LOL.....Gore now says climate change triggering "flying rivers"!!!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ABSTRACT:

"The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age."

 

[ding]

Then show me where it has happened.

Show you what ... where increased atmospheric CO2 was itself a driver of warming? besides... every single time? Let's try another example:

When glacial periods ended, this end was not trigerred by CO2. However, nearly ALL of the warming happened after the atmospheric spike in CO2. This is because increased CO2 in the atmosphere is, itself, a driver of warming, and it also shows that the atmospheric CO2 had a more significant effect on the temperatures than did just the orbital cycle Iincreased CO2 becomes both the cause and effect of warming, after the initial spike... a "feedback loop". This can be read about here: http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation"

Again what you are describing is CO2 reinforcing climate change. Not driving it.

 

[ding]

ABSTRACT:

"The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age."

Again what this is describing is CO2 reinforcing climate change.

It is called CO2 sequestration of the oceans.

Are you really so dense as to not understand that in every single example you have proven my point?

Yes, when it warms up CO2 is released from the ocean and reinforces the climate change that was driven by other parameters.

And when it cools, the oceans suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and that reinforces the climate change that was caused by other parameters.

What I am asking you to show is an event where CO2 was the cause of the climate change. It has never happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again what this is describing is CO2 reinforcing climate change.

That's too general. What it descibes is the warming thaat was caused by higher levels of CO2. Higher atmospheric levels of CO2 will always drive arming. Might sdomehting else start warming, which causes an increase of atmospheric CO2? absolutely.

Sorry man, but that's about it for me. I will leave you with a thought:

No serious person thinks that, despite any lag or lack thereofin the past, this somehow means that our efforts in increasing atmospheric CO2 will NOT be a warming driver. You really are wasting your time.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Higher atmospheric levels of CO2 will always drive arming.

Prove it!

Empirical evidence in earths atmosphere shows it can not..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Higher atmospheric levels of CO2 will always drive arming.

Prove it!

Empirical evidence in earths atmosphere shows it can not..

Why would you ask for proof from me? How bizarre... go look it up yourself.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Higher atmospheric levels of CO2 will always drive arming.

Prove it!

Empirical evidence in earths atmosphere shows it can not..

Why would you ask for proof from me? How bizarre... go look it up yourself.

Your the one making the claim.. Back it up....

Oh that's right, the absence of a tropospheric hot spot disproves your deception.. I mean hypothesis..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your the one making the claim..

No I'm not, you idiot. This is scientific consensus. the global scientific community makes this claim. And you are invited to challenge them. Go for it, you insufferable crybaby. You think you got it tough here? Go get yourself laughed out of the room in serious company.

 

[ding]

Again what this is describing is CO2 reinforcing climate change.

That's too general. What it descibes is the warming thaat was caused by higher levels of CO2. Higher atmospheric levels of CO2 will always drive arming. Might sdomehting else start warming, which causes an increase of atmospheric CO2? absolutely.

Sorry man, but that's about it for me. I will leave you with a thought:

No serious person thinks that, despite any lag or lack thereofin the past, this somehow means that our efforts in increasing atmospheric CO2 will NOT be a warming driver. You really are wasting your time.

As a reinforcing agent of climate change.

You can't show an example of CO2 driving climate change because it never has. When it get hotter. the ocean releases CO2 which reinforces the warmer weather. When it gets colder, the ocean absorbs CO2 which reinforces the colder weather.

But here's your big reveal, even though CO2 reinforces the warmer or cooler climate, the climate still reverses itself despite CO2's reinforcement.

You sir are a moron.

 

[alang1216]

S0n...are you doing kidding? It's everything!! It's the only reason people post in here...duh. I've been posting in here for 9 years for one reason.... because the climate alarmist goal is pushing renewable energy down our throats. Thanks but I'm not interested in paying double for my electric bill. All based on an f'ing hoax that climate change is man-made. You obviously need to catch up in here. I highly suggest running through the thread called The Skeptics are Winning

So you're saying that you agree the climate is changing but since man is not responsible we should do nothing?

The world we live in is considered an ice house world. Most people think this is normal but it's not. It is geologically rare. For most of earth's history it has been a greenhouse world. It has only been about the last 3 million years that we began the transition. Over the last 400,000 years we have been cycling between glacial and interglacial cycles. My point is that the trend is that the earth is cooling. Has CO2 played a role in this? Yes, but the data shows that CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it.

So what do we do about it? Climate changes have consequences. If Bangladesh disappears beneath the waves, those people will be forced to go elsewhere. Do you intend to invite them to live in Florida? Oh yeah, Florida will also disappear, where will they go?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

S0n...are you doing kidding? It's everything!! It's the only reason people post in here...duh. I've been posting in here for 9 years for one reason.... because the climate alarmist goal is pushing renewable energy down our throats. Thanks but I'm not interested in paying double for my electric bill. All based on an f'ing hoax that climate change is man-made. You obviously need to catch up in here. I highly suggest running through the thread called The Skeptics are Winning

So you're saying that you agree the climate is changing but since man is not responsible we should do nothing?

The world we live in is considered an ice house world. Most people think this is normal but it's not. It is geologically rare. For most of earth's history it has been a greenhouse world. It has only been about the last 3 million years that we began the transition. Over the last 400,000 years we have been cycling between glacial and interglacial cycles. My point is that the trend is that the earth is cooling. Has CO2 played a role in this? Yes, but the data shows that CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it.

So what do we do about it? Climate changes have consequences. If Bangladesh disappears beneath the waves, those people will be forced to go elsewhere. Do you intend to invite them to live in Florida? Oh yeah, Florida will also disappear, where will they go?

Disney world!!

 

[ding]

S0n...are you doing kidding? It's everything!! It's the only reason people post in here...duh. I've been posting in here for 9 years for one reason.... because the climate alarmist goal is pushing renewable energy down our throats. Thanks but I'm not interested in paying double for my electric bill. All based on an f'ing hoax that climate change is man-made. You obviously need to catch up in here. I highly suggest running through the thread called The Skeptics are Winning

So you're saying that you agree the climate is changing but since man is not responsible we should do nothing?

The world we live in is considered an ice house world. Most people think this is normal but it's not. It is geologically rare. For most of earth's history it has been a greenhouse world. It has only been about the last 3 million years that we began the transition. Over the last 400,000 years we have been cycling between glacial and interglacial cycles. My point is that the trend is that the earth is cooling. Has CO2 played a role in this? Yes, but the data shows that CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it.

So what do we do about it? Climate changes have consequences. If Bangladesh disappears beneath the waves, those people will be forced to go elsewhere. Do you intend to invite them to live in Florida? Oh yeah, Florida will also disappear, where will they go?

The sea level has been rising for 22,000 years since the beginning of the current interglacial cycle and will continue to do so until the next triggering event (i.e. Milankovitch / Gulf Stream switch off???). About 6000 years ago the rise leveled off at 3 mm/yr. As the conditions which led to the icehouse world still exist today (polar regions isolated from warm marine currents due to plate tectonics and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm), why do we need to do anything at all? I think atmospheric CO2 of 600 ppm is a good thing. Why? Because if you think a few degrees rise in temperature is bad (mostly in the polar regions BTW) how bad do you think it would be with a 1000 ft thick sheet of ice covering New York? Which was the case 12,000 years ago.

 

[alang1216]

The sea level has been rising for 22,000 years since the beginning of the current interglacial cycle and will continue to do so until the next triggering event (i.e. Milankovitch / Gulf Stream switch off???). About 6000 years ago the rise leveled off at 3 mm/yr. As the conditions which led to the icehouse world still exist today (polar regions isolated from warm marine currents due to plate tectonics and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm), why do we need to do anything at all? I think atmospheric CO2 of 600 ppm is a good thing. Why? Because if you think a few degrees rise in temperature is bad (mostly in the polar regions BTW) how bad do you think it would be with a 1000 ft thick sheet of ice covering New York? Which was the case 12,000 years ago.

I'm not a climatologist and certainly don't have all the answers. What I do know is that there were plenty of large mammals that went extinct at about the time the climate changed. I just don't want humans to be the next victims, regardless of whether they are the cause or not. Even if we didn't face extinction, any minor climate changes would wreak havoc on our finely tuned existence.

 

[ding]

The sea level has been rising for 22,000 years since the beginning of the current interglacial cycle and will continue to do so until the next triggering event (i.e. Milankovitch / Gulf Stream switch off???). About 6000 years ago the rise leveled off at 3 mm/yr. As the conditions which led to the icehouse world still exist today (polar regions isolated from warm marine currents due to plate tectonics and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm), why do we need to do anything at all? I think atmospheric CO2 of 600 ppm is a good thing. Why? Because if you think a few degrees rise in temperature is bad (mostly in the polar regions BTW) how bad do you think it would be with a 1000 ft thick sheet of ice covering New York? Which was the case 12,000 years ago.

I'm not a climatologist and certainly don't have all the answers. What I do know is that there were plenty of large mammals that went extinct at about the time the climate changed. I just don't want humans to be the next victims, regardless of whether they are the cause or not. Even if we didn't face extinction, any minor climate changes would wreak havoc on our finely tuned existence.

There have been 5 major extinction events; one that was caused by global cooling, the other four during periods of much much hotter temperatures (14 C) and much much higher concentrations of CO2 (ten times today's level). The evidence is from coral reefs. The cause is believed to be ocean acidification.

The part I dispute is the rate of change argument. Specifically that there is no other known precedent from the past. Why? Because there isn't that kind of resolution in the data.

It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument.

 

[skookerasbil]

The sea level has been rising for 22,000 years since the beginning of the current interglacial cycle and will continue to do so until the next triggering event (i.e. Milankovitch / Gulf Stream switch off???). About 6000 years ago the rise leveled off at 3 mm/yr. As the conditions which led to the icehouse world still exist today (polar regions isolated from warm marine currents due to plate tectonics and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm), why do we need to do anything at all? I think atmospheric CO2 of 600 ppm is a good thing. Why? Because if you think a few degrees rise in temperature is bad (mostly in the polar regions BTW) how bad do you think it would be with a 1000 ft thick sheet of ice covering New York? Which was the case 12,000 years ago.

I'm not a climatologist and certainly don't have all the answers. What I do know is that there were plenty of large mammals that went extinct at about the time the climate changed. I just don't want humans to be the next victims, regardless of whether they are the cause or not. Even if we didn't face extinction, any minor climate changes would wreak havoc on our finely tuned existence.

Hey s0n ....I got a suggestion ....get some real responsibilities in life and you won't be worried about stupid stuff. Come on now...how many people think we humans can do anything to engineer the climate? Maybe 179? Stop worrying about stupid s***

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your the one making the claim..

No I'm not, you idiot. This is scientific consensus. the global scientific community makes this claim. And you are invited to challenge them. Go for it, you insufferable crybaby. You think you got it tough here? Go get yourself laughed out of the room in serious company.

Ah yes that worn out consensus fallacy again, been waiting for evidence from you about CO2, where is it?

The "hot spot" remains missing despite your "Consensus crap.

 

[Votto]

I'm really starting to think that Gore is on our side of things!!!

Every time he opens his mouth, skeptics win!!!

Gore travels to Dubai, warns: ‘Global warming’ triggering ‘flying rivers, rain bombs’

Don't laugh, he could well be the next President in 2020.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well that was lame and unoriginal....kind of like the denier blogs that are being regurgitated here....hmm, I think I sense a pattern...

LOL

Is poor FeeFee having another idiot melt down? Sensing your own failure is good.. It means you might become teachable...

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over my excitement at reading the latest global warming denier science paper...

Just kidding! Such a thing does not exist.

Can you show me where in the geologic record that CO2 led to climate change?

It shouldn't be that hard if CO2 drives climate change, right?

Just for a fucking dummy like you, the Ordovician glaciation period.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can you show me where in the geologic record that CO2 led to climate change?

It shouldn't be that hard if CO2 drives climate change, right

Why would you demand such information on a message board? Do you also come here for medical diagnosis? How about, to get your car fixed? Do you come here to decide the effectiveness of a vaccination? Weird!

For starters, I have done that analysis. It isn't that hard to do. The data is readily available.

Does that mean YOU can't show me where CO2 has led to climate change in the past?

And you are a liar. Had you done so, you would know that there is ample evidence of changes in GHG levels changing the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm really starting to think that Gore is on our side of things!!!

Every time he opens his mouth, skeptics win!!!

Gore travels to Dubai, warns: ‘Global warming’ triggering ‘flying rivers, rain bombs’

Don't laugh, he could well be the next President in 2020.

Well, he would certainly be better than the present idiot.