"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[Crick]

That’s nice. The last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular, so there was no orbital forcing to trigger a glacial cycle or cooling. You have falsely attributed a natural variation - of which the geologic record is littered with - to CO2. Correlation does not equal causation.

However, causation will always exhibit correlation. You deniers get a line like yours in your head and you seem to believe that correlation is evidence against causation. And there is a GREAT deal more than simple correlation behind AGW. If you want to deny AGW, you need to explain what happens to the IR energy that the absorption spectrum of CO2 shows will be absorbed by the gas, as well as the multitude of laboratory experiments showing it doing precisely that and the data both from the ground and space showing IR backscatter and changes to LWIR escaping to space.

We know this because it was 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today. If what you claim is true it should be warmer than the last interglacial cycle because there is more atmospheric CO2 today.

You'll have to point to me where I - or anyone with reasonable knowledge of the subject - has every indicated that CO2 is the only factor controlling the Earth's temperature. I would also like to see a quote or a graphic that shows the precise point in time you keep talking about. Just a time, that's all I need. I can find my own data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's astounding to see that many mistakes in that short a space, particularly when you've been arguing (and - presumably - thinking about) this topic for weeks now.

Temperatures were dropping beginning about 5,000 years ago and if humans hadn't invented the ICE and boilers and gas turbines (ECEs) it may well have led to an ice age. But that effect was overwhelmed by greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions. If you want to worry about the onset of an ice age, you need to overcome AGW first. Of course, you don't accept AGW, so there may not be much point in you doing anything.

A large portion of the electrical energy generated by solar PV is used to perform work. That's correct. But then you say it has to be subtracted from the total. You say that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. The problem here is that ALL of the energy generated ends up as heat. Some of it may spend some time as potential kinetic or chemical or gravitational or elastic or even nuclear energy and it will be stored there for a bit; sometimes for fractions of a second and sometimes for millenia but it will always, eventually, go kinetic and kinetic becomes heat. It will become heat. All of it.

There is an enormous difference in the waste heat created by burning fossil fuels to boil water to spin turbines to spin generators and mounting solar panels out in the sunshine. In the end, though, with regards to this argument, that difference is completely irrelevant. Whether you make it with fossil fuels or hydroelectricity or solar panels or little kids pedaling bicycles, it will all end up as heat. If you wanted to reduce heating, you'd cover the Earth with mirrors to ramp up our albedo and send that solar back to space before it gets the chance to get absorbed. But solar panels aren't mirrors - they're as far from reflective as modern science can make them. So, putting our almost black panels out in the sun in the middle of what used to be plants and trees and soil decreases the Earth's albedo. What happens when you decrease a planet's albedo? Its temperature rises. Does the universe care how that albedo has been altered - with how that energy will be used? It does not. If the planet, as a whole, absorbs more sunlight and reflects less of it away, its temperature will rise.

I hope this is sinking in because you trying to argue that solar panels will lead to an ice age is a painful thing to watch.

So we can terraform Mars with just 120PPM of CO2? Really??

 

[Crick]

So we can terraform Mars with just 120PPM of CO2? Really??

Mars' atmosphere is over 93% CO2 but the pressure there is 6.35 mBar, compared to 1013.5 mBar here on Earth. Don't forget partial pressure, it's a critical parameter in a lot of gas equations.

 

[Crick]

Mars' atmosphere is over 93% CO2 but the pressure there is 6.35 mBar, compared to 1013.5 mBar here on Earth. Don't forget partial pressure, it's a critical parameter in a lot of gas equations.

And, just for jollies: 6.35 mBar x 93.5% = 5.94 mBar pp CO2 on Mars
1013.5 mBar x 0.042% = 0.426 mBar pp CO2 on Earth

So, aside from the orbital radius, three guesses (and the first two don't count) why its so cold on Mars

 

[ding]

However, causation will always exhibit correlation. You deniers get a line like yours in your head and you seem to believe that correlation is evidence against causation. And there is a GREAT deal more than simple correlation behind AGW. If you want to deny AGW, you need to explain what happens to the IR energy that the absorption spectrum of CO2 shows will be absorbed by the gas, as well as the multitude of laboratory experiments showing it doing precisely that and the data both from the ground and space showing IR backscatter and changes to LWIR escaping to space.

You'll have to point to me where I - or anyone with reasonable knowledge of the subject - has every indicated that CO2 is the only factor controlling the Earth's temperature. I would also like to see a quote or a graphic that shows the precise point in time you keep talking about. Just a time, that's all I need. I can find my own data.

2C warmer in the past with 26ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

 

[Crick]

2C warmer in the past with 26ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

TROLL

 

[ding]

TROLL

If there were a correlation between CO2 and temperature why isn’t it hotter now than the last interglacial cycle?

 

[ding]

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial, interglaciation) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

We call times with large ice sheets“glacial periods” (or ice ages) and times without large ice sheets “interglacial periods.” The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf

 

[Crick]

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial, interglaciation) is a geological interval

 

[ding]

Crick even NOAA lists it as Glacial-Interglacial Cycles. Notice the “s” in cycles.

 

[ding]

See?

 

[jc456]

TROLL

when crick has nothing to say!!! He trolls you

 

[Crick]

when crick has nothing to say!!! He trolls you

TROLL

Feel better now?

 

[jc456]

TROLL

Feel better now?

I do enjoy being right

 

[Crick]

I do enjoy being right

My sympathies, in that case, for your unending misery.

 

[sparky]

GFANZ alliance

hadda lookit up>>>

Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero

Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) is a coalition of leading financial institutions committed to accelerating the net-zero transition

www.gfanzero.com

~S~

 

[abu afak]

It's astounding to see that many mistakes in that short a space, particularly when you've been arguing (and - presumably - thinking about) this topic for weeks now.

Temperatures were dropping beginning about 5,000 years ago and if humans hadn't invented the ICE and boilers and gas turbines (ECEs) it may well have led to an ice age. But that effect was overwhelmed by greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions. If you want to worry about the onset of an ice age, you need to overcome AGW first. Of course, you don't accept AGW, so there may not be much point in you doing anything.

A large portion of the electrical energy generated by solar PV is used to perform work. That's correct. But then you say it has to be subtracted from the total. You say that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. The problem here is that ALL of the energy generated ends up as heat. Some of it may spend some time as potential kinetic or chemical or gravitational or elastic or even nuclear energy and it will be stored there for a bit; sometimes for fractions of a second and sometimes for millenia but it will always, eventually, go kinetic and kinetic becomes heat. It will become heat. All of it.

There is an enormous difference in the waste heat created by burning fossil fuels to boil water to spin turbines to spin generators and mounting solar panels out in the sunshine. In the end, though, with regards to this argument, that difference is completely irrelevant. Whether you make it with fossil fuels or hydroelectricity or solar panels or little kids pedaling bicycles, it will all end up as heat. If you wanted to reduce heating, you'd cover the Earth with mirrors to ramp up our albedo and send that solar back to space before it gets the chance to get absorbed. But solar panels aren't mirrors - they're as far from reflective as modern science can make them. So, putting our almost black panels out in the sun in the middle of what used to be plants and trees and soil decreases the Earth's albedo. What happens when you decrease a planet's albedo? Its temperature rises. Does the universe care how that albedo has been altered - with how that energy will be used? It does not. If the planet, as a whole, absorbs more sunlight and reflects less of it away, its temperature will rise.

I hope this is sinking in because you trying to argue that solar panels will lead to an ice age is a painful thing to watch.

Well said.
the deniers really hated this thread.
There is Not only 'fingerprints' there is molecular DNA in our CO2.


`
`

 

[ding]

Well said.
the deniers really hated this thread.
There is Not only 'fingerprints' there is molecular DNA in our CO2.


`
`

Actually it's an opportunity to set the record straight.

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

"...The preceding four interglacial periods are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

"...Kobashi et al. (2011) have reconstructed Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4,000 years (until 1993) at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet) with a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles (Figure B4, Appendix B). These data indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010). Therefore, it appears that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4,000 years. Schönwiese (1995)has reconstructed temperatures from ice cores in Greenland for the last 11,000 years (Figure B5,Appendix B). These reconstructions show that during the past 10,000 years temperatures over long periods were higher than they are today. The warmest phase occurred 4,000 to 8,000 years agoand is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum or the Atlantic Period..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf