A Balanced View of Climate Change

[ding]

Don't feed the sealions.

Or the uneducated slobs who copy paste blogs and think they outsmarted the scientific community.

Have you compared how much heat is stored in the oceans compared to the atmosphere?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have you ever checked the oxygen isotope curve to see what the temperature threshold is for extensive continental glaciation?

I don't need to do that. The scientists do it for me!

 

[ding]

I don't need to do that. The scientists do it for me!

Great, what did they tell you were the answers?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Great, what did they tell you were the answers?

Don't feed the sealions.

 

[ding]

Don't feed the sealions.

So you don't really know anything, do you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you don't really know anything, do you?

That's a non sequitur. The ding strawman.

You see folks, ding knows he would get laughed out of the room, if he tried out his act on scientists.

So he comes here to diddle his strawmen.

 

[ding]

That's a non sequitur. The ding strawman.

You see folks, ding knows he would get laughed out of the room, if he tried out his act on scientists.

So he comes here to diddle his strawmen.

You really shouldn't even be here. You literally offer nothing to the conversation.

 

[mamooth]

We are still 2C below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial periods.

Quite a bit less. Not that it matters, as interglacials are not required be exact copies of each other.

The main point is unaffected by that. Climate has been cooling for 6000 years. The peak came and passed 6000 years ago. What's happening now is all human-caused.

The present warming trend began 400 years ago before man's influence.

Where do you get this stuff?

The planet is still in an interglacial period and is still warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature.

Debunked.

The most 120 ppm of incremental CO2 could warm the surface of the planet is 0.5 C. The least being 0.22C.

We observe that 120ppm has already caused 1.0C of warming, with more warming yet to come, so your numbers don't correspond to reality.

Everything above this is natural warming from the ocean heat warming the NH.

We know that's false, because we've closely measured ocean temps for a long time, and they're skyrocketing. That's impossbile under your "The oceans are sending heat to the land" theory.

Ocean temperatures and sea levels have been rising since the last glacial maximum.

Nah. They had essentially leveled out. The lag time there is thousands of years, after all. Then, check it out, ocean levels suddenly started zooming up again. Not natural.

You're wildly flinging everything at the wall now, hoping something will stick. It's not working. Nothing is sticking.

If you had even one good argument, you wouldn't have to rely on a Gish Gallop of horseshit. You clearly don't have even one.

 

[Libby von H]

Curtailing our dependence on fossil fuels will not make one whit bit of difference in whatever funds Hamas.

That is false of course. Let's switch to another enemy and see how this works

Latest issue of International Banker
"

CHINA CONTINUES EXPANDING ITS GLOBAL DOMINANCE IN SOLAR POWER​

February 14, 2024"

Now 2 things should force you to admit that Biden's solar program has a security flaw

1)The other day there was a massive destruction of a solar farm in Texas. Now extrapolate that to national emergency proportions.
Do you think China will rush to supply repairs when our energy infrastructure gets crippled ??

2)And then a couple weeks ago after Biden pushed the 30 X 30 program to massively take private land and declare it public, guess what he did --- DO LOOK IT UP---

BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development​

You tell me what I have wrong here

 

[Crick]

That is false of course. Let's switch to another enemy and see how this works

Latest issue of International Banker
"

CHINA CONTINUES EXPANDING ITS GLOBAL DOMINANCE IN SOLAR POWER​

February 14, 2024"

Now 2 things should force you to admit that Biden's solar program has a security flaw

1)The other day there was a massive destruction of a solar farm in Texas. Now extrapolate that to national emergency proportions.
Do you think China will rush to supply repairs when our energy infrastructure gets crippled ??

2)And then a couple weeks ago after Biden pushed the 30 X 30 program to massively take private land and declare it public, guess what he did --- DO LOOK IT UP---

BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development​

You tell me what I have wrong here

And what do you believe would cause "massive destruction" to solar farms scattered across the nation?

And how would currently cash-strapped China fare were they to cut off one of their biggest sources of foreign revenue from their biggest foreign customer?

 

[Foxfyre]

That is false of course. Let's switch to another enemy and see how this works

Latest issue of International Banker
"

CHINA CONTINUES EXPANDING ITS GLOBAL DOMINANCE IN SOLAR POWER​

February 14, 2024"

Now 2 things should force you to admit that Biden's solar program has a security flaw

1)The other day there was a massive destruction of a solar farm in Texas. Now extrapolate that to national emergency proportions.
Do you think China will rush to supply repairs when our energy infrastructure gets crippled ??

2)And then a couple weeks ago after Biden pushed the 30 X 30 program to massively take private land and declare it public, guess what he did --- DO LOOK IT UP---

BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development​

You tell me what I have wrong here

I don't see anything there that relates in any way to who or what funds Hamas.

 

[ding]

Quite a bit less. Not that it matters, as interglacials are not required be exact copies of each other.

The main point is unaffected by that. Climate has been cooling for 6000 years. The peak came and passed 6000 years ago. What's happening now is all human-caused.


Where do you get this stuff?


Debunked.



We observe that 120ppm has already caused 1.0C of warming, with more warming yet to come, so your numbers don't correspond to reality.



We know that's false, because we've closely measured ocean temps for a long time, and they're skyrocketing. That's impossbile under your "The oceans are sending heat to the land" theory.



Nah. They had essentially leveled out. The lag time there is thousands of years, after all. Then, check it out, ocean levels suddenly started zooming up again. Not natural.

You're wildly flinging everything at the wall now, hoping something will stick. It's not working. Nothing is sticking.

If you had even one good argument, you wouldn't have to rely on a Gish Gallop of horseshit. You clearly don't have even one.

Incorrect the planet is still warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it has been doing for the past 3 million years because it takes a very long time to reach the trigger point for the next glacial period which is temperature dependent and driven by heat circulation from the ocean to the Arctic.

 

[mamooth]

Incorrect

That was from a single spot on earth, so it's invalid. Earth is more than Vostok.

 

[Flopper]

Incorrect the planet is still warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it has been doing for the past 3 million years because it takes a very long time to reach the trigger point for the next glacial period which is temperature dependent and driven by heat circulation from the ocean to the Arctic.

View attachment 925412

Incorrect the planet is still warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it has been doing for the past 3 million years because it takes a very long time to reach the trigger point for the next glacial period which is temperature dependent and driven by heat circulation from the ocean to the Arctic.

View attachment 925412

Yes the climate is warming due to the natural glacial cycle. However the devil is in the details. Using your graph, the atmospheric temperature has risen about 9 degrees over approximately 25,000 years, or about .0036 degrees per decade. The rate of temperature rise we have seen over last 50 years is .13 degrees per decade or about 36 times greater that temperature rise due to the glacial cycle. Even more disturbing, the temperature rise in previous 50 years was about .07 degrees per decade, about half that in last 50 years.

So yes the glacial cycle is contributing to global warming but only a tiny fraction of the temperature rises we are seeing.

History of Earth's temperature since 1880

Observations of global temperature going back to 1880 reveal that our planet's temperature is rising. This animation shows maps of yearly temperature compared to the 1981-2010 average from the start of the historical record through 2014--the warmest year on record. Each year's map is synced with...

www.climate.gov

 

[ding]

Yes the climate is warming due to the natural glacial cycle. However the devil is in the details. Using your graph, the atmospheric temperature has risen about 9 degrees over approximately 25,000 years, or about .0036 degrees per decade. The rate of temperature rise we have seen over last 50 years is .13 degrees per decade or about 36 times greater that temperature rise due to the glacial cycle. Even more disturbing, the temperature rise in previous 50 years was about .07 degrees per decade, about half that in last 50 years.

So yes the glacial cycle is contributing to global warming but only a tiny fraction of the temperature rises we are seeing.

History of Earth's temperature since 1880

Observations of global temperature going back to 1880 reveal that our planet's temperature is rising. This animation shows maps of yearly temperature compared to the 1981-2010 average from the start of the historical record through 2014--the warmest year on record. Each year's map is synced with...

www.climate.gov

I don't see any merit to the "unprecedented rate of change argument.

 

[ding]

That was from a single spot on earth, so it's invalid. Earth is more than Vostok.

Polar regions are the regions that are most affected by climate change.

 

[Flopper]

I don't see any merit to the "unprecedented rate of change argument.

View attachment 925853

Global climate change due to increases in greenhouses from burning fossil fuels will be a catastrophic problem for the planet over the next hundred years. Climate change due to a glacial cycle could be a major problem but not for at least 1000 years.

 

[Crick]

Global climate change due to increases in greenhouses from burning fossil fuels will be a catastrophic problem for the planet over the next hundred years. Climate change due to a glacial cycle could be a major problem but not for at least 1000 years.

And because it will take at least 1,000 years, it won't be a problem.

 

[ding]

And because it will take at least 1,000 years, it won't be a problem.

How do you know it will be at least 1000 years?

 

[ding]

Global climate change due to increases in greenhouses from burning fossil fuels will be a catastrophic problem for the planet over the next hundred years. Climate change due to a glacial cycle could be a major problem but not for at least 1000 years.

CO2 is a relatively weak GHG. For every doubling of CO2 the theoretical surface temperature will rise by 1C. How is that catastrophic?