Oh wow!

[ding]

Glaciation cycles have taken place throughout the Quaternary and reach back almost 1.5 million years. Further back, glaciation cycles took place throughout the Phaerozoic period reaching back over 2.5 billion years. The glacial/interglacial cycle is driven almost entirely by the Milankovtich cycles of the Earth's orbit, then reinforced by GHGs released and sequestered by temperature changes. But, this is precisely the logical fallacy you rejected in the previous post. At no point since the KT impact has CO2 been released into the atmosphere in the quantities which we are producing without solar-driven temperature changes to initiate it. Thus the geological record you are relying on is not an analogy for current conditions.

I disagree. They show that CO2 does not drive climate change. Just because CO2 is leading temperature today does not mean CO2 is responsible for the increase. It's way more complex than that.

 

[Old Rocks]

P-T extinction.

 

[ding]

Then, with TSI headed for a new Maunder Minimum:

what do you believe is causing the warming we're experiencing? Plate tectonics?

Don't be silly. Landmass distribution certainly plays a role as we have already discussed but it is only part of the equation. Other gases in the atmosphere, feedback of water vapor, ocean circulation, orbital forcing, etc. CO2 is just one component of a vert complex and dynamic system which is always trying to achieve equilibrium. Plus any number of natural events can influence our climate and cause changes in solar radiation.

 

[Crick]

Glaciation cycles have taken place throughout the Quaternary and reach back almost 1.5 million years. Further back, glaciation cycles took place throughout the Phaerozoic period reaching back over 2.5 billion years. The glacial/interglacial cycle is driven almost entirely by the Milankovtich cycles of the Earth's orbit, then reinforced by GHGs released and sequestered by temperature changes. But, this is precisely the logical fallacy you rejected in the previous post. At no point since the KT impact has CO2 been released into the atmosphere in the quantities which we are producing without solar-driven temperature changes to initiate it. Thus the geological record you are relying on is not an analogy for current conditions.

I disagree. They show that CO2 does not drive climate change. Just because CO2 is leading temperature today does not mean CO2 is responsible for the increase. It's way more complex than that.

The geological record only shows that Milankovitch released CO2 did not initiate climate change. You yourself have already stated that it reinforces it. You have thus admitted that it has a forcing function that can raise the Earth's temperature.

Why have you not addressed the point that the CO2 of today is not a product of Milankovitch, it is the product of fossil fuel combustion? You keep just skipping by that point.

 

[ding]

The geological record only shows that Milankovitch released CO2 did not initiate climate change. You yourself have already stated that it reinforces it. You have thus admitted that it has a forcing function that can raise the Earth's temperature.

Why have you not addressed the point that the CO2 of today is not a product of Milankovitch, it is the product of fossil fuel combustion? You keep just skipping by that point.

I did acknowledge that today CO2 is leading temperature change. Of course, I do not acknowledge that it is responsible for temperature change as we are still in an interglacial cycle and warming is to be expected. It is a very complex system.

Yes, I agree that it can reinforce climate change, I disagree on magnitude, timing and feedbacks. It is not well understood.

 

[Crick]

It is leading temperature but it is not responsible for temperature. Got it.

It can reinforce warming but cannot cause any by itself. Got it.

It is not well understood. Got it.

Not one of your better posts.

 

[ding]

It is leading temperature but it is not responsible for temperature. Got it.

It can reinforce warming but cannot cause any by itself. Got it.

It is not well understood. Got it.

Not one of your better posts.

Yep, that's right. Now you are getting it.

That's right, CO2 does not drive climate change. Now you are getting it.

Yep, it is not well understood. Stop shitting yourself over it.

I kind of like this post even better.

 

[Muhammed]

Personally I think the US should base a nuclear power plant or several of them in the antarctic to melt the ice and desalinate the water. Huge tankers filled with fresh water could be shipped to places that a suffering drought. Places like California where we all get our yummies every winter.

And I hope they found precious metals or oil. I wouldn't be surprised if they hit a few gold mines or diamond mines.

 

[Muhammed]

It is leading temperature but it is not responsible for temperature. Got it.

It can reinforce warming but cannot cause any by itself. Got it.

It is not well understood. Got it.

Not one of your better posts.

Google "climategate".


You were fooled, jackass.

 

[Crick]

By what? "Mike's trick" and "hide the decline"? I'd say it was you that was fooled.

 

[Crick]

It is leading temperature but it is not responsible for temperature. Got it.

It can reinforce warming but cannot cause any by itself. Got it.

It is not well understood. Got it.

Not one of your better posts.

Yep, that's right. Now you are getting it.

That's right, CO2 does not drive climate change. Now you are getting it.

Yep, it is not well understood. Stop shitting yourself over it.

I kind of like this post even better.

I find a strong parallel between your "not well understood" and SSDD's similar explanation for his bizarre intepretation of radiative heat transfer. It is well enough understood to show that your interglacial contention fails on several grounds.

Your failure to address any of those three dilemmas in your argument does not speak well for the strength of your logical or evidentiary foundation.

 

[ding]

It is leading temperature but it is not responsible for temperature. Got it.

It can reinforce warming but cannot cause any by itself. Got it.

It is not well understood. Got it.

Not one of your better posts.

Yep, that's right. Now you are getting it.

That's right, CO2 does not drive climate change. Now you are getting it.

Yep, it is not well understood. Stop shitting yourself over it.

I kind of like this post even better.

I find a strong parallel between your "not well understood" and SSDD's similar explanation for his bizarre intepretation of radiative heat transfer. It is well enough understood to show that your interglacial contention fails on several grounds.

Your failure to address any of those three dilemmas in your argument does not speak well for the strength of your logical or evidentiary foundation.

Don't be silly. My argument is that we are in an interglacial cycle and that is why temperatures are rising.

 

[Crick]

You're still not addressing the three points. In another thread I have demonstrated that the current rate of warming is ten times the interglacial warming rate in the ice core record. That calculation was NOT hampered by the resolution of the data.

 

[ding]

You're still not addressing the three points. In another thread I have demonstrated that the current rate of warming is ten times the interglacial warming rate in the ice core record. That calculation was NOT hampered by the resolution of the data.

I have addressed that like a hundred times. There is insufficent data from the oxygen isotope curves to make that comparison. There were probably hundreds of times within each 5,000 to 12,000 year period of temperature spike where that was the case, but we only have two freaking data points for the 5,000 to 12,000 year ramp periods. We can see the same slopes over the last year where temperature spiked while the overall trend was declining. So, it really isn't that unusual, dumbass.

 

[Crick]

If there is insufficient data to calculate the warming slope to a tenth of a degree per century over 13,000 years, there is insufficient data to present those data at all.

The assumption that unevidenced events took place when you have NO mechanism to have created them is simply unsupportable.

If you think an ice core only produces points every 5,000 to 12,000 years, you're off your rocker. Cores are continuously melted and continuously analyzed with resolutions of a few hundred years. See Ice core basics for some - as it says - BASIC information.

 

[yiostheoy]

Hopefully Trump will include dam building in his infrastructure projects.

And hopefully Ryan and McConnell will agree to these projects.

And hopefully Schumer will not filibuster them in revenge for the ignorance of Boehner over the past several years.

We need to conserve the annual rainfall in reservoirs.

 

[Crick]

Looks like they are going to have warm temps for a while.

Oh? Let's take a look shall we? So, the maps are generated from forecasts, and models. Soooooooooo in oooother wooooords....they'rrrrrrrrre not reeeeeeaaallll.....

"These weather maps are generated from the NCEP Climate Forecast System version 2 (CFSV2) and CFS Reanalysis (CFSR) model frameworks. CFSV2 is the core of NCEP's operational Global Forecast System (GFS) model, available for April 2011 onward. CFSR is based on version 1 of CFS, and constitutes a state-of-the-art 3rd generation reanalysis. CFSR is available for January 1st, 1979 to 31 March, 2011 on a T382 gaussian grid (~38 km) with 64 vertical levels. CFSR/CFSV2 output fields shown here are from 0.5°x0.5° rectilinear grids downloaded from NCAR CISL Research Data Archive. Daily averages are computed from 3-hourly forecast fields beginning at 0000 UTC. The graphics here are generally updated at the end of each month (e.g., January output images are made at the beginning of February, and so on)."

Westwall said "So, the maps are generated from forecasts, and models. Soooooooooo in oooother wooooords....they'rrrrrrrrre not reeeeeeaaallll."

The article said "January output images are made at the beginning of February, and so on"

I said, God, Westwall, are you fucking stupid.

 

[yiostheoy]

Thanks westwall and flacaltenn for clearing all this up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another thread on the 50 degree Arctic surge that never happened

 

[Crick]

Thanks westwall and flacaltenn for clearing all this up.

How do you think those animations are created? Do you think they are just a series of photographs taken from some satellite magically hovering over the North Pole? Reanalysis is a process to take previously recorded data and (this is the part you'd never suspect) reanalyze it. The models are used to do the best possible job at piecing together different satellite tracks, fill in missed areas, create a continuous, colored image from a bunch of numbers. That was not a forecast. That was history made pretty.