Climate change impacts already occurring

[Trakar]

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Ah, you were trying to make (very poorly) an apples and oranges comparison. This is completely irrelevant when comparing natural episodes of global warming to anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Shakunetal2012.pdf

Either way, my comments were limited (as is obvious to any cogent reading of my posts) to pointing out the distortion of using a million year graph that excludes/obscures the data from the last couple of centuries which are relevant and the primary focus of discussion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

CO2 Forcing is total bullshit.

The Vostok Ice Cores show 425,000 years of CO2 LAGGING temperature

It takes more than a flock of idiots to change science.

Thankfully AGW is not science

 

[Dubya]

Actually, Walleyes is a bit younger than I am, much of what we know today was not in the curriculam in the '60s. Today, Geology is a very differant science than it was in the '60s. The paradigmn change of plate tectonics is now accepted theory. GHG driven warming is equally accepted among the present scientists teaching geology today. In the '60s, we were still using Brunton Compasses and slide rules. Today, GPS and GIS data make field work much more accurate.

For many of the people from that era, the change has been a bit hard on them. Much of what they were taught and believed is no longer relevant.

I'm also older than our geologist. I took a Physical Geography course in the mid '70s, before global warming concerns and no one disputed the connection between changes in greenhouse gases and past climate changes.

I also took a course in Invertibrate Paleontology, which is also required for a Geology degree.

So our geologist ought to know, we can determine if an area was covered by sea ice by taking sediment cores and it's been done in places and published, after I took the course. In other words, there is evidence of past ice cover in the arctic ocean during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, meaning that even when it was the warmest before modern times, the arctic sea ice didn't melt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Ah, you were trying to make (very poorly) an apples and oranges comparison. This is completely irrelevant when comparing natural episodes of global warming to anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Shakunetal2012.pdf

Either way, my comments were limited (as is obvious to any cogent reading of my posts) to pointing out the distortion of using a million year graph that excludes/obscures the data from the last couple of centuries which are relevant and the primary focus of discussion.

"Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation." = You're a fucking liar

the last 2 lines on the graph cover 20,000 years and shows CO2 LAGGING temperature increase.

 

[RollingThunder]

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Ah, you were trying to make (very poorly) an apples and oranges comparison. This is completely irrelevant when comparing natural episodes of global warming to anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Shakunetal2012.pdf

Either way, my comments were limited (as is obvious to any cogent reading of my posts) to pointing out the distortion of using a million year graph that excludes/obscures the data from the last couple of centuries which are relevant and the primary focus of discussion.

"Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation." = You're a fucking liar

He's not a liar CrazyFruitcake, you are just too freaking retarded to understand what is going on. And too brainwashed to care.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah, you were trying to make (very poorly) an apples and oranges comparison. This is completely irrelevant when comparing natural episodes of global warming to anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Shakunetal2012.pdf

Either way, my comments were limited (as is obvious to any cogent reading of my posts) to pointing out the distortion of using a million year graph that excludes/obscures the data from the last couple of centuries which are relevant and the primary focus of discussion.

"Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation." = You're a fucking liar

He's not a liar CrazyFruitcake, you are just too freaking retarded to understand what is going on. And too brainwashed to care.

I can look at a chart and read it correctly, you can't

 

[daveman]

OMG OMG OMG!

Climate change is causing trees to have blue stripes, and dryness in the desert, and people to stand in a circle in the woods, and leaves to change color, and fires, and snow!!!

OMG!

Climate change drank all my beer.

 

[daveman]

I even outlined the methodology that you could use to perform the experiments yourself and witness the difference with your own eyes and equipment and yet you refuse to conduct the experiment.

Really? You described an experiment with millions of variables that accurately depicts an entire planet's atmosphere, oceans, primary star, and cosmic radiation that he could perform himself?

I'd like to see that. What are you using for the star?

 

[westwall]

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

Pot, meet kettle. If CO2 lags temperature increase what does that say about your "science?.

It says it's WRONG! But that would be a fact and clearly you don't do facts.

It tells me the CO2 was locked up by glaciers, a cooler ocean that had reduced water levels and the initial cause for the temperature increase was increased solar radiation, but that solar radiation has been decreasing since the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the albedo was changing to make the planet colder.

What part of many things can cause climate forcing didn't a geologist understand, but many things doesn't mean we don't know what they are or can't measure the changes of the things?

Something reversed the process of slow cooling and the only thing that fits to cause climate forcing is the increase in greenhouse gases.

How do you get a degree in geology and not see a connection between changes in greenhouse gases and climate? You have to take a Physical Geography course to get the degree in Geology, so how is it possible to not know the connection between changes in greenhouse gases and past climate changes? Climatology is part of Physical Geography, which is a branch of Geology. Changes in greenhouse gases are fundamental to the understanding of Geology. Do they give degrees to people who don't even know the fundamentals of the subject?

No, you have to take Physical Geology to get a degree in geology. Physical Geography was an elective and most geologists wouldn't waste their time on it as it was too basic.

But, to get back to the question at hand..... If warming occurs first. And then hundreds of years later the CO2 levels rise.......what caused the warming in the first place? One other thing you need to take into consideration there are several papers that show the temperature levels rose and fell over a two degree range (all while CO2 levels remained low) over a period of 1000 years.

What AGW theory addresses that?

 

[westwall]

Actually, Walleyes is a bit younger than I am, much of what we know today was not in the curriculam in the '60s. Today, Geology is a very differant science than it was in the '60s. The paradigmn change of plate tectonics is now accepted theory. GHG driven warming is equally accepted among the present scientists teaching geology today. In the '60s, we were still using Brunton Compasses and slide rules. Today, GPS and GIS data make field work much more accurate.

For many of the people from that era, the change has been a bit hard on them. Much of what they were taught and believed is no longer relevant.

Not really. There are plenty who question it. Especially as the science is found to be ever more lacking. In the 1970's and 80's though it was indeed the theory of the day, even I taught it without question till one of my students began asking questions I couldn't answer.

The part about plate tectonics though is correct, that was the "dark ages" of geology when the ruling academics denigrated anybody who had the temerity to mention that "ridiculous theory put forth by an astronomer of all people, what does HE know about geology!"

Harry Hess put it into a poem and that was the beginning of the end of the closed minded academics.

Kind of sounds like a similar claim made today...I wonder who that could be????

 

[westwall]

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

CO2 Forcing is total bullshit.

The Vostok Ice Cores show 425,000 years of CO2 LAGGING temperature

It takes more than a flock of idiots to change science.

Explain the mechanism of warming and how the 800 year lag of CO2 rise affects that warming. Show your work.

 

[westwall]

Actually, Walleyes is a bit younger than I am, much of what we know today was not in the curriculam in the '60s. Today, Geology is a very differant science than it was in the '60s. The paradigmn change of plate tectonics is now accepted theory. GHG driven warming is equally accepted among the present scientists teaching geology today. In the '60s, we were still using Brunton Compasses and slide rules. Today, GPS and GIS data make field work much more accurate.

For many of the people from that era, the change has been a bit hard on them. Much of what they were taught and believed is no longer relevant.

I'm also older than our geologist. I took a Physical Geography course in the mid '70s, before global warming concerns and no one disputed the connection between changes in greenhouse gases and past climate changes.

I also took a course in Invertibrate Paleontology, which is also required for a Geology degree.

So our geologist ought to know, we can determine if an area was covered by sea ice by taking sediment cores and it's been done in places and published, after I took the course. In other words, there is evidence of past ice cover in the arctic ocean during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, meaning that even when it was the warmest before modern times, the arctic sea ice didn't melt.

Now who's lying? Global warming was beginning to creep into the curriculum by 1979 when the global cooling scare began to wane by 1975.

As regards your claim about the HTM, when did I ever claim otherwise? This paper addresses some of what you say and there are two others I've read.

"We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution."


Science Magazine: Sign In

 

[westwall]

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Ah, you were trying to make (very poorly) an apples and oranges comparison. This is completely irrelevant when comparing natural episodes of global warming to anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, current research indicates that atmospheric CO2 ratios increased ahead of the warming that caused the last deglaciation.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Shakunetal2012.pdf

Either way, my comments were limited (as is obvious to any cogent reading of my posts) to pointing out the distortion of using a million year graph that excludes/obscures the data from the last couple of centuries which are relevant and the primary focus of discussion.

Ahhhhh yes, there it is....the ever popular we ignore all prior history and only concentrate on the smallest possible period of a multi thousand year cycle.

You crack me up. This is not science this is pure propaganda, it would be like taking a video of a bee flying and only focusing on a single picture so you could claim "see, the wings are pointed down, there's no way that critter can fly!".

That is the level to which climatology has sunk.

 

[Dubya]

Pot, meet kettle. If CO2 lags temperature increase what does that say about your "science?.

It says it's WRONG! But that would be a fact and clearly you don't do facts.

It tells me the CO2 was locked up by glaciers, a cooler ocean that had reduced water levels and the initial cause for the temperature increase was increased solar radiation, but that solar radiation has been decreasing since the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the albedo was changing to make the planet colder.

What part of many things can cause climate forcing didn't a geologist understand, but many things doesn't mean we don't know what they are or can't measure the changes of the things?

Something reversed the process of slow cooling and the only thing that fits to cause climate forcing is the increase in greenhouse gases.

How do you get a degree in geology and not see a connection between changes in greenhouse gases and climate? You have to take a Physical Geography course to get the degree in Geology, so how is it possible to not know the connection between changes in greenhouse gases and past climate changes? Climatology is part of Physical Geography, which is a branch of Geology. Changes in greenhouse gases are fundamental to the understanding of Geology. Do they give degrees to people who don't even know the fundamentals of the subject?

No, you have to take Physical Geology to get a degree in geology. Physical Geography was an elective and most geologists wouldn't waste their time on it as it was too basic.

But, to get back to the question at hand..... If warming occurs first. And then hundreds of years later the CO2 levels rise.......what caused the warming in the first place? One other thing you need to take into consideration there are several papers that show the temperature levels rose and fell over a two degree range (all while CO2 levels remained low) over a period of 1000 years.

What AGW theory addresses that?

You claim to be the geologist, so explain where the CO2 goes during glaciation and explain why you can't accept all the things producing radiative forcing that normal scientists accept!

Look up the course requirements for a degree in Geology! Physical Geography is not a basic course, because it involves every physical thing that has happened to Earth and deals with the why is it this way and what made it that way. If you can name any feature of the Earth, it's covered in the course. Soils, rivers, shorelines, mountains, climate, weather, etc., you name it and if it exists on Earth, it's covered in the course and examined in detail.

Physical Geography was not a branch of Earth Science in the '70s at universities and was a branch of Geology until more modern times, in fact, it was even described as a branch of Geology in wiki until lately. There was no Earth Science back then. You've mentioned working for some company for 30 years and then BP before that, so when did you get your degree?

Physical geography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can you have a degree in Geology years ago and not know this?

The other course requirement for a degree in Geology that I mentioned was Invertebrate Paleontology. The course I took was with the Biology department and was a two semester course.

Invertebrate paleontology (also spelled Invertebrate palaeontology) is sometimes described as Invertebrate paleozoology or Invertebrate paleobiology. Whether it is considered to be a subfield of paleontology, paleozoology, or paleobiology, this discipline is the scientific study of prehistoric invertebrates by analyzing invertebrate fossils in the geologic record.

Source: Invertebrate paleontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, since you were a geologist who worked for BP, why don't you tell us what's important about the study of Invertebrate Paleontology to the oil industry?

 

[westwall]

It tells me the CO2 was locked up by glaciers, a cooler ocean that had reduced water levels and the initial cause for the temperature increase was increased solar radiation, but that solar radiation has been decreasing since the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the albedo was changing to make the planet colder.

What part of many things can cause climate forcing didn't a geologist understand, but many things doesn't mean we don't know what they are or can't measure the changes of the things?

Something reversed the process of slow cooling and the only thing that fits to cause climate forcing is the increase in greenhouse gases.

How do you get a degree in geology and not see a connection between changes in greenhouse gases and climate? You have to take a Physical Geography course to get the degree in Geology, so how is it possible to not know the connection between changes in greenhouse gases and past climate changes? Climatology is part of Physical Geography, which is a branch of Geology. Changes in greenhouse gases are fundamental to the understanding of Geology. Do they give degrees to people who don't even know the fundamentals of the subject?

No, you have to take Physical Geology to get a degree in geology. Physical Geography was an elective and most geologists wouldn't waste their time on it as it was too basic.

But, to get back to the question at hand..... If warming occurs first. And then hundreds of years later the CO2 levels rise.......what caused the warming in the first place? One other thing you need to take into consideration there are several papers that show the temperature levels rose and fell over a two degree range (all while CO2 levels remained low) over a period of 1000 years.

What AGW theory addresses that?

You claim to be the geologist, so explain where the CO2 goes during glaciation and explain why you can't accept all the things producing radiative forcing that normal scientists accept!

Look up the course requirements for a degree in Geology! Physical Geography is not a basic course, because it involves every physical thing that has happened to Earth and deals with the why is it this way and what made it that way. If you can name any feature of the Earth, it's covered in the course. Soils, rivers, shorelines, mountains, climate, weather, etc., you name it and if it exists on Earth, it's covered in the course and examined in detail.

Physical Geography was not a branch of Earth Science in the '70s at universities and was a branch of Geology until more modern times, in fact, it was even described as a branch of Geology in wiki until lately. There was no Earth Science back then. You've mentioned working for some company for 30 years and then BP before that, so when did you get your degree?

Physical geography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can you have a degree in Geology years ago and not know this?

The other course requirement for a degree in Geology that I mentioned was Invertebrate Paleontology. The course I took was with the Biology department and was a two semester course.

Invertebrate paleontology (also spelled Invertebrate palaeontology) is sometimes described as Invertebrate paleozoology or Invertebrate paleobiology. Whether it is considered to be a subfield of paleontology, paleozoology, or paleobiology, this discipline is the scientific study of prehistoric invertebrates by analyzing invertebrate fossils in the geologic record.

Source: Invertebrate paleontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, since you were a geologist who worked for BP, why don't you tell us what's important about the study of Invertebrate Paleontology to the oil industry?

Describe the Redwall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, it's morphology and the geomorphic province it was formed in. Pay particular attention to the temperature of the region and the available materials to form the formation.

 

[Dubya]

No, you have to take Physical Geology to get a degree in geology. Physical Geography was an elective and most geologists wouldn't waste their time on it as it was too basic.

But, to get back to the question at hand..... If warming occurs first. And then hundreds of years later the CO2 levels rise.......what caused the warming in the first place? One other thing you need to take into consideration there are several papers that show the temperature levels rose and fell over a two degree range (all while CO2 levels remained low) over a period of 1000 years.

What AGW theory addresses that?

You claim to be the geologist, so explain where the CO2 goes during glaciation and explain why you can't accept all the things producing radiative forcing that normal scientists accept!

Look up the course requirements for a degree in Geology! Physical Geography is not a basic course, because it involves every physical thing that has happened to Earth and deals with the why is it this way and what made it that way. If you can name any feature of the Earth, it's covered in the course. Soils, rivers, shorelines, mountains, climate, weather, etc., you name it and if it exists on Earth, it's covered in the course and examined in detail.

Physical Geography was not a branch of Earth Science in the '70s at universities and was a branch of Geology until more modern times, in fact, it was even described as a branch of Geology in wiki until lately. There was no Earth Science back then. You've mentioned working for some company for 30 years and then BP before that, so when did you get your degree?

Physical geography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can you have a degree in Geology years ago and not know this?

The other course requirement for a degree in Geology that I mentioned was Invertebrate Paleontology. The course I took was with the Biology department and was a two semester course.

Invertebrate paleontology (also spelled Invertebrate palaeontology) is sometimes described as Invertebrate paleozoology or Invertebrate paleobiology. Whether it is considered to be a subfield of paleontology, paleozoology, or paleobiology, this discipline is the scientific study of prehistoric invertebrates by analyzing invertebrate fossils in the geologic record.

Source: Invertebrate paleontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, since you were a geologist who worked for BP, why don't you tell us what's important about the study of Invertebrate Paleontology to the oil industry?

Describe the Redwall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, it's morphology and the geomorphic province it was formed in. Pay particular attention to the temperature of the region and the available materials to form the formation.

Why don't you just look it up on the Discovery Channel?

Did you answer my question?

 

[westwall]

You claim to be the geologist, so explain where the CO2 goes during glaciation and explain why you can't accept all the things producing radiative forcing that normal scientists accept!

Look up the course requirements for a degree in Geology! Physical Geography is not a basic course, because it involves every physical thing that has happened to Earth and deals with the why is it this way and what made it that way. If you can name any feature of the Earth, it's covered in the course. Soils, rivers, shorelines, mountains, climate, weather, etc., you name it and if it exists on Earth, it's covered in the course and examined in detail.

Physical Geography was not a branch of Earth Science in the '70s at universities and was a branch of Geology until more modern times, in fact, it was even described as a branch of Geology in wiki until lately. There was no Earth Science back then. You've mentioned working for some company for 30 years and then BP before that, so when did you get your degree?

Physical geography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can you have a degree in Geology years ago and not know this?

The other course requirement for a degree in Geology that I mentioned was Invertebrate Paleontology. The course I took was with the Biology department and was a two semester course.



Source: Invertebrate paleontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, since you were a geologist who worked for BP, why don't you tell us what's important about the study of Invertebrate Paleontology to the oil industry?

Describe the Redwall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, it's morphology and the geomorphic province it was formed in. Pay particular attention to the temperature of the region and the available materials to form the formation.

Why don't you just look it up on the Discovery Channel?

Did you answer my question?

\



Not directly but if you follow my instructions you will get your answer.

 

[Dubya]

Describe the Redwall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, it's morphology and the geomorphic province it was formed in. Pay particular attention to the temperature of the region and the available materials to form the formation.

Why don't you just look it up on the Discovery Channel?

Did you answer my question?

\



Not directly but if you follow my instructions you will get your answer.

Who do you think you are kidding? You don't know and any geologist who worked for BP would know. It's not that complicated.

 

[westwall]

Why don't you just look it up on the Discovery Channel?

Did you answer my question?

\



Not directly but if you follow my instructions you will get your answer.

Who do you think you are kidding? You don't know and any geologist who worked for BP would know. It's not that complicated.

Well if you're talking about forams and their link to oil deposits I wouldn't know what
you're talking about

 

[Dubya]

\



Not directly but if you follow my instructions you will get your answer.

Who do you think you are kidding? You don't know and any geologist who worked for BP would know. It's not that complicated.

Well if you're talking about forams and their link to oil deposits I wouldn't know what
you're talking about

I'm talking about dating sedimentary rocks which caps the crude oil.

As I pointed out earlier, you can core sample an ocean floor and determine if it was ice covered or ice free during a past period of time.