GLOBAL WARMING? NASA says Antarctic has been COOLING for past

[Geaux4it]

 

[skookerasbil]

Your first statement is just an example of arrogance, we don't really need to discuss anything else about that.

Why...becasue you don't like to be reminded that what you believe is going to happen flies in the face of what already happened? Good argument. Clap your hands over your ears and scream LA LA LA as loud as you can so no fact can ever penetrate your brain.

As for whether I have a basis for what I have said about 400,000 years, actually I do.

You are looking at a very short term piece of time...one that only goes back about half way into the present ice age....My timeline goes back to the beginning of the present ice age and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that. Which is likely to provide a more valid insight into the climate of the earth?

The development of a species to make it to an advanced state has taken a lot of stability. Sure, there have been problems along the way, however humans were able to come out of it. Imagine if the world were throwing up situations where humans who prospered in one region were then unable to prosper and died out. Humanity simply wouldn't develop.

And you don't think dropping into an ice age constitutes a lack of stability? Humans didn't start really advancing till the onset of the holocene when the glaciers started retreating...the more they retreated the more advanced we became....had the ice age never happened, we might be 20 million years on now and in the stars instead of 20,000 or so and fretting over the non existent threat of CO2.

Why did nothing else develop like humans in the past? Probably because of a lack of stability with the Earth.

Evolution is a product of time....look at the long stable warm periods in history and compare it to the definitely unstable climatewe are living in now. Coming out of an ice age is inherently unstable...up and down up and down with the long term trend being up...look at history....temps climb to an average and then level off for millions of years.

You seem particularly unwilling to take anything from the past...why is that?

The world is maturing, getting less violent, climate is more stable, everything is becoming less of a problem, well, until we arrived.

Again...look at the long history and compare it to the recent history.....coming out of an ice age is not a stable time....it isn't till the ice age is over that the climate seems to stabilize.

If the world warms up to 60 degrees in the summer, do you think humans are just going to adapt to that? What about cows, and sheep, and pigs, our main meat food source?

The global mean is 58.6 degrees now...you are trembling and fretting over less than 2 degrees? What is wrong with you...clearly animals can adapt to changing climates as they have been doing it since life began here...what makes you think they won't continue adapt....and they have adapted to temperatures much higher than your feared 60 degrees...and if dumb animals can do it...then human beings, the most adaptable creatures to ever walk the earth will have no problem. Personally, I would be glad to see an end of very cold winter.

Not at all. You seem more intent on attacking that actually discussing this stuff.

If you read what I wrote, I said that the last 400,000 years show a stability in the climate that didn't exist before. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over and over again for you to catch up here. I'm not playing silly little games. If you want to discuss this, then do it properly.

I know that you want to look further back, and I'm not saying 'don't look back beyond 400,000 years ago', I'm saying when it comes to WHAT TO EXPECT from the climate right now, we can't be looking back beyond 400,000 years ago. Some things, like what the world was like with higher CO2 etc, you look back further, but this ISN'T what I'm talking about, so....

So I think dropping into an ice age is a lack of stability? No.

Stability isn't necessarily the same temperatures every year, every century, every millennium. Stability is that before the temperature rises and falls were much greater than the last 400,000 years. Stability is that they didn't follow a set pattern. The last 400,000 years has seen a set pattern, more or less, and through that we can see what SHOULD happen naturally.

Evolution is a product of time. However if the evolutionary process gets stopped by an extermination of all that process, then where are you? Nowhere, that's where.

As for your silly little statement about me not taking anything from the past, er.... I've posted what we believe happened for the last 400,000 years. Is that not the past? So you can top with your little jibes, it doesn't help your argument and just leads to me less likely to bother replying to you.

Evolution is a product of time. However if the evolutionary process gets stopped by an extermination of all that process, then where are you? Nowhere, that's where.

That doesn't even make sense. Evolution is more a product of environment. If the environment stays the same, there is no need for animals to evolve.

The more right wingers try to explain science, the more bewildering their bullshit.

But you have to admit, they are really, really imaginative.

Not for nothing s0n but you've been using the "right wingers don't know science" line forever!! But what has that netted your side? You say it as if your side is winning?



Show me where anybody gives a shit about the 97% in 2015?

The "science" on climate change is having no impact in the real world........your shit is simply internet banter s0n!!

Show me otherwise!!!

Links please.............

 

[frigidweirdo]

You make it sound as if it's just us that has to adapt to a few degrees increase.

Funny thing...I took my dog to key west with me when I moved there....he adapted also. You seem to have no problem ignoring the fact that for the entire history of earth, life has adapted to a changing climate....changes far more radical than we are seeing now. That's the problem with only taking a short peek into the past....take the longer view and you see that change and adaptation is business as usual on this planet.

What do we eat?

Geez guy, are you really this afraid? You are inventing boogie men. All the tropical stuff that we so enjoy that grows near the equator will still be there only we can grow it further north....the stuff that grows in the south... will move up to the mid atlantic....the stuff that grows on the plains will move north towards canada....draw the growth zones around the entire earth and just move them up a notch...much more of the planet becomes farmable....and it isn't as if this is going to happen in 2 weeks....we are taking about a very long term change. a fraction of a degree per century is nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

Even if we can adapt to the new food, what happens when we need to move. Say the seas rise, so the migration away from the coastal areas will cause major problems. Probably war, which will mean we're killing each other off. The amount of area we have to grow things, if we can eat things, will be reduced.

What new food?....same old food just grown a little further north than the present...farmers can certainly adapt to new crops....or don't you think they can manage that?

As to sea level...look at the long term again....history tells us that eventually, it is going to get so warm that there will be no ice at one or both of the poles...it is inevitable...it is what happens on earth...sea level has risen by about 60 feet in the past 14K years....people move...its what we do. You seem unduly fearful of any change. The sky is not falling.

How many problems do you think will be caused by this.

Hell, I have been moving my whole life....hasn't caused any problems. People move...we are mobile. Let me guess...you live in the same town you went to kindergarten in....you have had the same friends since then as well....you can't imagine change. Not everyone is like that...How much disaster do you think the 60 feet of sea level increase caused in the past 14K years? People just move....its no big deal.

Again, isn't it easier to solve problems now, rather than think about profit now and destroy everything for the future?

You keep talking about the future, but you are unwilling to look at the past...it is going to get warm..it is not something that we are causing....we didn't cause it in the past and we aren't causing it now....the climate is cyclic and we are on a long term trend which will eventually leave no ice at the poles...it has happened over and over and over and over...the fact that you refuse to look back in the past is what makes this so scary for you...earth and all its life have adapted in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Damned strange that you imagine we have the power to alter the global climate but lack the power to adapt.

Again, it's not about an optimum temperature for life on this planet. It's an range in which humans can live and live without having major problems like I've suggested before.

No problems? Seriously? When have humans not had problems. And again, you just aren't thinking. On any given day the temperatures on earth range from about =100 to + 115 degrees F.....that is a 215 temperature range on any given day on planet earth and people live across that range...and you really don't believe we can adapt to a few degrees? Really guy...get a grip. Your fear is bordering pathological.

So, animals get made extinct. But now we're more stable than before, should species be going extinct like before? No, but we're making that happen.

More stable than before what? You are only willing to look back as far as yesterday afternoon into earth's history. You have absolutely no idea what the climate was like before...you are only willing to look further back in the ice age....as a result, you simply don't have a clue and as a result you are terrified of the unknown.. We have a good idea what life was like before the ice age began and it doesn't look to bad.

Right, so you took your dog to Key West, therefore all creatures can survive all manner of temperature changes. That's such a ridiculous statement it's unbelievable.

Short peak = 400,000 years. Yeah right, how old are you? And for the last fucking time before I put you on ignore, I told you WHY 400,000 years is important.

As for your "there'll be no problems with food" lark, you're talking out of your arse.

In fact, I think I'm so bored with your nonsense, I'm off to do something more exciting, like watching paint dry. Bye.

 

[SSDD]

Right, so you took your dog to Key West, therefore all creatures can survive all manner of temperature changes. That's such a ridiculous statement it's unbelievable.

Ok....so we know that life has always adapted to climate change...be it to warm or to cool...what is it that makes you think that this time it is different.

Short peak = 400,000 years. Yeah right, how old are you? And for the last fucking time before I put you on ignore, I told you WHY 400,000 years is important.

What you said didn't make any sense at all...you seemed to be claiming that that 400,000 years represent the only stable time in earth's climate....ever...which is patently ridiculous and based on nothing even resembling fact.

As for your "there'll be no problems with food" lark, you're talking out of your are.

You don't think that growing zones will simply shift north? We have already seen it happen. Back during the medieval warm period....they were growing grapes far north of where they can be grown today...vikings were farming and growing cattle under what is now ice in greenland...what makes you think that food would be a problem in a world that has increased its farmable area?

In fact, I think I'm so bored with your nonsense, I'm off to do something more exciting, like watching paint dry. Bye.

So run away...I understand. You don't like to look at anything that might lead to you questioning your faith....you apparently live in some fantasy where disaster is imminent and the idea of realizing that it is all in your head is just to much to take...I get it...enjoy your fantasy.....bugga bugga bugga...

 

[mamooth]

You don't think that growing zones will simply shift north?

No, because soil and water are required for growth. You couldn't grow crops on acidic arctic muck and granite. And you couldn't grow them in the south, because the rainfall won't be there.

You also can't shift whole populations. Canada and Russia aren't going to tell the world "everyone, come move in with us!".

Common sense stuff, hence it totally escapes you.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball...old science..outdated....new science had to deal with the dim sun frozen earth paradox....seems that science now thinks that the sun back then was a bit larger and brighter than what we see today..

Yes, another batshit crazy theory from SSDD!

But then ... maybe stellar physics is yet another field of science that only SuperGeniusSSDD understands the real truth about, along with thermodynamics, quantum physics, statistical mechanics ... the list just goes on. Everyone else says solar output goes up 1% every 100 million years, but SSDD knows better. We are so lucky to have this new Einstein among us.

Is there no limit to your penchant for denial?

Ah, so you're denying the isthmus of Panama changes ocean currents. We can now add oceanography to the list science you're rewriting.

Like I said....science isn't preaching a dim sun anymore...science is preaching a larger, brighter sun which eliminates the dim sun paradox. Guess skeptical science never mentioned it.

Nobody mentioned it, anywhere, ever, except maybe on your kook blogs. Can you point us to the specific kook blog making that claim?

 

[SSDD]

You don't think that growing zones will simply shift north?

No, because soil and water are required for growth. You couldn't grow crops on acidic arctic muck and granite. And you couldn't grow them in the south, because the rainfall won't be there.

You also can't shift whole populations. Canada and Russia aren't going to tell the world "everyone, come move in with us!"..

That's not what paleo history tells us....you warmers are a miserable lot aren't you....if things aren't bad enough to suit you, then you just make up hell out of whole cloth. It must really suck to be you.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball...old science..outdated....new science had to deal with the dim sun frozen earth paradox....seems that science now thinks that the sun back then was a bit larger and brighter than what we see today..

Yes, another batshit crazy theory from SSDD!

But then ... maybe stellar physics is yet another field of science that only SuperGeniusSSDD understands the real truth about, along with thermodynamics, quantum physics, statistical mechanics ... the list just goes on. Everyone else says solar output goes up 1% every 100 million years, but SSDD knows better. We are so lucky to have this new Einstein among us.

Is there no limit to your penchant for denial?

Ah, so you're denying the isthmus of Panama changes ocean currents. We can now add oceanography to the list science you're rewriting.

Like I said....science isn't preaching a dim sun anymore...science is preaching a larger, brighter sun which eliminates the dim sun paradox. Guess skeptical science never mentioned it.

Nobody mentioned it, anywhere, ever, except maybe on your kook blogs. Can you point us to the specific kook blog making that claim?

Always behind hairball...that's because you are an idiot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Right, so you took your dog to Key West, therefore all creatures can survive all manner of temperature changes. That's such a ridiculous statement it's unbelievable.

Ok....so we know that life has always adapted to climate change...be it to warm or to cool...what is it that makes you think that this time it is different.

Short peak = 400,000 years. Yeah right, how old are you? And for the last fucking time before I put you on ignore, I told you WHY 400,000 years is important.

What you said didn't make any sense at all...you seemed to be claiming that that 400,000 years represent the only stable time in earth's climate....ever...which is patently ridiculous and based on nothing even resembling fact.

As for your "there'll be no problems with food" lark, you're talking out of your are.

You don't think that growing zones will simply shift north? We have already seen it happen. Back during the medieval warm period....they were growing grapes far north of where they can be grown today...vikings were farming and growing cattle under what is now ice in greenland...what makes you think that food would be a problem in a world that has increased its farmable area?

In fact, I think I'm so bored with your nonsense, I'm off to do something more exciting, like watching paint dry. Bye.

So run away...I understand. You don't like to look at anything that might lead to you questioning your faith....you apparently live in some fantasy where disaster is imminent and the idea of realizing that it is all in your head is just to much to take...I get it...enjoy your fantasy.....bugga bugga bugga...

No, the problem is you don't understand, you're constantly making this a painful experience. So I stop talking to you. IF you come back and are willing to talk in a proper manner, and discuss things properly, then I'm perfectly willing to answer your questions. But you're going around in circles, you seem more intent of "winning" than discussing the issues and you repeat the same point over and over and over again as if you'd not read what I'd written.

I have better things to do with my time, like, er... doing nothing, watching paint dry, etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't think that growing zones will simply shift north?

No, because soil and water are required for growth. You couldn't grow crops on acidic arctic muck and granite. And you couldn't grow them in the south, because the rainfall won't be there.

You also can't shift whole populations. Canada and Russia aren't going to tell the world "everyone, come move in with us!".

Common sense stuff, hence it totally escapes you.

It seems those who are willing to allow man made climate change, and don't see a problem with 60 degree weather and the like, are very willing to ignore almost any point that comes their way.

They'll point to the fact that the Earth at one time was hotter. It was. But humans weren't alive then and humans would struggle to live under such conditions without moving permanently inside. And if we do that, then what? It's hardly an existence to live inside our whole lives.

 

[SSDD]

No, the problem is you don't understand, you're constantly making this a painful experience. So I stop talking to you. IF you come back and are willing to talk in a proper manner, and discuss things properly, then I'm perfectly willing to answer your questions. But you're going around in circles, you seem more intent of "winning" than discussing the issues and you repeat the same point over and over and over again as if you'd not read what I'd written.

I have better things to do with my time, like, er... doing nothing, watching paint dry, etc.

First, you must demonstrate that there is a problem in order to establish that there is indeed a problem to discuss. What I see is that the present climate change is certainly not unprecedented and falls well within the boundaries of natural variability.

And I read what you wrote...the problem is that you can't support any of it with actual observed evidence so of what value is it...you just want to tell me your opinion and expect for me to get worked up about that?

 

[SSDD]

It seems those who are willing to allow man made climate change, and don't see a problem with 60 degree weather and the like, are very willing to ignore almost any point that comes their way.

Ok...at present the average global mean is almost 59 degrees...what is it about that 1 degree that has you in such a state?

But humans weren't alive then and humans would struggle to live under such conditions without moving permanently inside. And if we do that, then what? It's hardly an existence to live inside our whole lives.

You really believe that an increase of a degree is going to drive us inside? You believe that because we are here that somehow the normal cycles of warm and cool are supposed to stop? What exactly is it that you do believe? I don't see anything happening that is outside the boundaries of natural variability....what problem are you seeing? Do you have any actual empirical evidence that man is altering the global climate? Not computer models...not charts that are nothing more than computer output...actual hard evidence.

What I see is that temperatures have risen a fraction of a degree in the past 100 years.....with a good bit of that increase being due to manipulation of the data....do you believe that is outside of natural variability? Do you have any evidence to support the claim if you do?

Sorry guy but your opinion just isn't enough to get me worked up.

 

[IanC]

---
Yep, that's just wiki, but every other source agrees with them. If you've got a source that says the earth was in an ice age 3.6 million years ago, show it to us. Anyways, given that you pooched that so badly, it invalidates most of your rambling.

The graphs from the peer reviewed published work I gave you don't agree at all....to bad that, like crick, you can't look at one and get anything from it.

Solar output was 0.5% lower.

Sorry hairball...old science..outdated....new science had to deal with the dim sun frozen earth paradox....seems that science now thinks that the sun back then was a bit larger and brighter than what we see today..

The Panama isthmus, or lack of it, significantly changes climate. The creation of that isthmus totally rerouted ocean currents, and that significantly changed precipitation. More snowfall moved to the poles, which allowed the ice sheets to form on Greenland and Antarctica, changing albedo and reducing temperatures even more.

Is there no limit to your penchant for denial?

So, to explain the warming out of snowball earth, you wave your hands around and invoke unexplained magic.

Like I said....science isn't preaching a dim sun anymore...science is preaching a larger, brighter sun which eliminates the dim sun paradox. Guess skeptical science never mentioned it.

And aren't you people always claiming that volcanoes don't put out enough CO2 to dramatically alter the climate? Which is it?

The intelligent people understand that a small outgassing of CO2 over millions of years on a planet without CO2 sinks will slowly raise CO2 levels over those millions of years. That same rate of outgassing on a planet with active CO2 sinks won't raise CO2 levels at all, being the CO2 gets absorbed by the sinks. That's some basic math, science and logic there, so naturally you failed completely at it.

[/QUOTE]


I would be interested in a link to the new science that overturns stellar patterns of radiance as stars age.

it is of course impossible to be certain of the changes that happened when the Panama closed but how could it have not had a large impact? what's the difference in sea level between the two coasts? 3 feet or more? must have been a pretty spectacular gorge before it finally closed.

 

[IanC]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

 

[mamooth]

Denier hero Richard Tol did a summary of 27 studies of the effects of global warming on economic growth.

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-75-2015.pdf&site=24

According to Tol, only one study of three said global warming would be an economic positive at 1.0C, which we just hit.

At 2.0C - 2.5C, the studies either say no effect or a negative effect.

At 3.0C and higher, every study says negative economic effect.

 

[SSDD]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

Antarctica is showing the greatest impact from CO2....it is cooling....as I have pointed out repeatedly, CO2 is not a blanket...it is like holes in the blanket...sensitivity of zero or less.

 

[SSDD]

---
Yep, that's just wiki, but every other source agrees with them. If you've got a source that says the earth was in an ice age 3.6 million years ago, show it to us. Anyways, given that you pooched that so badly, it invalidates most of your rambling.

The graphs from the peer reviewed published work I gave you don't agree at all....to bad that, like crick, you can't look at one and get anything from it.

Solar output was 0.5% lower.

Sorry hairball...old science..outdated....new science had to deal with the dim sun frozen earth paradox....seems that science now thinks that the sun back then was a bit larger and brighter than what we see today..

The Panama isthmus, or lack of it, significantly changes climate. The creation of that isthmus totally rerouted ocean currents, and that significantly changed precipitation. More snowfall moved to the poles, which allowed the ice sheets to form on Greenland and Antarctica, changing albedo and reducing temperatures even more.

Is there no limit to your penchant for denial?

So, to explain the warming out of snowball earth, you wave your hands around and invoke unexplained magic.

Like I said....science isn't preaching a dim sun anymore...science is preaching a larger, brighter sun which eliminates the dim sun paradox. Guess skeptical science never mentioned it.

And aren't you people always claiming that volcanoes don't put out enough CO2 to dramatically alter the climate? Which is it?

The intelligent people understand that a small outgassing of CO2 over millions of years on a planet without CO2 sinks will slowly raise CO2 levels over those millions of years. That same rate of outgassing on a planet with active CO2 sinks won't raise CO2 levels at all, being the CO2 gets absorbed by the sinks. That's some basic math, science and logic there, so naturally you failed completely at it.

I would be interested in a link to the new science that overturns stellar patterns of radiance as stars age.

it is of course impossible to be certain of the changes that happened when the Panama closed but how could it have not had a large impact? what's the difference in sea level between the two coasts? 3 feet or more? must have been a pretty spectacular gorge before it finally closed.[/QUOTE]

Here Ian....there is a lot of this sort of thing out there....trying to resolve the faint young sun paradox....makes more sense than the idiot idea that CO2 is powerful enough to bring the earth out of a deep ice age....interesting that they claim that volcanoes could do it alone back then but volcanoes are not a significant part of the equation now.

The analysis of young solar-like stars and their s..|INIS

 

[SSDD]

Denier hero Richard Tol did a summary of 27 studies of the effects of global warming on economic growth.

Interesting your use of the word denier....there are plenty of words that signify skepticism of an idea. Doubtful, suspicious, dubious, incredulous, unconvinced, cynical, questioning...etc... But you people use denier...a word that has a very specific historical use....the word denier has always been used to identify people who don't believe in a religion... the only other use of the word is as reference to those who claim the holocaust didn't happen and you guys claim that isn't the reason you use it....so clearly you are claiming that we skeptics are apostates who don't follow your religion.

 

[Crick]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

Antarctica is showing the greatest impact from CO2....it is cooling....as I have pointed out repeatedly, CO2 is not a blanket...it is like holes in the blanket...sensitivity of zero or less.

Ian, are you still with your man here? Do you believe CO2 has a negative sensitivity Ian?

 

[Crick]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

"Much less noise caused by water vapour"? Care to explain that one Ian?