Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?

[Qantrill]

Lordy, what a stupid **** you have shown yourself to be. OK, boy, I was born in '43. Done 40 years as an industrial millwright, and ten years on other things, that include a dd214 that says Honorable. And have taken Univesity courses over the years, in fact, still taking them. Three of the last four years, I have just barely cracked six figures on income. And am still working as a millwright in a steel mill. Upper middle class earner, blue collar liberal, and I research before posting.

The fact that you are too lazy to do the same says all one has to know concerning your intellect and honesty.

Hey asshole...I cracked that six figure barrier back in the mid 90s as a CFO. So take your industrial millwright/other things background and shove up where the sun doesn't shine you self-anointed genius. I still want to know why that ice-cap that reached northern Missouri 25,000 years ago melted and YOU obviously don't know, pissant. Neither did Malancovic or Al Gore.

And I wonder what caused the glaciers that were advancing and retreating and advancing and retreating here in New Mexico as recently as 10,000 years ago? We sure don't have any now. They were long gone before anybody but a few primitive Indian tribes occupied this area. But too recently to blame it on dinosaur farts or something like that?

Is it possible that the Earth has been experiencing massive climate shifts for as long as it has been here?

Absolutely true. But these self anointed genius democrats think they can bully/insult the intelligence of the rest of the country into seeing things THEIR WAY. Or bad things will happen to those that don't cooperate. Idiots. Screw them very much.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In other words... Perfectly good explanation that glaciation and the Ices Ages were a NATURAL event with the CO2 levels being a SECONDARY effect.. A combination of Earth orbital dynamics and fundamental changes in the Sun's radiation..
Good Job.. But of course NOW --- that evil CO2 has learned to become a PRIMARY cause of warming..

It was a good explanation. Too bad you're too retarded to understand it very well. "CO2 levels" are not so much a "SECONDARY" effect as they are a primary cause of the subsequent warming that is initially triggered by changes in orbital dynamics.

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature 484, 87–91 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10929
Published online 04 April 2012
Robert M. DeConto, Simone Galeotti, Mark Pagani, David Tracy, Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, David Pollard & David J. Beerling
(abstract)

Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphere–ocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event9, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal10. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earth’s orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals.


Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming
A paper in Nature shows how increased CO2 in the atmosphere led to warming – rather than the other way round


Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age
By Tierney Smith
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
Compelling new evidence suggests that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming. “CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it,” said Jeremy Shakun from Harvard University and lead-author of the report. “Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase of CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond. While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming.”

While previous studies only compared carbon dioxide levels to local temperatures in Antarctica, the current study aimed to reconstruct global average temperature changes, using 80 core samples from around the world. Looking only at local temperatures in Antarctica, warming appears to precede rising CO2, an argument often adopted by sceptics to disprove carbon dioxide’s role in global warming. Shakun however, says this is leaving a huge gap in the research. Putting all these records together into a reconstruction of global temperature shows "a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age,” said Shakun. “Even more interesting, while CO2 trails Antarctica warming, it actually precedes global temperature change, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing warming.”



Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Published online 04 April 2012
(Abstract)

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

I thought CO2 was "Global"? When you say "we've increased CO2 40% (or whatever)" did you mean in every place besides the Antarctic?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Vostok ice cores showed CO2 lagging temperature, so they went to find "data" that "confirms" their theory.

LOL

That's real science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global only means global when it's convenient.

So what was different about Vostok CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature...."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

So, the Antarctic CO2 was "Local" for 10,000 year...hmmmmkay?

 

[flacaltenn]

Seems like TinkerBelle can't keep the story straight.. The fairy dust that's getting sprinkled makes no sense..

Just a few posts ago -- tinkerbelle sprinkled this highly technical Wikipedia piece on us stating....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...rctic-ice-cap-is-shrinking-4.html#post6075003

The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the amount of solar heat Earth receives. These cycles within cycles predict that during maximum glacial advances, winter and summer temperatures are lower. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up. Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately.[8] Studies of deep-sea cores, and the fossils contained in them indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch.

A problem with the theory is that the astronomical cycles have been in existence for billions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. Actually, astronomical cycles perfectly explain glacial and interglacial periods, and their transitions, inside an ice age. Other factors such as the position of continents and the effects this has on the earth's oceanic currents, or long term fluctuations inside the core of the sun must also be involved that caused Earth's temperature to drop below a critical threshold and thus initiate the ice age in the first place. Once that occurs, Milankovitch cycles will act to force the planet in and out of glacial periods. One theory holds that decreases in atmospheric CO2, an important greenhouse gas, started the long-term cooling trend that eventually led to glaciation. Recent studies of the CO2 content of gas bubbles preserved in the Greenland ice cores lend support to this idea. CO2 levels also play an important role in the transitions between interglacials and glacials. High CO2 contents correspond to warm interglacial periods, and low CO2 to glacial periods. However, studies indicate that CO2 may not be the primary cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[10]

And then the fairy finds the Shakun2012 study that studied just the VERY LAST climate transistion edge in the Vostok Ice cores.. And flings THAT turd into the punchbowl..

Well here is the Shakun data for temp. proxies superimposed on the CO2 reconstruction for that ONE CLIMATE transistion...

80 or so temperature proxies with an uncertainty of SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS from various spots around the globe.. These proxies peak sometimes a couple THOUSAND YEARS APART, but the press release for this study claims 100 yr certainty..

And should we BELIEVE that there are 10,000 yr lags in the effect of CO2 on temperature? Takes that long to "homogenize" 100 ppm of CO2?


This is why I don't do tree rings or ice.. And certainly, that graph ain't gonna have me running to Al Gore for absolution anytime soon. Nor apologizing to TinkerBelle for my "skepticism"..

Besides the fact that even the AUTHOR ADMITS that natural events TRIGGERED the initial release of the CO2 from an ice-bound planet ---- there are numerous problems to this LEAP of faith in crappy data.

1) It does not account for the SEVEN OTHER EDGES of climate transistion in the Antarctic cores. Some of which show 1000 yr lag in CO2 versus temp.

2) The final proxy "global average" is taken from data series that don't align to within 1000 years.

3) The amount of warming observed in the reconstruction doesn't correspond solely to a CO2 forcing being about 3 times what it should be.

4) There is no real explanation for the SOURCE of the CO2 if it is the leading factor in that last deglaciating transistion. An ICE BOUND planet is not gonna spew generous amounts of CO2 BEFORE the ice melts or the oceans warm.

So the circus continues.. And Tinkerbelle resorts to larger and more colorful fonts. And posts CONFLICTING explanations on the same page of the thread..

 

[RollingThunder]

And I wonder what caused the glaciers that were advancing and retreating and advancing and retreating here in New Mexico as recently as 10,000 years ago? We sure don't have any now. They were long gone before anybody but a few primitive Indian tribes occupied this area. But too recently to blame it on dinosaur farts or something like that?

Is it possible that the Earth has been experiencing massive climate shifts for as long as it has been here?

Yeah, Fauxfyre, it is "possible" that the Earth has experienced climate changes many times in the past due to natural mechanisms. Actually, as you would know if you weren't so ignorant, it is more than a possibility, it is a fact. Sometimes there are long periods of relative climate stability and sometimes the climate changes very slowly and sometimes there are abrupt changes, all due to natural causes.

SO WHAT???......SO WHAT???......SO WHAT???......SO WHAT???......SO WHAT???

Just because the Earth's climate patterns have changed before in the past due to natural causes does not mean that it can't change now due to manmade causes, any more than the fact that forest fires started naturally for as long as there have been forests means that no forest fires happening now could possibly have been caused by humans.

Scientists have studied the causes of past climate shifts and those causes are not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its associated climate changes. There is only one factor that is rapidly changing that could be producing the current rapid changes in world average temperatures and that factor is the rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels produce by the burning of millions of years of ancient sequestered carbon from prehistoric plant life that comes down to us in the form of oil, coal and natural gas.

If you really want to know what caused the glaciers in New Mexico to disappear ten thousand years ago, try actually reading the explanations that have been shown to you here or just go google it and read some scientific explanations on the internet. If instead, you want to remain ignorant so you can argue about this for political reasons, untroubled by any pesky facts that might contradict your pre-packaged political prejudices on this subject, then **** you, you brainless asswipe.

 

[Saigon]

Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not. Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops. Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.

Doesn't it just suck when science prooves you wrong...yet again?



"A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds."

NASA - Multimedia - Video Gallery

My word....what an embarassing thread!

Poor old Westwall!


It's funny - everytime you think the debate has moved on and people have started to become better informed, you see a thread like this and realise that for some people this issue is 100% political. No amount of science makes a jot of difference.

 

[Dot Com]

Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas

 

[Foxfyre]

Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.

 

[RollingThunder]

Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic(sic).

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......

Wellllllll...the longer the thread progresses, the more ignorant, puerile and idiotic the denier cultists get as they try to hide the fact that their arguments are all politically based and have no connection to the real world of scientific facts.

 

[IanC]

I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.

Well, when folks post the same stuff over and over--using ever bigger, bolder, more colorful text--while refusing to look at, much less consider, anything different, and insulting those who are consulting many sources as stupid, ignorant, uneducated, and worse, you gotta figure they've got nothing. Children debate that way. Adults don't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.

When you deal with real scientists you don't get the hysterics and profanity in reply; the Warmers are a Cult and asking them to question their beliefs shakes them to their core

 

[Foxfyre]

Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.

When you deal with real scientists you don't get the hysterics and profanity in reply; the Warmers are a Cult and asking them to question their beliefs shakes them to their core

I know, though I don't claim to be a scientist. I have been looking at this stuff pretty closely for about 10 years now though, and I find a lot of fault with the AGW religionists, and some problems with those who are just as committed deniers. I come down on the side of those who don't know for sure what is happening, and who want the research to continue but I want the research done by those who want the truth rather than those willing to report only what will keep their funding pouring in.

At this time I see insufficient evidence for AGW being any kind of problem that merits government taking away our rights, choices, options, and opportunities to satisfy what is likely flawed science. And I simply don't understand those willing to give government power to do anything it wants in deference to the AGW religion.

 

[RollingThunder]

I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.

It's actually pretty funny that you take the nonsense and drivel pumped by an uneducated ex-weather reader like Watts as significant or meaningful. It is only on Watts' blog or other denier cult sites that Shakun's paper is criticized or supposedly "demolished". In the real world of peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is doing just fine. And who wrote that article on Watts' blog that, in your brainwashed little mind, 'demolishes' Shakun's paper? Why it is some guy named Willis Eschenbach who is also completely uneducated and unqualified in climate science. Big surprise. Here's Eschenbach's credentials:

California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).
B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975).

He has never published a paper on any aspect of the climate in any peer reviewed science journal. Ever! Just another politically motivated rightwingnut suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Here's a good rundown of the issue from someone who actually knows something about the science.

Unlocking the secrets to ending an Ice Age

 

[flacaltenn]

I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.

It's actually pretty funny that you take the nonsense and drivel pumped by an uneducated ex-weather reader like Watts as significant or meaningful. It is only on Watts' blog or other denier cult sites that Shakun's paper is criticized or supposedly "demolished". In the real world of peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is doing just fine. And who wrote that article on Watts' blog that, in your brainwashed little mind, 'demolishes' Shakun's paper? Why it is some guy named Willis Eschenbach who is also completely uneducated and unqualified in climate science. Big surprise. Here's Eschenbach's credentials:

California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).
B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975).

He has never published a paper on any aspect of the climate in any peer reviewed science journal. Ever! Just another politically motivated rightwingnut suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Here's a good rundown of the issue from someone who actually knows something about the science.

Unlocking the secrets to ending an Ice Age

You should check the credentials of YOUR BLOG sources.. They stink.. You are FOS...

Loehle, Craig, and Willis Eschenbach. 2011. Historical bird and terrestrial mammal extinction rates and causes.
Diversity and Distributions. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00856.x

One of 3 peer reviewed papers that Eschenbach has his name on...

Don't matter.. Anyone can access the data for the Shakun paper and see how much magic was applied to get to a preferred conclusion.. The graph I posted showing the WIDE UNCERTAINTY in that global temp data SHOULD HAVE BEEN in that paper. But it took only one marginally enrolled skeptic to point out the folly..

 

[Qantrill]

S

So the circus continues.. And Tinkerbelle resorts to larger and more colorful fonts. And posts CONFLICTING explanations on the same page of the thread..

This ^^^^^^ is just BEAUTIFUL. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

 

[RollingThunder]

I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.

It's actually pretty funny that you take the nonsense and drivel pumped by an uneducated ex-weather reader like Watts as significant or meaningful. It is only on Watts' blog or other denier cult sites that Shakun's paper is criticized or supposedly "demolished". In the real world of peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is doing just fine. And who wrote that article on Watts' blog that, in your brainwashed little mind, 'demolishes' Shakun's paper? Why it is some guy named Willis Eschenbach who is also completely uneducated and unqualified in climate science. Big surprise. Here's Eschenbach's credentials:

California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).
B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975).

He has never published a paper on any aspect of the climate in any peer reviewed science journal. Ever! Just another politically motivated rightwingnut suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Here's a good rundown of the issue from someone who actually knows something about the science.

Unlocking the secrets to ending an Ice Age

You should check the credentials of YOUR BLOG sources.. They stink.. You are FOS...

Loehle, Craig, and Willis Eschenbach. 2011. Historical bird and terrestrial mammal extinction rates and causes.
Diversity and Distributions. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00856.x

One of 3 peer reviewed papers that Eschenbach has his name on...

So you're having reading comprehension problems again, eh fecalhead. Look back and notice that I said that ol' Willis "has never published a paper on any aspect of the climate in any peer reviewed science journal". The paper you mention is not about climate science and the science journal it was published in is not a climate science journal. So you are wrong again, as usual.

Don't matter.. Anyone can access the data for the Shakun paper and see how much magic was applied to get to a preferred conclusion.. The graph I posted showing the WIDE UNCERTAINTY in that global temp data SHOULD HAVE BEEN in that paper. But it took only one marginally enrolled skeptic to point out the folly..

Anyone can access the data for the Shakun paper and many competent climate scientists have done that without finding any errors, but it seems that only dimwitted denier cultists pushing their own brand of pseudo-science see what you do. Of course, for you dingbats, that's just more evidence of the 'big conspiracy'. LOLOLOL....you imbeciles are soooo pathetic.

 

[flacaltenn]

Still waiting for our RESIDENT dingbat princess to comment on ANY OF THE TECHNICAL issues I posted about her Shakun paper... Evidently -- the princess doesn't want to discuss the actual CONTENT of that study and would rather blather on about credentials of those who have commented..