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.
The paper make clear CO2 lags warming by 800 years.
So you fail understand what perturbing an equilibrium system does, and you fail at grasping scale in general.CO2 absorbs very little of the IP spectrum, around 5% of it, so a trace gas with a trace IR cover, can somehow miraculously promote massive changes in energy transfer, completely illogical and stupid.
During the last glacial advance, ice was stacked a MILE over Chicago. You want to figure out a challenge for the human race to overcome, try and figure out how the folks that face that will preserve their society under that level of challenge.
Your models FAIL, without exception, the empirical prediction stage of testing, which you on the left refuse to allow. Thankfully we have some that do that evaluation;And they have used modelling which IS a proven method
View attachment 280969
Your models are crap, not fit for any use. (except as birdcage cover)
That would mean that this interglacial would last over 30,000 years. Cite a single previous example where an interglacial persisted for this long.During the last glacial advance, ice was stacked a MILE over Chicago. You want to figure out a challenge for the human race to overcome, try and figure out how the folks that face that will preserve their society under that level of challenge.
If the next ice age is arriving in 20,000 years...
Your fantastical fiction that you are attempting to attribute to me does not speak well for your integrity....Your idiot strategy of overheating the earth now to stave off an ice age ...
And yet it is you who is trafficking in terms used to describe religious heresy in a discussion of natural science,... demonstrating the low IQ of deniers.
Exactly. At very low levels, increases in CO^2 have a powerful effect, but as levels rise, the addition of much more CO^2 has a much smaller effect. It's not a linear effect its a logarithmic effect.[QUOT
Again, you demonstrate that you have never even attempted to look at the science, or check on the truthfulness of what you have been told. You accept whatever you are told so long as it is told to you by people who share your politics....accuracy and truthfulness apparently don't weigh into the equation with you.
You have your "evidence" torn to little pieces by someone using actual published science, and your response is to dodge, and then make the same unsupportable claims over and over again...all the while remaining completely unable to provide any actual science to support your belief...
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist
The headline is a lie, if you bother to read the Caiilon paper you would see this from the abstract:
The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
===========================
The paper make clear CO2 lags warming by 800 years. Your article called it a myth, very big lie. There are a few other papers that also state CO2 lags temperature change, and we see it on the yearly basis as well.
The usual errors are evident when they state:
Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.
CO2 absorbs very little of the IP spectrum, around 5% of it, so a trace gas with a trace IR cover, can somehow miraculously promote massive changes in energy transfer, completely illogical and stupid.
They keep saying CO2 traps heat, which is impossible since CO2 absorb IR, not heat.
Sloppy!
That would mean that this interglacial would last over 30,000 years. Cite a single previous example where an interglacial persisted for this long.During the last glacial advance, ice was stacked a MILE over Chicago. You want to figure out a challenge for the human race to overcome, try and figure out how the folks that face that will preserve their society under that level of challenge.
If the next ice age is arriving in 20,000 years...
Your fantastical fiction that you are attempting to attribute to me does not speak well for your integrity....Your idiot strategy of overheating the earth now to stave off an ice age ...
And yet it is you who is trafficking in terms used to describe religious heresy in a discussion of natural science,... demonstrating the low IQ of deniers.
Here is the lab effect in the LOG chart.Exactly. At very low levels, increases in CO^2 have a powerful effect, but as levels rise, the addition of much more CO^2 has a much smaller effect. It's not a linear effect its a logarithmic effect.[QUOT
Again, you demonstrate that you have never even attempted to look at the science, or check on the truthfulness of what you have been told. You accept whatever you are told so long as it is told to you by people who share your politics....accuracy and truthfulness apparently don't weigh into the equation with you.
You have your "evidence" torn to little pieces by someone using actual published science, and your response is to dodge, and then make the same unsupportable claims over and over again...all the while remaining completely unable to provide any actual science to support your belief...
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist
The headline is a lie, if you bother to read the Caiilon paper you would see this from the abstract:
The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
===========================
The paper make clear CO2 lags warming by 800 years. Your article called it a myth, very big lie. There are a few other papers that also state CO2 lags temperature change, and we see it on the yearly basis as well.
The usual errors are evident when they state:
Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.
CO2 absorbs very little of the IP spectrum, around 5% of it, so a trace gas with a trace IR cover, can somehow miraculously promote massive changes in energy transfer, completely illogical and stupid.
They keep saying CO2 traps heat, which is impossible since CO2 absorb IR, not heat.
Sloppy!
That's consistent with what I see. We have been in a long term cooling trend since the Holocene optimum of about 8,000 years ago and this will at some point end in glaciation not a return to Greenhouse Earth. That is why this is called an INTER-glacial period.View attachment 281468That would mean that this interglacial would last over 30,000 years. Cite a single previous example where an interglacial persisted for this long.During the last glacial advance, ice was stacked a MILE over Chicago. You want to figure out a challenge for the human race to overcome, try and figure out how the folks that face that will preserve their society under that level of challenge.
If the next ice age is arriving in 20,000 years...
Your fantastical fiction that you are attempting to attribute to me does not speak well for your integrity....Your idiot strategy of overheating the earth now to stave off an ice age ...
And yet it is you who is trafficking in terms used to describe religious heresy in a discussion of natural science,... demonstrating the low IQ of deniers.
Our intergalicals last from 9,000 years to around 16,000 years on average but they have been growing smaller, in duration, over the last 3 million years. We are currently at 11,600 years in this one. We are now in the region that glaciation is possible and all it will take is one good volcano to put us into a glacial status. If we are lucky, we have about 2000 years but that is not a given.
Yup, that's why the real world never produces the warming predicted by the models.Here is the lab effect in the LOG chart.Exactly. At very low levels, increases in CO^2 have a powerful effect, but as levels rise, the addition of much more CO^2 has a much smaller effect. It's not a linear effect its a logarithmic effect.[QUOT
Again, you demonstrate that you have never even attempted to look at the science, or check on the truthfulness of what you have been told. You accept whatever you are told so long as it is told to you by people who share your politics....accuracy and truthfulness apparently don't weigh into the equation with you.
You have your "evidence" torn to little pieces by someone using actual published science, and your response is to dodge, and then make the same unsupportable claims over and over again...all the while remaining completely unable to provide any actual science to support your belief...
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist
The headline is a lie, if you bother to read the Caiilon paper you would see this from the abstract:
The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
===========================
The paper make clear CO2 lags warming by 800 years. Your article called it a myth, very big lie. There are a few other papers that also state CO2 lags temperature change, and we see it on the yearly basis as well.
The usual errors are evident when they state:
Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.
CO2 absorbs very little of the IP spectrum, around 5% of it, so a trace gas with a trace IR cover, can somehow miraculously promote massive changes in energy transfer, completely illogical and stupid.
They keep saying CO2 traps heat, which is impossible since CO2 absorb IR, not heat.
Sloppy!
View attachment 281475
The observed warming, from CO2 alone, is almost flat now and as it increases it will decrease its abioity to warm further. Less than 1 deg C is now expected in the next doubling of CO2.
You so haven't got a clue. It's hard to know where to start. Nobody, not even climate scientists who support the truthful and already proven notion that humans are responsible for climate change, denies that the Earth has gone through various climate change scenarios over thousands of years. What they have proven is that the current situation is FAR above the norm. The NASA graph shows you that you imbecile.
Actually the graph shows that you are the imbecile...you don't even seem to know what it shows...and you also seem blissfully aware that if you go on further back in history than that graph shows, you will see that prior to the ice age which the earth is in the process of exiting, CO2 levels were over 1000ppm. How did an ice age start with CO2 levels over 1000ppm?
And what caused those changes? Imbecile....
Well apparently it wasn't co2.
Wasn't it?
Your link....."New Scientist" is not a scientific journal and often relies on sensationalizing. Here is an example....
"Darwin Was Wrong"
"New Scientist is not a scientific journal. Although its articles are usually well-written and report quite respectable science, it does have a bad habit of sensationalizing things a little. Often trivial things will be quote mined to produce a fancy cover and headline. The most controversial being the "Darwin Was Wrong" cover.[4] This was criticised by many evolutionary scientists in the blogosphere as being potentially misrepresenting scientific discovery.[5]
In fact the article revealed nothing of the kind,[6] and the supposed breakthrough on the cover was actually a fairly minor point in regards to changing the theories of natural selection — specifically the "tree of life," used by Darwin in developing his theory but now mostly rejected.
Why would any self-respecting magazine do this sort of thing? Firstly, sensationalism sells and most of the media openly admits it.[7] Like any other magazine, New Scientist relies on selling copies in order to remain a profitable business. Secondly, writers never get the chance to write their own headlines; there are specialist staff writers and sub editors for that. Any evolutionary biologist writing for New Scientist would have known that the headline was misleading, and would provoke a backlash from those on the front line of the origins debate, but the headline writers may not have cared."
New Scientist - RationalWiki
Your link....."New Scientist" is not a scientific journal and often relies on sensationalizing. Here is an example....
"Darwin Was Wrong"
"New Scientist is not a scientific journal. Although its articles are usually well-written and report quite respectable science, it does have a bad habit of sensationalizing things a little. Often trivial things will be quote mined to produce a fancy cover and headline. The most controversial being the "Darwin Was Wrong" cover.[4] This was criticised by many evolutionary scientists in the blogosphere as being potentially misrepresenting scientific discovery.[5]
In fact the article revealed nothing of the kind,[6] and the supposed breakthrough on the cover was actually a fairly minor point in regards to changing the theories of natural selection — specifically the "tree of life," used by Darwin in developing his theory but now mostly rejected.
Why would any self-respecting magazine do this sort of thing? Firstly, sensationalism sells and most of the media openly admits it.[7] Like any other magazine, New Scientist relies on selling copies in order to remain a profitable business. Secondly, writers never get the chance to write their own headlines; there are specialist staff writers and sub editors for that. Any evolutionary biologist writing for New Scientist would have known that the headline was misleading, and would provoke a backlash from those on the front line of the origins debate, but the headline writers may not have cared."
New Scientist - RationalWiki
Also from your link:
Both scientists and lay readers value New Scientist, as do news reporters who frequently base newspaper articles on material originally published in the magazine. There are also editions in Australia and the United States
Your fantastical fiction that you are attempting to attribute to me does not speak well for your integrity.
I see these clowns wanting to deep sequester CO^2, or come up with ways to reflect more solar energy back into space, and I shake my head. They have completely misdiagnosed the coming existential challenge, and it's time for us to effectively stand up to their delusions and strip the carbon cult of public funding.
[QUOT
Again, you demonstrate that you have never even attempted to look at the science, or check on the truthfulness of what you have been told. You accept whatever you are told so long as it is told to you by people who share your politics....accuracy and truthfulness apparently don't weigh into the equation with you.
You have your "evidence" torn to little pieces by someone using actual published science, and your response is to dodge, and then make the same unsupportable claims over and over again...all the while remaining completely unable to provide any actual science to support your belief...
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist
Why do you think that's a problem for AGW theory? Non-retards don't think that's a problem, being that CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.
During the last glacial advance, ice was stacked a MILE over Chicago. You want to figure out a challenge for the human race to overcome, try and figure out how the folks that face that will preserve their society under that level of challenge.
If the next ice age is arriving in 20,000 years, then we should think about that in 19,000 years or so.
Your idiot strategy of overheating the earth now to stave off an ice age is like saying I should run my furnace full blast starting in June because winter is eventually coming. Your'e just providing more evidence demonstrating the low IQ of deniers.
That would mean that this interglacial would last over 30,000 years. Cite a single previous example where an interglacial persisted for this long.During the last glacial advance, ice was stacked a MILE over Chicago. You want to figure out a challenge for the human race to overcome, try and figure out how the folks that face that will preserve their society under that level of challenge.
If the next ice age is arriving in 20,000 years...
Your fantastical fiction that you are attempting to attribute to me does not speak well for your integrity....Your idiot strategy of overheating the earth now to stave off an ice age ...
And yet it is you who is trafficking in terms used to describe religious heresy in a discussion of natural science,... demonstrating the low IQ of deniers.
