Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[Cardinal Carminative]

Now you are dishonest as hell

Give it a rest.

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

So then you can tell us what caused the warming spikes.

Just go ahead. Thanks!

 

[Sunsettommy]

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



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?

Already told you it is at post 13 you bling FUCK!

Said it at post 34.

Ding told you several times he posted the source for it which is right below the chart he posted the first time he brough it up.

You are pathetic!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

By how much does temperature increase when CO2 is increased from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Give it a rest.



So then you can tell us what caused the warming spikes.

Just go ahead. Thanks!

You are scum who keeps dodging that very question you asking me about what causing the spikes which you dodge over and over.

A real scientist with a good education wouldn't be this stupid and dishonest in replies.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Several times PV system requesting the source for the chart Ding posted which Ding duly answered several times:

Ding at POST 13 showed the 10,000-year Greenland chart for the FIRST time with the source link right below it.

PV replies at post 16,

"That only goes back 10,000 years.

The earth is 4.5BILLION years old."

which shows he at least saw the chart.

Then after several exchanges over the chart PV has seen several times as Ding posted it again and again,

PV writes at POST 23,

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

The very next post 24 Ding posted the chart for the 4th time with this below it a very helpful hint:

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

Ding in POST 25 reply to PV's request for the source of the chart posted the charts source for the SECOND time.

Dumb ass PV statement at POST 29 says,

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

The moron was already told this 5 minutes earlier,

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

===

Then I jumped in to try helping his slow motion brain to learn the source that was given to him twice already.

POST 34,

"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."

The retard replies and keep in mind this is now 58 minutes after Ding at Post 25 gave him the source link for the SECOND time,

PV writes at 6:05,

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

This after THREE times he was shown where the Source link is.

It is clear we are dealing with another dog eared drooling warmist/alarmist GOOK who can't figure out simple answers to his repeated requests for the source which TWO people answered him several times where it is then he vanished.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

What's stupid is to think temps can rise many times in the past and it has nothing at all to do with human activity and yet in modern times it is virtually impossible for the planet to warm unless it is the fault of humans.

 

[Independent thinker]

As well as cases where warming may be tied to increased CO2.





Indeed.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Several times PV system requesting the source for the chart Ding posted which Ding duly answered several times:

Ding at POST 13 showed the 10,000-year Greenland chart for the FIRST time with the source link right below it.

PV replies at post 16,

"That only goes back 10,000 years.

The earth is 4.5BILLION years old."

which shows he at least saw the chart.

Then after several exchanges over the chart PV has seen several times as Ding posted it again and again,

PV writes at POST 23,

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

The very next post 24 Ding posted the chart for the 4th time with this below it a very helpful hint:

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

Ding in POST 25 reply to PV's request for the source of the chart posted the charts source for the SECOND time.

Dumb ass PV statement at POST 29 says,

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

The moron was already told this 5 minutes earlier,

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

===

Then I jumped in to try helping his slow motion brain to learn the source that was given to him twice already.

POST 34,

"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."

The retard replies and keep in mind this is now 58 minutes after Ding at Post 25 gave him the source link for the SECOND time,

PV writes at 6:05,

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

This after THREE times he was shown where the Source link is.

It is clear we are dealing with another dog eared drooling warmist/alarmist GOOK who can't figure out simple answers to his repeated requests for the source which TWO people answered him several times where it is then he vanished.

Thanks for the post number.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are scum

Thanks.

who keeps dodging that very question you asking me about what causing the spikes which you dodge over and over.

Oh, sorry, I assumed with all your BIG TALK you knew something I didn't.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually the geologic record isn't littered with warming trends caused by CO2.

This is what littered looks like. What do you believe caused these fluctuations?

View attachment 630214

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

The interesting thing is that Easterbrook appears to be using one area (upper area of Greenland) as a proxy for the entire earth's temperature.

Even Easterbrook notes that this is not a truly accurate proxy for the entire earth:

"keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data."

Also it should be noted that GISP2 convention has "present" as 1950, not 2000 or even 1987 and since the most recent data point in the GISP2 data set is 95 years "BP" (before present) that puts it at about 1855 or so.

This would, of course, be well before the actual experience of human-caused global climate change of any significant level.

So let's look at some research that was done which ACTUALLY MEASURES TEMPERATURES FROM THAT AREA OF GREENLAND SINCE 1855.

This article (by Box et al, 2009) shows such a reconstruction:

Note the general increase since the 1850's.

There are also descriptions of cooling events even within this due to things like volcanic eruptions (which often put particles or aerosols into the atmosphere sufficient to cause some negative forcing).

But you can see that the temperature is going up vs the middle 19th century. Which is very much in line with AGW.

So it seems that Dr. Easterbrook made an error in assuming that a single data point in Greenland was an effective proxy for the earth (that is pretty basic and common sense that it DOESN'T) and the further fails to account for the fact that the GISP2 dataset's most recent data point is in the middle 19th century, thus missing the warming we are seeing now.

The climate scientists have looked extensively at this warming and fail to find natural forcings which can account for the warming we see.

And, since the Cenozoic ice ages are largely driven by Milankovich Cycles we should be heading back into another glacial period but we are not.

By all rights it SHOULD be cooler than the middle of the last interglacial, but it is now warming up again. And has been since the middle 19th century and that indicates human activity.

 

[ding]

The interesting thing is that Easterbrook appears to be using one area (upper area of Greenland) as a proxy for the entire earth's temperature.

That couldn't be further from the truth. It's almost like you didn't even read anything from the link.

Thousands of accelerator measurements of δ18O from the Greenland GISP2 ice core made by Stuiver and Grootes at the University of Washington can be used to reconstruct temperature fluctuations in Greenland over the past 100,000 years (Stuiver and Grootes, 2000;. Grootes and Stuiver, 1997; Stuiver et al.., 1995; Stuiver, et al., 1993). What makes these measurements so useful is the accuracy of dating of the samples accomplished by counting annual layers of dust that accumulated in the ice during each melt season on the glacier, giving a dating accuracy of a few years over thousands of years. This is not possible in the Antiarctic ice cores.

Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions. However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The interesting thing is that Easterbrook appears to be using one area (upper area of Greenland) as a proxy for the entire earth's temperature.

Even Easterbrook notes that this is not a truly accurate proxy for the entire earth:

"keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data."

Also it should be noted that GISP2 convention has "present" as 1950, not 2000 or even 1987 and since the most recent data point in the GISP2 data set is 95 years "BP" (before present) that puts it at about 1855 or so.

This would, of course, be well before the actual experience of human-caused global climate change of any significant level.

So let's look at some research that was done which ACTUALLY MEASURES TEMPERATURES FROM THAT AREA OF GREENLAND SINCE 1855.

This article (by Box et al, 2009) shows such a reconstruction:

Note the general increase since the 1850's.

There are also descriptions of cooling events even within this due to things like volcanic eruptions (which often put particles or aerosols into the atmosphere sufficient to cause some negative forcing).

But you can see that the temperature is going up vs the middle 19th century. Which is very much in line with AGW.

So it seems that Dr. Easterbrook made an error in assuming that a single data point in Greenland was an effective proxy for the earth (that is pretty basic and common sense that it DOESN'T) and the further fails to account for the fact that the GISP2 dataset's most recent data point is in the middle 19th century, thus missing the warming we are seeing now.

The climate scientists have looked extensively at this warming and fail to find natural forcings which can account for the warming we see.

And, since the Cenozoic ice ages are largely driven by Milankovich Cycles we should be heading back into another glacial period but we are not.

By all rights it SHOULD be cooler than the middle of the last interglacial, but it is now warming up again. And has been since the middle 19th century and that indica

It is clear you didn't read his link since it was UPDATED it to 1987 as shown here,

"Figure 1 shows δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years. The isotope record begins at 1987 AD at the top of the core. Temperatures higher than those in 1987 (the horizontal line) are shown in red, lower in blue. The most striking thing about the curve is that temperatures for almost all of the 10,000 year record were higher than those in 1987. The last 1500 years or so were cooler. Thawing out has occurred since the Little Ice Age, but temperatures are not yet back to where they had been for almost all of the Holocene."

Boldings mine

You should read better you a lazy scientist?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

That only goes back 10,000 years.

The earth is 4.5BILLION years old.

4.5 billion years ago, it was a lot hotter than it was now. So are we in a cooling phase still?

 

[ding]

Even Easterbrook notes that this is not a truly accurate proxy for the entire earth:

And I never implied it was. The only thing I was trying to get through your thick, uneducated skull was that the geologic record is littered with examples of temperature trend fluctuations that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Because you seem to think only CO2 can be responsible for the recent warming trend. That just isn't the case.

 

[ding]

So let's look at some research that was done which ACTUALLY MEASURES TEMPERATURES FROM THAT AREA OF GREENLAND SINCE 1855.

The planet was coming out of the mini-ice age, dummy. Of course it was going to warm. We are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles. Warming is expected.

 

[ding]

The most striking thing about the curve is that temperatures for almost all of the 10,000 year record were higher than those in 1987. The last 1500 years or so were cooler. Thawing out has occurred since the Little Ice Age, but temperatures are not yet back to where they had been for almost all of the Holocene.

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

kaltesonne.de

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That couldn't be further from the truth. It's almost like you didn't even read anything from the link.

So show me from the raw GISP2 data what the most recent datapoint is.

I will remind you that ice core data can only be taken from ICE cores which are formed from the accumulation of SNOW which is then compressed over time into FERN and then ICE.

So just show me in the GISP2 dataset what the last datapoint could be.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The planet was coming out of the mini-ice age, dummy.

The LIA was a function of reduced solar output between the 16th and 19th centuries. Unfortunately the solar output signal cannot be correlated to additional warming after 1970.

Meehl et al (2004) states:

"The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model with anthropogenic forcing (mainly GHGs), while the early twentieth-century warming is mainly caused by natural forcing in the model (mainly solar). However, the signature of globally averaged temperature at any time in the twentieth century is a direct consequence of the sum of the forcings." (emphasis added)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And I never implied it was.

Unfortuantely that is what is rather the point of the reference. When one relies on a single point source it is impossible to infer the global temperature.

The only thing I was trying to get through your thick, uneducated skull was that the geologic record is littered with examples of temperature trend fluctuations that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

And I actually agreed to that long ago. It is not controversial.

But what I am attempting to show is that the scientists keep telling you that those natural forcings cannot currently account for the last 50 years of warming.

Because you seem to think only CO2 can be responsible for the recent warming trend. That just isn't the case.

I DO NOT. IN fact I have EXPLICITLY SAID THE OPPOSITE.

Pleas do not misrepresent what I have explicitly stated over and over again.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

4.5 billion years ago, it was a lot hotter than it was now. So are we in a cooling phase still?

Feel free to explain your reasoning there.