Human Pollution.

[Crick]

How so? Correlation does not prove causation.

However, causation REQUIRES correlation. And what the fuck does that have to do with you being a monster?

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

It's also littered with fossils of dinosaurs. Where are they?

The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution.

That is ignorant bullshit.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2.

That is simply a lie.

We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

You are a fucking idiot with this stuff. What that OUGHT to tell you is that we already have 2C more warming in the pipeline.

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

Do you ever read what you write. Allow me to paraphrase: "We are destined to cool. The recent warming is caused by something unknown because it has happened in the past. But - somehow - we know its not from CO2"

Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous.

It is not. The forcing of other possible causes have been thoroughly examined and found wanting.

The geologic record is littered with examples.

Examples of idiots like you?

This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

Just how many bipolar, glaciated worlds have you studied and precisely what ARE your qualifications on the subject since you seek to refute many thousands of actual PhDs who've been studying this specific topic their entire professional lives.

 

[ding]

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

However, causation REQUIRES correlation. And what the fuck does that have to do with you being a monster? It's also littered with fossils of dinosaurs. Where are they? That is ignorant bullshit. That is simply a lie. You are a fucking idiot with this stuff. What that OUGHT to tell you is that we already have 2C more warming in the pipeline. Do you ever read what you write. Allow me to paraphrase: "We are destined to cool. The recent warming is caused by something unknown because it has happened in the past. But - somehow - we know its not from CO2" It is not. The forcing of other possible causes have been thoroughly examined and found wanting. Examples of idiots like you? Just how many bipolar, glaciated worlds have you studied and precisely what ARE your qualifications on the subject since you seek to refute many thousands of actual PhDs who've been studying this specific topic their entire professional lives.

The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Never before has the planet experienced bipolar glaciation.

The polar regions receive the least amount of sunlight and are the regions of the planet that are most prone to extensive continental glaciation and where extensive continental glaciation will occur first. But there are certain conditions that must be met in order for extensive continental glaciation to occur.

1. Thermal isolation from warmer marine currents.
2. Temperature must be at the threshold for extensive continental glaciation to occur.

Plate tectonics resulted in the polar regions being thermally isolated from warm marine currents. The southern pole has a continent parked on top of it and the northern pole is mostly land locked.

The threshold for extensive continental glaciation is a function of how thermal isolation of the polar regions is achieved. The southern pole has a continent parked over it which lowers the threshold (higher temperature requirement) for extensive continental glaciation. The northern pole has an ocean parked over it which raises the threshold (lower temperature requirement) for extensive continental glaciation. So as the planet cooled extensive continental glaciation occurred first at the southern pole and then later at the northern pole. Think of it this way... it's "easier" for ice to form over land than it is for ice to form over water and that's why the southern pole has a lower threshold (higher temperatures) than the northern pole. And it's for this reason that once glaciation begins in the northern hemisphere it will extend farther than it does in the southern hemisphere. The ocean surrounding the Antarctica continent moderates (i.e. limits) the spread of glaciers because ice doesn't form as readily over water than it does over land. Whereas in the northern hemisphere once glaciation begins, glaciation will spread much further than it will in the southern hemisphere because there is more surrounding land for glaciers to spread. Which is why what happens in the northern hemisphere dominates the climate of the planet and leads to more climate fluctuations. Which can easily be seen in the ice core data from each polar region during the last glacial period.

Lastly, the planet has never experienced bipolar glaciation before. That has only happened in the last 3 million years. So the planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Never before in the history of the planet has the northern pole been isolated from warm marine currents and the earth experienced bipolar glaciation. Which is why the planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. And why once the planet cooled enough to reach the threshold for northern hemisphere glaciation the temperatures plunged and the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet (i.e. an ice age) and climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 765321

The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.

Yet you admit it is warming and have no explanation for it other than that temperatures historically wobble up and down.

Never before has the planet experienced bipolar glaciation.

Sorry, but I will not take your word for that.

The polar regions receive the least amount of sunlight and are the regions of the planet that are most prone to extensive continental glaciation and where extensive continental glaciation will occur first. But there are certain conditions that must be met in order for extensive continental glaciation to occur.

1. Thermal isolation from warmer marine currents.
2. Temperature must be at the threshold for extensive continental glaciation to occur.

Plate tectonics resulted in the polar regions being thermally isolated from warm marine currents. The southern pole has a continent parked on top of it and the northern pole is mostly land locked.

First, I want to point out a major point you seem to have missed.
GLACIER: A glacier is a large, perennial accumulation of crystalline ice, snow, rock, sediment, and often liquid water that originates on land and moves down slope under the influence of its own weight and gravity. USGS.gov

Notice anything? Did you notice where it says "originates on land". How much land do you find at the North Pole? Zero. Therefore, we do NOT have "bipolar glaciation"

Next. Since land is REQUIRED to form glaciers, it is more than a little disingenuous to complain about a continent being parked on top of the South Pole. And, currently, it is entirely covered with perennial snow and ice which flows down slopes where they are present. It is also COMPLETELY EXPOSED to warmer ocean currents. It has been exposed to such currents for 45 million years. They have recently become warmer due to global warming but the Continent has ALWAYS been exposed to them. What continent on this planet is not exposed to ocean currents? It would seem to be part of the definition of being a continent.

The threshold for extensive continental glaciation is a function of how thermal isolation of the polar regions is achieved. The southern pole has a continent parked over it which lowers the threshold (higher temperature requirement) for extensive continental glaciation.

Because it does not have a 32F ocean underneath it.

The northern pole has an ocean parked over it which raises the threshold (lower temperature requirement) for extensive continental glaciation.

It has a lower temperature requirement to form ice since it DOES have a 32F ocean underneath it. But it will NEVER form glaciers because there is no land here. It will form SEA ICE

So as the planet cooled extensive continental glaciation occurred first at the southern pole and then later at the northern pole. Think of it this way... it's "easier" for ice to form over land than it is for ice to form over water and that's why the southern pole has a lower threshold (higher temperatures) than the northern pole. And it's for this reason that once glaciation begins in the northern hemisphere it will extend farther than it does in the southern hemisphere. The ocean surrounding the Antarctica continent moderates (i.e. limits) the spread of glaciers because ice doesn't form as readily over water than it does over land. Whereas in the northern hemisphere once glaciation begins, glaciation will spread much further than it will in the southern hemisphere because there is more surrounding land for glaciers to spread. Which is why what happens in the northern hemisphere dominates the climate of the planet and leads to more climate fluctuations. Which can easily be seen in the ice core data from each polar region during the last glacial period.

The logical failures here are multitudinous. Sea ice does NOT form over land and glaciers do NOT form over ocean. Glaciers cover all of Antarctica and have for thousands of years. They cannot spread any further because there is no more land on which they may spread. The issue at the North Pole is that the disappearance of sea ice is having a detrimental effect on the Earth's albedo and that fresh meltwater from the sea ice and the ice ashore in Greenland, Canada, Northern Europe is fucking with the AMOC. You explain that it's more difficult to form ice over an ocean than over land but then say that this ice will spread more rapidly over thei ocean due to land that ranges from 500 to 2,000 miles away.

You claim that the North Pole controls the planet's climate because it had to get much colder than the South Pole to glaciate. Do you not see the circularity of that argument? It's cold because it had to be and it had to be because it's cold.

Lastly, the planet has never experienced bipolar glaciation before.

It is not experiencing it now.

That has only happened in the last 3 million years. So the planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.

You have yet to put down one single word explaining why you think the arrangement of the continents wrt the poles configures the planet for cold. Not one fucking word. How about giving it a shot right now.

Never before in the history of the planet has the northern pole been isolated from warm marine currents and the earth experienced bipolar glaciation.

Bullshit. There has been an ocean surrounded by land at the northern geographic pole for over 100 million years. Watch the animation at this link. Salles, Tristan - Geoscience

Which is why the planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. And why once the planet cooled enough to reach the threshold for northern hemisphere glaciation the temperatures plunged and the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet (i.e. an ice age) and climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased.

WHY? Why did the icing over (NOT glaciation) of the North Pole cause the entire planet to cool

I went looking for temperature graphs without the cartoon figures. Look what I found.

This is a logarithmic graph, going in the opposite direction from yours and the last ten million years goes from the right side to just past the black/green change. There is a great deal in this graph that yours misses entirely: the large variations in the Pleistocene (which raised the long term temperature) and the dramatic warming in the early Holocene.

Let's keep it simple. First thing: EXPLAIN CLEARLY AND CONCISELY why the continental configuration of the planet's poles makes us trend towards "bipolar glaciation" or whatever it is you think is happening.

 

[ding]

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

However, causation REQUIRES correlation. And what the fuck does that have to do with you being a monster? It's also littered with fossils of dinosaurs. Where are they? That is ignorant bullshit. That is simply a lie. You are a fucking idiot with this stuff. What that OUGHT to tell you is that we already have 2C more warming in the pipeline. Do you ever read what you write. Allow me to paraphrase: "We are destined to cool. The recent warming is caused by something unknown because it has happened in the past. But - somehow - we know its not from CO2" It is not. The forcing of other possible causes have been thoroughly examined and found wanting. Examples of idiots like you? Just how many bipolar, glaciated worlds have you studied and precisely what ARE your qualifications on the subject since you seek to refute many thousands of actual PhDs who've been studying this specific topic their entire professional lives.

Yet you admit it is warming and have no explanation for it other than that temperatures historically wobble up and down. Sorry, but I will not take your word for that. First, I want to point out a major point you seem to have missed. GLACIER: A glacier is a large, perennial accumulation of crystalline ice, snow, rock, sediment, and often liquid water that originates on land and moves down slope under the influence of its own weight and gravity. Notice anything? Did you notice where it says "originates on land". How much land do you find at the North Pole? Zero. Therefore, we do NOT have "bipolar glaciation" Next. Since land is REQUIRED to form glaciers, it is more than a little disingenuous to complain about a continent being parked on top of the South Pole. And, currently, it is entirely covered with perennial snow and ice which flows down slopes where they are present. It is also COMPLETELY EXPOSED to warmer ocean currents. It has been exposed to such currents for 45 million years. They have recently become warmer due to global warming but the Continent has ALWAYS been exposed to them. What continent on this planet is not exposed to ocean currents? It would seem to be part of the definition of being a continent. Because it does not have a 32F ocean underneath it. It has a lower temperature requirement to form ice since it DOES have a 32F ocean underneath it. But it will NEVER form glaciers because there is no land here. It will form SEA ICE The logical failures here are multitudinous. Sea ice does NOT form over land and glaciers do NOT form over ocean. Glaciers cover all of Antarctica and have for thousands of years. They cannot spread any further because there is no more land on which they may spread. The issue at the North Pole is that the disappearance of sea ice is having a detrimental effect on the Earth's albedo and that fresh meltwater from the sea ice and the ice ashore in Greenland, Canada, Northern Europe is fucking with the AMOC. You explain that it's more difficult to form ice over an ocean than over land but then say that this ice will spread more rapidly over thei ocean due to land that ranges from 500 to 2,000 miles away. You claim that the North Pole controls the planet's climate because it had to get much colder than the South Pole to glaciate. Do you not see the circularity of that argument? It's cold because it had to be and it had to be because it's cold. It is not experiencing it now. You have yet to put down one single word explaining why you think the arrangement of the continents wrt the poles configures the planet for cold. Not one fucking word. How about giving it a shot right now. Bullshit. There has been an ocean surrounded by land at the northern geographic pole for over 100 million years. Watch the animation at this link. Salles, Tristan - Geoscience WHY? Why did the icing over (NOT glaciation) of the North Pole cause the entire planet to cool I went looking for temperature graphs without the cartoon figures. Look what I found.

This is a logarithmic graph, going in the opposite direction from yours and the last ten million years goes from the right side to just past the black/green change. There is a great deal in this graph that yours misses entirely: the large variations in the Pleistocene (which raised the long term temperature) and the dramatic warming in the early Holocene.

Let's keep it simple. First thing: EXPLAIN CLEARLY AND CONCISELY why the continental configuration of the planet's poles makes us trend towards "bipolar glaciation" or whatever it is you think is happening.

I'm just going to keep repeating the POSITIVE case of my beliefs since you can't make a POSITIVE case for your beliefs and can only make fringe, nit picking arguments that don't disprove anything I said.

The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Never before has the planet experienced bipolar glaciation.

The polar regions receive the least amount of sunlight and are the regions of the planet that are most prone to extensive continental glaciation and where extensive continental glaciation will occur first. But there are certain conditions that must be met in order for extensive continental glaciation to occur.

1. Thermal isolation from warmer marine currents.
2. Temperature must be at the threshold for extensive continental glaciation to occur.

Plate tectonics resulted in the polar regions being thermally isolated from warm marine currents. The southern pole has a continent parked on top of it and the northern pole is mostly land locked.

The threshold for extensive continental glaciation is a function of how thermal isolation of the polar regions is achieved. The southern pole has a continent parked over it which lowers the threshold (higher temperature requirement) for extensive continental glaciation. The northern pole has an ocean parked over it which raises the threshold (lower temperature requirement) for extensive continental glaciation. So as the planet cooled extensive continental glaciation occurred first at the southern pole and then later at the northern pole. Think of it this way... it's "easier" for ice to form over land than it is for ice to form over water and that's why the southern pole has a lower threshold (higher temperatures) than the northern pole. And it's for this reason that once glaciation begins in the northern hemisphere it will extend farther than it does in the southern hemisphere. The ocean surrounding the Antarctica continent moderates (i.e. limits) the spread of glaciers because ice doesn't form as readily over water than it does over land. Whereas in the northern hemisphere once glaciation begins, glaciation will spread much further than it will in the southern hemisphere because there is more surrounding land for glaciers to spread. Which is why what happens in the northern hemisphere dominates the climate of the planet and leads to more climate fluctuations. Which can easily be seen in the ice core data from each polar region during the last glacial period.

Lastly, the planet has never experienced bipolar glaciation before. That has only happened in the last 3 million years. So the planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Never before in the history of the planet has the northern pole been isolated from warm marine currents and the earth experienced bipolar glaciation. Which is why the planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. And why once the planet cooled enough to reach the threshold for northern hemisphere glaciation the temperatures plunged and the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet (i.e. an ice age) and climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased.

 

[Crick]

I'm just going to keep repeating the POSITIVE case of my beliefs since you can't make a POSITIVE case for your beliefs and can only make fringe, nit picking arguments that don't disprove anything I said.

I asked you ONE question. I asked you to explain the CORE CONTENTION you believe overthrows AGW. Are you unable to answer it?

Again, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE CONFIGURATION OF THE CONTINENTS AT THE POLES AFFECTS THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE - MAKING US COLDER IN YOUR VIEW. You have made this claim dozens and dozens of times. If you do not know the whys, the hows, whens and wherefors of this claim like the back of your hand, something is very, very wrong.

 

[ding]

I asked you ONE question. I asked you to explain the CORE CONTENTION you believe overthrows AGW. Are you unable to answer it?

Again, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE CONFIGURATION OF THE CONTINENTS AT THE POLES AFFECTS THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE - MAKING US COLDER IN YOUR VIEW. You have made this claim dozens and dozens of times. If you do not know the whys, the hows, whens and wherefors of this claim like the back of your hand, something is very, very wrong.

Wow!!! You don't believe landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulation affects the planet's climate?

The answer was provided, thermal isolation of the polar regions.

 

[Crick]

Wow!!! You don't believe landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulation affects the planet's climate?

The answer was provided, thermal isolation of the polar regions.

All you explained was why the South Pole would glaciate before the North Pole would get covered with sea ice. You did NOT explain why that would tend to cool the planet.

Nor did you address the point that there has been some sort of north polar ocean for at least the last 100 million years.

 

[Crick]

All you explained was why the South Pole would glaciate before the North Pole would get covered with sea ice. You did NOT explain why that would tend to cool the planet.

Nor did you address the point that there has been some sort of north polar ocean for at least the last 100 million years.

Still waiting for a response on this

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for a response on this

Ding, could you explain your core argument here?