Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.

Now Frankie Boy, you've been alarmed by the wrong apocalyptic scenario.. It's not CO2 that should cause you fear --- it's the Milankovitch Cycles that done that number on North America.. A 1/2 mile thick IceCap over Cleveland caused by ???? Milankovitch Cycles.

What are they? --- The public hasn't yet been warned... When do they happen?

No one seems to care.... Bastard reality show babies ARE important..

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC

Start thinking how to make money on the coming glacier redux... Cloning mammoths?
Stockpiling alpaca fur??

 

[flacaltenn]

Now Frankie Boy, that has been answered inumerable times for you. Look up Milankovic Cycles. Not that you actually would do any research at all.

Now Frankie Boy, you've been alarmed by the wrong apocalyptic scenario.. It's not CO2 that should cause you fear --- it's the Milankovitch Cycles that done that number on North America.. A 1/2 mile thick IceCap over Cleveland caused by ???? Milankovitch Cycles.

What are they? --- The public hasn't yet been warned... When do they happen?

No one seems to care.... Bastard reality show babies ARE important..

So, you continue to prove what a dumb **** you truly are.

Milankovitch Tutorial

You are my hero GoldiRocks.. How would I survive the next calamity without you?

Point is -- Weather Channel breathes and lives AGW terrorism.. Ever hear the words Milankovitch Cycle on cable? NOVA ?? How about NPR ?? Would go great with that nutty NPR background music... My head always undergoes precession when I listen to NPR...

 

[Abraham3]

What are you trying to say?

 

[flacaltenn]

What are you trying to say?

.........that NPR is easy to mock?

Do you know what part of a Milankovitch cycle you're currently riding on?
I don't.. But perhaps I should be asking climate scientists to look into it..

Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy..

But we're not allowed to mention "other factors" in climate change. Except for rare brave souls like the ones who did the long Holocene proxy study that contrasted with Shakun's findings recently.. (just reposted that study a day or two ago)..

 

[flacaltenn]

Maybe the skeptical best play is to now claim that we've ingeniously engineered a delay into the next glacial era..

In terms of natural Milankovitch cycles --- we're pretty much right on track for this interglacial. Aren't we GoldiRocks??

 

[orogenicman]

What are you trying to say?

.........that NPR is easy to mock?

Do you know what part of a Milankovitch cycle you're currently riding on?
I don't.. But perhaps I should be asking climate scientists to look into it..

I do.

Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy..

Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

 

[orogenicman]

Maybe the skeptical best play is to now claim that we've ingeniously engineered a delay into the next glacial era..

In terms of natural Milankovitch cycles --- we're pretty much right on track for this interglacial. Aren't we GoldiRocks??

You should probably read up on what they actually are and actually show:

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Just sayin.

 

[flacaltenn]

What are you trying to say?

.........that NPR is easy to mock?

Do you know what part of a Milankovitch cycle you're currently riding on?
I don't.. But perhaps I should be asking climate scientists to look into it..

I do.

Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy..

Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street

"past performance is no indication of future valuations" ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..

 

[orogenicman]

.........that NPR is easy to mock?

Do you know what part of a Milankovitch cycle you're currently riding on?
I don't.. But perhaps I should be asking climate scientists to look into it..

I do.

Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy..

Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street

"past performance is no indication of future valuations" ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years. The only explanation for this is the billions of tons of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere, something you don't see in any of the data for the previous 11,000 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I do.



Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street

"past performance is no indication of future valuations" ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years. The only explanation for this is the billions of tons of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere, something you don't see in any of the data for the previous 11,000 years.

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years.

Excellent! Downturns in temperature are bad. Ice Ages suck.

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street

"past performance is no indication of future valuations" ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years. The only explanation for this is the billions of tons of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere, something you don't see in any of the data for the previous 11,000 years.

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years.

Excellent! Downturns in temperature are bad. Ice Ages suck.

Excellent, unless you are one of thousands of species that have evolved for specific climates and environmental conditions that are being adversely affected by AGW. Unless you are a member of a coral community utterly dependent on constant water chemistry and find yourself awash in a human-induced acidic ocean and nitrate pollution. Unless you are an eskimo and family whose livelihood is dependent on the Arctic ice, which seems destined to melt away by about 2050 and take with it its teeming aquatic life. Unless you are one of millions of people who already live a tenuous existence on marginal land that will become utterly desolate when the desert encroaches. Unless you are one of the billions who live at or near sea level. If you are not one of those, yeah, things might be peachy. But then, you will have identified yourself as a weed. But I doubt even the weeds will make it through unscathed.

 

[westwall]

What are you trying to say?

.........that NPR is easy to mock?

Do you know what part of a Milankovitch cycle you're currently riding on?
I don't.. But perhaps I should be asking climate scientists to look into it..

I do.

Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy..

Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

But the cycles refer to orbital physics, namely the eccentricity of the Earths orbit, the obliquity of Earths tilt on its axis and finally the precession of the wobble of Earths axis. And for the record Milankovitch was a polymath like Wegener. His PhD was earned in Technical Sciences with an emphasis on civil engineering (he was most interested in the properties of reinforced concrete) and he can rightly be called the father of climatology.

Like Wegener his ASTRONOMICAL theory of the glacial periods was ignored for over 50 years by the "consensus" scientists of the day.

 

[westwall]

I do.



Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street

"past performance is no indication of future valuations" ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years. The only explanation for this is the billions of tons of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere, something you don't see in any of the data for the previous 11,000 years.

Except for the Holocene Thermal Maximum, and the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period. Other than that I would agree with you. Funny how you try and excise them from the historical record. You revisionists seem to do that a lot.

 

[westwall]

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years. The only explanation for this is the billions of tons of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere, something you don't see in any of the data for the previous 11,000 years.

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years.

Excellent! Downturns in temperature are bad. Ice Ages suck.

Excellent, unless you are one of thousands of species that have evolved for specific climates and environmental conditions that are being adversely affected by AGW. Unless you are a member of a coral community utterly dependent on constant water chemistry and find yourself awash in a human-induced acidic ocean and nitrate pollution. Unless you are an eskimo and family whose livelihood is dependent on the Arctic ice, which seems destined to melt away by about 2050 and take with it its teeming aquatic life. Unless you are one of millions of people who already live a tenuous existence on marginal land that will become utterly desolate when the desert encroaches. Unless you are one of the billions who live at or near sea level. If you are not one of those, yeah, things might be peachy. But then, you will have identified yourself as a weed. But I doubt even the weeds will make it through unscathed.

Funny how no animals have been shown to be negatively impacted by the warming from the LIA. In fact contrary to the hysterical hyperbole from the warmist fraudsters the polar bear population has increased by 2500-5000 since 2001 which is the opposite of the claims made by you and your fellow socks.

 

[orogenicman]

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years.

Excellent! Downturns in temperature are bad. Ice Ages suck.

Excellent, unless you are one of thousands of species that have evolved for specific climates and environmental conditions that are being adversely affected by AGW. Unless you are a member of a coral community utterly dependent on constant water chemistry and find yourself awash in a human-induced acidic ocean and nitrate pollution. Unless you are an eskimo and family whose livelihood is dependent on the Arctic ice, which seems destined to melt away by about 2050 and take with it its teeming aquatic life. Unless you are one of millions of people who already live a tenuous existence on marginal land that will become utterly desolate when the desert encroaches. Unless you are one of the billions who live at or near sea level. If you are not one of those, yeah, things might be peachy. But then, you will have identified yourself as a weed. But I doubt even the weeds will make it through unscathed.

Funny how no animals have been shown to be negatively impacted by the warming from the LIA. In fact contrary to the hysterical hyperbole from the warmist fraudsters the polar bear population has increased by 2500-5000 since 2001 which is the opposite of the claims made by you and your fellow socks.

Probably because there was no one conducting a population census of species at the end of the little ice age.

But the LIA had a severe impact on people:

The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

 

[polarbear]

Now Polar, the numbers come straight out of a Chemistry textbook. And the present CO2 level is 400 ppm.

The Keeling Curve | A daily record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego

Heat of fusion for ice to water, water to ice 334 joules per gram

Heat needed to increase or decrease the temperture of water one degree C. 4.18 joules per gram

The only numbers in your post that came out of a chemistry book are the heat of fusion and the specific heat for water. And had you used them to check the amount of heat it takes for the number of cubic kilometers of ice that melt during the arctic summer then you would have realized that there is no way that 10% of the sunlight which irradiates the arctic and is not reflected can melt that amount of ice. You would need 13 times the energy that the sun delivers inside the arctic circle.
The bulk of the heat energy that does dissolve the ice from below has been transported by warm ocean currents at a rate hundreds of millions of cubic meters per second...and your chemistry book told you that each gram of water that is 1 C above freezing carries an energy of 4.18 Joules.
A cubic meter water = 10^6 grams and you won`t need any books to figure out how many Joules flow north with 150 million cubic meters per second even if that water were only +1 C, but it`s way warmer than that.
How much warmer does not depend on if we got 380 or 400 ppm CO2 either. For all I care you can use the entire CO2 slice of Trenberth`s "energy budget", but even with that you would still come up way short.
I recall that just a couple of months ago after the Argos buoys data, "the missing heat" which stymied the IPCC was made public, you claimed that heat was consumed by the ice that melted in the arctic.
And now you claim that the ice that melts in the arctic causes the water to warm up even faster:

However, since water absorbs 90%+ of the energy in sunlight it recieves, that 80 grams is multiplied by a factor of 9. So the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice to one gram of water, with no increase in temperature, now raises the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C.

But that`s par for the course.
We also went from "global warming" to "climate change" after it became evident that there was no temperature increase for 14 years and a 2 week heatwave qualifies for "climate change" while 6 months of extreme winter temperatures over the entire northern hemisphere are just "local weather".
I also recall how the AGW community attributed these record low winter temperatures to the heat energy which was consumed by melting ice.
They behave just like a squealing pig, trapped in a village, fleeing from the butcher.
It`s beginning to dawn on the pig what will inevitably happen, but there are still some fools out there that continue to place their bets on the pig.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent, unless you are one of thousands of species that have evolved for specific climates and environmental conditions that are being adversely affected by AGW. Unless you are a member of a coral community utterly dependent on constant water chemistry and find yourself awash in a human-induced acidic ocean and nitrate pollution. Unless you are an eskimo and family whose livelihood is dependent on the Arctic ice, which seems destined to melt away by about 2050 and take with it its teeming aquatic life. Unless you are one of millions of people who already live a tenuous existence on marginal land that will become utterly desolate when the desert encroaches. Unless you are one of the billions who live at or near sea level. If you are not one of those, yeah, things might be peachy. But then, you will have identified yourself as a weed. But I doubt even the weeds will make it through unscathed.

Funny how no animals have been shown to be negatively impacted by the warming from the LIA. In fact contrary to the hysterical hyperbole from the warmist fraudsters the polar bear population has increased by 2500-5000 since 2001 which is the opposite of the claims made by you and your fellow socks.

Probably because there was no one conducting a population census of species at the end of the little ice age.

But the LIA had a severe impact on people:

The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

Yes, the LIA had a severe impact. Ice Ages suck.

Why do they call warm periods Climactic Optimums?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.........that NPR is easy to mock?

Do you know what part of a Milankovitch cycle you're currently riding on?
I don't.. But perhaps I should be asking climate scientists to look into it..

I do.

Or is that a different department? Like maybe Paleoastronomy..

Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street

"past performance is no indication of future valuations" ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..

Bleh.... the Sun has only a minimal effect on climate. Scarfetta and West assigned it a 30% contribution based on the "because we ******* say-so" methodology

 

[flacaltenn]

I do.



Milankovitch was a geophysicist.

Yeah --- it was a rhetorical... Well if ya DO KNOW where on that chart we are --- we've not yet come CLOSE to an interglacial peak have we? As they say on Wall Street

"past performance is no indication of future valuations" ---- BUT ---- I'd suggest we have a ways to go before we panic and say we're screwing up the recovery from the last Ice Age.. That is --- if Milankovitch cycles really matter...

BTW:: Have you ever heard of the Center of Mass of Solar System (CMSS) theory? Haven't had the instruments in space LONG ENOUGH to even measure the DOZENS of possible modulations of solar output.. Both in intensity and maybe MORE importantly, spectral content..

Bleh.... the Sun has only a minimal effect of climate. Scarfetta and West assigned it a 30% contribution based on the "because we ******* say-so" methodology

Gack.... Actually Scarfetta and West just gave analytical JUSTIFICATION to the 30% that the IPCC (innocently of course) misplaced in all of their summary statements and press handouts...

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years. The only explanation for this is the billions of tons of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere, something you don't see in any of the data for the previous 11,000 years.

In fact, for at least the last 8,000 years leading up to 1850, we were in a climate downturn wrt temperature. The last 150 years has seen that downturn reverse itself at a faster rate than anything seen in the last 11,000 years.

Excellent! Downturns in temperature are bad. Ice Ages suck.

Excellent, unless you are one of thousands of species that have evolved for specific climates and environmental conditions that are being adversely affected by AGW. Unless you are a member of a coral community utterly dependent on constant water chemistry and find yourself awash in a human-induced acidic ocean and nitrate pollution. Unless you are an eskimo and family whose livelihood is dependent on the Arctic ice, which seems destined to melt away by about 2050 and take with it its teeming aquatic life. Unless you are one of millions of people who already live a tenuous existence on marginal land that will become utterly desolate when the desert encroaches. Unless you are one of the billions who live at or near sea level. If you are not one of those, yeah, things might be peachy. But then, you will have identified yourself as a weed. But I doubt even the weeds will make it through unscathed.

Show me a specie that can't cope with 0.15degC/decade and I'll show a specie that has OTHER major issues.. You may include homo sapien in the list if you truly want to...