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

[Crick]

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

Let's see the data trends

 

[ding]

Let's see the data trends

Pull up the oxygen isotope curve for the past 50 million years and you can see a cooling trend quite easily.

 

[Crick]

Pull up the oxygen isotope curve for the past 50 million years and you can see a cooling trend quite easily.

I want to see data on what you believe is causing the warming covering 1850 to the present. On a full HD screen graph of 50 million years, that time span is covered by 0.6% of a single pixel. So... that's just bullshit.

And I am familiar with the trends on several of those factors. Solar cannot explain it. Albedo has decreased from melting ice, so it is not the cause of warming. Ocean currents have not changed significantly and I haven't the faintest idea to what you refer with "evaporite cooling" particularly since you're supposed to be identifying things that are warming the planet.

But, another chance. Show us data on those factors covering at least the last 200 years in a readable fashion. And that would be data that support your contention; that show enough warming to have been responsible for the observed 1.5C change.

 

[ding]

I want to see data on what you believe is causing the warming covering 1850 to the present. On a full HD screen graph of 50 million years, that time span is covered by 0.6% of a single pixel. So... that's just bullshit.

And I am familiar with the trends on several of those factors. Solar cannot explain it. Albedo has decreased from melting ice, so it is not the cause of warming. Ocean currents have not changed significantly and I haven't the faintest idea to what you refer with "evaporite cooling" particularly since you're supposed to be identifying things that are warming the planet.

But, another chance. Show us data on those factors covering at least the last 200 years in a readable fashion. And that would be data that support your contention; that show enough warming to have been responsible for the observed 1.5C change.

Could be any number of things. Just like every single one of those warming and cooling trends littered throughout the geologic record.

Besides we’re still 2C below peak interglacial temperatures.

 

[Ropey]

In the Devil's Hole, Nevada, the paleoclimate record used shows that the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration.

Conversely one can choose to believe AOC ...

'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress said climate change is her generation's World War II.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Crick]

Could be any number of things. Just like every single one of those warming and cooling trends littered throughout the geologic record.

Besides we’re still 2C below peak interglacial temperatures.

Why don't you be honest for once and just admit you don't have the data that would actually support your claims?

 

[ReinyDays]

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

It's Todd and you discussing apples and oranges ... I'm bringing pears to the table ... where's you latent heat from burning fossil fuels going? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

Why do you lie? ... we don't have accurate temperature measures before 1880 ... and from 1880 to 1910, we see OBVIOUS global cooling ... as well as between 1940 and 1980 ...

You mean global warming since 1980 ... and 40 years isn't climatically significant ... you have to lie or your theory collapses ... stupid little girl ...

 

[Crick]

Why do you lie? ... we don't have accurate temperature measures before 1880 ... and from 1880 to 1910, we see OBVIOUS global cooling ... as well as between 1940 and 1980 ...

You mean global warming since 1980 ... and 40 years isn't climatically significant ... you have to lie or your theory collapses ... stupid little girl ...

The request was not made of you.
And, there are periods within this span over which temperatures drop. I am sure there are periods within long cooling trends in which temperatures rise. It is a constant attribute of chaotic processes.

This is the warming to which I refer. Between 1850 and today, temperatures have risen about 1.4 centigrade degrees.
From the World Meteorological Organization

 

[ding]

Why don't you be honest for once and just admit you don't have the data that would actually support your claims?

The oxygen isotope curve shows a cooling planet and increased climate fluctuations after the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. It’s public record.

 

[ding]

It's Todd and you discussing apples and oranges ... I'm bringing pears to the table ... where's you latent heat from burning fossil fuels going? ...

Make a thread about it.

 

[ReinyDays]

Make a thread about it.

There already too many threads open about this ... so I'm using one of them ...

 

[Crick]

Make a thread about it.

If you wish to participate in these threads, you need to respond to valid questions put to you and your contentions. When you say that the waste heat produced by fossil fuel-power plants is the same as solar PV plants, how do you account for the heat created and not used by fuel combustion, boiling water and spinning turbines and the friction of spinning generators - all operations that PV systems do not require.

 

[ding]

There already too many threads open about this ... so I'm using one of them ...

Then go ahead and explain how you see it. I’m all ears.

 

[ding]

If you wish to participate in these threads, you need to respond to valid questions put to you and your contentions. When you say that the waste heat produced by fossil fuel-power plants is the same as solar PV plants, how do you account for the heat created and not used by fuel combustion, boiling water and spinning turbines and the friction of spinning generators - all operations that PV systems do not require.

The waste heat from electricity use is the same regardless of the generating technology. That’s one of the two main points I have made. The other point is that there is an incremental cooling effect at solar farms due to photons being converted into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[Crick]

The waste heat from electricity use is the same regardless of the generating technology.

This statement is absolute nonsense. You have made it a dozen times now but I have yet to see you make any attempt to address the OBVIOUS and SEVERE flaws in whatever logic you have used to come to this conclusion.

The other point is that there is an incremental cooling effect at solar farms due to photons being converted into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

1) Define "incremental cooling". I suspect what you intend is something more like "infinitesimal" but I want to hear it from you.
2) What of the photons that would have been reflected back into space that were instead absorbed by a very dark PV panel?
3) What is the final destination of every electron produced by a PV panel?

 

[ReinyDays]

Then go ahead and explain how you see it. I’m all ears.

Easy ... with 44 million gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions ... we'll have 32 million gigatons of water vapor ... the products of combustion ... all that water condenses and releases 2,100 J/g ... that's 64 kilomillion gigajoules of energy ... (per year) ...

That's scary enough to make any 8-year-old little girl pee her knickers ... because "kilomillion gigajoules" is a "fuck load" of energy ...

half/half for a half ...

 

[Crick]

Easy ... with 44 million gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions ... we'll have 32 million gigatons of water vapor ... the products of combustion ... all that water condenses and releases 2,100 J/g ... that's 64 kilomillion gigajoules of energy ... (per year) ...

That's scary enough to make any 8-year-old little girl pee her knickers ... because "kilomillion gigajoules" is a "fuck load" of energy ...

half/half for a half ...

"Billion" has less letters

 

[ReinyDays]

"Billion" has less letters

Did you change your knickers? ... so where is your waste heat going? ...

 

[Crick]

Did you change your knickers? ... so where is your waste heat going? ...

Eh?