Global Warming Alarmist In Therapy To Handle Despair About Trump

[ding]

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

Which is not relevant to the fact that humans can change the climate, and are changing the climate. At least that's what the directly measured data shows.

It is relevant because our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of the past interglacial cycles. What we are seeing is within the normal range for an interglacial cycle. Furthermore, we entered the glacial cycles with high CO2 levels and we exited the glacial cycles with low CO2 levels. Clearly CO2 did not drive those transitions.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A lot of warmists are delusional.

Climate change takes a mental toll - The Boston Globe

 

[ding]

Which is not relevant to the fact that humans can change the climate, and are changing the climate. At least that's what the directly measured data shows.

It is relevant because our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of the past interglacial cycles. What we are seeing is within the normal range for an interglacial cycle. Furthermore, we entered the glacial cycles with high CO2 levels and we exited the glacial cycles with low CO2 levels. Clearly CO2 did not drive those transitions.

Cat got your tongue? I thought that would make you run away. Boom.

 

[mamooth]

It is relevant because our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of the past interglacial cycles.

So you're back to your "humans can't affect the climate because I say so!" crank rambling.

All the data says the current unprecedented fast warming is not natural, but such inconvenient facts don't agree with your kook religious/political cult agenda, hence you simply pretend the data does not exist. That's after you've madly fudged and faked the numbers.

Cult frauds are a dime a dozen. You're just boring.

 

[ding]

It is relevant because our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of the past interglacial cycles.

So you're back to your "humans can't affect the climate because I say so!" crank rambling.

All the data says the current unprecedented fast warming is not natural, but such inconvenient facts don't agree with your kook religious/political cult agenda, hence you simply pretend the data does not exist. That's after you've madly fudged and faked the numbers.

Cult frauds are a dime a dozen. You're just boring.

What all the data would that be? And how does it address the fact that we entered the glacial cycles with high CO2 levels and we exited the glacial cycles with low CO2 levels. Clearly CO2 did not drive those transitions. I noticed that you conveniently ignored that part.

 

[mamooth]

What all the data would that be?

The data you've ignored dozens of times before. And as the Bible says not to cast pearls before swine, nobody is going to waste time presenting it to you again. Anyone who really wants to see you get slapped around on that topic can read it here.

It took 12 million years for the temperature to finally respond to CO2

And how does it address the fact that we entered the glacial cycles with high CO2 levels and we exited the glacial cycles with low CO2 levels.

I'll address it again by pointing out it's your fiction.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

And even if it was true, it's just more of your "humans can't change climate because I say so" suckass logic. If CO2 didn't drive a previous cycle, that in no way prevents the CO2 we've added from driving this cycle.

 

[ding]

The data you've ignored dozens of times before.

What data would that be? The data that shows that our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of the past interglacial cycles?

Anyone who really wants to see you get slapped around on that topic can read it here.

It took 12 million years for the temperature to finally respond to CO2

You mean the thread that shows you being slapped around?

I'll address it again by pointing out it's your fiction.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

And even if it was true, it's just more of your "humans can't change climate because I say so" suckass logic. If CO2 didn't drive a previous cycle, that in no way prevents the CO2 we've added from driving this cycle.

You lose. From the paper you presented, lol.

"The proxy database provides an opportunity to explore what triggers deglacial warming. Substantial temperature change at all latitudes (Fig. 5b), as well as a net global warming of about 0.3 uC (Fig. 2a), precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago, suggesting that CO2 did not initiate deglacial warming."

 

[ding]

Boom

 

[mamooth]

Ah, poor Ding read for cherrypicking, instead of for comprehension. That never ends well for him.

The paper:

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

says that CO2 was not the initial little kick that started deglaciation.

However, after the first little kick by something else, CO2 quickly took over as the primary driver.

Boom. Nice fail, Ding. Try reading the whole paper next time. You'll look less silly.

 

[ding]

Ah, poor Ding read for cherrypicking, instead of for comprehension. That never ends well for him.

The paper:

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

says that CO2 was not the initial little kick that started deglaciation.

However, after the first little kick by something else, CO2 quickly took over as the primary driver.

Boom. Nice fail, Ding. Try reading the whole paper next time. You'll look less silly.

No. It doesn't prove it took over as the primary driver. Can you the calculation for that?

Obviously you didn't have the paper until I quoted the paper. You're a fake.

Show me that calculation, Einstein?

Then can you explain how CO2 cause us to enter the glacial cycles?

 

[ding]

Ah, poor Ding read for cherrypicking, instead of for comprehension. That never ends well for him.

The paper:

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

says that CO2 was not the initial little kick that started deglaciation.

However, after the first little kick by something else, CO2 quickly took over as the primary driver.

Boom. Nice fail, Ding. Try reading the whole paper next time. You'll look less silly.

Boom. Another nail in your coffin....

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

"These results suggest that ocean circulation changes driven primarily by freshwater flux, rather than by direct forcing from greenhouse gases or orbits, are plausible causes of the hemispheric differences in temperature change seen in the proxy records."

 

[mamooth]

That had nothing to do with anything we were discussing.

Boom.

You're just flailing wildly now, Ding. You're embarrassing yourself again in front of everyone. Just accept your beatdown and move on.

 

[ding]

That had nothing to do with anything we were discussing.

Boom.

You're just flailing wildly now, Ding. You're embarrassing yourself again in front of everyone. Just accept your beatdown and move on.

Of course it does. It was from the paper you cited, lol.

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

"These results suggest that ocean circulation changes driven primarily by freshwater flux, rather than by direct forcing from greenhouse gases or orbits, are plausible causes of the hemispheric differences in temperature change seen in the proxy records."

 

[ding]

What all the data would that be?

The data you've ignored dozens of times before. And as the Bible says not to cast pearls before swine, nobody is going to waste time presenting it to you again. Anyone who really wants to see you get slapped around on that topic can read it here.

It took 12 million years for the temperature to finally respond to CO2

And how does it address the fact that we entered the glacial cycles with high CO2 levels and we exited the glacial cycles with low CO2 levels.

I'll address it again by pointing out it's your fiction.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

And even if it was true, it's just more of your "humans can't change climate because I say so" suckass logic. If CO2 didn't drive a previous cycle, that in no way prevents the CO2 we've added from driving this cycle.

Do the radiative forcing calculation math for a change from 180 ppm to 260 ppm. You get about half of the temperature rise. Now here's the good part... do it for each point along the curve. And finally, how do you explain the change from interglacial to glacial? Hmmmm?

 

[mamooth]

Of course it does. It was from the paper you cited, lol.

You seem to be confusing "hemispheric temperature difference" with something related to this thread.

Why, nobody knows. Like I said, you're flailing, and everyone sees it.

 

[ding]

Of course it does. It was from the paper you cited, lol.

You seem to be confusing "hemispheric temperature difference" with something related to this thread.

Why, nobody knows. Like I said, you're flailing, and everyone sees it.

You seem to be confused about a lot. So did CO2 decreases bring on the glacial cycle, lol?

 

[flacaltenn]

Topic has drifted considerably. Too many illegal posts. Closed...