Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

So you believe the additonal warming is due to melted ice?

In part. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic, decreasing albedo in the NH and about 0.5C from a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2. Why do you keep forgetting that the planet is still 2C colder than previous interglacial periods?

 

[Crick]

In part. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic, decreasing albedo in the NH and about 0.5C from a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2. Why do you keep forgetting that the planet is still 2C colder than previous interglacial periods?

Because in past glacial cycles, it took thousands of years to make that 2C change; with the exact same processes you claim are responsible for today's warming, despite the manifold increase in warming rate.

 

[ding]

Because in past glacial cycles, it took thousands of years to make that 2C change; with the exact same processes you claim are responsible for today's warming, despite the manifold increase in warming rate.

I don't think it did necessarily. Some looked like very fast warming events. But there is no way to know as the resolution for proxy data is a couple of thousand years. So you can't make that statement one way or another.

There is nothing unusual about the planet's present temperature. It is still within the normal range of an interglacial period.

 

[Crick]

I don't think it did necessarily. Some looked like very fast warming events. But there is no way to know as the resolution for proxy data is a couple of thousand years. So you can't make that statement one way or another.

There is nothing unusual about the planet's present temperature. It is still within the normal range of an interglacial period.

Find the best ice core graph you can and check. I've done so and current warming is 7-10 times as fast as the fastest rise I could find in the last 3 million years. Working on the graphs is crude. It would be better to have the actual data, but that's not going to change it by an order of magnitude.

 

[ding]

Find the best ice core graph you can and check. I've done so and current warming is 7-10 times as fast as the fastest rise I could find in the last 3 million years. Working on the graphs is crude. It would be better to have the actual data, but that's not going to change it by an order of magnitude.

How about this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Find the best ice core graph you can and check. I've done so and current warming is 7-10 times as fast as the fastest rise I could find in the last 3 million years. Working on the graphs is crude. It would be better to have the actual data, but that's not going to change it by an order of magnitude.

Find the best ice core graph you can and check. I've done so and current warming is 7-10 times as fast as the fastest rise I could find in the last 3 million years.

7-10 times as fast as the D-O events?

 

[Crick]

How about this?

View attachment 875218

And what warming rates do you come up with from your preferred Greenland data? And do keep in mind that the correlation between O18 and temperature is NOT constant over time or location. See Varying regional δ18O–temperature relationship in high-resolution stable water isotopes from east Greenland. That's why its better to allow the scientists to work those issues out and post temperature data rather than O18 data which you seem to prefer for its higher variability; similar to your preference for stomata-based CO2 data.

 

[ding]

And what warming rates do you come up with from your preferred Greenland data? And do keep in mind that the correlation between O18 and temperature is NOT constant over time or location. See Varying regional δ18O–temperature relationship in high-resolution stable water isotopes from east Greenland. That's why its better to allow the scientists to work those issues out and post temperature data rather than O18 data which you seem to prefer for its higher variability; similar to your preference for stomata-based CO2 data.

There's 50 million years of meaningful and quantifiable empirical climate data that is relevant to the present landmass and ocean circulation configuration and it shows a planet which is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. I don't believe your rate of change argument is meaningful, quantifiable or relevant.

Can you show me your comparison of this supposed rate of change difference?

 

[Crick]

There's 50 million years of meaningful and quantifiable empirical climate data that is relevant to the present landmass and ocean circulation configuration and it shows a planet which is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. I don't believe your rate of change argument is meaningful, quantifiable or relevant.

Can you show me your comparison of this supposed rate of change difference?

I have done so repeatedly in past posts. You apparently don't believe me. I want YOU to look at the data and for YOU to do the calculations.

 

[ding]

I have done so repeatedly in past posts. You apparently don't believe me. I want YOU to look at the data and for YOU to do the calculations.

Can you please show it again. Because as much as I would like to take your word for it, I don't believe you have ever actually done what you just said you have done. So I need a little proof.

 

[ding]

Find the best ice core graph you can and check. I've done so and current warming is 7-10 times as fast as the fastest rise I could find in the last 3 million years.

I've never seen any comparison to warming trends of the past 3 million years. Never.

 

[ding]

Find the best ice core graph you can and check. I've done so and current warming is 7-10 times as fast as the fastest rise I could find in the last 3 million years.

7-10 times as fast as the D-O events?

Not possible. And since D-O events and interglacial period transitions were driven by heat transport from the Atlantic to the Arctic, all interglacial periods would have had the exact same rate of temperature increase as D-O events. Which is much much faster than anything that has occurred in the last 10,000 years.

 

[Crick]

Can you please show it again. Because as much as I would like to take your word for it, I don't believe you have ever actually done what you just said you have done. So I need a little proof.

What is preventing you from doing it?

 

[ding]

What is preventing you from doing it?

You would need the resolution to zoom into every single warming trend over the last 3 million years. Do you have that? Because I don't. I don't know anyone that has that or has done that. So I'd love to see this analysis you claimed you did.

But the other reason is that disruption and restoration of heat from the Atlantic to the Arctic will easily cause a much greater rate of temperature change than a 120 ppm increase of a weak GHG. D-O events testify to that fact. And in fact is still occurring today as the planet heats back up to its pre-glacial temperature which it has done after every glacial period for the past million years or so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You would need the resolution to zoom into every single warming trend over the last 3 million years. Do you have that? Because I don't. I don't know anyone that has that or has done that. So I'd love to see this analysis you claimed you did.

But the other reason is that disruption and restoration of heat from the Atlantic to the Arctic will easily cause a much greater rate of temperature change than a 120 ppm increase of a weak GHG. D-O events testify to that fact. And in fact is still occurring today as the planet heats back up to its pre-glacial temperature which it has been doing after every glacial period for the past million years or so.

I've asked him before to provide the next nine fastest warming trends over the last
"enter geologic time scale here", he never does.

 

[ding]

I've asked him before to provide the next nine fastest warming trends over the last
"enter geologic time scale here", he never does.

Apparently he has "LOOKED AT" the last 3 million years and has concluded the current warming trend is 7 to 10 times higher than anything he "LOOKED AT."

He said the graph he "LOOKED AT" is "crude" but he is certain that he isn't off by more than an order of magnitude. That's some serious precision.

It would probably be too much to ask him to provide the "crude" graph he "LOOKED AT."

 

[Grumblenuts]

^Blah, blah, blah, snore..

Hey, I know.. let's watch some actual climate science in action.. YAY!

 

[Crick]

Apparently he has "LOOKED AT" the last 3 million years and has concluded the current warming trend is 7 to 10 times higher than anything he "LOOKED AT."

He said the graph he "LOOKED AT" is "crude" but he is certain that he isn't off by more than an order of magnitude. That's some serious precision.

It would probably be too much to ask him to provide the "crude" graph he "LOOKED AT."

What is quite obvious is that you do not want to look at the data because you know it will support my claim and refute yours.

 

[ding]

What is quite obvious is that you do not want to look at the data because you know it will support my claim and refute yours.

If it did you would have already shown it.

 

[Crick]

If it did you would have already shown it.

I did show it, repeatedly and you simply ignored it. If you actually want the numbers, you know they're available. If you want to just read it off the graph, that was all I did. It's good enough. And since we are NOT undergoing a D-O event at the moment, that would be an invalid comparison. You claim that the current warming is simply the normal warming of a glacial-interglacial cycle, despite the fact that we are at the tail end of an interglacial cycle and temperatures have been falling for the last 5,000 years. It's not my fault if your hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.