Since the plates aren't much different today than they were 50 million years ago, the elevated CO2 levels of 50 million years ago shouldn't have allowed for the planet to cool since you are claiming that elevated temperatures today (which are 2 to 3 times less than in the past) will cause temperatures to rise today.
Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
Plate tectonics set the stage for bipolar glaciation by isolating the northern pole from warmer marine currents. But it was the net positive feedback of water vapor which led to the planet cooling enough to reach the threshold temperature for extensive continental glaciation to occur.
- Thread starter
- #543
0) Here I was just complaining that you never answer questions. Paint me red-faced.
Really?
new.nsf.gov
So, almost no Atlantic Ocean, massive Pacific, Australia just separated from Antarctica, North Africa and half of Europe underwater, North and South America disconnected, the Indian subcontinent just beginning its collision with Asia, raising the Himalayas, Asia and Southeast Asia still united. You don't think these differences might have dramatically affected ocean circulation?
[Feel free to gaff me for being the language police, but I have always disliked the construction "2 to 3 times less" because it really makes no sense. Either say that levels in the past were 2 to 3 times higher or that today's levels are one-half to one-third past levels.]
Here are a couple of points to ponder.
1) The cooling since the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum has taken 50 million years. The warming mainstream science attributes to rising anthropogenic CO2 has taken place over 150 years (and most in the last 50), 3 ten-thousandths of one percent of that time span at almost 400 million times the rate. That makes any attempt to equate or analogize the processes responsible for those changes dubious at best.
2) The tectonic changes of the last 50 million years ARE significant, particularly in terms of ocean circulation and the amount of exposed landmass in each hemisphere. I have no problem with the expert's opinion that it is those tectonics shifts that are responsible for the long term cooling since the PETM. Your contention that the plate configurations "aren't much different" seems to me nothing but an out of hand rejection with no thought given to the question at all.
3) Mainstream science has always considered a number of different positive and negative forcing factors to be responsible for global temperature changes. CO2 is considered the primary factor for the CURENT warming. It is not claimed to be the primary factor for ALL warming throughout Earth history.
Really?
Tectonic collision 50 million years ago led to widespread ocean changes
When the landmass that today is the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia some 50 million years ago, the collision changed the configuration of the continents…
new.nsf.gov
I assume what you meant to say was "...since you are claiming that elevated CO2 levels today (which are 2 to 3 times less than in the past) will cause temperatures to rise today.".
[Feel free to gaff me for being the language police, but I have always disliked the construction "2 to 3 times less" because it really makes no sense. Either say that levels in the past were 2 to 3 times higher or that today's levels are one-half to one-third past levels.]
Here are a couple of points to ponder.
1) The cooling since the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum has taken 50 million years. The warming mainstream science attributes to rising anthropogenic CO2 has taken place over 150 years (and most in the last 50), 3 ten-thousandths of one percent of that time span at almost 400 million times the rate. That makes any attempt to equate or analogize the processes responsible for those changes dubious at best.
2) The tectonic changes of the last 50 million years ARE significant, particularly in terms of ocean circulation and the amount of exposed landmass in each hemisphere. I have no problem with the expert's opinion that it is those tectonics shifts that are responsible for the long term cooling since the PETM. Your contention that the plate configurations "aren't much different" seems to me nothing but an out of hand rejection with no thought given to the question at all.
3) Mainstream science has always considered a number of different positive and negative forcing factors to be responsible for global temperature changes. CO2 is considered the primary factor for the CURENT warming. It is not claimed to be the primary factor for ALL warming throughout Earth history.
Yes, really.0) Here I was just complaining that you never answer questions. Paint me red-faced.
Really?
So, almost no Atlantic Ocean, massive Pacific, Australia just separated from Antarctica, North Africa and half of Europe underwater, North and South America disconnected, the Indian subcontinent just beginning its collision with Asia, raising the Himalayas, Asia and Southeast Asia still united. You don't think these differences might have dramatically affected ocean circulation?Tectonic collision 50 million years ago led to widespread ocean changes
When the landmass that today is the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia some 50 million years ago, the collision changed the configuration of the continents…
I assume what you meant to say was "...since you are claiming that elevated CO2 levels today (which are 2 to 3 times less than in the past) will cause temperatures to rise today.".
[Feel free to gaff me for being the language police, but I have always disliked the construction "2 to 3 times less" because it really makes no sense. Either say that levels in the past were 2 to 3 times higher or that today's levels are one-half to one-third past levels.]
Here are a couple of points to ponder.
1) The cooling since the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum has taken 50 million years. The warming mainstream science attributes to rising anthropogenic CO2 has taken place over 150 years (and most in the last 50), 3 ten-thousandths of one percent of that time span at almost 400 million times the rate. That makes any attempt to equate or analogize the processes responsible for those changes dubious at best.
2) The tectonic changes of the last 50 million years ARE significant, particularly in terms of ocean circulation and the amount of exposed landmass in each hemisphere. I have no problem with the expert's opinion that it is those tectonics shifts that are responsible for the long term cooling since the PETM. Your contention that the plate configurations "aren't much different" seems to me nothing but an out of hand rejection with no thought given to the question at all.
3) Mainstream science has always considered a number of different positive and negative forcing factors to be responsible for global temperature changes. CO2 is considered the primary factor for the CURENT warming. It is not claimed to be the primary factor for ALL warming throughout Earth history.
The first sequence shows roughly 90 million years of backward evolution
What Did the Continents Look Like Millions of Years Ago?
An artist-geologist renders the history of the Earth with maps.
www.theatlantic.com
- Thread starter
- #545
Here are a similar set of images from the same source that have the dates actually marked on them. Nice pictures, but you failed to address anything I said. See text below these four images.
So, almost no Atlantic Ocean, massive Pacific, Australia just separated from Antarctica, North Africa and half of Europe underwater, North and South America disconnected, the Indian subcontinent just beginning its collision with Asia, raising the Himalayas, Asia and Southeast Asia still united. You don't think these differences might have dramatically affected ocean circulation?
[Feel free to gaff me for being the language police, but I have always disliked the construction "2 to 3 times less" because it really makes no sense. Either say that levels in the past were 2 to 3 times higher or that today's levels are one-half to one-third past levels.]
Here are a couple of points to ponder.
1) The cooling since the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum has taken 50 million years. The warming mainstream science attributes to rising anthropogenic CO2 has taken place over 150 years (and most in the last 50), 3 ten-thousandths of one percent of that time span at almost 400 million times the rate. That makes any attempt to equate or analogize the processes responsible for those changes dubious at best.
2) The tectonic changes of the last 50 million years ARE significant, particularly in terms of ocean circulation and the amount of exposed landmass in each hemisphere. I have no problem with the expert's opinion that it is those tectonics shifts that are responsible for the long term cooling since the PETM. Your contention that the plate configurations "aren't much different" seems to me nothing but an out of hand rejection with no thought given to the question at all.
3) Mainstream science has always considered a number of different positive and negative forcing factors to be responsible for global temperature changes. CO2 is considered the primary factor for the CURRENT warming. It is not claimed to be the primary factor for ALL warming throughout Earth history.
So, almost no Atlantic Ocean, massive Pacific, Australia just separated from Antarctica, North Africa and half of Europe underwater, North and South America disconnected, the Indian subcontinent just beginning its collision with Asia, raising the Himalayas, Asia and Southeast Asia still united. You don't think these differences might have dramatically affected ocean circulation?
I assume what you meant to say was "...since you are claiming that elevated CO2 levels today (which are 2 to 3 times less than in the past) will cause temperatures to rise today.".
[Feel free to gaff me for being the language police, but I have always disliked the construction "2 to 3 times less" because it really makes no sense. Either say that levels in the past were 2 to 3 times higher or that today's levels are one-half to one-third past levels.]
Here are a couple of points to ponder.
1) The cooling since the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum has taken 50 million years. The warming mainstream science attributes to rising anthropogenic CO2 has taken place over 150 years (and most in the last 50), 3 ten-thousandths of one percent of that time span at almost 400 million times the rate. That makes any attempt to equate or analogize the processes responsible for those changes dubious at best.
2) The tectonic changes of the last 50 million years ARE significant, particularly in terms of ocean circulation and the amount of exposed landmass in each hemisphere. I have no problem with the expert's opinion that it is those tectonics shifts that are responsible for the long term cooling since the PETM. Your contention that the plate configurations "aren't much different" seems to me nothing but an out of hand rejection with no thought given to the question at all.
3) Mainstream science has always considered a number of different positive and negative forcing factors to be responsible for global temperature changes. CO2 is considered the primary factor for the CURRENT warming. It is not claimed to be the primary factor for ALL warming throughout Earth history.
- Thread starter
- #547
Gore didn’t make this prediction himself but was citing findings from a climate researcher. He did, however, appear to misrepresent the data.
“These figures are fresh,” Gore said on Dec. 14, 2009, during the COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen (here).
He added: “Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” Gore cited findings from climatologist Dr Wieslav Maslowski, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. However, it appears he mis-stated the forecast, according to reporting at the time. In an interview with The Times published on Dec. 15, 2009 (here), Dr Maslowski said: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.” According to the report, Gore’s office acknowledged after his speech that the 75% figure was used by Dr Maslowski as a “ballpark figure” in a conversation with the vice president several years before COP15. Gore made several, similar statements in the late-2000s about ice melting during summer months due to climate change.
In the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, which illustrated his global warming activism, Gore said studies suggested “in the next 50 to 70 years in summertime [the Arctic ice cap] will be completely gone”.
In his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (here) he also said: "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
VERDICT
Missing context. Gore did not himself predict that the North Pole would be ice-free in summer by 2013. However, he did mischaracterise others’ findings. Gore also made a range of statements during this period, citing varied predictions. This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.www.ipcc.ch
Why do you keep ignoring the poles being thermally isolated from warmer marine currents? Any conversation must start there. Just look at the oxygen isotope curve. Or is that above your ability to understand the oxygen isotope curve?Here are a similar set of images from the same source that have the dates actually marked on them. Nice pictures, but you failed to address anything I said. See text below these four images.
So, almost no Atlantic Ocean, massive Pacific, Australia just separated from Antarctica, North Africa and half of Europe underwater, North and South America disconnected, the Indian subcontinent just beginning its collision with Asia, raising the Himalayas, Asia and Southeast Asia still united. You don't think these differences might have dramatically affected ocean circulation?
I assume what you meant to say was "...since you are claiming that elevated CO2 levels today (which are 2 to 3 times less than in the past) will cause temperatures to rise today.".
[Feel free to gaff me for being the language police, but I have always disliked the construction "2 to 3 times less" because it really makes no sense. Either say that levels in the past were 2 to 3 times higher or that today's levels are one-half to one-third past levels.]
Here are a couple of points to ponder.
1) The cooling since the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum has taken 50 million years. The warming mainstream science attributes to rising anthropogenic CO2 has taken place over 150 years (and most in the last 50), 3 ten-thousandths of one percent of that time span at almost 400 million times the rate. That makes any attempt to equate or analogize the processes responsible for those changes dubious at best.
2) The tectonic changes of the last 50 million years ARE significant, particularly in terms of ocean circulation and the amount of exposed landmass in each hemisphere. I have no problem with the expert's opinion that it is those tectonics shifts that are responsible for the long term cooling since the PETM. Your contention that the plate configurations "aren't much different" seems to me nothing but an out of hand rejection with no thought given to the question at all.
3) Mainstream science has always considered a number of different positive and negative forcing factors to be responsible for global temperature changes. CO2 is considered the primary factor for the CURRENT warming. It is not claimed to be the primary factor for ALL warming throughout Earth history.
- Thread starter
- #549
Because you have given me no reason to consider it significant.
I do understand oxygen isotope curves. What I don't understand is why you just keep spouting off meaningless snippets of babble. Why can't you simply state what you actually believe is happening? Why can't you explain why and how the poles' configuration controls the planet's climate? Why can't you explain why you keep using the irrelevant term "bipolar"? Why can't you explain why you believe the planet to currently be glaciated? To what conclusion can we possibly come, based on your lack of responsiveness, other than that you are incapable of doing so?
Of course the single biggest driver of the planet's climate is significant. Why don't you study the oxygen isotope curve and then get back to me on the effect glaciation had on the earth's temperature record. It's pretty obvious.
- Thread starter
- #551
Do you not realize how obvious it is to ANYONE reading this that you are avoiding supporting your own arguments?
As the Earth's temperature drops, the amount of snow and ice increases. The coldest regions will see it first and those would be the poles. Glaciation does not drive the Earth's temperature. The Earth's temperature drives glaciation.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 33,622
- 26,353
- 2,905
If you're looking for cooperation you're not going to get it with intellectual condescension. Carbon reduction is a good idea for a lot of reasons not just for the climate. If we have indeed entered the feedback loop nothing we do at this point
Can possibly even slow it down. With the softening of the permafrost in the northern regions massive underground storage of frozen methane will be released which is many times more efficacious as a greenhouse gas than is CO2.
Methane also slowly combusts in the atmosphere to become several products one of which is CO2. We simply don't have any machines big enough to counteract that process and if we did have machines that big what kind of energy would we use to run them?
Suffice it to say that some type of action is always worth the effort I say take what you can get considering the fact that it may already be out of our hands. My suggestion would be to begin all new construction with climate friendly dwelling places that necessarily use geothermal heating and cooling. We may have to begin building homes partially submerged.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 33,622
- 26,353
- 2,905
Have your soil tested frequently if you are within 20 miles of the plant. Specifically looking for heavy metals and God help you if you own a well.
- Thread starter
- #555
Where did you see that? Here's what I see. Both from NSIDC.org:
So, again, where did you see claims that ice at either pole wasn't decreasing?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,336
- 34,496
- 2,180
All maps
- Nov 10, 2019
- 52,566
- 33,385
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #557
I don't have a well and that plant is about 45 miles or so away. I'm about 20 miles from Milan which saw most of the wells in that area polluted by the Milan Army Ammunition plant, now closed.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,336
- 34,496
- 2,180
New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice - Eos
Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.
eos.org
- Thread starter
- #559
From YOUR sourceNew Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice - Eos
Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.
AND
You are a fucking idiot.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,336
- 34,496
- 2,180
Read the wordsFrom YOUR source
AND
You are a fucking idiot.
The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Those plastic food containers - Study: Over 300,000 people die a year for using them- Started by iamwhatiseem
- Replies: 4
-
-
Consequences Arrive for Canadian Voters, and They Deserve Every Bit of It- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 14
