The New Pause lengthens by another month to 5 years 7 months

[Sunsettommy]

You didn't answer the questions.
Who made the 50 year claim? It isn't the article I posted at all, you been drinking all afternoon??
You are being vague.

The answer requires math ... something beyond your abilities apparently ...
Go look at the OP again ... see how all the charts only go back 5 years ... so, yes, I'm speaking directly to that ...

I had to drive last night, so no afternoon drinking for me ...

Ha ha, sometimes you get so far off the rails that I wonder if your dumb half emerges, it is clear you have completely misunderstood the thrust of the article. If you bothered to read it, you would learn there was no 50 year anything YOU claimed was in it, you were wrong about that and you still failed to answer my two questions...., hence I wondered if you have been drinking a lot yesterday.

The article was talking about how far from today into the past that doesn't show warming, which is currently 5 years and 7 months. I notice you didn't try to refute that.....,

Of course you can go back a few more years, then the pause would vanish and warming trend reappears, but for NOW there is a pause ongoing... that is a mathematical fact you can't ignore.

 

[ding]

It is important to remember that we have data that shows drastic temperature swings from glacial to interglacial and back again over several decades. So anyone looking at those temperature swings during those decades without considering the context of the background conditions and the current climate condition of an ice age would mistakenly conclude the planet was going to boil or freeze solid depending which slope they were looking at.

Lastly, the data we have shows there were periods where the earth cooled and warmed drastically over a period of a few decades. Way faster than what we are seeing over the last 100 years. So the argument that the earth is warming at an unprecedented pace is absolute hogwash.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Feel free to clarify what you would classify as statistically valid. You might even show an example of what you believe is statistically valid. You know... as I just did.
You could even explain what you believe the statistically valid data is showing or means. Don't be shy.

100 year averages, absolute minimum ... so your charts show million year averages, which are valid in climatology ... if we accept the inference, and I don't have a valid reason to not accept the proxy data ... but with the empirical data, we only have 140 years worth, best we can do is split the difference and take our 70 year averages ... and indeed we find the first 70 years cooler than the most recent 70 years ... by definition, that's global warming, keeping in mind we are short of data a bit ... a few grains of salt need be tossed over our shoulders if we try and make any grand conclusions ...

Your chart shows it's colder today than it ever has been during the Quaternary Period ... the OP's charts show the oceans boiling off next week ...

Keep in mind that "statistically valid" doesn't mean "completely valid" ... far from it ... statistics are a wonderful tool to help us guide our research in the right direction ... but in of itself, statistics can be troubling ... we need always be wary of any results ...

Of course we have little solid data to build on, but sometimes YOU get carried away on making absolute statements such that it must be 100 years minimum (which you didn't support empirically) to make a case, when smart people would understand that there are no solid error free data to build on to make solid conclusions. We do the best we can with the data we have, from Proxies with guessed error bars to solid numbers in recent years, there is a wide spread of quality range in data to deal with.

You have a bad habit of not noticing the lack of error range bars in "professional" temperature data based charts such as the 5 years charts you whined about. How come YOU don't wail about the missing error bars?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You didn't answer the questions.
Who made the 50 year claim? It isn't the article I posted at all, you been drinking all afternoon??
You are being vague.

The answer requires math ... something beyond your abilities apparently ...
Go look at the OP again ... see how all the charts only go back 5 years ... so, yes, I'm speaking directly to that ...

I had to drive last night, so no afternoon drinking for me ...

Sometimes being a snob makes YOU dumb.

You ignored my two questions repeatedly.

You were 100% wrong about 50 years anything being mentioned in the article.

You failed to understand the thrust of the article, which was about how far back into the past you can go to maintain a pause in temperatures, he used many data bases from UAH to PISS to show the varying lengths of the undeniable pause in temperature trends.

You didn't address anything specific in the article, didn't show what might be in error.

Embarrassing on how little YOU contribute to the thread about the post one article.

 

[ding]

reiny isn't a snob. Just supremely confident.

 

[ReinyDays]

The charts I posted show trends in the earth's climate; inconvertible, undeniable climate trends. Trends which exist for good reason. Reasons that we can understand. Reasons that make sense. Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Or if those terms disturb you.. a trend towards an ice age. Where bipolar glaciation creates more frequent and drastic temperature changes. A climate that is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. A condition that is so rare it has never been shown to exist in the geologic record.

What treads would that be and how does these treads line up with climate data over the previous 2 billion years?

Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why did this transition occur? ... you say "reasons that we can understand", so what are the reasons ... the transition is the effect, but what is the cause? ... I'm asking for hard physics, make sure you clearly state the forces involved ... from what I've read in this matter, it's still a complete mystery, no one knows why we started cooling down starting 50 million years ago ...

There's clear and convincing data that glaciers were entering the oceans at 25º latitude in both hemispheres ... and at several occasions in the Earth's geologic history ... why are you using the term "rare" to describe what seems to be fairly common? ...

You have a pet theory about all this ... did you lay it out in some other thread I missed? ... if not, could you please lay it out here, global temperatures are dependent on emissivity ratios ... how and why are these changing? ...

 

[ding]

The charts I posted show trends in the earth's climate; inconvertible, undeniable climate trends. Trends which exist for good reason. Reasons that we can understand. Reasons that make sense. Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Or if those terms disturb you.. a trend towards an ice age. Where bipolar glaciation creates more frequent and drastic temperature changes. A climate that is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. A condition that is so rare it has never been shown to exist in the geologic record.

What treads would that be and how does these treads line up with climate data over the previous 2 billion years?

Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why did this transition occur? ... you say "reasons that we can understand", so what are the reasons ... the transition is the effect, but what is the cause? ... I'm asking for hard physics, make sure you clearly state the forces involved ... from what I've read in this matter, it's still a complete mystery, no one knows why we started cooling down starting 50 million years ago ...

There's clear and convincing data that glaciers were entering the oceans at 25º latitude in both hemispheres ... and at several occasions in the Earth's geologic history ... why are you using the term "rare" to describe what seems to be fairly common? ...

You have a pet theory about all this ... did you lay it out in some other thread I missed? ... if not, could you please lay it out here, global temperatures are dependent on emissivity ratios ... how and why are these changing? ...

What does the climate from 2 billion years ago have to do with our climate today?

 

[Sunsettommy]

reiny isn't a snob. Just supremely confident.

People who are snobbish tends to have weak communication skills, here he isn't communicating well, he ignores my questions, make false claims (50 years, 5 year charts) about the article, doesn't acknowledge that fact. Doesn't counter the article itself, yet make false claims against it...., making me wonder he actually read it and some of the comments.

I am hard on smart people, expecting a lot more depth in replies than dweebs like Abu Afak who is a proven science illiterate and post gibberish a lot.

 

[ding]

The charts I posted show trends in the earth's climate; inconvertible, undeniable climate trends. Trends which exist for good reason. Reasons that we can understand. Reasons that make sense. Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Or if those terms disturb you.. a trend towards an ice age. Where bipolar glaciation creates more frequent and drastic temperature changes. A climate that is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. A condition that is so rare it has never been shown to exist in the geologic record.

What treads would that be and how does these treads line up with climate data over the previous 2 billion years?

Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why did this transition occur? ... you say "reasons that we can understand", so what are the reasons ... the transition is the effect, but what is the cause? ... I'm asking for hard physics, make sure you clearly state the forces involved ... from what I've read in this matter, it's still a complete mystery, no one knows why we started cooling down starting 50 million years ago ...

There's clear and convincing data that glaciers were entering the oceans at 25º latitude in both hemispheres ... and at several occasions in the Earth's geologic history ... why are you using the term "rare" to describe what seems to be fairly common? ...

You have a pet theory about all this ... did you lay it out in some other thread I missed? ... if not, could you please lay it out here, global temperatures are dependent on emissivity ratios ... how and why are these changing? ...

I am having a hard time believing you don't remember what I told you about the transition. Really, dude?

 

[ding]

The charts I posted show trends in the earth's climate; inconvertible, undeniable climate trends. Trends which exist for good reason. Reasons that we can understand. Reasons that make sense. Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Or if those terms disturb you.. a trend towards an ice age. Where bipolar glaciation creates more frequent and drastic temperature changes. A climate that is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. A condition that is so rare it has never been shown to exist in the geologic record.

What treads would that be and how does these treads line up with climate data over the previous 2 billion years?

Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why did this transition occur? ... you say "reasons that we can understand", so what are the reasons ... the transition is the effect, but what is the cause? ... I'm asking for hard physics, make sure you clearly state the forces involved ... from what I've read in this matter, it's still a complete mystery, no one knows why we started cooling down starting 50 million years ago ...

There's clear and convincing data that glaciers were entering the oceans at 25º latitude in both hemispheres ... and at several occasions in the Earth's geologic history ... why are you using the term "rare" to describe what seems to be fairly common? ...

You have a pet theory about all this ... did you lay it out in some other thread I missed? ... if not, could you please lay it out here, global temperatures are dependent on emissivity ratios ... how and why are these changing? ...

It's not a pet theory, dude. The earth really did transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice age about 2.7 million years ago. Maybe you should listen to the podcast of the geologist you like listening to who explained the oxygen isotope data.

All you have to do is look at the annotations on the charts I posted to see it.

 

[ReinyDays]

You didn't address anything specific in the article, didn't show what might be in error.

Did you calculate the standard deviation? ...
Didn't think so ...

 

[ReinyDays]

reiny isn't a snob. Just supremely confident.

I took a class is all ... which is more than anyone else here has bothered to do ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

The charts I posted show trends in the earth's climate; inconvertible, undeniable climate trends. Trends which exist for good reason. Reasons that we can understand. Reasons that make sense. Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Or if those terms disturb you.. a trend towards an ice age. Where bipolar glaciation creates more frequent and drastic temperature changes. A climate that is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. A condition that is so rare it has never been shown to exist in the geologic record.

What treads would that be and how does these treads line up with climate data over the previous 2 billion years?

Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why did this transition occur? ... you say "reasons that we can understand", so what are the reasons ... the transition is the effect, but what is the cause? ... I'm asking for hard physics, make sure you clearly state the forces involved ... from what I've read in this matter, it's still a complete mystery, no one knows why we started cooling down starting 50 million years ago ...

There's clear and convincing data that glaciers were entering the oceans at 25º latitude in both hemispheres ... and at several occasions in the Earth's geologic history ... why are you using the term "rare" to describe what seems to be fairly common? ...

You have a pet theory about all this ... did you lay it out in some other thread I missed? ... if not, could you please lay it out here, global temperatures are dependent on emissivity ratios ... how and why are these changing? ...

Actually we do know WHY it started cooling down around 60 Million years ago, it has a lot to do with Antarctica sliding south onto the South Polar region


Paleocene 60 MYA

Antarctica develops a cool temperate climate

to,

40 MYA

The first large ice caps form as Antarctica settles its position the South Pole.

​

 

[ReinyDays]

It's not a pet theory, dude. The earth really did transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice age about 2.7 million years ago. Maybe you should listen to the podcast of the geologist you like listening to who explained the oxygen isotope data.

All you have to do is look at the annotations on the charts I posted to see it.

Your chart clearly shows the cooling tread starting at 50 million years ago ... why do you say 2.7 million? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The charts I posted show trends in the earth's climate; inconvertible, undeniable climate trends. Trends which exist for good reason. Reasons that we can understand. Reasons that make sense. Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Or if those terms disturb you.. a trend towards an ice age. Where bipolar glaciation creates more frequent and drastic temperature changes. A climate that is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. A condition that is so rare it has never been shown to exist in the geologic record.

What treads would that be and how does these treads line up with climate data over the previous 2 billion years?

Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why did this transition occur? ... you say "reasons that we can understand", so what are the reasons ... the transition is the effect, but what is the cause? ... I'm asking for hard physics, make sure you clearly state the forces involved ... from what I've read in this matter, it's still a complete mystery, no one knows why we started cooling down starting 50 million years ago ...

There's clear and convincing data that glaciers were entering the oceans at 25º latitude in both hemispheres ... and at several occasions in the Earth's geologic history ... why are you using the term "rare" to describe what seems to be fairly common? ...

You have a pet theory about all this ... did you lay it out in some other thread I missed? ... if not, could you please lay it out here, global temperatures are dependent on emissivity ratios ... how and why are these changing? ...

Actually we do know WHY it started cooling down around 60 Million years ago, it has a lot to do with Antarctica sliding south onto the South Polar region


Paleocene 60 MYA

Antarctica develops a cool temperate climate

to,

40 MYA

The first large ice caps form as Antarctica settles its position the South Pole.

​

The standard deviation please ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

You didn't address anything specific in the article, didn't show what might be in error.

Did you calculate the standard deviation? ...
Didn't think so ...

Do you have a counterpoint to offer against post one article.......

Don't think so....

How come "climate" professionals don't include error bars in their temperature charts?

Your snobbish attitude is making you look stupid here.

Snicker......

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's not a pet theory, dude. The earth really did transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice age about 2.7 million years ago. Maybe you should listen to the podcast of the geologist you like listening to who explained the oxygen isotope data.

All you have to do is look at the annotations on the charts I posted to see it.

Your chart clearly shows the cooling tread starting at 50 million years ago ... why do you say 2.7 million? ...

You are apparently not as smart as you think since the it was only 2.7 million years ago the ENTIRE planet started in an ice age, before that it was limited to the Southern Hemisphere only.

Ding knows a more than you do in this area

 

[ding]

The charts I posted show trends in the earth's climate; inconvertible, undeniable climate trends. Trends which exist for good reason. Reasons that we can understand. Reasons that make sense. Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Or if those terms disturb you.. a trend towards an ice age. Where bipolar glaciation creates more frequent and drastic temperature changes. A climate that is driven by northern hemisphere glaciation. A condition that is so rare it has never been shown to exist in the geologic record.

What treads would that be and how does these treads line up with climate data over the previous 2 billion years?

Specifically the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Why did this transition occur? ... you say "reasons that we can understand", so what are the reasons ... the transition is the effect, but what is the cause? ... I'm asking for hard physics, make sure you clearly state the forces involved ... from what I've read in this matter, it's still a complete mystery, no one knows why we started cooling down starting 50 million years ago ...

There's clear and convincing data that glaciers were entering the oceans at 25º latitude in both hemispheres ... and at several occasions in the Earth's geologic history ... why are you using the term "rare" to describe what seems to be fairly common? ...

You have a pet theory about all this ... did you lay it out in some other thread I missed? ... if not, could you please lay it out here, global temperatures are dependent on emissivity ratios ... how and why are these changing? ...

But let me say it again... polar regions isolated from warmer marine currents, rise of the panama isthmus and rise of the Himalayans are the surface features which set the stage. Background CO2 ~400 ppm is the atmospheric background condition which set the stage. Together these made the earth susceptible to bipolar glaciation due to triggering events such as orbital cycles and possibly gulf stream switch off. Whereas prior to that the triggering events did not trigger an ice age because the background conditions were not conducive.

Extensive continental glaciation occurs at the north pole at 280 ppm. Extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm. The difference in thresholds is because the south pole has a continent parked on top of it while the north pole has an ocean parked on top of it but is reasonably isolated from warmer marine currents. There are papers on this. There are models on this. 280 ppm north pole. 600 ppm south pole.

Even NASA acknowledges that the earth's climate is driven by the northern hemisphere because the coldest average temperatures of the planet occur when the southern hemisphere is receiving the most sun light. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand how the CURRENT climate is being driven by what happens in the northern hemisphere. In fact all one has to do is look at the fucking charts I posted to see the slope change in the oxygen isotope curve occurred when northern hemisphere glaciation began to occur ~2.7 million years ago.

The data shows strong fluctuations in CO2 that correlate closely with changes in temperature and glacial-interglacial phases with CO2 decreasing during glacials due to increased CO2 sequestration by the colder waters in the oceans and CO2 peaking during each interglacial as temperatures increase leading to CO2 release from the oceans the glacial-interglacial phases are triggered by orbital forcing due to Milankovitch cycles which in turn affects temperatures (‘insolation’) at 65oN - a critical location for triggering Northern Hemisphere glaciation which was made possible because the background conditions which exist today make the planet more susceptible to bipolar glaciation. And it is bipolar glaciation which caused the planet to begin cooling more ~2.7 million years ago as shown on the slope change in the oxygen isotope curve. And led to more frequent and drastic changes in temperatures.

 

[ding]

It's not a pet theory, dude. The earth really did transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice age about 2.7 million years ago. Maybe you should listen to the podcast of the geologist you like listening to who explained the oxygen isotope data.

All you have to do is look at the annotations on the charts I posted to see it.

Your chart clearly shows the cooling tread starting at 50 million years ago ... why do you say 2.7 million? ...

Holy fuck, dude. Seriously?

You can't see the slope change that occurred with northern hemisphere glaciation?

Do I need to annotate this graph to?

 

[ding]

It's not a pet theory, dude. The earth really did transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice age about 2.7 million years ago. Maybe you should listen to the podcast of the geologist you like listening to who explained the oxygen isotope data.

All you have to do is look at the annotations on the charts I posted to see it.

Your chart clearly shows the cooling tread starting at 50 million years ago ... why do you say 2.7 million? ...

Technically the earth has been cooling for 4 billion years, reiny. I'm not sure what that has to do with our CURRENT climate.

What is relevant to our CURRENT climate was the transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet which is also called an ice age.

What I can't understand is why you are being intentionally obtuse. You know better.