The modern icehouse world we live in is geologically rare

[Crick]

Are you unfamiliar with the IPCC's assessment reports?

 

[Crick]

Do you accept the IPCC's conclusions regarding the role of human activity in the warming observed over the last century?

Do you accept Michael Mann bullshitted his hockey stick graph?

No.

Do you admit the real motive for this deception is social economic change.

[/quote]

No.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So explain to us crick in your own words how you can deny what the UN admitted and what Naomi Klein admitted?

Explain to us crick one of the founders of green peace said on how the commies high jacked the movement?

It's no conspiracy theories its a fact.

.

 

[Crick]

I have explained this to you three or four times. Edenhofer was very clearly speaking of how nations are reducing their CO2 emissions. That you continue to claim it was the IPCC's intent marks you as a willful liar Bear.

Patrick Moore was NOT a founder of Greenpeace and has spent a GREAT deal more time working as a public relations consultant to the timber industry, mining industry energy industry than he ever spent with the environnmental movement.

 

[skookerasbil]

My God.....some people in here don't realize we just had an election two weeks ago!!

But they soon will!!!


Could Trump Simply Withdraw U.S. from Paris Climate Agreement?


A brief history of Donald Trump’s denialist position on climate change

 

[ding]

Are you unfamiliar with the IPCC's assessment reports?

I hope you don't mind if I don't have full faith in their honesty.

 

[Old Rocks]

I hope you don't mind that we don't have any faith in your honesty. Nor in your intellect.

Climate Change over the past 542 million years. Graphic modified from Kenworthy (2010), information compiled from Frakes and others (1992). Maps modified from Ronald Blakey, Northern Arizona University Department of Geology.

National Fossil Day - Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

My God.....some people in here don't realize we just had an election two weeks ago!!

But they soon will!!!


Could Trump Simply Withdraw U.S. from Paris Climate Agreement?


A brief history of Donald Trump’s denialist position on climate change

Hey Steve, the President-elect has already started to back down on his statements concerning climate change and the agreements we have with other nations on that issue. Looks like he will shoot that wishes of the deniers dead in Central Park, and all you fellows will stand and applaud. LOL

Trump seems to be changing his mind on climate change

Donald Trump on Tuesday backed away from his earlier statements that climate change was a “hoax” invented by the Chinese and said there was some connection between the climate and human activity.

“I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much,” Trump told reporters from the New York Times during a meeting at the paper’s Midtown offices.

“Clean air is vitally important,” he said, according to a series of live tweets by Times staffers.

In response to a question, the president-elect also said he was considering whether to withdraw from the Paris agreement on reducing greenhouse gases.

“I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it,” Trump said, while adding that he was also considering “how much it will cost our companies” and affect U.S. competitiveness.

 

[SSDD]

I hope you don't mind that we don't have any faith in your honesty. Nor in your intellect.

Says the village idiot and one of the three biggest dupes on the board....now feel free to give yourself the feeling that you have slammed me with one of your go to logical fallacy/insults rather than back your claims up with something other than flawed models and speculation based on flawed models.

 

[ding]

I hope you don't mind that we don't have any faith in your honesty. Nor in your intellect.

Climate Change over the past 542 million years. Graphic modified from Kenworthy (2010), information compiled from Frakes and others (1992). Maps modified from Ronald Blakey, Northern Arizona University Department of Geology.

National Fossil Day - Climate Change

Given that you are ignorant of the science of radiative forcing of CO2 - which is a fundamental to climate science and widely accepted - AND that you are ignorant of CO2 data throughout the geologic record - which is well established and widely accepted - AND because you are ignorant of the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted - AND because you are ignorant of what the scientific principle and evidence tells us, your opinion of me is as meaningless as the graphic you posted which you know nothing about anyway.

Please tell me what you believe this graphic you posted means.

 

[ding]

I hope you don't mind that we don't have any faith in your honesty. Nor in your intellect.

Climate Change over the past 542 million years. Graphic modified from Kenworthy (2010), information compiled from Frakes and others (1992). Maps modified from Ronald Blakey, Northern Arizona University Department of Geology.

National Fossil Day - Climate Change

Can you tell me why the temperature change did not occur immediately after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?
Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

Can you tell me why the temperature change did not occur immediately after the massive CO2 drawdown from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm?

 

[Crick]

What cooling rate did you expect? And how rapid do you believe that drawdown actually was? A million years?

 

[ding]

What cooling rate did you expect? And how rapid do you believe that drawdown actually was? A million years?

Are you stupid or lazy. I showed that calculation in post #51.

 

[Crick]

Are YOU stupid? Your equation calculates a single temperature delta. It says nothing about rates.

 

[ding]

Are YOU stupid? Your equation calculates a single temperature delta. It says nothing about rates.

So you don't believe radiative forcing is instantaneous? Then why do you believe it is instantaneous today? You can't have it both ways. It is the same formula used in the climate models and they don't baffle the change. The radiative forcing of water vapor is instantaneous. How else do you explain the warming effect of cloud cover during the night?

 

[Crick]

I have never said it was instantaneous. You're the one complaining about cooling being too slow. I guarantee you there are dT/dt to be found in any GCM that DOESN'T appear in your little Google treasure. The temperature of matter does not change instantaneously no matter how great the forcing. The change in effective temperature from cloud cover arises from moving from a situation in which you are radiating to deep space at 2K to one in which you are radiating to a cloud of water vapor well above 273K. It (the "instantaneous" part) has not a fucking thing to do with the absorption of CO2

 

[ding]

I have never said it was instantaneous. You're the one complaining about cooling being too slow. I guarantee you there are dT/dt to be found in any GCM that DOESN'T appear in your little Google treasure. The temperature of matter does not change instantaneously no matter how great the forcing. The change in effective temperature from cloud cover arises from moving from a situation in which you are radiating to deep space at 2K to one in which you are radiating to a cloud of water vapor well above 273K. It (the "instantaneous" part) has not a fucking thing to do with the absorption of CO2

Bull fucking shit.

 

[Crick]

Oh goodie, a firm statement. So, please explain the process you believe underlies the rapid change in surface temperature between clear sky and cloud cover.

 

[ding]

Oh goodie, a firm statement. So, please explain the process you believe underlies the rapid change in surface temperature between clear sky and cloud cover.

Why? You are the one who is arguing against that the radiative force of CO2 does not act quickly when the data goes against your argument and then arguing that it does act quickly when it suits your argument. You can't have it both ways. I have no intention of arguing it one way or the other, my only intention is to shine a spotlight on your incongruity. Either CO2 drives climate change as you propose or it reinforces climate change as I propose. If CO2 drives climate change as you propose, then tell me why it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature change predicted by the radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 rapidly decreased from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm.

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

 

[Crick]

I'm still wondering what process you envision that allows CO2 only to reinforce and not to initiate warming. Does the CO2 know in what conditions it is acting?

Besides, you've already repeatedly provided the answer to your conundrum. 3500 ppm is not what you'd call a small concentration, is it.