Remember me
▼ Content

Ice Ages



Page 1 of 3123>
Ice Ages12-10-2017 16:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.
Attached image:

12-10-2017 20:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 03:30
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


It is understood, and you can see what is happening if you look at the methane concentration at the same time. I'm going to use my charts, which are from EPICA Dome C, and time is running in reverse order from your chart [my current is on the left, yours is on the right]. Your chart looks like it is from Vostok, but I didn't see where it said. But the information should be the same, just might be a skew in years.


First, get oriented on 130,000 years ago, either CO2 Chart. Remember mine runs backwards from yours.
Notice that the temperature, the CO2, and the CH4 all peaked at about the same time.
Something happened at that point in time, and it wasn't just related to warming from the sun, which which also peaked at the same time, due to the Milankovitch Cycle. You can see here that the energy from the sun peaked at about that same time.

Notice that the temperature lags the drop in insolation by about 10,000 years.
Now look back at the CH4 concentrations. It is following the insolation very closely.
And the temperature is staying right between the insolation and CH4 and the CO2 concentrations. That's because all 3 are influencing the temperature, as well as a few other things.
The reason there is a lag between the temperature of the planet and insolation decrease is what I call the "shelf life" of CO2. It's not really a "shelf life," as in a grocery store item, but just like a box of cheerios, the CO2 only gets to hang around so long, before getting tossed.
CO2 gets to hang around quite a bit longer than CH4 does, which we can see by studying what happened 130,000 years ago, and other "peak events." Something happens that causes the CO2 and CH4 sources to dissipate, which eventually causes the CO2 and CH4 gases to dissipate, naturally.
It's what happens that causes that drop in CO2 generation that concerns me the most. Something happens, and it repeats across time, at virtually every peak event recorded in the ice. So now I have a question for you. What is it that causes the CO2 to drop?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 03:47
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

We all know that it is colder down there than up here. You don't need to remind of that. And we also know that the temperature of Antarctica does follow the average global temperature, which you claim we don't have a record of either.

Why don't you give it a break, and figure out some other angle to deny Climate Research with?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 04:43
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??
13-10-2017 06:37
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


Jizzy, I am sorry that this upsets you, but yes, I am going to use the temperature of Antarctica to justify telling you that you are going to have to change your life.

But please don't misunderstand me in any way on that. It's not like I think anyone has to make you change your scum sucking, degenerate life. I think they probably will, eventually, but even if they don't, and you get to live long enough, you will change your miserable life. You will have to, because there won't be no more grid, and there won't be no more super market, and there won't be no more 4X4 to run up and down the dirt roads in. There won't be much beer to drink either, so you probably won't miss riding the dirt roads much.

You will have a barn out back, a root cellar that doubles as your safe haven from storms, a greenhouse to grow your own food, hydro-electric generators, and solar generators, for when the lights finally come back on, an electric powered vehicle to get you to your mom's house on Sunday [if you are affluent, because, no, not everyone gets a car], and a shovel [Frenchman's Backhoe] and a wheelbarrow [Redneck's Ride Home from the Bar]. Every day you will get up and you will work. If you decide that you don't want to work, then you will starve, because everyone will be too busy taking care of themselves to worry much about someone who doesn't want to work.

Roll the time back about 200 years, but leave small scale electrical generation in place, and you have what our future world looks like. And guess what. That time is just around the next cataclysm, that Climate Change will cause this generation. If you want to be exact, so you can call me a liar, or a charlatan, or just a plain old lunatic, consider this generation starting with the birth of my granddaughter, which was 5 years ago. A generation is considered different time periods, depending on who is talking. Since I am talking, it is my understanding of generation that is important, not yours. And my understanding of a generation is the time it takes for a child to be born, become mature, and begin to have kids of their own. That of course varies, so let's draw the line at the legal age of consent, because after all, they should not be having kids until they can say it's ok to have sex with them, legally. So let's call a generation 18 years. So when my granddaughter is 18 years old, 13 years from now, the shit will have hit the fan. Ah, damnitman, that works out to 2030, and I'm thinking it is more like 2033 when the shit hits the fan, so let's not base it on her birthday. Let's base it on ........................now.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Edited on 13-10-2017 06:52
13-10-2017 07:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


It is understood, and you can see what is happening if you look at the methane concentration at the same time. I'm going to use my charts, which are from EPICA Dome C, and time is running in reverse order from your chart [my current is on the left, yours is on the right]. Your chart looks like it is from Vostok, but I didn't see where it said. But the information should be the same, just might be a skew in years.
...deleted images...
First, get oriented on 130,000 years ago, either CO2 Chart. Remember mine runs backwards from yours.
Notice that the temperature, the CO2, and the CH4 all peaked at about the same time.
Something happened at that point in time, and it wasn't just related to warming from the sun, which which also peaked at the same time, due to the Milankovitch Cycle. You can see here that the energy from the sun peaked at about that same time.
...deleted images...
Notice that the temperature lags the drop in insolation by about 10,000 years.
Now look back at the CH4 concentrations. It is following the insolation very closely.
And the temperature is staying right between the insolation and CH4 and the CO2 concentrations. That's because all 3 are influencing the temperature, as well as a few other things.
The reason there is a lag between the temperature of the planet and insolation decrease is what I call the "shelf life" of CO2. It's not really a "shelf life," as in a grocery store item, but just like a box of cheerios, the CO2 only gets to hang around so long, before getting tossed.
CO2 gets to hang around quite a bit longer than CH4 does, which we can see by studying what happened 130,000 years ago, and other "peak events." Something happens that causes the CO2 and CH4 sources to dissipate, which eventually causes the CO2 and CH4 gases to dissipate, naturally.
It's what happens that causes that drop in CO2 generation that concerns me the most. Something happens, and it repeats across time, at virtually every peak event recorded in the ice. So now I have a question for you. What is it that causes the CO2 to drop?


What is it that causes you to imagine a drop took place at all?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2017 07:55
13-10-2017 07:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Because it's a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
We all know that it is colder down there than up here. You don't need to remind of that. And we also know that the temperature of Antarctica does follow the average global temperature, which you claim we don't have a record of either.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
Why don't you give it a break, and figure out some other angle to deny Climate Research with?

Why don't you learn statistical mathematics?

One thermometer does not describe the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 07:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


Of course he is. It's what the Church of Global Warming does.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 07:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


Jizzy, I am sorry that this upsets you, but yes, I am going to use the temperature of Antarctica to justify telling you that you are going to have to change your life.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. You are asking people to change their lives because of your random numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted insults and apocalypse story...

Your apocalyptic view is just your own personal nightmare stemming from the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 09:18
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


It is understood, and you can see what is happening if you look at the methane concentration at the same time. I'm going to use my charts, which are from EPICA Dome C, and time is running in reverse order from your chart [my current is on the left, yours is on the right]. Your chart looks like it is from Vostok, but I didn't see where it said. But the information should be the same, just might be a skew in years.
...deleted images...
First, get oriented on 130,000 years ago, either CO2 Chart. Remember mine runs backwards from yours.
Notice that the temperature, the CO2, and the CH4 all peaked at about the same time.
Something happened at that point in time, and it wasn't just related to warming from the sun, which which also peaked at the same time, due to the Milankovitch Cycle. You can see here that the energy from the sun peaked at about that same time.
...deleted images...
Notice that the temperature lags the drop in insolation by about 10,000 years.
Now look back at the CH4 concentrations. It is following the insolation very closely.
And the temperature is staying right between the insolation and CH4 and the CO2 concentrations. That's because all 3 are influencing the temperature, as well as a few other things.
The reason there is a lag between the temperature of the planet and insolation decrease is what I call the "shelf life" of CO2. It's not really a "shelf life," as in a grocery store item, but just like a box of cheerios, the CO2 only gets to hang around so long, before getting tossed.
CO2 gets to hang around quite a bit longer than CH4 does, which we can see by studying what happened 130,000 years ago, and other "peak events." Something happens that causes the CO2 and CH4 sources to dissipate, which eventually causes the CO2 and CH4 gases to dissipate, naturally.
It's what happens that causes that drop in CO2 generation that concerns me the most. Something happens, and it repeats across time, at virtually every peak event recorded in the ice. So now I have a question for you. What is it that causes the CO2 to drop?


What is it that causes you to imagine a drop took place at all?


I didn't imagine it. I know how to read a graph. You apparently do not, so you try to hide that by claiming that no one knows what the CO2 concentrations of the past were. But you false claims only work for those who are suckers for false claims. Jizzy probably believes you.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 09:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


It is understood, and you can see what is happening if you look at the methane concentration at the same time. I'm going to use my charts, which are from EPICA Dome C, and time is running in reverse order from your chart [my current is on the left, yours is on the right]. Your chart looks like it is from Vostok, but I didn't see where it said. But the information should be the same, just might be a skew in years.
...deleted images...
First, get oriented on 130,000 years ago, either CO2 Chart. Remember mine runs backwards from yours.
Notice that the temperature, the CO2, and the CH4 all peaked at about the same time.
Something happened at that point in time, and it wasn't just related to warming from the sun, which which also peaked at the same time, due to the Milankovitch Cycle. You can see here that the energy from the sun peaked at about that same time.
...deleted images...
Notice that the temperature lags the drop in insolation by about 10,000 years.
Now look back at the CH4 concentrations. It is following the insolation very closely.
And the temperature is staying right between the insolation and CH4 and the CO2 concentrations. That's because all 3 are influencing the temperature, as well as a few other things.
The reason there is a lag between the temperature of the planet and insolation decrease is what I call the "shelf life" of CO2. It's not really a "shelf life," as in a grocery store item, but just like a box of cheerios, the CO2 only gets to hang around so long, before getting tossed.
CO2 gets to hang around quite a bit longer than CH4 does, which we can see by studying what happened 130,000 years ago, and other "peak events." Something happens that causes the CO2 and CH4 sources to dissipate, which eventually causes the CO2 and CH4 gases to dissipate, naturally.
It's what happens that causes that drop in CO2 generation that concerns me the most. Something happens, and it repeats across time, at virtually every peak event recorded in the ice. So now I have a question for you. What is it that causes the CO2 to drop?


What is it that causes you to imagine a drop took place at all?


I didn't imagine it. I know how to read a graph.

You mean your graph of random numbers?
GreenMan wrote:
You apparently do not, so you try to hide that by claiming that no one knows what the CO2 concentrations of the past were.
They don't. No one was around to measure them. Ice cores are permeable to CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
But you false claims only work for those who are suckers for false claims.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that making false claims. It is YOU that is using bad math. It is YOU that is assuming you can get more information out of an ice core than you actually can. It is YOU that is claiming you can measure the temperature of the Earth with but a single thermometer!

Especially when you tweak the data!


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 09:30
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Because it's a math error.

You apparently don't understand what constitutes a math error. I think it has something to do with math, or the misapplication of math. I'm not sure how trying to use Antarctica's climate as a proxy for the earth's climate could be considered a math error.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We all know that it is colder down there than up here. You don't need to remind of that. And we also know that the temperature of Antarctica does follow the average global temperature, which you claim we don't have a record of either.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

You need to work harder than that. You just sound like some kind of crack pot who doesn't understand what's going on, so you just spout nonsense about how nobody but you knows anything.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Why don't you give it a break, and figure out some other angle to deny Climate Research with?

Why don't you learn statistical mathematics?

I don't need to learn statistical mathematics, until I need statistical mathematics. Since I am not working with statistics, I do not need to apply statistical mathematics. I am using straight forward, good old, adding and subtracting, multiplication, division, averaging, and a few other things I learned along the way about trial and error.

Into the Night wrote:

One thermometer does not describe the temperature of the Earth.


How would you know? You even deny our ability to determine the temperature of the earth, so what are you comparing the thermometer to? The truth is, a person like you, who simply refuses knowledge, simply remains an imbecile. They can still run around, trying to impress people by talking words, but most people expect the words to support each other, so as to express a thought.

I'm thinking that you are so used to copy/paste arguments from your Book of Denier Trolls, that you don't have a real thought. I know it hurts a little, but you gotta keep trying. Eventually, it doesn't hurt so much, and you can think all the time.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 09:35
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


Jizzy, I am sorry that this upsets you, but yes, I am going to use the temperature of Antarctica to justify telling you that you are going to have to change your life.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. You are asking people to change their lives because of your random numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted insults and apocalypse story...

Your apocalyptic view is just your own personal nightmare stemming from the Church of Global Warming.


Nah, most other Alarmists buy into the IPCC's delusion of fixing the problem by limiting the use of fuels that produce CO2. Their view, or course, is that this is achievable, and will solve the world's problems. I'm a bit more skeptical than those who buy into that delusion.

My apocalyptic view comes from studying prophetic literature, as close to the source's original writing as possible, combined with an in depth study of Global Warming, and an analysis of our society's attitude toward fixing this problem.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 14:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
[b]GreenMan wrote: My apocalyptic view comes from (among other things)......an analysis of our society's attitude toward fixing this problem.

Since AGW denier liar whiner "don'T rump" became pressy-dent, pin-point sharp illumination is glaring on human hatred for one another in many ways. Of course, groups like the kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazis show their hatred readily. But other hatreds rip our society, too, as American Citizens in Puerto Rico know so well since the hurricanes. Core hatred for others fuels the ever mounting signs of disintegration in the European Union, Africa, S. America, Asia, Australia & N. America & terrible issues creating refugees AND responses to those refugees, around the world.
The institutional hatred of communism which murdered, tortured & starved hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century, helps the light shining on hatred in the obvious way, but also in a strange way, in the 21st century. Putin(put-it-in), who murdered & tortured his way to become a $100 billion dictator, is funding hacker trolls to fuel the internet hatred between groups, who use democracy to advertise their "supremacy". Yes, after "russian hacker troll, part one" has been so successful, "russian hacker troll, part two" should be well on its way, now.
Edited on 13-10-2017 14:57
13-10-2017 14:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.
13-10-2017 18:24
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


My guess is that in an ice age the humidity in the air freezes out and hence without the water to form clouds or to absorb radiated energy from the surface it can warm very rapidly in a (relatively) short period of time before the atmosphere re-stocks it's load of water.

I think that I just showed how much water and energy was in one simple little rain shower. That gives you a pretty good idea of how much energy the atmosphere must absorb before it begins working "normally" again.
13-10-2017 18:30
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


Remember that there is far more land mass in the northern hemisphere. This has a dramatic effect on weather and hence climate since it means that there are the large temperature swings from ocean to land mass.
13-10-2017 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Because it's a math error.

You apparently don't understand what constitutes a math error.

I understand completely what constitutes a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
I think it has something to do with math, or the misapplication of math.

WRONG. It has to do with attempting to violate the rules of statistical math.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure how trying to use Antarctica's climate as a proxy for the earth's climate could be considered a math error.

Because you are trying to use statistics to declare a single thermometer representing the entire Earth.


GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We all know that it is colder down there than up here. You don't need to remind of that. And we also know that the temperature of Antarctica does follow the average global temperature, which you claim we don't have a record of either.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

You need to work harder than that. You just sound like some kind of crack pot who doesn't understand what's going on, so you just spout nonsense about how nobody but you knows anything.

Pleading and insulting is not going to get you around the demands of statistical math.


GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Why don't you give it a break, and figure out some other angle to deny Climate Research with?

Why don't you learn statistical mathematics?

I don't need to learn statistical mathematics, until I need statistical mathematics. Since I am not working with statistics, I do not need to apply statistical mathematics.

But you do, if you want to figure out how many thermometers you need to give you any idea of the temperature of the Earth.

I guess you want to remain blissfully illiterate and just claim your random numbers as some kind of data.

GreenMan wrote:
I am using straight forward, good old, adding and subtracting, multiplication, division, averaging, and a few other things I learned along the way about trial and error.

Trial and error is still guessing stupid. It's just like your tweaking. You can't even describe what an 'error' is. That requires the use of statistical math again.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

One thermometer does not describe the temperature of the Earth.


How would you know?

Mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
You even deny our ability to determine the temperature of the earth,

Again, mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
so what are you comparing the thermometer to?

It is not a comparison. It is mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
The truth is, a person like you, who simply refuses knowledge, simply remains an imbecile. They can still run around, trying to impress people by talking words, but most people expect the words to support each other, so as to express a thought.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that you are so used to copy/paste arguments from your Book of Denier Trolls, that you don't have a real thought. I know it hurts a little, but you gotta keep trying. Eventually, it doesn't hurt so much, and you can think all the time.

Insults and condescending statements is not going to get you around the mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


Jizzy, I am sorry that this upsets you, but yes, I am going to use the temperature of Antarctica to justify telling you that you are going to have to change your life.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. You are asking people to change their lives because of your random numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted insults and apocalypse story...

Your apocalyptic view is just your own personal nightmare stemming from the Church of Global Warming.


Nah, most other Alarmists buy into the IPCC's delusion of fixing the problem by limiting the use of fuels that produce CO2. Their view, or course, is that this is achievable, and will solve the world's problems. I'm a bit more skeptical than those who buy into that delusion.

My apocalyptic view comes from studying prophetic literature, as close to the source's original writing as possible, combined with an in depth study of Global Warming, and an analysis of our society's attitude toward fixing this problem.

In other words, the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 19:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms.They always do the opposite of the other.

Not always.You are just describing the overall seasonal pattern.
James_ wrote:
And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic.

You don't the temperature swing of either.
James_ wrote:
This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.

Ice cores do not represent the temperature of Earth.
James_ wrote:
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for.

Global Warming does not vent heat. You should read your scripture more closely.
James_ wrote:
If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
James_ wrote:
This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting.

What cool down?
James_ wrote:
What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.

I think you need to at least learn statistics before assuming you know the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition.

The Earth is not over populated. There is no lack of resources, only differences in the distribution of resources.
James_ wrote:
If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience.

You need to learn science from something besides movies.
James_ wrote:
I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.

There is no solution, because there is no problem.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 03:29
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground. It's a slow process, that takes thousands of years, unless someone comes up with a process that will speed things along.

It would be nice if we were working on something of that sort. And I have heard that some people are, but the results aren't really looking that good so far. And of course, we have close to half the population of this country who think CO2 isn't a problem. So I don't really expect a solution, at least not from this country.

I suppose I do have an abandon ship kind of attitude, lol. It's from studying the prophecies, and then studying the science. Science indicates that there is no solution, and that we are all going to die [thus Stephen Hawkings pronouncement that our our hope is in space exploration, to find another planet to destroy, I meant live on]. Prophecy indicates that things will come to the brink of total destruction, but in the end, some people live.

It will drive a person insane, when they realize that we are approaching the climax of prophecy that was written down thousands of years ago. We are at the point now of finally be able to understand what the prophets were warning us about. Until now, it was incomprehensible because of the lack of understanding we had about nature.

People have known for thousands of years that God would destroy most of humanity with fire, because of the prophecies. We now know what that means, and we know that God is actually letting us provide the fuel for that fire that destroys most of us with. It's not the gay guys down in San Francisco, and Seattle, and in Parrot's bed room. It's the use of coal and oil to fuel our economies that is what the problem is.

We have put so much CO2 in the air that it will take thousands of years to return to normal. Normal is a balance between plants and animals [we are included in that as animals, but our CO2 production is not] and that does cause slow swings through Glacial and Interglacial Periods. The concentrations we have now are way beyond what the planet has seen in the last 800,000 years, so the future is really unknown, except for our ability to make mathematical predictions based on what lesser concentrations of the gases did in the past.

Well, that's where the total dooms day scenario comes from. Math indicates that it will get so freaking hot that nothing will live. The prophecies say about the same thing, but include that some people do live. I want to be one of those people, or at least have a hand in helping some of those people. And one thing I'm not counting on is anyone helping me. I think it will come down to everyone on their own for a while, then gradually like minded people start working together and from small communities of survivors.

The oscillations observed in the ice, between the northern and southern hemisphere are a bit puzzling. But they flatten out over time, and actually look the same when averaged over a thousand years. I think that the Arctic gets warming that the Antarctic doesn't get, because of ocean currents. Yes, there are probably ocean currents in the southern hemisphere too, but we know for sure that it is the ocean currents that make ours and Europe's climate so nice. I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking that goes on in the southern hemisphere also, but just not to the extent that it does up north.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that Antarctic Ice is a better proxy than Arctic Ice for the global average temperature. But either can be used, and neither are absolute. But it's not as bad as Parrot proclaims. It's like having 20/30 vision instead of 20/20. Parrot is totally blind. But it's by his own doing.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Edited on 14-10-2017 03:44
14-10-2017 03:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Because it's a math error.

You apparently don't understand what constitutes a math error.

I understand completely what constitutes a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
I think it has something to do with math, or the misapplication of math.

WRONG. It has to do with attempting to violate the rules of statistical math.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure how trying to use Antarctica's climate as a proxy for the earth's climate could be considered a math error.

Because you are trying to use statistics to declare a single thermometer representing the entire Earth.


GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We all know that it is colder down there than up here. You don't need to remind of that. And we also know that the temperature of Antarctica does follow the average global temperature, which you claim we don't have a record of either.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

You need to work harder than that. You just sound like some kind of crack pot who doesn't understand what's going on, so you just spout nonsense about how nobody but you knows anything.

Pleading and insulting is not going to get you around the demands of statistical math.


GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Why don't you give it a break, and figure out some other angle to deny Climate Research with?

Why don't you learn statistical mathematics?

I don't need to learn statistical mathematics, until I need statistical mathematics. Since I am not working with statistics, I do not need to apply statistical mathematics.

But you do, if you want to figure out how many thermometers you need to give you any idea of the temperature of the Earth.

I guess you want to remain blissfully illiterate and just claim your random numbers as some kind of data.

GreenMan wrote:
I am using straight forward, good old, adding and subtracting, multiplication, division, averaging, and a few other things I learned along the way about trial and error.

Trial and error is still guessing stupid. It's just like your tweaking. You can't even describe what an 'error' is. That requires the use of statistical math again.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

One thermometer does not describe the temperature of the Earth.


How would you know?

Mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
You even deny our ability to determine the temperature of the earth,

Again, mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
so what are you comparing the thermometer to?

It is not a comparison. It is mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
The truth is, a person like you, who simply refuses knowledge, simply remains an imbecile. They can still run around, trying to impress people by talking words, but most people expect the words to support each other, so as to express a thought.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that you are so used to copy/paste arguments from your Book of Denier Trolls, that you don't have a real thought. I know it hurts a little, but you gotta keep trying. Eventually, it doesn't hurt so much, and you can think all the time.

Insults and condescending statements is not going to get you around the mathematics.


Well at least I finally understand what your issue is. And it boils down to you thinking that Antarctic Ice is not a good proxy for the average temperature of the planet.

You are going against a lot of scientists' opinions then. And you know what, you aren't a scientist, so you have no credibility there. All you can do is mock them, because you think you see an error in their reasoning. And you want to use that as an excuse to parade around declaring AGW a hoax. And one of you favorite lines is that others are denying science.

The ice is not a good proxy for the temperature of Seattle, any more than the earth's average temperature is a good proxy for Seattle. Yes, there will be fluctuations that are not recorded in the ice. For example, it might get warmer for a while in the northern hemisphere, but not in the southern, due to ocean currents. So there could be some error, but it's close enough to use for research. And that is what the data is used for. All you have to do is add an offset to the average temperature of Antarctica and you have the average temperature of the planet.

I'm thinking that you are now going to demand how much error is expected between the two. I'm thinking it could be as much as 3C, or even more. I'm not sure if there is any way to check that, except by comparing the last 50 years worth of averages. Feel free, if you want to. I am satisfied that the information I have is close enough, since the model worked so well.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
14-10-2017 03:59
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
My apocalyptic view comes from studying prophetic literature, as close to the source's original writing as possible, combined with an in depth study of Global Warming, and an analysis of our society's attitude toward fixing this problem.

In other words, the Church of Global Warming.


I wasn't aware that the Church of Global Warming even knew that Global Warming was included in the prophecies of the Bible and elsewhere. I have never heard or anyone else even remotely trying to point that out.

So, I'm thinking we just caught you in another one of your Bull Shit Lines, Parrot.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
14-10-2017 15:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.
14-10-2017 15:51
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(981)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.


The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.
14-10-2017 15:53
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.


From you own postings you can also note that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere follow temperature changes on the order of by 800 years. Greenman has the idea that land is somehow involved and not oceans.
14-10-2017 18:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
Well at least I finally understand what your issue is. And it boils down to you thinking that Antarctic Ice is not a good proxy for the average temperature of the planet.

It's not a proxy for that at all.
GreenMan wrote:
You are going against a lot of scientists' opinions then.

Consensus is not used in science.
GreenMan wrote:
And you know what, you aren't a scientist, so you have no credibility there.

Actually, I am. I am also a philosopher, logician, and mathematician.
GreenMan wrote:
All you can do is mock them, because you think you see an error in their reasoning.

I do not mock them. I point out math errors YOU make and your climate 'scientists' make. Climate is not a science.
GreenMan wrote:
And you want to use that as an excuse to parade around declaring AGW a hoax.

It is. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
GreenMan wrote:
And one of you favorite lines is that others are denying science.

You are. You are denying the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the 2nd law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny the philosophy that defines science to what it is.
GreenMan wrote:
The ice is not a good proxy for the temperature of Seattle, any more than the earth's average temperature is a good proxy for Seattle. Yes, there will be fluctuations that are not recorded in the ice. For example, it might get warmer for a while in the northern hemisphere, but not in the southern, due to ocean currents. So there could be some error, but it's close enough to use for research. And that is what the data is used for. All you have to do is add an offset to the average temperature of Antarctica and you have the average temperature of the planet.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that you are now going to demand how much error is expected between the two.

Yes.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking it could be as much as 3C, or even more.

You're guessing.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure if there is any way to check that, except by comparing the last 50 years worth of averages.

There is no record of averages. Same math error.
GreenMan wrote:
Feel free, if you want to. I am satisfied that the information I have is close enough, since the model worked so well.

Your random numbers work so well, you are satisfied. I already knew that. You are saying nothing more than any other faithful of the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 18:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
My apocalyptic view comes from studying prophetic literature, as close to the source's original writing as possible, combined with an in depth study of Global Warming, and an analysis of our society's attitude toward fixing this problem.

In other words, the Church of Global Warming.


I wasn't aware that the Church of Global Warming even knew that Global Warming was included in the prophecies of the Bible and elsewhere. I have never heard or anyone else even remotely trying to point that out.

So, I'm thinking we just caught you in another one of your Bull Shit Lines, Parrot.


It isn't, except as one of the many churches discussed that are built to deceive men.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 18:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.

It's not THAT hard. Most people are not aware of certain influences to Earth's orbit, other factors are unknown.
James_ wrote:
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling.

How?
James_ wrote:
And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.

Ice ages occur on a regular periodic basis. I don't worry about ice ages, since the next one isn't due for quite awhile.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.


The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.


The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 19:23
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Wake wrote:


From you own postings you can also note that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere follow temperature changes on the order of by 800 years. Greenman has the idea that land is somehow involved and not oceans.


Scientists generally agree that the amount of co2 in our oceans is dependent on their temperature. In the 1960's they thought then that co2 levels rose as our planet warmed. Since then improved research techniques has co2 levels rising about 800 years later. Because of this many ice core researchers having been slowly distancing themselves from the statement that co2 levels rose when the last ice age started warming.
This is one example;
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

I think when he says;
In the last 800.000 years there have been 8 ice ages, each lasting approximately 100.000 years

that he means that there is a 100,000 year cycle. And with this;
separated by interglacial periods of between 10.000 and 35.000 years.

how long the warm part between ice ages lasts. The article has been translated from German.
Edited on 14-10-2017 19:32
14-10-2017 20:09
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


From you own postings you can also note that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere follow temperature changes on the order of by 800 years. Greenman has the idea that land is somehow involved and not oceans.


Scientists generally agree that the amount of co2 in our oceans is dependent on their temperature. In the 1960's they thought then that co2 levels rose as our planet warmed. Since then improved research techniques has co2 levels rising about 800 years later. Because of this many ice core researchers having been slowly distancing themselves from the statement that co2 levels rose when the last ice age started warming.
This is one example;
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

I think when he says;
In the last 800.000 years there have been 8 ice ages, each lasting approximately 100.000 years

that he means that there is a 100,000 year cycle. And with this;
separated by interglacial periods of between 10.000 and 35.000 years.

how long the warm part between ice ages lasts. The article has been translated from German.


That is a good article. The only thing I would disagree with is the effects of CO2. As he himself said, the levels are higher during warmer Interglacial periods. So if CO2 had any significant effects it would be a positive feedback cycle and there wouldn't be any climate oscillations.
14-10-2017 22:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:.... many churches discussed that are built to deceive men.

"badnight's" tithe blurb: ......He doesn't understand that an owner(Sinclair Syndicate) of a station can tell a station what it's format will be.......
///////
litesong wrote:
The "format" of the church of the "undivine sinclair syndicate" is to lie in its unbest racist style.
Yes, your tithe to the church of the "undivine sinclair syndicate" is paid in full, but they need ya to go to bat fer dem again.
Edited on 14-10-2017 23:26
14-10-2017 23:28
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(632)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.


James, I don't really think that the speed of the planet's rotation has much to do with the climate. It may vary a little, I don't know. But a slight variation in the rotation doesn't seem to matter. The orbit is a different matter. Slight variations in our orbit are what trigger warming periods that bring the planet out of ice ages.

I know that the ocean absorbs and releases CO2, as well as other gases. Same for plants. Neither is a permanent sink, or a source of CO2 though. Animals are the natural source of CO2, as well as volcanoes, forest fires, and a few other things. Forest fires and volcanoes are considered constants over time, and so are animals [for the most part].

It's easy to get confused about the sources of CO2. Some will argue that volcanic CO2 cant be a constant, because volcanoes erupt infrequenty. It's true that they erupt infrequently, but spread out over time, the amount of CO2 from them becomes constant. Same for forest fires, which are always going on somewhere.

It's animal life that increases and stays increased over time. And animal life also has a tendency to decrease and continue decreasing over time. Animals can also abruptly disappear almost completely overnight.

If you consider what is happening to the animal population of the planet, then you can understand why an increase in CO2 lags a temperature increase on the planet [by 800 years or whatever]. A 1 degree rise in the average temperature of the planet makes life easier for the animals, during an ice age. It's like spring coming and staying. Animal life flourishes, at the expense of plant life. The plants are doing better too, so it doesn't really hurt them much that the animals are eating a little more than before.

As time marches on, the animals produce more and more CO2, by breathing. It takes quite a quite, but the CO2 concentrations do begin to rise, as we can see from the charts that we were both just looking at. You observed that CO2 starts to climb after 800 years of warming from orbital variations. That is true, and that also is part of the Global Warming Theory. Because what happens is that the CO2 adds to the warming that the planet is getting from the Sun's radiation. You can see the effect of that isn't he curve of the temperature as it comes out of an ice age. It begins gradual at first, and then goes into overdrive after a while. That's because the insulation from the Sun is increasing, and so is the CO2 concentration.

So a warmer planet enhances animal life, and animal life causes the planet to warm. It seems like that wouldn't work, because once warming begins, it would just keep getting warmer until it overheats. And if you look at the charts, you will see that that is exactly what happens, and it happens repeatedly. That is the driving force behind the Climate Cycles that you were talking about. And that is why the climate of our planet is almost always changing.

We have had a remarkable interglacial period this last time, still going at 12,000 years. They usually don't last that long. Instead, the temperature continues to climb, as you noticed, until something happens. I think that something is a major die-off. It slowly gets too warm for animals to live, because they have taken over the planet. Now they are eating vegetation like crazy, and the vegetation is disappearing because of the heat.

Eventually, something triggers a massive die-off. Or perhaps, it's not a die-off at all, because it happens over time. You can't really tell by looking at the CO2 concentrations, because CO2 lingers in the air so long. But if you look at the CH4 concentrations, then you can see a sharp decline at the same time CO2 stop increasing, and the temperature starts dropping.

The natural variable source of CH4 is rotting vegetation. Swamps, for example, are an excellent source of CH4. Some little bug [please don't make me look up the name of it] excretes CH4 as it munches on the rotting vegetation. They go away, for some reason, at the same point in time that the temperature starts dropping. I don't actually have an explanation for that, beyond the planet starts drying out. Well, that's basically what would happen, as ice begins to be locked away in ice, where ice had previously been releasing it.

Ok, so I think I just worked through that part of it finally.

Melting Ice causes more flooding as it gets warmer.

Freezing Ice causes drying out as it gets colder.

So melting ice naturally adds to the CH4 concentration, indirectly, by gradually increasing wetlands. And the exact opposite happens when water begins to locked away in ice as it gets colder.

And believe it or not, that is also a major influence on our planet's climate. So as it is getting colder, it's getting dryer, so the plants aren't doing so well. So whatever animals are around are really struggling to survive. So now I am seeing a slow die-off over a long period of time, and that gradually reduces the CO2 concentrations over time, which cools the planet more, over time.

Add a major volcanic eruption or two in the middle of the cooling off period, and things get even worse for the animals. 74,000 years ago is an interesting point to look at on your chart. You will see a sharp decrease in the temperature of the planet, following the eruption of Toba. Just about all the people died then.

And something like that is what I expect to happen in our future, based on my research into prophecy. That kind of eruption, if it happened today, would send the world back to Stone Age overnight. Well, ok, not overnight, but we would begin a steady march that way.

That's because those guys influence the climate on the planet also, but putting huge amounts of dust into the air, which eventually spreads out and blankets the planet, blocking some of the light from the Sun. We saw that effect back in the 90s, following some eruption back then, which wasn't even comparable to a Supervolcano like Toba going off.

So there are a lot of things that influence our climate, and most of those things are totally beyond our control or influence. The only one that is, is the one that nobody wants to get by without, including the Alarmists. Nobody wants to live without the use of cheap energy. But it produces CO2, so the adults on our planet realize that we have to stop producing it, because it's going to warm our planet beyond our ability to survive.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
15-10-2017 18:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GreenMan wrote:
So there are a lot of things that influence our climate, and most of those things are totally beyond our control or influence. The only one that is, is the one that nobody wants to get by without, including the Alarmists. Nobody wants to live without the use of cheap energy. But it produces CO2, so the adults on our planet realize that we have to stop producing it, because it's going to warm our planet beyond our ability to survive.


CO2 does not have the ability to warm the planet. It is not an energy source. It is not a magick mirror. It is not a magick insulator.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2017 18:29
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
Scientists generally agree that the amount of co2 in our oceans is dependent on their temperature. In the 1960's they thought then that co2 levels rose as our planet warmed. Since then improved research techniques has co2 levels rising about 800 years later. Because of this many ice core researchers having been slowly distancing themselves from the statement that co2 levels rose when the last ice age started warming.
This is one example;
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

I think when he says;
In the last 800.000 years there have been 8 ice ages, each lasting approximately 100.000 years

that he means that there is a 100,000 year cycle. And with this;
separated by interglacial periods of between 10.000 and 35.000 years.

how long the warm part between ice ages lasts. The article has been translated from German.


I just read a study: An algae has evolved that grows on ice. It turns the ice blue or pink. In any case this causes more absorption of sunlight and accounts for some 16% of the increased melting. It has been found in Alaska and in Greenland.
15-10-2017 19:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Scientists generally agree that the amount of co2 in our oceans is dependent on their temperature. In the 1960's they thought then that co2 levels rose as our planet warmed. Since then improved research techniques has co2 levels rising about 800 years later. Because of this many ice core researchers having been slowly distancing themselves from the statement that co2 levels rose when the last ice age started warming.
This is one example;
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

I think when he says;
In the last 800.000 years there have been 8 ice ages, each lasting approximately 100.000 years

that he means that there is a 100,000 year cycle. And with this;
separated by interglacial periods of between 10.000 and 35.000 years.

how long the warm part between ice ages lasts. The article has been translated from German.


I just read a study: An algae has evolved that grows on ice. It turns the ice blue or pink. In any case this causes more absorption of sunlight and accounts for some 16% of the increased melting. It has been found in Alaska and in Greenland.


The algae has always been there. We have it here in the Cascade mountains too.

You don't know if the Earth is losing ice or not. It's currently sunny across much of Alaska, but it has been snowing there. It's been snowing in the mountains around here too.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2017 19:20
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(981)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.


The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.


The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.


Ice sitting on Greenland or Antarctica melting and spreading all around the globe does redistribute mass.

As does snow falling there faster than it is melting.
15-10-2017 21:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
The graph shows we have ice ages, fair enough. One thing I have been trying to understand is why our planet warms so quickly, about 10,000 years with CO2 levels less than 300 ppm and then takes about 90,000 years to cool into another ice age. With this graph it's fair enough to say that warming happens fairly quickly while cooling takes a long time. I think this might be something that is not understood at the moment.


We do not have a record of the temperature of the planet. Ice cores gives us a proxy for the temperature at the core site only.


Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around using Antarctica's temperature as a proxy for the world?

Do you not remember all the temp variation just in Michigan??!!
One location for the entire world...not even a thermometer? And you're going to put a numerical value on it and base all history off of it?....and ask me to change my life for it??


You might be one of the saner people here. What one ice core researcher mentioned is that when the Arctic cools the Antarctic warms. They always do the opposite of the other. And that the temperature swing in Antarctica is about 1/2 that of the Arctic. This to me suggests a natural variation in the north. And historically if ice core research is accurate we are near peak warming.
It is possible that the earth is able to vent all the heat AGW is responsible for. If so then the amount of warming might be negligible when compared to natural warming. This is one reason why I find the slow cool down so interesting. What changes in the earth's behavior to cause it to cool so slowly over so many thousands of years ? I think that is something that needs to be made knwon.
And as for GreenMan's doomsday theories, who knows, over population and a lack of resources could cause extreme competition. If you watch the movie Tank Girl, it's about limited water resources and is a bit different because of it's targeted audience. I think in the end though solutions need to be sought rather than saying give up the ship.


James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.


GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.


The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.


The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.


Ice sitting on Greenland or Antarctica melting and spreading all around the globe does redistribute mass.

As does snow falling there faster than it is melting.


Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Ice Ages:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Fast recovery of thick Arctic ice25517-12-2017 15:19
East Antarctic Ice Shelf Weaknesses16317-12-2017 04:37
Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2017 in 30 seconds908-12-2017 07:29
Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing9816-11-2017 16:28
Global warming and ice caps5805-11-2017 19:46
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact