Why did the Earth freeze up creating an ice age, and why did it melt. Cuz climate change is natural

[polarbear]

The argument that humans cannot change the climate because it changed before humans could have done it requires a complete failure of logic. If you cannot see that, you really aren't worth talking to.

It also requires a complete failure of logic to say that he allegedly stated humans cannot change the climate when all he said was that it also changed without them. Typical, you bozos have to fudge, falsify and exaggerate what was actually said so you can keep on pretending.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Are you talking about the Ice on land or in the sea already?

All the ice in the world, but I'm ok with all the coastal cities in the US being wiped out and under 200 feet of water., I'm nowhere near there. Too many retards anyways.

The ice already in the water will not raise the water level even 1 millimeter and there's not enough ice on land to make a big difference.

Gawd, you're ignorant. Please inform yourself soon.

Explain in brief words why I'm wrong.

Here's What Earth Would Look Like If All The Ice Melted

Even the 98% year round perpetually frozen East Antarctica, and EAST part of West Antarctica which is about 83% of the Ice on the planet?

Most of Greenland stays below freezing year round as well, which means most of the ice melt will be around the margins of the continent, thus another 7% estimate will stay intact, for around 90% of land ice not melting anytime soon.

YOUR link puts all of its eggs in the basket over CO2 as the dominant cause of the melt, which is absurd since there are so little POSTULATED CO2 warm forcing left to work with. A doubling from 280 to 560 is only about 1.1C and to 1200ppm is another 1.1C more.

It was around 2.5C and WARMER than now early in the Holocene, which means CO2 was a insignificant factor since it was around the 250ppm at the time.

New Treeline, Permafrost Evidence Strongly Affirms The Mid-Holocene Was 3°C Warmer Than Today

===================================

Then we have this based on the GISP2 data from Greenland, showing that it was much warmer for THOUSANDS of years while CO2 changes were minor and well below 300 ppm the entire time.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The earth didn't just have an ice age.....it began with CO2 levels at about 1000ppm.

lol, how did you measure that back then? This oughta be great!

It isn't as if it were a secret...except perhaps to those who have been duped by the man made climate change hoax.

Here is the update of your first chart showing the CO2 levels with a range of uncertainty in it:

Notice the obvious 150 Million year periodicity for Ice age epochs?

450 Million years ago, 300 million years ago, 150 Million years ago and now.

 

[Crick]

Ever here of a fellow by the name of Milankovich?

 

[polarbear]

Ever here of a fellow by the name of Milankovich?

Ever hear what the difference is between hear and here. I`m not so sure Milankovitch would have liked it being called a "fellow" by somebody who can`t even spell his name correctly !

 

[mamooth]

It also requires a complete failure of logic to say that he allegedly stated humans cannot change the climate when all he said was that it also changed without them.

No, he stated only natural factors can be the cause. That means he is stating humans can not be the cause. So, another major logic failure on your part.

Part of your side is screaming that global warming doesn't exist, and part is screaming that the current rapid global warming is natural. You really should all get together and settle on a single story. When your stories contradict each other, your side looks even more ridiculous.

Which particular conspiracy theory do you embrace? Are you on the "Global warming is a fraud!" side, the "Global warming is natural!" side, or the "Global warming is real, and humans cause it, but it's beneficial!" side?

 

[mamooth]

450 Million years ago, 300 million years ago, 150 Million years ago and now.

And how does your theory explain the temps given that the sun has been increasing in output at about 1% per hundred million years?

According to your "CO2 has almost no effect" theory, earth should have been an iceball 450 million years ago. But it wasn't. So, your theory is wrong.

Now, the rational people, they point out that the higher CO2 levels compensated for the dimmer sun.

 

[mamooth]

Then we have this based on the GISP2 data from Greenland, showing that it was much warmer for THOUSANDS of years while CO2 changes were minor and well below 300 ppm the entire time.

Your fundamental failure here is assuming that one location in Greenland represents all of planet earth.

 

[polarbear]

It also requires a complete failure of logic to say that he allegedly stated humans cannot change the climate when all he said was that it also changed without them.

No, he stated only natural factors can be the cause. That means he is stating humans can not be the cause. So, another major logic failure on your part.

Part of your side is screaming that global warming doesn't exist, and part is screaming that the current rapid global warming is natural. You really should all get together and settle on a single story. When your stories contradict each other, your side looks even more ridiculous.

Which particular conspiracy theory do you embrace? Are you on the "Global warming is a fraud!" side, the "Global warming is natural!" side, or the "Global warming is real, and humans cause it, but it's beneficial!" side?

Look who is blabbering "conspiracy theory" again,... as always the last line of defense a title of an old Hollywood Movie, how original ! Is that still what the social media groupies are supposed to use? Maybe you should update it so you don`t sound like a total parrot while using a cat avatar.
These dimwits aren`t smart enough to pull off a conspiracy. How "smart" could they be if the crap they publish comes from "lead authors" like this :
No wonder "denialists" are laughing their heads off when people like you claim this kind bullshit is a science
The Strange Case of Sari Kovats
Two weeks ago I blogged about how difficult it was to confirm the date in which Sari Kovats, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had received her PhD. In the interim, there have been a number of developments.
Readers from three continents wrote to ask if I was certain she actually has a PhD. There is no mention of her thesis on her academic bio page at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. A search of the British Library’s online theses database draws a blank. So does a search of theses at the University of London (with which the School of Hygiene is affiliated) although theses dating back to 1716 are recorded there.
More than one correspondent speculated that perhaps Kovats had received what is known as a “mercy PhD.” I’d never heard of this before, but apparently some schools eventually abandon all hope that certain students will complete their thesis and award them a doctorate anyway.
I am pleased, therefore, to report that Kovats did, indeed, receive her PhD in June 2010. She sent me a pleasant e-mail to this effect and further consented to the school confirming this information. A week after my previous blog post, I received an official document from her school’s records department.
According to the document the school produced, Kovats was born in 1969 and became a part-time doctoral student in 2001. In an e-mail to her I mentioned that the public record indicates her first paper was published in 1997. She did not dispute this.
In 1994, Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. She was 25 years old. Her first academic paper wouldn’t be published for another three years. It would be six years before she’d even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before she’d graduate.
Academically speaking, Kovats was invisible back in 1994. That anyone connected to the IPCC could have considered her a scientific expert is astonishing.

I’m sorry to say that that was just the beginning. When it came time to write the next version of the climate bible, Kovats received a promotion. She was selected to be a lead author, again for the health chapter – despite the fact that her doctoral studies wouldn’t begin until the year the IPCC report was published.

What do we suppose happened with the next edition of the climate bible – the one that appeared in 2007, still three full years before Kovats earned her doctorate? Was she selected once again to be a health chapter lead author? You betcha.

But by then the IPCC, in its wisdom, had decided she was a scientific expert in other areas, as well. Kovats served as a contributing author for three additional chapters in Working Group 2:

• Chapter 1 – Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems
• Chapter 6 – Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
• Chapter 12 – Europe

She was also an IPCC expert reviewer.

There’s no mystery as to why it took Kovats a decade to write her thesis. She’s had the equivalent of a full-time job just writing IPCC reports. As it turns out, the main assessments aren’t the only documents with which she has been involved.

The IPCC finds Kovats so enchanting it recruited her as an author for one of its smaller reports, published in 2008, about climate change and water. Soon after that, she was one of only eight members of the “core writing team” for a 2009 Good Practice Guidance Paper. The executive summary of that paper begins:

The reliable detection and attribution of changes in climate, and their effects, is fundamental to our understanding of the scientific basis of climate change…This paper…is intended as a guide for future IPCC Lead Authors. [bold added]

We’re told the IPCC is a serious and rigorous body. We’re told its reports are the gold-standard and that it is comprised of the world’s top experts. We’re told we should trust the IPCC’s conclusions because of these facts. And then we discover that a woman who still hadn’t earned her own doctorate was recruited by the IPCC to write guidelines for other authors.

(In true IPCC tradition, a majority – 8 of 15 – of the papers appearing in the bibliography of the guidance paper were written by none other than the authors of the guidance themselves. But never mind.)

June 2010 was a memorable month for Kovats. Not only did she finally complete her PhD, but the IPCC announced the authors of the forthcoming version of the climate bible, expected in 2013. Quelle surprise, Kovats has received another promotion. This time she isn’t merely a lead author, she’s a coordinating lead author – the most senior of IPCC author roles. (see page 17 of this 27-page PDF).

Some conspiracy, fools leading fools that`s all it comes down to

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are mountains of evidence that human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause for the warming we've been experiencing for the last 150 years. That warming is now taking place at a rate that has not been seen since the Chicxulub meteor impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, 66 million years ago. That warming is responsible for essentially every millimeter of sea level rise, via melting landborne ice and thermal expansion of the world's oceans.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The ice already in the water will not raise the water level even 1 millimeter and there's not enough ice on land to make a big difference.

Gawd, you're ignorant. Please inform yourself soon.

Explain in brief words why I'm wrong.

Here's What Earth Would Look Like If All The Ice Melted

I suppose you don't realize that in the history of the earth, ice at one, or both of the poles is the anomaly...not the norm. Or maybe you don't.

All the scientists are saying is that humans are un-naturally accelerating the warming and that at the current rates, in a generation or two, all the coastal cities in the US will be under water and abandoned. Look it up properly and inform yourself. Right now, you look like a science denier, meaning a retard.

LOL

You people are delusional..

"All the scientists are saying is that humans are un-naturally accelerating the warming and that at the current rates, in a generation or two, all the coastal cities in the US will be under water and abandoned."

Please provide your empirical evidence of this wild ass guess... Rates of warming have been far faster then today as have rates of cooling..

 

[Crick]

Fig. 1. Past and future sea-level rise. For the past, proxy data are shown in light purple and tide gauge data in blue. For the future, the IPCC projections for very high emissions (red, RCP8.5 scenario) and very low emissions (blue, RCP2.6 scenario) are shown. Source: IPCC AR5 Fig. 13.27.

 

[SSDD]

Then we have this based on the GISP2 data from Greenland, showing that it was much warmer for THOUSANDS of years while CO2 changes were minor and well below 300 ppm the entire time.

Your fundamental failure here is assuming that one location in Greenland represents all of planet earth.

How many times has climate science told us that the polar regions are the "canaries in the coalmine" hairball...That the arctic and antarctic regions are the precursors to what is going to happen over the rest of the globe...Did climate science lie about that as well?

 

[SSDD]

Fig. 1. Past and future sea-level rise. For the past, proxy data are shown in light purple and tide gauge data in blue. For the future, the IPCC projections for very high emissions (red, RCP8.5 scenario) and very low emissions (blue, RCP2.6 scenario) are shown. Source: IPCC AR5 Fig. 13.27.

Why present fantasy as fact?

 

[sparky]

and why did it melt

 

[Wyatt earp]

Fig. 1. Past and future sea-level rise. For the past, proxy data are shown in light purple and tide gauge data in blue. For the future, the IPCC projections for very high emissions (red, RCP8.5 scenario) and very low emissions (blue, RCP2.6 scenario) are shown. Source: IPCC AR5 Fig. 13.27.

Nice graph that don't mean anything..


Now check out my graph..

 

[Taz]

Gawd, you're ignorant. Please inform yourself soon.

Explain in brief words why I'm wrong.

Here's What Earth Would Look Like If All The Ice Melted

I suppose you don't realize that in the history of the earth, ice at one, or both of the poles is the anomaly...not the norm. Or maybe you don't.

All the scientists are saying is that humans are un-naturally accelerating the warming and that at the current rates, in a generation or two, all the coastal cities in the US will be under water and abandoned. Look it up properly and inform yourself. Right now, you look like a science denier, meaning a retard.

LOL

You people are delusional..

"All the scientists are saying is that humans are un-naturally accelerating the warming and that at the current rates, in a generation or two, all the coastal cities in the US will be under water and abandoned."

Please provide your empirical evidence of this wild ass guess... Rates of warming have been far faster then today as have rates of cooling..

You calculate the amount of ice in the world then project what happens if it all melts. What don't you get?

 

[Crick]

Even under the worst or worst case scenarios, no one is expecting ALL the ice to melt for centuries. I think its entirely possible that we could have sea rise in excess of one meter by 2100 which will displace hundreds of millions of people and cost trillions of dollars to deal with.

But Billy Bob and SSDD and JC456 and Skookerasbil and a number of others here ARE science deniers. They believe that the world's scientists are either stupid or are lying to make money from research grants or to advance socialism and/or increase government powers or because they all want to destroy society in general. It is not the cream of the intelligentsia you're dealing with here.

 

[mamooth]

How many times has climate science told us

Nobody cares about your evasions, little cultist.

The topic being discussed is the dishonesty of pretending that a single spot in Greenland represents global climate.

If all the data didn't contradict your cult scripture, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on such sleaze. But it does, so you do.

 

[mamooth]

Which particular conspiracy theory do you embrace? Are you on the "Global warming is a fraud!" side, the "Global warming is natural!" side, or the "Global warming is real, and humans cause it, but it's beneficial!" side?

Look who is blabbering "conspiracy theory" again,... as always the last line of defense a title of an old Hollywood Movie, how original ! Is that still what the social media groupies are supposed to use? Maybe you should update it so you don`t sound like a total parrot while using a cat avatar.

You didn't answer. Which particular conspiracy theory do you embrace?

This is another reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. We don't have a cult commanding us to flipflop between contradicting conspiracy theories, so we never get tangled up trying to reconcile contradicting conspiracy theories.

No wonder "denialists" are laughing their heads off when people like you claim this kind bullshit is a science

The Strange Case of Sari Kovats

What part about "Nobody cares about your conspiracy theories" are you failing to understand?

If you could address the issues, you wouldn't need to fall back on to conspiracy theories. But you can't, so you do.