Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you want to discuss the science, we can do that. If your intention if to promote rightwing political bullshite, you've already lost the argument.
He CAN'T be busted.. Because if you did bust him --- that MIRACLE MULTIPLIER you twerked on wouldn't work for AGW.. AGW itself (the weird and whacky part) DEPENDS on CO2 following temperature to OBTAIN the MIRACLE MULTIPLIERS.. Did you forget that part. The all powerful positive feedbacks making up the Miracle Multiplier --- the largest is increased CO2 generated NATURALLY by the warming..
If CO2 DOESN'T follow temperature -- you've lost a major positive feedback and you have no scary crisis..
Me thinks --- We thinks --- YOU'RE the busted one..
The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.
In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2 is naturally higher. The gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2 helps to intensify the natural climate variations.
It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.
"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
Did you claim you were a geologist?
It isn't a claim.
Geology is a very wide-ranging field. I never said that climate science was my specialty. It certainly isn't yours, nor is any other geologic discipline. But my specialty (hydrogeology) has more to do with climate than ANY alleged specialty you might have.
flaciddic said:MOST of that 420Kyr period, 1/2 the globe was covered in snow and ice. CO2 tends to sequester ITSELF quite completely under those conditions. But you knew that ----- right?
At no time in the last million years has 1/2 of the globe EVER been covered in snow and ice. Lying for Jesus and Exxon isn't going to help you win any argument, bubba.
Lord you nailed me on a technicality.. Go fix that percentage for me will ya? The comment stands, my circumcison and Bar Mitzvah are matters of public record. Haven't belonged to a Congregation in over 20 years. BUT ----
You still missed the REAL reason that comparing to cyclical Ice Age climate to our climate today in terms of CO2 is rather stupid.. Hydrologists ought to know that you lock up a lot of CO2 in a couple million sq ft glacier --- Right?
If you want to discuss the science, we can do that. If your intention if to promote rightwing political bullshite, you've already lost the argument.
He CAN'T be busted.. Because if you did bust him --- that MIRACLE MULTIPLIER you twerked on wouldn't work for AGW.. AGW itself (the weird and whacky part) DEPENDS on CO2 following temperature to OBTAIN the MIRACLE MULTIPLIERS.. Did you forget that part. The all powerful positive feedbacks making up the Miracle Multiplier --- the largest is increased CO2 generated NATURALLY by the warming..
If CO2 DOESN'T follow temperature -- you've lost a major positive feedback and you have no scary crisis..
Me thinks --- We thinks --- YOU'RE the busted one..
First of all, whining about Al Gore 10 years on is not a scientific discussion any more than whining about Darwin 150 years after the fact is an example of having a scientific discussion.
Secondly:
Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change
The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.
In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2 is naturally higher. The gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2 helps to intensify the natural climate variations.
It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.
"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
But we don't have to wait that long because we are already artificially raising the CO2 concentrations.
He CAN'T be busted.. Because if you did bust him --- that MIRACLE MULTIPLIER you twerked on wouldn't work for AGW.. AGW itself (the weird and whacky part) DEPENDS on CO2 following temperature to OBTAIN the MIRACLE MULTIPLIERS.. Did you forget that part. The all powerful positive feedbacks making up the Miracle Multiplier --- the largest is increased CO2 generated NATURALLY by the warming..
If CO2 DOESN'T follow temperature -- you've lost a major positive feedback and you have no scary crisis..
Me thinks --- We thinks --- YOU'RE the busted one..
First of all, whining about Al Gore 10 years on is not a scientific discussion any more than whining about Darwin 150 years after the fact is an example of having a scientific discussion.
Secondly:
Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change
The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.
In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2 is naturally higher. The gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2 helps to intensify the natural climate variations.
It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.
"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
But we don't have to wait that long because we are already artificially raising the CO2 concentrations.
Again -- it's hard to compare a massive glaciation to what we have NOW..
Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
So far -- you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..
Extending the effect of the orbital and rotational cycles that started them. The opposite happened as we entered the interglacial.
Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
So far -- you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..
what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.
Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
So far -- you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..
During the ice ages the co2 level within the atmosphere dropped to 180ppm...As the glacial absorbed the co2.
This reinforced the ice ages and made them last longer
Does co2 start the ice ages...No. But a chain reaction does occur that releases a lot of co2 from the oceans and glacial.
Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
So far -- you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..
During the ice ages the co2 level within the atmosphere dropped to 180ppm...As the glacial absorbed the co2.
This reinforced the ice ages and made them last longer
Does co2 start the ice ages...No. But a chain reaction does occur that releases a lot of co2 from the oceans and glacial.
Glaciers "absorb" CO2?
Seriously?
I thought the ocean ate it
Hydro and nuclear are two dependable sources Who need fossil fuels that we have to spend tens of billions digging out of the ground and transporting.
Wind, solar and wave can be 20-25% of the mix of course
Hydro and nuclear are two dependable sources Who need fossil fuels that we have to spend tens of billions digging out of the ground and transporting.
Wind, solar and wave can be 20-25% of the mix of course
BOTTOM LINE: Even IF we could stop ALL anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow, it wouldn't make a whit of difference in global climate cycles. Any effect on future temp increases and decreases would be virtually unmeasurable.
FACT: Nations like Russia, China and India will just continue to produce more CO2 and other REAL pollution no matter how economically crippled Americas is by any Obama/IPCC CO2 tax/fee wealth-redistribution schemes, so all we'd be doing is harming ourselves FOR NOTHING.
Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
So far -- you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..
You complain when you think climate scientists get it wrong, but dismiss my pointing out your stupid answers as me "nitpicking". Hypocrite. And flaciddic, I don't response to straw man arguments, even when they are posed in the form of questions.
Yeah.. Like you said about "why am I still here" --- I really don't have time for your ballroom dancing.
So far -- you've nitpicked and danced a lot.. And now you're playing stupid about the relationship of CO2 levels and Ice Ages. And you're not answering my one simple question that gets back to why CLimate Science is Sesame Street science..
You complain when you think climate scientists get it wrong, but dismiss my pointing out your stupid answers as me "nitpicking". Hypocrite. And flaciddic, I don't response to straw man arguments, even when they are posed in the form of questions.
What I said about there being virtually NO EXPECTATION that the Temperature curve for the planet having to be the SAME SHAPE as any forcing function is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT..
flaciddic said:If you REFUSE to engage in a real discussion about AGW models of the climate being ABSURD simplications of the science and math -- you'll never understand why people are laughing at you.You've been trained like a seal to expect to see curves match identically..
Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000
Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.
You complain when you think climate scientists get it wrong, but dismiss my pointing out your stupid answers as me "nitpicking". Hypocrite. And flaciddic, I don't response to straw man arguments, even when they are posed in the form of questions.
What I said about there being virtually NO EXPECTATION that the Temperature curve for the planet having to be the SAME SHAPE as any forcing function is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT..
Except that:
1) You did not make that exact statement and appear to want to make it seem that you said something else altogether; and
2) Whether or not you or anyone else has an expectation as to the temperature curve of the planet over time is irrelevant to what that curve actually is. The fact is that the two (CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages over time) are strongly correlated whether or not they meet your expectations.
flaciddic said:If you REFUSE to engage in a real discussion about AGW models of the climate being ABSURD simplications of the science and math -- you'll never understand why people are laughing at you.You've been trained like a seal to expect to see curves match identically..
The only reason people laugh at me, if they do laugh at me, is because they find it funny, if not sad, that I would even bother to try to have a conversation with such a tool as you.
What I said about there being virtually NO EXPECTATION that the Temperature curve for the planet having to be the SAME SHAPE as any forcing function is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT..
Except that:
1) You did not make that exact statement and appear to want to make it seem that you said something else altogether; and
2) Whether or not you or anyone else has an expectation as to the temperature curve of the planet over time is irrelevant to what that curve actually is. The fact is that the two (CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages over time) are strongly correlated whether or not they meet your expectations.
flaciddic said:If you REFUSE to engage in a real discussion about AGW models of the climate being ABSURD simplications of the science and math -- you'll never understand why people are laughing at you.You've been trained like a seal to expect to see curves match identically..
The only reason people laugh at me, if they do laugh at me, is because they find it funny, if not sad, that I would even bother to try to have a conversation with such a tool as you.
Fair enough -- You're not here to converse with me..
But just for the record -- the history of that comment goes something like this.. You attempted to dismiss poster "tap" with an "argument from complexity" backhand.
Whereby I asserted that Climate Science DESERVES derision for reducing their contributions way below the bar of all available math and science for public consumption. And I supported that observation by remarking that NO system as complex as Earth's climate should ever be expected to cough out a temperature shape that looks exactly like anyone of it's input variables.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...60-years-than-in-past-1-a-28.html#post8285559
I would have to erase everything I know about complex systems and math and science to spend all my time yelling at folks that "that input doesn't match the observed temperature curve".. And YET --- that's the cornerstone of your AGW stone tablets...
Sad situation bud.. True story....
