Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[frigidweirdo]

Yes. There's the value of ice cores.

Yes.

Are you unable to read a graph?

Again, are you unable to read a graph? Read it yourself and do the math.

Yes, but they took MUCH longer to take place than what we are currently experiencing.

We know enough to support my contention. Current warming is taking place an order of magnitude more rapidly than at any time in the history of Homo Sapiens.

I can read the graph.

And the graph shows a HIGHER RATE OF CHANGE BEFORE.

 

[Crick]

I can read the graph.

And the graph shows a HIGHER RATE OF CHANGE BEFORE.

Which graph, when?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which graph, when?

You posted this one. Check out 140,000 years ago, a huge rise, from -9 degrees right up to +3 within a short, short space of time. A temperature that is HIGHER than the temperatures at present on this graph.
Check out 340,000 years ago, from -8 tight up to nearly +4 in a really short space of time.
In out time it went from -9 to about 0 then messed around there for quite a whole with a spike within the last 10,000 years or so, then going up and down around 0.

 

[Crick]

You posted this one. Check out 140,000 years ago, a huge rise, from -9 degrees right up to +3 within a short, short space of time. A temperature that is HIGHER than the temperatures at present on this graph.
Check out 340,000 years ago, from -8 tight up to nearly +4 in a really short space of time.
In out time it went from -9 to about 0 then messed around there for quite a whole with a spike within the last 10,000 years or so, then going up and down around 0.

You need to at least make an effort to estimate the actual span of time that rise took. I will print it and take a ruler and see what I get. My initial estimate was done with a couple sheets of paper for a straight edge just working off my screen.

Okay, I used the snip tool to grab that graph and then used its markup tools to draw some lines on the graph to mark out that rise.

I took a ruler and measured very carefully and came up with a 12.6 degree rise over 8,888 years. That's a rate of 1.42 degrees/millenia. If we use the graph that goes from 1850 to 2020 and just use the endpoints, we can get some numbers without that much hassle. Now this, of course, ignores the significant acceleration warming has undergone in the last century or so. Be that as it may, the graph looks like this:

So, that shows 1.2 degrees from 1850 to 2020. 1.2 degrees/170 years. That's 7.06 degrees/millenia, or 5 TIMES the warming rate. If we use 1980 to 2020 we would get 0.8 degrees/40 years or 20 degrees/millenia, 14 TIMES the rate. Current warming is many times faster than at any point in the history of homo sapiens and, in fact, in probably over a million years. That's not natural. That's not commonplace. That's not something that should be ignored.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You need to at least make an effort to estimate the actual span of time that rise took. I will print it and take a ruler and see what I get. My initial estimate was done with a couple sheets of paper for a straight edge just working off my screen.

Okay, I used the snip tool to grab that graph and then used its markup tools to draw some lines on the graph to mark out that rise.
View attachment 748436
I took a ruler and measured very carefully and came up with a 12.6 degree rise over 8,888 years. That's a rate of 1.42 degrees/millenia. If we use the graph that goes from 1850 to 2020 and just use the endpoints, we can get some numbers without that much hassle. Now this, of course, ignores the significant acceleration warming has undergone in the last century or so. Be that as it may, the graph looks like this:

So, that shows 1.2 degrees from 1850 to 2020. 1.2 degrees/170 years. That's 7.06 degrees/millenia, or 5 TIMES the warming rate. If we use 1980 to 2020 we would get 0.8 degrees/40 years or 20 degrees/millenia, 14 TIMES the rate. Current warming is many times faster than at any point in the history of homo sapiens and, in fact, in probably over a million years. That's not natural. That's not commonplace. That's not something that should be ignored.

So we have on the one hand a 12.6 degree rise in 8,000 years. On the other we have a 1.2 degree rise in 170 years.

Now, let's bear in mind what we're seeing, plenty of steep spikes that could easily be more than 1.2 degrees in 170 years. Ice core samples are not that accurate. They don't tell us GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, but only localized temperatures.

 

[EMH]

So, you've outsmarted all the world's scientists? Are you going to be famous?

None of your heroes are scientists.

All SCIENTISTS observed


Theory - increased Co2 warms atmosphere

DATA - Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not

Conclusion - THEORY REJECTED



The truth of Greenland freezing while North America thawed is also SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Co2 is NOT the cause of Earth climate change.



Science is not

FRAUD
FUDGING DATA
PARROTING

which is all you and your heroes do

 

[Crick]

So we have on the one hand a 12.6 degree rise in 8,000 years. On the other we have a 1.2 degree rise in 170 years.

Now, let's bear in mind what we're seeing, plenty of steep spikes that could easily be more than 1.2 degrees in 170 years. Ice core samples are not that accurate. They don't tell us GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, but only localized temperatures.

The data available is sufficiently accurate with sufficient resolution that you cannot throw doubt on a 7-fold to 20-fold difference. Give.it.up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The data available is sufficiently accurate with sufficient resolution that you cannot throw doubt on a 7-fold to 20-fold difference. Give.it.up.

In the chart that you posted and I reposted today, can you tell whether there was a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures in a 170 year period?
Is it sufficiently accurate to do that? From a chart taking in 400,000 years, can we see that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We were discussing the rate of temperature change: the derivative of temperature over time. This has been studied since the early 19th century. My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence. The data fully support that. The possibility that a temperature spike could have occurred larger in magnitude than what is visible in the geological and instrument records and not leave evidence (as SunsetTommy has suggested is possible) is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. It would take space alien interference. Throughout this conversation your claim that you think we don't know enough to act seems to be your fallback position. To be honest, it seems to be your only position. It is possible to not know everything and still know enought to act on observed threats. Freezing in fear of the unknown is not a viable survival tactic for our species.

My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence.

What is the present rate of change?

 

[ReinyDays]

The data available is sufficiently accurate with sufficient resolution that you cannot throw doubt on a 7-fold to 20-fold difference. Give.it.up.

Is your method that accurate? ... what is the instrument error on your ice core data? ... not that I disagree with your conclusion (yet) ... I'm just asking how you prove this ... mathematically ...

 

[ReinyDays]

I did a science project in the 9th grade based on Kepler's Laws. -- [chick] ...

I had a math test that asked me to derive Kepler's 1st Law from Newton Law of Gravity ... pussy ...

Let's go back to Kepler's Laws ... how does obliquity change irradiation (or isolation if you prefer) total for a year? ... don't post definitions you don't understand ...

I say zero ... the integral at 22º is exactly the same as 26º ...

=====

I was wrong ... stupid stupid me ... the Earth has NO obliquity, the axis of rotation NEVER changes ... stupid stupid me ... angular momentum doesn't allow this ... it is the solar system that changes ... and the obliquity is assigned to the ecliptic ... and the cause of change is planetary perturbations ... which are irregular ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ... stupid stupid me ...

 

[Crick]

Let's go back to Kepler's Laws ... how does obliquity change irradiation (or isolation if you prefer) total for a year? ... don't post definitions you don't understand ...

I say zero ... the integral at 22º is exactly the same as 26º ...

=====

I was wrong ... stupid stupid me ... the Earth has NO obliquity, the axis of rotation NEVER changes ... stupid stupid me ... angular momentum doesn't allow this ... it is the solar system that changes ... and the obliquity is assigned to the ecliptic ... and the cause of change is planetary perturbations ... which are irregular ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ... stupid stupid me ...

I think we all got that obliquity doesn't change insolation. Neither would painting the planet black or painting it white or filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. But, hey, guess what? It can affect the Earth's energy budget just the same.

 

[Crick]

My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence.

What is the present rate of change?

Since 1980 it has been rising at 20 centigrade degrees per millenia

 

[Crick]

Is your method that accurate? ... what is the instrument error on your ice core data? ... not that I disagree with your conclusion (yet) ... I'm just asking how you prove this ... mathematically ...

I didn't use anything but 8th grade geometry. If you want to challenge that, find someone else to talk to. If you're going to suggest that rises similar to what we are currently experiencing could have taken place in the past but be hidden by the lower resolution, keep in mind that you have to have both a rise and an identical fall within your resolution limits and it would be nice if you had some mechanism that might have actually produced such an event. Rejecting good evidence not because you have evidence suggesting otherwise and not because an alternative timeline is possible and not even because you can imagine an alternative timeline but because anything might happen is just simply nonsense. If you think that's valid reasoning, you can reject absolutely every single thing you think you know about the way the universe works.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since 1980 it has been rising at 20 centigrade degrees per millenia

So that's 0.8 degrees per 40 year period.
How many 40 year periods can you accurately "see" in your graph?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't use anything but 8th grade geometry. If you want to challenge that, find someone else to talk to. If you're going to suggest that rises similar to what we are currently experiencing could have taken place in the past but be hidden by the lower resolution, keep in mind that you have to have both a rise and an identical fall within your resolution limits and it would be nice if you had some mechanism that might have actually produced such an event. Rejecting good evidence not because you have evidence suggesting otherwise and not because an alternative timeline is possible and not even because you can imagine an alternative timeline but because anything might happen is just simply nonsense. If you think that's valid reasoning, you can reject absolutely every single thing you think you know about the way the universe works.

keep in mind that you have to have both a rise and an identical fall within your resolution limits

They have to be identical? Are you sure? Why?

 

[ding]

We were discussing the rate of temperature change: the derivative of temperature over time. This has been studied since the early 19th century. My claim was that the present rate of change is much higher (an order of magnitude as it turned out) than at any point in the 200,000 years (and beyond) that homo sapiens have been in existence. The data fully support that. The possibility that a temperature spike could have occurred larger in magnitude than what is visible in the geological and instrument records and not leave evidence (as SunsetTommy has suggested is possible) is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. It would take space alien interference. Throughout this conversation your claim that you think we don't know enough to act seems to be your fallback position. To be honest, it seems to be your only position. It is possible to not know everything and still know enought to act on observed threats. Freezing in fear of the unknown is not a viable survival tactic for our species.

D-O events say otherwise. So do northern hemisphere ice cores.

 

[Crick]

So that's 0.8 degrees per 40 year period.
How many 40 year periods can you accurately "see" in your graph?

The rate for the last 170 years was still five times the rate of that interglacial spike. And what is your aim here? Even if there were spikes of similar characteristic in the past, it does not refute AGW. This issue has been studied to death and AGW deniers have suggested every cause from magic solar spectra to George Santos and all have failed. If you want to suggest some other cause for the warming you have to identify it AND show us why the massive CO2 increase has NOT caused it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

An examination of the temperature and CO2 record back to 45 million years indicates that CO2 levels above 400 ppm will not allow the continued existence of the Antarctic ice shelves. The loss of those shelves, even without a catastrophic collapse of the WAIS, will facilitate an enormous movement of land-based glacial ice into the seas raising global sea level by tens of feet.

Our Atmospheric CO2 is now past the point that in the Deep Past has Meant the Melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheets

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - So as a historian, I am particularly interested in what the past tells us about the present. I've taught courses on climate change in history. But of course my kind of history doesn't go back very far from the point of view of physical scientists. The academic...

www.juancole.com

The main cause of todays localized melting is due to active Volcanoes which you and other warmist/alarmist loons ignore continually as it has been posted in this forum many times.

The region as a whole is simply too cold to melt much of any on the surface and the Continent whole continent just endured the COLDEST summer then winter on record last year.

South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record​

You need to drop this stupid infatuation of a feeble trace gas with negligible warm forcing effect at the 400-ppm level as most of it was already done in the first 100 pm level thus any additional CO2 at the 430 level is simply negligible.

You are probably the most snookered warmist/alarmist in the forum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rate for the last 170 years was still five times the rate of that interglacial spike. And what is your aim here? Even if there were spikes of similar characteristic in the past, it does not refute AGW. This issue has been studied to death and AGW deniers have suggested every cause from magic solar spectra to George Santos and all have failed. If you want to suggest some other cause for the warming you have to identify it AND show us why the massive CO2 increase has NOT caused it.

The rate for the last 170 years was still five times the rate of that interglacial spike.

So if you go back over the last 170,000 years.....how many other 170 year spikes were
as large as the one since 1850?

And what is your aim here?

That anyone who says recent increases are "larger than.........fill in the blank with a long period of time" don't understand the resolution of that older data.

Even if there were spikes of similar characteristic in the past, it does not refute AGW.

I would never claim it did.

If you want to suggest some other cause for the warming you have to identify it AND show us why the massive CO2 increase has NOT caused it.

I'm with Lindzen. It warmed a bit. Part of that is us. It's probably not much of an issue.