Dr James Hansen - Doing the back stroke on AGW...

[ding]

Can someone toss Squidward a life preserver please? He's the 1st official victim of GWarming.. He's lost his shit. And is drowning. Maybe James Hansen will save you -- when he gets around to it. Hansen's not as rushed about the timing as when the High Priests were in charge of the Temple.

Flac, by now everyone here has seen you're not as smart as you pretend o be. You actually suck pretty badly at science and logic. You bluff and bluster, but when we call you on it, all you can do is insult and run.

Accept it, flac. You're a lightweight who is way out of his league here. Just admit it, and you'll feel better. Think of the burden that would be lifted, with you no longer having to defend the total crap that you know is indefensible. Or just continue being a cultist, if that gives you emotional gratification. On our side, we'll keep shooting down your crap pseudoscience and kook conspiracy theories and laughing hard, and everyone will be happy.

I believe he is pretty smart. It is your intelligence that I question. You don't realize that what we are seeing is totally expected because we are in an interglacial cycle. The world we live in is considered an icehouse world. You think it is normal, but it is not. It is rare, possibly unique. Our icehouse world is characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients. No other instance of bipolar glaciation is known through the geologic record. For the last 400,000 years we have been experiencing glacial-interglacial cycles. Interglacial cycles have low latitude thermal gradients. We are presently in an interglacial cycle. Due to our landmass distribution which isolates the poles from warm marine currents, warming will occur more in the northern hemisphere than it will in the southern hemisphere. Which is exactly what we are seeing now. It is all natural and will continue to happen as we are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the four past interglacials. Now you know.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, here we go again. Old johnny one note Dingleberry apparently thinks that it is news to us that we have had warmer interglacials. In spite of the fact that many of us have posted for years how only 20 ppm more in the Eemian created that warmer climate, and also sea levels as much as 6 meters over the present sea level. And that graph that you continually post was from a NASA article whose conclusion is 180 degrees from yours. But you are not man enough to link from the original article, because you do not wish people to find that out. You are a basically dishonest person.

 

[ding]

Well now, here we go again. Old johnny one note Dingleberry apparently thinks that it is news to us that we have had warmer interglacials. In spite of the fact that many of us have posted for years how only 20 ppm more in the Eemian created that warmer climate, and also sea levels as much as 6 meters over the present sea level. And that graph that you continually post was from a NASA article whose conclusion is 180 degrees from yours. But you are not man enough to link from the original article, because you do not wish people to find that out. You are a basically dishonest person.

It's the only note I need to play. We are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the four past interglacials. NASA agrees with this.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you think that rapidly reaching those temperatures will have the same effect on the biosphere as approaching them slowly as was done in the previous interglacials?

 

[ding]

So, you think that rapidly reaching those temperatures will have the same effect on the biosphere as approaching them slowly as was done in the previous interglacials?

You keep making a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising for the last 50 years or so relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. That it is an impossible comparison to make because the data does not exist to make that comparison.

For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only 2 data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr.

For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.