Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
You are full of shit.... apparently, then that means I can't take your unsourced chart seriously since there is nothing behind it.
This is how feeble you really are.
75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
You are full of shit.... apparently, then that means I can't take your unsourced chart seriously since there is nothing behind it.
This is how feeble you really are.
- Thread starter
- #282
And how does it relate?Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
Paleoclimatology
Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.www.nationalgeographic.org
- Thread starter
- #283
You are full of shit.... apparently, then that means I can't take your unsourced chart seriously since there is nothing behind it.
This is how feeble you really are.
I'm not the one rejecting widely-accepted mainstream science.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #284
; - )
How does it not?And how does it relate?Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
Paleoclimatology
Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
Crick in the belly writes another debate avoiding statement,. The jerk avoids answering questions, fails to provide links when asked and then says this shit:
The problem YOU have is you have no valid arguments to offer, that is why you are behaving like a jack ass!
The same jack ass who completely ignored a number of published science papers I posted today that shows that CO2 is a FOLLOWER of long term temperature changes, which obviously means it isn't a driver of climate.
You have NOTHING to show to support your CO2 delusion, that is why so many here disputes you so much.
The problem YOU have is you have no valid arguments to offer, that is why you are behaving like a jack ass!
The same jack ass who completely ignored a number of published science papers I posted today that shows that CO2 is a FOLLOWER of long term temperature changes, which obviously means it isn't a driver of climate.
You have NOTHING to show to support your CO2 delusion, that is why so many here disputes you so much.
- Thread starter
- #287
You are full of shit.... apparently, then that means I can't take your unsourced chart seriously since there is nothing behind it.
This is how feeble you really are.
Tell you what Tommy, why don't you do a search for the data you're interested in and post it here with any links you think it needs. Show us how it ought to be done.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
This is what jerk Crick is doing, is play the deflection game by trolling with evasive statements.
Here is that post he IGNORED that contained a link to a bunch of science papers that doesn't agree with him, even posted an ABSTRACT to one of the papers, he ignored it. Now the Crick in the belly has the GALL to request the data when I posted actual science papers that disputes him:
From post 257 he ignored:
"Ha ha ha, you didn't address the science papers in the link that doesn't agree with you. You didn't address the chart that are based on Vostock data, you refuse to acknowledge that well supported evidence that CO2 does lag temperature changes, which indicate that it isn't a driver of climate change.
Here are the published papers you ignored:
Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.
Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.
Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years
Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.
Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years
Here is one you never read:
Science
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Abstract
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
LINK
===========
He has completely ignored this post of 65 minutes ago while he has posted about 10 times since then.
Give it up Crick in the belly you are not fooling anyone here.
Here is that post he IGNORED that contained a link to a bunch of science papers that doesn't agree with him, even posted an ABSTRACT to one of the papers, he ignored it. Now the Crick in the belly has the GALL to request the data when I posted actual science papers that disputes him:
From post 257 he ignored:
"Ha ha ha, you didn't address the science papers in the link that doesn't agree with you. You didn't address the chart that are based on Vostock data, you refuse to acknowledge that well supported evidence that CO2 does lag temperature changes, which indicate that it isn't a driver of climate change.
Here are the published papers you ignored:
Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.
Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.
Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years
Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.
Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years
Here is one you never read:
Science
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
- Hubertus Fischer,
- Martin Wahlen,
- Jesse Smith,
- Derek Mastroianni,
- Bruce Deck
Abstract
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
LINK
===========
He has completely ignored this post of 65 minutes ago while he has posted about 10 times since then.
Give it up Crick in the belly you are not fooling anyone here.
- Thread starter
- #289
How does it not?And how does it relate?Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
Paleoclimatology
Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.
But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.
- Thread starter
- #290
Too much coffee this morning Tommy? I didn't ignore the CO2 lag data. I agreed with it. Were you hoping I wouldn't?
- Thread starter
- #291
Of course that's not to say that I think it has the bearing on the current situation YOU seem to believe it does.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,261
- 34,955
- 2,180
That’s never been proven correct
- Thread starter
- #293
You would seem to be arguing against the validity of the greenhouse effect. Is that correct? If so, there is a special sub-thread in this forum for just that topic.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,261
- 34,955
- 2,180
Why’d you bring it up here?
From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.How does it not?And how does it relate?Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
Paleoclimatology
Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.
But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.
What do you think those conditions are anyway?
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
Your dishonesty follows your every post, you have the well honed talent to misrepresent what I post.
No. I am saying that long term CO2 changes FOLLOWS long term temperature changes, which YOU never dispute, that is why you can't say that CO2 is a main factor in changing climate into a different direction, the postulated increase in CO2 warm forcing effects are too small for that.
That is entirely different from saying it has no part in the heat budget, it does but it is so small and the 100 ppm increase adds so little more warm forcing to the total, THAT is where warmist/alarmists blows it so badly, since the increase in warm forcing of CO2 of the last 150 years is very small.
- Thread starter
- #297
For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.How does it not?And how does it relate?Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
Paleoclimatology
Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.
But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.
What do you think those conditions are anyway?
So you don't know?For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.How does it not?And how does it relate?Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
Paleoclimatology
Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.
But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.
What do you think those conditions are anyway?
Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why there are different threshold levels for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation?
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,399
- 12,987
- 2,400
So you don't know?For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.How does it not?And how does it relate?Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
Paleoclimatology
Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.
It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.
But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.
What do you think those conditions are anyway?
Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why they aren't the same number?
You are talking to a wall, the man doesn't understand what you are talking about, this despite the explainable charts you posted.
- Thread starter
- #300
You have yet to give the slightest hint as to why CO2 can be dissolved in the world's oceans, and therefore released by rising temperatures, AND possess an absorption spectra that includes a large chunk of infrared. WHY would those two things be mutually exclusive? [Corrected at 1502, changed "can't" to "can" in the first sentence.}
Last edited:
New Topics
-
-
-
-
I LOVE this video, real life Sister Act :-)- Started by NewsVine_Mariyam
- Replies: 1
