GLOBAL WARMING? NASA says Antarctic has been COOLING for past

[CrusaderFrank]

Not only that it's besides the point.

If there is NATURAL cooling alongside MAN MADE warming, and temperatures are still going up, what does this suggest to you?

In the first place, manmade warming has not been proven...temperatures going up suggests that the earth is exiting an ice age and the long term trend will be up with occasional drops till the temperatures reach earth's normal temperature of about 22C...that is about 7 degrees warmer than the present. Earth history tells us that for most of history, it has been so warm that no ice at all existed at at least one pole and usually both.

Considering that the normal temperature is so warm that there is no ice at the poles, what does that suggest to you regarding man's ability to do anything whatsoever about warming?

Oh, and you know all this CO2 we're pumping into the air, do you know which place it has the biggest impact on?

It has no effect on the temperature anywhere. Are you aware that the ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 levels higher than the present...and in fact ice ages have began with CO2 levels in excess of 1000, and even in excess of 4000ppm?

On the oceans, we're killing the oceans first. Great. So temperatures are neither here nor there, the oceans will be dead soon anyway.

Really? Are you aware that most of the life present in the oceans today evolved at a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were closer to 4000ppm. We are killing the oceans with pollution...not CO2. To bad we can't deal with real problems like pollution because the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

No, man made global warming hasn't been proven. Nor has whether we actually exist or not. So.... what? You need 100% proof of something before you'll accept it? Seeing as you can't prove that we even exist (or the Earth for that matter), how are you going to prove that something that may or may not exist?

However, if we accept that we exist without total proof that we actually exist, then maybe many other things we'll have to accept exist without 100% proof that it is true.

Temperatures going up suggests nothing of the kind. It might suggest this to you.

Based on what we believe the temperatures of the last 400,000 years, which appear to have entered a far more table climate, which in turn has allowed humanity to develop to a stage no other animals have ever made, we see that there have been these rather large increases in temperature that take place every 100,000 years, more or less.

What they suggest is that temperatures have gone slightly higher, for a short period of time, than what we're experiencing right now. There's a big rise, then it hits the top for short period, then drops down dramatically again.

What we're seeing in this, the 4th such occasion, is that temperatures aren't going down, they're staying at a point, fluctuating more or less. We can therefore surmise that we should, in theory, be going into a cooling period.

From what we believe man made global warming, based on the amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we're pumping into the atmosphere and is staying there, is that temperatures should be rising. What I believe is happening naturally is that temperatures are dropping. Hence why they're staying at about the same point.

The question is, what is going to happen in the future?
We know that the PH levels of the Oceans are changing dramatically, and that the oceans are at threat, the oceans take up a lot of the slack for the CO2 in the atmosphere. What happens when the oceans die and no longer bother to take up this CO2?

Will the CO2 in the atmosphere make the greenhouse effect so much worse that the temperatures rise to a level that cause massive problems on the Earth? It's possible.

The Earth has been hotter

Ice-Free Arctic in Pliocene, Last Time CO2 Levels above 400 PPM

They say it was about 60 degrees in the summer. Are humans going to be able to cope with 60 degree weather, I don't think so, 40 more or less kills us.

You make a claim of the poles having been ice free. It's not easy to search for this as many other things get in the way, similar meanings of words, but what I did find suggests the NO, in the past 400,000 years the poles have not been ice free.

When was the last time the Arctic was ice-free? - Democratic Underground

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf

"There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

"Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research."

As for your statement about ice ages with CO2 levels higher than 1000 doesn't necessarily mean much. There are plenty of other factors which might not be at play right now. The impact of CO2 on the current, stable system is the problem here. What may happen, that we might not be able to control, the unknown, is the problem here.

You've made another claim about the air being 4000ppm and ocean live evolving then. I'd like to see your evidence.

Can't even read the charts you post! They all show CO2 LAGGING temperature!

If CO2 worked as your "theory" suggests, you'd see temperatures spiking higher as CO2 rose, but that never happens on the hundreds of thousands of years ON YOUR CHART!

Making the assumption that CO2 lags temperatures because CO2 goes straight into the air and stays there. CO2 goes mainly into the Oceans first.

How the whole thing works I don't know and I know you don't know either.

This is the problem. I'm not saying that this or that WILL happen, I'm saying the potential problems out there we simply don't understand.

Also, the one chart that has CO2 and temperatures, it's impossible to make a judgement from that chart anyway.

So the CO2 in the air today was in the ocean 800 years ago? You're not making a lick of sense, are you listening to Crick?

 

[SSDD]

Not only that it's besides the point.

If there is NATURAL cooling alongside MAN MADE warming, and temperatures are still going up, what does this suggest to you?

In the first place, manmade warming has not been proven...temperatures going up suggests that the earth is exiting an ice age and the long term trend will be up with occasional drops till the temperatures reach earth's normal temperature of about 22C...that is about 7 degrees warmer than the present. Earth history tells us that for most of history, it has been so warm that no ice at all existed at at least one pole and usually both.

Considering that the normal temperature is so warm that there is no ice at the poles, what does that suggest to you regarding man's ability to do anything whatsoever about warming?

Oh, and you know all this CO2 we're pumping into the air, do you know which place it has the biggest impact on?

It has no effect on the temperature anywhere. Are you aware that the ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 levels higher than the present...and in fact ice ages have began with CO2 levels in excess of 1000, and even in excess of 4000ppm?

On the oceans, we're killing the oceans first. Great. So temperatures are neither here nor there, the oceans will be dead soon anyway.

Really? Are you aware that most of the life present in the oceans today evolved at a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were closer to 4000ppm. We are killing the oceans with pollution...not CO2. To bad we can't deal with real problems like pollution because the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

No, man made global warming hasn't been proven. Nor has whether we actually exist or not. So.... what? You need 100% proof of something before you'll accept it? Seeing as you can't prove that we even exist (or the Earth for that matter), how are you going to prove that something that may or may not exist?

However, if we accept that we exist without total proof that we actually exist, then maybe many other things we'll have to accept exist without 100% proof that it is true.

Temperatures going up suggests nothing of the kind. It might suggest this to you.

Based on what we believe the temperatures of the last 400,000 years, which appear to have entered a far more table climate, which in turn has allowed humanity to develop to a stage no other animals have ever made, we see that there have been these rather large increases in temperature that take place every 100,000 years, more or less.

What they suggest is that temperatures have gone slightly higher, for a short period of time, than what we're experiencing right now. There's a big rise, then it hits the top for short period, then drops down dramatically again.

What we're seeing in this, the 4th such occasion, is that temperatures aren't going down, they're staying at a point, fluctuating more or less. We can therefore surmise that we should, in theory, be going into a cooling period.

From what we believe man made global warming, based on the amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we're pumping into the atmosphere and is staying there, is that temperatures should be rising. What I believe is happening naturally is that temperatures are dropping. Hence why they're staying at about the same point.

The question is, what is going to happen in the future?
We know that the PH levels of the Oceans are changing dramatically, and that the oceans are at threat, the oceans take up a lot of the slack for the CO2 in the atmosphere. What happens when the oceans die and no longer bother to take up this CO2?

Will the CO2 in the atmosphere make the greenhouse effect so much worse that the temperatures rise to a level that cause massive problems on the Earth? It's possible.

The Earth has been hotter

Ice-Free Arctic in Pliocene, Last Time CO2 Levels above 400 PPM

They say it was about 60 degrees in the summer. Are humans going to be able to cope with 60 degree weather, I don't think so, 40 more or less kills us.

You make a claim of the poles having been ice free. It's not easy to search for this as many other things get in the way, similar meanings of words, but what I did find suggests the NO, in the past 400,000 years the poles have not been ice free.

When was the last time the Arctic was ice-free? - Democratic Underground

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf

"There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

"Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research."

As for your statement about ice ages with CO2 levels higher than 1000 doesn't necessarily mean much. There are plenty of other factors which might not be at play right now. The impact of CO2 on the current, stable system is the problem here. What may happen, that we might not be able to control, the unknown, is the problem here.

You've made another claim about the air being 4000ppm and ocean live evolving then. I'd like to see your evidence.

Can't even read the charts you post! They all show CO2 LAGGING temperature!

If CO2 worked as your "theory" suggests, you'd see temperatures spiking higher as CO2 rose, but that never happens on the hundreds of thousands of years ON YOUR CHART!

Making the assumption that CO2 lags temperatures because CO2 goes straight into the air and stays there. CO2 goes mainly into the Oceans first.

How the whole thing works I don't know and I know you don't know either.

This is the problem. I'm not saying that this or that WILL happen, I'm saying the potential problems out there we simply don't understand.

Also, the one chart that has CO2 and temperatures, it's impossible to make a judgement from that chart anyway.

So the CO2 in the air today was in the ocean 800 years ago? You're not making a lick of sense, are you listening to Crick?

Nothing good can come from listening to crick..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it belief? Not necessarily. It's what you might call an educated guess. Which is the best anyone can hope for in the world. Everything you know might not be true. So.... you're making educated guesses.

My educated guess goes along with what we have derived from history...your "educated" guess flies in the face of what we know from history...which is more likely to be right?

Does the wondering prove it exists? No it does not. You dream, if you had a dream which was wondering whether the dream was real or not, does that make what is happening in the dream real? No, it doesn't.

Would an entity not need to exist to have a dream?

Okay, I'm looking at the short term of history. 400,000 years. For very good reasons. The Earth has settled down, got married had children and living the domestic bliss. Before that it was getting drunk all the time. Now it gets drunk at Christmas and only at Christmas. Before 400,000 years ago things were different and you can't learn about what should be happening now from anything more than 400,000 years old when it comes to climate change.

Upon what proof do you base that claim? When you consider the time involved....saying that the earth has settled down in the past 400,000 years is like saying that a drunken frat boy has settled down because he is sleeping off last nights bender. You have absolutely no basis upon which to make that claim other than that you wish it were true.

400,000 years is all there is. You might want more, but there's nothing else.

But that isn't all that there is....as evidenced by the peer reviewed published graph I provided you. The alarmists claims only work if you look at the very recent history...as soon as you look at the longer picture, they begin do disintegrate and the only defense is making baseless claims like "the earth has settled down"

We worked our way out of a major ice age AGES AGO. We're gone massively up, and now we're in the downwards phase, only, it's not going down.

Only if you look at the very short picture...again, look at the long picture....the one from which you can get some context and actually get enough information from which to form a position...when you look at the longer picture, you see that the earth is still very cold relative to its "normal" temperature.

Life might flourish on the Earth when temperatures rise. This isn't the point. It's not whether LIFE can flourish, it's whether HUMAN LIFE can flourish, and the lives of those animals and plants that we rely on.

We are the most adaptable species that has ever lived on this rock...what would make you think that we couldn't more easily survive on a warmer world than on a cold world...and what makes you think that plants and animals won't evolve with the changing climate....they always have...what makes this time any different from the past..we know from history that as the world warms...life expands and diversifies.

Further....looking at the long picture...what on earth gives you the idea that first, the changes we are seeing aren't entirely natural...and second, that we can do anything about them?

Your first statement is just an example of arrogance, we don't really need to discuss anything else about that.

As for whether I have a basis for what I have said about 400,000 years, actually I do.

The development of a species to make it to an advanced state has taken a lot of stability. Sure, there have been problems along the way, however humans were able to come out of it. Imagine if the world were throwing up situations where humans who prospered in one region were then unable to prosper and died out. Humanity simply wouldn't develop.

Why did nothing else develop like humans in the past? Probably because of a lack of stability with the Earth.

The world is maturing, getting less violent, climate is more stable, everything is becoming less of a problem, well, until we arrived.

If the world warms up to 60 degrees in the summer, do you think humans are just going to adapt to that? What about cows, and sheep, and pigs, our main meat food source?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Making the assumption that CO2 lags temperatures because CO2 goes straight into the air and stays there. CO2 goes mainly into the Oceans first.

Of course it goes into the oceans...cool water holds much more CO2 than warm water....temperatures drop....water cools down...CO2 goes into the water....atmospheric CO2 decreases....then temperatures start to climb....oceans start to warm up....oceans start to outgas CO2....atmospheric CO2 increases....that is why CO2 lags temperature...the water has to heat up before the outgassing of CO2 starts.

And then what happens when things change, when the natural cycle of things is interrupted by something different, like CO2 in the atmosphere that isn't being generated by the natural stuff takes hold?

The answer to this is simple.

WE DON'T KNOW.

We know that CO2 levels in excess of 7000ppm didn't cause a spiraling temperature catastrophe....what is it about 400, or 800, or even 1600ppm that causes you to fret?

We also know that everything that happened when it went up to those levels was natural. What's happening now isn't natural.

Also, we know that humans didn't exist under those conditions.

One thing is knowing that no matter what happens, the Earth will still survive. The other is knowing that humans WON'T survive.

 

[SSDD]

Your first statement is just an example of arrogance, we don't really need to discuss anything else about that.

Why...becasue you don't like to be reminded that what you believe is going to happen flies in the face of what already happened? Good argument. Clap your hands over your ears and scream LA LA LA as loud as you can so no fact can ever penetrate your brain.

As for whether I have a basis for what I have said about 400,000 years, actually I do.

You are looking at a very short term piece of time...one that only goes back about half way into the present ice age....My timeline goes back to the beginning of the present ice age and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that. Which is likely to provide a more valid insight into the climate of the earth?

The development of a species to make it to an advanced state has taken a lot of stability. Sure, there have been problems along the way, however humans were able to come out of it. Imagine if the world were throwing up situations where humans who prospered in one region were then unable to prosper and died out. Humanity simply wouldn't develop.

And you don't think dropping into an ice age constitutes a lack of stability? Humans didn't start really advancing till the onset of the holocene when the glaciers started retreating...the more they retreated the more advanced we became....had the ice age never happened, we might be 20 million years on now and in the stars instead of 20,000 or so and fretting over the non existent threat of CO2.

Why did nothing else develop like humans in the past? Probably because of a lack of stability with the Earth.

Evolution is a product of time....look at the long stable warm periods in history and compare it to the definitely unstable climatewe are living in now. Coming out of an ice age is inherently unstable...up and down up and down with the long term trend being up...look at history....temps climb to an average and then level off for millions of years.

You seem particularly unwilling to take anything from the past...why is that?

The world is maturing, getting less violent, climate is more stable, everything is becoming less of a problem, well, until we arrived.

Again...look at the long history and compare it to the recent history.....coming out of an ice age is not a stable time....it isn't till the ice age is over that the climate seems to stabilize.

If the world warms up to 60 degrees in the summer, do you think humans are just going to adapt to that? What about cows, and sheep, and pigs, our main meat food source?

The global mean is 58.6 degrees now...you are trembling and fretting over less than 2 degrees? What is wrong with you...clearly animals can adapt to changing climates as they have been doing it since life began here...what makes you think they won't continue adapt....and they have adapted to temperatures much higher than your feared 60 degrees...and if dumb animals can do it...then human beings, the most adaptable creatures to ever walk the earth will have no problem. Personally, I would be glad to see an end of very cold winter.

 

[SSDD]

We also know that everything that happened when it went up to those levels was natural. What's happening now isn't natural.

What is happening in the climate now that is outside the boundaries of natural variability.....we know that CO2 levels well in excess of 1000pm are natural so our 400ppm is well within natural variability...the global mean temperature is on the cold side....so the temperature is within natural variability...what is currently outside the bounds of natural variability?

Also, we know that humans didn't exist under those conditions.

Is there any reason whatsoever to think that we couldn't? We know that life thrived under those conditions..and a great many animals which were not so different from modern animals lived just fine....what reason could you have to think that we couldn't?

One thing is knowing that no matter what happens, the Earth will still survive. The other is knowing that humans WON'T survive.

Based on what evidence? We are the most adaptable creatures that ever lived on this planet...and life of all sorts has thrived under every condition except the cold...your point of view is very interesting....you believe that we are capable of altering the climate of the planet, but don't accept that we are the most adaptable species that ever lived and that we couldn't adapt to a change of a few degrees. Upon what hard data do you base that belief....

Tell me, considering the long climate history of earth..what do you believe is the optimum temperature for life on planet earth? You really believe it is now still climbing out of an ice age?

 

[Crick]

All those conditions you cite in the distant past came into being over millions of years - enough time that life on this planet could adapt to it by migration and evolution. That will NOT help us now due to the current rate of change, a parameter you consistently ignore.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Making the assumption that CO2 lags temperatures because CO2 goes straight into the air and stays there. CO2 goes mainly into the Oceans first.

How the whole thing works I don't know and I know you don't know either.

This is the problem. I'm not saying that this or that WILL happen, I'm saying the potential problems out there we simply don't understand.

Also, the one chart that has CO2 and temperatures, it's impossible to make a judgement from that chart anyway.

SO you admit that you do not have the data, methods, or science to prove CAGW yet you want to degrowth and destroy the US economy any way. What kind of idiocy is that?

Your so called path to corrections of a problem you dont even have the science to tell if it exists or not is populace control and wealth redistribution.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not only that it's besides the point.

If there is NATURAL cooling alongside MAN MADE warming, and temperatures are still going up, what does this suggest to you?

In the first place, manmade warming has not been proven...temperatures going up suggests that the earth is exiting an ice age and the long term trend will be up with occasional drops till the temperatures reach earth's normal temperature of about 22C...that is about 7 degrees warmer than the present. Earth history tells us that for most of history, it has been so warm that no ice at all existed at at least one pole and usually both.

Considering that the normal temperature is so warm that there is no ice at the poles, what does that suggest to you regarding man's ability to do anything whatsoever about warming?

Oh, and you know all this CO2 we're pumping into the air, do you know which place it has the biggest impact on?

It has no effect on the temperature anywhere. Are you aware that the ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 levels higher than the present...and in fact ice ages have began with CO2 levels in excess of 1000, and even in excess of 4000ppm?

On the oceans, we're killing the oceans first. Great. So temperatures are neither here nor there, the oceans will be dead soon anyway.

Really? Are you aware that most of the life present in the oceans today evolved at a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were closer to 4000ppm. We are killing the oceans with pollution...not CO2. To bad we can't deal with real problems like pollution because the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

No, man made global warming hasn't been proven. Nor has whether we actually exist or not. So.... what? You need 100% proof of something before you'll accept it? Seeing as you can't prove that we even exist (or the Earth for that matter), how are you going to prove that something that may or may not exist?

However, if we accept that we exist without total proof that we actually exist, then maybe many other things we'll have to accept exist without 100% proof that it is true.

Temperatures going up suggests nothing of the kind. It might suggest this to you.

Based on what we believe the temperatures of the last 400,000 years, which appear to have entered a far more table climate, which in turn has allowed humanity to develop to a stage no other animals have ever made, we see that there have been these rather large increases in temperature that take place every 100,000 years, more or less.

What they suggest is that temperatures have gone slightly higher, for a short period of time, than what we're experiencing right now. There's a big rise, then it hits the top for short period, then drops down dramatically again.

What we're seeing in this, the 4th such occasion, is that temperatures aren't going down, they're staying at a point, fluctuating more or less. We can therefore surmise that we should, in theory, be going into a cooling period.

From what we believe man made global warming, based on the amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we're pumping into the atmosphere and is staying there, is that temperatures should be rising. What I believe is happening naturally is that temperatures are dropping. Hence why they're staying at about the same point.

The question is, what is going to happen in the future?
We know that the PH levels of the Oceans are changing dramatically, and that the oceans are at threat, the oceans take up a lot of the slack for the CO2 in the atmosphere. What happens when the oceans die and no longer bother to take up this CO2?

Will the CO2 in the atmosphere make the greenhouse effect so much worse that the temperatures rise to a level that cause massive problems on the Earth? It's possible.

The Earth has been hotter

Ice-Free Arctic in Pliocene, Last Time CO2 Levels above 400 PPM

They say it was about 60 degrees in the summer. Are humans going to be able to cope with 60 degree weather, I don't think so, 40 more or less kills us.

You make a claim of the poles having been ice free. It's not easy to search for this as many other things get in the way, similar meanings of words, but what I did find suggests the NO, in the past 400,000 years the poles have not been ice free.

When was the last time the Arctic was ice-free? - Democratic Underground

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf

"There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

"Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research."

As for your statement about ice ages with CO2 levels higher than 1000 doesn't necessarily mean much. There are plenty of other factors which might not be at play right now. The impact of CO2 on the current, stable system is the problem here. What may happen, that we might not be able to control, the unknown, is the problem here.

You've made another claim about the air being 4000ppm and ocean live evolving then. I'd like to see your evidence.

Can't even read the charts you post! They all show CO2 LAGGING temperature!

If CO2 worked as your "theory" suggests, you'd see temperatures spiking higher as CO2 rose, but that never happens on the hundreds of thousands of years ON YOUR CHART!

Making the assumption that CO2 lags temperatures because CO2 goes straight into the air and stays there. CO2 goes mainly into the Oceans first.

How the whole thing works I don't know and I know you don't know either.

This is the problem. I'm not saying that this or that WILL happen, I'm saying the potential problems out there we simply don't understand.

Also, the one chart that has CO2 and temperatures, it's impossible to make a judgement from that chart anyway.

So the CO2 in the air today was in the ocean 800 years ago? You're not making a lick of sense, are you listening to Crick?

New papers out show the residency time of CO2 in earths atmosphere is 40 years or less. Their doom and gloom build up to destruction of 1000 years is a lie and made up.

By Ari Halperin;

Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at a rate proportional to the surplus CO2 concentration. The half-life of the surplus CO2 concentration is approximately 40 years. This is the conclusion of my research paper, published on defyccc.com today.

 

[SSDD]

All those conditions you cite in the distant past came into being over millions of years - enough time that life on this planet could adapt to it by migration and evolution. That will NOT help us now due to the current rate of change, a parameter you consistently ignore.

What is our current rate....a fraction of a degree per century?....can you say with any certainty what the rate of change was in the past? Of course you can't...and yet, you pull such statements right out of your ass as if you could. You don't have even one shred of evidence that proves that the present rate of change is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability...much less unprecedented....and why don't you have such evidence...because none exists...you guys just make up whatever you think you need to say to make a point.

 

[mamooth]

...as you can see..3.6 million years ago was not the beginning of the present ice age...the decent into the present ice age began much further back in history than that.

That's nice. But since I never said or implied in any way that the ice age started 3.6 million years ago, that's just one of your weird deflections.

Here is another copy of the graph I already provided with the source...as you can see, it isn't made up from some warmer site as you claimed....It is, to the contrary, peer reviewed and published.....little of what you claim is accurate...ever notice that?

That graph confirms part of what I had already said, that declining CO2 led to the declining temperatures that caused the Quaternary Glaciation. So, you just helped confirm my point.

And yes, I get it. You can't argue against what anyone actually says, so you constantly make up crazy stories about what they supposedly said. Can you amuse everyone by telling us what it was I supposedly said that you just supposedly disproved? You'll get bonus points if it's extra-insane.

As you can see the decent into the present ice age began in the oligocene...more than 25 million years ago...by 3.5 million years ago...the freezing was well under way and continues till today...

And as you can see, CO2 levels were dropping the whole time.

You're quite skilled at proving my points. Thank you.

Which, as you can see (I assume) from the graphs above is well after the time the slide into the present ice age began....just as I said. As you can (or maybe can't) see. the earth is still quite cold when compared to its normal...having looked at the long historical picture, is there any reason you think the temperatures won't continue to climb till such time as they reach the level they were back during the Oligocene?

Apples and oranges fallacy on your part. When the continents are in very different positions and the sun is dimmer, it would be very stupid to declare the same amount of CO2 should create the same climate. Hence, that's the strawman you create. It's complete nonsense on your part, such a hilariously stupid bonehead error that it instantly identifies the speaker as a profoundly brainwashed cult pissdrinker. And you rely on that fallacy exclusively.

The temperature decline proceeded the drop in CO2 by a good long time hairball...

No. That's just another of your sacred cult myths. Tell us, Pissdrinker, what mechanism allowed earth to exit the snowball earth phases?

The rational people can tell you exactly why. With all the CO2 sinks frozen, CO2 emitted by volcanoes eventually built up to levels that raised the temperature enough to start melting the earth. That is, the CO2 change preceded temperature change.

You? You can't use that explanation, so you're kind of SOL. But maybe you've invented some completely insane explanation as to how snowball earth ended. It would be cruel of you to deny us that entertainment, so please tell us what it is.

 

[SSDD]

...as you can see..3.6 million years ago was not the beginning of the present ice age...the decent into the present ice age began much further back in history than that.

That's nice. But since I never said or implied in any way that the ice age started 3.6 million years ago, that's just one of your weird deflections.

You lie so much that you can't keep track of who you tell what....Here is what you said...

Let's look at the real climate. 3.6 million years ago, prior to the last ice age, Pliocene CO2 levels were around 400 ppm. That's the same at today. And the arctic climate was really freakin' warm, about 8C warmer than today. That is, the CO2 made things quite toasty up there.

3.6 million years ago, the ice age was already under way...and low CO2 levels are to be expected...3.6 million years ago, temperatures had already been falling for 30 million years....little wonder CO2 levels were down to 400ppm

That graph confirms part of what I had already said, that declining CO2 led to the declining temperatures that caused the Quaternary Glaciation. So, you just helped confirm my point.

Like crick you can't look at a graph and make any sense of it....the earth had been cooling for a long time already....cooler oceans absorb more CO2 than warm oceans...cooling oceans, less CO2...less CO2 is a result, not a cause...when the temperatures started falling, CO2 levels were over 1000ppm.

And as you can see, CO2 levels were dropping the whole time.

Cooling oceans...lower atmospheric CO2 numbers...the cooling began when CO2 levels were over 1000ppm...you are never going to escape that fact...The cooling began when CO2 levels were what you people call catastrophic and subject to creating run away global warming.

You're quite skilled at proving my points. Thank you.

You are quite skilled at missing every point that proves you wrong.

Apples and oranges fallacy on your part. When the continents are in very different positions and the sun is dimmer, it would be very stupid to declare the same amount of CO2 should create the same climate. Hence, that's the strawman you create. It's complete nonsense on your part, such a hilariously stupid bonehead error that it instantly identifies the speaker as a profoundly brainwashed cult pissdrinker. And you rely on that fallacy exclusively.

Really? This is what the earth looked like during the Eocene....just before the temperatures started falling. The continents appear to be pretty close to where they are now. Higher sea levels beaus there was no ice at either pole...CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...and then the cooling began.

No. That's just another of your sacred cult myths. Tell us, Pissdrinker, what mechanism allowed earth to exit the snowball earth phases?

Certainly not CO2...during the coldest periods most CO2 would be sequestered in all that cold water...the water had to begin warming in order to start outgassing CO2...The warming initiated without the help of CO2 and continued as a result of whatever started it. And aren't you people always claiming that volcanoes don't put out enough CO2 to dramatically alter the climate? Which is it? Because we are finding that we way underestimated the amount of CO2 coming from the sea bed...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Very comprehensive.... going to have to give it a close look.

source

Chart Site

 

[SSDD]

By the way hairball...the young sun was brighter than what we see today...another flaw in your hypothesis...you know that 1 flaw in a hypothesis is enough to send it to the dustbin...

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Modern Warm Period

The Modern Warm Period starts around 1850 AD, which is also the time when people began systematically recording and collecting surface air temperature data from around the world. These temperatures were spotty in the beginning, but by the middle of the 20th Century a fairly good worldwide temperature database was developing. Finally, in 1979, satellites were launched that could give us a reasonably accurate and complete lower Troposphere temperature record over nearly the entire globe. A discussion of the accuracy of the satellite temperature measurements can be foundhere. In the poster, on the lower right, both datasets are shown. The satellite dataset is from UAH MSU and the surface temperature data shown is from the HADCrut dataset. The satellite temperatures show warming of 0.35°C from 1979 to the present. This is not particularly significant by historical standards.

The period from 1850 to 1979 is not well documented globally and the records used to construct the global surface temperature average have been significantly edited, thus raising doubts about their accuracy. They show a warming of just under 1°C in a period of 165 years. This is not unusual by historical standards. Over this length of time warming of over 13°C was seen at the end of the Younger Dryas in the Central Greenland ice core. In the same core, the beginning of the Holocene Thermal Optimum saw a warming of 5°C in less than 800 years.."



Excellent article as well... This lays waste to the AGW mantra in short order..
Source

 

[jon_berzerk]

This is the same situation that is occurring in the USA. According to NASA data found here: Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

GLOBAL WARMING? NASA says Antarctic has been COOLING for past SIX years

An intensive scientific study of both Earth's poles has found that from 2009 to 2016 overall temperature has dropped in the southern polar region.

NASA’s Operation IceBridge is an airborne survey of polar ice and has finalised two overlapping research campaigns at both the poles.

In the last few weeks NASA has revealed the overall amount ofice has increased at the Antarctic and the amount of sea ice has also extended.

ouch

that cant be good news for the global warmist kooks

--LOL

 

[rdean]

GOP dum dums keep saying "global" and then point to one small part of the earth as proof. Do the dum dums even know what "global" means?

 

[SSDD]

GOP dum dums keep saying "global" and then point to one small part of the earth as proof. Do the dum dums even know what "global" means?

Haven't we been being told for decades that the Antarctic is the "canary in the coal mine"?...a harbinger of things to come for the entire globe? Or is it just a canary in the coal mine if they think it is warming.

 

[mamooth]

3.6 million years ago, the ice age was already under way...

It's remarkable, how you so consistently get every bit of the science wrong. You're like a fountain of anti-knowledge. If you say it, it's safe to assume it's nonsense.

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago
---

Yep, that's just wiki, but every other source agrees with them. If you've got a source that says the earth was in an ice age 3.6 million years ago, show it to us. Anyways, given that you pooched that so badly, it invalidates most of your rambling.

Really? This is what the earth looked like during the Eocene....just before the temperatures started falling. The continents appear to be pretty close to where they are now. Higher sea levels beaus there was no ice at either pole...CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...and then the cooling began.

Given the eocene was quite warm, pointing out that CO2 was high again confirms the greenhouse effect of CO2, as does the subsequent temperature drop that followed the CO2 drop.

Of course, some significant things were different 50 million years ago.

Solar output was 0.5% lower.

The Panama isthmus, or lack of it, significantly changes climate. The creation of that isthmus totally rerouted ocean currents, and that significantly changed precipitation. More snowfall moved to the poles, which allowed the ice sheets to form on Greenland and Antarctica, changing albedo and reducing temperatures even more.

The warming initiated without the help of CO2 and continued as a result of whatever started it.

So, to explain the warming out of snowball earth, you wave your hands around and invoke unexplained magic.

Good luck with that. Perhaps one of your friends will nominate you for a Nobel Prize, due to the brilliance of your groundbreaking "It just happened!" theory.

And aren't you people always claiming that volcanoes don't put out enough CO2 to dramatically alter the climate? Which is it?

The intelligent people understand that a small outgassing of CO2 over millions of years on a planet without CO2 sinks will slowly raise CO2 levels over those millions of years. That same rate of outgassing on a planet with active CO2 sinks won't raise CO2 levels at all, being the CO2 gets absorbed by the sinks. That's some basic math, science and logic there, so naturally you failed completely at it.

 

[skookerasbil]

"global" means whatever the alarmist warmers want it to be. Depends on the year. Depends on the temperatures in any given location. If you haven't noticed, its always changing as are their descriptors........has to perpetuate the established narrative of course @www.wtf.com!!!!!