Is climate change a "contentious" issue ? Really ?

[ReinyDays]

That's nice. Go on and dispute the round earth theory too.

I'll take that one on .. the Earth is flat locally ... ha ha ha ...

 

[mamooth]

What do you believe determines whether the sea level rises or falls if not temperature.

Through that evasion, what you're telling everyone is that you couldn't quote even a single source anywhere that agreed with your bizarre claim, and that you don't have the guts to admit it.

Why did you make the crazy claim that the end of an ice age is defined by when sea level starts to rise, even though nobody else uses such a definition?

This is kind of sad. You started out by just being stupid, but you couldn't admit to that, so now you've graduated to deliberate dishonesty. And you're going to keep digging deeper into that hole now.

Are you telling me that you can't understand how the transition from a rising to falling sea level or a falling to rising sea level isn't a change in global climate?

Nope, that's the peak of an ice age, not a transition. You're just not very good at this.

Stop playing games. It's not a good look.

If you want to keep making up your own speshul PC definitions, go right ahead, but nobody else is going to use them. "Ice age" is not defined as you define it, so you should stop using your weird definition.

 

[fncceo]

The Flat Earth Society makes a very valid scientific point.

While everyone 'knows' The Earth is a spheroid, very few people can accurately state why we know that to be true.

HINT (the answer lies not in our perception of the horizon but in Non-Euclidean Geometry).

If you believe in something simply because you've been taught to believe it and because it fits in our world view, without understanding that something then your belief is no different than a superstition.

The creed of the Flat Earth Society ... "Question EVERYTHING".

You can still believe things that you don't understand. For example, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. We can't detect them in any way. We have never observed them and cannot explain how they exist. But, we can theorize their existence because they fit the current observable data.

We can believe they exist ... but we cannot say for certain they exist. We cannot demand that others accept them as fact.

A scientist will readily accept a theory that fits the available data, but has to be willing to completely reject it when new data comes along that won't fit the theory. He may, for a time, stretch that theory to the breaking point, but ultimately, the theory must be rejected when it no longer matches the observations.

 

[ding]

What do you believe determines whether the sea level rises or falls if not temperature.

Through that evasion, what you're telling everyone is that you couldn't quote even a single source anywhere that agreed with your bizarre claim, and that you don't have the guts to admit it.

Why did you make the crazy claim that the end of an ice age is defined by when sea level starts to rise, even though nobody else uses such a definition?

This is kind of sad. You started out by just being stupid, but you couldn't admit to that, so now you've graduated to deliberate dishonesty. And you're going to keep digging deeper into that hole now.

Are you telling me that you can't understand how the transition from a rising to falling sea level or a falling to rising sea level isn't a change in global climate?

Nope, that's the peak of an ice age, not a transition. You're just not very good at this.

Stop playing games. It's not a good look.

If you want to keep making up your own speshul PC definitions, go right ahead, but nobody else is going to use them. "Ice age" is not defined as you define it, so you should stop using your weird definition.

You need a quote to know that when the sea level transitions from a rising sea level to a falling sea level that an interglacial cycle has ended and a glacial cycle has begun?

What do you believe determines whether the sea level rises or falls if not temperature. Are you telling me that you can't understand how the transition from a rising to falling sea level or a falling to rising sea level isn't a change in global climate?

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

The Flat Earth Society makes a very valid scientific point.

While everyone 'knows' The Earth is a spheroid, very few people can accurately state why we know that to be true.

HINT (the answer lies not in our perception of the horizon but in Non-Euclidean Geometry).

If you believe in something simply because you've been taught to believe it and because it fits in our world view, without understanding that something then your belief is no different than a superstition.

The creed of the Flat Earth Society ... "Question EVERYTHING".

You can still believe things that you don't understand. For example, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. We can't detect them in any way. We have never observed them and cannot explain how they exist. But, we can theorize their existence because they fit the current observable data.

We can believe they exist ... but we cannot say for certain they exist. We cannot demand that others accept them as fact.

A scientist will readily accept a theory that fits the available data, but has to be willing to completely reject it when new data comes along that won't fit the theory. He may, for a time, stretch that theory to the breaking point, but ultimately, the theory must be rejected when it no longer matches the observations.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to making?

 

[ding]

What do you believe determines whether the sea level rises or falls if not temperature.

Through that evasion, what you're telling everyone is that you couldn't quote even a single source anywhere that agreed with your bizarre claim, and that you don't have the guts to admit it.

Why did you make the crazy claim that the end of an ice age is defined by when sea level starts to rise, even though nobody else uses such a definition?

This is kind of sad. You started out by just being stupid, but you couldn't admit to that, so now you've graduated to deliberate dishonesty. And you're going to keep digging deeper into that hole now.

Are you telling me that you can't understand how the transition from a rising to falling sea level or a falling to rising sea level isn't a change in global climate?

Nope, that's the peak of an ice age, not a transition. You're just not very good at this.

Stop playing games. It's not a good look.

If you want to keep making up your own speshul PC definitions, go right ahead, but nobody else is going to use them. "Ice age" is not defined as you define it, so you should stop using your weird definition.

I think my favorite part of our discussion is how you started it off by admitting that CO2 saved us from an ice age. That was priceless.

 

[mamooth]

You need a quote to know that when the sea level transitions from a rising sea level to a falling sea level that an interglacial cycle has ended and a glacial cycle has begun?

Yes, because it's such an insane thing to say. It defies common sense, which is why nobody else in the world except you says it. You've created your own little kook reality here. Cycles aren't delineated by the peak hot and cold points; they're delineated when they cross the average point.

What do you believe determines whether the sea level rises or falls if not temperature.

I believe temperature determines it. I've never said or implied otherwise.

Are you telling

I'm telling you that you should state points honestly and directly, as I do, instead of evading with "are you telling me ..." sleaze.

me that you can't understand how the transition from a rising to falling sea level or a falling to rising sea level isn't a change in global climate?

It is a transition. Your faceplant here is your insistence that the transition marks the end of an ice age, instead of marking the coldest point of the ice age.

That's been explained to you before. I've dumbed it down at least to middle school level, yet you still can't grasp it.

I think my favorite part of our discussion is how you started it off by admitting that CO2 saved us from an ice age. That was priceless.

in 20,,000 years. Which makes you look astonishingly stupid for demanding to roast the earth now. As I said before, you are literally as stupid as someone who says run the furnace full blast starting in July because winter is eventually coming.

Cowardly, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

 

[ding]

Since the slow cooling of the past 6000-8000 years suddenly turned into fast warming

slow, suddenly and fast are subjective terms and denote emotion.

We are still below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles, dear. We never got above them.

But if you are arguing we were heading for a glacial cycle and CO2 saved us from that, that's a great argument you are making.

Don't you think it is a good thing that an ice age got diverted?

 

[ding]

Plain and simple we are warming because we are in an interglacial cycle. It never ended. We are still in it.

 

[fncceo]

Plain and simple we are warming because we are in an interglacial cycle. It never ended. We are still in it.

Too bad. I would really like me some Mastodon take out.

 

[ding]

Because of the saw tooth nature of temperature proxies, using small subsets of data instead of the full data set can lead to misleading interpretations. There is no one who denies we are presently in an interglacial cycle. So arguing that CO2 was responsible for reversing cooling during an interglacial cycle using a limited data set instead of the full data set is dishonest. This is especially true if one concludes the earth is cooling during an interglacial cycle but the sea level is still rising.

Here is the full data set.

 

[ding]

Plain and simple we are warming because we are in an interglacial cycle. It never ended. We are still in it.

Too bad. I would really like me some Mastodon take out.

View attachment 408069

Yabba dabba doo!

 

[ding]

Pretty easy to see the transition from the last glacial cycle to the beginning of the current interglacial cycle.

It's also pretty easy to see we are still in an interglacial cycle.

 

[ding]

Earth's oceans are far more important than the land as a source of the heat energy which drives weather and climate. Not only do the oceans cover more than 2/3 of the Earth's surface, they also absorb more sunlight and store more heat. Additionally the oceans retain heat longer.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/info_activities/pdfs/LA_radiative_heating_of_land_and_water.pdf

 

[ReinyDays]

Earth's oceans are far more important than the land as a source of the heat energy which drives weather and climate. Not only do the oceans cover more than 2/3 of the Earth's surface, they also absorb more sunlight and store more heat. Additionally the oceans retain heat longer.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/info_activities/pdfs/LA_radiative_heating_of_land_and_water.pdf

That's just the beginning of it ... this is also where the atmosphere gets most of its water vapor, and the energy associated with evaporation ...

The ocean can certainly stored an immense amount of energy ... it just takes awhile to get it down into the depths ... the sun heats the top of the water column, and buoyancy keeps the water at the top of the column ... energy needs to conduct down, a slow process indeed ... [smile] ... evaporation makes a much easier pathway for the energy to seek equilibrium ...

Lucky for us, super-duper easy to measure the energy in the oceans ... just watch sea levels ... ice caps aren't melting all that much, and melt water is a cooling effect on the oceans locally ... so an 1/8 inch per year is underwhelming ... [yawn] ... appears whatever the oceans can do, they ain't doing it yet ...

 

[ding]

Earth's oceans are far more important than the land as a source of the heat energy which drives weather and climate. Not only do the oceans cover more than 2/3 of the Earth's surface, they also absorb more sunlight and store more heat. Additionally the oceans retain heat longer.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/info_activities/pdfs/LA_radiative_heating_of_land_and_water.pdf

That's just the beginning of it ... this is also where the atmosphere gets most of its water vapor, and the energy associated with evaporation ...

The ocean can certainly stored an immense amount of energy ... it just takes awhile to get it down into the depths ... the sun heats the top of the water column, and buoyancy keeps the water at the top of the column ... energy needs to conduct down, a slow process indeed ... [smile] ... evaporation makes a much easier pathway for the energy to seek equilibrium ...

Lucky for us, super-duper easy to measure the energy in the oceans ... just watch sea levels ... ice caps aren't melting all that much, and melt water is a cooling effect on the oceans locally ... so an 1/8 inch per year is underwhelming ... [yawn] ... appears whatever the oceans can do, they ain't doing it yet ...

Exactly. And the climate is a lot more chaotic before man showed up than anyone is letting on.

 

[ReinyDays]

Exactly. And the climate is a lot more chaotic before man showed up than anyone is letting on.

It can be treated as chaos ... and edifications can be had with such casting ... but it is not chaotic ... every little detail can be predicted quite well, and things predictable are not chaotic ... however when we combine all these little details, things get crazy right quick, and as predictability goes down, chaotic-ness goes up ...

If you're in a 5 mph wind field ... and want to know what the weather will be in 12 hours ... call the weather station 60 miles upstream ... hardly chaos ...

 

[ding]

Exactly. And the climate is a lot more chaotic before man showed up than anyone is letting on.

It can be treated as chaos ... and edifications can be had with such casting ... but it is not chaotic ... every little detail can be predicted quite well, and things predictable are not chaotic ... however when we combine all these little details, things get crazy right quick, and as predictability goes down, chaotic-ness goes up ...

If you're in a 5 mph wind field ... and want to know what the weather will be in 12 hours ... call the weather station 60 miles upstream ... hardly chaos ...

Let me know what you think about this. Maybe I am seeing it wrong.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

 

[Polishprince]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

Just because libs don't want to discuss the issue doesn't mean its not "contentious".

The liberal sources would say that issues like abortion and sodomy are "not contentious" as well, and in a way they are right. Most people are solidly against those vices and always will be.

 

[ReinyDays]

Let me know what you think about this. Maybe I am seeing it wrong.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Whoever wrote that was too embarrassed to attach their name? ...

It's an interesting line of research ... the O-18 data is quite noisy ... some combination of instrumentation error and dynamic contamination ... I think we need better data before we can make any broad based conclusions ... natural variations within an ice age seem common ... perhaps at best this is a part of a counter-argument against the "unprecedented" temperature rise ... this data shows clearly there's plenty of precedence ... but how good it the data? ... it really doesn't line up with the ∆T data ... I'd look for other causes that effect the O-18 levels ...

Sand deposits on the Atlantic floor? ... "Since the thermohaline circulation plays an important role in transporting heat northward, a slowdown would cause the North Atlantic to cool." ... I wouldn't have put my name on this blurb either ... so I'd use the Heinrich data cautiously ... the thermohaline circulation is tossed around like some magic spell that causes stuff ... but this is centuries if not millennia per circuit ... nanofurlongs per fortnight ... the wind-driven surface currents are closer to kilofurlongs per fortnight ... which has an effect on day-to-day weather and which is nothing to speak about, in terms of heat transport? ...

Sorry ... maybe "thermohaline circulation" isn't quite a RED FLAG for fake news ... but I suggest throwing a YELLOW FLAG ... this above is a good example of how it can be used to deceive an unsuspicious public ... it isn't "thermal", it's strictly "haline" ... and slow, a mile per year ...