Arctic Temperatures Today

[Toddsterpatriot]

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

And then we're as hot as Venus?

 

[mamooth]

And then we're as hot as Venus?

Nope. The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback -- the way each new bit of CO2 has less of an effect than the previous bit -- puts an upper limit on the feedback.

 

[mamooth]

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

The current natural factors are pushing towards cooling, therefore the current fast warming is not natural variation.

That was easy.

Natural cycles have causes. If the natural cycle is pushing warming, there's a cause to that. Since you won't explain your cause, it means you're just invoking magic. That's religion on your part, not science, so you get ignored.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling

But we don't. We don't believe in a magical climate variation fairy randomly waving a wand about. That's your bizarre religous belief, and we just laugh at it.

for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm

As it should have. After all, the feedback cycle goes the other way on the downside of the cycle. You're really bad at this.

then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

You seem confused. The planet is _warming_ now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

See? Feedback. Do I need to paste another thousand repetitions, or are you figuring it out?


Since the dataset shows CO2 driving temperature, you sound kind of insane. CO2 doesn't give the initial push, but then it takes over.

Seriously, I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.

Here's a 450,000 year side by side dataset that refuses to listen to your explanation and has CO2 LAGGING TEMPERATURE

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, look, this chart shows temperatures DECLINING as CO2 is peaking

 

[mamooth]

Here's a 450,000 year side by side dataset that refuses to listen to your explanation and has CO2 LAGGING TEMPERATURE

And it's also leading temperature, except at the very beginning.

Most people can figure that out. You can't. Back to the kiddie table with you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

The warmer oceans emit CO2.

That CO2 causes more warming.

See? Feedback. Do I need to paste another thousand repetitions, or are you figuring it out?

Since the dataset shows CO2 driving temperature, you sound kind of insane. CO2 doesn't give the initial push, but then it takes over.

Seriously, I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you.

CO2 peaks as temperature declines.

IS this the same CO2 or are you thinking of some genetic mutation?

 

[mamooth]

CO2 peaks as temperature declines.

And this bothers you ... why? It doesn't bother anyone who understands the science.

I know you think that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, but nobody else thinks like that.

IS this the same CO2 or are you thinking of some genetic mutation?

Exactly what did the voices tell you about this genetically mutating CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And this bothers you ... why? It doesn't bother anyone who understands the science.

I know you think that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, but nobody else thinks like that.

Exactly what did the voices tell you about this genetically mutating CO2?

The charts describes the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of what you believe -- over a 450,000 year period too!

 

[ReinyDays]

I've done so many times before. Pay attention this time.

Orbital factors heat the oceans a little.

That causes them to release CO2.

Then the CO2 feedback takes over from there.

This is basic stuff, but all deniers faceplant at it.

Now, your turn. Explain how ice age cycles work without invoking CO2. After all, the orbital cycles and albedo changes don't even have close to enough power to make it happen. Something else has to be reinforcing it.

Which orbital factors? ... I hope you understand these matters better than to say obliquity ...

Why do you think the oceans are completely saturated with carbon dioxide ... the atmosphere only has 425 ppm, the ocean can't have any more than the equilibrium concentration ... if you'll remember, this equilibrium is when the rate of CO2 entering the water is equal to the rate at which CO2 is escaping the water ...

No ... you've never answered these questions before ... now is a good time though ...

 

[mamooth]

Which orbital factors? ... I hope you understand these matters better than to say obliquity ...

I won't be paying any attention to that deflection. If you actually want to know, go look up Milankovitch Cycles.

Why do you think the oceans are completely saturated with carbon dioxide ...

They're not. Where did you come up with that crazy idea?

The oceans used to be saturated for the 280 ppm level. It will take centuries for the oceans to reach equilibrium with the new higher level.

No ... you've never answered these questions before ...

What was the point of your big-lie-about-saturation deflection? Your posts seem to have no point, except that you want to catch me in some kind of "gotcha", so you make up dumb stories. Is there anything more to it than your butthurt?

 

[mamooth]

The charts describes the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of what you believe -- over a 450,000 year period too!

The charts also show that after CO2 drops, temperature drops. After CO2 rises, temperature rises. CO2 preceeds temp, except at the beginnning. But then, we've already established that CO2 is not what starts the cycle.

Your charts back up the science. Your inability to understand that is only your problem.

And no, repeat your error for the hundredth time won't make it any less dumb.

 

[ReinyDays]

I won't be paying any attention to that deflection. If you actually want to know, go look up Milankovitch Cycles.


They're not. Where did you come up with that crazy idea?

The oceans used to be saturated for the 280 ppm level. It will take centuries for the oceans to reach equilibrium with the new higher level.


What was the point of your big-lie-about-saturation deflection? Your posts seem to have no point, except that you want to catch me in some kind of "gotcha", so you make up dumb stories. Is there anything more to it than your butthurt?

Which orbital factors? ... and please show your math ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The charts also show that after CO2 drops, temperature drops. After CO2 rises, temperature rises. CO2 preceeds temp, except at the beginnning. But then, we've already established that CO2 is not what starts the cycle.

Your charts back up the science. Your inability to understand that is only your problem.

And no, repeat your error for the hundredth time won't make it any less dumb.

So are you saying that other forces cause the warming, or cooling and CO2 increase or decreases in response?

 

[mamooth]

Which orbital factors? ... and please show your math ...

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming - NASA Science

In the last few months, a number of questions have come in asking if NASA has attributed Earth’s recent warming to changes in how Earth moves through space around the Sun: a series of orbital motions known as Milankovitch cycles. What cycles, you ask? Milankovitch cycles include the shape of...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[mamooth]

So are you saying that other forces cause the warming, or cooling and CO2 increase or decreases in response?

On the upside ...

Orbital factors cause a bit of warming.

That warms the oceans.

That makes the oceans release CO2.

That causes more warming.

CO2 feedback continues until the warming tops out.

On the downside ... it works the other way, though more slowly.

Orbital factors cause a bit of cooling.

The oceans cool off.

The oceans absorb CO2.

That causes more cooling.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming - NASA Science

In the last few months, a number of questions have come in asking if NASA has attributed Earth’s recent warming to changes in how Earth moves through space around the Sun: a series of orbital motions known as Milankovitch cycles. What cycles, you ask? Milankovitch cycles include the shape of...

climate.nasa.gov

Which orbital factors? ... and please show your math ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On the upside ...

Orbital factors cause a bit of warming.

That warms the oceans.

That makes the oceans release CO2.

That causes more warming.

CO2 feedback continues until the warming tops out.

On the downside ... it works the other way, though more slowly.

Orbital factors cause a bit of cooling.

The oceans cool off.

The oceans absorb CO2.

That causes more cooling.

So increased CO2 is a byproduct of warming but increased CO2 cannot warm when "other factors" are causing temperatures to decline

Seems right

 

[ding]

The current natural factors are pushing towards cooling, therefore the current fast warming is not natural variation.

That was easy.

Natural cycles have causes. If the natural cycle is pushing warming, there's a cause to that. Since you won't explain your cause, it means you're just invoking magic. That's religion on your part, not science, so you get ignored.


But we don't. We don't believe in a magical climate variation fairy randomly waving a wand about. That's your bizarre religous belief, and we just laugh at it.


As it should have. After all, the feedback cycle goes the other way on the downside of the cycle. You're really bad at this.


You seem confused. The planet is _warming_ now.

Again... If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again... If you believe natural climate variation is the reason the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today then you have to prove why natural climate variation isn't the cause for the recent warming trend.

If you believe natural climate variation is the reason for the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm then you have to believe that natural climate variation can cool the planet today with 420 ppm of CO2.

I think he said that natural variations drives the climate and causes the temperature to go up and down and CO2 just follows along for the ride