Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[Crick]

Correlation ≠ Causation ... your data correlates better with human population ... fucking LIAR ...

I never said it did, but causation wil always show correlation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is one paper investigating the possibility that they are due to the collapse of thermohaline circulation (THC) known in the Atlantic Ocean as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). High salinity water in North Atlantic cools and as it approaches maximum density (4C) it sinks several kilometers. A slow bottom flow then proceeds south and at the equator runs into a mirror image current coming from the southern pole. The two rise, bringing large amounts of dissolved nutrients to the surface at the equator. Warmed water slowly flows north (and south) to close the two loops. There is very little of such flow in the Pacific due to the low salinity of the water in the North Pacific. Even cooled to maximum density, it is not driven to sink. The difference between the behavior of the two basins has been recreated in a wide range of models. But there are strong indications that the current situation in the Atlantic is unstable and that it could be stopped altogether by a large input of fresh water, from melting ice in the Arctic and Greenland. Since this flow is responsible for the moderate temperature in Europe, the result would be catastrophic cooling there. That info is from the paper's abstract. Visit the link if you want more.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.97.4.1347 [PNAS = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

Here is another paper that reports on an spontaneous abrupt cooling that took place in a high resolution model with sensitive sea-ice modelling. The cooling lasted approximately one century and stopped as abruptly as it had started. I'll let them explain: "The event was simulated in the preindustrial control run of a high-resolution climate model, without imposing external perturbations. Initial cooling started with a period of enhanced atmospheric blocking over the eastern subpolar gyre. In response, a southward progression of the sea-ice margin occurred, and the sea-level pressure anomaly was locked to the sea-ice margin through thermal forcing. The cold-core high steered more cold air to the area, reinforcing the sea-ice concentration anomaly east of Greenland. The sea-ice surplus was carried southward by ocean currents around the tip of Greenland. South of 70°N, sea ice already started melting and the associated freshwater anomaly was carried to the Labrador Sea, shutting off deep convection. There, surface waters were exposed longer to atmospheric cooling and sea surface temperature dropped, causing an even larger thermally forced high above the Labrador Sea. In consequence, east of Greenland, anomalous winds changed from north to south, terminating the event with similar abruptness to its onset"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1304912110

Here is a third paper that points out that "complex environmental systems are never in equilibrium" being constantly driven by oscillating inputs such as seasonal cycles, Milankovitch forcing and internal climate oscillations (ENSO, PDO, etc). This is a broader discussion than just the interglacial cycle but it does point out that under non-equilibrium conditions it is possible to have multiple alternative pseudo-stable states under identical forcing conditions between which a system can be "tipped" by small changes in external forcing. Abrupt Climate Change in an Oscillating World - Scientific Reports [Nature magazine]

And probably a combination and all these things. The Milankovich Cycles probably the most powerful.

 

[Crick]

And probably a combination and all these things. The Milankovich Cycles probably the most powerful.

I would go with the collapse of themohaline circulation as the cause of the rapid turnaround at the peak of heating.

 

[ding]

And probably a combination and all these things. The Milankovich Cycles probably the most powerful.

As the trigger for a glacial period? That is the current thinking.

 

[ReinyDays]

I did a science project in the 9th grade based on Kepler's Laws.

Obliquity – The angle Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees with respect to Earth’s orbital plane. The greater Earth’s axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during its summer, when the hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun, and less during winter, when it is tilted away. Larger tilt angles favor periods of deglaciation (the melting and retreat of glaciers and ice sheets). These effects aren’t uniform globally -- higher latitudes receive a larger change in total solar radiation than areas closer to the equator.

Earth’s axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers that gradually, over time, allow snow and ice at high latitudes to build up into large ice sheets. As ice cover increases, it reflects more of the Sun’s energy back into space, promoting even further cooling.

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

climate.nasa.gov

Obviously it doesn't, but it alters the pattern of solar intensity which has an effect. I assume you picked that over the other two for precisely that reason. Despite that, obliquity is believed to have a greater effect on glaciation than eccentricity or (either form of) precession.

That link contains an excellent introduction to Milankovitch Cycles and is only a few pages. BtW, if you feel you can calculate obliquity and precession using Kepler's Laws, I'd very much like to see it.

No math ... pussy ...

I did a science project in the 9th grade based on Kepler's Laws.

I had a math test that asked me to derive Kepler's 1st Law from Newton Law of Gravity ... pussy ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would go with the collapse of themohaline circulation as the cause of the rapid turnaround at the peak of heating.

Potentially it could also be a cloud of dust is space too. We don't know much about that sort of thing. Potentially we could be spinning around universe and every so often hitting clouds of dust. It takes 230 million years to get around the galaxy, so a 100,000 year cycle is slightly under 230 million years, however there might be something we're not seeing.

Does spacedust make the Earth blow hot and cold?

CHANGES in the amount of cosmic dust raining onto the Earth could help explain why the climate has for the past million years been alternating between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. For years, researchers have suspected that ice ages happen because of variations in the Earth's orbit...

www.newscientist.com

"Does spacedust make the Earth blow hot and cold?"​

"CHANGES in the amount of cosmic dust raining onto the Earth could help explain why the climate has for the past million years been alternating between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. For years, researchers have suspected that ice ages happen because of variations in the Earth’s orbit which move us slightly farther from the Sun every 100 000 years or so. But the reduction in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth as a result is not, by itself, enough to plunge the planet into an ice age."

This from 1995, our understanding has improved since then, but still a lot of unknowns.

 

[Crick]

Potentially it could also be a cloud of dust is space too. We don't know much about that sort of thing.

Why not Martians? Come on. We know a GREAT deal more about thermohaline circulation than that.

Potentially we could be spinning around universe and every so often hitting clouds of dust. It takes 230 million years to get around the galaxy, so a 100,000 year cycle is slightly under 230 million years, however there might be something we're not seeing.

Does spacedust make the Earth blow hot and cold?

CHANGES in the amount of cosmic dust raining onto the Earth could help explain why the climate has for the past million years been alternating between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. For years, researchers have suspected that ice ages happen because of variations in the Earth's orbit...

www.newscientist.com

"Does spacedust make the Earth blow hot and cold?"​

"CHANGES in the amount of cosmic dust raining onto the Earth could help explain why the climate has for the past million years been alternating between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. For years, researchers have suspected that ice ages happen because of variations in the Earth’s orbit which move us slightly farther from the Sun every 100 000 years or so. But the reduction in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth as a result is not, by itself, enough to plunge the planet into an ice age."

This from 1995, our understanding has improved since then, but still a lot of unknowns.

Ockham's Razor says "No".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why not Martians? Come on. We know a GREAT deal more about thermohaline circulation than that.

Ockham's Razor says "No".

And yet, we're in a place where we simply don't know....

 

[Sunsettommy]

Global Temperatures Over Last 24,000 Years Show Today's Warming 'Unprecedented' | University of Arizona News

A UArizona-led effort to reconstruct Earth's climate since the last ice age highlights the main drivers of climate change and how far human activity has pushed the climate system.

news.arizona.edu

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

Temperatures in the previous 100,000 years were not higher. Temperature peaks in the previous, 100,000 year interglacial cycle were higher, briefly.


Something like this?

View attachment 747691

Figure 11.1: Temperature change over the past 400,000 years correlate...

Download scientific diagram | 1: Temperature change over the past 400,000 years correlate closely with variations in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (Source: http://www.klimafakten.de/behauptungen/behauptung- der-co2-anstieg-ist-nicht-ursache-sondern-folge-des-klimawandels...

www.researchgate.net

Okay.

The team created maps of global temperature changes for every 200-year interval going back 24,000 years.

It appears that you don't realize the study is a modeling construct with LOW resolution proxies.

From the abstract you didn't read:

"Climate changes across the past 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations1,2 and proxy data3,4,5,6,7,8 have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation9,10 to produce the first proxy-constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present at 200-year resolution."

=====

bolding mine

Man, you are GULLIBLE!

 

[Crick]

And yet, we're in a place where we simply don't know....

It appears that you don't realize the study is a modeling construct with LOW resolution proxies.

From the abstract you didn't read:

"Climate changes across the past 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations1,2 and proxy data3,4,5,6,7,8 have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation9,10 to produce the first proxy-constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present at 200-year resolution."

=====

bolding mine

Man, you are GULLIBLE!

That has no bearing on the point I was making. The chronoligical resolution will get even worse with the longer graphs below.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That has no bearing on the point I was making. The chronoligical resolution will get even worse with the longer graphs below.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying there are too many unknowns to be certain. I'm sure the oceans play a big part in this, what we're finding is that so many factors influence what is going on around us.

 

[Crick]

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying there are too many unknowns to be certain. I'm sure the oceans play a big part in this, what we're finding is that so many factors influence what is going on around us.

We were discussing the rate of temperature change: the derivative of temperature over time. This has been studied since the early 19th century. My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence. The data fully support that. The possibility that a temperature spike could have occurred larger in magnitude than what is visible in the geological and instrument records and not leave evidence (as SunsetTommy has suggested is possible) is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. It would take space alien interference. Throughout this conversation your claim that you think we don't know enough to act seems to be your fallback position. To be honest, it seems to be your only position. It is possible to not know everything and still know enought to act on observed threats. Freezing in fear of the unknown is not a viable survival tactic for our species.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We were discussing the rate of temperature change: the derivative of temperature over time. This has been studied since the early 19th century. My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence. The data fully support that. The possibility that a temperature spike could have occurred larger in magnitude than what is visible in the geological and instrument records and not leave evidence (as SunsetTommy has suggested is possible) is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. It would take space alien interference. Throughout this conversation your claim that you think we don't know enough to act seems to be your fallback position. To be honest, it seems to be your only position. It is possible to not know everything and still know enought to act on observed threats. Freezing in fear of the unknown is not a viable survival tactic for our species.

Yes, since the early 19th century, like 200 years. And for most of that the instruments have been lacking in every way. Nothing much is reliable before satellites.

We're talking about thing that happened 400,000 years ago.
You say that a rate of change is higher now than before. But is it? I don't see that. You say the data fully supports that, and I still don't see it.
We've seen HUGE temperature rises and HUGE drops too in the past, according to the limited data that we have.
I've not said anything about acting. I've simple said we don't know enough to UNDERSTAND.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We were discussing the rate of temperature change: the derivative of temperature over time. This has been studied since the early 19th century. My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence. The data fully support that. The possibility that a temperature spike could have occurred larger in magnitude than what is visible in the geological and instrument records and not leave evidence (as SunsetTommy has suggested is possible) is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. It would take space alien interference. Throughout this conversation your claim that you think we don't know enough to act seems to be your fallback position. To be honest, it seems to be your only position. It is possible to not know everything and still know enought to act on observed threats. Freezing in fear of the unknown is not a viable survival tactic for our species.

My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence.

What is the present rate of change?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes, since the early 19th century, like 200 years. And for most of that the instruments have been lacking in every way. Nothing much is reliable before satellites.

We're talking about thing that happened 400,000 years ago.
You say that a rate of change is higher now than before. But is it? I don't see that. You say the data fully supports that, and I still don't see it.
We've seen HUGE temperature rises and HUGE drops too in the past, according to the limited data that we have.
I've not said anything about acting. I've simple said we don't know enough to UNDERSTAND.

He is overlooking the very low resolution number of the proxies, there is no way anyone can say what is normal or unusual using these proxies.

 

[Crick]

Yes, since the early 19th century, like 200 years. And for most of that the instruments have been lacking in every way. Nothing much is reliable before satellites.
Thermometers are calibratable.

We're talking about thing that happened 400,000 years ago.

Yes. There's the value of ice cores.

You say that a rate of change is higher now than before. But is it?

Yes.

I don't see that.

Are you unable to read a graph?

You say the data fully supports that, and I still don't see it.

Again, are you unable to read a graph? Read it yourself and do the math.

We've seen HUGE temperature rises and HUGE drops too in the past, according to the limited data that we have.

Yes, but they took MUCH longer to take place than what we are currently experiencing.

I've not said anything about acting. I've simple said we don't know enough to UNDERSTAND.

We know enough to support my contention. Current warming is taking place an order of magnitude more rapidly than at any time in the history of Homo Sapiens.

 

[EMH]

Meanwhile, the Jeopardy! music is still playing as the "warmers" still cannot answer


How did Co2 melt NA and freeze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME???

 

[Crick]

Meanwhile, the Jeopardy! music is still playing as the "warmers" still cannot answer


How did Co2 melt NA and freeze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME???

Black Liberal Democratic Magic. Happy?

 

[EMH]

Black Liberal Democratic Magic. Happy?

LOL


The question that busts the co2 fraud cold....

When will anyone get the courage to ask it in

the media
Congress


??????????????????

 

[Crick]

LOL


The question that busts the co2 fraud cold....

When will anyone get the courage to ask it in

the media
Congress


??????????????????

So, you've outsmarted all the world's scientists? Are you going to be famous?