Any debate on global warming now OVER!?

[ding]

Again, where are they warming? No increase in Hurricanes has occurred, which would be a key indicator as we've been told.

Everywhere and hurricanes are a ridiculous way to gauge temperature or climate change.

But for you to understand why the oceans and atmosphere warm or why the oceans and atmosphere cool over the past 3 million years requires that you understand why the northern hemisphere is driving the climate of the planet. And you don't really seem all that interested in understanding it.

Suffice it to say, here is your evidence that shows when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the entire planet - oceans and the atmosphere - warm. And when the northern hemisphere glaciates the entire planet - oceans and the atmosphere cool.

Notice which pole is changing and which pole is not.

 

[ding]

Deglaciation has been happening for a long while now. Ice takes time to melt.

Yes, it does. That's why glacial periods are long lived and interglacial periods are short lived. Disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic results in abrupt climate change. it's a fast as a few decades. No one is going to miss it or deny it when it occurs. And it will occur as it has been occurring every 100,000 years or so for the past 3 million years. The negative feedback from northern hemisphere (i.e. albedo of spreading glaciation over surrounding lands) is extremely strong.

So when heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic is restored, it takes quite a lot of time to melt all that ice.

"...The preceding four interglacial periods are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years..."​

​

​

​

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf​

​

 

[ding]

Where is sea level rising? I've asked in here before, @CrusaderFrank and I have used Guam island that hasn't moved or sunk yet. So specifically, where is sea rise at?

Everywhere. The primary driver is thermal expansion. The lag time is enormous. Sea level rise is ~ 3 to 4 mm/year and has been that way for the past 6,000 years.

 

[ding]

Agree that any activity is all natural.

I don't dispute that 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 could be responsible for 0.22C to 0.5C of the warming of the past 150 years. Which is anywhere from 1/7 to 1/3 of the warming. They attribute 100% to CO2 and that I cannot abide.

 

[ding]

No increase in hurricanes disproves any additional warming of the oceans.

Weather events are a ridiculous measure of climate change.

 

[jc456]

Weather events are a ridiculous measure of climate change.

I agree completely. But warmer water would induce more hurricanes theoretically. All I said.

 

[ding]

I agree completely. But warmer water would induce more hurricanes theoretically. All I said.

There's more to hurricanes than warm water. There's wind shear and there's air moisture.

 

[jc456]

Everywhere. The primary driver is thermal expansion. The lag time is enormous. Sea level rise is ~ 3 to 4 mm/year and has been that way for the past 6,000 years.

View attachment 1063870

All we've ever asked was to prove it! there is no rise of sea level at any port in America or any other location on a map since 1950's. We're asking for photo proof! Proof it hasn't is all over this message board in so many different threads. Any changes noted of a rise was actually an island or land area sinking. No water rise. I'm honestly wondering how anyone can accurately determine levels when tides are so prevelent. Low tide, vs high tide. But in here are shots from the south of old fort ports from 1800's and today and they look identical. Let me do some searches in here.

 

[jc456]

There's more to hurricanes than warm water. There's wind shear and there's air moisture.

ohhhhhh, so the climate nutters are wrong on their rants? Interesting. All I most always see are them screaming about warmer oceans and more hurricanes.

 

[jc456]

I agree that global temperature reconstructions are bullshit and that coming up with a single temperature for the planet is fraught with potential error. The best way to know what the planet is doing is not from global temperature reconstructions but from ice core data from the northern hemisphere polar region and from understanding the temperature ranges of previous interglacial glacial periods.

You might ask why polar regions? Or why northern hemisphere? Which are excellent questions because until one understands how the planet's unique landmass distribution is driving the planet's climate then questions like is the planet warming or should the planet be warming are meaningless because they have no proper context of what is normal.

But to directly answer your question....

Much of the last 10.000 years has been as warm or warmer than today so in that regard today's global average temperature is not out of range.



View attachment 1063841
Greenland Ice Core ^
View attachment 1063842
The current warming trend began ~400 years ago at the end of the little ice age which was 200 to 250 years before the industrial revolution began.
View attachment 1063846

If we look at past interglacial periods we see that the present interglacial period is 2C cooler than previous interglacials and that is with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2. So the present interglacial is still in its normal range. And in fact, from an empirical perspective one must ask why it wouldn't continue to warm naturally until the next glacial period began. After all this is the trend of the past 3 million years.

View attachment 1063852

The problem with the ice core data is that the reading is an average or single snap shot. Dosn't show the variances throughout yearly swings. Just don't. It useless accept to make a single statement that at this point in time it was that temperature, it doesn't reflect anything like a yearly average. Nope.

 

[jc456]

All we've ever asked was to prove it! there is no rise of sea level at any port in America or any other location on a map since 1950's. We're asking for photo proof! Proof it hasn't is all over this message board in so many different threads. Any changes noted of a rise was actually an island or land area sinking. No water rise. I'm honestly wondering how anyone can accurately determine levels when tides are so prevelent. Low tide, vs high tide. But in here are shots from the south of old fort ports from 1800's and today and they look identical. Let me do some searches in here.

ding ,
Here's one

There are continues direct measures of the sea level in Saint-Petersbourg since 1824.
View attachment 1051456
and the Baltic sea level (comparing with footshtock) decreased.
View attachment 1051457

And it has decreased compared with 1920 sea level, either.

The answer is simple - the land masses there are raising almost twice faster than the global sea level.
View attachment 1051458

Glaciers are melting, continental masses, floating in mantia are raising.

 

[ding]

All we've ever asked was to prove it! there is no rise of sea level at any port in America or any other location on a map since 1950's. We're asking for photo proof! Proof it hasn't is all over this message board in so many different threads. Any changes noted of a rise was actually an island or land area sinking. No water rise. I'm honestly wondering how anyone can accurately determine levels when tides are so prevelent. Low tide, vs high tide. But in here are shots from the south of old fort ports from 1800's and today and they look identical. Let me do some searches in here.

All I can tell you is to maybe do some searches and discover the truth for yourself. I did. I don't care enough to convince you of it. It's pretty obvious to me that the data shows that in an interglacial period the oceans and the atmosphere will warm and that sea levels will rise. To argue that isn't going on in an interglacial period would be pretty ridicuous and unsupported by the empirical evidence from the geologic record.

But hey, if you want to believe there is no warming or that seas aren't rising, good luck with that. I won't be supporting that because I have studied the evidence.

 

[ding]

ohhhhhh, so the climate nutters are wrong on their rants? Interesting. All I most always see are them screaming about warmer oceans and more hurricanes.

Yes. Just as wrong as EMH arguing that hurricanes prove there is no warming. Both are wrong. Hurricanes don't prove anything one way or the other.

 

[ding]

The problem with the ice core data is that the reading is an average or single snap shot. Dosn't show the variances throughout yearly swings. Just don't. It useless accept to make a single statement that at this point in time it was that temperature, it doesn't reflect anything like a yearly average. Nope.

What region of the planet do you believe is most affected by climate change?

Notice which pole is changing and which pole is not.

 

[jc456]

All I can tell you is to maybe do some searches and discover the truth for yourself. I did. I don't care enough to convince you of it. It's pretty obvious to me that the data shows that in an interglacial period the oceans and the atmosphere will warm and that sea levels will rise. To argue that isn't going on in an interglacial period would be pretty ridicuous and unsupported by the empirical evidence from the geologic record.

But hey, if you want to believe there is no warming or that seas aren't rising, good luck with that. I won't be supporting that because I have studied the evidence.

well, I've seen photos of the past and today many different times and dude, there isn't a fking inch rise to be seen. If you've researched it, then you must have some evidence other than a graph anyone can fudge. I don't believe any data today. There's so much shit out there, I believe evidence. Proof.

 

[jc456]

What region of the planet do you believe is most affected by climate change?

Notice which pole is changing and which pole is not.

Northern Hemisphere. Always has been.

 

[ding]

Dosn't show the variances throughout yearly swings. Just don't. It useless accept to make a single statement that at this point in time it was that temperature, it doesn't reflect anything like a yearly average. Nope.

And that is different from oxygen isotopes how? Which is the accepted temperature record of the planet. So at what point do you say there's no evidence for glacial cycles? Because there's a shit ton corroborating evidence that supports the evidence you are dismissing for no good reason.

 

[ding]

Northern Hemisphere. Always has been.

Then why wouldn't you use data from the region that is most affected by climate change to monitor for climate change?

 

[ding]

well, I've seen photos of the past and today many different times and dude, there isn't a fking inch rise to be seen. If you've researched it, then you must have some evidence other than a graph anyone can fudge. I don't believe any data today. There's so much shit out there, I believe evidence. Proof.

Photos aren't going to record a 3 mm to 4 mm change per year. You are making the same argument EMH is making. Are you getting this from social media?

 

[ding]

ding ,
Here's one

And you think that makes sense in an interglacial period?