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

[ding]

HAHAHAAaaaa... that's rather the point.

Actually the point is that according to their understanding of the radiative forcing components they can’t explain why the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

 

[Crick]

Actually the point is that according to their understanding of the radiative forcing components they can’t explain why the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

The amount of things you fail to understand is im-PRESS-ive. Since the IPCC conducts no scientific research, it is not their mandate to determine what has caused warming and cooling in the distant past. That would be the role of the scientists who study such things. If THEY have not been able to explain it, talk with them. The IPCC's task is to assess the science being conducted regarding global warming. Nothing more, nothing less. Do try to keep up.

 

[ReinyDays]

False .
It went 'down' from app 1943 to 1963, then flat, and started going back up.
One does Not expect every longer trend to be perfect over any period.
The obvious trend since Industrialization. THE issue.
`

If only half the data supports your claim ... then it's not a trend ... I'm only pointing out that the claim of global warming is only true for the period 1980-present ... between 1940-1980 we saw global cooling ...

And you've just admitted this is true ...

The issue is industrial pollution ... and I agree this needs to be controlled ... and force of law is required to get folks to pay attention ... banning CFCs are the ONLY reason we're seeing rising temperatures ... global cooling is bad ... global warming is good ... burn tires ...

 

[abu afak]

If only half the data supports your claim ... then it's not a trend ... I'm only pointing out that the claim of global warming is only true for the period 1980-present ... between 1940-1980 we saw global cooling ...

And you've just admitted this is true ...

The issue is industrial pollution ... and I agree this needs to be controlled ... and force of law is required to get folks to pay attention ... banning CFCs are the ONLY reason we're seeing rising temperatures ... global cooling is bad ... global warming is good ... burn tires ...

You're just repeating your error.
so again:
False.
It went down from app 1943 to 1963 and then started going back up.
One does Not expect every longer trend to be perfect over any period.
The obvious trend since Industrialization. THE issue.
`

 

[ding]

…banning CFCs are the ONLY reason we're seeing rising temperatures ...

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing or CFC’s.

 

[ReinyDays]

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing or CFC’s.

This is an argument for the period 1880-2020 ... where we do indeed have temperature data plus a partial set of both CO2 levels and the CFC data can be inferred from production numbers ... Apu's pseudo-climatology where ∆t < 20 years ... he makes good points about weather ... here I'm using 40 years and predicting a period of cooling, perhaps a half degree ... and then gain a full degree in the next interval ... ha ha ha ha ha ... as good a weather forecast as any ...

 

[Crick]

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing or CFC’s.

So what? Neither orbital forcings nor the lack of CFCs are causing the observed warming. Why do you keep repeating that point when it is patently irrelevant?

 

[ding]

This is an argument for the period 1880-2020 ... where we do indeed have temperature data plus a partial set of both CO2 levels and the CFC data can be inferred from production numbers ... Apu's pseudo-climatology where ∆t < 20 years ... he makes good points about weather ...

The only time Apu made a good point was when he admitted he has never made a good point.

But my point still stands. The earth is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and that configuration is what drives the fluctuations in temperature.

 

[Crick]

If only half the data supports your claim ... then it's not a trend ... I'm only pointing out that the claim of global warming is only true for the period 1980-present ... between 1940-1980 we saw global cooling ...

And you've just admitted this is true ...

The issue is industrial pollution ... and I agree this needs to be controlled ... and force of law is required to get folks to pay attention ... banning CFCs are the ONLY reason we're seeing rising temperatures ... global cooling is bad ... global warming is good ... burn tires ...

Where in heaven's name would you get the idea that banning CFCs would cause warming?

 

[Crick]

The only time Apu made a good point was when he admitted he has never made a good point.

But my point still stands. The earth is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and that configuration is what drives the fluctuations in temperature.

What makes you think that it is the only thing that can drive fluctuations?

 

[ding]

So what? Neither orbital forcings nor the lack of CFCs are causing the observed warming. Why do you keep repeating that point when it is patently irrelevant?

The so what is that there are natural fluctuations which are driven by the earth’s landmass and ocean configuration which is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation.

 

[Crick]

The so what is that there are natural fluctuations which are driven by the earth’s landmass and ocean configuration which is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation.

Well, that's just a marvelous observation. But it doesn't refute the point that it is extremely likely that the primary cause of the warming observed since 1850 is human GHG emissions.

 

[ReinyDays]

The only time Apu made a good point was when he admitted he has never made a good point.

But my point still stands. The earth is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and that configuration is what drives the fluctuations in temperature.

But where does it stand? ...

<nitpick> Actually ... Mars, Saturn and Neptune all have axial tilts comparable to Earth's ... atmospheres are atmospheres after all ... </nitpick>

 

[Crick]

But where does it stand? ...

<nitpick> Actually ... Mars, Saturn and Neptune all have axial tilts comparable to Earth's ... atmospheres are atmospheres after all ... </nitpick>

Atmospheres are not all atmospheres. Compare Venus' to Earth's; explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Or were you being facetious?

 

[ReinyDays]

Atmospheres are not all atmospheres. Compare Venus' to Earth's; explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Or were you being facetious?

The gaseous outer part of any planet is it's atmosphere ... gas is a fluid, and these fluid atmospheres ALL behave the same in certain ... `fluidy` ... ways ...

Stop LYING stupid ... fucking liar ...

 

[ding]

Well, that's just a marvelous observation. But it doesn't refute the point that it is extremely likely that the primary cause of the warming observed since 1850 is human GHG emissions.

Sure it refutes it. You have mistaken natural climate fluctuations for man made warming. Climate fluctuations are the norm for our bipolar glaciated planet. The data is undeniable. How do you rule out natural climate fluctuations when the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing?

 

[ding]

But where does it stand? ...

<nitpick> Actually ... Mars, Saturn and Neptune all have axial tilts comparable to Earth's ... atmospheres are atmospheres after all ... </nitpick>

If you are going to compare apples to oranges then Todd is the guy you want.

 

[Crick]

Sure it refutes it. You have mistaken natural climate fluctuations for man made warming. Climate fluctuations are the norm for our bipolar glaciated planet. The data is undeniable. How do you rule out natural climate fluctuations when the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing?

Climate fluctuations are not idiopathic. All those fluctuation have specific causes. It doesn't just oscillate between hot and cold for the fun of it. If you think something other than CO2 has caused the warming observed since 1850, please tell us what it is and, perhaps, explain why no actual scientists have noticed what you seem to have noticed.

 

[ding]

Climate fluctuations are not idiopathic. All those fluctuation have specific causes. It doesn't just oscillate between hot and cold for the fun of it. If you think something other than CO2 has caused the warming observed since 1850, please tell us what it is and, perhaps, explain why no actual scientists have noticed what you seem to have noticed.

Exactly. They all had natural causes and you have unreasonably dismissed them as causes for the recent warming trend. But putting that aside you will be proven wrong by earth’s FLUCTUATING climate.

 

[ding]

Climate fluctuations are not idiopathic. All those fluctuation have specific causes. It doesn't just oscillate between hot and cold for the fun of it. If you think something other than CO2 has caused the warming observed since 1850, please tell us what it is and, perhaps, explain why no actual scientists have noticed what you seem to have noticed.

Simple. Solar, albedo, ocean currents, evaporite cooling, etc.