Global Skies Turn A Pale Anemic Shade Of White?

[Woodbutcher]

You see, while you excel at copying and pasting propaganda, you fall down when you encounter facts.

You can't point to any major climate swings caused by CO2 in the last 260 million years.
But I can point to periods when record levels of CO2 DID NOT cause warming.



If you recognise the graph, I draw your attention to the four temperature spikes, of warmest climate, over the past 400,000 years.
Those spikes were maximum temperatures, similar to what we have now. They were also nearly maximum CO2 levels. But not quite. Because what happened is that, in spite of near record CO2 levels, the climate dived into a drastic glaciation. And this was IN SPITE OF THE FACT that CO2 continued to rise for about 750 years, after temperatures started to dive. So record levels of CO2, still rising, couldn't prevent the climate getting colder.

I know the levels of insolation began to drop, but not like that, it's an extremely gradual process, and the rate of change would have been tiny, whereas temperatures fell off a cliff.

So the FACTS simply do not support your rabid ranting. Sorry.

This is so foolish. You drag this out without even trying to understand what it means. Glaciation occurs due to changing earth orbit around the sun, and warming occurs when the orbit brings us back to the increased radiation. Increased radiation releases more CO2 and other greenhouse gases trapping more heat in, even without our help. BUT when we release the fossilised carbon into the atmosphere we increase the heat trapping beyond natural levels. We should be going towards glaciation now, instead the average temp is rising. AND the CO2 level is higher than anything you see on your chart. Everybody who drags this chart out immediately labels themselves as a fool, because they never bother to read how it really is explained. Just like asking:"But where is the missing link?"

[macdoc]

+1

Some don't get the physics
Some don't understand that the cryosphere, hydrosphere and the atmosphere have very different response in timing - the hysteresis is very different for each and in truth the atmosphere is very transient.

Once the more massive ocean and ice start to move the duration of change time is very different.

A volcano can reduce global temps for a couple of years, does little or nothing to glaciers or ocean.
But at this point anyone denying AGW has another agenda or works for a fossil fuel company in the disinformation section.

or they could be a self appointed "fool" defined by their delusions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd have thought we'd already have a winner in this thread.

[mistermack]

This is so foolish. You drag this out without even trying to understand what it means. Glaciation occurs due to changing earth orbit around the sun, and warming occurs when the orbit brings us back to the increased radiation. Increased radiation releases more CO2 and other greenhouse gases trapping more heat in, even without our help. BUT when we release the fossilised carbon into the atmosphere we increase the heat trapping beyond natural levels. We should be going towards glaciation now, instead the average temp is rising. AND the CO2 level is higher than anything you see on your chart. Everybody who drags this chart out immediately labels themselves as a fool, because they never bother to read how it really is explained. Just like asking:"But where is the missing link?"

If you knew as much as you pretend, you would have understood the point I made.
I've studied the insolation curves, due to the Milankovitch cycles. They IN NO WAY explain how global temperatures climb so steeply, and then plummet into a severe glaciation.
In fact, the rate of change at the 100,000 year interval is the weakest of all effects.
I suggest you study a bit, before you start banging on as if other people know nothing.
It's you that ends up looking foolish.

My point about the dive of temperatures into glaciation every 100,000 years is a known problem for the theory that the Milankovitch cycles drive the ice-age glaciations.
Look it up in wiki, if you would like a smattering of information.

So the fact remains that temperatures lead CO2 level by 750 years, never follow. And even when CO2 is at it's historic peak, global temperatures have plummeted on a regular basis, into a severe glaciation.

In other words, the FACTS say that CO2 has NEVER driven climate, as speculated that it should.

Instead of preaching, explain that, and you might deserve some credibility.

[laklak]

According to this interactive map, if we get a 7 meter sea level rise my house will be oceanfront. Literally, my house. I'm thinking deep-water slip and another zero on the selling price.

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fuck, that's a lot of the 'Glades gone.

[laklak]

No problem, the gators will come live in the pool.

[Tyrannical]

The left uses pseudo-scientific drivel to push it's views in a manner no different than theology. The vast majority of "climatologists" are no more scientifically qualified to explain my horoscope than they are the weather. Fluid or atmospheric dynamics requires a high end understanding of math and physics, something almost none of these charlatans posses. And that is before factors like the Sun are factored in.

Unless a so called "climatologist"posses at least the equivalent of a PhD in math and physics, ignore them. They can not possibly understand what they are espousing.

[mistermack]

Some don't understand that the cryosphere, hydrosphere and the atmosphere have very different response in timing - the hysteresis is very different for each and in truth the atmosphere is very transient.

"My, grandma, what big words you've got !"
said Little Red Riding Hood.

"All the better to bullshit you with, my dear" said the AGW wolf.

[Hermit]

According to this interactive map, if we get a 7 meter sea level rise my house will be oceanfront. Literally, my house. I'm thinking deep-water slip and another zero on the selling price.

You'll have to wait a while. Current predictions for sea level rises to the end if this century range from 1 to 3 metres. A one metre rise would put a fifth of Bangladesh permanently under water. Bangladesh is the most densely populated nation on earth (apart from the postage stamp sized ones). It's almost 150 million people are crammed in at 1000 per square kilometre. For comparison, the population density of the USA is 32.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No problem, the gators will come live in the pool.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The left uses pseudo-scientific drivel to push it's views in a manner no different than theology. The vast majority of "climatologists" are no more scientifically qualified to explain my horoscope than they are the weather. Fluid or atmospheric dynamics requires a high end understanding of math and physics, something almost none of these charlatans posses. And that is before factors like the Sun are factored in.

Unless a so called "climatologist"posses at least the equivalent of a PhD in math and physics, ignore them. They can not possibly understand what they are espousing.

Your phraseology exposes your own prejudices.

[Eriku]

Good... Smashing Pumpkins made it quite clear in the late 90s that Blue Skies Bring Tears.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good... Smashing Pumpkins made it quite clear in the late 90s that Blue Skies Bring Tears.

[Tyrannical]

The left uses pseudo-scientific drivel to push it's views in a manner no different than theology. The vast majority of "climatologists" are no more scientifically qualified to explain my horoscope than they are the weather. Fluid or atmospheric dynamics requires a high end understanding of math and physics, something almost none of these charlatans posses. And that is before factors like the Sun are factored in.

Unless a so called "climatologist"posses at least the equivalent of a PhD in math and physics, ignore them. They can not possibly understand what they are espousing.

Your phraseology exposes your own prejudices.

Your phraseology exposes your own ignorance of the definition of the word prejudices.