Scientologists and Global Warmers. I can't tell the difference.

[Crick]

I say again

You [SSDD] are the liar.

Thousands of peer reviewed papers, filled with empirical evidence, have been published over the last few decades that nearly universally provide evidence that global warming is real and is being caused primarily by human GHG emissions and deforestation.

 

[ding]

I say again

You [SSDD] are the liar.

Thousands of peer reviewed papers, filled with empirical evidence, have been published over the last few decades that nearly universally provide evidence that global warming is real and is being caused primarily by human GHG emissions and deforestation.

I reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study because of...

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

And this...

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.

And this...

Which shows that the modern world we live in is an icehouse and that it is geologically speaking rare.

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.

Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.

The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.

The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.

And this...

Which explains the trigger for the glacial and interglacial cycles.

And this...

Which explains the conditions necessary for the glacial-interglacial cycles were our poles being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2.

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. Over the last 5 million years there has been rapid cooling.

Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm.

Five million years ago the earth started going through glacial / interglacial cycles. The glacial / interglacial cycles of the past 3 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. But before the glacial cycle could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.

The north pole is isolated by landmasses. The south pole is isolated because of Antarctica.

And this...

Which establishes that EXTENSIVE northern hemisphere glaciation cannot occur until 280 ppm but EXTENSIVE Antarctic glaciation occurs at 750 ppm.

For major bipolar glaciation to have occurred at Oi-1, CO2 would first have to cross the Antarctic glaciation threshold (,750 p.p.m.v.) and then fall more than 400 p.p.m.v. within ,200 kyr to reach the Northern Hemisphere threshold (Fig. 4). Increased sea ice and upwelling in the Southern Ocean 13,29 and falling sea level 14 could have acted as feedbacks accelerating CO2 drawdown at the time of Oi-1.This is supported by CO2 proxy records and carbon-cycle model results showing a drop in CO2 across the Eocene/Oligocene transition10,13,14, but none of these reconstructions reach the low levels required for Northern Hemisphere glaciation. We therefore conclude that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely, and Mg/Ca-based estimates of deep-sea temperatures across the boundary 5 are unreliable. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that the 1-km deepening of the carbonate compensation depth and the associated carbonate ion effect on deep-water calcite mask a cooling signal in the Mg/Ca records 4,5. Therefore, the observed isotope shift at Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation 22 accompanied by 4.0 uC of cooling in the deep sea or slightly less (,3.3 uC) if there was additional ice growth on West Antarctica (see Methods and Supplementary Information). This explanation is in better agreement with sequence stratigraphic estimates of sea-level fall at Oi-1(70 620 m)19,20 equivalent to 70–120% of modern Antarctic ice volume, and coupled GCM/ice-sheet simulations showing 2–5 uC cooling and expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean in response to Antarctic glaciation 29. Additional support for ocean cooling is provided by new records from Tanzania 16 and the Gulf of Mexico 15, where Mg/Ca temperature estimates show ,2.5 uC cooling in shallow, continental shelf settings during the first step of the Eocene/Oligocene transition.

In summary, our model results show that the Northern Hemisphere contained glaciers and small, isolated ice caps in high elevations through much of the Cenozoic, especially during favourable orbital periods (Fig. 3a–c). However, major continental-scale Northern Hemisphere glaciation at or before the Oi-1 event (33.6Myr) is unlikely, in keeping with recently published high-resolution Eocene no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago, pre-Pliocene records from subsequently glaciated high northern latitudes are generally lacking. More highly resolved CO2 records focusing on specific events, along with additional geological information from high northern latitudes, will help to unravel the Cenozoic evolution of the cryosphere. According to these results, this evolution may have included an episodic northern-hemispheric ice component for the past 23 million years.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

And this...

Which shows that:

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]

I say again

You [SSDD] are the liar.

Thousands of peer reviewed papers, filled with empirical evidence, have been published over the last few decades that nearly universally provide evidence that global warming is real and is being caused primarily by human GHG emissions and deforestation.

I reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study because of...

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

And this...

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.

And this...

Which shows that the modern world we live in is an icehouse and that it is geologically speaking rare.

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.

Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.

The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.

The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.

And this...

Which explains the trigger for the glacial and interglacial cycles.

And this...

Which explains the conditions necessary for the glacial-interglacial cycles were our poles being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2.

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. Over the last 5 million years there has been rapid cooling.

Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm.

Five million years ago the earth started going through glacial / interglacial cycles. The glacial / interglacial cycles of the past 3 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. But before the glacial cycle could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.

The north pole is isolated by landmasses. The south pole is isolated because of Antarctica.

And this...

Which establishes that EXTENSIVE northern hemisphere glaciation cannot occur until 280 ppm but EXTENSIVE Antarctic glaciation occurs at 750 ppm.

For major bipolar glaciation to have occurred at Oi-1, CO2 would first have to cross the Antarctic glaciation threshold (,750 p.p.m.v.) and then fall more than 400 p.p.m.v. within ,200 kyr to reach the Northern Hemisphere threshold (Fig. 4). Increased sea ice and upwelling in the Southern Ocean 13,29 and falling sea level 14 could have acted as feedbacks accelerating CO2 drawdown at the time of Oi-1.This is supported by CO2 proxy records and carbon-cycle model results showing a drop in CO2 across the Eocene/Oligocene transition10,13,14, but none of these reconstructions reach the low levels required for Northern Hemisphere glaciation. We therefore conclude that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely, and Mg/Ca-based estimates of deep-sea temperatures across the boundary 5 are unreliable. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that the 1-km deepening of the carbonate compensation depth and the associated carbonate ion effect on deep-water calcite mask a cooling signal in the Mg/Ca records 4,5. Therefore, the observed isotope shift at Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation 22 accompanied by 4.0 uC of cooling in the deep sea or slightly less (,3.3 uC) if there was additional ice growth on West Antarctica (see Methods and Supplementary Information). This explanation is in better agreement with sequence stratigraphic estimates of sea-level fall at Oi-1(70 620 m)19,20 equivalent to 70–120% of modern Antarctic ice volume, and coupled GCM/ice-sheet simulations showing 2–5 uC cooling and expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean in response to Antarctic glaciation 29. Additional support for ocean cooling is provided by new records from Tanzania 16 and the Gulf of Mexico 15, where Mg/Ca temperature estimates show ,2.5 uC cooling in shallow, continental shelf settings during the first step of the Eocene/Oligocene transition.

In summary, our model results show that the Northern Hemisphere contained glaciers and small, isolated ice caps in high elevations through much of the Cenozoic, especially during favourable orbital periods (Fig. 3a–c). However, major continental-scale Northern Hemisphere glaciation at or before the Oi-1 event (33.6Myr) is unlikely, in keeping with recently published high-resolution Eocene no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago, pre-Pliocene records from subsequently glaciated high northern latitudes are generally lacking. More highly resolved CO2 records focusing on specific events, along with additional geological information from high northern latitudes, will help to unravel the Cenozoic evolution of the cryosphere. According to these results, this evolution may have included an episodic northern-hemispheric ice component for the past 23 million years.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

And this...

Which shows that:

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.

A tropospheric hotspot is produced by any form of warming. It is NOT a specific prediction of AGW. When you start out with a mistake that big, it leads folks to skip the rest of your pretty pictures.

 

[SSDD]

You are the liar.

Thousands of peer reviewed papers, filled with empirical evidence, have been published over the last few decades that nearly universally provide evidence that global warming is real and is being caused primarily by human GHG emissions and deforestation.

The fact that there are thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting the AGW hypothesis that don't have the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis only calls the validity of the peer review system into question.

 

[polarbear]

That was all based on Pal-review not Peer-review. The pals that consent to agree get paid and those who don`t risk loosing their job and get harassed at the least.
Exactly like the gay& lesbo mob did and still does it.

 

[Crick]

Prove it. Prove ANY of your bullshit. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Abishai100]

The Casual Corner!


Here's one key difference: It's much easier winning a girlfriend who cares about environmentalism-related issues with some modest simple online ecology research on Wikipedia than it is to delve into Scientology to meet a nice girl in that church.

Why?

To be an 'eco-activist,' all you have to do is simply care about the environment (even a tiny bit).

"Good to see you at this Eco-Club meeting, Ellie. Check out this doodle my adopted son made of a Merman last night (since he's becoming interested in ocean preservation)!"

 

[ding]

I say again

You [SSDD] are the liar.

Thousands of peer reviewed papers, filled with empirical evidence, have been published over the last few decades that nearly universally provide evidence that global warming is real and is being caused primarily by human GHG emissions and deforestation.

I reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study because of...

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

And this...

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.

And this...

Which shows that the modern world we live in is an icehouse and that it is geologically speaking rare.

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.

Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.

The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.

The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.

And this...

Which explains the trigger for the glacial and interglacial cycles.

And this...

Which explains the conditions necessary for the glacial-interglacial cycles were our poles being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2.

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. Over the last 5 million years there has been rapid cooling.

Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm.

Five million years ago the earth started going through glacial / interglacial cycles. The glacial / interglacial cycles of the past 3 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. But before the glacial cycle could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.

The north pole is isolated by landmasses. The south pole is isolated because of Antarctica.

And this...

Which establishes that EXTENSIVE northern hemisphere glaciation cannot occur until 280 ppm but EXTENSIVE Antarctic glaciation occurs at 750 ppm.

For major bipolar glaciation to have occurred at Oi-1, CO2 would first have to cross the Antarctic glaciation threshold (,750 p.p.m.v.) and then fall more than 400 p.p.m.v. within ,200 kyr to reach the Northern Hemisphere threshold (Fig. 4). Increased sea ice and upwelling in the Southern Ocean 13,29 and falling sea level 14 could have acted as feedbacks accelerating CO2 drawdown at the time of Oi-1.This is supported by CO2 proxy records and carbon-cycle model results showing a drop in CO2 across the Eocene/Oligocene transition10,13,14, but none of these reconstructions reach the low levels required for Northern Hemisphere glaciation. We therefore conclude that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely, and Mg/Ca-based estimates of deep-sea temperatures across the boundary 5 are unreliable. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that the 1-km deepening of the carbonate compensation depth and the associated carbonate ion effect on deep-water calcite mask a cooling signal in the Mg/Ca records 4,5. Therefore, the observed isotope shift at Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation 22 accompanied by 4.0 uC of cooling in the deep sea or slightly less (,3.3 uC) if there was additional ice growth on West Antarctica (see Methods and Supplementary Information). This explanation is in better agreement with sequence stratigraphic estimates of sea-level fall at Oi-1(70 620 m)19,20 equivalent to 70–120% of modern Antarctic ice volume, and coupled GCM/ice-sheet simulations showing 2–5 uC cooling and expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean in response to Antarctic glaciation 29. Additional support for ocean cooling is provided by new records from Tanzania 16 and the Gulf of Mexico 15, where Mg/Ca temperature estimates show ,2.5 uC cooling in shallow, continental shelf settings during the first step of the Eocene/Oligocene transition.

In summary, our model results show that the Northern Hemisphere contained glaciers and small, isolated ice caps in high elevations through much of the Cenozoic, especially during favourable orbital periods (Fig. 3a–c). However, major continental-scale Northern Hemisphere glaciation at or before the Oi-1 event (33.6Myr) is unlikely, in keeping with recently published high-resolution Eocene no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago, pre-Pliocene records from subsequently glaciated high northern latitudes are generally lacking. More highly resolved CO2 records focusing on specific events, along with additional geological information from high northern latitudes, will help to unravel the Cenozoic evolution of the cryosphere. According to these results, this evolution may have included an episodic northern-hemispheric ice component for the past 23 million years.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

And this...

Which shows that:

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.

A tropospheric hotspot is produced by any form of warming. It is NOT a specific prediction of AGW. When you start out with a mistake that big, it leads folks to skip the rest of your pretty pictures.

Take it up with Roy Spencer.

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...." Roy Spencer

 

[mamooth]

Hilarious. Ding is like a flat earther screaming how the whole planet is part of a round-earth cult. But then, what else can he do, given how badly he sucks at logic and science?

But then, maybe Ding is on to something. Maybe a mewling pack of political fringe cult weirdos really are the only ones who know TheRealTruth, and the rest of the planet really is conspiring against them.

That's right, it means chemtrails must be real!

Oh wait. It means 9/11 was plotted by Bush!

Oh wait. It means vaccines cause autism!

Oh wait. It means the moon landing was hoax!

Ding, which cult was it you were in again? I forget. All you cultists sound alike after a while.

And Ding? Stop stealing my lines and making threads of them. Come up with your own material. If you're going to parrot mine, at least give me credit.

 

[ding]

Hilarious. Ding is like a flat earther screaming how the whole planet is part of a round-earth cult. But then, what else can he do, given how badly he sucks at logic and science?

But then, maybe Ding is on to something. Maybe a mewling pack of political fringe cult weirdos really are the only ones who know TheRealTruth, and the rest of the planet really is conspiring against them.

That's right, it means chemtrails must be real!

Oh wait. It means 9/11 was plotted by Bush!

Oh wait. It means vaccines cause autism!

Oh wait. It means the moon landing was hoax!

Ding, which cult was it you were in again? I forget. All you cultists sound alike after a while.

And Ding? Stop stealing my lines and making threads of them. Come up with your own material. If you're going to parrot mine, at least give me credit.

Do you feel better, sweetie?

 

[Crick]

Sweetie? Do you want to add misogyny to your CV?

 

[ding]

Sweetie? Do you want to add misogyny to your CV?

Sure...

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]

What is your point? Do you reject greenhouse warming? Do you reject CO2 being a greenhouse gas? Do you reject humans being responsible for the last 120 ppm of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Do you deny that current warming rates are ten times those of the Pleistocene interglacials? Do you deny that CO2 is climbing 156 times as fast as it fell in what you describe as a "major CO2 decrease"?

 

[ding]

What is your point? Do you reject greenhouse warming? Do you reject CO2 being a greenhouse gas? Do you reject humans being responsible for the last 120 ppm of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Do you deny that current warming rates are ten times those of the Pleistocene interglacials? Do you deny that CO2 is climbing 156 times as fast as it fell in what you describe as a "major CO2 decrease"?

My point is that CO2 has not been shown to drive climate change.

 

[SSDD]

What is your point? Do you reject greenhouse warming? Do you reject CO2 being a greenhouse gas? Do you reject humans being responsible for the last 120 ppm of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Do you deny that current warming rates are ten times those of the Pleistocene interglacials? Do you deny that CO2 is climbing 156 times as fast as it fell in what you describe as a "major CO2 decrease"?

We are right back to you not having the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and a bunch of unsupportable claims about the rate of climate change...in short...you have nothing but the faith that your cult demands of you...

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD and Ding, Peas in a pod. LOL

Dingleberry, you posted that graph again without even noting the scientists that published that graph came to a conclusion diametrically opposed to what you are saying about it.

 

[Dr Grump]

I see. But you aren't, right?

That's right. I'm not.

 

[ding]

I see. But you aren't, right?

That's right. I'm not.

Yet we are no different in our actions but you believe there is a problem and I don't. How do you reconcile that?

 

[ding]

SSDD and Ding, Peas in a pod. LOL

Dingleberry, you posted that graph again without even noting the scientists that published that graph came to a conclusion diametrically opposed to what you are saying about it.

Did they?

 

[Dr Grump]

Yet we are no different in our actions but you believe there is a problem and I don't. How do you reconcile that?

I don't work for a pro AGW 'industry' if there is such a thing. You work in an industry where the outcome of this debate matters. So, we are markedly different.