A discussion on the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and its consequences

[abu afak]

• Feb 16, 2022 - (3rd time, now 4)

ding said:
And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf


The LYING TROLL DING's OP said ""but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence.""
When in fact I have an OP on it he's participated in and some of the posts made TO him.


FOURTH Repeat at Least to DISHONEST DING.

`

 

[Crick]

I wish I could say it's been nice chatting with you, but people who reject the greenhouse effect aren't worth my time... and my time is CHEAP.

One good lesson from the Dunning-Kruger work is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You need to stop being so certain you've got it right. Especially in the face of all the world's scientists telling you you've got it wrong.

Bye.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• Feb 16, 2022 - (3rd time, now 4)

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf


The LYING TROLL DING's OP said ""but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence.""
When in fact I have an OP on it he's participated in and some of the posts made TO him.


FOURTH Repeat at Least to DISHONEST DING.

`

and by "warming over the last 100 years" you mean once you adjusted the baseline AND added in the warming trapped in the deep ocean, right?

 

[ding]

I wish I could say it's been nice chatting with you, but people who reject the greenhouse effect aren't worth my time... and my time is CHEAP.

One good lesson from the Dunning-Kruger work is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You need to stop being so certain you've got it right. Especially in the face of all the world's scientists telling you you've got it wrong.

Bye.

I get that a lot from people who don't understand science or how to use the reply button.

My objective isn't to convince true believers like yourself, abu afuk and old rocks. My objective is to defeat you. So while it may be "bye" for you, every time I see one of your posts spouting nonsense, I'll be there to straighten out the record.

 

[JoeBlow]

I get that a lot from people who don't understand science or how to use the reply button.

My objective isn't to convince true believers like yourself, abu afuk and old rocks. My objective is to defeat you. So while it may be "bye" for you, every time I see one of your posts spouting nonsense, I'll be there to straighten out the record.

Says the king of spouting nonsense. Just curious, what color is the sky in your world?

 

[JoeBlow]

I would be shocked if you could put that into your own words to actually make a point. Needless to say... we are in an interglacial cycle and our temperature is 2C cooler than the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

You should get together with KoreanChic, you both make no sense and are totally obnoxious about it. Your life must suck.

 

[ding]

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

I never said orbital forcing is causing the climate to fluctuate, dummy. Orbital forcing initiates glacial cycles. Solar insolation and albedo are the cause of climate fluctuations.

 

[ding]

Says the king of spouting nonsense. Just curious, what color is the sky in your world?

Are you having a bad day, taz?

 

[ding]

You should get together with KoreanChic, you both make no sense and are totally obnoxious about it. Your life must suck.

Says the guy who got triggered.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I wish I could say it's been nice chatting with you, but people who reject the greenhouse effect aren't worth my time... and my time is CHEAP.

One good lesson from the Dunning-Kruger work is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You need to stop being so certain you've got it right. Especially in the face of all the world's scientists telling you you've got it wrong.

Bye.

Ha ha ha you who can't understand a simple statement Marcott makes about his own chart,

"Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Read here to see how stupid he is over what Marcott says about the 20th Century uptick as his replies removes all doubt.

LINK

===

Who is rejecting the GH effect?

You stupidly claim skeptics reject it is a massive lie.

Since you LIED again! I have no choice but to say that you are too messed up over what skeptics really thinks since you keep lying about what skeptics really thinks you call them deniers but never answer the question what is being denied because you don't have the answer because you are an idiot!

I have repeatedly said there are TWO parts to the AGW conjecture the first part most people agree but the second part will never happen since it has already FAILED to show up long after the predicted time frame.

You ignored the fact that CO2 by itself has a very small warm forcing effect of about 1.8 W/m2

You and other small brained warmist/alarmists keeps ignoring this reality showing CO2 is a very small contributor to future warming,

===

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

LINK

This is how stupid warmist/alarmists really are the simple math is too much for them to handle.
===

The large positive feedback loop has already failed which means there is NO possible catastrophic warming coming there is NO climate Emergency coming it is all a big fat LIE!

Skeptics have long known it has been warming for around 300 years and have many times agreed it has been warming since 1979, yet here you are LYING again and again because you are so deep into the AGW bullshit.

No go play in your sandbox....

 

[mamooth]

Too long a run. And TOO many times. And he STILL insists on putting words in my mouth. Too bad you're not an "anonymous" tipster anymore that shot me that link. LOL

Note that I didn't make this thread all about personal attacks. You did. You always do when I show up.

Those who can debate, do. Those who can't, they ... well, they do what you always do.

Now, your meltdowns on this thread are the worst I've ever seen from you. Why is that?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I get that a lot from people who don't understand science or how to use the reply button.

My objective isn't to convince true believers like yourself, abu afuk and old rocks. My objective is to defeat you. So while it may be "bye" for you, every time I see one of your posts spouting nonsense, I'll be there to straighten out the record.

The problem is that he is very easy to defeat but the science illiterate doesn't notice it even has the idiocy to throw Dunning-Kreuger at us.



He still doesn't understand what Marcott stated about the 20th Century uptick that is epic fail!

"Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

The exchange over this was yesterday where he never understood what Marcott said starting at POST 199 where I made the first reply to his empty-headed reply and ends at POST 212 which he doesn't answer anymore.

This is how stupid he is, go read and see for yourself.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Typical that you think a Gish Gallop of crap is anything other than an admission of surrender.

If you had even one good point, you wouldn't need a Gish Gallop of crap. You could just make the one good point. YOu can't, because all you have is crap.

The article remains Unchallenged.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Note that I didn't make this thread all about personal attacks. You did. You always do when I show up.

Those who can debate, do. Those who can't, they ... well, they do what you always do.

Now, your meltdowns on this thread are the worst I've ever seen from you. Why is that?

I see you are still too scared to take up his offer to debate this at the Clean Debate Zone or even do it in the Rubber Room.

 

[mamooth]

I'll explain it again. You're short on reading comprehension I know.

You're getting close to addressing an actual point here, so I'll try to encourage that.

I dont MAKE A CLAIM "of a widely fluctuating past climate" -- that's the troll in you putting words in my mouth that I never said. I SAID -- there is ample evidence of FAR MORE VARIABILITY in SINGLE and LOCAL HIGH RESOLUTION proxies than would EVER show in the completed "world-wide amalgamation of vastly different AND geographically SPARSE proxies that were used in the hockey sticks. So we have GREAT evidence that what Marcott ADMITTED about the time resolution of HIS hockey stick is correct. The MERGING of sparse proxies is what CAUSES the loss of time resolution.

[/QUOTE]
Nitpicking. An average of proxies is still a kind of proxy.

You bring that argument up whenever someone points out the magnitude of the current warming.

You're trying to claim the current fast warming is just a spurious blip, just like happened so regularly in the past, so the current blip is no big deal. I hope you don't embarrass yourself by denying that.

Thus, my summary of your views is accurate. I'm just more honest about it than you are.

Therefore -- if you want to ATTACK ANYTHING that I've asserted -- its up to you to show Marcott is a liar

That makes no sense. Nobody has ever disagreed with Marcott, so I can't figure out why you're so fixated on saying they have.

And like I said, you've been making this same dumb mistake for many years.

And the rest is just you getting unhinged, so I will mercifully skip it. The funniest part is where you keep demanding I start a thread pushing my supposed belief about the strawman you invented.

 

[mamooth]

I see you are still too scared to take up his offer to debate this at the Clean Debate Zone or even do it in the Rubber Room.

It's only you two screaming that someone says Marcott is lying.

So why would _I_ want to start a thread pushing that idea?

I'm very clear about what my points are. And you're very consistent about running from them.

Here's a challenge. In your own words, without a link, tell us what the problem with Marcott's paper is. I don't think you can do it. You don't understand what your own links say. You're just a cutandpaste parrot.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's only you two screaming that someone says Marcott is lying.

So why would I want to start a thread pushing that idea?

I'm very clear about what my points are. And you're very consistent about running from them.

Is this you?

Go play in the cat's sandbox kid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Says the guy who got triggered.

The "child" didn't discuss any science just talk trash was all he can do which means that is the best he can do.

 

[ding]

The problem is that he is very easy to defeat but the science illiterate doesn't notice it even has the idiocy to throw Dunning-Kreuger at us.



He still doesn't understand what Marcott stated about the 20th Century uptick that is epic fail!

"Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

The exchange over this was yesterday where he never understood what Marcott said starting at POST 199 where I made the first reply to his empty-headed reply and ends at POST 212 which he doesn't answer anymore.

This is how stupid he is, go read and see for yourself.

He doesn't understand Dunning-Kruger either.

 

[Sunsettommy]

He doesn't understand Dunning-Kruger either.

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” — Confucius

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
— Charles Darwin

“The more you learn, the more you realize you don’t know.” — Unknown
“A little learning is a dangerous thing.” — Alexander Pope

“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
— William Shakespeare