Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

I did show it, repeatedly and you simply ignored it. If you actually want the numbers, you know they're available. If you want to just read it off the graph, that was all I did. It's good enough. And since we are NOT undergoing a D-O event at the moment, that would be an invalid comparison. You claim that the current warming is simply the normal warming of a glacial-interglacial cycle, despite the fact that we are at the tail end of an interglacial cycle and temperatures have been falling for the last 5,000 years. It's not my fault if your hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.

You haven't. It's preposterous to believe you analyzed every warming trend of the last 3 million years which is exactly why you haven't shared anything.

As for D-O events not being relevant, heat is being transported from the Atlantic to the Arctic and that's why the planet continues to warm up to it's pre-glacial temperature. Same mechanism as today, so relevant. 5C temperature swings over several decades is considerably more temperature swings than today. So your argument that natural warming trends of the past can't compare the warming trend of today is inaccurate.

 

[Crick]

You haven't. It's preposterous to believe you analyzed every warming trend of the last 3 million years which is exactly why you haven't shared anything.

As for D-O events not being relevant, heat is being transported from the Atlantic to the Arctic and that's why the planet continues to warm up to it's pre-glacial temperature. Same mechanism as today, so relevant. 5C temperature swings over several decades is considerably more temperature swings than today. So your argument that natural warming trends of the past can't compare the warming trend of today is inaccurate.

An instance of you ignoring the claim

 

[ding]

An instance of you ignoring the claim
View attachment 876563

Is this supposed to be your analysis of every warming trend of the last 3 million years?

Because I'm not seeing it. Try pretending like you are writing a scientific paper and present your analysis that way.

 

[ding]

An instance of you ignoring the claim
View attachment 876563

So how many warming trends were there in the last 3 million years? What was the distribution of rate of change?

 

[Crick]

Is this supposed to be your analysis of every warming trend of the last 3 million years?

Because I'm not seeing. Try pretending like you are writing a scientific paper and present you analysis that way.

I've actually been hunting for it and came across this one. This is the IPCC stating that the current warming rate is faster than anything in the last 3 million years and they had acess to all the actual numeric data. But you paid it no mind just like you're doing now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've actually been hunting for it and came across this one. This is the IPCC stating that the current warming rate is faster than anything in the last 3 million years and they had acess to all the actual numeric data. But you paid it no mind just like you're doing now.

Did they mention "7-10 times faster"?

 

[ReinyDays]

Did they mention "7-10 times faster"?

You bet ... this appears when we extrapolate 3 million years with just 140 years actual data ... but only if we want it to ...

Oh ... using actual data, we have the period 1910-1940 as the fastest ... some lies just persist with the undereducated ...

 

[Crick]

You bet ... this appears when we extrapolate 3 million years with just 140 years actual data ... but only if we want it to ...

Oh ... using actual data, we have the period 1910-1940 as the fastest ... some lies just persist with the undereducated ...

Speaking of lies: you only find 1910-1940 fast if you happen to be trying to look at 30 year spans. But the IPCC text itself tells us that data from the last glacial period is too coarsely resolved for direct compairson to a 150 year span. But I say damn the torpedos, full speed ahead Gridley!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Speaking of lies: you only find 1910-1940 fast if you happen to be trying to look at 30 year spans. But the IPCC text itself tells us that data from the last glacial period is too coarsely resolved for direct compairson to a 150 year span. But I say damn the torpedos, full speed ahead Gridley!

But the IPCC text itself tells us that data from the last glacial period is too coarsely resolved for direct compairson to a 150 year span.

But not too coarse over the last 3 million years? LOL! Hilarious.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But not too coarse over the last 3 million years?

2 million. Otherwise correct.

Over the past 2 million years, Earth’s climate has fluctuated between relatively warm interglacial periods and cooler glacial periods, when ice sheets grew over vast areas of the northern continents. Intervals of rapid warming coincided with the collapse of major ice sheets, heralding interglacial periods such as the present Holocene Epoch, which began about 12,000 years ago. During the shift from the last glacial period to the current interglacial, the total temperature increase was about 5°C. That change took about 5000 years, with a maximum warming rate of about 1.5°C per thousand years, although the transition was not smooth. In contrast, Earth’s surface has warmed approximately 1.1°C since 1850–1900. However, even the best reconstruction of global surface temperature during the last deglacial period is too coarsely resolved for direct comparison with a period as short as the past 150 years. But for the past 2000 years, we have higher-resolution records that show that the rate of global warming during the last 50 years has exceeded the rate of any other 50-year period.

 

[ding]

I've actually been hunting for it and came across this one. This is the IPCC stating that the current warming rate is faster than anything in the last 3 million years and they had acess to all the actual numeric data. But you paid it no mind just like you're doing now.

You said you made the comparison to the last 3 million years. Where is that comparison?

Find the best ice core graph you can and check. I've done so and current warming is 7-10 times as fast as the fastest rise I could find in the last 3 million years.

 

[ding]

2 million. Otherwise correct.

I have yet to see anyone actually present a valid comparison of rate of change. It's a ridiculous argument. Almost as stupid as severe weather events.

So not only is there no supporting evidence for such a claim, D-O events refute that claim easily.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2 million. Otherwise correct.

That change took about 5000 years, with a maximum warming rate of about 1.5°C per thousand years, although the transition was not smooth. In contrast, Earth’s surface has warmed approximately 1.1°C since 1850–1900.

Right. Fastest warming over the last 170 years.

What are the next 3 fastest warming 170-year periods in the last 2 million years?

 

[Crick]

Top 10 Reasons “Climate Change” Is a Complete HOAX and Ponzi Scheme Run by the Globalists and DC Democrats

Maybe because the argument will collapse when the next cooling trend occurs. The zany world of the politically inclined enviro power brokers never ceases to amaze me! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

www.usmessageboard.com

Still not the one I'm looking for

 

[Crick]

Top 10 Reasons “Climate Change” Is a Complete HOAX and Ponzi Scheme Run by the Globalists and DC Democrats

Maybe because the argument will collapse when the next cooling trend occurs. The zany world of the politically inclined enviro power brokers never ceases to amaze me! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

www.usmessageboard.com

Still not the one I'm looking for.

 

[Crick]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Boy you are ignorant and yet you can't post one post with a link that says what you said it says. When it doesn't. hahahahahahahhhaha keep failing dude. I'm laughing. BTW, the truth is on my side and why you can't find anything.

www.usmessageboard.com

Still not the one I'm looking for but some good graphics

 

[Crick]

Bingo!

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Boy you are ignorant and yet you can't post one post with a link that says what you said it says. When it doesn't. hahahahahahahhhaha keep failing dude. I'm laughing. BTW, the truth is on my side and why you can't find anything.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Crick]

Bingo!

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Boy you are ignorant and yet you can't post one post with a link that says what you said it says. When it doesn't. hahahahahahahhhaha keep failing dude. I'm laughing. BTW, the truth is on my side and why you can't find anything.

www.usmessageboard.com

Godddammit. That was just the previous one.

I couldn't find the one I just had, but came across a second post in which I did the same thing.

Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

Yes. There's the value of ice cores. Yes. Are you unable to read a graph? Again, are you unable to read a graph? Read it yourself and do the math. Yes, but they took MUCH longer to take place than what we are currently experiencing. We know enough to support my contention. Current...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[jc456]

That's an idiotic statement. Glacial periods are abrupt changes in climate triggered by loss of heat from the Atlantic to the Arctic. The result is extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere and a long period of frigid temperatures as it slowly makes it way to warming up to interglacial temperatures. The planet is still warming up from the last glacial period and is 2C cooler than peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods. At which time changes in ocean salinity and densities coupled with changes in wind patterns due to solar variability - whether orbital or output or sun spot activity - triggers the next glacial period.

The northern hemisphere is much more of an influencer to the global climate because of the oceans to Arctic combination. Crick still goes to Australia for his warm

 

[ding]

The northern hemisphere is much more of an influencer to the global climate because of the oceans to Arctic combination. Crick still goes to Australia for his warm

That is 100% fact.