It rained for first time ever at Greenland’s ice sheet summit.

[Crick]

Imagine if they were actually convincing.. or even funny.

Having all the evidence, science, logic and reason on their side of the argument IS pretty convincing. Funny is up to you, I guess.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Having all the evidence, science, logic and reason on their side of the argument IS pretty convincing. Funny is up to you, I guess.

Jesus, a little satire/parody sure can be dangerous. Lighten up. I'm on your side, Crick. Always have been. Always will be.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is the first time in recorded history. It is known by simply consulting the history recorded. It's like knowing George Washington's birthday even though he lived long before you and I.

Yeah but "first time in recorded history" sounds much longer than one would think.
They only started tracking it since 1942, and even then it was only at the location of the station.
That I could find, the first weather radar in Greenland was in 1995. Could be wrong about that, but that is what I was able to find.
So "first time in recorded history" - is what exactly?

 

[Crick]

Yeah but "first time in recorded history" sounds much longer than one would think.
They only started tracking it since 1942, and even then it was only at the location of the station.
That I could find, the first weather radar in Greenland was in 1995. Could be wrong about that, but that is what I was able to find.
So "first time in recorded history" - is what exactly?

The longest ice cores from Greenland go back 130,000 years. Is that far enough for you? Do you thinks it's just another weather event?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Factcheck: What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change

A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

www.carbonbrief.org

The 12,000 year chart clearly indicates that the industrial revolution reversed the long previous downward temperature trend. In other words, we'd still be experiencing climate conditions colder than the past 8,000 years were it not for AGW, aka our massive burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Crick]

That is correct.

 

[whitehall]

"For the first time in recorded history" is a freaking cliche when it comes to climate but the drama queens on the left love the phrase. Greenland's "recorded history" goes back barely two hundred years.

 

[Rogue AI]

The longest ice cores from Greenland go back 130,000 years. Is that far enough for you? Do you thinks it's just another weather event?

There is no way to determine if there was rain or not on any given day in that 130,000 year old ice core.

 

[Crick]

Evidence of rainfall is clearly visible in ice cores. And while not accurate to the day, the primary value of an ice core is that it is a chronological record.

 

[ding]

Evidence of rainfall is clearly visible in ice cores. And while not accurate to the day, the primary value of an ice core is that it is a chronological record.

There's way more value in ice cores than that.

For instance we can see from ice cores that the earth has experienced increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties by looking at ice cores from each polar region during the last glacial cycle.

And by correlating that to the oxygen isotope curve we can see that it was the northern hemisphere that was mostly responsible for the earth's increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty.

 

[JohnDB]

From the data I've seen about "climate change" it is happening...and it's obviously happened before.
Green house gasses though lag and don't lead climate change. So the causes of climate change are unknown. Correlation is not causation.

 

[petro]

What exactly is Earth's ideal climate?
Frozen or Tropical? Or right now at this moment in history because humans stupidly built mega cities in flood prone areas?

How much effort and expense must be spent to make the Earth's climate static for the benefit of humanity?

There is no global catastrophe here.
Some will adapt and benefit, while others not so much.

 

[ding]

What exactly is Earth's ideal climate?

People believe the world we live in today is normal. It's not. It's actually quite rare. The world we live in is considered to be an ice house planet. Our modern day ice house planet is characterized by bi-polar glaciation, glacial/interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient between the polar regions and the equators. No previous record for bi-polar glaciation exists in the geologic record.

2.7 million years ago we transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet. Greenhouse planets are characterized by a lack of bi-polar glaciation and have a low latitudinal thermal gradient between the polar regions and the equator.

As you scroll through this sequence note the lack of ice in the northern hemisphere - except for the present day ice house planet we live in today of course.

Sequences were mapped using the Mollweide projection, and, in all cases, are by Ron Blakey.

What Did the Continents Look Like Millions of Years Ago?

An artist-geologist renders the history of the Earth with maps.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Green house gasses though lag and don't lead climate change. So the causes of climate change are unknown. Correlation is not causation.

Wait, so because ice core data generally indicate CO2 levels lagging changes in temperature a bit, you're saying that's no reason to conclude that changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 levels. "Correlation is not causation." You're right. Both happening together certainly do spell climate change though. Coincidence happens and ice cores haven't necessarily been sensitive enough to resolve this chicken and egg problem. So we must look to other things to confirm that the egg logically had to come first.. Or, in this case, the CO2. Not by listening to corrupt deniers lie and deny things. Not by asserting coincidence nor that temperature rise could logically be driving our recent increases in CO2 levels.

 

[ding]

Both happening together certainly do spell climate change though.

I disagree. How do you know that natural causes are not responsible for the warming? We are still 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. How do you know that this warming isn't being driven by the exact same processes that drove the prior interglacial cycles - before man - to temperatures that were 2C higher than today?

Empirical data shows the earth is warming. You assume it is because atmospheric CO2 is increasing which is caused by increasing CO2 emissions. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. You are ignoring the natural climate variability as a cause.

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991: “We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to understanding climate change.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”


Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China: “Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength impacts and responses.”

Connolly

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.raa-journal.org

 

[JohnDB]

Wait, so because ice core data generally indicate CO2 levels lagging changes in temperature a bit, you're saying that's no reason to conclude that changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 levels. "Correlation is not causation." You're right. Both happening together certainly do spell climate change though. Coincidence happens and ice cores haven't necessarily been sensitive enough to resolve this chicken and egg problem. So we must look to other things to confirm that the egg logically had to come first.. Or, in this case, the CO2. Not by listening to corrupt deniers lie and deny things. Not by asserting coincidence nor that temperature rise could logically be driving our recent increases in CO2 levels.

What I'm saying is that since CO² levels lag temperature the likelihood of the CO² being the catalyst for driving up temperatures is probably not going to be true... something else is the likely culprit. (Just following the data)

Rising temperatures appear to cause the rise in CO². Falling temperatures eventually cause a fall in CO² levels.
But again this is truly correlation and not definitive causation.

Cold weather doesn't cause influenza...but in the winter we always have a dramatic rise in influenza cases... correlation without causation.

 

[Batcat]

At one time Greenland was much warmer than it is today.

Ancient Greenland was much warmer than previously thought

Lake flies found in rare sediment cores indicate Greenland’s climate during the last two interglacial periods experienced extreme warming, information which will feed into climate and ice sheet models to more accurately forecast future warming and sea-level rise

news.northwestern.edu

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is the first time in recorded history. It is known by simply consulting the history recorded. It's like knowing George Washington's birthday even though he lived long before you and I.

So what was Washington's birthday? According to the calendar in use at his birth, it was February 11th, 1731. When Britain changed to the Gregorian calendar in 1752, his birthday became February 22nd because there were 11 days deleted from the calendar shift from Julian to Gregorian calendars.

The changed the instrument of measure.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What I'm saying is that since CO² levels lag temperature the likelihood of the CO² being the catalyst for driving up temperatures is probably not going to be true... something else is the likely culprit. (Just following the data)

Rising temperatures appear to cause the rise in CO². Falling temperatures eventually cause a fall in CO² levels.
But again this is truly correlation and not definitive causation.

Cold weather doesn't cause influenza...but in the winter we always have a dramatic rise in influenza cases... correlation without causation.

Yep, I called your number and covered all that but like ding!.. there's obviously no one home.

"I'm saying is that since CO² levels lag temperature"
Bullshit based upon upon only one form of measure that's already known to be too insensitive to draw such a conclusion. The CO2 percolates through the ice making it look like it came later (more recently).

 

[JohnDB]

Yep, I called your number and covered all that but like ding!.. there's obviously no one home.

No you didn't.