Now we know what all the fuss is about

[ding]

 

[Crick]

You were probably unaware that the temperature data from the Greenland ice cores are NOT globally representative. You're probably also unaware that unless it states otherwise, the term "Before Present" or "BP" almost always uses 1950 for the 'present'.

 

[ding]

You were probably unaware that the temperature data from the Greenland ice cores are NOT globally representative. You're probably also unaware that unless it states otherwise, the term "Before Present" or "BP" almost always uses 1950 for the 'present'.

And yet the point remains that you are making long term projections off of a blip of data with a causation that has been proven to not drive climate change.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Our current inter-glacial is about over or might already be and all we are seeing is the residual effect of the buffer. A buffer spike is generally recorded just before rapid cooling..

Spatial resolution of the graphing is incapable of showing rises in CO2 spanning less than 300-500 years so our current spike is likely to have happened many times before and is perfectly natural.

 

[Crick]

You were probably unaware that the temperature data from the Greenland ice cores are NOT globally representative. You're probably also unaware that unless it states otherwise, the term "Before Present" or "BP" almost always uses 1950 for the 'present'.

And yet the point remains that you are making long term projections off of a blip of data with a causation that has been proven to not drive climate change.

All of human history is a "blip" in a geological context. That doesn't mean it isn't important to us.

And, pray tell, when, where and how was CO2 "proven" not to drive climate change? I want to see that PROOF.

 

[ding]

You were probably unaware that the temperature data from the Greenland ice cores are NOT globally representative. You're probably also unaware that unless it states otherwise, the term "Before Present" or "BP" almost always uses 1950 for the 'present'.

And yet the point remains that you are making long term projections off of a blip of data with a causation that has been proven to not drive climate change.

All of human history is a "blip" in a geological context. That doesn't mean it isn't important to us.

And, pray tell, when, where and how was CO2 "proven" not to drive climate change? I want to see that PROOF.

Sounds like really great examples of climate change brought on by cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. I am glad you guys are starting to look at real climate change events. Now can you explain why it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted from radiative forcing of CO2 when co2 levels fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

And while you are at it can you explain how Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

And lastly, can you explain why the temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

 

[ding]

You were probably unaware that the temperature data from the Greenland ice cores are NOT globally representative. You're probably also unaware that unless it states otherwise, the term "Before Present" or "BP" almost always uses 1950 for the 'present'.

And yet the point remains that you are making long term projections off of a blip of data with a causation that has been proven to not drive climate change.

All of human history is a "blip" in a geological context. That doesn't mean it isn't important to us.

And, pray tell, when, where and how was CO2 "proven" not to drive climate change? I want to see that PROOF.

 

[Crick]

As you've been told before - and as your own brain would tell you had you a grip on the most basic of logic - that [heat-first-CO2-second] is what is seen in the geological record - is not proof that current CO2 is not responsible for current warming. It's not even evidence. You seem like a relatively intelligent fellow. Do you not see that?

 

[ding]

As you've been told before - and as your own brain would tell you had you a grip on the most basic of logic - that [heat-first-CO2-second] is what is seen in the geological record - is not proof that current CO2 is not responsible for current warming. It's not even evidence. You seem like a relatively intelligent fellow. Do you not see that?

So in other words you have no answer for why CO2 did not drive the climate when:

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

2. Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

3. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years began while atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm.

4. It took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

But you are certain that CO2 is driving climate change today.

 

[Crick]

Yes, I am still certain. So are virtually every single climate scientist on the planet. Do you believe yourself smarter than the lot of them? Do you think they are unaware of the matter of your questions and a hundred more besides?

 

[ding]

Yes, I am still certain. So are virtually every single climate scientist on the planet. Do you believe yourself smarter than the lot of them? Do you think they are unaware of the matter of your questions and a hundred more besides?

I don't believe they are looking at the right data. They don't want an honest dialogue and they are biased.

When you have an honest answer for the following, let me know.

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

2. Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

3. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years began while atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm.

4. It took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

 

[Crick]

You have copied those four lines over and over again in multiple threads here. That is a practice that is specifically banned by the rules here as USMB. It is, in effect spamming. Why don't you stop doing that, pick a thread where you'd like to discuss that in detail and bring some more information to the table. What were the
CO2 levels? What were the temperatures? Where were these data collected? What were the conclusions of the peer reviewed science? When you say a glacial-interglacial cycle begain, do you really mean when an ice age began? What other factors were present during these periods.

If anyone sounds to be bleating around here, it is you with these questions.

 

[ding]

You have copied those four lines over and over again in multiple threads here. That is a practice that is specifically banned by the rules here as USMB. It is, in effect spamming. Why don't you stop doing that, pick a thread where you'd like to discuss that in detail and bring some more information to the table. What were the
CO2 levels? What were the temperatures? Where were these data collected? What were the conclusions of the peer reviewed science? When you say a glacial-interglacial cycle begain, do you really mean when an ice age began? What other factors were present during these periods.

If anyone sounds to be bleating around here, it is you with these questions.

That's only because you have no answer for them. The data you are seeking has already been provided in this thread.

 

[Crick]

Only because spamming is against the rules here. It's annoying and makes you look a complete fool.

 

[ding]

Only because spamming is against the rules here. It's annoying and makes you look a complete fool.

No. I have already explained this to you. I am not spamming. I am showing you the incongruity of your beliefs. If you would be honest, we could move on.