Arctic Temperatures Today

[ding]

You're not making any sense at all.

And I hesistate to try to understand your diseased thought processes. As Nietzsche kind of said, "When you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you". Trying to understand denier lunacy risks both mind and soul.

Of course I am making sense. The planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 greater than 600 ppm. Clearly CO2 does not drive climate change. See?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, that's how glacial cycles work.

Orbital factors kick off a little warming. That warms the oceans. The oceans emit CO2, that causes more warming. A positive feedback cycle continues, until it tapers off due to the logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback.

You must be referring to other proxies, clam shells, woodpecker calls, etc.

The Vostok Ice cores show CO2 lagging temperatures by 800 to 1000 years over a 450,000 year period. CO2 does not DRIVE temperatures

 

[ding]

You must be referring to other proxies, clam shells, woodpecker calls, etc.

The Vostok Ice cores show CO2 lagging temperatures by 800 to 1000 years over a 450,000 year period. CO2 does not DRIVE temperatures

She thinks that because CO2 correlates to temperature that that must mean temperature correlates to CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

She thinks that because CO2 correlates to temperature that that must mean temperature correlates to CO2.

Might have some other challenges as well: not understanding what “lag” means and believes CO2 has magical, climate driving properties

 

[mamooth]

You must be referring to other proxies, clam shells, woodpecker calls, etc.

You asked about oceans, dumbass. I gave you a source talking about oceans. Needless to say, you didn't look at it. You can't. Your cult forbids it.

The Vostok Ice cores show CO2 lagging temperatures by 800 to 1000 years over a 450,000 year period. CO2 does not DRIVE temperatures

Let's get really basic.

Do you undestand that ice cores are _not_ oceans?

Now, let's ramp it up to middle-school level.

Can you understand that CO2 is a forcing and a feedback, so CO2 should lag temperature?

This is basic stuff. If you can't understand it, you should stay at the kiddie table with flat earthers and antivaxxers.

 

[mamooth]

She thinks that because CO2 correlates to temperature that that must mean temperature correlates to CO2.

Wow.

Even after I lay out in detail how you screwed the pooch hard messing up what "correlate" means, you _still_ make the same idiot mistake.

You shouldn't be annoying the grownups with your tantrums. Back to the kiddie table with you.

 

[mamooth]

Still has no science to offer ... man-kind has very very little to do with the current rise in temperature ... poor soul doesn't even understand AGW Theory ... sad ...

I'm sorry, but all positions in my whiny pout-stalker clique are currently filled.

I'll keep your application here on file, and I'll let you know if the COVID/antivaxxer combo leads to any new openings.

 

[ding]

Wow.

Even after I lay out in detail how you screwed the pooch hard messing up what "correlate" means, you _still_ make the same idiot mistake.

You shouldn't be annoying the grownups with your tantrums. Back to the kiddie table with you.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

 

[mamooth]

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today than you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

Squaaaaawwwwwwk! Polly wanna cracker!

 

[ding]

Squaaaaawwwwwwk! Polly wanna cracker!

It's called empirical climate data.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to consider natural climate variation as a cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You asked about oceans, dumbass. I gave you a source talking about oceans. Needless to say, you didn't look at it. You can't. Your cult forbids it.


Let's get really basic.

Do you undestand that ice cores are _not_ oceans?

Now, let's ramp it up to middle-school level.

Can you understand that CO2 is a forcing and a feedback, so CO2 should lag temperature?

This is basic stuff. If you can't understand it, you should stay at the kiddie table with flat earthers and antivaxxers.

You’re pretty clueless and consistently wrong in the trillions column

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have you ever toured Europe? Hiked the Cinque Terre? Watched sunset from the promontory at Santorini? Skied with your family in the Swiss Alps?
Been atop the Great Wall? Taken a cruise through the Panama Canal en route from one coast of America to the other? Caught an ahi at Kona Coast? Dived to 100 feet with scuba gear? Flown your family in a private plane for a lovely sightseeing vacation? Taken your inlaws to Hawaii? And Europe? And your brothers and sisters and their spouses? And your wife's sisters? How's your French, garcon? Comment dit-on personne qui parle deux langues? (Bilangue) Exactement. Maintenant comment dit-on personne qui parle seulement une langue?
/
/
/
Americain

Now peruse these scholars and papers and websites for a couple of days, as well as the endless nonsense prattled by Eco-Hypocrites and professional liars:

http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

I recommend clicking the link and reading the attachments…. Good stuff!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You asked about oceans, dumbass. I gave you a source talking about oceans. Needless to say, you didn't look at it. You can't. Your cult forbids it.


Let's get really basic.

Do you undestand that ice cores are _not_ oceans?

Now, let's ramp it up to middle-school level.

Can you understand that CO2 is a forcing and a feedback, so CO2 should lag temperature?

This is basic stuff. If you can't understand it, you should stay at the kiddie table with flat earthers and antivaxxers.

Explain how the side by side dataset showing CO2 always lagging temperatures by 800 to 1000 years means that CO2 drives temperatures by “forcing”

 

[ding]

Explain how the side by side dataset showing CO2 always lagging temperatures by 800 to 1000 years means that CO2 drives temperatures by “forcing”

She has a hard time understanding that concept.

 

[ReinyDays]

Of course I am making sense. The planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 greater than 600 ppm. Clearly CO2 does not drive climate change. See?

View attachment 757778

The Atlantic Ocean ... if "ocean" is what folks call that puny worthless oversized lake ...

 

[jc456]

I don't need to disprove it. These amazing inventions called "thermometers" do that.

Honest people, if they want to know surface temperature, they look at what the thermometers at the surface say. Those say we're warming.

Pseudoscience cultists, they deliberate discard the best data, because that data says that the cultists are making everything up. Instead, they almost exclusively use the UAH satellite _model_ . That _model_ takes microwave emissions from across the whole troposphere, and then runs that data through a model with all kinds of fudge factors to get a temperature projection.

You use a fudgy model. We use the best hard data. We're honest and rational, you're a pseudoscience crank.

Now where’s that at?

 

[mamooth]

Explain how the side by side dataset showing CO2 always lagging temperatures by 800 to 1000 years means that CO2 drives temperatures by “forcing”

I've done so many times before. Pay attention this time.

Orbital factors heat the oceans a little.

That causes them to release CO2.

Then the CO2 feedback takes over from there.

This is basic stuff, but all deniers faceplant at it.

Now, your turn. Explain how ice age cycles work without invoking CO2. After all, the orbital cycles and albedo changes don't even have close to enough power to make it happen. Something else has to be reinforcing it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've done so many times before. Pay attention this time.

Orbital factors heat the oceans a little.

That causes them to release CO2.

Then the CO2 feedback takes over from there.

This is basic stuff, but all deniers faceplant at it.

Now, your turn. Explain how ice age cycles work without invoking CO2. After all, the orbital cycles and albedo changes don't even have close to enough power to make it happen. Something else has to be reinforcing it.

What CO2 feedback takes over?

CO2 NEVER drives temperature in a 450,000 year side by side dataset

Can you define “feedback”? If it means lagging temperatures, yeah that works

 

[mamooth]

What CO2 feedback takes over?

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

See? Feedback. Do I need to paste another thousand repetitions, or are you figuring it out?

CO2 NEVER drives temperature in a 450,000 year side by side dataset

Since the dataset shows CO2 driving temperature, you sound kind of insane. CO2 doesn't give the initial push, but then it takes over.

Seriously, I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.

 

[ding]

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

See? Feedback. Do I need to paste another thousand repetitions, or are you figuring it out?


Since the dataset shows CO2 driving temperature, you sound kind of insane. CO2 doesn't give the initial push, but then it takes over.

Seriously, I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.