Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what?The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by orbital or CO2 forcing.
So what?The planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 levels between 600 to 1000 ppm.
That is false. My belief about the role of CO2 in the Earth's climate does not say that wouldn't have happened.According to your beliefs about the role CO2 plays in the earth's climate, that shouldn't have happened.
www.quantamagazine.org
So they made a mistake by blaming CO2 when variations are a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world. If CO2 is as dominant as you seem to believe it is the planet should have never cooled when CO2 was 600 to 1000 ppm.So what?
So what?
That is false. My belief about the role of CO2 in the Earth's climate does not say that wouldn't have happened.
You're interested in this topic. Read this article.
How Earthâs Climate Changes Naturally (and Why Things Are Different Now)
Earth’s climate has fluctuated through deep time, pushed by these 10 different causes. Here’s how each compares with modern climate change.
Explain a few things here. What planet is not "bipolar"? Since the answer to that rhetorical query is "none", why do you keep making note of it?So they made a mistake by blaming CO2 when variations are a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world.
You haven't the faintest idea how dominant I believe it to be. Neither of us know what the other is thinking. We can only guess, without asking questions. That's why I often ask you to explain things you've said, as I just did. The problem, of course, is that you almost never answer and we are left to wonder if that is because you won't or you can't. So here is the point where a normal person would ASK me how dominant I believe CO2 to be. A normal person would ASK me if I can explain why mainstream science doesn't look at those data and come to the same conclusions you do. But you don't. You assume you know my answer and then attack that. That, of course, tells me and all your loyal readers here more about you than you probably wanted.If CO2 is as dominant as you seem to believe
I've asked you this before but... seeing that this is your favorite topic and that you've studied it for ages and you're really done your work here: WHY HAS THE PLANET BEEN COOLING FOR THE LAST 500 MILLION YEARS?it is the planet should have never cooled when CO2 was 600 to 1000 ppm.
Are you trying to downplay the significance of our bipolar GLACIATED planet? Because it is the dominant climate feature of this planet. One that has never existed before. One that has only come to pass in the last 5 million years and is responsible for climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty. Why are you so ignorant of the empirical climate data and what it tells us?Explain a few things here. What planet is not "bipolar"? Since the answer to that rhetorical query is "none", why do you keep making note of it?
Why do you describe the Earth as "glaciated"? I've traveled quite a bit in my days. I have seen precisely one glacier with my own two eyes and it was about two acres in size. The world doesn't look "glaciated" to me. And NSIDC tells us that the world's glaciers actually make up only 0.14% of the Earth's surface. Do you actually think "glaciated is an accurate description? And, finally, what do you actually mean when you say that "variations are a hallmark..."? Variations in what? And if you could quantitatively characterize "hallmark" (AND THEN NEVER SAY THE GODDAMNED FUCKING WORD EVER AGAIN), it would really enable a more informed discussion.
You haven't the faintest idea how dominant I believe it to be. Neither of us know what the other is thinking. We can only guess, without asking questions. That's why I often ask you to explain things you've said, as I just did. The problem, of course, is that you almost never answer and we are left to wonder if that is because you won't or you can't. So here is the point where a normal person would ASK me how dominant I believe CO2 to be. A normal person would ASK me if I can explain why mainstream science doesn't look at those data and come to the same conclusions you do. But you don't. You assume you know my answer and then attack that. That, of course, tells me and all your loyal readers here more about you than you probably wanted.
I've asked you this before but... seeing that this is your favorite topic and that you've studied it for ages and you're really done your work here: WHY HAS THE PLANET BEEN COOLING FOR THE LAST 500 MILLION YEARS?
Every planet is bipolar you ignorant twit.Are you trying to downplay the significance of our bipolar GLACIATED planet? Because it is the dominant climate feature of this planet. One that has never existed before. One that has only come to pass in the last 5 million years and is responsible for climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty. Why are you so ignorant of the empirical climate data and what it tells us?
Not every planet has ice on both it's poles. That's what bipolar GLACIATION means. In fact, that is a very recent development in the life of our planet.Every planet is bipolar you ignorant twit.
Glaciers are currently covering 0.14% of the planet's surface. No astronomer or astronaut would ever come across such a planet and characterize it as "glaciated".
I have. Dozens of times. It's because of the DIFFERENT thresholds for glaciation at the poles. Which is cause by the DIFFERENT land mass configurations at the poles and how that affects the way each pole is DIFFERENTLY thermally isolated from warmer marine currents.You have NEVER demonstrated ANY causation for the climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty you've claimed ad nauseum. What DOES your empirical climate data tell us?
The rapid warming in the Arctic circle, much faster than the rest of the planet, and the enormous loss of Arctic ice - shrinking of ice extent and volume/loss of older thicker ice - has been reported by climate scientists for decades.
Not every planet has ice on both it's poles. That's what bipolar GLACIATION means. In fact, that is a very recent development in the life of our planet.
You have not. Ever. There is no potential for glaciation in the Arctic Ocean. Explain how that affects the planet's climate.I have. Dozens of times. It's because of the DIFFERENT thresholds for glaciation at the poles. Which is cause by the DIFFERENT land mass configurations at the poles and how that affects the way each pole is DIFFERENTLY thermally isolated from warmer marine currents.
Thermal isolation from warmer marine currents which lowers the threshold for extensive continental glaciation. Without thermal isolation of the polar regions there can be no glaciation.What causes our poles to glaciate?
Why does one Earth polar circle have more than 9 times the ice of the other?
Could Earth have no ice if there were two polar oceans?
Thermal isolation from warmer marine currents which lowers the threshold for extensive continental glaciation. Without thermal isolation of the polar regions there can be no glaciation.
Again... without thermal isolation from warmer marine currents there can be no glaciation at the poles.LOL!!!
The ice is on land, douchebag.
No land near the poles = no ice.
Current Earth ice count
Antarctica 90%
Greenland 7%
Ellesmere Island 0.3%
The rest is sea ice and on top of mountains....
Now, try again to actually focus on the question without hitting up the dictionary for words that DO NOT ANSWER THE ISSUE....
ICE ON LAND NEAR POLES
LAND MOVES
see how that works...
Again... without thermal isolation from warmer marine currents there can be no glaciation at the poles.
All you have to do is study the geologic record to see that what I have said is true.Is there any land on Earth today within 600 miles of a pole not in ice age?
Is there any land on Earth today outside of 600 miles of a pole in ice age?
The answers are NO and NO.
The laughable claim that ocean currents dictate glaciation patterns is blown up immediately by the ACTUAL DATA.
Now try again....
All you have to do is study the geologic record to see that what I have said is true.
There's nothing more for me to add. The geologic record says it all.Bullshit
The data clearly refutes your ocean currents theory. Ocean currents are like wind, they change.
What matters is land near the poles - 100% correlation you do not even attempt to refute.
There's nothing more for me to add. The geologic record says it all.
I have. Many times.When you can explain a MAP of the ARCTIC, LET US KNOW!!!!
