a dumb lying fuck you are. 400 ppm is natural? Never has there been a level anywhere near that in prior interglacials in the last 800,000 years. And don't give me that bullshit about a very short lived bump in the GHG levels. CO2 does not work that way. Were we to cease human GHG emissions right now, it would be centuries before the GHG level in the atmosphere returned to near normal levels.

During prior interglacials, even when the sea level was 10 meters higher than today, the max CO2 levels were, at the most, 320 ppm. Most estimates are for 300 ppm. So we are going to see major sea level changes in this century.

The measurements of CO2 and CH4 are not computer derived. They are measured, and being measured as we post. The measurements of the worldwide retreat of the alpine glaciers are not computer derived, they are measured observations. The decline in the Arctic Sea Ice is not computer derived, it is measured. Not only by satellites, but also by such things as a huge luxury cruise ship transiting the Northwest Passage last summer. The amount of coal and petroleum we have burned is not computer derived, it is in the records of businesses worldwide.

Your whole spiel, Mr. Westwall, is based on falsehood and deception.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 17, 2018)

Crick said:


> And why is the ice melting? Perhaps because the temperatures you're displaying here are right at the melting point of water when by this time of the year, normal temps would be near zero Fahrenheit.



Arctic Weather Map

4 cardinal point today

Barrow -2F
Alert -20F
Vize -6F
Kotel -26F

What the melting temperature of ice?


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..



This image says its from yesterday, 19 December.  The dominant Arctic temperatures are 0C and ABOVE.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..
> ...


so again, you're saying the arctic gets above freezing without sunlight?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..
> ...



Arctic Weather Map

4 cardinal point today

Barrow -2F
Alert -18F
Vize 2F
Kotel -24F

I don't think that word means what you think it means


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a functioning satellite.  Your warming is bull shit..
> ...


Your and idiot!

This an anomaly map from the average temp.  Do you have a fucking clue what the average temp is this time of year?  It's 5 deg F.   

LMFAO......  My gawd man your ignorance is astounding...


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2018)

That would make more sense, but then, NOWHERE does your graphic tell us it is anomaly data or identify a baseline.  Perhaps if YOU got in the habit of providing links this could have been avoided.


----------

