The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[ding]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

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.

 

[ding]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

And this...

Which explains the trigger for the glacial and interglacial cycles.

 

[ding]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

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.

 

[Pete7469]

So, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL

Actually no. I don't believe a word you say, sir.

That's a good policy

 

[ding]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

On the basis that their funding is contingent on them arriving at a predetermined result.

Lol, things that are a national security threat and economic threat to our nation must be studied.

Of course including liberal logic, that wants to cause a world wide depression to try to prevent something that will happen anyways.

Just so it makes them "feel good"

 

[ding]

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study? Blog posts from right wing journalists?

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.

 

[leftwinger]

I don't like a lot of facts and stuff. Makes me too tired. I keep a pile of pallets and old tires burning out back to help out crop growers. I don't get headaches (bless the Lord) I just get tired, very tired. GW facts make me tired.

 

[Wuwei]

Ding,
All those charts and graphs show a lot of work in compiling the data and in laying out the graphics. Did you do all that yourself or did they come from some reference. If it's the latter it would be very thoughtful if you cited the sources of the information and graphics.

 

[ding]

Ding,
All those charts and graphs show a lot of work in compiling the data and in laying out the graphics. Did you do all that yourself or did they come from some reference. If it's the latter it would be very thoughtful if you cited the sources of the information and graphics.

No. I got them from a colleague. I have it on a pdf. Let me look to see if it is available online.

 

[mamooth]

It depends on where you start from. I started 50 years ago. If memory serves, there has been some increase, most of which can be explained by the Soviet Union shutting down hundreds of weather stations in Siberia.

I'm sure you recall many of the conspiracy theories that your favorite fake news sits have fed to you. They're all fictional, but then, this is the post-truth world, where much of the population believes that truth is whatever their political party defines it to be, no matter what the evidence says.

If we go back 20 years, there has been either no increase, or a slight decrease, depending on who's computer model produces the results.

Good example. That claim is flatly by the directly measured data, but much of the population still believes it, solely because of their politics. The real data -- based on these things called "thermometers" that directly measure "temperature", with no models required -- shows a steady strong warming for the past 50 years.

[/QUOTE]

 

[mamooth]

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

So?

What does that have to do with the current sudden increase in temperatures now, which there is no natural explanation for?

Your logic fails. Your premise, that "the climate system of the past few million years is different", in no way supports your conclusion, that "current warming must be natural."

 

[mamooth]

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

As nobody ever claimed CO2 was the only driver of temperature, this post is also a total logic failure.

 

[mamooth]

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.

And another logic failure.

"It was warmer in the past" in no way disproves "humans are causing fast warming right now".

It also ignores the directly measured evidence that shows greenhouse gases to be the cause of the current fast warming. Increased backradiation, stratospheric cooling, a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG emission bands. There's no natural explanation for any of that, which rules out natural cycles as a cause of current warming.

 

[mamooth]

Let's see... this...
"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.

Which has been observed. Spencer's science there is not well regarded. Rather than cult-and-paste a giant load of stuff, I'll link to some in-depth discussions.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Point is, that was sort of a cherrypicking fallacy on your part. You went with a single scientist's opinion, and ignored the preponderance of evidence.

 

[ding]

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

So?

What does that have to do with the current sudden increase in temperatures now, which there is no natural explanation for?

Your logic fails. Your premise, that "the climate system of the past few million years is different", in no way supports your conclusion, that "current warming must be natural."

But there is an explanation. We are in an interglacial cycle.

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. Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

Let's see... this...
"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.

Which has been observed. Spencer's science there is not well regarded. Rather than cult-and-paste a giant load of stuff, I'll link to some in-depth discussions.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Point is, that was sort of a cherrypicking fallacy on your part. You went with a single scientist's opinion, and ignored the preponderance of evidence.

There was zero cherry picking. This is the actual data. There is no hot spot. They said there would be. It's not there. If you really believe that it has been cherry picked and that you have proven anything with two lnks, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to show me a plot of the data back to 1979, should it? Put up or shut up. Now run away and hide.

Spencer's science is not well regarded? Are you smoking crack? Whose name do you see referenced on the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory's page on MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) Daily Troposphere Temperatures and Precipitation website page?

ESRL : PSD : MSU Daily Troposphere Temperatures and Precipitation

 

[ding]

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

As nobody ever claimed CO2 was the only driver of temperature, this post is also a total logic failure.

Then why are you claiming that today?

 

[ding]

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.

And another logic failure.

"It was warmer in the past" in no way disproves "humans are causing fast warming right now".

It also ignores the directly measured evidence that shows greenhouse gases to be the cause of the current fast warming. Increased backradiation, stratospheric cooling, a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG emission bands. There's no natural explanation for any of that, which rules out natural cycles as a cause of current warming.

I thought you were an engineer? We are in an interglacial cycle. If you look at the data everything is still within that norm. The temperature increase of the last 200 years is normal. The declining temperature for 1800 years is normal. Look at the graphs. See the saw tooth behaviors on the present interglacial cycle. Have you not noticed how you are the only one arguing this? Do you know why? Because the others are smart enough to know better.

 

[ding]

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.

And another logic failure.

"It was warmer in the past" in no way disproves "humans are causing fast warming right now".

It also ignores the directly measured evidence that shows greenhouse gases to be the cause of the current fast warming. Increased backradiation, stratospheric cooling, a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG emission bands. There's no natural explanation for any of that, which rules out natural cycles as a cause of current warming.

There is no direct evidence that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increase of the past 200 years. How long do you believe it takes for CO2 to heat up our planet?