Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemsis
Hi,
This proposition is puzzling and it would help if you would provide your sources/references used to back all of the claims.
|
Just search my posts. I never post anything that is not a government source, or from Nature, NOAA, National Geographic or any peer-reviewed paper.
The climate-nutters are so hell-bent on believing that they reject science.
Here are two excellent examples:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Seriously you think an increase of 0.9C land and ocean is little or no warming?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
I don’t know where you arrived at that conclusion since temperatures have increased over 1deg C in the last century and increased CO2 levels have in fact increased warming, or maybe you still don’t believe that CO2 is a heat trapping gas?
|
Now, what does
your government have to say on that issue?
Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades.
[emphasis mine]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/
One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
[emphasis mine]
Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey
If you examine those sources, and the sources they draw upon, you will find that there have been about 78 minor fluctuations in temperatures of 4°F to 6° over the same period
in a matter of years, or decades.
Is 1.4°F greater than or less than 20°F?
Is 1.4°F greater than or less than 4°F - 6°F?
Then how could anyone possibly claim that a 1.4°F increase over 140 years -- 14 Decades -- is "
unprecedented" or
"historic" or "
abnormal" or "
unusual"?
And, yet, those are exactly the claims being made. The only logical conclusion is that such claims are for purposes of propaganda and disinformation, because a reasonable person would never make such claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemsis
Estimating a global mean temperature through the Quaternary is not a simple proposition and it looks to me as if a number of data sources have been misinterpreted. The temperature of Greenland at LIG to present might also be confused about what is "now" (The meaning of 0BP in ice core records). In short, we need the references that back the above claims.
|
It's not just Greenland. It's also Baffin Island:
From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 °C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Arctic_Canada
4°C to 5°C corresponds to 7.2°F to 9.0°F
And in eastern Siberia:
Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.
https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al%202008.pdf
12.5°C is
22.5°F warmer.
So, this is not a regional phenomenon occurring only in Greenland. It's global.
And, if you've noticed, the climate-nutters refuse to acknowledge the science, because it contradicts their belief system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemsis
Beyond that there is some sleight-of-hand in the argument. Climate does not change on its own.
|
There's no sleight of hand and I never stated, implied or suggested that climate changes on its own.
My position is that CO2 levels are irrelevant. CO2 levels are a lagging indicator. Temperatures increase, then CO2 levels rise. Temperatures decrease, then CO2 levels drop.
Those 3 articles are 3 of many, many articles that all say the same thing.
What were CO2 levels during the last Inter-Glacial?
EPICA Ice Core data for the last Inter-Glacial period shows CO2 levels
never rose above 286.8 ppm CO2 (peak at 128,609 years before present).
Because CO2 levels peaked at 286.8 ppm CO2 and temperatures in Greenland were 14.4°F warmer than present and on the opposite side of Earth temperatures were 22.5°F warmer than present,
you cannot claim CO2 drives the climate.
In fact, that refutes global warming.
Here we show that the south GIS was drastically smaller during MIS 11 than it is now, with only a small residual ice dome over southernmost Greenland.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13456
If we go back to MIS 11, we find CO2 levels peaked at 283.5 ppm CO2 at 411,071 years before present.
If you look through EPICA Ice Core Data, CO2 levels never peaked more than 292 ppm CO2 over the last 800,000 years.
Prove,
with absolute certainty, that if CO2 levels were back down to 287 ppm, temperatures in Greenland would not rise another 14.4°F and temperatures in Siberia would not rise another 22.5°F.
If you are unwilling to do that or cannot do that, then you have proven global warming to be a fatally flawed theory.
Given that CO2 levels are currently in excess of 400 ppm CO2, why haven't temperatures risen?
You say they have? Yeah, 1.4°F over 140 years, but, I've already proven that temperature fluctuations of 20°F in a matter of years is not unprecedented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemsis
It changes in response to changes in net forcing’s and the ice ages are no different. The ice age cycle is due to orbitally-driven changes in the distribution of solar insolation in the northern hemisphere, which are amplified into global change by CO2 and albedo feedbacks. Temperatures in Northern Hemisphere polar regions can indeed be warmer in interglacials with lower CO2 because the incoming insolation for that region is much higher than today.
This is not a global change however. More importantly, the Milankovitch forcing is now decreasing.
|
The Milankovitch Cycle has nothing to do with it.
Originally, Glacial Periods lasted 40,000 to 42,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods lasted 12,000 to 15,000 years.
What does that have to do with the Milankovitch Cycle?
Absolutely nothing.
Oh, wait a minute, I get it....you're looking at the 40,000 to 42,000 year Glacial Period and thinking it jives with the 41,000 year Cycle, which is just one of three Cycles.
It should be very obvious, because peak-to-peak, the cycle is 52,000 to 57,000 years.
Here's a handy-dandy reference chart:
So, no, they're not in-synch and that blows the whole Milankovitch thing out of the water.
But, none of that matters, because 600,000 years ago, you had the Mid-Pleistocene Event, and whatever it was, from that point on Glacial Periods last 80,000 to 120,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods last 12,000 to 30,000 years.
Some idiots average 80,000 years and 120,000 years to get 100,000 years, then claim it matches the Milankovitch Cycle, when in fact it does not, since it's an average and not the actual time spans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemsis
Without our anthropogenic CO2 we should be slowly cooling.
|
That's a patently false claim for three reasons.
First, Inter-Glacials can last 12,000 to 30,000 years. The last Inter-Glacial Period was 26,000 years, so if this Inter-Glacial Period lasts another 14,000 to 18,000 years, that is perfectly normal.
Second, there is no such thing as a "slow cool."
Temperature changes during Inter-Glacial Periods are not Bell Curves, where the temperature rises slowly, peaks, then decreases slowly.
Inter-Glacials end suddenly with a rapid decrease in temperatures, some more so than others.
Finally, it's not uncommon for Inter-Glacials to have one or more peaks and troughs. These are more than mini-Ice Ages but not quite the full onslaught of a Glacial Period.
The point being nobody has a freaking clue what will happen or when it will happen.
Lastly, this is data from EPICA Ice Core:
The only relationship is higher temperatures can increase CO2 levels, but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Climate4you is a blog run by a climate change denier...Not credible.
|
So, the only credible source is a source that says it's real?
That's not science.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
