Watch Tucker Carlson Lose It After Bill Nye Takes Him To School On Climate Change

[RollingThunder]

We're not losing ice at an accelerating pace. That's a lie. At one pole we are losing ice, at the other poll we're gaining ice.

You know nothing:

CryoSat finds sharp increase in Antarctica’s ice losses
19 May 2014
Three years of observations from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.

The polar ice sheets are a major contributor to the rise in global sea levels, and these newly measured losses from Antarctica alone are enough to raise global sea levels by 0.45 mm each year.

These latest findings by a team of scientists from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling show that the pattern of imbalance continues to be dominated by glaciers thinning in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica.
[...]

Ice loss and sea level rise

Cumulative changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet (pink) and the Greenland ice sheet (blue) from 1992 to 2011 determined from a reconciliation of measurements acquired by satellite radar altimetry, the input-output method, satellite gravimetry and satellite laser altimetry. Also shown is the equivalent global sea level contribution, calculated assuming that 360 gigatonnes of ice corresponds to 1 mm of sea level rise.​

End of.

Actually, it is YOU who know nothing. Here is a more recent article, why didn't you reference it I wonder.

....Now, a new study by a team of NASA climate scientists has sparked controversy by reporting that “Antarctica is actually gaining ice.”

Scientists concluded in the Journal of Glaciology that the loss of glacier mass in Antarctica’s western region is being offset by thickening of glaciers on the continent’s eastern interior, which has experienced increased snowfall. The result: A net gain of about 100 billion tons of ice per year, according to the report.

That was one study that only studied a part of Antarctica and used data that stops in 2008. A number of other studies say the oposite.

Here's a good analysis of what is actually happening.

Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice? Hint: Losing.
Slate
By Phil Plait
NOV. 3 2015
A new study just published in the Journal of Glaciology is causing some buzz in climate circles, because it appears to claim that Antarctica — long thought to be losing ice at extremely alarming rates — is actually gaining ice.

However, note the word appears. The reality is more complicated, and in the end the important aspect of this is that the study only talks about part of Antarctica, and only used data up to 2008. Both of these points are critical.

Here’s what’s what.

The authors looked at satellite altimeter data, using that to track how much snow accumulated over a given time period. Looking at different satellites, they found that enough snow fell over some parts of the southern continent (most importantly the vast area of East Antarctica) to more than balance the ice lost via melting.

In other words, East Antarctica (and parts of West) was gaining mass. That’s interesting!

But the authors note that the accumulation rate is steady while losses are increasing. As they mention in their conclusion, this gain in mass over the regions studied can’t keep up with losses, and they’re likely to balance in about 20 years. After that, losses win.

There’s more. They looked at data going from 1992–2008. Starting right around that time, mass loss due to melting ice in Antarctica (mostly in the west) has accelerated. It’s actually been speeding up for some time, but in recent years it’s really kicked in. Every year, about 6 billion more tons of ice are lost than the year before. In the past two decades, the loss rate has doubled.

This is enough to easily outpace the mass gained by snowfall over East Antarctica. Using data taken by the Grace satellites (which measure how mass underneath them changes over time), we know that overall, Antarctica is currently losing more than 130 billion tons of ice per year, and again, that number is increasing every year. Since 2002 it’s lost about 2 trillion tons of ice.

Mind you, this isn’t including Greenland, which is losing ice at an even more staggering 280 billion tons per year, and has lost well over three trillion tons over that same time period.

So no matter how you slice it, Antarctica is losing ice, and losing it fast.


Mass of ice lost in Antarctica due to melting from 2002 through Nov. 2014. Note the trend. The 0 point is the average over the time period. - Diagram by NASA

There’s one step in the new study I found interesting, and a little worrisome: They measure how the height of snow increased in East Antarctica, but it’s a little bit problematic converting that to how much mass of ice was gained. As the snow falls, it gets compressed over time and turns into ice. That process isn’t completely understood, as Robin Bell (who studies Antarctic ice) points out in a quote in an article about this on Vice. In that same piece, climatologist Gavin Schmidt says he thinks the Grace measurements (which show far more ice loss from Antarctica) are more reliable as well. You can read more about this at HotWhopper.

Of course, the usual suspects in the global warming–denying noise machine are jumping all over this study, claiming triumph … but, as usual, they obfuscate, they cherry-pick, and they ignore evidence that contradicts their claims that everything is rolling along just fine.

Here’s the difference between real science and what they do: When I first read about this Antarctic study, my reaction was one of hope. Although I knew that sea levels were rising, and that this must be coming from somewhere, if Antarctica was actually gaining ice, that could provide a good buffer against catastrophic melting.

But upon further examination it became clear that this was not the case. I was happy to entertain the notion that I might be wrong in my conclusions, and I still am. But all the evidence points to the conclusion that Antarctica is still losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice per year, will lose more every year, and it’s joined (and even outpaced) by Greenland.

The world really is warming up. We really are losing ice. The sea levels really are rising. Oceans really are getting more acidic as they absorb some of the 40 billion extra tons of carbon dioxide we humans pump into the atmosphere every year.

I look at the data and I’m alarmed by it. I wish it weren’t so, but the data, the science, the reality of this doesn’t give a damn what we wish.

It only reacts to what we do.

 

[Billy_Bob]

can you scribe Nye's answer to why he felt skeptics should be locked up? seems he skated off on that one. you heard him say something?what was it then?

what's funny is Nye stated he never made that statement. Too funny

He didn't say it, it was Robert Kennedy Jr who said it, so Nye was correct and BowTucker was dead wrong as usual.

well is his quote:

"YouTube channel, cfact, sat down with Nye and at some point Marc Morano asked the celebrity in a lab coat if the idea being passed around by climate change activists to throw skeptics in jail isn’t too extreme.

“We’ll see what happens, was it appropriate to jail the guys at Enron?” responded Nye. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?”"

Dude there is but one conclusion to draw from those responses. and jailing deniers is that conclusion. And is what Carlson was quoting.

And none of those quotes match the "quote" out of BowTucker's mouth.
I will remind you that NO cigarette execs were jailed!!!

it's what carlson read. sorry. Nye said he never said it. derp

Yet it was a direct quote of Nye... Hilarious

 

[jc456]

what's funny is Nye stated he never made that statement. Too funny

He didn't say it, it was Robert Kennedy Jr who said it, so Nye was correct and BowTucker was dead wrong as usual.

well is his quote:

"YouTube channel, cfact, sat down with Nye and at some point Marc Morano asked the celebrity in a lab coat if the idea being passed around by climate change activists to throw skeptics in jail isn’t too extreme.

“We’ll see what happens, was it appropriate to jail the guys at Enron?” responded Nye. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?”"

Dude there is but one conclusion to draw from those responses. and jailing deniers is that conclusion. And is what Carlson was quoting.

And none of those quotes match the "quote" out of BowTucker's mouth.
I will remind you that NO cigarette execs were jailed!!!

it's what carlson read. sorry. Nye said he never said it. derp

Yet it was a direct quote of Nye... Hilarious

Arguing with stupid like these idiots is nonstop

 

[RollingThunder]

The Bullshiter's usual denier cult drivel and lies that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation the world is facing.

The world scientific community is almost unanimous in warning us that human activities have raised atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, by about 45% so far, with levels still rising fast, which is causing abrupt, rapid global warming which is starting to cause climate changes that will be very catastrophic for human civilization and all life on this planet.

Those are the facts.

The ginned up cult of AGW denial, full of ignorant rightwingnut morons, has the agenda their puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry gave them - deny reality, fraudulently dispute the scientific evidence, try to delay any efforts to reduce carbon emissions so that the oil and coal barrons and corporate exectives can continue to make hundreds of billions of dollars profit every year selling the stuff that is killing our only planet.....and, of course, lie, lie, lie!

Well I can certainly refute your claim that man is responsible for the 45% increase in CO2 over the last 150~200 years.

Nope! Sorry, little retard. You can't. Another one of your ignorant hallucinations, I'm afraid.

This amount must dismiss ALL natural phenomenon regarding CO2. In other words, Mother Nature has stood on the sidelines since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, neither creating or processing ANY CO2. That's the ONLY way you can attribute this 45% increase to man.

Nope again, dope. Just your ignorance showing again.

Natural processes have kept CO2 levels fairly constant at 280ppm for most of the Holocene. Although nature produces massive CO2 emissions every year, they are balanced every year by natural CO2 absorption and sequestration, so that levels have remained fairly steady for thousands of years. It is mankind's burning of fosssil fuels....which releases millions of years of years of natural carbon sequestration into ancient plants in just a matter of decades.....that have raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 45% so far.....and that is not even considering the enormous amounts of the excess CO2 that has been absorbed into the oceans, causing global warming' evil twin, ocean acidification. Scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel has been burned every year and the numbers match up quite well with the amount of extra excess CO2 in the air. Isotope analysis of the carbon dioxide in the air has identified the amounts that came from those ancient plants. We know where the extra CO2 came from, you clueless fool.

...this flat out denial of actual science...

Yeah, that's what you doing in every bullshit filled post you poop out onto this forum, all right.

you run to the safety of argumentum ad populum. Sorry....

....dumbshit, but the very real scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes IS a valid piece of evidence that only ignorant cretins would imagine amounts to an "argumentum ad populum". You are an extremely ignorant and misinformed scientific retard.

Bull poo as usual.

Well, thanks for letting us know in advance just what you're going to post.......of course, having seen the fraudulent BS you have always posted, it comes as no surprise,...

All you have is computer derived fiction to support your never ending line of bullshit.

Nope! Your braindead denier cult myths aside, what I have to debunk your retarded nonsense is a world scientific consensus based on enormous amounts of hard physical evidence....plus the laws of physics!

You anti science religious freaks are truly some of the stupidest people on the planet.

You shouldn't talk like that to your fellow denier cult nitwits....they might kick you out of the cult.

The facts are that CO2 atmospheric content RISES with global temperature. When it is warm the oceans outgas the CO2, and CO2 has no ability to raise global temps. None.

A laughably insane, anti-science denier cult myth. The greenhouse gas properties of carbon dioxide are a firmly established scientific fact. In reality, increases in CO2 levels definitely cause an increase in global temperatures. By the laws of physics, they have to.

What Thawed the Last Ice Age?
Scientific American
By David Biello
April 4, 2012
Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe and North America stopped their creeping advance. Within a few hundred years sea levels in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters -- more than if the ice sheet that still covers Greenland were to melt today. This freshwater flood filled the North Atlantic and also shut down the ocean currents that conveyed warmer water from equatorial regions northward. The equatorial heat warmed the precincts of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere instead, shrinking the fringing sea ice and changing the circumpolar winds. As a result the waters of the Southern Ocean may have begun to release carbon dioxide, enough to raise concentrations in the atmosphere by more than 100 parts per million over millennia -- roughly equivalent to the rise in the last 200 years. That CO2 then warmed the globe, melting back the continental ice sheets and ushering in the current climate that enabled humanity to thrive.

That, at least, is the story told by a new paper published in Nature on April 5 that reconstructs the end of the last ice age. Researchers examined sediment cores collected from deep beneath the sea and from lakes as well as the tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped inside ice cores taken from Antarctica, Greenland and elsewhere. (Scientific Americanis part of Nature Publishing Group.) The research suggests that -- contrary to some prior findings -- CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa, just as it continues to do today thanks to rising emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 [levels]," explains paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fellow at Harvard and Columbia universities, who led the research charting ancient CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."

Shakun and his colleagues started by creating the first global set of temperature proxies -- a set of 80 different records from around the world that recorded temperatures from roughly 20,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Ranging from the magnesium levels in microscopic seashells pulled from ocean sediment cores to pollen counts in layers of muck from lakebeds, the proxies delivered thousands of temperature readings over the period. "Ice cores only tell you about temperatures in Antarctica," Shakun notes of previous studies that relied exclusively on an ice core from Antarctica that records atmospheric conditions over the last 800,000 years. "You don't want to look at just one spot on the map for global warming."

Comparing the global set of temperature records with the levels of CO2 in the ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores reveals that global average temperatures started to rise at least a century after CO2 levels began to creep up. That's the reverse of what seems to have happened in Antarctica, where warming temperatures precede rising CO2 levels. But that local warming may be explained by this shutdown of ocean currents as a result of massive glacial melt in the Northern Hemisphere -- a result further reinforced by computer modeling using the data gathered from the real-world record.

"We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes" that affect the amount of sunlight striking the far north, explains geologist Peter Clark of Oregon State University, who guided Shakun's research. The melting in the north could have been triggered "because the ice sheets had reached such a size that they had become unstable and were ready to go." This may also help explain the cyclical rise and fall of ice ages over hundreds of thousands of years.

Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause -- rising levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from fossil fuel burning, cutting down forests and other human activities. And, in the past rising CO2 levels at the very least magnified global warming, ushering in the relatively balmy, stable climate sometimes called the "long summer" that has allowed human civilization to flourish. Humanity has now raised global CO2 levels by more than the rise from roughly 180 to 260 ppm at the end of the last ice age, albeit in a few hundred years rather than over more than a few thousand years. "The end of an ice age, you have a sense in your bones what that means: a big, significant change for the planet," Shakun says. "It's a tangible example of what rising CO2 can mean for the planet over the long-term."

In fact, the amount of global warming already guaranteed by existing concentrations of CO2 in the atmospher -- 392 ppm and still rising -- will also play out over centuries, if not millennia. "The rise at the end of the Ice Age and today is about the same [a rise of 100 ppm] and we're going to be well above and beyond," most likely increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases by hundreds of parts per million from preindustrial levels, Shakun notes. "We will only see some of that realized in this next century. It will be many centuries and beyond to feel the full effects."

The very mechanism by which it would do the job, namely raising the temperature of the oceans it can not do as the long wave IR that it emits can't even break the skin of the water. Thus the oceans stay cool no matter how much long wave IR hits them. The whole theory collapses with that well known FACT.

That's NOT a fact, you poor bamboozled science denier. It is a denier cult myth.

In the real world....

How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
by Rob Painting
18 October 2011
Much like a heated kettle of water takes some time before it comes to the boil, it seems intuitive that the world's oceans will also take some time to fully respond to global warming. Unlike a kettle, however, it's not obvious how the oceans warm.

Adding further greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the ocean cool skin layer, which in turn reduces the amount of heat flowing out of the ocean. Reducing the heat lost to the atmosphere allows the oceans to steadily warm over time - as has been observed over the last half century.

Warming on sunshine
Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. Once heated, the ocean surface becomes warmer than the atmosphere above, and because of this heat flows from the warm ocean to the cool atmosphere above. This process is represented in the graphic below:

Figure 1 - simplified steps of ocean heating

The 'cool skin' layer
The rate of flow of heat out of the ocean is determined by the temperature gradient in the 'cool skin layer', which resides within the thin viscous surface layer of ocean that is in contact with the atmosphere. It's so named because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the atmosphere, and therefore becomes cooler than the water immediately below. Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans.

Curious behavior in the cool skin layer
The cool skin behaves quite differently to the water below, because it is the boundary where the ocean and air meet, and therefore turbulence (the transfer of energy/heat via large-scale motion) falls away as it approaches this boundary. No longer free to jiggle around and transfer heat via this large scale motion, water molecules in the layer are forced together and heat is only able to travel through the skin layer by way of conduction. With conduction the steepness of the temperature gradient is critical to the rate of heat transfer.

Greenhouse gas-induced warming of the ocean
Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer, and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer.

Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to the atmosphere. One way to think about this is to compare the gradient (steepness) of a flowing river - water flows faster the steeper the river becomes, but slows as the steepness decreases.

The same concept applies to the cool skin layer - warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean.

The ever-present effect of the cool skin layer
An important point not be be glossed over here, is that changing the temperature gradient in the cool skin layer by way of greenhouse gas warming is a worldwide phenomenon. Once the gradient has changed, all heat leaving the ocean thereafter has to negotiate its way through the layer. With the gradient lowered, the ocean is able to steal away a little bit more from heat headed for the atmosphere. It is in this ever-present mechanism that oceans are able to undergo long-term warming (or cooling).

Experimental evidence for greenhouse gas heating of the oceans
Obviously it's not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air in order to carry out real world experiments, but natural changes in cloud cover provide an opportunity to test the principle. Under cloudy conditions, the cloud cover radiates more heat back down toward the ocean surface than happens under clear sky conditions. So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.

This was observed in an experiment carried out in 2004, aboard the New Zealand research ship Tangaroa. Using intruments to simultaneously measure the 'cool skin', the ocean below, and the amount of heat (longwave radiation) reaching the ocean surface, researchers were able to confirm how greenhouse gases heat the ocean. It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions, but the relationship was nevertheless established.

Figure 2 -The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave (heat) radiation. The net forcing is negative as the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean skin layer, but approaches zero under cloudy conditions. See Real Climatepost "Why Greenhouse Gases Heat The Ocean" by Professor Peter Minnett.

Greenhouse Gases: On duty 24/7
The effect of greenhouse gases on ocean heat isn't confined to daylight hours however, they toil away around the clock. The warming of the oceans by sunlight, makes the daytime surface waters more bouyant than the cooler waters below and this leads to stratification - a situation where the warmer water floats atop cooler waters underneath, and is less inclined to mix. At night much of the heat accumulated during the day is lost back to the atmosphere (the overling air still being cooler than the ocean), and this cooling leads to the stratified surface layers sinking and mixing with lower layers. This allows the remaining heat to be transported down deeper into the ocean, causing an increase in ocean heatcontent over the long-term. The typical diurnal (day/night) cycle is seen in the figure below:

Figure 3 - Schematic showing the upper ocean temperature profiles during the (A) nighttime or well mixed daytime and (B) daytime during conditions conducive to the formation of a diurnal warm layer. Image from Gentemann & Minnett (2008)

Warming in the pipeline
Given the atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is many hundreds to thousands of years, we can now understand that long-lived greenhouses will also continue to exert a warming influence on the worlds oceans for a very long time. Indeed, climate models suggest that ocean warming will continue for at least a thousand years even if CO2 emissions were to completely stop. See below:

Fig 5 - Time series of the (modeled) climate response to a cessation of CO2 emissions. a) global mean thermosteric sea level anomaly (b) and zonal mean ocean temperature at 792.5mtrs, 66 S (the Southern Ocean). Green line = cessation of CO2 at 2010 & red line = cessation at 2100. From Gillett (2011).

Ocean warming not just skin deep
Because of their effect on lowering the temperature gradient of the cool skin layer, increased levels of greenhouse gases lead to more heat being stored in the oceans over the long-term. This ocean warming mechanism has been observed experimentally, and is also supported by numerical modeling.

So although greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, don't directly warm the oceans by channeling heat down into the oceans, they still do indeed heat the oceans, and are likely to do so for a very long time.

Now piss off little denier troll.

LOLOLOLOL.....I bet you hear that said to you every day of your life.

 

[westwall]

The Bullshiter's usual denier cult drivel and lies that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation the world is facing.

The world scientific community is almost unanimous in warning us that human activities have raised atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, by about 45% so far, with levels still rising fast, which is causing abrupt, rapid global warming which is starting to cause climate changes that will be very catastrophic for human civilization and all life on this planet.

Those are the facts.

The ginned up cult of AGW denial, full of ignorant rightwingnut morons, has the agenda their puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry gave them - deny reality, fraudulently dispute the scientific evidence, try to delay any efforts to reduce carbon emissions so that the oil and coal barrons and corporate exectives can continue to make hundreds of billions of dollars profit every year selling the stuff that is killing our only planet.....and, of course, lie, lie, lie!

Well I can certainly refute your claim that man is responsible for the 45% increase in CO2 over the last 150~200 years.

Nope! Sorry, little retard. You can't. Another one of your ignorant hallucinations, I'm afraid.

This amount must dismiss ALL natural phenomenon regarding CO2. In other words, Mother Nature has stood on the sidelines since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, neither creating or processing ANY CO2. That's the ONLY way you can attribute this 45% increase to man.

Nope again, dope. Just your ignorance showing again.

Natural processes have kept CO2 levels fairly constant at 280ppm for most of the Holocene. Although nature produces massive CO2 emissions every year, they are balanced every year by natural CO2 absorption and sequestration, so that levels have remained fairly steady for thousands of years. It is mankind's burning of fosssil fuels....which releases millions of years of years of natural carbon sequestration into ancient plants in just a matter of decades.....that have raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 45% so far.....and that is not even considering the enormous amounts of the excess CO2 that has been absorbed into the oceans, causing global warming' evil twin, ocean acidification. Scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel has been burned every year and the numbers match up quite well with the amount of extra excess CO2 in the air. Isotope analysis of the carbon dioxide in the air has identified the amounts that came from those ancient plants. We know where the extra CO2 came from, you clueless fool.

...this flat out denial of actual science...

Yeah, that's what you doing in every bullshit filled post you poop out onto this forum, all right.

you run to the safety of argumentum ad populum. Sorry....

....dumbshit, but the very real scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes IS a valid piece of evidence that only ignorant cretins would imagine amounts to an "argumentum ad populum". You are an extremely ignorant and misinformed scientific retard.

Bull poo as usual.

Well, thanks for letting us know in advance just what you're going to post.......of course, having seen the fraudulent BS you have always posted, it comes as no surprise,...

All you have is computer derived fiction to support your never ending line of bullshit.

Nope! Your braindead denier cult myths aside, what I have to debunk your retarded nonsense is a world scientific consensus based on enormous amounts of hard physical evidence....plus the laws of physics!

You anti science religious freaks are truly some of the stupidest people on the planet.

You shouldn't talk like that to your fellow denier cult nitwits....they might kick you out of the cult.

The facts are that CO2 atmospheric content RISES with global temperature. When it is warm the oceans outgas the CO2, and CO2 has no ability to raise global temps. None.

A laughably insane, anti-science denier cult myth. The greenhouse gas properties of carbon dioxide are a firmly established scientific fact. In reality, increases in CO2 levels definitely cause an increase in global temperatures. By the laws of physics, they have to.

What Thawed the Last Ice Age?
Scientific American
By David Biello
April 4, 2012
Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe and North America stopped their creeping advance. Within a few hundred years sea levels in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters -- more than if the ice sheet that still covers Greenland were to melt today. This freshwater flood filled the North Atlantic and also shut down the ocean currents that conveyed warmer water from equatorial regions northward. The equatorial heat warmed the precincts of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere instead, shrinking the fringing sea ice and changing the circumpolar winds. As a result the waters of the Southern Ocean may have begun to release carbon dioxide, enough to raise concentrations in the atmosphere by more than 100 parts per million over millennia -- roughly equivalent to the rise in the last 200 years. That CO2 then warmed the globe, melting back the continental ice sheets and ushering in the current climate that enabled humanity to thrive.

That, at least, is the story told by a new paper published in Nature on April 5 that reconstructs the end of the last ice age. Researchers examined sediment cores collected from deep beneath the sea and from lakes as well as the tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped inside ice cores taken from Antarctica, Greenland and elsewhere. (Scientific Americanis part of Nature Publishing Group.) The research suggests that -- contrary to some prior findings -- CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa, just as it continues to do today thanks to rising emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 [levels]," explains paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fellow at Harvard and Columbia universities, who led the research charting ancient CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."

Shakun and his colleagues started by creating the first global set of temperature proxies -- a set of 80 different records from around the world that recorded temperatures from roughly 20,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Ranging from the magnesium levels in microscopic seashells pulled from ocean sediment cores to pollen counts in layers of muck from lakebeds, the proxies delivered thousands of temperature readings over the period. "Ice cores only tell you about temperatures in Antarctica," Shakun notes of previous studies that relied exclusively on an ice core from Antarctica that records atmospheric conditions over the last 800,000 years. "You don't want to look at just one spot on the map for global warming."

Comparing the global set of temperature records with the levels of CO2 in the ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores reveals that global average temperatures started to rise at least a century after CO2 levels began to creep up. That's the reverse of what seems to have happened in Antarctica, where warming temperatures precede rising CO2 levels. But that local warming may be explained by this shutdown of ocean currents as a result of massive glacial melt in the Northern Hemisphere -- a result further reinforced by computer modeling using the data gathered from the real-world record.

"We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes" that affect the amount of sunlight striking the far north, explains geologist Peter Clark of Oregon State University, who guided Shakun's research. The melting in the north could have been triggered "because the ice sheets had reached such a size that they had become unstable and were ready to go." This may also help explain the cyclical rise and fall of ice ages over hundreds of thousands of years.

Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause -- rising levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from fossil fuel burning, cutting down forests and other human activities. And, in the past rising CO2 levels at the very least magnified global warming, ushering in the relatively balmy, stable climate sometimes called the "long summer" that has allowed human civilization to flourish. Humanity has now raised global CO2 levels by more than the rise from roughly 180 to 260 ppm at the end of the last ice age, albeit in a few hundred years rather than over more than a few thousand years. "The end of an ice age, you have a sense in your bones what that means: a big, significant change for the planet," Shakun says. "It's a tangible example of what rising CO2 can mean for the planet over the long-term."

In fact, the amount of global warming already guaranteed by existing concentrations of CO2 in the atmospher -- 392 ppm and still rising -- will also play out over centuries, if not millennia. "The rise at the end of the Ice Age and today is about the same [a rise of 100 ppm] and we're going to be well above and beyond," most likely increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases by hundreds of parts per million from preindustrial levels, Shakun notes. "We will only see some of that realized in this next century. It will be many centuries and beyond to feel the full effects."

The very mechanism by which it would do the job, namely raising the temperature of the oceans it can not do as the long wave IR that it emits can't even break the skin of the water. Thus the oceans stay cool no matter how much long wave IR hits them. The whole theory collapses with that well known FACT.

That's NOT a fact, you poor bamboozled science denier. It is a denier cult myth.

In the real world....

How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
by Rob Painting
18 October 2011
Much like a heated kettle of water takes some time before it comes to the boil, it seems intuitive that the world's oceans will also take some time to fully respond to global warming. Unlike a kettle, however, it's not obvious how the oceans warm.

Adding further greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the ocean cool skin layer, which in turn reduces the amount of heat flowing out of the ocean. Reducing the heat lost to the atmosphere allows the oceans to steadily warm over time - as has been observed over the last half century.

Warming on sunshine
Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. Once heated, the ocean surface becomes warmer than the atmosphere above, and because of this heat flows from the warm ocean to the cool atmosphere above. This process is represented in the graphic below:

Figure 1 - simplified steps of ocean heating

The 'cool skin' layer
The rate of flow of heat out of the ocean is determined by the temperature gradient in the 'cool skin layer', which resides within the thin viscous surface layer of ocean that is in contact with the atmosphere. It's so named because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the atmosphere, and therefore becomes cooler than the water immediately below. Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans.

Curious behavior in the cool skin layer
The cool skin behaves quite differently to the water below, because it is the boundary where the ocean and air meet, and therefore turbulence (the transfer of energy/heat via large-scale motion) falls away as it approaches this boundary. No longer free to jiggle around and transfer heat via this large scale motion, water molecules in the layer are forced together and heat is only able to travel through the skin layer by way of conduction. With conduction the steepness of the temperature gradient is critical to the rate of heat transfer.

Greenhouse gas-induced warming of the ocean
Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer, and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer.

Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to the atmosphere. One way to think about this is to compare the gradient (steepness) of a flowing river - water flows faster the steeper the river becomes, but slows as the steepness decreases.

The same concept applies to the cool skin layer - warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean.

The ever-present effect of the cool skin layer
An important point not be be glossed over here, is that changing the temperature gradient in the cool skin layer by way of greenhouse gas warming is a worldwide phenomenon. Once the gradient has changed, all heat leaving the ocean thereafter has to negotiate its way through the layer. With the gradient lowered, the ocean is able to steal away a little bit more from heat headed for the atmosphere. It is in this ever-present mechanism that oceans are able to undergo long-term warming (or cooling).

Experimental evidence for greenhouse gas heating of the oceans
Obviously it's not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air in order to carry out real world experiments, but natural changes in cloud cover provide an opportunity to test the principle. Under cloudy conditions, the cloud cover radiates more heat back down toward the ocean surface than happens under clear sky conditions. So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.

This was observed in an experiment carried out in 2004, aboard the New Zealand research ship Tangaroa. Using intruments to simultaneously measure the 'cool skin', the ocean below, and the amount of heat (longwave radiation) reaching the ocean surface, researchers were able to confirm how greenhouse gases heat the ocean. It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions, but the relationship was nevertheless established.

Figure 2 -The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave (heat) radiation. The net forcing is negative as the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean skin layer, but approaches zero under cloudy conditions. See Real Climatepost "Why Greenhouse Gases Heat The Ocean" by Professor Peter Minnett.

Greenhouse Gases: On duty 24/7
The effect of greenhouse gases on ocean heat isn't confined to daylight hours however, they toil away around the clock. The warming of the oceans by sunlight, makes the daytime surface waters more bouyant than the cooler waters below and this leads to stratification - a situation where the warmer water floats atop cooler waters underneath, and is less inclined to mix. At night much of the heat accumulated during the day is lost back to the atmosphere (the overling air still being cooler than the ocean), and this cooling leads to the stratified surface layers sinking and mixing with lower layers. This allows the remaining heat to be transported down deeper into the ocean, causing an increase in ocean heatcontent over the long-term. The typical diurnal (day/night) cycle is seen in the figure below:

Figure 3 - Schematic showing the upper ocean temperature profiles during the (A) nighttime or well mixed daytime and (B) daytime during conditions conducive to the formation of a diurnal warm layer. Image from Gentemann & Minnett (2008)

Warming in the pipeline
Given the atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is many hundreds to thousands of years, we can now understand that long-lived greenhouses will also continue to exert a warming influence on the worlds oceans for a very long time. Indeed, climate models suggest that ocean warming will continue for at least a thousand years even if CO2 emissions were to completely stop. See below:

Fig 5 - Time series of the (modeled) climate response to a cessation of CO2 emissions. a) global mean thermosteric sea level anomaly (b) and zonal mean ocean temperature at 792.5mtrs, 66 S (the Southern Ocean). Green line = cessation of CO2 at 2010 & red line = cessation at 2100. From Gillett (2011).

Ocean warming not just skin deep
Because of their effect on lowering the temperature gradient of the cool skin layer, increased levels of greenhouse gases lead to more heat being stored in the oceans over the long-term. This ocean warming mechanism has been observed experimentally, and is also supported by numerical modeling.

So although greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, don't directly warm the oceans by channeling heat down into the oceans, they still do indeed heat the oceans, and are likely to do so for a very long time.

Now piss off little denier troll.

LOLOLOLOL.....I bet you hear that said to you every day of your life.

That's some cute BS you posted. The fact is no one knows for certain what causes the ice ages. Your little post is based entirely on computer derived fiction. That is called SCIENCE FICTION. Heinlein does it better.

 

[RollingThunder]

That's some cute BS you posted. The fact is no one knows for certain what causes the ice ages. Your little post is based entirely on computer derived fiction. That is called SCIENCE FICTION. Heinlein does it better.

LOL. It's called 'science'.....and the fact that you reject it because you can't understand it is definitely your problem, bozo.

Your denier cult myths about science are very hilarious, BTW.

In the real world of science....

ICE AGES – WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT CAUSES THEM?
Utah Geological Survey
By Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek
What is an ice age? An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.

What causes an ice age and glacial-interglacial cycles? Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions. The following discusses key factors in (1) initiating ice ages and (2) the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles.

One significant trigger in initiating ice ages is the changing positions of Earth’s ever-moving continents, which affect ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. When plate-tectonic movement causes continents to be arranged such that warm water flow from the equator to the poles is blocked or reduced, ice sheets may arise and set another ice age in motion.

Today’s ice age most likely began when the land bridge between North and South America (Isthmus of Panama) formed and ended the exchange of tropical water between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, significantly altering ocean currents.

How do we know about past ice ages? Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.

Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate. Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.

Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth’s two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.

Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).

 

[jc456]

That's some cute BS you posted. The fact is no one knows for certain what causes the ice ages. Your little post is based entirely on computer derived fiction. That is called SCIENCE FICTION. Heinlein does it better.

LOL. It's called 'science'.....and the fact that you reject it because you can't understand it is definitely your problem, bozo.

Your denier cult myths about science are very hilarious, BTW.

In the real world of science....

ICE AGES – WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT CAUSES THEM?
Utah Geological Survey
By Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek
What is an ice age? An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.

What causes an ice age and glacial-interglacial cycles? Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions. The following discusses key factors in (1) initiating ice ages and (2) the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles.

One significant trigger in initiating ice ages is the changing positions of Earth’s ever-moving continents, which affect ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. When plate-tectonic movement causes continents to be arranged such that warm water flow from the equator to the poles is blocked or reduced, ice sheets may arise and set another ice age in motion.

Today’s ice age most likely began when the land bridge between North and South America (Isthmus of Panama) formed and ended the exchange of tropical water between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, significantly altering ocean currents.

How do we know about past ice ages? Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.

Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate. Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.

Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth’s two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.

Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).

 

[RollingThunder]

That's some cute BS you posted. The fact is no one knows for certain what causes the ice ages. Your little post is based entirely on computer derived fiction. That is called SCIENCE FICTION. Heinlein does it better.

LOL. It's called 'science'.....and the fact that you reject it because you can't understand it is definitely your problem, bozo.

Your denier cult myths about science are very hilarious, BTW.

In the real world of science....

ICE AGES – WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT CAUSES THEM?
Utah Geological Survey
By Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek
What is an ice age? An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.

What causes an ice age and glacial-interglacial cycles? Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions. The following discusses key factors in (1) initiating ice ages and (2) the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles.

One significant trigger in initiating ice ages is the changing positions of Earth’s ever-moving continents, which affect ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. When plate-tectonic movement causes continents to be arranged such that warm water flow from the equator to the poles is blocked or reduced, ice sheets may arise and set another ice age in motion.

Today’s ice age most likely began when the land bridge between North and South America (Isthmus of Panama) formed and ended the exchange of tropical water between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, significantly altering ocean currents.

How do we know about past ice ages? Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.

Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate. Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.

Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth’s two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.

Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).

Nice way to demonstrate denier cult vacuity, JustCrazy.

It is probably for the best though. Just don't post anything at all. You can't go wrong that way.

 

[Boss]

Natural processes have kept CO2 levels fairly constant at 280ppm for most of the Holocene. Although nature produces massive CO2 emissions every year, they are balanced every year by natural CO2 absorption and sequestration, so that levels have remained fairly steady for thousands of years.

Fallacy #1

No, carbon dioxide levels vary greatly from year to year, day to day, month to month and depending on where you are and time of the year. It is never "fairly constant" anywhere on the planet. When you begin with this false assumption, your entire argument falls to pieces because it's based on a fundamental fallacy.

Fallacy #2

We do not know how much carbon dioxide is produced, absorbed or sequestered at any given time by nature. Again, this varies wildly depending on unknown variables. Like.... thermal vents in parts of the ocean we can't go! Unexpected and sudden volcanic eruptions. Changes in our magnetic frequency protecting our exposure to cosmic storms. It's simply quite impossible for us to do anything but make estimates as to how much we think nature does.

Fallacy #3

There is no scientific evidence to suggest 280ppm is some sort of "normal" balanced amount for our environment. While we may have estimated data for a thousand years, maybe even 10,000 years.... beyond that, it simply becomes a guess. The Milankovitch cycles last 40-100k years or more, full circle. You're looking at a fraction of the data. And most of that is guesswork.

Counterpoint: Science HAS concluded that plant life, for the most part, optimally performs the natural processes of photosynthesis at around ~600 ppm CO2 in relative atmosphere and temperatures. Nature itself is telling you that CO2 is a good thing. It promotes plant life. Plant life produces oxygen. We live on oxygen.

It is mankind's burning of fosssil fuels....which releases millions of years of years of natural carbon sequestration into ancient plants in just a matter of decades.....that have raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 45% so far.....and that is not even considering the enormous amounts of the excess CO2 that has been absorbed into the oceans, causing global warming' evil twin, ocean acidification. Scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel has been burned every year and the numbers match up quite well with the amount of extra excess CO2 in the air. Isotope analysis of the carbon dioxide in the air has identified the amounts that came from those ancient plants. We know where the extra CO2 came from,

Except that's mostly not true. We already know of three major fallacies your argument has, actually refuting knowledge and science. You're now going to compound that with more inane idiocy. You don't know how much nature produced, absorbed, sequestered or converted. You have no earthly idea. You don't know how much for this year, last year, last decade... nadda. This fluctuates daily, hourly, constantly. It depends on where you are, what time of day, what time of year. There can be 50ppm or 700ppm... it all depends.

A little chemistry education for you.... there is no way to distinguish a carbon dioxide molecule made by man and one made by nature. Even if you could, you can't know how much nature used in production of new plant life and natural photosynthesis going on all over the planet at any give point in time. Nature doesn't care where CO2 comes from. Only liberal geeks care.

In order to get "45% attributable to man" from, you have to go from 280 to 400 ppm, that's how that works out. This is completely dismissing any natural processing of carbon dioxide in nature.

Is Mother Nature being paid by Al Gore?

 

[RollingThunder]

Natural processes have kept CO2 levels fairly constant at 280ppm for most of the Holocene. Although nature produces massive CO2 emissions every year, they are balanced every year by natural CO2 absorption and sequestration, so that levels have remained fairly steady for thousands of years.

Fallacy #1

No, carbon dioxide levels vary greatly from year to year, day to day, month to month and depending on where you are and time of the year. It is never "fairly constant" anywhere on the planet. When you begin with this false assumption, your entire argument falls to pieces because it's based on a fundamental fallacy.

Is there no end to your ignorant and completely false bullshit? Why do you continue to post about things you obviously know nothing about?

No, bozo, CO2 levels DO NOT naturally "vary greatly" over the course of a year. There is some seasonal variation but it only amounts to about 3ppm plus or minus from the norm. CO2 levels are rising from year to year but that is because humans are adding so much of it every year. For most of the Holocene, CO2 levels remained at about 280ppm, but since the Industrial Revolution human activities have pushed levels up to the current 405ppm, a 45% increase.


Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations from 1958 to 2016


ALL of the rest of your deranged post consists of your own "fallacies", based on your complete ignorance about this whole subject.. You really have no idea what you are blabbing away about, so I'm not going to bother refuting your nonsense in detail as I have done in the past. Stay ignorant and confused....I really don't care.

 

[Boss]

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations from 1958 to 2016

Now you are resorting to measuring an even more ridiculously small increments of time when the debate is about science pertaining to 40~100,000 year Milankovitch cycles. If you look back hundreds of thousands of years, the planet has gone through some pretty incredible extremes in terms of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen... the gases that comprise our atmosphere haven't always been stable. Greenhouse gases are probably the most unreliable in terms of consistency. Water vapor is the #1 GHG and while water is certainly prevalent on our planet, the conditions by which "water vapor" comes about are not consistent. Thus, another unknown amount in terms of the greenhouse effect. But why no protest to reduce water vapor?

No, bozo, CO2 levels DO NOT naturally "vary greatly" over the course of a year.

Yep... indeed they do. Go study up on on of the universe's most abundant compound elements.. .Carbon Dioxide! Carbon and Oxygen are covalent bonds... did you watch 21 Jump Street (The Movie?) Carbon and Oxygen like each other... like the two dudes in 21 Jump Street! So when they are in abundance and temperature is hot, they adjoin together and form a compound element like carbon dioxide. One way this happens is with internal combustion of fossil fuels. Burning of any carbon-based fuel does this. To an extent, breathing and aspiration produce an enormous amount of CO2... every mammal on the planet converts oxygen to CO2 and other things.

So CO2 in all it's glory, turns up all throughout our atmosphere in high concentrations, in low concentrations and in between. Much has to do with the seasons and temperatures, the air pressure, the sun's activity, many other things too numerous to list. Every plant, plankton, bacteria, anything that utilizes photosynthesis in it's process of life is converting CO2 to oxygen. The more humans on the planet, the more agriculture, the more plants grow and depend on carbon dioxide.

Your stupid globalist nonsense policies not only do nothing to render any kind of crisis averted, they contradict the very principles of common sense and nature. And this is why most of the world laughs at you.

 

[RollingThunder]

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations from 1958 to 2016

Now you are resorting to measuring an even more ridiculously small increments of time when the debate is about science pertaining to 40~100,000 year Milankovitch cycles. If you look back hundreds of thousands of years, the planet has gone through some pretty incredible extremes in terms of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen... the gases that comprise our atmosphere haven't always been stable. Greenhouse gases are probably the most unreliable in terms of consistency. Water vapor is the #1 GHG and while water is certainly prevalent on our planet, the conditions by which "water vapor" comes about are not consistent. Thus, another unknown amount in terms of the greenhouse effect. But why no protest to reduce water vapor?

No, bozo, CO2 levels DO NOT naturally "vary greatly" over the course of a year.

Yep... indeed they do. Go study up on on of the universe's most abundant compound elements.. .Carbon Dioxide! Carbon and Oxygen are covalent bonds... did you watch 21 Jump Street (The Movie?) Carbon and Oxygen like each other... like the two dudes in 21 Jump Street! So when they are in abundance and temperature is hot, they adjoin together and form a compound element like carbon dioxide. One way this happens is with internal combustion of fossil fuels. Burning of any carbon-based fuel does this. To an extent, breathing and aspiration produce an enormous amount of CO2... every mammal on the planet converts oxygen to CO2 and other things.

So CO2 in all it's glory, turns up all throughout our atmosphere in high concentrations, in low concentrations and in between. Much has to do with the seasons and temperatures, the air pressure, the sun's activity, many other things too numerous to list. Every plant, plankton, bacteria, anything that utilizes photosynthesis in it's process of life is converting CO2 to oxygen. The more humans on the planet, the more agriculture, the more plants grow and depend on carbon dioxide.

Your stupid globalist nonsense policies not only do nothing to render any kind of crisis averted, they contradict the very principles of common sense and nature. And this is why most of the world laughs at you.

Just more total bullshit based on your abject ignorance and the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I've already debunked your BS too many times to bother with it again.

 

[edthecynic]

There is a problem with the "current warming trend" ...they call it The Pause. The Warmers try to explain this embarrassing phenomenon by completely reworking how we measure global temperatures.

"Completely reworking how we measure global temperatures" is denier for "measuring more accurately."

 

[edthecynic]

we are in an interglacial period.. it is expected that temperatures are going to rise unless we're heading into another glaciation period, which by estimates is at least another millennium away.

Actually deniers are claiming it already started.
From one of the premier denier sites:

Russian Scientist: ‘The New Little Ice Age Has Started’

Astrophysicist Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia in new book:

“Since 1990, the Sun has been in the declining phase of the quasi-bicentennial variation in total solar irradiance (TSI). The decrease in the portion of TSI absorbed by the Earth since 1990 has remained uncompensated by the Earth’s long-wave radiation into space at the previous high level because of the thermal inertia of the world’s oceans. As a result, the Earth has, and will continue to have, a negative average annual energy balance and a long-term adverse thermal condition.

“The quasi-centennial epoch of the new Little Ice Age has started at the end 2015 after the maximum phase of solar cycle 24. The start of a solar grand minimum is anticipated in solar cycle 27 ± 1 in 2043 ± 11 and the beginning of phase of deep cooling in the new Little Ice Age in 2060 ± 11.

 

[edthecynic]

the debate is about science pertaining to 40~100,000 year Milankovitch cycles.

Except all 3 Milankovitch cycles are currently trending down and yet we set three record warm instrument measured years in a row!
Something is interfering with the natural cooling of the Milankovitch cycles. Could it possibly be the effect of 7+ billion people?

 

[edthecynic]

Yet it was a direct quote of Nye... Hilarious

No it wasn't. Post BowTucker's "direct quote" coming out of Nye's mouth.
You won't because you can't.

 

[jc456]

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations from 1958 to 2016

Now you are resorting to measuring an even more ridiculously small increments of time when the debate is about science pertaining to 40~100,000 year Milankovitch cycles. If you look back hundreds of thousands of years, the planet has gone through some pretty incredible extremes in terms of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen... the gases that comprise our atmosphere haven't always been stable. Greenhouse gases are probably the most unreliable in terms of consistency. Water vapor is the #1 GHG and while water is certainly prevalent on our planet, the conditions by which "water vapor" comes about are not consistent. Thus, another unknown amount in terms of the greenhouse effect. But why no protest to reduce water vapor?

No, bozo, CO2 levels DO NOT naturally "vary greatly" over the course of a year.

Yep... indeed they do. Go study up on on of the universe's most abundant compound elements.. .Carbon Dioxide! Carbon and Oxygen are covalent bonds... did you watch 21 Jump Street (The Movie?) Carbon and Oxygen like each other... like the two dudes in 21 Jump Street! So when they are in abundance and temperature is hot, they adjoin together and form a compound element like carbon dioxide. One way this happens is with internal combustion of fossil fuels. Burning of any carbon-based fuel does this. To an extent, breathing and aspiration produce an enormous amount of CO2... every mammal on the planet converts oxygen to CO2 and other things.

So CO2 in all it's glory, turns up all throughout our atmosphere in high concentrations, in low concentrations and in between. Much has to do with the seasons and temperatures, the air pressure, the sun's activity, many other things too numerous to list. Every plant, plankton, bacteria, anything that utilizes photosynthesis in it's process of life is converting CO2 to oxygen. The more humans on the planet, the more agriculture, the more plants grow and depend on carbon dioxide.

Your stupid globalist nonsense policies not only do nothing to render any kind of crisis averted, they contradict the very principles of common sense and nature. And this is why most of the world laughs at you.

I love it that he doesn't even know the oceans hold the CO2 and release it when it is warm and holds it when the water is cold. I love uninformed warmers that attempt to scam everyday in here. Maybe he could tell us how much of the planet is ocean.

 

[jc456]

Yet it was a direct quote of Nye... Hilarious

No it wasn't. Post BowTucker's "direct quote" coming out of Nye's mouth.
You won't because you can't.

already posted in the thread. by me post #76

 

[Boss]

Except all 3 Milankovitch cycles are currently trending down and yet we set three record warm instrument measured years in a row!
Something is interfering with the natural cooling of the Milankovitch cycles. Could it possibly be the effect of 7+ billion people?

There is only one Milankovitch cycle, the one named for Milankovitch. And it doesn't "trend" it just IS.

Three years is like 1/33,333.33 of a Milankovitch cycle. That's a really small sample size for making bold predictions about the behavior of our ecosystem over time. Yes, we go through long periods of warming. Then we go through long periods of cooling. 5 years, 10 years, maybe 20. This is a small fraction of the time it takes to complete a Milankovitch cycle. We are currently less than halfway on a Milankovitch cycle. Therefore, ice SHOULD be melting. In another 1,800~3,000 years, we will be at about halfway. Beyond that, ice will grow overall until we are at a critical point in the Milankovitch cycle. Scientists believe that it't not a given we will experience a full-blown ice age. In the past, it seems there is a random pattern suggesting we've avoided ice along the way.

During this maximum, we also have to contend with a slight variance in our rotation around the sun and this could kick us into an ice age. Another thing that has actually caused an ice age in the past, is a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere, helping to keep the planet warm. It wasn't kookadoodle liberals who got rid of all the CO2 it was giant tree-like green plant life that had basically taken over the planet. It gobbled up all the available CO2 and when the Milankovitch cycle and rotational cycle were aligned we went into an ice age. So then, the plant life died, of course... all the dead plants rotted and turned to fuel for massive fires. The fires burned all around the globe and raised the CO2 levels. The planet recovered.

Could it possibly be the effect of 7+ billion people?

When your argument has reached this philosophical point it gets a bit scary. If the "problem" is the human inhabitants, are you saying we need some kind of PLAN to get rid of "undesirables" to save the world? Maybe we could start with the ignorant people who like to be led around by the nose ring, following some silly pipe dream blown up their ass by idiot wannabe hippies posing as climatologists.

 

[edthecynic]

Except all 3 Milankovitch cycles are currently trending down and yet we set three record warm instrument measured years in a row!
Something is interfering with the natural cooling of the Milankovitch cycles. Could it possibly be the effect of 7+ billion people?

There is only one Milankovitch cycle, the one named for Milankovitch. And it doesn't "trend" it just IS.

IDIOT!!!!