Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[Old Rocks]

Pleistocene : Defining and Dating the Pleistocene Boundary

Defining and Dating the Pleistocene Boundary
Typically, geologists can identify the boundaries of different time periods by locating changing rock characteristics or layers where fossils may be seen for the first or last time. However, the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary proved to be exceptionally difficult for geologists to pinpoint. The rocks containing the earliest Pleistocene fossils were mainly terrestrial sediments, whereas those in the latest Pliocene were mostly marine. The rocks at Crotone in Calabria, southern Italy, however, preserve distinct marine faunas from both time periods. In 1940 the International Geological Congress decided that the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary would be based on the marine faunas located at this site (called the type section).

Once the boundary between the Pleistocene and Pliocene had been specified, scientists could calculate its age. This depended on their ability to date changes in ocean faunas and correlate them with the rocks in Calabria, Italy.

Dating the beginning of the Pleistocene is beyond the range of radiocarbon dating and also beyond the limits of other methods that use organic materials. An alternative method is magnetostratigraphy (or paleomagnetism). By systematically collecting and measuring the orientation of magnetic grains in volcanic rocks, ashes, and other rock types, a record of Earth's magnetic history can be constructed. New localities can be placed into the context of this history if they contain rocks with magnetic grains. For the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary, biostratigraphic information could be correlated to a magnetostratigraphic event called the Olduvai Normal. This suggested that the lower Pleistocene boundary could be no older than 1.8 million years ago.

The Pleistocene boundry is no older than 1.8 million years ago. No ten million year old continental glaciers.

 

[LaDexter]

Not only can you not find dozens of links that agree, you can't even find one.

You seem to think I "get my thoughts" by parroting people who I know are fudgebaking liars. I don't. My thoughts are mine, which is why Crick cannot find a single Tippy who can answer the question of why the AA circle has 9 times the ice of the other.


That you are too chicken to even attempt to answer the question about how old the 2 mile high glaciers were that dug out the Great Lakes is a tribute to your own inability to think and perceive without parroting someone else.

Try this on for size. The Great Lakes are OUTSIDE of the Arctic Circle, and way outside of the 600 miles from the pole distance that starts ice ages.










What the two charts above demonstrate is that the height of ice age glaciers goes DOWN further from the pole. It is not perfectly linear, but the correlation is obvious. Antarctic glaciers are UNDER 2 miles high by the time they get to the edge of the Antarctic Circle.

Hence, the NA ice age, with 2 mile thick glacier outside of the Arctic Circle in the Great Lakes are, was OLDER than the AA ice age is now. Hence the ice on NA was there for

MORE THAN 40 million years...

Now, back to the Conspiracy room for you, telling everyone how a 757 hit the Pentagon while its engines were IN THE GROUND..l.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pleistocene : Pleistocene Glacial Events

Pleistocene Glacial Events
The Pleistocene geological record gives evidence of 20 cycles of advancing and retreating continental glaciers, though during most of the Pleistocene glaciers were far more extensive than they are today. Much of this glaciation occurred at high latitudes and high altitudes, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Up to 30% of the Earth's surface was glaciated periodically during the Pleistocene. Large portions of Europe, North America (including Greenland), South America, all of Antarctica, and small sections of Asia were entirely covered by ice. In North America during the peak of the Wisconsinan glaciation approximately 18,000 years ago, there were two massive yet independent ice sheets. Both the eastern Laurentide and the western Cordilleran ice sheets were over 3900 meters thick. In Europe, ice covered Scandinavia, extended south and east across Germany and western Russia, and southwest to the British Isles. Another ice sheet covered most of Siberia. In South America, Patagonia and the southern Andes mountains were beneath part of the Antarctic ice sheet. Because so much water was taken up as ice, global sea level dropped approximately 140 meters.

The causes of the Pleistocene cycle of glacial and interglacial episodes are still being debated. It appears that continental positions, oceanic circulation, solar-energy fluctuations, and Earth's orbital cycles combined to generate these glacial conditions, so perhaps it is inappropriate to pinpoint any single cause. Some scientists have calculated that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases were a partial reason for large (5-7° C) global temperature swings between the ice ages and interglacial periods.

Two scientists greatly influenced how Pleistocene glaciations were interpreted. In the 1800s, geologists were studying widespread surface deposits called diluvium. This archaic term referred to deposits that could not be explained by the normal action of rivers and seas, but instead were believed to have been produced by extraordinary floods of vast extent. Louis Agassiz, a Swiss geologist who initially worked on fossil fish, demonstrated that diluvium was actually a ground moraine formed by continental glaciation. The other influential figure, the Yugoslav mathematician M. Milankovitch, showed that variation in Earth's orbital motions could explain periodic climate changes, including continental glaciation.

So, in the last 1.8 million years, the continental glaciers have advanced and retreated 20 times. That means that 20 times they have gone from 2 miles deep to bare ground.

Now this information is from the Smithsonian, so, LaDumbkopf, why don't you link us some information that supports your assertations.

 

[Old Rocks]

LaDumbkopf, we have been discussing Greenland and North America. That you feel the urgent need to change the subject demonstrates just how seriously your arguments are flawed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not only can you not find dozens of links that agree, you can't even find one.

You seem to think I "get my thoughts" by parroting people who I know are fudgebaking liars. I don't. My thoughts are mine, which is why Crick cannot find a single Tippy who can answer the question of why the AA circle has 9 times the ice of the other.


That you are too chicken to even attempt to answer the question about how old the 2 mile high glaciers were that dug out the Great Lakes is a tribute to your own inability to think and perceive without parroting someone else.

Try this on for size. The Great Lakes are OUTSIDE of the Arctic Circle, and way outside of the 600 miles from the pole distance that starts ice ages.










What the two charts above demonstrate is that the height of ice age glaciers goes DOWN further from the pole. It is not perfectly linear, but the correlation is obvious. Antarctic glaciers are UNDER 2 miles high by the time they get to the edge of the Antarctic Circle.

Hence, the NA ice age, with 2 mile thick glacier outside of the Arctic Circle in the Great Lakes are, was OLDER than the AA ice age is now. Hence the ice on NA was there for

MORE THAN 40 million years...

Now, back to the Conspiracy room for you, telling everyone how a 757 hit the Pentagon while its engines were IN THE GROUND..l.

You seem to think I "get my thoughts" by parroting people who I know are fudgebaking liars.

I don't know where you get them, I just know you can't prove your claims.

how a 757 hit the Pentagon while its engines were IN THE GROUND..l

Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Derp.

 

[jc456]

I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!

That was the "old school" ice age understanding. Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over. The old "ice age" theory was that everything froze and land never moves. That theory was wrong. The data proves it wrong, even today, with Greenland frozen and NA not...

Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.

You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.

Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!

That was the "old school" ice age understanding. Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over. The old "ice age" theory was that everything froze and land never moves. That theory was wrong. The data proves it wrong, even today, with Greenland frozen and NA not...

Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.

You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.

Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?

 

[jc456]

I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!

That was the "old school" ice age understanding. Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over. The old "ice age" theory was that everything froze and land never moves. That theory was wrong. The data proves it wrong, even today, with Greenland frozen and NA not...

You haven't proven a thing. You have just flapped yap, and posted drivel from an ignoramous. You failed to show any evidence that when NA was ice free, Greenland had more ice than today.

Nice flip

 

[jc456]

I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!

That was the "old school" ice age understanding. Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over. The old "ice age" theory was that everything froze and land never moves. That theory was wrong. The data proves it wrong, even today, with Greenland frozen and NA not...

Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.

You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.

Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?

All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!

That was the "old school" ice age understanding. Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over. The old "ice age" theory was that everything froze and land never moves. That theory was wrong. The data proves it wrong, even today, with Greenland frozen and NA not...

Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.

You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.

Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?

All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.

 

[LaDexter]

in the last 1.8 million years, the continental glaciers have advanced and retreated 20 times.

and if you believe that, you will never ever have a clue on the subject of Earth climate change.

What a laughable piece of trash in the face of ICE CORE data which clearly refutes it, mainly that the ice cores on Antarctica (the only ones on the planet that old) did not melt at all during that entire 1.8 million year period. Ditto for Greenland's over the past 800k years .

 

[LaDexter]

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.

You go right on claiming the 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes south of the Arctic Circle were under 50 years old...

 

[LaDexter]

All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

jc, the fact that the glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes were 2 miles high blows away the warmer claim that they are somehow younger than the Greenland ice age (aka 800k years)

When Greenland was completely green 1 million years ago, the ice age glaciers covering NA down to Indiana were taller and older than the glaciers which today cover Antarctica, which are estimated at 40 million years old and are likely older than that..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.

You go right on claiming the 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes south of the Arctic Circle were under 50 years old...

How old were they? Now prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

jc, the fact that the glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes were 2 miles high blows away the warmer claim that they are somehow younger than the Greenland ice age (aka 800k years)

When Greenland was completely green 1 million years ago, the ice age glaciers covering NA down to Indiana were taller and older than the glaciers which today cover Antarctica, which are estimated at 40 million years old and are likely older than that..

When Greenland was completely green 1 million years ago, the ice age glaciers covering NA down to Indiana were taller and older than the glaciers which today cover Antarctica

And you still won't provide proof.

 

[MaryL]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

 

[MaryL]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Well, someone telling me there isn't global warming and they even disparage it and call us "warmers". Funny the global climate Is warming and we see dramatic changes in climate and massive forest fires and the rise in Earth's overall temps. Glaciers melting. But this is just a natural blip in the climate? No, don't think so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Well, someone telling me there isn't global warming and they even disparage it and call us "warmers". Funny the global climate Is warming and we see dramatic changes in climate and massive forest fires and the rise in Earth's overall temps. Glaciers melting. But this is just a natural blip in the climate? No, don't think so.

we see dramatic changes in climate

Dramatic changes? Sounds serious.

and massive forest fires

Yeah, those never happened before.

But this is just a natural blip in the climate?

What's the difference between a natural blip and an unnatural blip? Any stats, or just feelings?

 

[MaryL]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Well, someone telling me there isn't global warming and they even disparage it and call us "warmers". Funny the global climate Is warming and we see dramatic changes in climate and massive forest fires and the rise in Earth's overall temps. Glaciers melting. But this is just a natural blip in the climate? No, don't think so.

we see dramatic changes in climate

Dramatic changes? Sounds serious.

and massive forest fires

Yeah, those never happened before.

But this is just a natural blip in the climate?

What's the difference between a natural blip and an unnatural blip? Any stats, or just feelings?

What bothers me is the flippant attitude people have here about this. Turn up your air conditioning and drown out the warming global climate and people like me.Yes, the climate is changing, Yes, humanity is causing it, not variants like solar temps or other variables. Human created CO2 is the culprit, along with heat bubbles created over human cities, a major problem, we are seeing major droughts and forest fires now, because of human pollution,and we can't escape it anymore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

Well, someone telling me there isn't global warming and they even disparage it and call us "warmers". Funny the global climate Is warming and we see dramatic changes in climate and massive forest fires and the rise in Earth's overall temps. Glaciers melting. But this is just a natural blip in the climate? No, don't think so.

we see dramatic changes in climate

Dramatic changes? Sounds serious.

and massive forest fires

Yeah, those never happened before.

But this is just a natural blip in the climate?

What's the difference between a natural blip and an unnatural blip? Any stats, or just feelings?

What bothers me is the flippant attitude people have here about this. Turn up your air conditioning and drown out the warming global climate and people like me.Yes, the climate is changing, Yes, humanity is causing it, not variants like solar temps or other variables. Human created CO2 is the culprit, along with heat bubbles created over human cities, a major problem, we are seeing major droughts and forest fires now, because of human pollution,and we can't escape it anymore.

Yes, the climate is changing

Do you know of a 100 year period where it didn't change?

we are seeing major droughts and forest fires now,

I'm pretty sure we've seen those before.
How do you know these ones are our fault?

What's the difference between a natural blip and an unnatural blip? Any stats, or just feelings?