Antarctic meltwater could dramatically slow overturning current

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 NEVER “drove” temperatures once in 450,000 years!

 

[Crick]

CO2 NEVER “drove” temperatures once in 450,000 years!

I'm sorry, but it did.

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation

I repeat, temperature lags CO2. CO2 drives temperature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry, but it did.

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation

I repeat, temperature lags CO2. CO2 drives temperature.

Sure! Real side by side data shows CO2 LAGGING temperature for 450,000 consecutive years, but Shankun’s clam farts proxies are more accurate.

Sure

Fucking Fraud

This is why no sane person believes this fraud

 

[Captain Caveman]

Once again, your statements CLEARLY indicate you have no familiarity with even basic science. Surely you have caught one of the dozens of times I have pointed out that there are no proofs in the natural sciences, only evidence. And evidence does not allow one to make absolute statements. It forces you to use what you want to call weasel words. Open a book. Learn something before sticking your foot repeatedly into your mouth

What are you personally doing differently in order to reverse man made climate change?

 

[abu afak]

Sure! Real side by side data shows CO2 LAGGING temperature for 450,000 consecutive years, but Shankun’s clam farts proxies are more accurate.

Sure

Fucking Fraud

This is why no sane person believes this fraud

• Apr 19, 2023

So CO2 only started driving climate 150 years ago, is that right???

All the times temperatures plummeted AFTER CO2 peaked was because of what magic beans?

Temperatures and CO2 (which again LAGS in a NATURAL Cycle) both plummeted due to solar forcing or end of same.
That is the cycles of the Sun and earth Tilt which enable earth to get more or less solar radiation/heat.

Scientists have directly measured Radiation-in for the lat 50+ years.
Virtually Unchanged.
Radiation that would have normally been re-emitted back out however, has increasingly been Blocked/Trapped at the exact spectral wavelengths of the ever Denser CO2/GHG Blanket.
That is the difference.

I've explained this 100 times.

But you are a 52 IQ Dumpster fire and an OCD Partisan HACK.
`
`

 

[abu afak]

• Apr 21, 2023

^This is what happens when a 450,000 year long dataset makes an absolute mockery of your pet theory.

The charts unequivocally shows: CO2 LAGS temperature on both increase and decrease AND doubling CO2 has no effect whatsoever on temperature. In fact, temperatures plunge for tens of thousands of years after CO2 peaks!

But how can this be? The Lunatic AGW Cult has consensus! The science is settled!

It means they HAVE to keep doubling down on their losing bet. It’s a fraud so huge it makes Bernie Madoff look honest.
Click to expand...

And what you post is not only WRONG but irrelevant (and of course STUPID) to the fact that there were no Humans spewing GHGs into the atmosphere 450,000 yrs ago or 50,000 yrs ago or 5000 yrs ago and barely any 500 years ago.

Men were murdered 10,000 yrs ago but no one was killed with a gun or WMD. And Industrial GHG emissions are the atmo equivalent of WMD. Weapons of Mass Warming.

You are a raging Low IQ MORON.

`

 

[abu afak]

• Mar 27, 2023

So you can show us a controlled Experiment with 2 containers one with 250PPM of CO2 and another with 1000PPM and the temperature in the second one will be 6C higher than the first?

Are you aure?
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Is this too difficult for you 12 IQ Jackass!! experiment jar CO2 ?

co2 experiment jar - Google Search

The Greenhouse Effect Experiment and Lesson for Kids​

STEAM Powered Family
https://www.steampoweredfamily.com › the-greenhou...
Apr 14, 2021 — In this experiment we are trapping the carbon dioxide gas in the jar. When heat is applied, the carbon dioxide traps more heat in the jar ...
‎Climate Change Science... · ‎The Greenhouse Effect... · ‎The Greenhouse Science

Greenhouse in a Jar Lab​

Stanford University​

https://earth.stanford.edu › files › inline-files​

Decide on a lab set up as a group. You are designing an experiment that will test the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere (air)?. What ...

The Earth in a bottle - CO2 games on my kitchen bench​

The Foster Lab
http://www.thefosterlab.org › blog › co2-experiment
Apr 16, 2016 — There are quite a few experiments that you can do at home to demonstrate this underlying physics (e.g. here). Over the last couple of weeks I've ...

AND videos.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here’s what happened, the Vostok ice cores showed CO2 LAGGING temperature for 450,000 consecutive years.

The AGWCult realizes that actual side by side data falsifies their failed hypothesis, so then send Shankun out to “find proxies, you idiot! Spare no expense!!”

So Shankun measures “proxies” like clam farts, leaf mold, cloud patterns to PROVE that the scientific side by side data is a denier!!!

Fucking fraud!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• Mar 27, 2023

Is this too difficult for you 12 IQ Jackass!! experiment jar CO2 ?

co2 experiment jar - Google Search

The Greenhouse Effect Experiment and Lesson for Kids​

STEAM Powered Family
https://www.steampoweredfamily.com › the-greenhou...
Apr 14, 2021 — In this experiment we are trapping the carbon dioxide gas in the jar. When heat is applied, the carbon dioxide traps more heat in the jar ...
‎Climate Change Science... · ‎The Greenhouse Effect... · ‎The Greenhouse Science

Greenhouse in a Jar Lab​

Stanford University​

https://earth.stanford.edu › files › inline-files​

Decide on a lab set up as a group. You are designing an experiment that will test the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere (air)?. What ...

The Earth in a bottle - CO2 games on my kitchen bench​

The Foster Lab
http://www.thefosterlab.org › blog › co2-experiment
Apr 16, 2016 — There are quite a few experiments that you can do at home to demonstrate this underlying physics (e.g. here). Over the last couple of weeks I've ...

AND videos.

`

But you can never show the fake, mythical temperature increase from doubling CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• Apr 21, 2023

And what you post is not only WRONG but irrelevant (and of course STUPID) to the fact that there were no Humans spewing GHGs into the atmosphere 450,000 yrs ago or 50,000 yrs ago or 5000 yrs ago and barely any 500 years ago.

Men were murdered 10,000 yrs ago but no one was killed with a gun or WMD. And Industrial GHG emissions are the atmo equivalent of WMD. Weapons of Mass Warming.

You are a raging Low IQ MORON.

`

So your LSD thoughts tell you that manmade CO2 is different. Interesting

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• Apr 19, 2023

Temperatures and CO2 (which again LAGS in a NATURAL Cycle) both plummeted due to solar forcing or end of same.
That is the cycles of the Sun and earth Tilt which enable earth to get more or less solar radiation/heat.

Scientists have directly measured Radiation-in for the lat 50+ years.
Virtually Unchanged.
Radiation that would have normally been re-emitted back out however, has increasingly been Blocked/Trapped at the exact spectral wavelengths of the ever Denser CO2/GHG Blanket.
That is the difference.

I've explained this 100 times.

But you are a 52 IQ Dumpster fire and an OCD Partisan HACK.
`
`

You’re WRONG! Crick and the AGWCult are getting paid to bullshit you

 

[Lastamender]

Once again, your statements CLEARLY indicate you have no familiarity with even basic science. Surely you have caught one of the dozens of times I have pointed out that there are no proofs in the natural sciences, only evidence. And evidence does not allow one to make absolute statements. It forces you to use what you want to call weasel words. Open a book. Learn something before sticking your foot repeatedly into your mouth

The science you speak of was developed to push your crap. Why can't you see that? Nothing you have is proven in anyway shape or form. You have words but no tangible results to go with them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The science you speak of was developed to push your crap. Why can't you see that? Nothing you have is proven in anyway shape or form. You have words but no tangible results to go with them.

What they do is NOT science, it’s a cult

 

[Crick]

What are you personally doing differently in order to reverse man made climate change?

Lots, but it's all irrelevant to the topic subject.

 

[Crick]

The science you speak of was developed to push your crap. Why can't you see that?

Because that's not true. What I am pushing is the result of that science.

Nothing you have is proven in anyway shape or form. You have words but no tangible results to go with them.

This was one of the things that tells me you're not familiar with basic science. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. There are studies which produce observations, evidence, tested predictions, etc. Those studies have convinvced almost every single climate scientist on the planet that AGW theory is an accurate description of what is happening.

 

[Kruska]

Total land area of the planet is 196.9 million km^2

Planet Earth is the 5th largest planet on the solar system, with a total surface area of approximately 510.1 million km2. About 29.2% or 149 million km2 of the Earth’s surface is dry land, while the rest of the surface is covered by water.

Total current energy consumption: 2.89 TW

Your source is from some comic book?
Total global consumption in 2021 was 174,285TWh - Wind generated energy was globally at 4,872TWh
Energy Production and Consumption

1.6 MW/km^2 output from solar panels
Land requirement 1,806,000 km^2

2.2 GWh (world largest solar plant) = 2200MWh divided by 45Km2 = 48MWh/km2 or 0.048GWh/km2
140,000,000GWh divided by 0.048GWh = 2,916,666,666km2 global required land area - see above availability 150million km2

About 1 acre in each 110 devoted to Solar PV would satisfy the planet's total current electrical demand.

I acre is 4046m2 or 0.004046km2 x 110 = 0.44km2 = less then half a km2 - WTF are you talking about? Above in your own errant statement you wrote 1.8 millionkm2 is needed.

Energy output of wind farms is much higher/km^2. We also have hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal and OTEC

Yeah sure - it just shows that you CO2 proponents simply got absolutely no idea as to what you talk about - no go home and ride your e-bike, since you must be less then 16 years old.

 

[Kruska]

Because that's not true. What I am pushing is the result of that science.

Like the results of your scientific mathematical comprehension?
Quote: About 1 acre in each 110 devoted to Solar PV would satisfy the planet's total current electrical demand.

And the worst part is that people like you, simply push green&lefty narratives - without ever having checked out all that "scientific" info by yourselves.

 

[Crick]

Planet Earth is the 5th largest planet on the solar system, with a total surface area of approximately 510.1 million km2. About 29.2% or 149 million km2 of the Earth’s surface is dry land, while the rest of the surface is covered by water.

Nope. Land area of the planet is 196.9 million square kilometers.

Earth - NASA Science

Your home. Our Mission.And the one planet that NASA studies more than any other.

solarsystem.nasa.gov

Your source is from some comic book?

NASA. See link above. Where is your number from?

Total global consumption in 2021 was 174,285TWh - Wind generated energy was globally at 4,872TWh
Energy Production and Consumption

Do you understand the difference between a KW and a KWh? You're looking for the land area required. You do not need the time component. 174.285 TWh is the total energy used by the world over the course of all of 2021. To get the instantaneous power requirement, you have to divide it by (365x24), the number of hours in a year. That comes to 0.0199 TW, 19.9 GW

2.2 GWh = 2200MWh divided by 45Km2 = 48MWh/km2 or 0.048GWh/km2

Where did 45 km^2 come from? Why did you shift from GW to MW and then back to GW?

140,000,000GWh divided by 0.048GWh = 2,916,666,666km2 Global land area - see above 150million km2

Where did 140 million GWh come from?

I acre is 4046m2 or 0.004046km2 x 110 = 0.44km2 = less then half a km2 - WTF are you talking about? Above in your own errant statement you wrote 1.8 millionkm2 is needed.

Yeah sure - it just shows that you CO2 proponents simply got absolutely no idea as to what you talk about - no go home and ride your e-bike, since you must be less then 16 years old.

Here is my original figuring
Total land area of the planet is 196.9 million km^2
Total current energy consumption: 2.89 TW (from my source)
1.6 MW/km^2 output from solar panels (from my source. You never gave a value for this.
Land requirement 1,806,000 km^2

About 1 acre in each 110 devoted to Solar PV would satisfy the planet's total current electrical demand.

If I ask Google how much land area would be required to power the planet with solar PV, it comes back with "Even so, if we replicated this particular farm in order to produce enough electricity to power the world, we would then require: 92.7 billion solar panels. 54.1 million acres, or 84,531 square miles." 84,531 square miles is 218,934.28 square kilometers. So even I have come in more than 8 times too high. Your figures are absolutely ridiculous.

This sort of calculation has come up before. The solar PV area required to power the entire US would be about the size of Lake Michigan. If as energy-intensive a country as the US can operate with that small a fraction of its area covered in panels, the Earth as a whole could be powered with a far smaller fraction.

Area required given by Google / Land area according to NASA
219,934.28 km^2 / 196,900,000 km^2 = 0.00117 or 0.12% of the Earth's land surface

 

[Lastamender]

Because that's not true. What I am pushing is the result of that science.

This was one of the things that tells me you're not familiar with basic science. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. There are studies which produce observations, evidence, tested predictions, etc. Those studies have convinvced almost every single climate scientist on the planet that AGW theory is an accurate description of what is happening.

The result was planned.

 

[Crick]

The result was planned.

Evidence?