Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[Crick]

Didn't you once argue that the planet was cooling during the little ice age and that it was CO2 that caused the planet to reverse course?

No. I have never had any interest in the Little Ice Age. It has no relevance whatsoever to the current predicament.

 

[ding]

No. I have never had any interest in the Little Ice Age. It has no relevance whatsoever to the current predicament.

You just made the argument like 1 minute ago. See?

Your post-glacial warming does NOT provide the forcing necessary to have produced the observed warming - particularly since the planet was cooling for 5,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of CO2 levels.

What you are saying is that absent CO2 emissions the planet would have kept cooling.

 

[Crick]

You just made the argument like 1 minute ago. See?


What you are saying is that absent CO2 emissions the planet would have kept cooling.

Within my limited understanding, I believe that is correct. The world would have kept cooling. The LIA, by the way, ran from ~1400 to ~1800. So I did NOT just make the argument you are attempting to credit me with. The cooling trend visible in Marcotte's data is NOT the LIA.

 

[ding]

Within my limited understanding, I believe that is correct. The world would have kept cooling. The LIA, by the way, ran from ~1400 to ~1800. So I did NOT just make the argument you are attempting to credit me with. The cooling trend visible in Marcotte's data is NOT the LIA.

Your understanding was wrong. Apparently you either missed or dismissed the many examples of warming trends in glacial cycles followed by cooling trends during glacial cycles and cooling trends in interglacial cycles followed by warming trends. The geologic record is littered with those examples. Just look at the saw tooth nature of the oxygen isotope curve over the past 400,000 years. But the real reason you are wrong is that there is a longer 400,000 year eccentricity cycle where the orbit of the earth is nearly circular. That's the cycle we just came out of so there was little eccentricity forcing to force a glacial cycle.

 

[Crick]

Your understanding was wrong. Apparently you either missed or dismissed the many examples of warming trends in glacial cycles followed by cooling trends during glacial cycles and cooling trends in interglacial cycles followed by warming trends. The geologic record is littered with those examples. Just look at the saw tooth nature of the oxygen isotope curve over the past 400,000 years. But the real reason you are wrong is that there is a longer 400,000 year eccentricity cycle where the orbit of the earth is nearly circular. That's the cycle we just came out of so there was little eccentricity forcing to force a glacial cycle.

And you think that is the cause of the red uptick at the right side of Marcotte's graph?

And, conversely, you believe that the unprecedented increase in CO2 has done absolutely nothing to global temperatures. Right?

 

[ding]

And you think that is the cause of the red uptick at the right side of Marcotte's graph?

And, conversely, you believe that the unprecedented increase in CO2 has done absolutely nothing to global temperatures. Right?

Is natural climate fluctuations of a bipolar glaciated world where the poles are at different thresholds for extensive continental glaciation and the present temperature is close to the northern hemisphere threshold and well below the southern hemisphere threshold.

I think if it truly follows that trend and increases by 2.5C more than today by 2100 I will agree with you, but it won't.

You can see the same kind of behavior here.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years.

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

 

[ding]

you believe that the unprecedented increase in CO2 has done absolutely nothing to global temperatures. Right?

Correct. What temperature difference did Tyndall measure?

Because I don't believe trace amounts of CO2 drive the earth's climate. It never has before in earth's history. CO2 is a minor GHG. Water vapor is the dominant GHG. And I certainly don't believe the climate sensitivity bullshit that says we have to wait hundreds of years to see the GHG effect. The GHG effect is immediate.

 

[Crick]

Is natural climate fluctuations of a bipolar glaciated world where the poles are at different thresholds for extensive continental glaciation and the present temperature is close to the northern hemisphere threshold and well below the southern hemisphere threshold.

I think if it truly follows that trend and increases by 2.5C more than today by 2100 I will agree with you, but it won't.

You can see the same kind of behavior here.

View attachment 645402

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years.

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

If you blew that up to the same horizontal scale as Marcotte's graph, presuming the ice core data are accurate, it would look like Marcotte's graph. Marcotte's graph does NOT look like a trend created by ANY cycle of glaclal forcing. The ascent is FAR too sudden and FAR too steep.

And, you have failed to answer the second question. Do you believe that the CO2 and methane that humans have added to the Earth's atmosphere have done nothing? If not, why not?

 

[ding]

If you blew that up to the same horizontal scale as Marcotte's graph, presuming the ice core data are accurate, it would look like Marcotte's graph. Marcotte's graph does NOT look like a trend created by ANY cycle of glaclal forcing. The ascent is FAR too sudden and FAR too steep.

And, you have failed to answer the second question. Do you believe that the CO2 and methane that humans have added to the Earth's atmosphere have done nothing? If not, why not?

I didn't say it was due to orbital forcing. I said we can see the exact same saw tooth behavior in the oxygen isotope curve in the middle of glacial and interglacial cycles. You are literally looking at one saw tooth and ignoring all the others.

 

[ding]

What temperature difference did Tyndall measure?

 

[Crick]

What temperature difference did Tyndall measure?

Just give me a fucking answer. Do you accept or reject the Greenhouse Effect?

 

[BackAgain]

Check it out, we've got some classic denier retardation here making yet another appearance.

"DERP! DERP! DERP! Climate change happened naturally in the past, so humans can't change climate! DERRRRRRRRRP!"

That's the same logic as saying "Forest fires used to always be natural, so humans can't cause forest fires."

It's staggeringly stupid logic to embrace, therefore every denier embraces it. That cult self-selects for stupidity. If you're not a moron, you get ejected from the cult.

Manboob fucks up again. His claim is false, of course. What the AGW skeptics are noting is that since we know for a fact that the planet’s climate has changed several times over the millennia prior to any possible human causation, it is certainly possible that climate is subject to change now without any necessary correlation to human activity. The slight increase in a very trace “greenhouse” gas is not thereby ruled out as a possible contributor to any climate change we now see. But the simple-minded manboob claim that “since we see possible climate ‘change’ now, at the same time that we see a slight increase in a trace atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas, it must follow that present climate ‘change’ is ‘caused’ by human activity” is not supported.

Manboob, you’re an imbecile. Stop trying to falsely reframe the arguments of your opponents. Instead, get on about the business of showing that the slight increase in a trace atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas is the reason for any global climate change we see. And when you do so, please attend to the problem of any data falsification or other inaccuracies.

 

[ding]

Just give me a fucking answer. Do you accept or reject the Greenhouse Effect?

Says the guy who won't answer what temperature difference Tyndall measured.

Yes there is a GHG effect which is dominated by water vapor. I don't accept how the GHG effect is being quantified for CO2 and I certainly don't accept the climate sensitivity bullshit that says the GHG effect can take hundreds of years to manifest. The GHG effect is immediate.

 

[Crick]

Manboob fucks up again. His claim is false, of course. What the AGW skeptics are noting is that since we know for a fact that the planet’s climate has changed several times over the millennia prior to any possible human causation, it is certainly possible that climate is subject to change now without any necessary correlation to human activity. The slight increase in a very trace “greenhouse” gas is not thereby ruled out as a possible contributor to any climate change we now see. But the simple-minded manboob claim that “since we see possible climate ‘change’ now, at the same time that we see a slight increase in a trace atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas, it must follow that present climate ‘change’ is ‘caused’ by human activity” is not supported.

Manboob, you’re an imbecile. Stop trying to falsely reframe the arguments of your opponents. Instead, get on about the business of showing that the slight increase in a trace atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas is the reason for any global climate change we see. And when you do so, please attend to the problem of any data falsification or other inaccuracies.

The reasoning being applied to the causation of global warming is a LITTLE more sophhiscticated than that. The possible causes of warming are essentially known and all at least roughly calculable. The forcing provided by the known increase in greenhouse gases is calculable. From such work scientists produce data like these:

These are all the radiative factors heating or cooling the planet. They can be algebraically summed and the result is at the bottom of that graphic. That large, dark red bar represents the net sum of heating caused by human factors. Humans GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming.

 

[ding]

If you blew that up to the same horizontal scale as Marcotte's graph, presuming the ice core data are accurate, it would look like Marcotte's graph.

Ice core data has the greatest resolution to see climate fluctuations because it's the polar regions that warm or cool the most when earth's climate fluctuates. And today's temperature is not much more than what it was 10,000 years ago with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

 

[ding]

Crick

The thing about this graphic is that it has no way to explain the climate fluctuations of the past 10,000 years.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years.

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Kalte Sonne​

 

[Crick]

Ice core data has the greatest resolution to see climate fluctuations because it's the polar regions that warm or cool the most when earth's climate fluctuates. And today's temperature is not much more than what it was 10,000 years ago with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

You ignore the point. Marcotte's reconstruction is accurate. The temperature trend it describes could NOT be created by glacial cycle forcing.

Yes there is a GHG effect which is dominated by water vapor. I don't accept how the GHG effect is being quantified for CO2 and I certainly don't accept the climate sensitivity bullshit that says the GHG effect can take hundreds of years to manifest. The GHG effect is immediate.

And you base this rejection of CO2 quantification on what?

 

[ding]

You ignore the point. Marcotte's reconstruction is accurate. The temperature trend it describes could NOT be created by glacial cycle forcing.

I'm not ignoring anything. I am showing you many examples of fluctuations exactly like this over the past 400,000 years that weren't due to orbital forcing.

You are looking at one saw tooth and ignoring all the others.

 

[ding]

And you base this rejection of CO2 quantification on what?

That it has never been proven through controlled laboratory experiments. I've asked you several times for the temperature difference Tyndall measured. I've even asked you to provide the equation you believe that best represents the associated temperature of CO2 and you never could. I've found radiative forcing equations on my own and have and have used them. I'd be more than happy for someone to repeat Tyndall's experiment at various concentrations of CO2 and record the temperature differentials during the cool down.

 

[Crick]

That it has never been proven through controlled laboratory experiments. I've asked you several times for the temperature difference Tyndall measured. I've even asked you to provide the equation you believe that best represents the associated temperature of CO2 and you never could. I've found radiative forcing equations on my own and have and have used them. I'd be more than happy for someone to repeat Tyndall's experiment at various concentrations of CO2 and record the temperature differentials during the cool down.

You actually think no one has done such experiments since Tyndall? Where do you think CO2 absorption spectrums come from?