Global Warming. Here's the thing.

[ding]

Rye Catcher

People believe the world we live in today is normal. It's not. It's actually quite rare. The world we live in is considered to be an ice house planet. Our modern day ice house planet is characterized by bi-polar glaciation, glacial/interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient between the polar regions and the equators. No previous record for bi-polar glaciation exists in the geologic record.

2.7 million years ago we transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet. Greenhouse planets are characterized by a lack of bi-polar glaciation and have a low latitudinal thermal gradient between the polar regions and the equator.

As you scroll through this sequence note the lack of ice in the northern hemisphere - except for the present day ice house planet we live in today of course.

Sequences were mapped using the Mollweide projection, and, in all cases, are by Ron Blakey.

What Did the Continents Look Like Millions of Years Ago?

An artist-geologist renders the history of the Earth with maps.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Stryder50]

I see democrats concerned about global warming and other pollution. I see republicans who couldn't care less about the environment as long as they can drive big diesel trucks. That doesn't argue well for the right side of the political spectrum.

Hey dumas, this conservative and Republican has more self-expanding, self-replicating, biological flora bio-mass recycling CO2 on my half acre lot and is actually doing more to cover my wife and myself's "carbon footprint" than you or most of the other science deniers and idiots whom think that climate change is a sudden and new event that is caused by humans.

In the process we are growing a lot of our own fruits and vegetables, which I'm rather busy with right now in harvesting and preserving.

Most people involved in agriculture are also conservatives politically and they are very much focused on keeping their land(farms) healthy and sustainable for future generations, especially to pass on down through their family.

It's you urban/city-dwelling resource consuming parasites whom rant on about human caused climate change while continuing to live lifestyle that would cause what you claim is happening. Hypocrites on top of being parasites and wasteful eaters/consumers the lot of you are!

Conservative and conservation are more than semantically linked.

We live by the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."; and so far the climate isn't broke, just doing what it usually does as seen over 4+ billions of years.

Care to guess how much carbon dioxide was on this planet 4+ billion years ago?
Care to tell us when oxygen levels finally reached the amount to sustain fauna lifeforms?

If the climate is going through excessive warming, how then did this aircraft, and the other five P-38s, and 2 B-17s wind up covered in @268 feet of snow compacted into ice just fifty years later when this aircraft was dug out, recovered?

Glacier Girl - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And care to share with us how many inches of snow it takes to compact into an inch of ice?

And while you are relearning basic science, look into the fact that only about 15,000 years ago you and I live in the part of the Northern Hemisphere that was covered in hundreds of feet of ice in the last "Ice Age" and note that it wasn't humans "burning fossil fuels" that changed the global climate enough to warm up and melt that ice away.

If you really believe the claptrap you rant about, you'd be off the net, off the grid, and out in the wilderness in your birthday suit living the zero carbon lifestyle. Mostly anyway. You'd still be exhaling such (CO2), unless you did the really noble thing and stop exhaling.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Rye Catcher

People believe the world we live in today is normal. It's not. It's actually quite rare. The world we live in is considered to be an ice house planet. Our modern day ice house planet is characterized by bi-polar glaciation, glacial/interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient between the polar regions and the equators. No previous record for bi-polar glaciation exists in the geologic record.

2.7 million years ago we transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet. Greenhouse planets are characterized by a lack of bi-polar glaciation and have a low latitudinal thermal gradient between the polar regions and the equator.

As you scroll through this sequence note the lack of ice in the northern hemisphere - except for the present day ice house planet we live in today of course.

View attachment 542977

View attachment 542979

View attachment 542980


Sequences were mapped using the Mollweide projection, and, in all cases, are by Ron Blakey.

What Did the Continents Look Like Millions of Years Ago?

An artist-geologist renders the history of the Earth with maps.

www.theatlantic.com

So, do you believe Coal and Oil as major players in the Industrial Revolution are pollutants? And that Wind, Solar, Hydropower and Geothermal are not? This is a simple question, the follow up being do you believe pollution is harmful to plants and animals?

I don't have the academic background on Climatology, but I listen to those that do, and ignore social media posts for those who seem to have a hidden agenda.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hey dumas, this conservative and Republican has more self-expanding, self-replicating, biological flora bio-mass recycling CO2 on my half acre lot and is actually doing more to cover my wife and myself's "carbon footprint" than you or most of the other science deniers and idiots whom think that climate change is a sudden and new event that is caused by humans.

In the process we are growing a lot of our own fruits and vegetables, which I'm rather busy with right now in harvesting and preserving.

Most people involved in agriculture are also conservatives politically and they are very much focused on keeping their land(farms) healthy and sustainable for future generations, especially to pass on down through their family.

It's you urban/city-dwelling resource consuming parasites whom rant on about human caused climate change while continuing to live lifestyle that would cause what you claim is happening. Hypocrites on top of being parasites and wasteful eaters/consumers the lot of you are!

Conservative and conservation are more than semantically linked.

We live by the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."; and so far the climate isn't broke, just doing what it usually does as seen over 4+ billions of years.

Care to guess how much carbon dioxide was on this planet 4+ billion years ago?
Care to tell us when oxygen levels finally reached the amount to sustain fauna lifeforms?

If the climate is going through excessive warming, how then did this aircraft, and the other five P-38s, and 2 B-17s wind up covered in @268 feet of snow compacted into ice just fifty years later when this aircraft was dug out, recovered?

Glacier Girl - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And care to share with us how many inches of snow it takes to compact into an inch of ice?

And while you are relearning basic science, look into the fact that only about 15,000 years ago you and I live in the part of the Northern Hemisphere that was covered in hundreds of feet of ice in the last "Ice Age" and note that it wasn't humans "burning fossil fuels" that changed the global climate enough to warm up and melt that ice away.

If you really believe the claptrap you rant about, you'd be off the net, off the grid, and out in the wilderness in your birthday suit living the zero carbon lifestyle. Mostly anyway. You'd still be exhaling such (CO2), unless you did the really noble thing and stop exhaling.

To Those Sitting Pretty, Natural Resources Are Nothing More Than a Pretty Sight

The two designated sides are both wrong. Auto emissions, caused by people going to work, were reduced by the Depression. That caused the Dust Bowl. Common sense will tell you that the carbon footprint makes the air less porous and slows down the wind. Weaken that thickening and the soil will be gone with the wind. In our time, I must be the only one who noticed the increase in sweeping and scattering wind gusts during the cronyvirus Lockdown and its reduction of protective auto emissions.

The second point never allowed to be even thought is that Conservation is not at all Conservative. Economic growth and worst of all for a decadent destructive ruling class, class mobility. were stymied when the Conservation Cult took over around 1900. There was a delay in this unacknowledged leading indicator of 30 years caused by all the new inventions that came soon after 1900. But the crippling power brake on progress caused the dead stop of the Depression. Giving the economy a paralyzing disease cannot be called "Conservative." Waste can also mean something that is not used but must be used if we are ever to continue the march towards our American destiny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Common sense will tell you that the carbon footprint makes the air less porous and slows down the wind.

Link?

 

[myself]

We are in an interglacial cycle. It's been warming for 20,000 years.

So you say. And I suppose it's just by coincidence that temperatures and CO2 (A KNOWN greenhouse gas) has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Also, all the volcanoes on earth each year release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. The last I checked, each year the activities of humans have released around 32.3 billion tons of CO2. Only an insane person, or a paid denier, could think that much extra CO2 wasn't making any difference.

 

[myself]

Your welcome.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. CO2 would correlate with temperature and sea level. Post industrial revolution CO2 correlates with emissions but not temperature and sea level.

It seems their case for CO2 driving climate change is based upon the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that temperatures have been rising. The problem is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, the rate of sea level rise has not changed and temperatures are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacials. So it would be expected for temperatures to rise as we have not yet completed the interglacial cycle.

They will argue that the rate temperatures are rising is unprecedented. Unfortunately that's not true. 25 D-O events during the last glacial cycle show that temperatures rose from glacial temperatures to interglacial temperatures - 5C swings up and down - over the course of a few decades. That's even on NASA's website.

Here's what's really happening... we entered an ice age 2.7 million years ago. You can see the slope change on the oxygen isotope curve which is the well established proxy for temperatures. No one disputes the curve. The drivers were a gradually cooling of the planet coupled with the polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents; the south pole has a continent parked on top of it and the north pole has a mostly landlocked ocean on top of it. Also the rise of the Himalayas and the Panama isthmus. All these things changed the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and the ocean, but the biggest driver was both polar regions being isolated from the warmer marine currents.

But the glaciation threshold is different for each pole. Because the south pole has a continent parked on top of it, the southern hemisphere has a lower threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does because the north pole has an ocean parked over it. It is this difference which created increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. It is the northern hemisphere which dominates the climate of the earth. The coolest average temperatures occurs when the northern hemisphere is in winter and the warmest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere is in summer. Again... that's even on NASA's website.

You can see from ice cores during the last glacial cycle how much more erratic temperatures were in the northern hemisphere. By the way these are the D-O events from the Greenland ice cores. My point is that it is not unusual for there to be large temperature swings because that is the signature of the present ice age. We live in a period of bipolar glaciation. Never before has the earth been configured for bipolar glaciation. It is because we have bipolar glaciation where the poles do not have the same glaciation threshold that has led to increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. They have mistakenly correlated a period of warming and associated it with an increase from a minor greenhouse gas.

Here's the oxygen isotope curve.



Here is a zoomed in view of the oxygen isotope curve showing the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which clearly shows the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate.




And here is the climate data from the southern and northern hemisphere ice cores for the last glacial period where you can clearly see how much more erratic the climate of the northern hemisphere was compared to the southern hemisphere.




Pass it on.

Human caused global warming is a reality. Pass that on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I suppose it's just by coincidence that temperatures and CO2 (A KNOWN greenhouse gas) has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. Weird.

Only an insane person, or a paid denier, could think that much extra CO2 wasn't making any difference.

How much difference does each billion tons make? Link?

 

[myself]

Temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. Weird.

Only an insane person, or a paid denier, could think that much extra CO2 wasn't making any difference.

How much difference does each billion tons make? Link?

I have better things to do rather than go round and round with human caused global warming deniers. Go haunt somebody elses thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have better things to do rather than go round and round with human caused global warming deniers. Go haunt somebody elses thread.

I know, asking you for actual proof of your claims, ridiculous!!!

 

[myself]

I know, asking you for actual proof of your claims, ridiculous!!!

Wake up. Then go to post #23.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wake up. Then go to post #23.

And after I laugh at your lack of proof, then what?

 

[myself]

And after I laugh at your lack of proof, then what?

Then seek mental health treatment.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey dumas, this conservative and Republican has more self-expanding, self-replicating, biological flora bio-mass recycling CO2 on my half acre lot and is actually doing more to cover my wife and myself's "carbon footprint" than you or most of the other science deniers and idiots whom think that climate change is a sudden and new event that is caused by humans.

In the process we are growing a lot of our own fruits and vegetables, which I'm rather busy with right now in harvesting and preserving.

Most people involved in agriculture are also conservatives politically and they are very much focused on keeping their land(farms) healthy and sustainable for future generations, especially to pass on down through their family.

It's you urban/city-dwelling resource consuming parasites whom rant on about human caused climate change while continuing to live lifestyle that would cause what you claim is happening. Hypocrites on top of being parasites and wasteful eaters/consumers the lot of you are!

Conservative and conservation are more than semantically linked.

We live by the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."; and so far the climate isn't broke, just doing what it usually does as seen over 4+ billions of years.

Care to guess how much carbon dioxide was on this planet 4+ billion years ago?
Care to tell us when oxygen levels finally reached the amount to sustain fauna lifeforms?

If the climate is going through excessive warming, how then did this aircraft, and the other five P-38s, and 2 B-17s wind up covered in @268 feet of snow compacted into ice just fifty years later when this aircraft was dug out, recovered?

Glacier Girl - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And care to share with us how many inches of snow it takes to compact into an inch of ice?

And while you are relearning basic science, look into the fact that only about 15,000 years ago you and I live in the part of the Northern Hemisphere that was covered in hundreds of feet of ice in the last "Ice Age" and note that it wasn't humans "burning fossil fuels" that changed the global climate enough to warm up and melt that ice away.

If you really believe the claptrap you rant about, you'd be off the net, off the grid, and out in the wilderness in your birthday suit living the zero carbon lifestyle. Mostly anyway. You'd still be exhaling such (CO2), unless you did the really noble thing and stop exhaling.

Another rural retard. The reason that rural areas are losing population is people like you. No one likes living near retards that purposely keeps areas on the stupid side.

 

[Old Rocks]

Temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. Weird.

Only an insane person, or a paid denier, could think that much extra CO2 wasn't making any difference.

How much difference does each billion tons make? Link?

No, they have not. They peaked at about 8000 years ago, and have been slowly declining ever since.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, they have not. They peaked at about 8000 years ago, and have been slowly declining ever since.

Temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. Weird.

No, they have not.

Really? It's colder than at the end of the Little Ice Age. Show me.

 

[Flopper]

Your welcome.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. CO2 would correlate with temperature and sea level. Post industrial revolution CO2 correlates with emissions but not temperature and sea level.

It seems their case for CO2 driving climate change is based upon the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that temperatures have been rising. The problem is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, the rate of sea level rise has not changed and temperatures are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacials. So it would be expected for temperatures to rise as we have not yet completed the interglacial cycle.

They will argue that the rate temperatures are rising is unprecedented. Unfortunately that's not true. 25 D-O events during the last glacial cycle show that temperatures rose from glacial temperatures to interglacial temperatures - 5C swings up and down - over the course of a few decades. That's even on NASA's website.

Here's what's really happening... we entered an ice age 2.7 million years ago. You can see the slope change on the oxygen isotope curve which is the well established proxy for temperatures. No one disputes the curve. The drivers were a gradually cooling of the planet coupled with the polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents; the south pole has a continent parked on top of it and the north pole has a mostly landlocked ocean on top of it. Also the rise of the Himalayas and the Panama isthmus. All these things changed the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and the ocean, but the biggest driver was both polar regions being isolated from the warmer marine currents.

But the glaciation threshold is different for each pole. Because the south pole has a continent parked on top of it, the southern hemisphere has a lower threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does because the north pole has an ocean parked over it. It is this difference which created increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. It is the northern hemisphere which dominates the climate of the earth. The coolest average temperatures occurs when the northern hemisphere is in winter and the warmest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere is in summer. Again... that's even on NASA's website.

You can see from ice cores during the last glacial cycle how much more erratic temperatures were in the northern hemisphere. By the way these are the D-O events from the Greenland ice cores. My point is that it is not unusual for there to be large temperature swings because that is the signature of the present ice age. We live in a period of bipolar glaciation. Never before has the earth been configured for bipolar glaciation. It is because we have bipolar glaciation where the poles do not have the same glaciation threshold that has led to increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. They have mistakenly correlated a period of warming and associated it with an increase from a minor greenhouse gas.

Here's the oxygen isotope curve.

Here is a zoomed in view of the oxygen isotope curve showing the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which clearly shows the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate.

And here is the climate data from the southern and northern hemisphere ice cores for the last glacial period where you can clearly see how much more erratic the climate of the northern hemisphere was compared to the southern hemisphere.

Pass it on.

It's apples and oranges comparison. The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now. Just because the planet survived then, does not mean our modern civilization would.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's apples and oranges comparison. The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now. Just because the planet survived then, does not mean our modern civilization would.

Cool!!

When can we expect the megatoothed sharks to show up?

 

[Flopper]

Cool!!

When can we expect the megatoothed sharks to show up?

Maybe a couple million years after humans have provided to be just another failed species.

 

[ding]

So, do you believe Coal and Oil as major players in the Industrial Revolution are pollutants? And that Wind, Solar, Hydropower and Geothermal are not? This is a simple question, the follow up being do you believe pollution is harmful to plants and animals?

I don't have the academic background on Climatology, but I listen to those that do, and ignore social media posts for those who seem to have a hidden agenda.

I don't have a hidden agenda. My agenda has and will always be seeking truth.

I remember the poor air quality of the 1970's. That was pollution. Particulates are pollution. CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle that all life depends upon.