# Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?

Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world.  It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world.  An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.

The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago.  The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.  About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.

Current climate models predict extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at ~600 ppm and occurs at the north pole when atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at ~250 ppm.  

When the industrial revolution began atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~300 ppm or only ~50 ppm above the threshold of extensive glaciation of the north pole.  Today atmospheric CO2 is ~400 ppm or about the same level as when the first glacial cycle was triggered. 

So the question is... based upon the available science at our disposal, is the world better off at 300 ppm or 580 ppm?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

Science never says anything.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?
> 
> Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world.  It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world.  An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.
> 
> ...


Life has adapted to the current climate.  ANY change will mean winners and losers.  I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?
> ...


So 250 ppm is ok with you?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I think I was clear.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Science never says anything.


That's deep.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

You're shallow.

*416.39*
parts per million (ppm)
Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (NOAA)
Preliminary data released July 6, 2020


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


And totally side stepping the question.  

Not to mention being wrong because according to you the losers will always outweigh the winners under any change at all.  That just isn't the case.  There are ranges where impacts are insignificant.  

It has never looked like this __________________________________________________________


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> You're shallow.
> 
> *416.39*
> parts per million (ppm)
> ...


What's your point?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

Science can't answer this question ... how do we bring the atmosphere up to 580 ppm CO2 so we can observe what happens? ... 

Your data is seriously flawed as well ... the current Ice Age began 30 million years ago ... we don't know why, not even a clue ... go back a billion years and the equatorial oceans were solid ice ... again, no one knows why ...

The truly baffling part is why liquid water existed on Earth's surface 4.5 billion years ago ... that's totally nuts ... the young Sun only produced 70% of the energy is does today ... temperatures should have been -100 to -50ºC ... 

I think the best answer is that in order to get to 580 ppm, we'll have to electrify the entire world ... such that everybody has a refrigerator and stove ... starvation is only a memory ... wars would be ended ... hatred and envy lost to history ... a New Golden Age of the Human Condition ... 

Burn tires, it helps ...


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Science can't answer this question ... how do we bring the atmosphere up to 580 ppm CO2 so we can observe what happens? ...
> 
> Your data is seriously flawed as well ... the current Ice Age began 30 million years ago ... we don't know why, not even a clue ... go back a billion years and the equatorial oceans were solid ice ... again, no one knows why ...
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you are getting your data from but it is seriously incorrect.  

We will most likely be at 580 ppm by the end of this century so getting there shouldn't be a problem.  We don't need to change a thing.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm not sure where you are getting your data from but it is seriously incorrect.











						Late Cenozoic Ice Age - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"The *Late Cenozoic Ice Age*, or *Antarctic Glaciation* began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing."

Learn what "Ice Age" means before you say I'm wrong ...



ding said:


> We will most likely be at 580 ppm by the end of this century so getting there shouldn't be a problem.  We don't need to change a thing.



If you're already convinced of your answer ... why did you ask it here? ...


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure where you are getting your data from but it is seriously incorrect.
> ...


Then maybe you should show where I used ice age in the OP, right?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> Then maybe you should show where I used ice age in the OP, right?



Wrong ... that's your affair, not mine ... you're wrong, just admit it and we can move on ... or, is there anything to move onto? ... 

You have your answer ... science cannot tell us ... science doesn't even define "better off" ... try the philosophy forum if you want philosophical answers ...


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm not going to give a number.  Historically change was slow and, though painful, life was usually able to adapt.  Rapid change, such as our changing the CO2 in a few generations, probably means adaption will be more difficult and extinctions more common.
Whatever change we've seen has required adaptation.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not going to give a number.  Historically change was slow and, though painful, life was usually able to adapt.  Rapid change, such as our changing the CO2 in a few generations, probably means adaption will be more difficult and extinctions more common.
> Whatever change we've seen has required adaptation.



Certainly this is true for the more specialized species ... rapid change would be deadly, extinctions would abound ... not so much for the more adaptive species ... dandelions have a world-wide distribution (except Antarctica), rapid change is normal for them ... and where specialized dies off, the adaptive will move in; ecological niches don't stay empty long ...

I believe humans are the only mega-fauna adaptive enough to have permanent settlements on Antarctic ... we'll be fine ... couple of degrees warming is nothing to us ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > You're shallow.
> ...











						350 Climate Science Basics
					

1.5˚C might not sound like a big increase in temperature, but it’s the difference between life and death for thousands of people.




					350.org


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to give a number.  Historically change was slow and, though painful, life was usually able to adapt.  Rapid change, such as our changing the CO2 in a few generations, probably means adaption will be more difficult and extinctions more common.
> ...


We won't be fine if we're all alone.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Then maybe you should show where I used ice age in the OP, right?
> ...


What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation.  That transition began 3-5 million years ago.  That is the climate we are in today.  It's much colder than the climate from 30 million years ago.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Here's a couple of handy graphs which tell the whole story.  The first graph is of the oxygen isotope curve which is widely established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted within the scientific community as a proxy for past climates and temperatures.  You can get this from any number of sources and it will show the same thing.  I got this one from wiki.

The second graph is of the oxygen isotope curve laid side by side opposite of the historic atmospheric  CO2 curve.  This graph offers a number of interesting observations for those who take the time to examine it.  The sources for this graph is listed on the graph but the ultimate source of the CO2 data is Keeling, Law Dome Antarctic ice cores, Vostik ice core, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes.













__





						Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.


The world being obviously better off at 300 ppm than 580 ppm
416 - 350 = already 66 over the ppm limit of reason. We're already fucked. 580 is clearly insane, whether we manage to prevent it or not.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation. That transition began 3-5 years ago.


So 3-5 years ago, then you leap to charts spanning tens of millions of years.. What a poser!

Gee, I (don't) wonder why you supply no links!









						Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
					

The Earth has indeed been much warmer than it is today and these periods were accompanied by mass extinctions and huge sea-level rises




					www.newscientist.com


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
> ...


Do you understand that northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm and by 220 ppm you are in a full blown ice age in north america?

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation. That transition began 3-5 years ago.
> ...


Should have read 3-5 million.  Like stated in the OP.  Thanks for the heads up.  

See?


ding said:


> The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. The conditions which led to the transition were isolated polar regions from the warm marine currents of the ocean and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm. About 400,000 years ago the earth began experiencing a series of glacial-interglacial cycles which were caused in part due to these background conditions but were triggered by orbital cycles.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation. That transition began 3-5 years ago.
> ...


I am more than happy for you to keep doing what you are doing.  I'm going to continue sharing, discussing and explaining the data. You can keep doing whatever it is that you are doing.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?
> 
> Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world.  It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world.  An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.
> 
> ...







The more CO2 the merrier.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?
> ...









Past evidence says you are not just wrong, but epically wrong.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Science can't answer this question ... how do we bring the atmosphere up to 580 ppm CO2 so we can observe what happens? ...
> 
> Your data is seriously flawed as well ... the current Ice Age began 30 million years ago ... we don't know why, not even a clue ... go back a billion years and the equatorial oceans were solid ice ... again, no one knows why ...
> 
> ...










During the Cambrian the CO2 levels were about 7000 ppm.  Life thrived.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> Here's a couple of handy graphs which tell the whole story.  The first graph is of the oxygen isotope curve which is widely established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted within the scientific community as a proxy for past climates and temperatures.  You can get this from any number of sources and it will show the same thing.  I got this one from wiki.
> 
> The second graph is of the oxygen isotope curve laid side by side opposite of the historic atmospheric  CO2 curve.  This graph offers a number of interesting observations for those who take the time to examine it.  The sources for this graph is listed on the graph but the ultimate source of the CO2 data is Keeling, Law Dome Antarctic ice cores, Vostik ice core, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes.
> 
> ...





Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
> ...








Factually untrue.  The more CO2 in the atmosphere the greener the planet becomes.  ALL life does better with increased CO2


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
> ...


Why is 580 ppm insane?

You do realize that that is the IPCC's forecast A1, right?  Which is based on extrapolating from the current trend of CO2 emissions.  Can you tell me why 580 ppm is insane?






			https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Projected-atmospheric-CO2-concentrations-under-several-of-the-IPCC-emission-scenarios_fig12_225178470


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> We won't be fine if we're all alone.



What an odd statement ... why would wildlife native to southern Wisconsin perish in central Illinois? ... I understand a few species, but most are native to both places ...


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Still not getting your point about 416 ppm.
> ...


Why is 350 ppm the "limit of reason?"

What's so special about 350 ppm?

Will the ocean - which houses 94% of the CO2 - suddenly stop sequestering CO2 when the temperatures fall?  Will the ocean stop releasing CO2 when the temperature rises?

Where did this "limit of reason" come from?  How did you arrive at it? Did the same person who sold Jack his magic beans tell you 350 ppm was the "limit of reason?"


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation.  That transition began 3-5 million years ago.  That is the climate we are in today.  It's much colder than the climate from 30 million years ago.



Greenland ice cores go down 30 million years ... before then, all the ice in winter melted away in summer ... Antarctica was late getting to her polar position, those core only go down 27 million years ...

Ah ... you want to discuss the current glacial/interglacial cycle ... 125,000 year period ... I see a saw-toothed wave, but I've been smoking pot all day ... as far as I know, and again, no one knows why ... if you have some insights, I'd love to hear them ... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...

Frankly, I don't see anything in any of the hoop-la about climate change to puts us outside the temperature envelope of this cycle ... everything is well within natural parameters ... the ice core data clearly shows warmer temperatures in previous interglacials ... humaniods survived all those with only fire as technology ... today we have steam engines, so we're better off now ...

Speaking of technology ... how do we separate out these advances, and the benefits thereof, from what trivial benefits a greener Earth would provide? ... very little of the extra food that grows will be because of 580 ppm ... 

Humans are quadrupling their populations every 100 years ... what does the Earth look like with 30 billion people? ... would we be better off? ... and with 30 billion people, are we even going to notice a 2ºC temperature increase ... 

Just one little virus, and there are no humans in a hundred years ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> Will the ocean - which houses 94% of the CO2 -



Got a citation on the number? ...


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What I am talking about is our current climate which is that of one of bipolar glaciation.  That transition began 3-5 million years ago.  That is the climate we are in today.  It's much colder than the climate from 30 million years ago.
> ...


Not really the scope of this thread but feeding the hungry is a problem we could solve by providing more energy to the poor regions of the world not less.  As for population, nature  has a way of thinning the herd.  For all we know covid is it.  Same for the climate.  I doubt we will see 2C.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...











						About 350.org
					

What 350.org is, how we work, and what we believe in.




					350.org


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...


It's ding who should be embarrassed.. every time he posts.. along with many, many others here.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...
> ...









Why,  he posts facts and you post 350 dot org propaganda.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Will the ocean - which houses 94% of the CO2 -
> ...


It's what I remembered it being the last time I looked it up.  It's somewhere in the mid to high 90%'s.

But let me look.




> The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure (pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans. For example, when the atmospheric pCO 2 is higher than the surface ocean, CO 2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water.
> 
> Read more: Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean  and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human





> Atmosphere: contains at present 750 GtC
> deep ocean: contains 39000 GtC
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I don't see how that answers the question.  Can you explain it?


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ... and if you bring up thermodynamics, please use small words .. [blush] ...
> ...


Like I said before...  I am more than happy for you to keep doing what you are doing. I'm going to continue sharing, discussing and explaining the data. You can keep doing whatever it is that you are doing.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Which he can't discuss.  He thinks posting a link that he doesn't understand and can't explain actually means something.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 4, 2020)

Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.


I looked through it.  Did you?

Why would you discuss what it means in a discussion forum?  Gee, I don't know... it's a discussion forum


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2020)

Of course the real answer is he is getting his ass kicked and posting a link gives him the illusion that he isn't a loser.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.








Because the 350 BS is just that.  Proven to be BS.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.



I clicked on it ... hope you get paid on time ... got as far as "#4 - It's bad" ...

Maybe this mythological "climate science" has a working definition of the word "bad" ... but climatology doesn't, it's considered a philosophical word in most sciences ... I disagree, warmer and wetter conditions are good for the primary producers ... plants ... everything prospers after that ... simple ecology ...

ETA: We're on the cusp of a New Golden Age of Human Existence ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Appears you simply refuse to read. Why would I (or anyone) bother explaining things that are already explained beautifully one click away and have been for decades now? Not my fault you're such a determined idiot. I try, but my patience has natural limits.
> ...


Lol. I gather you live somewhere cool, high, and dry. Lucky you.  I wish I got paid for this shit. Perhaps a few deserving others here as well. The 350.org "about" link was for ding because he apparently never heard of it and that intro looked to be about his speed. It's quite famous in case you've somehow never heard of it either. Yeah, they've been fighting Koch Industries funded deniers for a  long, long time. Fuck you if you're one of them. But no, while I respect the organization he started and his past efforts, I've never been particularly crazy about Bill McKibben who seems to be seriously going off the deep end lately. Here's a primer on Earth Day for ding's edification as well.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.


Yep, lots of human losers already, but why worry about them 
Five inches of rain today.. What costly AGW effects? 

Did you know too little atmospheric CO2 is what causes our ice ages? Ding "explains"!
Yeah, it can average two hundred degrees worldwide, no problem!
But don't you dare let them pesky ppms drop too low at the poles or.. look out!..
Game over, man! Game over!


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Life has adapted to the current climate. ANY change will mean winners and losers. I'm pretty sure the losers will outweigh the winners.
> ...










Nobody knows what causes the ice ages.  What we DO know is man adds slightly less than 5% to the global CO2 budget.

We also know that water vapor is THE dominant GHG in our atmosphere.   We also know that water vapor affects the same radiative spectrum as CO2 so the net result is CO2 is such a tiny tiny percentage of the atmosphere that whatever effect it might have is crushed by the water vapor effect. 

We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


So nobody knows what causes water to freeze, we do know that humans can't do it, we also know clouds get in the way, we also know that humans can't do it, we also know that those who study the climate for a living are nuts. "We" clearly being you and other climate science deniers. Okay, thanks for that as usual.. I guess


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


To your point about water vapor being the dominant GHG, I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive.  Both points can be visualized by comparing each GHG to the total GHG spectrum of the atmosphere.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere.  We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions. 

You can't even explain in simple terms why you believe an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm is good and 580 ppm is bad. 

I on the other hand can explain why an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm is bad and 580 ppm is good.  580 ppm avoids the risk of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere while 350 ppm invites extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

You do realize that 12,000 years ago New York was under a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice, right?  Now that's a real and tangible climate disruption.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> To your point about water vapor being the dominant GHG, I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive.  Both points can be visualized by comparing each GHG to the total GHG spectrum of the atmosphere.
> 
> View attachment 371486



*I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive.*

Perhaps you can explain to me why people do this ... make a claim and then immediately post a graph that completely and indisputably refutes the claim you just made ... wth? ...

Take the first five traces of the individual GHG species ... add them together ... and indeed we get the sixth trace "total atmosphere" ... thus proving GHG effects are additive ... so strange ... my guess is you are simply using scalar addition to add the magnitudes of the vectors together ... and that never works ... you have to use vector addition to get the correct results ... (I believe we actually need to add the field tensor values, but that's over my pay grade) ...


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?


It's a natural, self-regulating cycle. Higher CO2 and global warming rapidly stimulate aggressive green growth, which quickly sequesters the excess carbon into wood, peat, coal, and petroleum. Humans burn such fuels, but probably not even so much as natural forest fires and coal fires that have burned uncontrolled for millennia.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > To your point about water vapor being the dominant GHG, I will add that GHG's at the same spectrum are not additive.  Both points can be visualized by comparing each GHG to the total GHG spectrum of the atmosphere.
> ...


Not sure how you are seeing they are additive at the same frequency or spectrum but you don’t need take my word for it, here’s another source saying the same thing.

“It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. ... “









						Greenhouse gas
					

Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect.



					www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

Good and bad are a matter of perspective ... there's an area in Europe set aside and the natural environment quickly took over ... a place now considered an excellent example of primordial Europe before humanoids arrived ... about the only place in Europe with fertile soils not under industry cultivation ... just an amazing place ...

Japan has decided to do the same ... allowing the natural world to take over what was agricultural lands ... with every expectation to get a real world example of the islands before human invasion ... 

Massive contamination of Cesium-135 is clearly GOOD for the environment ... _c.f._ Chernobyl and Fukushima ... removing humans is undeniable proof humans are BAD ... thus Covid-19 is GOOD ... ha ha ha ... humans are just the last diseased and putrid bud on a nearly dead branch of the tree of life whose only evolutionary advance is an unpalatable flesh ... nothing eats us except as carrion, and the older the better ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Good and bad are a matter of perspective ... there's an area in Europe set aside and the natural environment quickly took over ... a place now considered an excellent example of primordial Europe before humanoids arrived ... about the only place in Europe with fertile soils not under industry cultivation ... just an amazing place ...
> 
> Japan has decided to do the same ... allowing the natural world to take over what was agricultural lands ... with every expectation to get a real world example of the islands before human invasion ...
> 
> Massive contamination of Cesium-135 is clearly GOOD for the environment ... _c.f._ Chernobyl and Fukushima ... removing humans is undeniable proof humans are BAD ... thus Covid-19 is GOOD ... ha ha ha ... humans are just the last diseased and putrid bud on a nearly dead branch of the tree of life whose only evolutionary advance is an unpalatable flesh ... nothing eats us except as carrion, and the older the better ...


Would a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice over all of Canada extending into the Midwest of America be bad?


----------



## Flash (Aug 5, 2020)

These stupid Moon Bats that think the climate is going to change because of the CO2 put out by humans don't know any more about Climate Science than they do Economics,History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution.

When we had "Snowball Earth" the CO2 levels were ten times what we have now.  In recent times, like during the Roman Warming period and the Medieval Warming Period, CO2 levels were lower than what they are now but yet the earth was warmer.  In fact all the credible climate data seems to indicate that CO2 levels lags climate change.

The credible climate data absolutely destroys the silly AGW theory and that is why the Environmental Wackos have to create false data and manipulate data or else they would have nothing to fool the gullible Moon Bats.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> Would a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice over all of Canada extending into the Midwest of America be bad?



This would be GOOD ... amazing in fact ... beneficial beyond human imagination ... with the collapse of the laws of thermodynamics, perpetual motion is a reality ... our energy worries are over ...

Ah .. you mean 10,000 feet of ice, like during a glaciation ... and what we expect in the near future ... good or bad, it's going to happen, humans have been through this before with no obvious ill effects ... is "neutral" an answer, because, you know, Canada ... [rolls eyes] ...

Anyway ... what definition of the word "bad" are we using? ... I generally use the Biblical definition which very specifically ties "bad" to human behavior and the eating of forbidden fruit ... wolves commit no sin eating babies ... and by extension, water commits no sin freezing up in sheets across the continents ... neither good nor bad and just vexation of spirit ...

So you go ahead and state the definition we'll be using, and just a link to the math is fine, no sense spamming this poor message board ...


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What past evidence?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Would a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice over all of Canada extending into the Midwest of America be bad?
> ...


The definition was stated in the OP in a round about way.  



ding said:


> If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...









ALL past evidence.  The paleoclimate record is pretty well known.  Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


The oxygen isotope curve and CO2 concentrations from Keeling, Law Dome ice cores, Vostik ice cores, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes?






						Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?
					

Here's a couple of handy graphs which tell the whole story.  The first graph is of the oxygen isotope curve which is widely established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted within the scientific community as a proxy for past climates and temperatures.  You can get this from any number of sources...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> ALL past evidence.  The paleoclimate record is pretty well known.  Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.


I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ALL past evidence.  The paleoclimate record is pretty well known.  Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.
> ...


Why would they?


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ALL past evidence.  The paleoclimate record is pretty well known.  Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.
> ...









Why would they?  You can't handle an extra degree?  Every day in the desert human beings enjoy temperature swings of up to 100 degrees.   A degree isn't anything to freak out about.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?



The answer given was that _getting_ to 580 ppm would be beneficial to humans ... all these renewables we add to the system isn't cutting fossil fuels, we just use more energy ... basic human nature ... so much energy, we can get everyone on the grid ... ending hunger, war, etc etc etc ...

Would "Dawn of a New Golden Age of the Human Condition" count as "better off"? ... I'm just pointing out that this is extremely BAD ... "much worse off" ... for every single other species on Earth ... except for human's domesticates ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?
> ...


580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.  

Seems to me we should be increasing energy consumption if we want to bring others out of poverty.  It is possible to be good stewards.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.



This is becoming wide-spread ... in overcrowded conditions, the individuals lose the ability to reproduce ... it's also been demonstrated that this ability is lost forever, even when crowded ends ... a population that suffers crowding never recovers ... this was with rats but same difference ... rats are just a little further evolved is all ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

> The percentage of land area in the contiguous United States that experienced maximum temperatures greatly above (red) or below (blue) normal (upper or lower 10th percentile, respectively). Over the last 25 years, an increasingly larger area of the country has experienced warm extremes than cold extremes. Figure adapted from FAQ #19 (figure A5.20) from the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is based on original data from the National Centers for Environmental Information.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> 580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.
> Seems to me we should be increasing energy consumption if we want to bring others out of poverty.  It is possible to be good stewards.



1.6 billion people in the world cook all their meals over an open fire ... they have lots of kids so enough survive to collect firewood from sun-up to sun-down ... or the family goes hungry ... very hateful to condemn these poor folks to such squaller by reducing CO2 emissions ... just hateful ...

So ... the First World Solution is to come in and set up power plants and a grid ... give everyone a hotplate and small refrigerator ... without thinking that the scrap value of all this equipment is ten years worth of wages for the family ... they'll continue to cook with wood and live a life of (comparable) luxury ... at least until the soldiers/church/terrorists/drug lords/neighbors rob them ... I'm guessing it's a skin color thing but what do I know ... I hate all races equally ...

Warmer and wetter conditions should improve the growth of firewood ... so indeed burning tires feeds the multitudes ... it's the compassionate way of life ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> > The percentage of land area in the contiguous United States that experienced maximum temperatures greatly above (red) or below (blue) normal (upper or lower 10th percentile, respectively). Over the last 25 years, an increasingly larger area of the country has experienced warm extremes than cold extremes. Figure adapted from FAQ #19 (figure A5.20) from the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is based on original data from the National Centers for Environmental Information.


Yep, we're in an interglacial cycle alright and still below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles so we are well within the normal range.

But how does this answer the question of what's better, 300 ppm or 580 ppm?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

After 50 years of warnings about too much human generated CO2 causing increased GW, perhaps runaway GW,.. now too much is seemingly never enough. Ya know, _CO2 doesn't really do shit! OMG, too little CO2 in the atmosphere will soon be causing ice to form at the poles! _


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.
> ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> After 50 years of warnings about too much human generated CO2 causing increased GW, perhaps runaway GW,.. now too much is seemingly never enough. Ya know, _CO2 doesn't really do shit! OMG, too little CO2 in the atmosphere will soon be causing ice to form at the poles! _


The more CO2 the better, bro.  

C'mon 580 ppm.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 580 ppm isn't going to hurt anything.
> ...


So 300 ppm or 580ppm?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)




----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


>


So 300 ppm or 580 ppm?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

According to the IPCC it looks like 520 ppm is the lowest prediction for the year 2100.

That's a good thing because 580 ppm is a nice safe number for humanity.  That will prevent another ice age.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

You can see how the temperature (red curve) did not respond to the rise in CO2 (blue curve) during the current interglacial cycle.  That's because CO2 doesn't drive climate change.  CO2 only reinforces climate change.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


My family probably wouldn't, we Americans have enough wealth to more or adapt, hey, I may get beachfront property if sea level rises enough.  A poor farmer in Bangladesh whose land gets inundated, may not be so lucky.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Don't hold your breath.  The sea level has been rising at 3 mm per year for the last 6,000 years.

We're in an interglacial cycle.  Have been for the past 22,000 years or so.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Temperature is not the issue, climate is the issue.  If droughts become common in the West, the old fights over water rights will only get worse.  If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities.  Chaos.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


So which would you prefer 300 ppm or 580 ppm?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Old wives tale. 

But again... we are in an interglacial cycle.  Temperatures have been rising for the past 22,000 years or so.

Water rights will be an issue regardless.  That's more of a function of population growth. Do you want to regulate that too?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We haven't been pumping CO2 in the atmosphere for 6,000 years.  Glaciers around the globe are melting.  What happens if the Antarctic Ice Sheets decide to speed up their movement and slip into the oceans?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities. Chaos.


What kind of dope are you smoking.  Sea level has been rising at 3 mm per year for the past 6,000 years.  It was rising at a much faster rate prior to that.  

So by the year 2100 it will have raised by about 1 foot and that will happen regardless of the CO2 level in the atmosphere.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


That's exactly my point.  We have not been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 22,000 years and temperatures have been rising for the last 22,000 years.  Glaciers around the globe have been melting for 22,000 years  too.  Just like the sea level has been rising for 22,000 years.  And during those years CO2 lagged temperature by 800 years.  Which proves that CO2 does not drive climate change.  It reinforces climate change.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish


This is an elevation contour map in meters of Florida relative to the mean sea level. 

How many years do you calculate that it will take for Florida to mostly vanish due to the rise in sea level?

Please show your math.  Or you could just reply with, "Hey, ding, that was a really stupid statement I made and I see your point."


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

So no real impact at 580 ppm.  But this graphic compares what northern hemisphere glaciation looked like 18,000 years ago versus today.  18,000 years ago was ~4,000 years into the current interglacial cycle which means it was actually worse 22,000 years ago. 





The graphic on the left is what the earth would look like if atmospheric CO2 was ~230 ppm?

Are we learning yet?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> After 50 years of warnings about too much human generated CO2 causing increased GW, perhaps runaway GW,.. now too much is seemingly never enough. Ya know, _CO2 doesn't really do shit! OMG, too little CO2 in the atmosphere will soon be causing ice to form at the poles! _




What do you mean by "too much"? ... and use temperature as our measure ... the IPCC report gives a 2ºC increase over the next 100 years ... this is the same as difference as between Chicago and Peoria ... damn near commuting distance ... just gives Peoria laughing right when there's a freeze in Chicago ...

I didn't quote your cute little charts ... they all use the statistical trick of "limiting the sample pool to drive up probabilities" ... just like the Monty Hall Paradox ... it's not a paradox, it's a fraud ... that's why it never happened on the show ... annual values are strictly weather, in the sense they're all subject to the dynamic forces at play ... climatology tries to "average out" these natural fluctuations by using longer periods of data for averaging, typically 100 years ... it's cooler today than yesterday, that doesn't mean we're glaciating ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> So 300 ppm or 580ppm?



Equal ... the same ... "within instrumentation error" ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> View attachment 371588



This map is very wrong ... there should be a line due west out of Miami ... straight across ... above that line is not subject to sea level inondation ...

The Everglades Parkway ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 371588
> ...


No.  It's not.  It's a higher resolution map than the one you are referring too.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> After 50 years of warnings about too much human generated CO2 causing increased GW, perhaps runaway GW,.. now too much is seemingly never enough. Ya know, _CO2 doesn't really do shit! OMG, too little CO2 in the atmosphere will soon be causing ice to form at the poles! _









Why would there be runaway greenhouse effect?  It was provably 2.3 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period and nothing happened other than England challenged France for wine production and this little thing called the Renaissance occurred.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So 300 ppm or 580ppm?
> ...


The same as what?  Today?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No idea.  Whatever it is today, that is where I'd vote to keep it.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> View attachment 371577
> 
> You can see how the temperature (red curve) did not respond to the rise in CO2 (blue curve) during the current interglacial cycle.  That's because CO2 doesn't drive climate change.  CO2 only reinforces climate change.









No, atmospheric CO2 increases BECAUSE the temp increased, it has no bearing on temp at all.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...







And none of that will happen.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Why?  We're at risk of entering a glacial cycle at 416 ppm.  That's where it was at when the glacial cycles started.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities. Chaos.
> ...


What kind of dope do you have?  How much sea level rise will it take to flood Florida or Bangladesh?

Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2018, global mean sea level was 3.2 inches (8.1 centimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present)


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> My family probably wouldn't, we Americans have enough wealth to more or adapt, hey, I may get beachfront property if sea level rises enough.  A poor farmer in Bangladesh whose land gets inundated, may not be so lucky.



Americans have a reliable pension program ... we get checks from the government instead of our children ... we don't need a dozen to support us in our dodderhood ... like they need in Bangladesh ... they've always built their homes on mounds there, it floods every year ... mitigating sea level rise over the next 100 years is only a few weekend's work piling more dirt on these mounds ... a dozen kids remember? ...

You'll want to wait 50 years before you build your home if you want beach front views in 100 ... houses don't last 100 years, not the way we build them today ...

My DIL's got wind I'll be insisting their kids call me Grandma ... I guess they stopped ovulating or something ... fear does strange things ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Using your claim that the GMSL rose 9 inches or 24 cm since 1880 calculates to a 1.7 mm/yr rise in GMSL.   Do you agree?

Using your claim that the GMSL rose 3.2 in or 8.1 cm since 1993 calculates to at 3 mm/yr rise in GMSL.  Do you agree?

So if the GMSL rises at 3 mm/yr using the topographic contour map of elevations above GMSL how many years do you calculate it will take for most of Florida to vanish?

You do see that the contours are in meters, right?  You do see that most of Florida is above 10 meters above GMSL, right?  Realistically for Florida to vanish we are talking about a 20m sea level rise.  That's 6,667 years.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> What kind of dope do you have?  How much sea level rise will it take to flood Florida or Bangladesh?
> 
> Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2018, global mean sea level was 3.2 inches (8.1 centimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present)



I've been alternating between "Purple Trainwreck" and "Lemon Royal" ... both from the Green Acre Farms just up the road ... they both test out at mid 20%'s in THC and trivial CBD's ... I like the sharp hit and quick fade ... what are you smoking right now? ...

Well ... there's a twenty foot berm with a roadbed on top there in South Florida, the Everglades Parkway cuts straight across between Miami and Naples ... I guess with two feet rise in 100 years, it'll only be an 18 foot berm with a road bed on top ... will our great-great-grandchildren notice? ... Bangladesh already floods every year during monsoon season ... ten feet ... that's the fresh water running down the mountains ... what does sea level have to do with that? ...

Your sea level rise number are running anemic ... at 3.2 mm/yr, we only see 320 mm in a century, about a foot ... piling dirt up one foot doesn't take 100 years ... Japan has been building 50 foot sea walls since the old ones washed away in 2011 ... hundreds of miles of 50 foot sea wall in just 9 years (including clean-up) ...

The satellite data is showing an acceleration to this rate, of 0.084 mm/yr/yr ... slapping that into the quadratic gives closer to 2 feet rise by year 2100 ... but piling two feet of dirt up is about as trivial as one foot ... call it 2% the cost (per mile) of the 41,000 mile interstate freeway system we built in twenty years here ... and this is all about the East Coast ... the West Coast is benched up 20 feet, in some places 30 feet (in some places 250 feet) ... but there will be a 200 foot tsunami there within 100 years, so no difference eh? ...

_California tumbles into the sea
That'll be the day I go
Back to Annandale_


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Well that is a relief.   But how do you know?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Actually it isn't that simple, the rising water doesn't just gently cover the land.  The effect of sea level rise is magnified by wave action.  Florida won't get covered by the rising water, it will be eroded away by the rising water.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of dope do you have?  How much sea level rise will it take to flood Florida or Bangladesh?
> ...


Pot is still a federal and VA no no so I'll have to wait some more.

As for sea level rise, it isn't that simple, the rising water doesn't just gently cover the land. The effect of sea level rise is magnified by wave action (or is it the other way round?). Florida won't get covered by the rising water, it will be eroded away by the rising water.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


It's exactly that simple.  You don't think there is wave action now too?  

Give it up man.  This is probably the first time you have ever looked at this in any detail.  Which is why you are grasping at straws when confronted with the reality of a 3 mm/yr rise.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

So now is the time to show why I believe 580 ppm is a great number.  Let's see who can figure this out?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

See all that spiky behavior of the last 5 million years?

That's what it looks like when the planet is experiencing bipolar glaciation.  

600 ppm keeps us out of that.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Actually I know quite a bit on the subject.  The future will be worse but here is the situation today:
In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Dude


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> See all that spiky behavior of the last 5 million years?
> 
> That's what it looks like when the planet is experiencing bipolar glaciation.
> 
> 600 ppm keeps us out of that.



That's kinda a bold statement ... why do you think the current 180-280 ppm oscillation is what causes the glacial/interglacial cycles? ... perhaps it is only an effect of some unknown aspect of the climate system ... would not a 500-600 ppm oscillation give roughly the same effect? ... how does the atmosphere hold this 600 ppm unless we're continually producing CO2 ... we may not be running out of fossil fuels but we're certainly have run out of _cheap_ fossil fuels ... we're already well into the not-so-cheap fossil fuels and soon we'll be into our hey-this-stuff-is-getting-expensive fossil fuels ... the oceans do more than absorb carbon, they also encapsulate it as sugar, proteins, DNA, RNA, enzymes, lipid, the list goes on ... biology sucks up CO2 like food ...

We can see the variations, but we don't know why they exist ... why do you think we can control something if we don't know what we're controlling ...

Research continues ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > See all that spiky behavior of the last 5 million years?
> ...


Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm.  Here's the research paper that says so.



> We show that the CO2 threshold below which glaciation occurs in the Northern Hemisphere (,280 p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica (,750 p.p.m.v.).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




200 ppm is full on glacier cycle.  You can see it on the graph below.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > See all that spiky behavior of the last 5 million years?
> ...


The conditions which led to the glacial interglacial cycles is CO2 level of 400 ppm and isolated polar regions from warm marine currents.  Conditions which still exist today.  Orbital cycles triggered the cycles but we have always had orbital cycles.  But it wasn't until the last 5 million years that we had isolated polar regions from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm and orbital cycles.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...









Because it has not happened when the planet was MUCH  warmer in the past.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Good and bad are a matter of perspective ... there's an area in Europe set aside and the natural environment quickly took over ... a place now considered an excellent example of primordial Europe before humanoids arrived ... about the only place in Europe with fertile soils not under industry cultivation ... just an amazing place ...
> 
> Japan has decided to do the same ... allowing the natural world to take over what was agricultural lands ... with every expectation to get a real world example of the islands before human invasion ...
> 
> Massive contamination of Cesium-135 is clearly GOOD for the environment ... _c.f._ Chernobyl and Fukushima ... removing humans is undeniable proof humans are BAD ... thus Covid-19 is GOOD ... ha ha ha ... humans are just the last diseased and putrid bud on a nearly dead branch of the tree of life whose only evolutionary advance is an unpalatable flesh ... nothing eats us except as carrion, and the older the better ...


So let's just presume for a moment that you weren't really interested in killing off all of humanity. Say you have kids, perhaps even grandkids. Maybe you even love them and not just because of all the time, money, and effort you've invested into raising them..
Question:


westwall said:


> We also know that 99% of all climatology studies are pure computer derived fiction that have zero relationship to reality.


Is that your opinion as well? If so, please define "We" for both of you.. and do supply anything reputably authoritative for backup. In other words, anything worth anyone's precious time,.. meaning other than from like minded posers and kooks or well documented and paid deniers.. And thanks!


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> other than from like minded posers and kooks or well documented and paid deniers.


For the second time...

No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.

But what I am arguing in this thread is the idiocy of worrying about an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 580 ppm.  It's actually a good level to have if we want to avoid extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Actually I know quite a bit on the subject.  The future will be worse but here is the situation today:
> In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​



Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ... 

*$500 million per year in coastal property loss*

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ... 

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ... 

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ... 

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm. Here's the research paper that says so.


Only it doesn't say so. You're not quoting them saying what you're saying. You're just desperate.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 5, 2020)

*The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist*
By Andrew Freedman - May 3rd, 2013








						The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central
					

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approaching a record high for all of human history.




					www.climatecentral.org
				




*The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. *​*Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, *​*the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, *​*and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now..*​​*According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. *​​*......*​
Lemme see.
With sea levels 100 feet higher
The world loses most of it's major cities and probably 60% of it's population displaced.



*`*


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

Sorry, messed this all up. This is westwall:


> ALL past evidence.  The paleoclimate record is pretty well known.  Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.








Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Translation~ I will just hump


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm. Here's the research paper that says so.
> ...


The paper absolutely does say so.  You're a real douche to lie like that.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

abu afak said:


> *The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist*
> By Andrew Freedman - May 3rd, 2013
> 
> 
> ...


Gee, when will sea levels rise 100 ft?


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, messed this all up. This is westwall:
> 
> 
> > ALL past evidence.  The paleoclimate record is pretty well known.  Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.
> ...









Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

abu afak said:


> *The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist*
> By Andrew Freedman - May 3rd, 2013
> 
> 
> ...


I just want to make sure I understand this claim, you are claiming the last time CO2 was this high, the sea levels were 100 ft higher than they are today?  Is that correct?  

So why aren't they 100 ft higher now, Mr. Mensa?


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I know quite a bit on the subject.  The future will be worse but here is the situation today:
> ...










This is absolutely correct.  Add to that the widespread damming of rivers which interrupts the sediment that would normally replenish the beaches, a problem known about for at least 60 years now, and the rising oceans are suddenly unfounded.  

Subsidence and the termination of natural beach replenishment are the actual causes of those issues.  But no climatologists will ever admit the truth.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm. Here's the research paper that says so.
> ...


So are you going to own up to your lie?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> So let's just presume for a moment that you weren't really interested in killing off all of humanity. Say you have kids, perhaps even grandkids. Maybe you even love them and not just because of all the time, money, and effort you've invested into raising them..



That's a little presumptuous of you ... as a "proof-of-concept", let's kill off all the 59-year-old white men ... scum of the Earth ... then have Greta glare at 58- and 60-year old white men ... see if that makes a difference ...



Grumblenuts said:


> Question:
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> ...



No, I do not agree with *Westwall* in many many aspects ... but he rarely violates the laws of thermodynamics, so he does rate quite high in my esteem ... 

So, er, right ... "pure computer derived fiction" actually comes from the field of computation fluid dynamics, and he's being generous ... if one in ten thousand runs come out clean, then we're still getting good results every few days ... the main problem is that to get a proper forecast two weeks out requires months if not years on a computer ... call it a thousand years to get the climate state in 50 years ... so what's the point? ... Moore's Law is still in effect so things are getting better ... 

It's statistics ... these computers can only output what they're programmed to ... echo "We're all gonna die"; ... and the ones NOAA has written are available to download, run them yourself and see what results you get ... I'd stack a few thousand MiniMacs or you'll be waiting a while for your results ... set the parameters to cubic millimeters and Planck's time ... well, you get the idea ... I think we use 7.5ºx7.5ºx820 mb for a unit volume and I don't know how they're clocked ... 

My only authority in these matters is I took a class in meteorology ... [shrugs shoulders] ... apparently that's more than anyone else ... so not an expert, and climatology does divert some for what we would consider the basics of the science ... but I do know the math has to be right, it's a "hard" science and if your math fails, you fail ... Einstein had his Wasserman, Faraday had his Maxwell ... we have Stefen-Boltzmann ... just the way things are ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Lemme see.
> With sea levels 100 feet higher
> The world loses most of it's major cities and probably 60% of it's population displaced.


It's stupid shit like this that has people questioning the beliefs of you idiots.

You are obviously divorced from reality and have absolutely zero understanding of anything you think you believe when you post such bizarre bullshit like this.  Even the IPCC doesn't say stupid shit like this and they say stupid shit.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?



Starting 2.2 billion years ago .. it would be cyanobacteria ... go look around the neighborhood for some mud puddles ... see ... cyanobacteria is still thriving ...


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > So let's just presume for a moment that you weren't really interested in killing off all of humanity. Say you have kids, perhaps even grandkids. Maybe you even love them and not just because of all the time, money, and effort you've invested into raising them..
> ...









Climatologists don't use CFD models though.  They use simple models that are so poorly constructed that no matter what numbers you plug in the result is always warming.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Lemme see.
> ...



He's only violating two of the laws of thermodynamics ... maybe a little credit where credit's due? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> Climatologists don't use CFD models though.  They use simple models that are so poorly constructed that no matter what numbers you plug in the result is always warming.



Enlighten me ... what's simpler than the CFD models? ... SB is T^4 = oF where T = temperature, o= Stefen-Boltzmann constant and F = Input irradiation (or flux if you prefer) ... can't get much simpler than that ...

These computer models output a distribution curve ... mass media latches onto the extreme values (0.01% change of occurring) and screams their click-bait headlines ... that's mass media, not climatologists ... I listen to the tofu-pukers on NPR and the climatologists they interview always say "it's too soon to tell" ... you know, sciency-like ...

I know exactly what you're talking about ... but I don't find this in the scientific literature ... paying someone $10,000 to read a script on FoxNews is one thing ... staking their reputation in _Nature Magazine_ is quite another ... I've looked through Hansen's textbook on climatology, quite different than what he said on the _Tonight Show_ ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Mammals have thrived? Fish, reptiles, birds? Or did you mean just bugs?
> ...


And only starting 0.5 million years ago? Fish. 0.3 million? Reptiles. Yeah, bugs it is. Thanks.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, messed this all up. This is westwall:
> ...


So "Whenever it has been warmer" is now just "during the PETM"?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


So, you just gonna act like nothing happened?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> And only starting 0.5 million years ago? Fish. 0.3 million? Reptiles. Yeah, bugs it is. Thanks.



I missed something ... fish have been around closer to 500 million years ... and yes, warmer temperatures are good for fish in general ... it's a chemistry thing ...
What's your point here ... "life" includes single cell organisms ... 2.2 billion years in our current lineage ...

So "Whenever it has been warmer" is now just "during the PETM"?

Yes, before then we had these things called "dinosaurs" that ate everything bigger than a mouse ... mammalian radiation had to wait until the dinosaurs evolved into birds ... and then the insects to arrive and eat bird eggs ... simple ... this is all before the ice started accumulating into the fridged planet we now see ... spewing the filth we call humanity ...

Yes, I'm enjoying this opportunity to insult everybody all at once ... something of a hobby of mine ... it's a skill set important in the construction trades ... humans are "better off" dead ... ha ha ha .. get it ... now go burn a tire ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



"using an isotope tracer-capable version of the same GCM used in our prior ..." 

Prior what? ... God, you have me on pins and needles here ... _*what's the punchline ??? ... would it kill you to post page 653? ... *_

I may have a list of questions later this evening for you ... but let me read this page 653 and perhaps I can scratch 100 or so off the list ... and remember: "Purple Trainwreck" ... thanx in advance ...


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...











						(PDF) Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
					

PDF | The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for the first continental-scale glaciation of Antarctica in the earliest... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				




You will have to click on the blue button that says "download full-text pdf" to end your suspense.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And I note westwall currently agrees with your assertion. Lol.
Here's that text (simply copied and pasted) and more to provide helpful context:


> We show that the C[O.sub.2] threshold *below which glaciation occurs* in the Northern Hemisphere (~280p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica (~750 p.p.m.v.). Therefore, the growth of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere immediately following Antarctic glaciation would have required rapid C02 drawdown within the Oi-1 timeframe, to levels lower than those estimated by geochemical proxies (10,11) and carbon-cycle models (13, 14). Instead of bipolar glaciation, we find that Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation alone, combined with deep-sea cooling of up to 4 [degrees]C and Antarctic ice that is less isotopically depleted (-30 to -35 [per thousand]) than previously suggested (15, 16). Proxy C[O.sub.2] estimates remain above *our model's northern-hemispheric glaciation threshold* of ~280 p.p.m.v. until ~25 Myr ago, *but have been near or below that level ever since* (10,11). This implies that episodic northern-hemispheric *ice sheets have been possible* some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed (although still much later than Oi-1) and could explain some of the variability in Miocene sea-level records (17,18).


From the title and intro, the overall context appears mainly concerned with evaluating the veracity of their model given the plethora of variables they've thrown into the mix.

Now notice:

Report says: "the C[O.sub.2] threshold below which glaciation occurs"
Report says: "ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed"



ReinyDays said:


> We can see the variations, but we don't know why they exist ... why do you think we can control something if we don't know what we're controlling ...
> 
> Research continues ...





ding said:


> Because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm.


Now what is your claim again, ding? _We know what we're controlling because northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 280 ppm? _Brrrt!, sorry, times up and.. you're still clearly an idiot. Be sure to read the *red, bold, underlined* bits again carefully before quietly exiting. Thanks.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > And only starting 0.5 million years ago? Fish. 0.3 million? Reptiles. Yeah, bugs it is. Thanks.
> ...


Yeah, wrong point and what's a few zeroes between friends? Lol


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

Reiny, while we clearly disagree on some things, I find you to be refreshing. A truly critical thinker with a healthy sense of humor. All too rare these days. Thanks for joining in the fray.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2020)

Ya gotta laugh ... all of life is fun ... I have nieces who beat me up ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 5, 2020)

"The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" _yada, yada_, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" _ blah, blah,_ "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" _yada, yada_, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"

See, _testing a hypothesis_ about "the possibility that" something "represents a precursory bipolar glaciation" by using one particular "model." This paper claims absolutely nothing about glaciers forming due to some level of CO2. They were guessing, based upon the ice core data and presumably one of their trusty models, that a reliable threshold (or limit) would be indicated, but really found nothing. So they will keep working on it... end of story.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> "The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" _yada, yada_, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" _ blah, blah,_ "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" _yada, yada_, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"
> 
> See, _testing a hypothesis_ about "the possibility that" something "represents a precursory bipolar glaciation" by using one particular "model." This paper claims absolutely nothing about glaciers forming due to some level of CO2. They were guessing, based upon the ice core data and presumably one of their trusty models, that a reliable threshold (or limit) would be indicated, but really found nothing. So they will keep working on it... end of story.



It's not a paper ... it's a letter ... they're only addressing other folk running similar models ... sharing information while preparing formal papers for publishing ... I don't know off hand _Nature's_ policies on these types of correspondence ... but this would never pass full peer review, it's just a snippet of some research going on someplace ... "details at 11" as it were ...

What else would you do with a computer that sized? ... I'd try to figure out how to get Americium to fission ... make some wildlife preserves ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> What else would you do with a computer that sized? ... I'd try to figure out how to get Americium to fission ... make some wildlife preserves ...


I'd probably sell it for scrap. The gold contacts alone would probably pay for a nice, new gaming PC, lol. Nah, I'd let them keep doing what they do. Probably good jobs with decent benefits. More power to 'em.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Climatologists don't use CFD models though.  They use simple models that are so poorly constructed that no matter what numbers you plug in the result is always warming.
> ...










That's not a CFD  (or shall I say, a competent one) model.  CFD models are used in F1 racing and aviation to calculate aerodynamic forces that affect performance.  They cost, on average, 45 million dollars, and are run 24/7 during the year to develop parts.

And, they have a success rate less than .1% in that part development endeavor.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...








No, but we have a very good paleoclimate record for the PETM.  You know, you are real good at making childish comments,  how about you grow up and talk like an adult and actually discuss the science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?
> 
> Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world.  It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world.  An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.
> 
> ...



We're at 420ppm and the scientific consensus is that all life on Earth will end in 10 year as the Earth will be completely uninhabited with surface temperatures exceeding those on Venus


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


The was the worst apology in the history of the world.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > "The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" _yada, yada_, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" _ blah, blah,_ "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" _yada, yada_, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"
> ...


Holy shit.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...





Grumblenuts said:


> "The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for" _yada, yada_, "reflecting a combination of terrestrial ice growth and deep-sea cooling. The apparent" _ blah, blah,_ "argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica;" _yada, yada_, "raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotopecapable global climate/ice-sheet model"
> 
> See, _testing a hypothesis_ about "the possibility that" something "represents a precursory bipolar glaciation" by using one particular "model." This paper claims absolutely nothing about glaciers forming due to some level of CO2. They were guessing, based upon the ice core data and presumably one of their trusty models, that a reliable threshold (or limit) would be indicated, but really found nothing. So they will keep working on it... end of story.


You are truly an idiot when it comes to science.



			https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/onset.html


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Because he can’t discuss the science. That’s why. He’s a wannabe. A poser. A pretender. A fake.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


He said, after a one line response to a perfectly reasonable question. Fine admission, btw. Thanks for that. Yes, the temperature being much higher for that relatively short period clearly spurred a lot of growth (while melting the polar ice). Sorry, simply creating more (quantity) of "life" has never been the "adult" issue. The quality of human life, our survival as a species, has obviously been the focus. That of our supportive flora and fauna of secondary concern at best. Reiny would seemingly prefer the reverse, which is fine, but she'd have nothing to complain about if things were actually her way.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

One entire response:


ding said:


> The was the worst apology in the history of the world.


Next one:


ding said:


> Holy shit.


Next:


ding said:


> You are truly an idiot when it comes to science.
> 
> https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/onset.html


Next:


ding said:


> Because he can’t discuss the science. That’s why. He’s a wannabe. A poser. A pretender. A fake.





westwall said:


> You know, you are real good at making childish comments, how about you grow up and talk like an adult


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...








Relatively short period?  The MWP lasted hundreds of years.  Longer than this country has been around by an order of magnitude.

I guess you don't understand how life actually works.  When life is abundant that means the conditions for life are abundant.   When the conditions for life are abundant,  that means the QUALITY of life is good.

Do you not understand that simple fact?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> That's not a CFD  (or shall I say, a competent one) model.  CFD models are used in F1 racing and aviation to calculate aerodynamic forces that affect performance.  They cost, on average, 45 million dollars, and are run 24/7 during the year to develop parts.
> 
> And, they have a success rate less than .1% in that part development endeavor.



I don't think you know what I'm talking about ... luckily, I do know what you are ... these are just a couple of applications of the science of Fluid Dynamics ... how race cars and airplanes move through the fluid atmosphere ... but we also have rockets, submarines, hydraulic systems, home plumbing, rivers and lakes ... anytime we have a fluid in motion, we can apply the principles of Fluid Dynamics ...

In the context of this thread, the most important application is in weather prediction ... using the principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics to anticipate what the air flow will bring to that location over a number of different time periods ... as a simple and extremely accurate example, in a 10 mph wind field, we just call the weather station 120 miles upstream ... whatever weather they have will be the 12 hour forecast at our location ...

"Computational" Fluid Dynamics is the science of taking these principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics and programming them into a computer ... so that we input the current state and get output of what the state will be in 15 minutes, then take that output and feed it back in to get the state in 30 minutes, what is called an iteration ... for (n=1, n<500, ++) {some mathimagical gobbly-gook;} ... and again the applications of this CFD is wide and quite varied, including video games (I didn't believe this at first but then applied these principles in a qualitative way and the results were spot-on correct ... made me a believer ... taking vegetable growing time as pressure, the trucking company as viscosity, I was able to solve for flux maxima at the market .. got my Radish Rajah award in no time) ...

Anyway ... focusing in on the claim I made above ... NOAA's facility is called the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory located at Princeton U and they use the big Cray at Oak Ridge ... not sure what a 140,000 core Cray costs but I'd guess a little more than $45 million ... perhaps it's $45m to rent FLOPS there? ... 

SB is our relationship between temperature and irradiation ... NS is strictly about motion ... in Climatology we try to average out these motions so we can better examine energy transfer through the atmosphere ... which is exact what SB does ... calculating lift in airplanes and downforce in race cars ignores the radiative transfer of energy, it's all about pressure force, part 'n' parcel of NS ... we don't really care about pressure forces in Climatology as much as input solar energy and how this transits our fluid atmosphere ... SB is the relationship we use for this ...

I hope this clarifies my claims above ... I'll be busy today scrapping old smoke detectors for recycling ... yeah ... what? ... why y'all looking at me that way? ... I'm not up to anything, just doing the Captain Planet shuffle ... doing my part to help the environment ... I'm thinking Yosemite ...


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That's not a CFD  (or shall I say, a competent one) model.  CFD models are used in F1 racing and aviation to calculate aerodynamic forces that affect performance.  They cost, on average, 45 million dollars, and are run 24/7 during the year to develop parts.
> ...








Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about.  What I was pointing out was the CFD models the climatologists use are so poor that they ALWAYS result in a warming bias no matter what numbers are plugged in.

That's why I referenced the models used in F1 which are the most complex in the world and even they have a less than 1% success rate.

The models used by climatologists are inherently biased which means their success rate is in the negative.

They can NEVER be successful.


As far as the computer used the F1 teams use computers far more powerful than the Cray.  I was using Crays 20 years ago.  They are now outclassed.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

Congrats on your Radish Rajah award. Well earned, I'd say, and long overdue even if it only took you five minutes!


ReinyDays said:


> "Computational" Fluid Dynamics is the science of taking these principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics and programming them into a computer ... so that we input the current state and get output of what the state will be in 15 minutes, then take that output and feed it back in to get the state in 30 minutes, what is called an iteration ... for (n=1, n<500, ++) {some mathimagical gobbly-gook;} ..


What you're talking about suggests a For Next loop application (or any loop routine for that matter). Why one needs a Cray is due to the shear volume of data inputs all being processed in parallel and in near real time. I'd study windmill design with one for sure, on second thought.

When I "worked" for the Navy in some previous life, I found myself getting paid way too much to just fart around all day. Perfect! So, after figuring out that begging for something (!anything!) to do all the time was just royally pissing everyone off, I settled for playing around with a fairly new HP computer the big boss had shown me on a tour. It had just been collecting dust in a closet, so I began familiarizing myself with its version of "Visual Basic."

The same boss popped in one day, noticed I was printing stuff out (doing something, OMG!) and asked if I could program the thing to anticipate a next point given a series of about ten previous position data (a "moving average" is the technical jargon). I discovered he'd already gone to lunch five minutes later, so I just left some printouts on his desk. All hell broke loose about an hour later. Seems one bigtime con artist had apparently been milking that problem for years. I recall him screaming at me in anger, "What did you do here? This can't be right!" I couldn't figure out what the hell he was raving about. To me, already bored to tears with such logic and programming, it was just such cake. To them it was like "How dare you actually accomplish something here!" Lol.

It was the same facile process with only one input. Obvious For Next loop application. Simples. Done. I wasn't there much longer because I could no longer walk after burning the crap out of my leg one night, but I'm left wondering just how much my little contribution helped them with their mission of nefariously mapping the entire ocean floor using only submarine sonar. They apparently needed the moving average to smoothly control the rudder combined with the vessel's gyroscope. Probably all outdated at least thirty years ago, but who knows?


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Congrats on your Radish Rajah award. Well earned, I'd say, and long overdue even if it only took you five minutes!
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> ...










Care to guess how many variables there are in figuring out a hindcast for the weather we had yesterday?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!


----------



## james bond (Aug 6, 2020)

Heh.  Nine pages on CO2?  Some people need better hobbies.


----------



## james bond (Aug 6, 2020)

We're not even close to 65 million years.

Why don't the believers just wear a mask all the time and lessen their CO2 output?  N95 mask at the minimum.  The harder it is to breathe is better.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!










No, I want you to list some.  Let's see how well versed you are in the science.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Again, it is climate not temperature.  If, as you say, the planet was MUCH  warmer in the past, you should also acknowledge that the Sahara was not a desert.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...










Agreed.  And you should know the Sahara is regreening as the CO2 level is increasing.  



*Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?**James Owen
for National Geographic News**July 31, 2009* Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.

This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


As I said, winners and losers.  If the rain is falling in the Sahara, where isn't it falling?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I know quite a bit on the subject.  The future will be worse but here is the situation today:
> ...


You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem.  Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Didn't I already cover rising sea levels with you?


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

At the most extreme stage of the last glaciation, most of Canada and much of the northern USA were covered by an ice sheet thousands of metres in thickness.  Atmospheric CO2 was ~200 ppm.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

This is what it looks like now.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Who want's them some CO2 now


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

james bond said:


> Heh.  Nine pages on CO2?  Some people need better hobbies.


Given that you believe the earth is ~6,000 years old this might not be the thread for you.  


Just sayin'


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!


Have you figured out how to read published scientific papers yet?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Probably.  Did you cover it with ReinyDays?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> Who want's them some CO2 now


Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.  So far as I know, we don't know for certain that CO2 is the cause or the effect of ice ages.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Who want's them some CO2 now
> ...


Let's be specific.  Northern hemisphere glaciation.  It initiates at a much lower atmospheric CO2 level than the south pole.  Don't really know how anyone can argue against this which means they can't argue that CO2 doesn't play a major role in glaciation for the current landmass configuration.

Yes, it's a combination of things.  CO2 is most certainly one of them.  Listed as causes or necessary conditions are: polar regions being isolated from warmer marine currents and atmospheric CO2.  Trigger events or conditions are orbital cycles and circulation patterns of the ocean.  Specifically the gulf stream. Whether is switches off or not.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Can't wait for mumblenuts and rainman to come make some unrelated and irrelevant comment.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Wow, that's really deep.  I don't know how I could have gotten through the day without reading this valuable and insightful scientific insight.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!
> ...


I have noticed the conflux of dick waving going on.. Not much else of note from the self-flagellating contingent.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Dude, I think it's awesome that you deny the role CO2 plays in climate.  I mean, if it doesn't cause glaciation then it doesn't cause global warming. 

That's some brilliant argument you made.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So now you're saying CO2 causes global warming?

You're melting down, son.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I'm saying your arguing against CO2 as a necessary background condition for northern hemisphere glaciation argues against global warming, dummy.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...









Who says the rain has to stop anywhere?  The facts are the whole world is most likely to get more rain.  The Earth operates on vast cycles, cold/wet, cold/dry. warm/wet, warm/dry, etc.  If the world is entering a warm/wet cycle the whole world will get more rain.  And that is a good thing.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...









There is no evidence to support your claim.  There has been no land loss due to sea level increase in 100 years.  There will be eventually, maybe, but photographs of the same areas world wide at the same tide level shows no difference over the last 100 years.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

Early August is when we can usually start skipping the lawn mowing every other week. Not so any more. Blammo, five inches of rain on Tuesday. Tornadoes...








						Chopper 6 video shows storm damage at daycare, Central Bucks West football field in Doylestown
					

Tropical Storm Isaias left widespread damage across the region, bringing flooding rains, high winds and tornadoes on Tuesday.




					6abc.com
				




CC? AGW? Eh, no problem!


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Early August is when we can usually start skipping the lawn mowing every other week. Not so any more. Blammo, five inches of rain on Tuesday. Tornadoes...
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Correct, no problem.  Here where I live we usually have to run the air conditioner at least 20 times by now, so far we have had to run it 5.  It's called weather.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> I'm saying your arguing against CO2 as a necessary background condition for northern hemisphere glaciation argues against global warming, dummy.


I believe _you're_ attempting to communicate, but sadly,.. as usual,.. _failing_


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> It's called weather.


No, it's climate change.


> Colorful autumn foliage, winter recreation, and summer vacations in the mountains or at the beach are all important parts of the Northeast’s cultural identity, and this tourism contributes billions of dollars to the regional economy. The seasonal climate, natural systems, and accessibility of certain types of recreation are threatened by declining snow and ice, rising sea levels, and rising temperatures. By 2035, and under both lower and higher scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5), the Northeast is projected to be more than 3.6°F (2°C) warmer on average than during the preindustrial era. This would be the largest increase in the contiguous United States and would occur as much as two decades before global average temperatures reach a similar milestone.36
> 
> The region’s oceans and coasts support a rich maritime heritage and provide an iconic landscape, as well as economic and ecological services. Highly productive marshes,37,38 fisheries,39,40 ecosystems,41,42 and coastal infrastructure43,44 are sensitive to changing environmental conditions, including shifts in temperature, ocean acidification, sea level, storm surge, flooding, and erosion. Many of these changes are already affecting coastal and marine ecosystems, posing increasing risks to people, traditions, infrastructure, and economies (e.g., Colburn et al. 201645). These risks are exacerbated by increasing demands on these ecosystems to support human use and development. The Northeast has experienced some of the highest rates of sea level rise46 and ocean warming39 in the United States, and these exceptional increases relative to other regions are projected to continue through the end of the century


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


There actually is evidence to support my claim:
In an effort to communicate climate change indicators, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked with coastal management organizations to identify the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast.  EPA’s analyses revealed that from 1996 to 2011, roughly 20 square miles of dry land and wetland were converted to open water along the Atlantic coast. Analysts also found more land was lost in the Southeast than in the Mid-Atlantic, and a greater loss occurred to dry land than nontidal wetland.​


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's called weather.
> ...








Provably untrue.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...









Nope.  That is all due to the damming of the rivers and the subsequent loss of sediment load that would normally be deposited along the shoreline.  That specific region was mentioned as far back as 60 years ago as being in particular danger of shoreline loss due to reduced sediment load.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Silly me, here I thought geo-scientists would have taken that into account when they did their analysis.  If only they had asked for your help.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...










Amazingly enough when money and power became the motive all of that earlier science was ignored.  Funny that.  And that is the problem that the science of climatology has, they are all forced to appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy when those whose opinions are used have a monetary entanglement.  And guess what.  They ALL do.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> For the second time...
> 
> No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.


O'Reilly? Better remind westwall. He's been calling obvious GHG effects "weather."






See that large, blue spike all the way to the right? Yeah, much higher than anything seen in the past 400,000 years or so. The hardcore deniers these days, just as here, never cease pointing out that the CO2 rise trails the rise in temperature. But note how no such rise in temperature leads that huge CO2 rise all the way on the right. Odd? Huh. Notice also how the largest temperature spikes tend to mark the beginning of each long cooling cycle. Except all the way to the right. Gee, perhaps experiencing this continued quick warming trend instead of the indicated cooling is what has been "alarming" climatologists.. Ya think!??


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > For the second time...
> ...








If you blow up the resolution you will see that first the temp increases, and THEN the CO2 levels rise.  400 to 800 years after the warming has begun.

The Earth operates on vast time scales.  Things happening today, won't actually present for at least 400 years.

Mankind has no clue how slow time passes for the Earth.  We are mere fleas on her back.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Silly me, here I thought geo-scientists would have taken that into account when they did their analysis.  If only they had asked for your help.
> ...


Well that explains it, not only are scientists stupid but they are also corrupt and involved in a global conspiracy to make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.  Thanks for opening my eyes.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > For the second time...
> ...


The feedback of sequestration of the ocean is well established.  Please don't tell me that you are going to argue against that now too.

This is getting to be comical.  CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Here's the beauty.  Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.  So you will get to see for yourself that CO2 doesn't drive climate change.  At least, not to the extreme that you think it will.


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

So simple even a caveman can understand?


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > For the second time...
> ...


If you take away nothing else from this graph takeaway that since CO2 has led temperature (post industrial revolution), temperature did not follow.

And there are several examples like this in the earths history.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about.  What I was pointing out was the CFD models the climatologists use are so poor that they ALWAYS result in a warming bias no matter what numbers are plugged in.
> 
> That's why I referenced the models used in F1 which are the most complex in the world and even they have a less than 1% success rate.
> 
> ...



No ... obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about ... you do not know what NS is ... so you just ignored what I posted and went into some dribble about F1 airflow models ... wind tunnel simulations, right? ... God, that is so lame ... 

The bias is in your own heart ... and I'm assuming you mean political bias, and not amplification bias ... those are two different things and in this context you really should make the distinction ... we have emperical data that shows a warming tread, professional meteorologists taking temperature readings every hour on the hour for a 100 years ... a vast majority of stations show increasing average temperatures ... that climate models show the same thing continuing over the next 100 years isn't an indication they're wrong ... very very strange you should think that ... political bias? ... tell me, with the establish 1ºC rise over the past 100 years, why do you think a 1ºC temperature rise over the next 100 years is so outrageous? ... 

[holds up hand] ... I'm as skeptical of these climate model results as you are ... don't get me wrong ... the difference is I can clearly articulate why I'm skeptical and you're just spewing FoxsNew copy ... where we get such zingers as negative probabilities ... statistics ain't my strong suit but I do believe odds aren't ever negative, by definition ...

Cray is still in business ... still making computers ... the new Frontier model they're building at Oakridge is exascale and when operational next year should be the fastest in the world rated (unclassified) at 1.5 exaflops ... price tag "over $600 million" ... what make and model of exascale computers do all these many F1 teams use that so greatly outperform the US DoD computers modeling nuclear explosions, if you know off hand ... the other computer I was going to bring up doesn't exist, there's No Such Agency in the US Government ... I swear ...

While I was fact checking my posts, came across the computer I cut my teeth on ... PDP/11 is going for $270 new, solder not included ... I cried ... just need a 24 inch Winny ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> Care to guess how many variables there are in figuring out a hindcast for the weather we had yesterday?



I count 20 ... what do you get? ...


----------



## ding (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about.  What I was pointing out was the CFD models the climatologists use are so poor that they ALWAYS result in a warming bias no matter what numbers are plugged in.
> ...


So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm


----------



## abu afak (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.





			
				ding"[/quote]
As always said:
			
		

> 372070[/ATTACH]


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...







Yes, that certainly describes the climatologists.   The ones pushing this fraud are incredibly corrupt.

You have to ask yourself why climatologists are the only scientists who refuse to follow the scientific method.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2020)

ding said:


> So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm



Put me down for 800 ppm Cs-135 ... [giggle] ... attend please:

We're at least twenty years behind designing new nuclear power plants ... and it will be another twenty before we start ... just as the fossil fuels are getting really expensive ... we'll go "Manhattan Project" on it and throw these things up as fast as humanly possible ... safety be damned ... 100 years from now we've got Fukushima Events every month ...

We'll survive but our breeding rate will be cut ...


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm
> ...








They already have designed small nukes that can power a city.  You bury them, they need no maintenance,  they work for 20 years, you dig them up and replace them.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2020)

westwall said:


> They already have designed small nukes that can power a city.  You bury them, they need no maintenance,  they work for 20 years, you dig them up and replace them.



"they need no maintenance"

Now that's _funny_ ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 6, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> While I was fact checking my posts, came across the computer I cut my teeth on ... PDP/11 is going for $270 new, solder not included ... I cried ... just need a 24 inch Winny ...


Lol. My first thoughts upon reading PDP/11 were _VAX_ and _Oh, how sad!_ Long story.. Anyways, my teeth cutter:


Only pretty sure mine had toggle switches instead of those red buttons along the bottom. Among the first ever made. Ah, the good old days.. That thing was a blast.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> So you will get to see for yourself that CO2 doesn't drive climate change.


Ah, I see.. So then you don't really believe it causes glaciers to magically appear either and your OP was just some sad attempt to be funny. Okay, figures and thanks! Btw, thanks for following me around the board to compliment my posts. What a sweetie pie! _My Ding-A-Ling, my Ding-A-Ling,.._


----------



## james bond (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Given that you believe the earth is ~6,000 years old this might not be the thread for you.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'



What about water vapor?  That was created very early.  It is the _greatest_ greenhouse gas. You change ppm on that and really upset the chemistry and atmosphere of the world. That will kill the entire planet if someone could do it. That's demonstrable with a greenhouse.

Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen -- just enough CO2 and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life, allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and to allow for sufficient rainfall.  

Thus, what do you think you are believing with this CO2 and ppm on it?  The science of atheism.

The science of atheism found these fine tuning parameters.  They found how gravity affects our greenhouse gases and atmosphere.  This was from 2007 - 2011.  Today, you won't be able to find the discussion of these parameters on the internet.  The science of atheism has disavowed all of it due to it helping people like myself, the creationists.  Stephen Hawking knew it because he either led that group or was part of the group of scientists who found them while studying the big bang.

Basically, nothing lasts 65 million years.  Our common sense should tell us that rocks and fossils would not be around that long.  Our planet would not be around that long.  Our universe is churning into destruction.

Anyway, let's wait for the James Webb telescope to see what really is happening around us.  We should learn more about our atmospheric conditions compared to other solar systems  and galaxies.  The science of atheism which you believe does not want to admit that we have the perfect location for life.


----------



## james bond (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Cray is still in business ... still making computers ... the new Frontier model they're building at Oakridge is exascale and when operational next year should be the fastest in the world rated (unclassified) at 1.5 exaflops ... price tag "over $600 million" ... what make and model of exascale computers do all these many F1 teams use that so greatly outperform the US DoD computers modeling nuclear explosions, if you know off hand ... the other computer I was going to bring up doesn't exist, there's No Such Agency in the US Government ... I swear ...



Compare your Cray back then to the iPhone.  iPhone wins hands down.  Just give me the money you paid for a Cray back then and put it in my pocket.  I'll put an iPhone 12 in yours.


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > They already have designed small nukes that can power a city.  You bury them, they need no maintenance,  they work for 20 years, you dig them up and replace them.
> ...









Look up Small Nuclear Reactors.  L I'll keep I said, science advances.  You folks should try and stay current.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm
> ...


You had me until fossil fuels get really expensive.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So you will get to see for yourself that CO2 doesn't drive climate change.
> ...


Not in the way you think.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Given that you believe the earth is ~6,000 years old this might not be the thread for you.
> ...


Not the thread for you.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.
> ...


Did you have a point, Mr. Mensa?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally..  spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally..  spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.



Could you lay out that "plain logic" again ... with links ... I must have missed it the first time around because you sure haven't been making any sense ...

If A, then B ... you know, plain like you said ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

westwall said:


> "they need no maintenance"
> Now that's _funny_ ...


Look up Small Nuclear Reactors.  L I'll keep I said, science advances.  You folks should try and stay current.
[/QUOTE]

I haven't been able to find the _National Enquirer_ article you're referencing ... but somebody lied to you ...

I did read the blerb about this from DoE ... and as I thought, we're twenty years from a prototype scheduled to go up in Utah ...

1]  Water cooled ... we're not going to bury and forget a water cooled nuclear reactor ... just stupid to think they have no weekly maintenance work ... it's a joke, the idea is _supposed_ to make you laugh ... why would you believe such nonsense? ... [sigh] ... what Satanic demon forced you to post that here? ... I'm thinking you have too many house cats to be honest ... 

*Yes ... water cooled is why I'm predicting 800 ppm Cs-135 by year 2100 ... we know it's wrong, but we're going to do it anyway ... DoE says so ...*

2] Spent fuel rods ... we'll just leave these in the ground? ... smart, real smart ... our nuclear future will NOT be inexpensive ... that's the mistake we made in the 1950's ... we threw up cheap reactors cheaply ... and now the garbage is piling up ... it's going to be expensive, because we have to build breeder reactors ... 

This is strictly "Pie in the sky, go to heaven when we die" theology ... nothing wrong with putting up nuclear reactors in unstable third-world brutal dictatorships, now is there? ... DoE is just now getting funding to look into the regulators aspects of all this ... like I said, should have been done twenty years ago ... right now it's twenty years just to get a prototype up for "proof of concept" ...

By the way ... where are we going to get our reactor vessels? ... Westinghouse bankrupted out from underneath their division ... you should try and stay current ... (_c.f._ Thorium reactors)


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> You had me until fossil fuels get really expensive.



Tell me truly ... you haven't notice fuel prices are running three times the inflation rate? ... that's today ... are you not including the trillions spent defending Saudi oil fields ... who cleans up northern Alberta? ... how many more Deep Horizons? ... Santa Barbara ... Prince William Sound ... coastal Texas ... I know, hasn't cost us anything yet ... but we're talking 100 years from now ... 30 billion people driving cars ... 30 times the electric generation ... 

Or do you think fossil fuels are continually bubbling up from the mantle? ...


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You had me until fossil fuels get really expensive.
> ...


Two words... shale oil

It's everywhere.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I can't stop laughing at you accusing me of what you are doing.


----------



## Likkmee (Aug 7, 2020)

I like about 22 cfm myself. That's with.030 S6


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > What's comical, if anything, is witnessing you repeatedly fail to follow plain logic so just react emotionally..  spitting out non sequitur garbage like this. I can appreciate your disappointment with being schooled after clearly investing considerable time, effort, and unwarranted trust in some common denier BS, but that's all your fault nonetheless. Stop blaming the messenger.
> ...


Sure thing. Let me just lay out the plainly obvious off the top of my head, then perhaps drill down a bit later. The AGW deniers have unsurprisingly been reacting like crazy to the ice core data graphs since published. Unsurprising because it shockingly threatened to end the easy windfalls long enjoyed by the wealthy's investments in fossil fuels. A key component of all their portfolios and retirement plans.

Revealed in the most striking detail ever was

The interdependence of global temperature and atmospheric CO2
That we should be entering a cooling period despite temperatures rising
That industrialization was now driving CO2 levels through the roof
So these clear implications simply had to be attacked from any and all directions at once. Never, EVER simply acknowledged. No!!

I've got too much shit to do. I'll be back..


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Two words... shale oil
> It's everywhere.



No it's not ... unless you have a citation ...

Are you including the cost of clean up? ... or are we going to leave all the heavy metal neuro-toxins on the surface for the rains to wash into rivers? ... we going to just leave the tailings in big poisonous piles? ... 

It's ideas like this that make Cs-135 sound great ... the next generation won't care, now will they ... seriously, northern Alberta is an environmental mess, that land is ruined ... I know Canada deserves this, but you said everyplace ...


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Two words... shale oil
> ...


Shale oil or I should say the technology to make producing shale oil commercially viable has altered the financial landscape for oil and gas production.  Source rocks are literally everywhere.  

Just look at the historic US oil production curve for proof of shale oil's influence on the oil patch.

But if you'd rather not believe me, I'm cool with that too.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

Likkmee said:


> I like about 22 cfm myself. That's with.030 S6


A mig welder's joke? I just use flux wire anymore and live with the crappy results, lol.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Didn't I just explain the relationship between CO2 and isolated poles from warm marine currents?  Kind of hard for you to say with a straight face that I haven't acknowledged the role CO2 has played in climate.  

Your problem is you can't discuss those implications like an adult.  It is what it is.  And you bury your head in the sand when anyone expresses anything different than what you believe.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

I haven't presented one single thing that is not widely accepted within the scientific community.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



You had your chance to respond intelligently and just babbled non sequitur accusations. Now you're just continuing to dissemble and interrupt. Got a question? No? Then kindly butt TF out of our _conversation_, you pouty little child.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


This is my thread.  I have responded intelligently in every post.  

What you are accusing me of is what YOU have done.  Again.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sure thing. Let me just lay out the plainly obvious off the top of my head, then perhaps drill down a bit later. The AGW deniers have unsurprisingly been reacting like crazy to the ice core data graphs since published. Unsurprising because it shockingly threatened to end the easy windfalls long enjoyed by the wealthy's investments in fossil fuels. A key component of all their portfolios and retirement plans.
> 
> Revealed in the most striking detail ever was
> 
> ...



You got me ... what is "plainly obvious" about the weasel words you're using ... "deniers", "unsurprisingly", "like crazy", "shockingly", "windfalls", "wealthy's" ... what is the logical basis of surprise or shock ... how are we to deduce these qualities, and how do we quantify them and perform an experiment to either confirm or refute these values? ...

Please ... what is the mathematical relationship between temperatures and CO2 concentration? ...
Please ... why is it physically impossible for temperatures to rise slightly, over a brief period of time, even during a general cooling process? ...
Please ... what is the CO2 "roof" you speak of ... the 960,000 ppm primordial levels? ... 

For the love of God ... please stop using weasel words ... they make you look like a weasel ...

I'm off to practice my tap-dancing atop a 24 foot extension ladder ... if I don't post anymore means I've fallen to my death ...


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2020)

westwall said:


> You have to ask yourself why climatologists are the only scientists who refuse to follow the scientific method.


Quite an accusation.  Got any examples?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> This is my thread.



Couple of things I've been wanting to ask you .. so thank you for this permission ...

1]  Arctic Amplification + 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... thoughts, opinions, profanity? ...

2] Are you buying electric power to post here on the Free Market ... or are you using *SOCIALISM* electricity? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You have to ask yourself why climatologists are the only scientists who refuse to follow the scientific method.
> ...



Scientology doesn't use scientific method ... does that help? ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

So westwall's a Scientologist?



ReinyDays said:


> You got me ... what is "plainly obvious" about the weasel words you're using ... "deniers", "unsurprisingly", "like crazy", "shockingly", "windfalls", "wealthy's" ... what is the logical basis of surprise or shock ... how are we to deduce these qualities, and how do we quantify them and perform an experiment to either confirm or refute these values? ...


Wow, you expected a robot? Is it even possible to mistake this place for a peer review board or something? Sorry, having difficulty finding your complaint credible. My intent is to be unambiguous, punchy, and fun. Not wordy, whiny, and always full of beans like some people around here  


> Please ... what is the CO2 "roof" you speak of ... the 960,000 ppm primordial levels? ...
> 
> For the love of God ... please stop using weasel words ... they make you look like a weasel ...
> 
> I'm off to practice my tap-dancing atop a 24 foot extension ladder ... if I don't post anymore means I've fallen to my death ...


Okay, what do you have  against weasels? Don't be a fool. Be sure that ladder stays well secured to your deck railing and lays perfectly flat on the ground!


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > This is my thread.
> ...


I am glad I could oblige.  It was the least I could do. Never let it be said I didn't do the least I could do. 

Not sure what you are getting at with #1 so a little more information would be helpful.  The closest I can come to understanding arctic amplification is albedo.  So some condition or conditions trigger a really cold winter and the snow pack doesn't melt during the summer in Canada and parts of northern America and it's albedo amplifies the conditions which were triggered by orbital forces or gulf stream switch off or both.  The following winter is amplified by the lack of summer so to speak.  A snow ball rolling down the hill so to speak.

But the underlying conditions which set the table so to speak are the isolated polar regions from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 similar to our curent level.

On #2 I don't think it is *SOCIALISM *electricity but tell me more and I might be convinced.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> So westwall's a Scientologist?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So objectivity and manners are too much to ask for?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> So objectivity and manners are too much to ask for?


You mean like not butting into other's conversations just to leave pissy comments?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you poor people ... I'm still alive ... was on the 6 foot step ladder when I fell, no biggie, had the sense to snatch the paint bucket out of mid-air before it spilled ... either fly a ladder leg 6 inches off the ground ... OR tilt the ladder 30º to the horizon ... not both ... safety tip there ...

*So westwall's a Scientologist?*

westwall's a colander head ... existence is refutable ... with marinara ...

=====

The arctic is warming twice as fast as the equator ... energy has less force behind it moving it through the atmosphere ... thus more powerful weather events will be less likely ... less floods, less droughts, fewer hurricanes, etc etc etc ... yes, no, I'm an idiot? ...

How many power companies are you allowed to do business with? ... one? ... [smile] ... as they say in the trade ... || ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> You mean like not butting into other's conversations just to leave pissy comments?



Let's not get pissy about it ...


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you poor people ... I'm still alive ... was on the 6 foot step ladder when I fell, no biggie, had the sense to snatch the paint bucket out of mid-air before it spilled ... either fly a ladder leg 6 inches off the ground ... OR tilt the ladder 30º to the horizon ... not both ... safety tip there ...
> 
> *So westwall's a Scientologist?*
> 
> ...


Yes, that is true.  It really should be called polar warming.  I've been saying that for awhile.  But this is what happens during an interglacial cycle.  

As for the more or less intense storms, droughts, hurricanes, flood, locus, frogs, etc. I don't put any stock into that at all.  

Still not following the power company thingee.  You will have to give more of an explanation to me because I is slow.


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So objectivity and manners are too much to ask for?
> ...


Actually I was referring to not lying.  

If you don't lie that the northern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur at 280 ppm and southern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur until 750 ppm then there is no pissy response at all.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2020)

Just because you don't examine things, doesn't make them irrational ... just because you won't listen, doesn't mean there's no definition of socialism ... 

Maybe some day read you sig line ... just saying ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> when I fell, no biggie, had the sense to snatch the paint bucket out of mid-air before it spilled ...


I'm concerned that the paint bucket may be experiencing PTSD. Are you sure it's going to be okay?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> If you don't lie that the northern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur at 280 ppm and southern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur until 750 ppm then there is no pissy response at all.


Boy, that's a lot of negatives to parse. Let's try this, quote me saying "northern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur at 280 ppm and southern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur until 750 ppm" and I'm confident a satisfactory arrangement will become feasible.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Did you have a point, Mr. Mensa?


Yes you Blithering IDIOT
As per the OP, and my Map in response..
Life did fine when it was warmer.. it just wasn't populated "from sea to shining sea" with cities and people and have sea level 100' higher.
Ooops.
`


----------



## ding (Aug 7, 2020)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't lie that the northern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur at 280 ppm and southern hemisphere glaciation doesn't occur until 750 ppm then there is no pissy response at all.
> ...


It doesn't matter as you will ass fuck the science anyway.


----------



## james bond (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



It means you are wrong again practicing the science of atheism.  Can I say you're playing with fire?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 7, 2020)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Okay, so just keep lying to yourself about me being a liar. Circular self-delusion.. Perfect!


----------



## ding (Aug 8, 2020)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


It's just called science.  But if you want to call it the science of atheism because you have nothing else, I'm OK with that.  More power to ya.


----------



## ding (Aug 8, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Just because you don't examine things, doesn't make them irrational ... just because you won't listen, doesn't mean there's no definition of socialism ...
> 
> Maybe some day read you sig line ... just saying ...


Anyone or anything which defies or impedes or evades examination should raise a red flag.  Usually they do so because they are afraid that the examination will show incongruities which they want to hide.  

If you want to understand the basis for my beliefs on socialism, it's going to take a little effort on your part because something tells me you aren't going to take my word for it.    I didn't pull it out of thin air or without good reason.






						Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
					






					www.orthodoxytoday.org
				






			The Socialist Phenomenon
		


The battle between individual and group rights appears to be the form the cosmic battle between good and evil has taken.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Aug 8, 2020)

^(empathy threatens god-did-it-ism)


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 8, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you don't examine things, doesn't make them irrational ... just because you won't listen, doesn't mean there's no definition of socialism ...
> ...



Social Security Administration
Bonneville Power Administration
Public School Systems

These agencies are subject to FOIA ... anything you want to know, just write them a letter ... just be prepared to pay 25¢ per page ...

IBM
Exxon
The Donald

These folks don't have to tell you squat ... _nada_ ... nothing ...

It's CAPITALISM that denies examination ... how could you get this backwards? ... and then brag about it ...

Our entire judicial system in the United States is Socialism ... do you honestly think it's better for judges to rule in favor of who pays them the most? ... like before? ... this is one of the more important reasons we revolted against George III ... 

Just say you won't collect one dime from SSA ... you won't buy power from the place the government commands you to ... obviously you don't take advantage of the free schools in your neighborhood ... one out of three is pretty good I guess ...

You should become a rental manager ... throwing infant children into snowbanks to freeze ... sounds like you'd enjoy that tasty bit of capitalism ... sounds like your good at math ... COLA's are announced to the public (socialism) ... calculate how much extra the tenants gets and raise rents that amount ... ha ha ha ... capitalism at its finest ... it's not the poor's money, it's YOUR money ... dig in ... trap the people, lock them in so deep they'll never be able to afford to move ... modern day serfdom ... a dozen people jacking a time clock just to give you 1/3 their pay ... 

What's the difference between socialism and government service? ... not a damn thing ...


----------



## ding (Aug 8, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


You should create a thread and we can discuss it there. 

This isn’t really the thread or forum for that.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 9, 2020)

Just a quick note ... I'd like to retract some of the claims I made in this post ... call it tempting the fates or incensing God ... I apologize for my wise-cracks about falling off ladders ... I'm sorry I posted that ... and I *do not* wish to comment further on the matter ...


----------



## ding (Aug 10, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Just a quick note ... I'd like to retract some of the claims I made in this post ... call it tempting the fates or incensing God ... I apologize for my wise-cracks about falling off ladders ... I'm sorry I posted that ... and I *do not* wish to comment further on the matter ...


Is that your final answer.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 11, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Just a quick note ... I'd like to retract some of the claims I made in this post ... call it tempting the fates or incensing God ... I apologize for my wise-cracks about falling off ladders ... I'm sorry I posted that ... and I *do not* wish to comment further on the matter ...
> ...



Heavens No ... I'll be going on about this for weeks to come ... maybe months ... such a rich field for complaints ... this could go on forever ...


----------



## ding (Aug 20, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Then maybe you should show where I used ice age in the OP, right?
> ...


Imagine my surprise when I stumbled on this...









						Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So 580 ppm?  Or 300?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 20, 2020)

It is known that even without experimental evidence, a 100% CO2 atmosphere at ground level on Earth will generated a temperature of 900 F just like on Venus, right Warmers?


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> ... The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. ...



So human beings were able to evolve.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> ...
> 
> Why is 350 ppm the "limit of reason?"
> 
> What's so special about 350 ppm? ...



You have to know, when you will have to start to close your business and to start to think about to buy a new body.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ... The transition from the greenhouse world to the icehouse world occurred somewhere between 3 to 5 million years ago. ...
> ...


And temperature did not follow.  





See?


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


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


And people will eventually accept that the threshold for northern hemisphere glaciation is 280 ppm which is a much worse condition than 580 ppm.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The Warmers love living under 3 miles of ice


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

Flash said:


> These stupid Moon Bats that think the climate is going to change because of the CO2 put out by humans don't know any more about Climate Science than they do Economics,History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution. ...





ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



No. I see the opposite.

The diagram here shows better this relation: https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/CO2_640000.jpg


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > These stupid Moon Bats that think the climate is going to change because of the CO2 put out by humans don't know any more about Climate Science than they do Economics,History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution. ...
> ...


CO2 reinforces climate change.  It does not drive it.  That's why CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years.  And also why temperature - even though you won't admit it - has not followed CO2.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> ...
> And people will eventually accept that the threshold for northern hemisphere glaciation is 280 ppm which is a much worse condition than 580 ppm.





ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I don't know what our pre-human ancestors more than 40 million years ago said about this life. That they survived this means not we will survive this.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


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


If you can't process what an ice age looks like, I am afraid I can't help you.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



Okay: Very short: Industrial production caused and causes an artificial increase of greenhouse gases. The result is global warming. The problem has a long term characteristics. The people today have to take care for a world of their descendants, which they never will see on their own. But why not to plant trees now, so the next generations will be able to harvest this trees? In case of the global warming the situation is clear: We should use energy efficiently - we should not use oil and coal any longer for the production of energy. Instead of this it is better to use more intelligent methods and a sustainable production and management of energy.

So what is the real problem? We have just simple to react on reality.


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



We are in an ice age. You can see ice on planet Earth. The problem is to leave this ice age. That's perhaps a river of no return.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


First of all the phrase artificial isn't correct.  Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias.  If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm. 

I don't agree with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil.  The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm.  We will get off of coal and oil in due time.  When it's right to do so.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


No.  We are in an interglacial cycle.  The last glacial cycle ended about 22,000 years ago.  









						Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> First of all the phrase artificial isn't correct.  Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias.  If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.
> 
> I don't agree with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil.  The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm.  We will get off of coal and oil in due time.  When it's right to do so.



Why do you think 580 ppm is superior than 300 ppm? ... you've not really clarified the cause-and-effect of any benefit ... and show your math please ...


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > First of all the phrase artificial isn't correct.  Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias.  If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.
> ...


I believe I did explain it... more than once.  But since you asked sort of nicely...

The conditions which led to the glacial and interglacial cycles of the past 400,000 years and the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world ~3-5 million years ago, still exist today.  Namely, polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of ~400 ppm.  Given these background conditions and a triggering event whether it be gulf stream switch off or milankovitch orbital cycles or both affects temperatures (‘insolation’) at 65deg N which is a critical location for triggering Northern Hemisphere glaciation.  Extensive glaciation can begin at the south pole at ~750ppm but at the north pole the threshold is 280 ppm.  The reason for the difference is because the south pole has a continent parked on it whereas the north pole has an ocean parked over it.  So it is much easier for glaciation to occur on the south pole than the north pole.

So at 580 ppm we remove one of the key requirements for glaciation to be triggered at the north pole.

The following link is a pretty good read and mentions most of the things I have discussed.









						Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

Showing my work...


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

Showing my work....


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

Showing my work...

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and is widely accepted as a proxy for temperature.  We can see that 3 to 5 million years ago the earth began its transition from a greenhouse climate to an icehouse climate.  Note the atmospheric CO2 level at which this transition began to occur.  400 ppm.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

Any questions?


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Use "man made" instead of this word, then it's perhaps more clear.



> Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias.  If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.



Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.



> I don't agree



Whether you aggree or not means nothing in context of natural science.



> with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil.



We blow too fast much to much CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.



> The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm.  We will get off of coal and oil in due time.  When it's right to do so.



In don't know from which planet your are. But this here is planet Earth.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


200 ppm is a raging glacial cycle with a 3000m thick sheet of ice over a good portion of North America.  

This seems like an emotional subject for you.  You are just so certain that CO2 is bad that you have suspended all reason and logic.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.


Please study this chart to see your error.





You might want to read up on this as well.









						Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Use "man made" instead of this word, then it's perhaps more clear.



> Just strike that word because all it shows is your bias.  If you want to take care of this world for future generations, 580 ppm is preferable to 300 ppm.



Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.



> I don't agree



?



> with your assessment that we shouldn't use coal or oil.



We blow troo fast much to much CO2 into the atmosphere.



> The whole point of this thread is that 580 ppm is superior to 300 ppm.  We will get off of coal and oil in due time.  When it's right to do so.



In don't know from which planet your are. But this here is planet Earth.[/Quote]



> 200 ppm is a raging glacial cycle with a 3000m thick sheet of ice over a good portion of North America.



I do not understand why someone es using for an axis parallel values. CO2 and thickness of ice is on what reason the same in a 1:1 relation?



> This seems like an emotional subject for you.  You are just so certain that CO2 is bad that you have suspended all reason and logic.



?


----------



## zaangalewa (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Since human being are existing 200-250 ppm CO2 were normal. 300 is too high. 580 ppm out of experience.
> ...



Also in this chart it were always less than 300 ppm - except the man made explosions during the last 100 years.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


So you want atmospheric CO2 to be 20 ppm above the concentration where northern hemisphere glaciation begins?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> Any questions?



You've only shown a bunch of statistical data ... I was asking for the math ... which equation do we plug in 300 ppm and 580 ppm where it clearly shows 580 ppm is "superior" to 300 ppm ...

All that above certainly shows that 280 ppm is "superior" to 180 ppm ... I understand bad things happen at 180 ppm ... but what bad things were happening at 300 ppm that will go away at 580 ppm? ... other than putting New Orleans out of her misery ... "Marco Laura" ... I hope folks are running away today ... tomorrow will be too late ...

I'm asking the same questions as I do the Alarmist community ... honestly, it looks like you're making the exact same mistakes ... just because I can't prove 580 ppm is bad doesn't mean it's good ... just like not proving 580 ppm is good doesn't make it bad ... these are philosophical questions that science cannot answer ... 

Spare me the statistics, I already know you're reducing your sample pool to drive up probabilities ... basic human nature ...


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Any questions?
> ...


3000 m of ice over all of Canada, parts of the US and Europe is not enough?


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)




----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> basic human nature ...


Speaking of basic human nature...

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.  So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there are universal standards which exist independent of man how come we all don't follow the same standard? The reason is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to dumb asses thinking 300 ppm is a good idea.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> You've only shown a bunch of statistical data ...


Did you mean to misspell historical?


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Spare me the statistics historical scientific data.


Ok, boomer


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> 3000 m of ice over all of Canada, parts of the US and Europe is not enough?



Not at 300 ppm ... that's been demonstrated ...



ding said:


> Did you mean to misspell historical?



Spelting is overratted ...



ding said:


> Ok, boomer



You remind me of my grandniece ... you seem just as slap happy ...


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 3000 m of ice over all of Canada, parts of the US and Europe is not enough?
> ...


It's been demonstrated that the transition to the icehouse world and the start of the glacial cycles began at 400 ppm.  AND it has been demonstrated that the transition to the icehouse world and the start of the glacial cycles did not happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 580 ppm.  Bam.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> You remind me of my grandniece ... you seem just as slap happy ...


It has been scientifically shown that happiness leads to success, slap or otherwise.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > basic human nature ...
> ...



Objectivity comes from rigid mathematical deduction ... I give you T^4 = S(1-a)/4eo ... established scientific law ... our task is to find the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the "e" term ... without that, we're guessing ... and I'm guessing 300 ppm will be exactly the same as 580 ppm ... a child born today will never notice it's 2ºC warmer on his 100th birthday ... _guarantied_ ...


----------



## Turtlesoup (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> If we define "better off" as being more favorable for the benefit of human life, does science tell us that that the world is better off with 580 ppm of CO2 in the atmospheric or 300 ppm?
> 
> Most people believe the world we live in is normal but for most of the past 55 million years the world has been a greenhouse world.  It's only been in the last 400,000 years or so that world has been an icehouse world.  An icehouse world is characterized as having a high thermal gradient from the equator to the poles and has bipolar glaciation.
> 
> ...


 

Plants like the higher Co2.........................they like it a lot.

Warmer climates, if Co2 would actually warm, are easier to survive in than cooler ones if you must know the truth.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> It has been scientifically shown that happiness leads to success, slap or otherwise.



I have no sisters, I have no daughters ... the 8 nieces are brutal with me ... they know I can't hit back, or even defend myself ... it's awful ...


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


I give you my excel graph.  Next?


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate.  280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change.  As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering event not trigger a climate change.  It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.


----------



## ding (Aug 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm guessing 300 ppm will be exactly the same as 580 ppm ... a child born today will never notice it's 2ºC warmer on his 100th birthday ... _guarantied_


All the more reasons to be further away from the background conditions that really will cause a climate change.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 23, 2020)

ding said:


> And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate.  280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.
> 
> I don't know why you can't understand the concept of a triggering event with specific background conditions that make the triggering event actually cause a climate change.  As opposed to those background conditions not being present and the triggering even not trigger a climate change.  It's like you think Milankovitch cycles are a new thing and didn't happen back when atmospheric CO2 was at 600 ppm.



I understand triggering events ... and I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics unless it can be explained in every little detail why they don't ... 

We have clear and abundant evidence here on the West Coast that sea levels were 10 to 15 feet higher just a short while ago ... 10,000 years ... when temperatures were at their highest ... interglacial maxima ... temperatures have been cooling ever since and we can expect glacial minima in about 100,000 years ... so we've already started the process of expanding the ice sheets and in 100,000 years they will cover the land masses down to about 45º latitude ... there's no known "triggering event" ... if such a thing existed, we missed it by 10,000 years, this was before written language ...

The climate system is in equilibrium ... any triggering event must violate this equilibrium ... that takes a force, and we've already accounted for all the forces at play here ... so you have to rely on magic, unless you can say how natural forces drive the system away from equilibrium ... very specifically and in every little detail ... it's the law ...

For the record ... none of the Milankovitch cycles or any combination thereof match the period of our glacial/interglacial cycles ... without any correlation at all, you're going to have a hard time connecting the physics ... if there's one thing we know with compete mathematically certainty, then that's orbital mechanics ...


----------



## james bond (Aug 24, 2020)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



No, you are delusional.  You already said that you will never, never, never believe the Book of Genesis.  The other delusion is _humans_ are the cause for global warming.

Today, science has become the science of atheism because of evolution.  Satan wrote the Antibible of Evolution.  It is all based on lies, but has taken over our colleges and universities at the highest levels of learning.  It contradicts everything that God said in the Bible and creation science.  I even started a thread on it, but realized Satan is too powerful and is "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air."  The Earth and universe is his domain now, not humans.

One of the evidence for it is how Darwin's racist ideas became social Darwinism, eugenics, the rise of Nazism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and the genocide of blacks.  It has led to racial war today and it may get worse.  Instead of civil war, it could be a racial war.

The science of atheism predicts the end of the world through AGW, but this will not be the case.  Do you have a year for it?  I have 2060 as the year for the end, but not due to AGW.









						Isaac Newton predicted the world will end in 2060
					

Isaac Newton was a legendary scientist best known for establishing the laws of gravity. But in his free time, he dabbled in experiments worthy of Voldemort. Like the “Harry Potter” villain, Newton …




					nypost.com


----------



## james bond (Aug 24, 2020)

Interesting that around 580 ppm CO2 could be reached around 2060.

380 ppm probably means we will be without electricity, cars, and living near poverty levels.

"If the build-up of CO2 continues at current rates, by 2060 it will have passed 560 ppm – more than double the level of pre-industrial times."









						Climate change: Sensitive warming forecasts overestimated for 50 years
					

SENSITIVE climate change models have been dealt a blow as researchers have exposed inconsistencies in global warming trends in the last 50 years.




					www.express.co.uk


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> Interesting that around 580 ppm CO2 could be reached around 2060.
> 
> 380 ppm probably means we will be without electricity, cars, and living near poverty levels.
> 
> ...



What an idiot ... is arithmetic that difficult for you? ... Ian Flemming's Jame Bond is the Antichrist ... and you preach his gospel under his name ... 

We're discussing atmospheric physics ... religion discussions are down the hall, to the left ... there you go, have fun ...


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And for the record, there will be a substantial ice sheet when CO2 is at 300 ppm (entering the glacial cycle) as CO2 will be falling because of CO2 sequestration by the oceans after the trigger event changes the climate.  280 is the start of extensive glaciation in the northern hemisphere.
> ...


NASA would disagree with you.  









						Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.




					climate.nasa.gov
				




"... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

So... atmospheric CO2 level + polar regions isolated from warm marine currents + orbital cycles = climate change.  Yoar welcome.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



"He calculated that Ice Ages occur approximately every 41,000 years. Subsequent research confirms that they did occur at 41,000-year intervals between one and three million years ago. But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earth’s eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, *scientists do not yet have a clear answer*."

[emphasis mine]

The period is 125,000 years ... no correlation ... try reading your _whole_ citation next time ...


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Maybe you should have read the _whole_ citation.  Specifically the last sentence.  _"... the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."_

Stop being obtuse.  All components play their part.  The last component to fall into place was atmospheric CO2 falling to 400 ppm.  That, coupled with the polar regions being isolated from the warm marine currents is what created the tipping point.  But it is the orbital cycle which triggers or initiates the glacial cycle.  

Weren't you the guy that said it goes against the scientific principle to say something is wrong without stating what is right.  I seem to be the only one here stating what is right.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


I don't understand what you think the importance of the intervals are.  About 3 to 5 million years ago the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet began.  Just look at the oxygen isotope curve for the change.  About 400,000 years ago the transition to an icehouse world was completed.  So everything in between was in a state of flux so to speak.  Trying to compare the last 400,000 years to the time when the planet was transitioning from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world is comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics


I would love to hear how this violates the laws of thermodynamics.  I'm all ears.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> *scientists do not yet have a clear answer*."


They should have asked me.  Orbital cycles are just one of the components in climate change.  Comparing ice age cycle times during the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world to the ice age cycle times of an icehouse world is comparing apples to oranges and in no way diminishes the influence of orbital cycles or their influence upon climate.  Which is why  "_the theory that [orbital cycles] drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."_ 

They aren't dumb enough to question the role orbital cycles play just because the cycle time times for ice ages are different during a transition period and the other side of the transition.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


I really expected better from you.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I know they violate the laws of thermodynamics
> ...



I explained equilibrium to you ... you failed to understand this ... not my job to teach you basic physics ... take a class at your local community college ... learn how force, work and power are interrelated ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 24, 2020)

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > *scientists do not yet have a clear answer*."
> ...



Show me the math ... calculate distance at apsis, then calculate irradiation, then plug into SB ... we're looking for ∆T = 12ºC ... and show your work ... once the Fall rains come, I'll take the time and show you how to calculate all this for the entire orbit ...

Your claims are subjective and biased ... see post #295 ...


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


In an engineer so I’m pretty familiar with thermodynamics  and physics. In fact, I know enough about them that I can spot someone who doesn’t. 

Pro tip: the next time you try to bluff about knowing thermodynamics and get called on it, don’t start talking about physics and equilibriums.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


You got busted, dude.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 24, 2020)

ding said:


> In an engineer so I’m pretty familiar with thermodynamics  and physics. In fact, I know enough about them that I can spot someone who doesn’t.
> 
> Pro tip: the next time you try to bluff about knowing thermodynamics and get called on it, don’t start talking about physics and equilibriums.



So far, you've shown absolutely nothing that would make me think you know algebra ... you always shy away from it when I post an equation ... 

You claimed there's a tipping point in the climate system ... please describe the physics of this tipping point and please focus on energy ... you say you know the laws, I challenge your engineering skills to show all of them are satisfied ...  I can read vector diagrams ... start with equilibrium as an initial state ...

My claim is all available forces are account for ... even a magical sudden change in the equilibrium state will only cause _very_ slow change in the system ... 1st law is covered by climate forcing, 2nd law is covered as we are moving towards the new equilibrium ... I will admit I don't know much  about the 3rd law, it rarely comes up in discussions about fluid mediums ... so sue me ...

Tipping points are exactly the same mistake Alarmists make ...


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > In an engineer so I’m pretty familiar with thermodynamics  and physics. In fact, I know enough about them that I can spot someone who doesn’t.
> ...


Dude, the associated temperature has literally nothing to do with this question  In fact, the premise is that there is an associated temperature of CO2.  So I am not avoiding it, dummy.  I'm telling you it is irrelevant. Here's the funny thing, it seems you want to accept climate changes with increasing CO2 but don't want to acknowledge climate changes with decreasing CO2.  That's weird.  Especially since we have concrete examples of CO2 reinforcing climate change.  Which is what I have been showing.

I agree that certain sudden changes in the equilibrium - specifically CO2 concentration either up or down - leads to slow changes in the system.  Never said it didn't.  So I'm still not certain how I have violated the laws of thermodynamics (hint: I haven't).  In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that.  But what I am discussing is the complex interplay between atmospheric CO2, heat circulation of the oceans and the role they play in glacial cycles which is that of necessary background conditions for glacial cycles.  So go fuck yourself.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Tipping points are exactly the same mistake Alarmists make ...


Yes, but I have 400,000 years of cycles preceded by a transition period.  So there literally is something which triggered those cycles.  We know this because bipolar glaciation did not occur before that.  The exact same orbital forces existed before the transition to a greenhouse world and never produced a bipolar glaciated planet .  Why not?  Because the background conditions (polar regions isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 level) did not allow for it.  So if you eliminate one of the background conditions then you eliminate the glacial cycle.  It's not that complicated.


----------



## james bond (Aug 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that around 580 ppm CO2 could be reached around 2060.
> ...



What math?  What physics?  I presented an article and you can't read it?  I was talking with ding.  I wasn't even talking to you nor read many of your posts.  You talk a lot of nonsensical things and can't explain it well like an educated person would.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 25, 2020)

ding said:


> Dude, the associated temperature has literally nothing to do with this question  In fact, the premise is that there is an associated temperature of CO2.  So I am not avoiding it, dummy.  I'm telling you it is irrelevant. Here's the funny thing, it seems you want to accept climate changes with increasing CO2 but don't want to acknowledge climate changes with decreasing CO2.  That's weird.  Especially since we have concrete examples of CO2 reinforcing climate change.  Which is what I have been showing.
> 
> I agree that certain sudden changes in the equilibrium - specifically CO2 concentration either up or down - leads to slow changes in the system.  Never said it didn't.  So I'm still not certain how I have violated the laws of thermodynamics (hint: I haven't).  In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that.  But what I am discussing is the complex interplay between atmospheric CO2, heat circulation of the oceans and the role they play in glacial cycles which is that of necessary background conditions for glacial cycles.  So go fuck yourself.



Let us first recall your statement:

*Given these background conditions and a triggering event whether it be gulf stream switch off or milankovitch orbital cycles or both affects temperatures (‘insolation’) at 65deg N which is a critical location for triggering Northern Hemisphere glaciation.*
[Emphasis mine]

We won't know if you've violated the laws of thermodynamics until you tell us what, exactly, you mean by a triggering event ... or you may simply withdraw your comment and we can move on ... I'd rather not have to ream you about switching the Gulf Stream off ... utter nonsense ... 

*In fact, I can point to the azolla event as a concrete example of exactly that.*

I've been trying to figure out a way to dispute your claim that this current "icehouse" Earth started 400,000 years ago ... and here it is, all pretty with a cute ribbon tied on top ... the _Azolla_ event occurred 49 million years ago ... or so the speculation is generally given ... and since when are hypotheses considered "concrete examples"? ... you're an engineer, you should know better ... or should I be worried about driving over bridges ... you didn't take your PE in Missouri by any chance, did you? ...

The climate system is complex ... many of these factors that effect the system are still completely unknown to science ... I'm appalled the IPCC assumes average cloud cover will remain constant ... for that alone we can throw the whole of their reports in the garbage ... these climate models all ignore convection, even with a rudimentary knowledge base of atmospheric science we should know this is foolishness ... so many falsehoods in the commercial media ... 

For the record ... I agree with the President of the United States ... _climate change is a hoax_ ... specifically it's New Speak for global warming ... except global warming isn't scary ... in fact, come December, global warmer will sound like a good thing ...

Sorry, done with the extension ladder this summer ... but I'll try to find another way to fuck myself ... perhaps taking a butane torch to some stubborn natural gas line fittings will do the job ...


----------



## ding (Aug 25, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, the associated temperature has literally nothing to do with this question  In fact, the premise is that there is an associated temperature of CO2.  So I am not avoiding it, dummy.  I'm telling you it is irrelevant. Here's the funny thing, it seems you want to accept climate changes with increasing CO2 but don't want to acknowledge climate changes with decreasing CO2.  That's weird.  Especially since we have concrete examples of CO2 reinforcing climate change.  Which is what I have been showing.
> ...


No shit it's complex, Captain Obvious.  But it's pretty easy to see the trend and the conditions which led to the trend.  

The thing about predictable surprises is that they are completely predictable.  Don't underestimate your ability to fuck yourself.


----------



## ding (Sep 17, 2020)

The answer is still 580 ppm


----------

