A Warmer explains

[Toddsterpatriot]

The word means the highest point in the example you gave, but you want us to believe it means the best point.

the amount or degree of something that is most favorable to some end; especially: the most favorable condition for the growth and reproduction of an organism

Optimum - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hmmmm....most favorable. Weird. Warm periods were favorable.
I guess ice ages were unfavorable? Weird.

You missed my point. You're picking the definition that best fits your bias, NOT the definition as intended. Seems "1984" is coming 30 years later than expected. We know that most words have more than one accepted definition, but you'd have us believe there's only one. Did the others disappear down the memory hole?!?!

You're picking the definition that best fits your bias

If you can find one that makes sense in the phrase, "climatic optimum", feel free to share.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even though 12,000 years ago, all of the USA north of Ohio was buried under a mile of ice, it takes hundreds of millions of years for non-human generated CO2 to cause any meaningful change in the climate

12,000 years back was the end of the last glaciation. Ice was not a mile thick anywhere within what is now the United States. It might have been that thick another 10,000 years back.

It does not take hundreds of millions of year for CO2 - from any source - to cause meaningful climate change. The controlling factor has been the rate at which CO2 is added to the atmosphere. CO2 has not been added as quickly as humans have done so recently, since the KT Impact Event - which burned most of the plant material on the planet, or the creation of the Deccan Traps - a series of volcanic eruptions which covered 500,000 square kilometers of the Indian continent with 2,000 meters of lava.

The Earth has had periods of 7,000 - 9,000ppm CO2. Why then did the earth not runaway and become another Venus?Why did we go through thousands of cycles of glaciation and warming? you position on CO2 is baseless in an open system such as the earth,

The average interglacial is 9,000 - 11,000 years. If you take the initial spike of warming into account we are at roughly 14,500 years. By all accounts and the current terrestrial solar system position we are overdue for the next glacial cycle.

I find it disturbing that you alarmist would sacrifice millions in the quest for your power grab..

 

[Crick]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

...tell them how the deep ocean ate all the warming!

 

[Roadrunner]

What caused the warming observed during the 20th century?

If the current slowdown is the end of warming, why didn't the much longer and more dramatic cooling trend from 1941 to 1979 mark the end of global warming?

CO2 absorbs infrared. Why doesn't that make it warmer?

If warming is bad, why do they call warm periods climatic optimums?

Warming is bad, just trust us on this

Makes my feet feel good after a day in the record cold woods.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

BUT IT NEVER RAN AWAY! those levels sustained for millions of years and the planets systems never allowed temperature runaway.... WHY?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

BUT IT NEVER RAN AWAY! those levels sustained for millions of years and the planets systems never allowed temperature runaway.... WHY?

Because "natural" CO2 is better than SUV CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

BUT IT NEVER RAN AWAY! those levels sustained for millions of years and the planets systems never allowed temperature runaway.... WHY?

DENIER!

Obviously that CO2 was different than manmade CO2

Jesus! These DENIERS!!! have no grasp of science. Ain't that right, MM?

It's a damn tree ring circus, I tell ya!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

BUT IT NEVER RAN AWAY! those levels sustained for millions of years and the planets systems never allowed temperature runaway.... WHY?

hydrocarbons form from decaying plant life thus our fuels today are NATURAL! MY GOD! MY SUV RUNS ON DEAD PLANTS!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

BUT IT NEVER RAN AWAY! those levels sustained for millions of years and the planets systems never allowed temperature runaway.... WHY?

Because "natural" CO2 is better than SUV CO2.

certainly statistics show that 97 percent of scientists agree

that of the C02s natural C02 is the best

 

[Ernie S.]

Does Global warming make it so cold outside?

Gile WI, today:

50.1"

 

[konradv]

You missed my point. You're picking the definition that best fits your bias, NOT the definition as intended. Seems "1984" is coming 30 years later than expected. We know that most words have more than one accepted definition, but you'd have us believe there's only one. Did the others disappear down the memory hole?!?!

You're picking the definition that best fits your bias

If you can find one that makes sense in the phrase, "climatic optimum", feel free to share.

All I was saying was that "optimum" doesn't necessarily mean "best". What if temps keep rising? Would that still be optimum for life? During Katrina there was a water optimum in N.O. Was THAT a good thing?

 

[konradv]

Because it took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach those levels.

BUT IT NEVER RAN AWAY! those levels sustained for millions of years and the planets systems never allowed temperature runaway.... WHY?

There were runaway temps and mass extinctions in the past. You're making the mistake of considering the CO2 supplied by nature over time to be the same as that being emitted by man by ignoring the time course. The basis for temperature equilibration has changed dramatically when man-made emissions exceed in days the amount given off by all the volcanoes on earth in a normal year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You missed my point. You're picking the definition that best fits your bias, NOT the definition as intended. Seems "1984" is coming 30 years later than expected. We know that most words have more than one accepted definition, but you'd have us believe there's only one. Did the others disappear down the memory hole?!?!

You're picking the definition that best fits your bias

If you can find one that makes sense in the phrase, "climatic optimum", feel free to share.

All I was saying was that "optimum" doesn't necessarily mean "best". What if temps keep rising? Would that still be optimum for life? During Katrina there was a water optimum in N.O. Was THAT a good thing?

What if temps keep rising? Would that still be optimum for life?

Look back at previous warm periods. Were they good for life?
Look back at previous cold periods. Were they good for life?

I'm pretty sure that warmer tends to be better. If you have examples where that's not true, we could compare.

 

[Crick]

Changes at the pace that such changes have taken place historically make no difference at all. Most such changes took longer to take place than homo sapiens has existed. We'd never feel a thing. Taking place at the rate we are forcing them to do is going to hurt us because we have an enormous infrastructure that has never existed before to which we will be forced to make major changes on a very human time scale. There was an interesting line in a post someone put up yesterday. The irreversible collapse of the WAIS doesn't seem to have had the slightest impact on deniers - even those rational ones that accept the collapse is actually happening. It's going to take 200 years before anything major happens. Right? Well, that all depends on your definition of major. That line I noted pointed out that numerous coastal CITIES around the world will have to be abandoned before that time has passed. Cities like New York. Washington DC. Miami. New Orleans. Rio de Janero. Amsterdam. London. Hamburg. Yokohama. Manila. Those and a thousand others, abandoned in less than 200 years. Do you really think that's a non-event? Do you REALLY think it would have been cheapest to ignore this problem?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Changes at the pace that such changes have taken place historically make no difference at all. Most such changes took longer to take place than homo sapiens has existed. We'd never feel a thing. Taking place at the rate we are forcing them to do is going to hurt us because we have an enormous infrastructure that has never existed before to which we will be forced to make major changes on a very human time scale. There was an interesting line in a post someone put up yesterday. The irreversible collapse of the WAIS doesn't seem to have had the slightest impact on deniers - even those rational ones that accept the collapse is actually happening. It's going to take 200 years before anything major happens. Right? Well, that all depends on your definition of major. That line I noted pointed out that numerous coastal CITIES around the world will have to be abandoned before that time has passed. Cities like New York. Washington DC. Miami. New Orleans. Rio de Janero. Amsterdam. London. Hamburg. Yokohama. Manila. Those and a thousand others, abandoned in less than 200 years. Do you really think that's a non-event? Do you REALLY think it would have been cheapest to ignore this problem?

Changes at the pace that such changes have taken place historically make no difference at all.

How fast were the changes that caused the MWP? The LIA?

Do you REALLY think it would have been cheapest to ignore this problem?

How much should we spend to stop this "irreversible collapse of the WAIS"?

 

[Politico]

What caused the warming observed during the 20th century?

If the current slowdown is the end of warming, why didn't the much longer and more dramatic cooling trend from 1941 to 1979 mark the end of global warming?

CO2 absorbs infrared. Why doesn't that make it warmer?

If warming is bad, why do they call warm periods climatic optimums?

Because they came on over hundreds of thousands of years or longer and there was no human culture present at those times.

Correct.

Even though 12,000 years ago, all of the USA north of Ohio was buried under a mile of ice, it takes hundreds of millions of years for non-human generated CO2 to cause any meaningful change in the climate

Bullshit as usual. The northern hemisphere was also covered in ice in 1645 and stayed that way for almost 70 years. And between 900 and 1300 there was a little thing called the medieval warm period. All of it tied to solar cycles that are coming back around soon. Ice melts, releases methane among other things and temps go up. Ice freezes, methane is trapped. Rinse repeat. It''s called nature.

 

[Crick]

Whether or not a change can be considered "natural", it has to have a cause. What do you believe is driving the warming of the last 150 years?

 

[Politico]

Umm the fact we are in the warm interglacial phase of the current ice age (yes we are in one). And during each ice age Milankovitch Cycles cause periodic and rapid temp changes that affect glacial encroachment and retreat on a smaller scale which can still be devastating as it was in the 1600s. Difference now is there are 7 billion people living on the planet not 200 million. So no open water and an ice locked Iceland, Greenland and Europe would be a far bigger problem today.

 

[Crick]

From Wikipedia's article on Milankovitch cycles:

The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precessionapproximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.

Milankovitch cycles do not take place at the pace of the warming experienced over the last 150 years. And the sun's TSI, at the moment, is growing weaker.