A declining Colorado river

[ding]

Indirectly and to an indeterminant degree, yes.

That's asinine. We are in an interglacial cycle of an icehouse world. Increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty is a hallmark of a bipolar glaciated world.

 

[Crick]

On the order of hundreds of thousands of years, not decades.

 

[ding]

On the order of hundreds of thousands of years, not decades.

D-O events say otherwise, dummy. Learn some science.

 

[Crick]

If I were you, I would consider the possibility that human GHG emissions could trigger a D-O event on top of anthropogenic warming. What do you think would be the effect of instead of 2C warming by 2100, we had 10?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to send the CO2 that causes hurricanes to Colorado!

Asking for peer review

 

[elektra]

if old crock starts a thread, rest assured soon you will be arguing with an idiot

the colorado river has always declined, and increased, as all rivers in the world have

nobody is thirsty in southern california, so what is the problem?

agriculture and industry uses about 90% of all water in California, so it is not the population that suffers

California always used more water from the colorado river than allotted. Now that Arizona and Nevada have claimed there shares, Southern California can not use what they have historically. Farming suffers, yet farming grew in Arizona as they used the share of the Colorado allotted to them.

Technically, this is not an environment issue, it is politics, it is economics, anything but an environment issue. Three states have a certain percentage of Colorado river water allotted. Overuse by one does constitute an environment disaster.

 

[ding]

If I were you, I would consider the possibility that human GHG emissions could trigger a D-O event on top of anthropogenic warming. What do you think would be the effect of instead of 2C warming by 2100, we had 10?

I'd say you were smoking to much weed. Even the IPCC isn't stupid enough to make that prediction. They recognize the models are wrong.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

But what will you say if temperatures declined by 1C?

 

[Crick]

GCM models have been accurate. That no one besides YOU is predicting the onset of a D-O event says more about you than it does about the IPCC.

 

[ding]

GCM models have been accurate. That no one besides YOU is predicting the onset of a D-O event says more about you than it does about the IPCC.

Really?

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

"...Many of the world's leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. "It's become clear over the last year or so that we can't avoid this," says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies..."

 

[ding]

GCM models have been accurate. That no one besides YOU is predicting the onset of a D-O event says more about you than it does about the IPCC.

I'm not predicting the onset of a D-O event. I am using the past D-O event to refute the argument that today's warming is unprecedented.

 

[Crick]

Alright. I can accept that D-O events appeared to have similar warming rates. That doesn't change anything. There is no evidence that what is happening now is a D-O event.

 

[ding]

Alright. I can accept that D-O events appeared to have similar warming rates. That doesn't change anything. There is no evidence that what is happening now is a D-O event.

I’m not saying it’s a D-O event. D-O events warmed much faster than this and happened during a glacial period. We are in an interglacial period. D-O events rise from near glacial period temperatures to near interglacial temperatures and then fall from near interglacial temperatures to near glacial temperatures over the course of several decades.

I am saying that ups and downs of 1 and 2C swings - like are occurring now - occur frequently during glacial and interglacial periods because the earth is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation with conditions which are close to the threshold for northern hemisphere glaciation.

 

[Crick]

We are not swinging up or down 1 or 2C. We have been steadily increasing in temperature for 150 years in synchrony with CO2.

And note that while temperature has some fluctuations - upward spikes in 1875 and 1945 and a downward excursion about 1908, you see no tendency for CO2 to rise or fall in kind. That, among dozens of other pieces of evidence, tells us that CO2 is producing the temperature increase, not the other way around.

 

[ding]

We are not swinging up or down 1 or 2C. We have been steadily increasing in temperature for 150 years in synchrony with CO2.
View attachment 535983

And note that while temperature has some fluctuations - upward spikes in 1875 and 1945 and a downward excursion about 1908, you see no tendency for CO2 to rise or fall in kind. That, among dozens of other pieces of evidence, tells us that CO2 is producing the temperature increase, not the other way around.

Let's see... starting from a cold spell and ending with the urbanization effect. Brilliant.

 

[ding]

We are not swinging up or down 1 or 2C. We have been steadily increasing in temperature for 150 years in synchrony with CO2.
View attachment 535983

And note that while temperature has some fluctuations - upward spikes in 1875 and 1945 and a downward excursion about 1908, you see no tendency for CO2 to rise or fall in kind. That, among dozens of other pieces of evidence, tells us that CO2 is producing the temperature increase, not the other way around.

Temperature swings of 1 to 2C are the norm in the modern ice house world. Increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty are an artifact of bipolar glaciation because temperatures are near the threshold for northern hemisphere glaciation. You can see the environmental uncertainty and increase temperature fluctuation with your own eyes by looking at the oxygen isotope curve which is well established for the Cenozoic.

You can see with your own eyes how much more the northern hemisphere fluctuates compared to the southern hemisphere from ice cores from each polar region.

We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperatures are lower than the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. You are confusing natural variations in climate with man made global warming.

 

[ding]

We are not swinging up or down 1 or 2C. We have been steadily increasing in temperature for 150 years in synchrony with CO2.
View attachment 535983

And note that while temperature has some fluctuations - upward spikes in 1875 and 1945 and a downward excursion about 1908, you see no tendency for CO2 to rise or fall in kind. That, among dozens of other pieces of evidence, tells us that CO2 is producing the temperature increase, not the other way around.

Correlation does not prove causation. You can't rule out natural variations in climate even with using data which includes the urban effect. You have posted a false correlation. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 served as a proxy for temperature. After industrialization that correlation was broken. Temperature and sea level rise are not following CO2.

 

[Crick]

I repeat my rejoinder: causation absolutely REQUIRES correlation and temperature correlates quite nicely with CO2. Sea level rise is too slow to show correlation in the time span available but it has correlated with temperature and CO2 as long as their has been an ocean. Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[ding]

I repeat my rejoinder: causation absolutely REQUIRES correlation and temperature correlates quite nicely with CO2. Sea level rise is too slow to show correlation in the time span available but it has correlated with temperature and CO2 as long as their has been an ocean. Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance.

View attachment 536360
View attachment 536361

That's a silly way to show correlation. You need to show all three on the same graph like this.

The correlation is broken. There was no corresponding acceleration in temperature and sea level rise like there was in CO2. And here I am using acceleration the right way. There was acceleration in carbon emissions at the start of the industrial revolution. Hence there was acceleration in atmospheric CO2. Sea level and temperature remained linear thus confirming natural forces linking the two. Your correlation is smoke an mirrors. There was a much greater rate of change in CO2 than there was for temperature and sea level rise. The correlation is broken for CO2. CO2 has always been a proxy for temperature until man made emissions broke that correlation.

 

[Crick]

I already called your lying ass on this. You can't use a graph legible to the nearest 5,000 years to demonstrate something taking place inside a single century. Asshole. And I'm glad you like this graph because I used the exact same one to refute your claim that sea level didn't correlate with CO2.

 

[ding]

I already called your lying ass on this. You can't use a graph legible to the nearest 5,000 years to demonstrate something taking place inside a single century. Asshole. And I'm glad you like this graph because I used the exact same one to refute your claim that sea level didn't correlate with CO2.

Over the past 150 years...

Sea level did not rise at an exponential rate.
Temperature did not increase at an exponential rate.
CO2 emissions did rise at an exponential rate.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations did rise at an exponential rate.

So the correlation for atmospheric CO2 is CO2 emissions. Prior to industrialization CO2 and sea level change correlated to temperature but now just sea level change does.