Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[ding]

Not all warming is due to CO2.

I thought that was manifestly clear.

What do you think caused these?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Your last post literally proved it. That was a really stupid thing to say. Who cares that a shit load of examples of warming and cooling trends only went back 10,000 years.

FIrst off: because going back only 10,000 years is effectively meaningless. That's within the noise of geologic history. But moreso because, as noted, CO2 is not the only source of warming.

What do you think caused them?

I'd have to look more closely at it. Could have been a wide variety of things. Perhaps solar cycles, perhaps ocean currents, perhaps even CO2.

Maybe you can tell us what caused them.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What do you think caused these?

Source the image and maybe I'll take a look at it. If not, then I won't bother.

 

[ding]

FIrst off: because going back only 10,000 years is effectively meaningless. That's within the noise of geologic history. But moreso because, as noted, CO2 is not the only source of warming.



I'd have to look more closely at it. Could have been a wide variety of things. Perhaps solar cycles, perhaps ocean currents, perhaps even CO2.

Maybe you can tell us what caused them.

The point is to show you how much the climate fluctuates.

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

 

[ding]

Source the image and maybe I'll take a look at it. If not, then I won't bother.

It was sourced.

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

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Your last post literally proved it.

Just a quick technical question: if I can't explain some random graph you pulled from god knows where it means I can't have possibly done a PhD in geology?

That seems pretty weak in the logic department.

My degrees were in organic geochemistry so paleoclimate was not my primary focus.

 

[ding]

Just a quick technical question: if I can't explain some random graph you pulled from god knows where it means I can't have possibly done a PhD in geology?

That seems pretty weak in the logic department.

My degrees were in organic geochemistry so paleoclimate was not my primary focus.

It's ice core data. Not a random graph. That you don't understand the difference is more proof of your lying about your bonafides.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The point is to show you how much the climate fluctuates.

No one argues against that. But the point is that paleoclimatologists have already investigated these things and that "variability" that happens naturally usually happens for a reason.

The fact of the matter is that the NATURAL FORCINGS cannot currently account for the warming we've seen in the last 60 years. But if we include human activities the data starts to make sense.

Here's a graph from grida.no that makes the case:

Here's what you are looking at:

In Graph (A) you see what temperatures SHOULD have done using only natural forcings (solar etc.) The black line is the fit. The RED LINE is what the temperatures ACTUALLY DID. Note how they diverge.

Graph (B) is what the graph looks like if you just rely on "human factors" (human produced GHG's and land use changes etc.). The fit is MUCH better but not perfect.

Graph (C) shows both natural and human forcings. The fit is VERY GOOD.

Natural forcings play something of a role (obviously) but they cannot explain the warming we've seen the last 60 years by themselves. In fact human forcings explain a LOT more of the data than natural.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's ice core data. Not a random graph.

Without a citation it's pretty much a random graph.

 

[ding]

No one argues against that. But the point is that paleoclimatologists have already investigated these things and that "variability" that happens naturally usually happens for a reason.

The fact of the matter is that the NATURAL FORCINGS cannot currently account for the warming we've seen in the last 60 years. But if we include human activities the data starts to make sense.

Here's a graph from grida.no that makes the case:

Here's what you are looking at:

In Graph (A) you see what temperatures SHOULD have done using only natural forcings (solar etc.) The black line is the fit. The RED LINE is what the temperatures ACTUALLY DID. Note how they diverge.

Graph (B) is what the graph looks like if you just rely on "human factors" (human produced GHG's and land use changes etc.). The fit is MUCH better but not perfect.

Graph (C) shows both natural and human forcings. The fit is VERY GOOD.

Natural forcings play something of a role (obviously) but they cannot explain the warming we've seen the last 60 years by themselves. In fact human forcings explain a LOT more of the data than natural.

So you agree with me that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends that were not related to CO2 or orbital forcing. That is progress. Next time don't argue against it.

Now that we have established that we need to establish that climate fluctuations increased after the planet transitioned to an icehouse planet from a greenhouse planet.

 

[ding]

Without a citation it's pretty much a random graph.

Greenland ice core data. You are supposed to have a PhD in geology, remember?

 

[ding]

No one argues against that. But the point is that paleoclimatologists have already investigated these things and that "variability" that happens naturally usually happens for a reason.

So what cause of this natural variability would have been responsible for all of those temperature changes over the last 10,000 years?

 

[Sunsettommy]

That only goes back 10,000 years.

The earth is 4.5BILLION years old.

Ha ha ha,

CO2 still occupies the SAME IR wavelength today as it did 4.5 billion years ago.

You, really a scientist?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Just a quick technical question: if I can't explain some random graph you pulled from god knows where it means I can't have possibly done a PhD in geology?

That seems pretty weak in the logic department.

My degrees were in organic geochemistry so paleoclimate was not my primary focus.

No you are showing that you suffered from a GOOK education since Ding gave you a chart that made a fool of you so easily with your stupid 10,000 is meaningless deflection in response.

You asked for the source for the chart which he already posted it in POST 13 you sure have trouble reading simple posts and not just here.


why are you here anyway did Crick ask you to humiliate yourself in coming here or are you a sockpuppet of Crick?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Source the image and maybe I'll take a look at it. If not, then I won't bother.

He posted it with the chart from the start on page one.

What you are doing is dodging a simple question.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's ice core data. Not a random graph. That you don't understand the difference is more proof of your lying about your bonafides.

He is dodging and LYING since you posted the source link with the chart it is clear we are dealing with a another warmist/alarmist Gook.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So you agree with me that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends that were not related to CO2 or orbital forcing.

I don't believe I've EVER said otherwise. CO2 isn't the source of ALL warming.

That is progress. Next time don't argue against it.

I don't believe I did. That wouldn't make any sense.

Honestly I thought I'd been ridiculously clear on this.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

He is dodging and LYING since you posted the source link

I didn't see the source link. Could you point me to the post where it was?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

He posted it with the chart from the start on page one.

Go ahead and provide me the post # then. Thanks!

What you are doing is dodging a simple question.

It's not a simple question by any stretch.

If you know so much about this, perhaps YOU can answer it. What processes are responsible for the warmings?

 

[Sunsettommy]

No one argues against that. But the point is that paleoclimatologists have already investigated these things and that "variability" that happens naturally usually happens for a reason.

The fact of the matter is that the NATURAL FORCINGS cannot currently account for the warming we've seen in the last 60 years. But if we include human activities the data starts to make sense.

Here's a graph from grida.no that makes the case:

Here's what you are looking at:

In Graph (A) you see what temperatures SHOULD have done using only natural forcings (solar etc.) The black line is the fit. The RED LINE is what the temperatures ACTUALLY DID. Note how they diverge.

Graph (B) is what the graph looks like if you just rely on "human factors" (human produced GHG's and land use changes etc.). The fit is MUCH better but not perfect.

Graph (C) shows both natural and human forcings. The fit is VERY GOOD.

Natural forcings play something of a role (obviously) but they cannot explain the warming we've seen the last 60 years by themselves. In fact human forcings explain a LOT more of the data than natural.

Now you are dishonest as hell too since he posted a chart showing a 10,000 year period showing a LOT of temperature fluctuations in which YOU dismissed saying 10,000 years is very short geologically when Earth is 4.5 billion years old then you post a bunch of charts that covers only 160 years time.

You are NOT a scientist because you are making STUPID lying contradictory postings here!