What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
If the point is that CO2 leads temperatures then what made CO2 levels change?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
And if CO2 really does drive the earth’s climate why was it 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,073
Reaction score
2,998
Points
290
Location
N/A
And if CO2 really does drive the earth’s climate why was it 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?
You're unteachable. When did these conditions exist?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
You're unteachable. When did these conditions exist?
The last interglacial cycle. How many more times do you need to be told that?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,073
Reaction score
2,998
Points
290
Location
N/A
Minor point here. "Interglacial" isn't a cycle, it's a period of time within the glacial cycle. Additionally, I think you've mentioned "3 million years ago" on several occasions. However, the last interglacial period was 130,000 to 115,000 years BP. That period would be fully covered by ice cores and the CO2/temperature data from them look like this:
1668456563264.png

with the last interglacial conveniently noted in grey. Can we assume you're talking about the period from ~120,000 - 103,000 BP? If so, I will point out there are very similar features at all three of the interglacials displayed here. It looks to be completely typical behavior and the chances that YOU are the only person since these data were recorded to ever notice that feature are, I'm sorry to say, zero.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Minor point here. "Interglacial" isn't a cycle, it's a period of time within the glacial cycle. Additionally, I think you've mentioned "3 million years ago" on several occasions. However, the last interglacial period was 130,000 to 115,000 years BP. That period would be fully covered by ice cores and the CO2/temperature data from them look like this:
View attachment 725847
with the last interglacial conveniently noted in grey. Can we assume you're talking about the period from ~120,000 - 103,000 BP? If so, I will point out there are very similar features at all three of the interglacials displayed here. It looks to be completely typical behavior and the chances that YOU are the only person since these data were recorded to ever notice that feature are, I'm sorry to say, zero.
So they missed noticing the 26ft higher sea levels too? Seriously dude, you need to work on your honesty.

Northern hemisphere glaciation cycles began 3 million years ago. There have been over 30 cycles in the last 3 million years. Look at the oxygen isotope curve.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
So the question still stands. What radiative forcing component was responsible for the planet being 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Crick

If your point is that CO2 leads temperatures then what made CO2 levels change?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
120,331
Reaction score
21,752
Points
2,180
I am not an AGW denier. I fully accept the conclusions of the IPCC. I have no idea what you mean by "why are you money pits?" or the particular relevance of your comments about rain and flood mitigation.
the IPCC isn't a science organization. Name one scientist who works for the IPCC?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,073
Reaction score
2,998
Points
290
Location
N/A
So the question still stands. What radiative forcing component was responsible for the planet being 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?
ComponentS.
So they missed noticing the 26ft higher sea levels too? Seriously dude, you need to work on your honesty.

Northern hemisphere glaciation cycles began 3 million years ago. There have been over 30 cycles in the last 3 million years. Look at the oxygen isotope curve.
It's a graph of temperature and CO2 versus time. If the best you can come up with is that it didn't include sea level... that's just pathetic. And, again, interglacials aren't cycles.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
ComponentS.

It's a graph of temperature and CO2 versus time. If the best you can come up with is that it didn't include sea level... that's just pathetic. And, again, interglacials aren't cycles.
Please tell me you aren’t arguing the last interglacial cycle wasn’t 2C warmer than today with 26ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,073
Reaction score
2,998
Points
290
Location
N/A
Please tell me you aren’t arguing the last interglacial cycle wasn’t 2C warmer than today with 26ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.
I have made no attempt to verify your claims but I am not making such an argument. I'm wondering why you're complaining about missing sea level data in a presentation of temperature vs CO2 data?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
I have made no attempt to verify your claims but I am not making such an argument. I'm wondering why you're complaining about missing sea level data in a presentation of temperature vs CO2 data?
I haven’t complained about missing sea level data. It’s in the public record. The last interglacial cycle was 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,073
Reaction score
2,998
Points
290
Location
N/A
I haven’t complained about missing sea level data. It’s in the public record. The last interglacial cycle was 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.
So they missed noticing the 26ft higher sea levels too? Seriously dude, you need to work on your honesty
And, again, there is no such thing as an interglacial cycle. There are glacial cycles which contain interglacials. And the last one took place about 120,000 years ago and was characterized by a larger than normal lag between temperature and CO2. During the period temperatures were dropping, CO2, due to the lag, was still elevated. That, of course, does NOT fit your description. I strongly suspect that the midst of that lag is the point in time you keep describing to us and that your reluctance to identify the specific point in time is because even a sixth grader looking at the data would see a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 and would realize that you are either using the lag to be deceitful or you didn't yourself see it till you had stuck your foot so deep in your own mouth that it couldn't be extricated (or at least YOU couldn't pull it out). If there is some other specific time to which you're referring, do us the favor of actually identifying it rather than whining that no one pays attention to you. You get far more attention than you deserve.
1669036718693.png

 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
And, again, there is no such thing as an interglacial cycle. There are glacial cycles which contain interglacials. And the last one took place about 120,000 years ago and was characterized by a larger than normal lag between temperature and CO2. I strongly suspect that the midst of that lag is the point in time you keep describing to us and that your reluctance to identify the specific point in time is because even a sixth grader looking at the data would see a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 and would realize that you are either using the lag to be deceitful or you didn't yourself see it till you had stuck your foot so deep in your own mouth that it couldn't be extricated (or at least YOU couldn't pull it out)
View attachment 729072
2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
I don’t believe showing you hard proof that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature makes me a troll.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,073
Reaction score
2,998
Points
290
Location
N/A
I don’t believe showing you hard proof that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature makes me a troll.
Hahahahahaaaa... hard proof!!! Hahahahaaa...
Tell you what, let's you and me ignore each other. I think the world will be a better place for it.
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Hahahahahaaaa... hard proof!!! Hahahahaaa...
The geologic record isn’t hard enough proof for you?

It’s certainly harder proof than computer modeling with garbage inputs. Especially since they routinely tune out natural variations.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,183
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top