Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[kflaux]

Incidentally. Anyone who really is interested in how climate has affected civilizations in the past--and how very slight changes in climate, far smaller than what we've seen so far, have caused civilizations to end--should read some of Brian Fagan's books.

Amazon.com brian fagan books Books

I can vouch for The Great Warming and The Long Summer. Both excellent.

 

[jc456]

oh my gawd

 

[jc456]

Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt.

It is amazingly stupid to say,

"In the past, forest fires were caused by lightning, and the present must be exactly like the past, so humans can't cause forest fires."

or

"In the past, species went extinct naturally, and the present must be exactly like the past, so humans can't make species go extinct."

or

"In the past, CO2 lagged temp, and the present must be exactly like the past, so CO2 must lag temps now."

The 3 statements are precisely the same concerning the degree of stupidity required to make them. A dim third grader could understand the logic failure behind them.

What's more, the recent science points out it's not even true that CO2 lags temps. Therefore, an honest person would not even be making the claim that CO2 lags temp.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
---
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---

The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life.

North Africa used to be the breadbasket of Rome. How's it doing now under higher temps? You mean it's a blasted desert now? My, what an improvement.

Arabia used to be much more fertile. How's it doing now?

Dead civilizations litter the American southwest and Africa. Are they better off because of the warming?

Warming benefited northern Europe. Rational people understand northern Europe is a small slice of the globe.

I won't even get into your "ALL life!" statement. That took your stupidity to new heights, your deliberate absolute claim that every living thing on the planet would do better when temps are hotter. It essentially reveals you as a religious zealot, hoping for more holy warming.

no, see really, we all just want the experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. Bring that puppy on. We're all patiently waiting.

 

[westwall]

There are no deaths attributable to "climate change". There are deaths associated to weather related disasters. I'll grant you that. But "climate change" is a meme. It has no basis in reality for the simple reason that the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING, regardless of mans input.

As I pointed out above, climate has been remarkably stable for the past 11,000 years, called the Holocene.

Holocene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And it is precisely this climate stability that has allowed human civilization to thrive.

And we are just now in the process of pissing it all away.

So, you love to trot out the misery of people and blame climate change for their tribulations. Please direct us to a single year....just one year, where no weather related disaster has occurred. Just one, out of those three thousand years of written history....give us one.

Two problems here.

1) No, I don't love to point out misery. It pains me to do so.

2) The logical fallacy in the last two sentences of your paragraph is almost too obvious to point out. I get the feeling I'm not conversing with an adult here.

If someone somewhere has died of lung cancer without smoking cigarettes, does that imply the latter cannot cause the former?

Nothing personal, but unless you manage something a little more intelligent, I'll probably not bother any more.

Define "stable". The global temperature range within the last 11,000 years has been around 4 degree's C. The Holocene Thermal Maximum was 5 degree's C above what it is today. The Roman was 2 degrees, the Medieval was 1.5 to 2 degrees C above what it is today. Amazingly enough culture flourished during those times. That is a fact. When it was cold, like during the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe there was a loss of civilization. That period specifically is known as the Dark Ages.

These are facts. You are the one using emotional arguments, devoid of historical context so, right back at you. Clearly you only wish to engage in a misery/emotional fest and ignore facts, they don't correlate with my pre-determined meme.

Good day and enjoy your ignorance.

 

[Crick]

The RWP is the Roman Warming Period which was at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day. Before that there was the Minoan Warming Period, and before that was the Holocene Thermal Maximum. All of these warming periods were warmer than the present day. And by a lot. Interspersed between the warming periods were cold trends. The Little Ice Age is the most recent, and before that was the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe. In other words, the climate is cyclic and regardless of CO2 levels the temps go up and down in a never ending cycle.

The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD. Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.

Theophrastus (371 - c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation. Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.

The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis. It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]

So, unless you have a better source with different information, your claim of "at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day" is horseshit.

and

Medieval Warm Period not so random Know

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we'll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists' reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

the Minoan Warm Period was sufficiently insignificant that while searches find the term used in numerous articles, climatological details about the period are virtually nonexistent. If you have a source showing reason to believe it was "warmer than the preset day... and by a lot" I would very much like to see it.

As for the Holocene Thermal Optimum, I know you have seen this graphic before
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png[/quote]

Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.

Before anyone gets too excited the default meaning of BP is "Before 1950".

 

[jc456]

The RWP is the Roman Warming Period which was at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day. Before that there was the Minoan Warming Period, and before that was the Holocene Thermal Maximum. All of these warming periods were warmer than the present day. And by a lot. Interspersed between the warming periods were cold trends. The Little Ice Age is the most recent, and before that was the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe. In other words, the climate is cyclic and regardless of CO2 levels the temps go up and down in a never ending cycle.

The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD. Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.

Theophrastus (371 - c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation. Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.

The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis. It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]

So, unless you have a better source with different information, your claim of "at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day" is horseshit.

and

Medieval Warm Period not so random Know

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we'll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists' reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

the Minoan Warm Period was sufficiently insignificant that while searches find the term used in numerous articles, climatological details about the period are virtually nonexistent. If you have a source showing reason to believe it was "warmer than the preset day... and by a lot" I would very much like to see it.

As for the Holocene Thermal Optimum, I know you have seen this graphic before
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.[/QUOTE]

 

[Crick]

No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models. Computer models are not data no mater how hard the AGW scientists would have you believe them to be. The proxies that they use are notoriously inaccurate. However, let us grant the hypothesis that the change occurred that fast. Nothing happened. Nothing at all. No mass deaths, no worldwide conflagration. Nothing. Well, the worldwide legend of the flood originates at that time. But nothing else bad happened.

Climate changes as quickly as it is driven to change. The climate change that resulted from the Chicxulub Impact was most assuredly sudden. Human GHG emissions and deforestation have driven CO2 levels up faster than any time since that disaster, 65 million years ago.

All of the hyperbole, and all of the hysteria is merely a poor attempt at propaganda designed to frighten the savages so that they will willingly turn over their wealth and property to a wealthy elite. That's it.

And so we are back to the grand conspiracy of climate scientists. Are you really that stupid?

 

[Crick]

Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth. Is it the atmosphere? Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet. In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.

This is ignorant nonsense and you ought to know it. The atmosphere is the ONLY reason the Earth is not -18C but +14C.

Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get. So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.

Are you serious? You think the Earth's atmosphere is thermodynamically equivalant to "dead air" trapped in insulating glass wool?

How about the ground? Does that do it? Welllll, let's see. In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute. If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night! What gives? Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.

Do you actually believe these are valid arguments? And what did you mean by the term "Earth" if you're now asking if it is warmed by "the ground"? I also find it surprising that you claim the sun cannot warm the Earth yet point out that when it sets in the very hot desert, it gets very cold. That certainly seems like the transmission of thermal energy to me.

So...what does that leave? Oh yeah! It leaves the oceans! And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range. Amazing! OK. We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth. Cool. Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed? Hmm. There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation. How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?

The oceans heat the Earth? Then the continental coastlines must be the hottest regions on the planet, right? And the interior spaces must be the coldest. Right? Hmm...

Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep. Over 100 meters in point of fact. So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans? Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur. However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see. Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.

Where did you get the idea that light has to penetrate to 100 meters in order to warm the ocean? Really? Please identify a source for that idea because it sounds like more ignorant horseshit to me. How deep does light have to penetrate into a black solar panel to make it hot? A few angstroms? Do such panels get hot? They certainly do.

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

I haven't seen such a collection of ignorance in a good long while.

The atmosphere, the ocean and the land are all warmed directly by solar radiation. All three domains exchange thermal energy internally, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate) and externally between each other and space, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate). GHGs in the atmosphere absorb light in the IR band that would otherwise escape to space. That energy gets reradiated in all directions, returning some of it to the planet, slowing its escape to space and raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature. The greenhouse effect is quite real and is responsible for 33C of the Earth's temperature and for the additional warming from the increased GHGs humans have put into the atmosphere via deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. Everything you've claimed here is a complete crock of unsupported and unsupportable horseshit.

Prove me wrong.

 

[jc456]

Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth. Is it the atmosphere? Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet. In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.

This is ignorant nonsense and you ought to know it. The atmosphere is the ONLY reason the Earth is not -18C but +14C.

Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get. So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.

Are you serious? You think the Earth's atmosphere is thermodynamically equivalant to "dead air" trapped in insulating glass wool?

How about the ground? Does that do it? Welllll, let's see. In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute. If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night! What gives? Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.

Do you actually believe these are valid arguments? And what did you mean by the term "Earth" if you're now asking if it is warmed by "the ground"? I also find it surprising that you claim the sun cannot warm the Earth yet point out that when it sets in the very hot desert, it gets very cold. That certainly seems like the transmission of thermal energy to me.

So...what does that leave? Oh yeah! It leaves the oceans! And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range. Amazing! OK. We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth. Cool. Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed? Hmm. There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation. How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?

The oceans heat the Earth? Then the continental coastlines must be the hottest regions on the planet, right? And the interior spaces must be the coldest. Right? Hmm...

Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep. Over 100 meters in point of fact. So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans? Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur. However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see. Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.

Where did you get the idea that light has to penetrate to 100 meters in order to warm the ocean? Really? Please identify a source for that idea because it sounds like more ignorant horseshit to me. How deep does light have to penetrate into a black solar panel to make it hot? A few angstroms? Do such panels get hot? They certainly do.

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

I haven't seen such a collection of ignorance in a good long while.

The atmosphere, the ocean and the land are all warmed directly by solar radiation. All three domains exchange thermal energy internally, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate) and externally between each other and space, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate). GHGs in the atmosphere absorb light in the IR band that would otherwise escape to space. That energy gets reradiated in all directions, returning some of it to the planet, slowing its escape to space and raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature. The greenhouse effect is quite real and is responsible for 33C of the Earth's temperature and for the additional warming from the increased GHGs humans have put into the atmosphere via deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. Everything you've claimed here is a complete crock of unsupported and unsupportable horseshit.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Crick]

The RWP is the Roman Warming Period which was at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day. Before that there was the Minoan Warming Period, and before that was the Holocene Thermal Maximum. All of these warming periods were warmer than the present day. And by a lot. Interspersed between the warming periods were cold trends. The Little Ice Age is the most recent, and before that was the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe. In other words, the climate is cyclic and regardless of CO2 levels the temps go up and down in a never ending cycle.

The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD. Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.

Theophrastus (371 - c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation. Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.

The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis. It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]

So, unless you have a better source with different information, your claim of "at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day" is horseshit.

and

Medieval Warm Period not so random Know

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we'll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists' reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

the Minoan Warm Period was sufficiently insignificant that while searches find the term used in numerous articles, climatological details about the period are virtually nonexistent. If you have a source showing reason to believe it was "warmer than the preset day... and by a lot" I would very much like to see it.

As for the Holocene Thermal Optimum, I know you have seen this graphic before
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.

View attachment 38535


So, you're unable to defend Westwall's comments. Got it.

 

[Crick]

Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth. Is it the atmosphere? Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet. In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.

This is ignorant nonsense and you ought to know it. The atmosphere is the ONLY reason the Earth is not -18C but +14C.

Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get. So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.

Are you serious? You think the Earth's atmosphere is thermodynamically equivalant to "dead air" trapped in insulating glass wool?

How about the ground? Does that do it? Welllll, let's see. In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute. If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night! What gives? Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.

Do you actually believe these are valid arguments? And what did you mean by the term "Earth" if you're now asking if it is warmed by "the ground"? I also find it surprising that you claim the sun cannot warm the Earth yet point out that when it sets in the very hot desert, it gets very cold. That certainly seems like the transmission of thermal energy to me.

So...what does that leave? Oh yeah! It leaves the oceans! And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range. Amazing! OK. We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth. Cool. Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed? Hmm. There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation. How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?

The oceans heat the Earth? Then the continental coastlines must be the hottest regions on the planet, right? And the interior spaces must be the coldest. Right? Hmm...

Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep. Over 100 meters in point of fact. So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans? Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur. However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see. Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.

Where did you get the idea that light has to penetrate to 100 meters in order to warm the ocean? Really? Please identify a source for that idea because it sounds like more ignorant horseshit to me. How deep does light have to penetrate into a black solar panel to make it hot? A few angstroms? Do such panels get hot? They certainly do.

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

I haven't seen such a collection of ignorance in a good long while.

The atmosphere, the ocean and the land are all warmed directly by solar radiation. All three domains exchange thermal energy internally, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate) and externally between each other and space, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate). GHGs in the atmosphere absorb light in the IR band that would otherwise escape to space. That energy gets reradiated in all directions, returning some of it to the planet, slowing its escape to space and raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature. The greenhouse effect is quite real and is responsible for 33C of the Earth's temperature and for the additional warming from the increased GHGs humans have put into the atmosphere via deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. Everything you've claimed here is a complete crock of unsupported and unsupportable horseshit.

Prove me wrong.

View attachment 38536

What point are you attempting to make here jc? Are you suggesting that the Earth has been warmed by volcanic eruptions?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth. Is it the atmosphere? Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet. In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.

This is ignorant nonsense and you ought to know it. The atmosphere is the ONLY reason the Earth is not -18C but +14C.

Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get. So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.

Are you serious? You think the Earth's atmosphere is thermodynamically equivalant to "dead air" trapped in insulating glass wool?

How about the ground? Does that do it? Welllll, let's see. In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute. If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night! What gives? Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.

Do you actually believe these are valid arguments? And what did you mean by the term "Earth" if you're now asking if it is warmed by "the ground"? I also find it surprising that you claim the sun cannot warm the Earth yet point out that when it sets in the very hot desert, it gets very cold. That certainly seems like the transmission of thermal energy to me.

So...what does that leave? Oh yeah! It leaves the oceans! And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range. Amazing! OK. We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth. Cool. Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed? Hmm. There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation. How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?

The oceans heat the Earth? Then the continental coastlines must be the hottest regions on the planet, right? And the interior spaces must be the coldest. Right? Hmm...

Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep. Over 100 meters in point of fact. So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans? Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur. However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see. Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.

Where did you get the idea that light has to penetrate to 100 meters in order to warm the ocean? Really? Please identify a source for that idea because it sounds like more ignorant horseshit to me. How deep does light have to penetrate into a black solar panel to make it hot? A few angstroms? Do such panels get hot? They certainly do.

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

I haven't seen such a collection of ignorance in a good long while.

The atmosphere, the ocean and the land are all warmed directly by solar radiation. All three domains exchange thermal energy internally, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate) and externally between each other and space, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate). GHGs in the atmosphere absorb light in the IR band that would otherwise escape to space. That energy gets reradiated in all directions, returning some of it to the planet, slowing its escape to space and raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature. The greenhouse effect is quite real and is responsible for 33C of the Earth's temperature and for the additional warming from the increased GHGs humans have put into the atmosphere via deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. Everything you've claimed here is a complete crock of unsupported and unsupportable horseshit.

Prove me wrong.

View attachment 38536

Proving Crick wrong was dam easy!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick Fails again as do others who state that the RWP and the Climatic Optimum were not decidedly warmer times in our history.

 

[Crick]

Prove me wrong.

View attachment 38536

Proving Crick wrong was dam easy!

You provide a photograph of an explosion and claim that it proves me wrong. Explain that if you can. And the word you were looking for is spelled "D A M N"

 

[Crick]

View attachment 38544

Crick Fails again as do others who state that the RWP and the Climatic Optimum were not decidedly warmer times in our history.

Using cartoon-like data from 47 years ago?

 

[IanC]

Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.

Before anyone gets too excited the default meaning of BP is "Before 1950".

thanks crick, for the link to an interesting blog, Climate Model Credibility Gap The Resilient Earth

which led me to the paper it was discussing, The Holocene temperature conundrum

Significance
Marine and terrestrial proxy records suggest global cooling during the Late Holocene, following the peak warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (∼10 to 6 ka) until the rapid warming induced by increasing anthropogenic greenhouses gases. However, the physical mechanism responsible for this global cooling has remained elusive. Here, we show that climate models simulate a robust global annual mean warming in the Holocene, mainly in response to rising CO2 and the retreat of ice sheets. This model-data inconsistency demands a critical reexamination of both proxy data and models.

Abstract
A recent temperature reconstruction of global annual temperature shows Early Holocene warmth followed by a cooling trend through the Middle to Late Holocene [Marcott SA, et al., 2013, Science 339(6124):1198–1201]. This global cooling is puzzling because it is opposite from the expected and simulated global warming trend due to the retreating ice sheets and rising atmospheric greenhouse gases. Our critical reexamination of this contradiction between the reconstructed cooling and the simulated warming points to potentially significant biases in both the seasonality of the proxy reconstruction and the climate sensitivity of current climate models.

again we find that there is an issue about how climate models cannot replicate the past. why are we expected to think they can forecast the future????

I had previously thought that Marcott's doctorate thesis was a simple temperature reconstruction and that it was only with Shakun and Mann's help that it was turned into a hockeystick. I was incorrect, Mann08 was grafted on in the thesis as well.
file://vchfas01/HOME03/tmed/My%20Documents/Downloads/MarcottShaunA2011.pdf page labelled 46 of the pdf

thesis-

Marcott13 from Science-

quite the change in two years!

I know I have shown everyone Marcott's proxies before but if you want to see them in the author's own hand they are in the appendix of the pdf starting at page labeled 200. the 2SD range is usually about 2C and the shapes are up, down and sideways, with time frames that dont match up. how they manage to put them all together and come up with an uncertainty range of less than 0.5C is a mystery to me.



I may be back sometime after I have looked into the Holocene Temperature Conundrum, and how the models and even basic understanding fails. til then.......

 

[jc456]

The RWP is the Roman Warming Period which was at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day. Before that there was the Minoan Warming Period, and before that was the Holocene Thermal Maximum. All of these warming periods were warmer than the present day. And by a lot. Interspersed between the warming periods were cold trends. The Little Ice Age is the most recent, and before that was the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe. In other words, the climate is cyclic and regardless of CO2 levels the temps go up and down in a never ending cycle.

The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD. Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.

Theophrastus (371 - c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation. Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.

The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis. It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]

So, unless you have a better source with different information, your claim of "at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day" is horseshit.

and

Medieval Warm Period not so random Know

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we'll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists' reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

the Minoan Warm Period was sufficiently insignificant that while searches find the term used in numerous articles, climatological details about the period are virtually nonexistent. If you have a source showing reason to believe it was "warmer than the preset day... and by a lot" I would very much like to see it.

As for the Holocene Thermal Optimum, I know you have seen this graphic before
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.

View attachment 38535


So, you're unable to defend Westwall's comments. Got it.

me thinks your post is f'd up! I never posted what you show in yours as a quote. Nope not me. please correct it or delete it.

 

[jc456]

Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth. Is it the atmosphere? Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet. In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.

This is ignorant nonsense and you ought to know it. The atmosphere is the ONLY reason the Earth is not -18C but +14C.

Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get. So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.

Are you serious? You think the Earth's atmosphere is thermodynamically equivalant to "dead air" trapped in insulating glass wool?

How about the ground? Does that do it? Welllll, let's see. In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute. If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night! What gives? Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.

Do you actually believe these are valid arguments? And what did you mean by the term "Earth" if you're now asking if it is warmed by "the ground"? I also find it surprising that you claim the sun cannot warm the Earth yet point out that when it sets in the very hot desert, it gets very cold. That certainly seems like the transmission of thermal energy to me.

So...what does that leave? Oh yeah! It leaves the oceans! And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range. Amazing! OK. We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth. Cool. Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed? Hmm. There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation. How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?

The oceans heat the Earth? Then the continental coastlines must be the hottest regions on the planet, right? And the interior spaces must be the coldest. Right? Hmm...

Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep. Over 100 meters in point of fact. So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans? Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur. However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see. Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.

Where did you get the idea that light has to penetrate to 100 meters in order to warm the ocean? Really? Please identify a source for that idea because it sounds like more ignorant horseshit to me. How deep does light have to penetrate into a black solar panel to make it hot? A few angstroms? Do such panels get hot? They certainly do.

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

I haven't seen such a collection of ignorance in a good long while.

The atmosphere, the ocean and the land are all warmed directly by solar radiation. All three domains exchange thermal energy internally, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate) and externally between each other and space, through radiation, conduction and convection (as appropriate). GHGs in the atmosphere absorb light in the IR band that would otherwise escape to space. That energy gets reradiated in all directions, returning some of it to the planet, slowing its escape to space and raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature. The greenhouse effect is quite real and is responsible for 33C of the Earth's temperature and for the additional warming from the increased GHGs humans have put into the atmosphere via deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. Everything you've claimed here is a complete crock of unsupported and unsupportable horseshit.

Prove me wrong.

View attachment 38536

What point are you attempting to make here jc? Are you suggesting that the Earth has been warmed by volcanic eruptions?

you really aren't a thinking dude are you?

 

[jc456]

Prove me wrong.

View attachment 38536

Proving Crick wrong was dam easy!

You provide a photograph of an explosion and claim that it proves me wrong. Explain that if you can. And the word you were looking for is spelled "D A M N"

dude, you need to learn how to use quotes. you have another one all f'd up. come on man get your shti together.

 

[westwall]

Current temperatures are higher and the rate of increase is greater than anything in human history.

Before anyone gets too excited the default meaning of BP is "Before 1950".

thanks crick, for the link to an interesting blog, Climate Model Credibility Gap The Resilient Earth

which led me to the paper it was discussing, The Holocene temperature conundrum

Significance
Marine and terrestrial proxy records suggest global cooling during the Late Holocene, following the peak warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (∼10 to 6 ka) until the rapid warming induced by increasing anthropogenic greenhouses gases. However, the physical mechanism responsible for this global cooling has remained elusive. Here, we show that climate models simulate a robust global annual mean warming in the Holocene, mainly in response to rising CO2 and the retreat of ice sheets. This model-data inconsistency demands a critical reexamination of both proxy data and models.

Abstract
A recent temperature reconstruction of global annual temperature shows Early Holocene warmth followed by a cooling trend through the Middle to Late Holocene [Marcott SA, et al., 2013, Science 339(6124):1198–1201]. This global cooling is puzzling because it is opposite from the expected and simulated global warming trend due to the retreating ice sheets and rising atmospheric greenhouse gases. Our critical reexamination of this contradiction between the reconstructed cooling and the simulated warming points to potentially significant biases in both the seasonality of the proxy reconstruction and the climate sensitivity of current climate models.

again we find that there is an issue about how climate models cannot replicate the past. why are we expected to think they can forecast the future????

I had previously thought that Marcott's doctorate thesis was a simple temperature reconstruction and that it was only with Shakun and Mann's help that it was turned into a hockeystick. I was incorrect, Mann08 was grafted on in the thesis as well.
file://vchfas01/HOME03/tmed/My%20Documents/Downloads/MarcottShaunA2011.pdf page labelled 46 of the pdf

thesis-

Marcott13 from Science-

quite the change in two years!

I know I have shown everyone Marcott's proxies before but if you want to see them in the author's own hand they are in the appendix of the pdf starting at page labeled 200. the 2SD range is usually about 2C and the shapes are up, down and sideways, with time frames that dont match up. how they manage to put them all together and come up with an uncertainty range of less than 0.5C is a mystery to me.



I may be back sometime after I have looked into the Holocene Temperature Conundrum, and how the models and even basic understanding fails. til then.......

Simple. It's called "science fiction". Some authors are quite good. Some, like these, aren't.