ERayR Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Slight increases in insolation promoting large increases in CO2.SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm Over the last 50 or so years there has been no increase in insolation but a marked increase in CO2 and the concurrent rise in temperature. Lame. Can't you bring yourself to say "normal cycles"?
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Please tell me what caused the other global warming cycles over the past 400,000 years. What period are you talking about? I keep saying that there are many forces. See the video, especially 6:30 to 9:15 Near the end of the video he presents a powerful question that skeptics cannot answer. Shame on me for being fooled so many times. Please see the video, he cites important scientific papers. If that video cannot convince you, nothing will. To clarify, I am not an apocalypse alarmist. Global Warming is not going to destroy the planet. Sea levels are rising, but they are not going to completely drown the cities in the near future because it is a slow process, so it won't happen in the 21st century. There will be serious consequences, but it won't be an apocalypse. Edited March 31, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 To clarify, I am not an apocalypse alarmist. Global Warming is not going to destroy the planet. Sea levels are rising, but they are not going to completely drown the cities in the near future because it is a slow process, so it won't happen in the 21st century. There will be serious consequences, but it won't be an apocalypse. That is a relief, by that time we will be well into a new ice age. 2
strappinglad Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I have often wondered about the scripture that concerns the return of the ten tribes. It says" and the ice will flow down at their presence. " Does that mean that their return will be triggered by or trigger a new ice age ?
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Probably not. Could just mean its as predictable as snow in winter.
strappinglad Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Probably not. Could just mean its as predictable as snow in winter. Stretch Armstrong meet Plastic man. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Man caused C02 will only have a minor to moderate effect on this cooling trend in my opinion. I think that extra blanket will be a welcomed comforter in the next several hundred years. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. It is predicted that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius before the 22nd century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees Edited April 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. It is predicted that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius before the 22nd century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees The ice records show around a 12 degree Celsius (yes 12 degree Celsius) climb in temps out of the ice ages. Any reconstruction of "global" temperatures pre-instrumental record is sketchy to say the least. I also like how your chart stops before the sustained pause in warming (more deceptive propaganda). The best and most accurate data we have is in the ice record, and that shows that in those areas the temperature was 32.9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer 1000 years ago than today (see chart on post 543).
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Please see post 562 Edited April 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Can't you bring yourself to say "normal cycles"? About 80 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than it is today, but the sun was 4% weaker. How do you explain that? Edited April 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) The ice records show around a 12 degree Celsius (yes 12 degree Celsius) climb in temps out of the ice ages. What era? How many years did it take? CFR? Your graphs are not showing that. Any reconstruction of "global" temperatures pre-instrumental record is sketchy to say the least. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature. Please don't remind me of young earth creationist. The best and most accurate data we have is in the ice record, and that shows that in those areas the temperature was 32.9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer 1000 years ago than today (see chart on post 543). The Earth is warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago. There are many independent methods to prove that.Here is your Ice record, let's look at Antartica, your welcome Figure 4: Antarctic Peninsula temperature over the past millennium http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1787_F4.html I also like how your chart stops before the sustained pause in warming (more deceptive propaganda). It is an old graph and it covers 1000 years. Here is a graph from 1880 to 2010 Edited April 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 About 80 million years ago the Earth was 25 times hotter than it is today, but the sun was 4% weaker. How do you explain that? I don't.
strappinglad Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 About 80 million years ago the Earth was 25 times hotter than it is today, but the sun was 4% weaker. How do you explain that? Oh, the power of extrapolation into the unobservable past and future ! So areas of the world that run 50 degrees C today had temps of 1250 degrees C 80 million years ago ? And what is 25 times hotter than minus 30 ? Now, if we are talking average earth temp of say 2 degrees then the average was 100 degrees? Perhaps you could clarify your statement.
bcuzbcuz Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Please tell me what caused the other global warming cycles over the past 400,000 years.I suggest you study volcanoes.
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Oh, the power of extrapolation into the unobservable past and future ! So areas of the world that run 50 degrees C today had temps of 1250 degrees C 80 million years ago ? And what is 25 times hotter than minus 30 ? Now, if we are talking average earth temp of say 2 degrees then the average was 100 degrees? Perhaps you could clarify your statement. That's the most fallacious argument I've ever heard. You can't observe what happened 5 minutes ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
strappinglad Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Science does this all the time. Data is taken from a chunk of time be it 5 years or 5000 years and then extrapolated backwards and/or forwards to postulate what went on in the past or what will go on in the future. 90 % of the arguments on this thread use that type of thinking. The data builds a curve, the type of regression that best applies to the curve is computed , and the curve is then extrapolated into the future. This work is rational and reasonable but there are always assumptions made about the uniformity of events. My statement was mostly about the meaning of the posters assertion that the earth was 25 TIMES hotter 80 million years ago. I needed that clarified.
ERayR Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 I suggest you study volcanoes. And in the present cycle have volcanoes ceased?
ERayR Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 That's the most fallacious argument I've ever heard. You can't observe what happened 5 minutes ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It also doesn't mean your imaginative guesses are accurate.
ERayR Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 The Earth is warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago. There are many independent methods to prove that.Here is your Ice record, let's look at Antartica, your welcome The Earths climate is not static. It cycles. GW breaks into a cycle during the upswing and begins shouting THE SKY IS FALLING. Unfortunately those that panic seem to become blind to the reality of cycles.
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 The Earths climate is not static. It cycles. GW breaks into a cycle during the upswing and begins shouting THE SKY IS FALLING. Unfortunately those that panic seem to become blind to the reality of cycles. NO climate scientist has said that climate doesn't cycle. That is a strawman argument. What the climate scientists are warning about is the rate of change. The sky isn't falling. That is another of your strawman arguments. Here is what our planet will look life if all the ice melted, and no climate scientist expects that to happen any time soon.SEE http://www.businessinsider.com/what-if-all-the-ice-melted-earth-2015-4
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 How can that even be quantified? That is a total assumption and not a very good one. Studies have shown that increase in temp and CO2 yield better and more plentiful crops. I know this is from about a week ago, but that is a false statement.SEE http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-08/climate-change-will-impact-nutrition-levels/5440224
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) The Earths climate is not static. It cycles. GW breaks into a cycle during the upswing and begins shouting THE SKY IS FALLING. Unfortunately those that panic seem to become blind to the reality of cycles. We know that Earths climate is not static. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. What is the evidence that global warming today has a natural cause? What is the natural cause? Why is the stratosphere cooling? I am not interested in assumptions, I am interested in data and successful scientific theories that explain all that data, not cherry pick it. Oh, the power of extrapolation into the unobservable past and future ! So areas of the world that run 50 degrees C today had temps of 1250 degrees C 80 million years ago ? And what is 25 times hotter than minus 30 ? Now, if we are talking average earth temp of say 2 degrees then the average was 100 degrees? Perhaps you could clarify your statement. Not 25 times hotter, my mistake, but it was much hotter. Scientists have estimated it was 6 – 8°C warmer. In the mid Cretaceous, about 100 million years ago, the distribution of fossil plants, and large herbivorous dinosaurs, suggests sub-tropical conditions extended to Alaska and Antarctica and there were no polar ice caps. Please see the video. Edited April 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 NO climate scientist has said that climate doesn't cycle. That is a strawman argument. What the climate scientists are warning about is the rate of change. The sky isn't falling. That is another of your strawman arguments. Here is what our planet will look life if all the ice melted, and no climate scientist expects that to happen any time soon.SEE http://www.businessinsider.com/what-if-all-the-ice-melted-earth-2015-4 Talk about strawman arguments . And that is definitely a SKY IS FALLING piece.
ERayR Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 I am not interested in assumptions, I am interested in data and successful scientific theories that explain all that data, not cherry pick it. You have had data presented in this thread by Pogi that explained Your Assumptions and you have ignored and/or rejected it. 1
Recommended Posts