A 45 million year record of Arctic sea temperatures and ice melt

[miketx]

 

[Crick]

Congrats...you’re a real critical thinker. About what, wtf knows.
So really, according to you, you have little to no formal education in climate. Welcome to the Tucker clan.

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I believe you and I are on the same side of the AGW argument.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 746459

What might this have to do with the ability of paleoclimatologists to measure temperatures from geological proxies going back hundreds of millions of years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 746459

He stole that from me! Or maybe jc456 or skookerasbil or westwall or Oddball

Well you get the idea

 

[ding]

What might this have to do with the ability of paleoclimatologists to measure temperatures from geological proxies going back hundreds of millions of years?

Do you know what the temperature thresholds are at each pole for extensive continental glaciation?

I do. You don't.

 

[Dagosa]

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I believe you and I are on the same side of the AGW argument.

I am when you jumped into the post I replied to someone else. Should have noticed the source…. Sorry….

 

[Dagosa]

What might this have to do with the ability of paleoclimatologists to measure temperatures from geological proxies going back hundreds of millions of years?

Exactly. Now we have deniers using evidence from the very people they are trying to discredit. They are hilarious.

 

[jc456]

Exactly. Now we have deniers using evidence from the very people they are trying to discredit. They are hilarious.

 

[Dagosa]

View attachment 746507

You’re confused because it was written in English and not illiteracy.

 

[jc456]

You’re confused because it was written in English and not illiteracy.

Except it wasn’t

 

[Dagosa]

Except it wasn’t

You’re right? It wasn’t written in English.,

 

[jc456]

You’re right? It wasn’t written in English.,

Back woods

 

[Crick]

Do you know what the temperature thresholds are at each pole for extensive continental glaciation?

I do. You don't.

Do us all a favor and try to find someone who gives a fuck. I think I can safely guarantee they won't be on this forum.

 

[ding]

Do us all a favor and try to find someone who gives a fuck. I think I can safely guarantee they won't be on this forum.

So the temperature at which extensive glaciation occurs at each pole and the temperature at which each pole is ice free is unimportant to you why?

It's like you never studied the earth's climate before.

 

[Crick]

Because I have absolutely no concern of extensive glaciation taking place within at least the next thousand years. You?

 

[ding]

Because I have absolutely no concern of extensive glaciation taking place within at least the next thousand years. You?

You should. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hall marks of our bipolar glaciated world and we are ~2C away from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation. You get a reminder of it's extent every winter. All it takes is one bad winter followed by one mild summer.

But we are 5C away from a greenhouse planet. You'd know these things if you actually took the time to study the planet's climate.

 

[Crick]

You should. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hall marks of our bipolar glaciated world and we are ~2C away from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation. You get a reminder of it's extent every winter. All it takes is one bad winter followed by one mild summer.

But we are 5C away from a greenhouse planet. You'd know these things if you actually took the time to study the planet's climate.

I repeat, I have absolutely no concern of extensive glaciation taking place in the next thousand years. And that opinion is based on the work of real scientists who actually know what they're talking about. And when I say "real scientists I do not include Connolly, Soon, Bailunas, Scafetta or Legates among them.

 

[ding]

I repeat, I have absolutely no concern of extensive glaciation taking place in the next thousand years. And that opinion is based on the work of real scientists who actually know what they're talking about. And when I say "real scientists I do not include Connolly, Soon, Bailunas, Scafetta or Legates among them.

How about a prolonged cold spell that ends this debate?

 

[Crick]

How about a prolonged cold spell that ends this debate?

Off the top of my layperson head, I would rate the chances of a one decade period with a temperature decline of 0.25 degrees or more within the next 200 years to be less than 1%.

Rate of change of global average temperature

Information on the environment for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public

www.eea.europa.eu

 

[ding]

Off the top of my layperson head, I would rate the chances of a one decade period with a temperature decline of 0.25 degrees or more within the next 200 years to be less than 1%.

Rate of change of global average temperature

Information on the environment for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public

www.eea.europa.eu

First of all I disagree with that arbitrary reference temperature. If the goal is to understand how much man causes the planet to increase above natural conditions the reference temperature should be the warmest point - prior to the industrial revolution - during this interglacial period. Secondly I doubt it will be a one decade event. It will most likely occur over several decades and will be due to changes in the ocean heat transport system and/or changes in solar radiation. No one really knows. All we can know is that climate fluctuations have increased since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world. Once temperatures turn cooler albedo will kick in an amplify the cooling.