Polar Ice Melting Is Proof of Manmade Climate Change

[ding]

That does not excuse your lack of compassion or concern.

You do not.

Of course they are.

You have neither the knowledge nor expertise in atmospheric physics, thermodynamics or climate modeling to make that argument.

But you have no evidence to support such a belief.*

You have no evidence to support that belief either.*

Orbital cycles. Global temperatures hung a U-turn in 1900, reversing a 5,000-year chill-down

* - A claim that something unexplained happened in the past is not evidence to support your claims

You only think you know me but you don't. It seems that you believe people are all bad or all good. People - like the planet's climate - are more complex than that. Of course I know more science than you do. You don't have a clue what drives the climate of the planet. I do. It's called bipolar glaciation which was driven by plate tectonics and resulted in thermally isolated polar regions with totally different characteristics because of their unique geometry at each pole. That you believe that computer models are science is proof that you don't know science. Science is the study of nature to identify the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Computer programs aren't mentioned in that definition. Maybe if climate scientists spent more time analyzing satellite data to validate their data their models wouldn't be so wrong. And I do have the knowledge to say they have feedback backwards. It's called the geologic record. There is absolutely no way the earth could have transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet if those feedbacks were positive. The only way the planet could have been cooling for 50 million years is if the feedbacks were negative. Prove me wrong. Tell me why the planet cooled for 50 MILLION YEARS. Because that implies a continuous process was at work. So what was that continuous process if it wasn't due to the negative feedback of water vapor and cloud formation? Orbital cycles have always existed, so no. The only thing the orbital cycles are responsible for are triggering glacial cycles when the temperature is near the threshold for extensive glaciation.

 

[westwall]

What in my post is uniformatarianism

Nothing. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

 

[Crick]

You are clearly not a scientist. In fact you are a scientific illiterate. The whales are being driven to extinction through hunting, not climate change.

Every post I have put up here on the topic has said that whaling nearly drove them to extinction, but whaling is greatly reduced, though not completely eliminated. Ship strikes and noise pollution, including high powered active sonars are now probably their biggest threat.

 

[Crick]

Nothing. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

You were reacting to my comment that Ding cannot support his claims with an unexplained event in the past. I call bullshit. Uniformitarianism does not apply.

 

[ding]

You were reacting to my comment that Ding cannot support his claims with an unexplained event in the past. I call bullshit. Uniformitarianism does not apply.

They aren't unexplained. The explanation makes you uncomfortable. There is no other explanation for the earth - with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of greater than 600 ppm - cooling for 50 million years unless the feedback from water vapor is negative.

 

[ding]

Orbital forcing did not cause the planet to cool for 50 million years. Orbital forcing is cyclical so it can't be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend. But it can be responsible for triggering glacial periods when the conditions of the planet - thermally isolated polar regions and temperatures near the glaciation threshold of thermally isolated polar regions - are such that orbital forcing can trigger a glacial period. The only thing that can be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend is the NET feedback from water vapor being negative.

 

[Crick]

You only think you know me but you don't.

In this particular instance, I was reacting solely to your comments about the possible extinction of whales.

It seems that you believe people are all bad or all good.

If I thought you were all bad, I wouldn't be talking to you at all. If I thought you were all good, I wouldn't hold the critical opinions regarding your posts here.

People - like the planet's climate - are more complex than that. Of course I know more science than you do.

That has certainly not been evidenced by our conversations here.

You don't have a clue what drives the climate of the planet. I do. It's called bipolar glaciation which was driven by plate tectonics and resulted in thermally isolated polar regions with totally different characteristics because of their unique geometry at each pole.

The problem I have with that is that I have never seen that opinion expressed by anyone else.

That you believe that computer models are science is proof that you don't know science.

That you believe they are not tells me the same about you.

Science is the study of nature to identify the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

You could have opened any dictionary and done a better job than that. From Oxford Languages: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Computer programs aren't mentioned in that definition.

Neither are microscopes, micrometers or particle accelerators.

Maybe if climate scientists spent more time analyzing satellite data to validate their data their models wouldn't be so wrong.

I'm pretty certain that you haven't a clue what climate scientists actually do.

And I do have the knowledge to say they have feedback backwards.

You do not.

It's called the geologic record.

Do you actually think none of the scientists working on that particular problem are familiar with the geological record? That's ridiculous.

There is absolutely no way the earth could have transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet if those feedbacks were positive.

The rate of CO2 increase that humans have produced has not been seen on this planet for 50 million years. There is very, very little in the geological record to inform you how Earth systems will respond to current atmospheric dynamics.

The only way the planet could have been cooling for 50 million years is if the feedbacks were negative. Prove me wrong.

That's not the way it works. Give us some evidence that says you're right. Like, some actual climate scientists saying the same thing.

Tell me why the planet cooled for 50 MILLION YEARS.

Ask a climate scientist. This is a big part of your problem. You think that if you can beat me on some point, it means you're right. B.ut I'm just another whack job on the internet. If you think you're right, bounce it against an actual scientist. Ask Google. I understand that great big spike about then was due to some massive volcanism as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge opened up.

Because that implies a continuous process was at work.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

So what was that continuous process if it wasn't due to the negative feedback of water vapor and cloud formation?

The last great cooling​

The Earth system has undergone a general cooling trend for the past 50 million years, culminating in the development of permanent ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere about 2.75 million years ago. These ice sheets expanded and contracted in a regular rhythm, with each glacial maximum separated from adjacent ones by 41,000 years (based on the cycle of axial tilt). As the ice sheets waxed and waned, global climate drifted steadily toward cooler conditions characterized by increasingly severe glaciations and increasingly cool interglacial phases. Beginning around 900,000 years ago, the glacial-interglacial cycles shifted frequency. Ever since, the glacial peaks have been 100,000 years apart, and the Earth system has spent more time in cool phases than before. The 41,000-year periodicity has continued, with smaller fluctuations superimposed on the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, a smaller, 23,000-year cycle has occurred through both the 41,000-year and 100,000-year cycles.

The 23,000-year and 41,000-year cycles are driven ultimately by two components of Earth’s orbital geometry: the equinoctial precession cycle (23,000 years) and the axial-tilt cycle (41,000 years). Although the third parameter of Earth’s orbit, eccentricity, varies on a 100,000-year cycle, its magnitude is insufficient to explain the 100,000-year cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of the past 900,000 years. The origin of the periodicity present in Earth’s eccentricity is an important question in current paleoclimate research.

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact: The Earth system has undergone a general cooling trend for the past 50 million years, culminating in the development of permanent ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere about 2.75 million years ago. These ice sheets expanded and contracted...

www.britannica.com

OR THIS

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00788-z.epdf?sharing_token=Oj78cwiAiDsUJ3dwl5ZxhNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0O1rlx5kcJrjfYbHIXW8lp13D6F9eFsw9tiR-AJJn0uuRWWWEgxiwJbSFOQOsQqANbiSuQkMIcW0sMY3ai0a6NCKHU1guD5zSnvexEYAVoDHYw8xWoGeqtZbTQyiDEzNa720fxxUeQeZE61be9jufEhPrZWF9sYzx-hebI0raz8l_V38QXsZSAjgijRcdRxuak%3D&tracking_referrer=www.smithsonianmag.com

Orbital cycles have always existed, so no. The only thing the orbital cycles are responsible for are triggering glacial cycles when the temperature is near the threshold for extensive glaciation.

Pardon me, were you saying something? I missed it. The scientists were talking.

 

[Crick]

They aren't unexplained. The explanation makes you uncomfortable. There is no other explanation for the earth - with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of greater than 600 ppm - cooling for 50 million years unless the feedback from water vapor is negative.

You know no explanation. I found multiple articles in seconds.

 

[ding]

In this particular instance, I was reacting solely to your comments about the possible extinction of whales.

If I thought you were all bad, I wouldn't be talking to you at all. If I thought you were all good, I wouldn't hold the critical opinions regarding your posts here.

That has certainly not been evidenced by our conversations here.

The problem I have with that is that I have never seen that opinion expressed by anyone else.

That you believe they are not tells me the same about you.

You could have opened any dictionary and done a better job than that. From Oxford Languages: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Neither are microscopes, micrometers or particle accelerators.

I'm pretty certain that you haven't a clue what climate scientists actually do.

You do not.

Do you actually think none of the scientists working on that particular problem are familiar with the geological record? That's ridiculous.

The rate of CO2 increase that humans have produced has not been seen on this planet for 50 million years. There is very, very little in the geological record to inform you how Earth systems will respond to current atmospheric dynamics.

That's not the way it works. Give us some evidence that says you're right. Like, some actual climate scientists saying the same thing.

Ask a climate scientist. This is a big part of your problem. You think that if you can beat me on some point, it means you're right. B.ut I'm just another whack job on the internet. If you think you're right, bounce it against an actual scientist. Ask Google. I understand that great big spike about then was due to some massive volcanism as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge opened up.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

The last great cooling​

The Earth system has undergone a general cooling trend for the past 50 million years, culminating in the development of permanent ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere about 2.75 million years ago. These ice sheets expanded and contracted in a regular rhythm, with each glacial maximum separated from adjacent ones by 41,000 years (based on the cycle of axial tilt). As the ice sheets waxed and waned, global climate drifted steadily toward cooler conditions characterized by increasingly severe glaciations and increasingly cool interglacial phases. Beginning around 900,000 years ago, the glacial-interglacial cycles shifted frequency. Ever since, the glacial peaks have been 100,000 years apart, and the Earth system has spent more time in cool phases than before. The 41,000-year periodicity has continued, with smaller fluctuations superimposed on the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, a smaller, 23,000-year cycle has occurred through both the 41,000-year and 100,000-year cycles.

The 23,000-year and 41,000-year cycles are driven ultimately by two components of Earth’s orbital geometry: the equinoctial precession cycle (23,000 years) and the axial-tilt cycle (41,000 years). Although the third parameter of Earth’s orbit, eccentricity, varies on a 100,000-year cycle, its magnitude is insufficient to explain the 100,000-year cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of the past 900,000 years. The origin of the periodicity present in Earth’s eccentricity is an important question in current paleoclimate research.

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact: The Earth system has undergone a general cooling trend for the past 50 million years, culminating in the development of permanent ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere about 2.75 million years ago. These ice sheets expanded and contracted...

www.britannica.com

OR THIS

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00788-z.epdf?sharing_token=Oj78cwiAiDsUJ3dwl5ZxhNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0O1rlx5kcJrjfYbHIXW8lp13D6F9eFsw9tiR-AJJn0uuRWWWEgxiwJbSFOQOsQqANbiSuQkMIcW0sMY3ai0a6NCKHU1guD5zSnvexEYAVoDHYw8xWoGeqtZbTQyiDEzNa720fxxUeQeZE61be9jufEhPrZWF9sYzx-hebI0raz8l_V38QXsZSAjgijRcdRxuak%3D&tracking_referrer=www.smithsonianmag.com

Pardon me, were you saying something? I missed it. The scientists were talking.

Let me say again... Orbital forcing did not cause the planet to cool for 50 million years. Orbital forcing is cyclical so it can't be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend. But it can be responsible for triggering glacial periods when the conditions of the planet - thermally isolated polar regions and temperatures near the glaciation threshold of thermally isolated polar regions - are such that orbital forcing can trigger a glacial period. The only thing that can be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend is the NET feedback from water vapor being negative.

 

[ding]

You know no explanation. I found multiple articles in seconds.

And none of them explained this...

The only thing that can be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend is the NET feedback from water vapor being negative.

 

[Crick]

And none of them explained this...

The only thing that can be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend is the NET feedback from water vapor being negative.

Untrue. There is this article pointing out that orbital forcing has been a constant factor and that the long term cooling is likely a result of volcanism (SO2 aerosols) from tectonic drift.

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact: The Earth system has undergone a general cooling trend for the past 50 million years, culminating in the development of permanent ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere about 2.75 million years ago. These ice sheets expanded and contracted...

www.britannica.com

And this study crediting cooling temperatures from about 40 million years ago to a long term decline in partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your conclusion that nothing but negative feedbacks could have caused this is a perfect example of all the errors you claim mainstream scientists have been making. You need to take in a little dissent and examine it objectively.

 

[ding]

Untrue. There is this article pointing out that orbital forcing has been a constant factor and that the long term cooling is likely a result of volcanism (SO2 aerosols) from tectonic drift.

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact

Climate change - Global Cooling, Ice Age, Human Impact: The Earth system has undergone a general cooling trend for the past 50 million years, culminating in the development of permanent ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere about 2.75 million years ago. These ice sheets expanded and contracted...

www.britannica.com

And this study crediting cooling temperatures from about 40 million years ago to a long term decline in partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your conclusion that nothing but negative feedbacks could have caused this is a perfect example of all the errors you claim mainstream scientists have been making. You need to take in a little dissent and examine it objectively.

And 100% incorrect. The only thing that can be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend is the NET feedback from water vapor being negative.

 

[Crick]

And 100% incorrect. The only thing that can be responsible for a 50 million year cooling trend is the NET feedback from water vapor being negative.

Why do you believe that is the only thing capable of being responsible?

 

[ding]

Why do you believe that is the only thing capable of being responsible?

What did I tell you earlier why that is?

 

[Crick]

What did I tell you earlier why that is?

All I recall is you saying that negative feedback is the only way it could happen... over and over and over again. I certainly don't recall any links to actual scientists supporting that contention.

 

[ding]

All I recall is you saying that negative feedback is the only way it could happen... over and over and over again. I certainly don't recall any links to actual scientists supporting that contention.

Then I suggest you go back and re-read what I already wrote. List all the reasons you can find that I mentioned. And if you need more then replay back to me what you have already been told and ask whatever clarifying questions you still may have. Otherwise I'll just keep doing what I have been doing when you keep doing what you have been doing. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

If positive net feedback lead to warming, doesn't it stand to reason that negative net feedback lead to cooling? I know this is a radical concept for some to grasp but it really is self evident.

In other words, if positive net feedback can turn an icehouse planet into a greenhouse planet - as some have suggested - then why wouldn't a negative net feedback turn a greenhouse planet into an icehouse planet?

 

[ding]

Weird idea, huh?