The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[Rigby5]

Yes. For no other reason than we think that science is harmed whenever anyone claims the science is settled. That's like saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It's not good for science.

Since there have been over 12 recorded warming/cooling planetary cycles, it is VERY settled science.
We also know the current warming is way different, wrong, artificial, and unsettling.
The only thing that is not settled is whether there are enough negative feedback modifiers to prevent disaster or so many positive feedback modifiers that it will result in a deadly race condition.
The fact the normal cycles are 110,000 years long, shows there have to be both to some degree.

To claim this is normal and there is no risk is just insane.

 

[Mushroom]

we are CURRENTLY in an Ice Age

In general, most geologists tend to consider a glaciation when there are permanent polar ice caps. But many tend to use the Arctic one as the benchmark, as the one over the Antarctic has been there for over 45 million years. But we know that there was no Arctic Ice Sheet for long periods of time, as land that was just below the Arctic Circle has palm tree fossils. As well as similar fossils up into most of Northern Canada. Trees that naturally do not grow much above Central California today.

I tend to laugh at people screaming at the difference in a few years, when I tend to look at such things in periods covering tens of thousands of years (or millions).

 

[Rigby5]

In general, most geologists tend to consider a glaciation when there are permanent polar ice caps. But many tend to use the Arctic one as the benchmark, as the one over the Antarctic has been there for over 45 million years. But we know that there was no Arctic Ice Sheet for long periods of time, as land that was just below the Arctic Circle has palm tree fossils. As well as similar fossils up into most of Northern Canada. Trees that naturally do not grow much above Central California today.

I tend to laugh at people screaming at the difference in a few years, when I tend to look at such things in periods covering tens of thousands of years (or millions).

I think you have it backwards.
It is not that the poles were so warm as to have palm trees, but that continental drift was moved land masses around, from the equator to the poles and back. Plate tectonics are not unusual once you realize the planet is just a thin cooled skin over a completely liquid core.

For the last couple million years, there has always been permanent polar ice caps.
The only time there was not permanent polar ice caps is way back when the whole planet was about 10 degrees hotter, and was a steaming jungle swamp, in perpetual fog.

{... The current period with ice caps at both poles is called the Quaternary Ice Age and it began 2.6 million years ago. Prior to that there was an ice cap in Antarctica, but not in the Arctic. This single pole Ice Age began 33 million years ago and is called the Cenozoic Ice Age. ...}

 

[ding]

Wrong.
The time scale you are using is entirely wrong.
The whole planet was much warming hundreds of millions of years ago, but that was because at one time the earth has a methane and ammonia atmosphere and not an oxygen and nitrogen one.
It was plants that switched it over.
And it took a long time for plants to use up enough CO2 in order to cool the planet off.

The icehouse/greenhouse cycles are about 110,000 years long, and we have had about 12 of them consecutively.
Your graph is all wrong, and over much too long of a period to even begin to consider.

Here is the real data, from Antarctic ice cores.

You don't know what you are talking about.

• The Quaternary Ice Age began 2.58 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene Epoch, although continental glaciation commenced in Antarctica as long as 34 million years ago. We currently live in a mild interglacial of the Quaternary Ice Age known as the Holocene Epoch, which started around 11,700 years ago.

Greenhouse and icehouse Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Wrong.
Ice cores and tree rings are NOT effected by urban heat islands, and solar variability has ZERO correlation to current heat accumulations that match CO2 increases.

We know all about solar variability.
We know about 13 year long solar cycles, etc.
That has all been taken into account.

What does that have to do with the the IPCC's MODELS including the urban heat island effect and saying it's due to CO2?

What does that have to do with the IPCC's models using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets?

 

[ding]

Wrong.
I know at least 100 times more than you about icehouse/greenhouse cycles.
Most people just do not call them that.
I just switched over to using them because they are useful.
Most people call the cooling simply an "ice age", and the warming "interglacial".
It makes no sense to call the whole time span of the 12 known cooling and warming cycles to be collectively the "ice age", because it includes both warming and cooling, and was not changing on average over time, UNTIL NOW!

I know exactly what drives the planet's climate.
Before plants, it was mostly orbit, like precession and nutation.
There also are solar cycles.
But we know all about these, these are NOT the current cause, and these generally are MUCH slower than the current change.
The current change is almost entirely due to the carbon/plant cycle.
And we know all about it because unlike planetary inputs, the carbon/plant cycle conditions are EASY to duplicate in laboratories we can experiment on.
We know for sure that CO2 forces heat retention.
It can not do otherwise.
By the way, I do have a degree in physics, not that a degree makes one infallible.

You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you don't have any underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate because if you did you would know the northern hemisphere is what drives the planet's climate.

 

[ding]

Since there have been over 12 recorded warming/cooling planetary cycles, it is VERY settled science.
We also know the current warming is way different, wrong, artificial, and unsettling.
The only thing that is not settled is whether there are enough negative feedback modifiers to prevent disaster or so many positive feedback modifiers that it will result in a deadly race condition.
The fact the normal cycles are 110,000 years long, shows there have to be both to some degree.

To claim this is normal and there is no risk is just insane.

Incorrect. The science is not settled. You don't know anything about earth's climate. You are regurgitating things you don't understand and are doing it very poorly at that. You haven't gotten anything correct and you can't dispute that the IPCC is including the urban heat island effect in their models and using a low variability solar output dataset in their models.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The natural warming/cooling cycles is over 1000 times slower than the current trend.

I'll bet you can't prove that.

 

[Rigby5]

You don't know what you are talking about.

• The Quaternary Ice Age began 2.58 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene Epoch, although continental glaciation commenced in Antarctica as long as 34 million years ago. We currently live in a mild interglacial of the Quaternary Ice Age known as the Holocene Epoch, which started around 11,700 years ago.

Greenhouse and icehouse Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 612057

Wrong.
The planet has changes its climate from the previous hot one and is always now going to be colder, and has had a series of at least 12 short, 110k year long warming/cooling cycles that are now called ice ages.
The permanent cooling of the entire planet is NOT called an "ice age".
There is no Quaternary Ice Age. It is called the Quaternary Glaciation instead, because it is permanent.
That one has never changed since its start, and likely is never going to change.
The ones that do cyclically change are on a 110k year cycle, and are the only ones referred to as "ice age cycles".

{...

Quaternary Glaciation​

The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, is an alternating series of glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary period that began 2.58 Ma and is ongoing. Although geologists describe the entire time period up to the present as an "ice age", in popular culture the term "ice age" is usually associated with just the most recent glacial period during the Pleistocene or the Pleistocene epoch in general. Since planet Earth still has ice sheets, geologists consider the Quaternary glaciation to be ongoing, with the Earth now experiencing an interglacial period.
...}

This is a graph is the actual ice age cycles of cooling and warming.
You will notice a 110k year frequency length.
Something that does cycle, is NOT an "ice age".

 

[Rigby5]

What does that have to do with the the IPCC's MODELS including the urban heat island effect and saying it's due to CO2?

What does that have to do with the IPCC's models using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets?

No one uses IPCC models or urban weather station data at all to determine global warming.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Mostly satellite data and actual observation at the upper atmosphere is used.

 

[Rigby5]

You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you don't have any underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate because if you did you would know the northern hemisphere is what drives the planet's climate.

Wrong.
I never used icehouse before because it is not one normally used.
But it is not a bad term.
However you know nothing about the cooling/warming cycles we call "ice ages".

If you look at the larger scale, you see there did not used to be ice ages.

Ice ages are the wide temperature swings that only started about 1.5 million years ago.
And we have only had about 12 ice age warming and cooling swings.

A permanent cooling of the planet is NOT called an "ice age".

Ice age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And yes I do know the northern hemisphere is more significant for climate.
But do YOU know why?
It is because of the axis wobble precession and nutation, put the southern hemisphere slightly in the shade of the northern hemisphere.

 

[Rigby5]

Incorrect. The science is not settled. You don't know anything about earth's climate. You are regurgitating things you don't understand and are doing it very poorly at that. You haven't gotten anything correct and you can't dispute that the IPCC is including the urban heat island effect in their models and using a low variability solar output dataset in their models.

No one is using models.
Models are only for attempts are prognosticating, and the time for that was long over, since now the climate has warmed so undeniably that no one should even be remotely discussing this any more.
Its very simple.
Before 1997, no Northwest Passage for over 10,000 years.
After 1997, not only a Northwest Passage, but clear water in the winter even.
There is not a single glacier, in the northern or southern hemisphere, that has not had at least a 50% reduction from global climate warming.

 

[Rigby5]

I'll bet you can't prove that.

Easily proven.
Classic historical data shows about a 6 degree change from a complete ice age cycle, over 110,000 years.
We currently have caused a 1.5 degree change in only about 20 years.
That is over a factor off 1000 increase in speed.

 

[ding]

No one is using models.
Models are only for attempts are prognosticating, and the time for that was long over, since now the climate has warmed so undeniably that no one should even be remotely discussing this any more.
Its very simple.
Before 1997, no Northwest Passage for over 10,000 years.
After 1997, not only a Northwest Passage, but clear water in the winter even.
There is not a single glacier, in the northern or southern hemisphere, that has not had at least a 50% reduction from global climate warming.

Of course modeling is used to determine the cause of the warming, dummy.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course modeling is used to determine the cause of the warming, dummy.

Wrong.
We know the cause.
We know how much solar energy strikes the planet.
We know how much is allowed to leave.
And it is the % leaving that causes global warming.
There is no way to model the upper atmosphere.
You do it with direct satellite measurements.
Modeling was NEVER used for global warming identification or causation.
What modeling was used for was to predict if positive or negative feedback would accelerate of decelerate in the future.
The idea being that we have to know if we can live with it or if it is a looming disaster.
Most scientists say it is a looming disaster, but that part is not universal.
The part of about global warming being real and man made, is absolutely universally accepted.
No one but total quack would even remotely try to deny global warming.

 

[ding]

Wrong.
We know the cause.

From modeling. And they have cooked their models to force a consensus by suppressing dissenting opinions.

 

[Rigby5]

From modeling. And they have cooked their models to force a consensus by suppressing dissenting opinions.

Wrong.
The ONLY thing modeling was used for was to project how hot it would have to get before additional water vapor evaporating from the oceans would cause warming to accelerate even faster.

The ONLY thing we do not know is if the planet will become unbearably hot and kill off all life in 30 years or 300 years.

 

[ding]

Wrong.
The ONLY thing modeling was used for was to project how hot it would have to get before additional water vapor evaporating from the oceans would cause warming to accelerate even faster.

The ONLY thing we do not know is if the planet will become unbearably hot and kill off all life in 30 years or 300 years.

Incorrect. There was a recent warming trend. It's the IPCC's modeling that is used to say why.

 

[Rigby5]

Incorrect. There was a recent warming trend. It's the IPCC's modeling that is used to say why.

Wrong.
NO one would or needs to do modeling for something that already happened.
Modeling is ONLY for attempts at long range projection.

For example, if some period of warming was due to increased solar activity, one would just consult the data on solar activity monitored by satellites.
It would be insane to model things we can just measure.

 

[ding]

Wrong.
NO one would or needs to do modeling for something that already happened.
Modeling is ONLY for attempts at long range projection.

For example, if some period of warming was due to increased solar activity, one would just consult the data on solar activity monitored by satellites.
It would be insane to model things we can just measure.

Of course they do modeling to say what caused the recent temperature trend. It's the only way. That you don't know that is surprising.