Proof of AGW fraud

[Frannie]

The news real showed otherwise.


.

That is ridiculous. At about 30 seconds into the news real, it said there was absolutely no open water near the pole, and they had to break through the ice. There was NEVER any open water shown anywhere near to the Arctic region.

You call a few inches heavy ice?

The news reel said the ice averaged from 6 to 8 feet thick.
It said that in new fissures, the ice closed it to inches thick almost immediately.

In winter retard

Did your mom drop you

So the USS Skate happened to see what March was like.
The USS Natilus did it in the summer, and still thick perennial ice and no melt off or open water.

Why are you ignoring the coming ice age

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Because it fucks up your religion

 

[Rigby5]

Nonsense.
Natural climate cycles like ice ages are 120,000 years long, and according to their history, it is now supposed to be early in the cooling phase.

What measured data are you using to determine how long natural climate cycles are? You just claimed that if it isn't actually measured data, then it can't be real. So who was measuring the onset of ice ages 120,000 years ago?

I cores are an actual measure of land temperatures at the ice code.
If ocean ice ever melts off, there is then no ice core capability, so then no actual measurement data. And using land data to guess at ocean temperatures, is incredibly inaccurate.

Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not temps

You really are special

Wrong. The depth of the layer indicates precip, but the type of ice indicates temperature.

There is only one type of sea ice moron

Are you a special olympian

Wrong.
From its color, density, crystalline pattern, gases, etc., you can tell the age, temperature, and many other characteristics from ocean ice cores.
Ice that came from really cold temperatures will retain snow crystaline formations. Ice from warmer temperatures will have melted off all the snow features into more of a homogeneous bulk.

{...
Glacier ice is formed as each year's snow is compacted under the weight of the snows of later years. Light bands correspond to the relatively fresh, clean snows that fall in the summer when warmer conditions bring more moisture and precipitation. Dark bands mark the polar winter season, when little new snow falls on these frigid deserts and blowing snow is mixed with dust, discoloring the white snow. The layers are only millimeters to centimeters thick. Counting the yearly layers can date them. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.
...}
How do scientists use ice cores to determine past climates?

 

[Frannie]

What measured data are you using to determine how long natural climate cycles are? You just claimed that if it isn't actually measured data, then it can't be real. So who was measuring the onset of ice ages 120,000 years ago?

I cores are an actual measure of land temperatures at the ice code.
If ocean ice ever melts off, there is then no ice core capability, so then no actual measurement data. And using land data to guess at ocean temperatures, is incredibly inaccurate.

Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not temps

You really are special

Wrong. The depth of the layer indicates precip, but the type of ice indicates temperature.

There is only one type of sea ice moron

Are you a special olympian

Wrong.
From its color, density, crystalline pattern, gases, etc., you can tell the age, temperature, and many other characteristics from ocean ice cores.
Ice that came from really cold temperatures will retain snow crystaline formations. Ice from warmer temperatures will have melted off all the snow features into more of a homogeneous bulk.

{...
Glacier ice is formed as each year's snow is compacted under the weight of the snows of later years. Light bands correspond to the relatively fresh, clean snows that fall in the summer when warmer conditions bring more moisture and precipitation. Dark bands mark the polar winter season, when little new snow falls on these frigid deserts and blowing snow is mixed with dust, discoloring the white snow. The layers are only millimeters to centimeters thick. Counting the yearly layers can date them. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.
...}
How do scientists use ice cores to determine past climates?

Sea ice is not used to determine past climates kid, glacial ice can help determine that they are not the same thing. Simple mistake for the simpleton that you are.

 

[Rigby5]

Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented. There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.

The climate chaotic. The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.

That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic. Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic. Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year. Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.

The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago, your 120000 year cycle is pure nonsense

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

We are in an interglacial. The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago and created 20000 years ago.

Can you elaborate on the different types of sea ice

Yawn

No, the interglacial has ended, and we are back into the start of another cold glacial period, not interglacial.

Once you have prennial ice like the Arctic ice was for about 10,000 years, the layering added is not sea ice but accumulation of snow, just like any glacier.

 

[Frannie]

The climate chaotic. The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.

That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic. Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic. Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year. Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.

The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago, your 120000 year cycle is pure nonsense

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

We are in an interglacial. The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago and created 20000 years ago.

Can you elaborate on the different types of sea ice

Yawn

No, the interglacial has ended, and we are back into the start of another cold glacial period, not interglacial.

Once you have prennial ice like the Arctic ice was for about 10,000 years, the layering added is not sea ice but accumulation of snow, just like any glacier.

Lol so you just forgot about global warming because NASA called it off

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

So can I burn my used tires now

 

[Rigby5]

That is ridiculous. At about 30 seconds into the news real, it said there was absolutely no open water near the pole, and they had to break through the ice. There was NEVER any open water shown anywhere near to the Arctic region.

You call a few inches heavy ice?

The news reel said the ice averaged from 6 to 8 feet thick.
It said that in new fissures, the ice closed it to inches thick almost immediately.

In winter retard

Did your mom drop you

So the USS Skate happened to see what March was like.
The USS Natilus did it in the summer, and still thick perennial ice and no melt off or open water.

Why are you ignoring the coming ice age

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Because it fucks up your religion

That is silly because the solar maxima is in 2020, so is about to happen. The solar cycle is about 13 years long and has been slowly diminishing in magnitude. We hardly care about the solar cycles any more at all.
But a Mini Ice Age would be insigificant. Solar cycles are very short compared to interglacial periods that are 120 thousand years long.

Things we can't do anything about do not concern me.
Things we do that cause a great deal of harm, do concern me.
If we cause a runaway positive feedback conditions like on Venus, then we could make it hot enough to vaporize all liquid water on the planet.
In which case very little life would survive.

 

[Rigby5]

I cores are an actual measure of land temperatures at the ice code.
If ocean ice ever melts off, there is then no ice core capability, so then no actual measurement data. And using land data to guess at ocean temperatures, is incredibly inaccurate.

Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not temps

You really are special

Wrong. The depth of the layer indicates precip, but the type of ice indicates temperature.

There is only one type of sea ice moron

Are you a special olympian

Wrong.
From its color, density, crystalline pattern, gases, etc., you can tell the age, temperature, and many other characteristics from ocean ice cores.
Ice that came from really cold temperatures will retain snow crystaline formations. Ice from warmer temperatures will have melted off all the snow features into more of a homogeneous bulk.

{...
Glacier ice is formed as each year's snow is compacted under the weight of the snows of later years. Light bands correspond to the relatively fresh, clean snows that fall in the summer when warmer conditions bring more moisture and precipitation. Dark bands mark the polar winter season, when little new snow falls on these frigid deserts and blowing snow is mixed with dust, discoloring the white snow. The layers are only millimeters to centimeters thick. Counting the yearly layers can date them. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.
...}
How do scientists use ice cores to determine past climates?

Sea ice is not used to determine past climates kid, glacial ice can help determine that they are not the same thing. Simple mistake for the simpleton that you are.

No you are wrong. Ocean ice that was added by layer of snow and never melted, is identical to glacial ice and just as useful.

 

[Frannie]

You call a few inches heavy ice?

The news reel said the ice averaged from 6 to 8 feet thick.
It said that in new fissures, the ice closed it to inches thick almost immediately.

In winter retard

Did your mom drop you

So the USS Skate happened to see what March was like.
The USS Natilus did it in the summer, and still thick perennial ice and no melt off or open water.

Why are you ignoring the coming ice age

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Because it fucks up your religion

That is silly because the solar maxima is in 2020, so is about to happen. The solar cycle is about 13 years long and has been slowly diminishing in magnitude. We hardly care about the solar cycles any more at all.
But a Mini Ice Age would be insigificant. Solar cycles are very short compared to interglacial periods that are 120 thousand years long.

Things we can't do anything about do not concern me.
Things we do that cause a great deal of harm, do concern me.
If we cause a runaway positive feedback conditions like on Venus, then we could make it hot enough to vaporize all liquid water on the planet.
In which case very little life would survive.

You are not arguing with me but with NASA scientist

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

 

[Frannie]

Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not temps

You really are special

Wrong. The depth of the layer indicates precip, but the type of ice indicates temperature.

There is only one type of sea ice moron

Are you a special olympian

Wrong.
From its color, density, crystalline pattern, gases, etc., you can tell the age, temperature, and many other characteristics from ocean ice cores.
Ice that came from really cold temperatures will retain snow crystaline formations. Ice from warmer temperatures will have melted off all the snow features into more of a homogeneous bulk.

{...
Glacier ice is formed as each year's snow is compacted under the weight of the snows of later years. Light bands correspond to the relatively fresh, clean snows that fall in the summer when warmer conditions bring more moisture and precipitation. Dark bands mark the polar winter season, when little new snow falls on these frigid deserts and blowing snow is mixed with dust, discoloring the white snow. The layers are only millimeters to centimeters thick. Counting the yearly layers can date them. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.
...}
How do scientists use ice cores to determine past climates?

Sea ice is not used to determine past climates kid, glacial ice can help determine that they are not the same thing. Simple mistake for the simpleton that you are.

No you are wrong. Ocean ice that was added by layer of snow and never melted, is identical to glacial ice and just as useful.

Amount of this at north pole....... never more than two years in broken pieces....

Great for examining the last 2 years of known weather

 

[Rigby5]

That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic. Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic. Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year. Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.

The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago, your 120000 year cycle is pure nonsense

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

We are in an interglacial. The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago and created 20000 years ago.

Can you elaborate on the different types of sea ice

Yawn

No, the interglacial has ended, and we are back into the start of another cold glacial period, not interglacial.

Once you have prennial ice like the Arctic ice was for about 10,000 years, the layering added is not sea ice but accumulation of snow, just like any glacier.

Lol so you just forgot about global warming because NASA called it off

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

So can I burn my used tires now

Wrong.
The solar cycle is only 11 years long and has very little effect except on satellite communications.

{,,,The sun operates in cycles that are marked by periods of increased and decreased temperature, and lasts roughly 11 years in total. ...}

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Even if the next event is a solar minima, the next solar maxima is only 5 years later.

 

[Rigby5]

The news reel said the ice averaged from 6 to 8 feet thick.
It said that in new fissures, the ice closed it to inches thick almost immediately.

In winter retard

Did your mom drop you

So the USS Skate happened to see what March was like.
The USS Natilus did it in the summer, and still thick perennial ice and no melt off or open water.

Why are you ignoring the coming ice age

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Because it fucks up your religion

That is silly because the solar maxima is in 2020, so is about to happen. The solar cycle is about 13 years long and has been slowly diminishing in magnitude. We hardly care about the solar cycles any more at all.
But a Mini Ice Age would be insigificant. Solar cycles are very short compared to interglacial periods that are 120 thousand years long.

Things we can't do anything about do not concern me.
Things we do that cause a great deal of harm, do concern me.
If we cause a runaway positive feedback conditions like on Venus, then we could make it hot enough to vaporize all liquid water on the planet.
In which case very little life would survive.

You are not arguing with me but with NASA scientist

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Wrong. Most likely the reporter is not getting his fact straight from the NASA scientist.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong. The depth of the layer indicates precip, but the type of ice indicates temperature.

There is only one type of sea ice moron

Are you a special olympian

Wrong.
From its color, density, crystalline pattern, gases, etc., you can tell the age, temperature, and many other characteristics from ocean ice cores.
Ice that came from really cold temperatures will retain snow crystaline formations. Ice from warmer temperatures will have melted off all the snow features into more of a homogeneous bulk.

{...
Glacier ice is formed as each year's snow is compacted under the weight of the snows of later years. Light bands correspond to the relatively fresh, clean snows that fall in the summer when warmer conditions bring more moisture and precipitation. Dark bands mark the polar winter season, when little new snow falls on these frigid deserts and blowing snow is mixed with dust, discoloring the white snow. The layers are only millimeters to centimeters thick. Counting the yearly layers can date them. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.
...}
How do scientists use ice cores to determine past climates?

Sea ice is not used to determine past climates kid, glacial ice can help determine that they are not the same thing. Simple mistake for the simpleton that you are.

No you are wrong. Ocean ice that was added by layer of snow and never melted, is identical to glacial ice and just as useful.

Amount of this at north pole....... never more than two years in broken pieces....

Great for examining the last 2 years of known weather

Before that did not use to be true.
Ocean ice accumulated at the north pole and did not melt off.
Now it does and therefore is useless for data.

 

[Frannie]

The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago, your 120000 year cycle is pure nonsense

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

We are in an interglacial. The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago and created 20000 years ago.

Can you elaborate on the different types of sea ice

Yawn

No, the interglacial has ended, and we are back into the start of another cold glacial period, not interglacial.

Once you have prennial ice like the Arctic ice was for about 10,000 years, the layering added is not sea ice but accumulation of snow, just like any glacier.

Lol so you just forgot about global warming because NASA called it off

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

So can I burn my used tires now

Wrong.
The solar cycle is only 11 years long and has very little effect except on satellite communications.

{,,,The sun operates in cycles that are marked by periods of increased and decreased temperature, and lasts roughly 11 years in total. ...}

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Even if the next event is a solar minima, the next solar maxima is only 5 years later.

Dude you want to argue with me but I am just referencing NASA scientist

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

So get a grip, you think NASA will hire you to change their predictions

 

[Frannie]

In winter retard

Did your mom drop you

So the USS Skate happened to see what March was like.
The USS Natilus did it in the summer, and still thick perennial ice and no melt off or open water.

Why are you ignoring the coming ice age

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Because it fucks up your religion

That is silly because the solar maxima is in 2020, so is about to happen. The solar cycle is about 13 years long and has been slowly diminishing in magnitude. We hardly care about the solar cycles any more at all.
But a Mini Ice Age would be insigificant. Solar cycles are very short compared to interglacial periods that are 120 thousand years long.

Things we can't do anything about do not concern me.
Things we do that cause a great deal of harm, do concern me.
If we cause a runaway positive feedback conditions like on Venus, then we could make it hot enough to vaporize all liquid water on the planet.
In which case very little life would survive.

You are not arguing with me but with NASA scientist

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Wrong. Most likely the reporter is not getting his fact straight from the NASA scientist.

Wrong doofus the info is straight from NASA global warming is called off, accept it

Solar Minimum is Coming | Science Mission Directorate

 

[Frannie]

There is only one type of sea ice moron

Are you a special olympian

Wrong.
From its color, density, crystalline pattern, gases, etc., you can tell the age, temperature, and many other characteristics from ocean ice cores.
Ice that came from really cold temperatures will retain snow crystaline formations. Ice from warmer temperatures will have melted off all the snow features into more of a homogeneous bulk.

{...
Glacier ice is formed as each year's snow is compacted under the weight of the snows of later years. Light bands correspond to the relatively fresh, clean snows that fall in the summer when warmer conditions bring more moisture and precipitation. Dark bands mark the polar winter season, when little new snow falls on these frigid deserts and blowing snow is mixed with dust, discoloring the white snow. The layers are only millimeters to centimeters thick. Counting the yearly layers can date them. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.
...}
How do scientists use ice cores to determine past climates?

Sea ice is not used to determine past climates kid, glacial ice can help determine that they are not the same thing. Simple mistake for the simpleton that you are.

No you are wrong. Ocean ice that was added by layer of snow and never melted, is identical to glacial ice and just as useful.

Amount of this at north pole....... never more than two years in broken pieces....

Great for examining the last 2 years of known weather

Before that did not use to be true.
Ocean ice accumulated at the north pole and did not melt off.
Now it does and therefore is useless for data.

20000 years ago people walked from Russia to Alaska, not in 2007 retard

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
It is absolute fact.
And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice. Now you can. In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.

Just the way you phrased that first sentence illustrates how little knowledge you have on this subject... "Disputing AGW" is NOT a single simple question.. You can believe in the GHouse theory and increased CO2 contributing to warming and that man plays a role in that...

BUT -- then there's the PUBLIC DOMAIN misconceptions like

1) the world is gonna end in 12 years.
2) there is a "tipping point" beyond which we can do nothing to recover the planet.
3) that the net sum of "feedbacks" in the thermodynamic climate system of the planet is dangerously positive and will lead to ACCELERATED or RUN-AWAY GW effects.
4) that it's proven that our little 0.8DegC increase in surface temp is "unprecedented" in magnitude or rate in recent geo history..
5) that we ALREADY are experiencing major effects of GW for that 0.8DegC change in temperature every time there is fire or weather disaster...

ALL of the critical predictive parameters of GW have been consistently revised DOWNWARDS since the 80's, but the screaming fearful predictions still live on... About CO2 having superpowers above and beyond its own innate ability to warm the surface and atmos...About total melt-downs of Antarctica and/or Greenland for which there is very little evidence..

OF COURSE there are unsettled issues in GW science. ANyone following can show you how the "climate sensitivity" constant has been revised down to about 1/4 of what it started out as..

But you're probably not here to DISCUSS any science.. Likely here to demonstrate and toss out protest signs and meme pics....

 

[flacaltenn]

Try doing some research.

False things about climate change you might believe

Even the FIRST item in this list is lacking of detail... The sun HAD been warming (total solar irradiation) since the Little Ice Age in the 18th century... It reached a PLATEAU of its climb around the 60's... The argument that this warming CANNOT explain the CURRENT warming in the 20th century -- is just plain bad science...

WHY?

Because the Earth's climate doesn't change in a year or a decade. There are massive heat STORAGE in the oceans and the time constants on HEAT retained in the Atmosphere are multi-decadal and to some extent multi-century..

Don't believe this -- Look up the arguments used to show that the "trigger point" for GW is irreversible BECAUSE the time constants are so long.. There are short term and longer term time constants involved in the effective lifetime of CO2 warming of the atmosphere.. The LONG term are in the 100 year range..

Besides, any system with STORAGE (of heat) does not require an INCREASING forcing to heat the planet.. If the sun ramped up from 1750 to 1960 and STAYED HOT -- the oceans are STILL storing that heat. And the temperature equilibrium could continue to rise...

So -- I did NOT go past "False Thing #1" because this is amateur hour attempts to explain GW science to Grunge readers....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Try doing some research.

False things about climate change you might believe

Even the FIRST item in this list is lacking of detail... The sun HAD been warming (total solar irradiation) since the Little Ice Age in the 18th century... It reached a PLATEAU of its climb around the 60's... The argument that this warming CANNOT explain the CURRENT warming in the 20th century -- is just plain bad science...

WHY?

Because the Earth's climate doesn't change in a year or a decade. There are massive heat STORAGE in the oceans and the time constants on HEAT retained in the Atmosphere are multi-decadal and to some extent multi-century..

Don't believe this -- Look up the arguments used to show that the "trigger point" for GW is irreversible BECAUSE the time constants are so long.. There are short term and longer term time constants involved in the effective lifetime of CO2 warming of the atmosphere.. The LONG term are in the 100 year range..

Besides, any system with STORAGE (of heat) does not require an INCREASING forcing to heat the planet.. If the sun ramped up from 1750 to 1960 and STAYED HOT -- the oceans are STILL storing that heat. And the temperature equilibrium could continue to rise...

So -- I did NOT go past "False Thing #1" because this is amateur hour attempts to explain GW science to Grunge readers....

LOL...

Yep that is where he gets his talking points... SKS and GRUNGE.COM.. Both far left wing and as antiscience as you can get.

 

[SSDD]

Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.

I am still waiting for you to be right about something...anything. It seems that you live in a fantasy world and whatever you make up is true to you. The fact is that the climate is chaotic and there is little question about that fact even among climate scientists...Here..have a look at some more actual science..

Scientists Are Running Out of Space for Climate Data

clip: As climate models run, they produce detailed snapshots of conditions around the globe at hourly, daily or monthly intervals. And because the climate is chaotic, simulations don't always play out the same way, so scientists run them over and over again.

Decadal Climate Variability

Clip: Nevertheless, the fact that the climate is chaotic has fundamental implications for the predictability of this type of question.

The non-linear dynamics of Climate

Clip:
The fact that it can go erratically, and often abruptly, from the neighborhood of one center to the other is the essence of a chaotic behavior.

I could go on and on with source after source stating that climate is chaotic, but since you are a science denier, there is little point. Suffice it to say that once again, you are wrong.. Hell, even the IPCC defines the climate as a coupled, non linear, chaotic system.

The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.

Yet another failure to understand what the hell you are talking about.

Universal Law for the Distribution of Odd Periodic Cycles within Chaos in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: A Fine Classification of Odd Cycles (Year III)
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented.

Any more evidence? Are you kidding? You haven't provided the first piece of actual evidence so far. Thus far, you have done nothing but fantasize about what you believe, and deny actual peer reviewed, published science. I keep waiting for you to actually provide some evidence but it doesn't appear that it is ever going to happen. Apparently you believe your fantasies are evidence....well, the fact is, that they are evidence....just not of the sort you seem to think.

 

[SSDD]

Wrong.

I said that if there were open water in the arctic ocean, that then would have no way to get a record of past ocean ice earlier than that.
The ONLY way you can have a record of past ocean ice is if it never, ever, melts off.

Yes I know what you said...You claim that there is no way to get a record of past open ice...then you also claim that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years. Exactly how do you make a claim with one breath that there is no way to know what the past history of open ocean ice looks like, and then with the next breath, claim that the open ocean ice has not been clear for 10,000 years which is a statement about the history of open ocean ice?

Even when your contradictions are pointed out to you, you remain unable to see them.

What I said about your graphs is that since they likely were made after the melt offs of 2007, they likely are not actual data, but instead guesses based on land ice cores from Greenland or some place like that. That could be totally wrong, because land and ocean temperatures can be vastly different.

They are from peer reviewed, scientific papers published in credible and reputable scientific journals. They have been examined by the scientific community and accepted. You have not provided any scientific evidence to the contrary. At this point, you are simply denying scientific evidence with no alternative evidence of your own.

But the over all is that it is supposed to be cooling now. The arctic ice should be increasing. The Arctic ice was increasing for the last 7000 years, until only very recently.

And again with the contradictions...You claim that it is not possible to determine what the arctic ice was like when the research shows that there has been less arctic ice for most of the past 10,000 years and then claim that the ice has been increasing for the past 7000 years. If it is not possible, according to you, to determine that the ice has been less in the past, how is it possible to determine that the ice has been growing?

That is a serious question and I would like to hear an answer for it.

You are so far out in left field that I am really beginning to feel sorry for you.