Arctic heat

[Old Rocks]

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

which makes sense

Well, maybe to those that have none.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

which makes sense

Well, maybe to those that have none.

the record shows it

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

which makes sense

Well, maybe to those that have none.

Honey Boo Boo thinks the ice cores got it wrong

 

[Old Rocks]

One can find agreement at one's peer level.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

which makes sense

Well, maybe to those that have none.

Honey Boo Boo thinks the ice cores got it wrong

exactly

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[Crick]

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

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

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

 

[ding]

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

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

Global Warming : Feature Articles


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

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

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

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

Global Warming : Feature Articles


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

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

 

[Crick]

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

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

 

[ding]

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

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

 

[Wuwei]

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

Your final graph summarizes, "... so glacial or interglacial phases are triggered by Milankovitch cycles." There is a controversy about that and a number of problems as given in Wikipedia:

100,000-year problem...
Stage 5 problem...
Effect exceeds cause...
The unsplit peak problem...
The transition problem...
Identifying dominant factor...​

The "100,000-year problem" with Milankovitch cycles is that the glacial cycles are not correlated so much with insolation due to the orbit, but correlated with Earth eccentricity variations that have a rather small impact on insolation. Why this correlation with a weaker variable happens is unknown.

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

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

 

[ding]

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

Your final graph summarizes, "... so glacial or interglacial phases are triggered by Milankovitch cycles." There is a controversy about that and a number of problems as given in Wikipedia:

100,000-year problem...
Stage 5 problem...
Effect exceeds cause...
The unsplit peak problem...
The transition problem...
Identifying dominant factor...​

The "100,000-year problem" with Milankovitch cycles is that the glacial cycles are not correlated so much with insolation due to the orbit, but correlated with Earth eccentricity variations that have a rather small impact on insolation. Why this correlation with a weaker variable happens is unknown.

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

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

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

Ghosts of Climates Past – Part Ten – GCM IV

 

[Wuwei]

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

Ghosts of Climates Past – Part Ten – GCM IV

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

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

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

Let me know if I am missing something.

 

[ding]

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

Ghosts of Climates Past – Part Ten – GCM IV

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

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

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

Let me know if I am missing something.

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


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

 

[ding]

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

Ghosts of Climates Past – Part Ten – GCM IV

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

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

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

Let me know if I am missing something.

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

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

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

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

 

[ding]

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

Ghosts of Climates Past – Part Ten – GCM IV

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

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

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

Let me know if I am missing something.

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

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

 

[jc456]

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

I'll laugh my ass off again