Remember me
▼ Content

ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil



Page 1 of 4123>>>
ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil Fuels09-06-2020 06:57
pjfent
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)


I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature variations, and came across the above.
As a layman, it brought some very alarming questions to mind, that I, unfortunately, don't have answers for.

Since we are technically living in the Quaternary ice age, and inhabiting a relatively short, warmer, interglacial phase at the moment, what does the future hold?

Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

Even with the upward temperature pressure of our greenhouse gas emissions, will there still be a gradual downward temperature trend that overwhelms what we have done and lead to an inevitable catastrophe for a human civilization of 7.6 Billion?

Are the real warming effects of our carbon emissions being masked by downward pressure by the other causative factors of the end of an interglacial phase?

Have we really averted a future catastrophe, by sheer luck, or do we need to slow, end, or even possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions, in the long term, to moderate our climate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/300px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png
Edited on 09-06-2020 07:11
09-06-2020 07:28
James___
★★★★★
(3185)
pjfent wrote:


I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature variations, and came across the above.
As a layman, it brought some very alarming questions to mind, that I, unfortunately, don't have answers for.

Since we are technically living in the Quaternary ice age, and inhabiting a relatively short, warmer, interglacial phase at the moment, what does the future hold?

Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

Even with the upward temperature pressure of our greenhouse gas emissions, will there still be a gradual downward temperature trend that overwhelms what we have done and lead to an inevitable catastrophe for a human civilization of 7.6 Billion?

Are the real warming effects of our carbon emissions being masked by downward pressure by the other causative factors of the end of an interglacial phase?

Have we really averted a future catastrophe, by sheer luck, or do we need to slow, end, or even possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions, in the long term, to moderate our climate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/300px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png



I tend to think that we can't prevent the next ice age with what we know today. If you consider that "peak" cooling isn't very long when compared to the 60,000 years or so where the planet slowly cools.
If you take a closer look at the graphs, open one in windows paint and make the graph longer. Then you'll see a slight change over thousands of years. At the same time there's probably short periods of warming and cooling as observed over the last 2,000 years.
09-06-2020 08:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
pjfent wrote: Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

There is no greenhouse effect. That's just an urban legend for the scientifically illiterate.

You're a layman, you say? I'll take your word for it.




.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil09-06-2020 10:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
pjfent wrote:
I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature...

Pardon me I found the image hard to see. I found this other source:

Seems to be the same data link

pjfent you seem to think that a decent into an ice age may have already been happening and that if it does it'll be quick. If you look at my version of the chart, you'll see the last steep fall, some 120,000 years ago took like 5000 years to fall just 4C.

I think humanity in the year 7020 will deal with a 4 degree drop in temperature pretty easily.

Don't mind the clown car on the site (IBDaMann for one, and ITN in the next post). NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN! according to some of these guys. Welcome to the board.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 09-06-2020 11:21
09-06-2020 10:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
pjfent wrote:
I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature...

Pardon me I found the image hard to see. I found this other source:

Seems to be the same data link

pjfent you seem to think that a decent into an ice age may have already been happening and that if it does it'll be quick. If you look at my version of the chart, you'll see the last steep fall, some 120,000 years ago took like 5000 years to fall just 4C.

I think humanity in the year 7020 will deal with a 4 degree drop in temperature pretty easily.

Don't mind the clown car on the site (IBDaMann for one). NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN! according to some of these guys. Welcome to the board.


Liar. You don't get to speak for anyone else. You only get to speak for you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 12:44
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
The ice age is a myth/hoax. Continents moving during millions and millions of years have caused ice ages in certain areas but climate can not cause an ice age. Simple as that.
09-06-2020 13:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Xadoman wrote:
The ice age is a myth/hoax. Continents moving during millions and millions of years have caused ice ages in certain areas but climate can not cause an ice age. Simple as that.


Get that from a burning bush?

Curious what you think the motive for the hoax is.
09-06-2020 18:06
keepit
★★★★☆
(1699)
I haven't read carefully the posts on this thread but it seems like the issue is perspective.
Climate scientists are concerned about the next hundred or so years. The ice ages and interglacials are of a so much larger scale that they don't really have an effect on the next hundred years or so. Humanity has to protect itself from the consequences of this time. The climate over large periods of time won't help or hinder the near future. It's kind of like gravity not having an effect on the strong nuclear force.
09-06-2020 19:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
keepit wrote:
I haven't read carefully the posts on this thread but it seems like the issue is perspective.
Climate scientists are concerned about the next hundred or so years. The ice ages and interglacials are of a so much larger scale that they don't really have an effect on the next hundred years or so. Humanity has to protect itself from the consequences of this time. The climate over large periods of time won't help or hinder the near future. It's kind of like gravity not having an effect on the strong nuclear force.

What "consequences of this time" must we "protect [ourselves]" from?

Eakspay Englishyay. Ityay orksway etterbay.
09-06-2020 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
keepit wrote:
I haven't read carefully the posts on this thread but it seems like the issue is perspective.
Climate scientists are concerned about the next hundred or so years. The ice ages and interglacials are of a so much larger scale that they don't really have an effect on the next hundred years or so. Humanity has to protect itself from the consequences of this time. The climate over large periods of time won't help or hinder the near future. It's kind of like gravity not having an effect on the strong nuclear force.


What ice ages and interglacials? You mean the ones represented in that graph of random numbers? The one that was simply concluded without any solid evidence?

What are you protecting yourself from? Define 'climate change'.

Did you know that proxy data is not used in science?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 19:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The ice age is a myth/hoax. Continents moving during millions and millions of years have caused ice ages in certain areas but climate can not cause an ice age. Simple as that.

Curious what you think the motive for the hoax is.

Wealth and power, i.e. motives (plural)

tmiddles wrote: Get that from a burning bush?

That's funny, we were just talking about that ...

.
Attached image:

09-06-2020 19:53
keepit
★★★★☆
(1699)
Consequences - Warming oceans. The ecosystem of the oceans might be the most sensitive to warming. Humanity depends on the oceans for sustenance.

Melting of glaciers - melting of glaciers causes sea level to rise. It's happening in small increments but if some of antarctic's ice shelf melt into the sea the ocean rise won't be incremental. It will be catastrophic. Warming of the oceans also causes sea levels to rise.

Disruption of farmland - temperature changes cause vegetation growth to be disrupted.

Etc.
09-06-2020 20:11
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2430)
Since this is our first recorded interglacial, we don't really know what to expect. It's all speculation about what happened in the past, and what to expect in the future, and when. It's likely to take centuries though, plenty of time to adapt and prepare, how ever it's going to turn out. Humans are pretty good at that stuff. The species survived at least one long winter, and no fur, like the other mammals. Of course, it could a huge hunk of space rock slamming into earth, speeding things up considerably. Or dozens of volcanoes get 'angry' all about the same time. Even if we knew what happened in the past, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly the same way. Been a long time, world has change quite a bit since last time.

If you actually read the IPCC assessment reports... They never actually claim the planet is going to be uninhabitable at the end of the century. Basically, it's real the point where we are completely F.B.R, nothing can be done to stop the warming. They figure on playing this scam for a while. I'm sort of guessing that around the turn of the next century, they will no longer be able to preach warming. Probably the peak of the interglacial. We'll still have centuries of decent weather, before the long winters set in.
09-06-2020 21:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
keepit wrote:
Consequences - Warming oceans. The ecosystem of the oceans might be the most sensitive to warming. Humanity depends on the oceans for sustenance.

Melting of glaciers - melting of glaciers causes sea level to rise. It's happening in small increments but if some of antarctic's ice shelf melt into the sea the ocean rise won't be incremental. It will be catastrophic. Warming of the oceans also causes sea levels to rise.

Disruption of farmland - temperature changes cause vegetation growth to be disrupted.

Etc.

Don't temperatures supposedly drop when the earth enters into supposed "ice ages"?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil09-06-2020 21:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
keepit wrote:
Consequences - Warming oceans. The ecosystem of the oceans might be the most sensitive to warming. Humanity depends on the oceans for sustenance.

Melting of glaciers - melting of glaciers causes sea level to rise. It's happening in small increments but if some of antarctic's ice shelf melt into the sea the ocean rise won't be incremental. It will be catastrophic. Warming of the oceans also causes sea levels to rise.

Disruption of farmland - temperature changes cause vegetation growth to be disrupted.

Etc.

How do you know that oceans are warming? What data do you have? From when to when? Why is that time period holier than any other?

What "sea level rise"? What valid reference point is being used to take such measurements? From when to when? Why is that time period holier than any other?

Temperature has changed drastically in my location in Wisconsin over the course of this last year. Vegetation is still growing all the same.
Edited on 09-06-2020 21:34
09-06-2020 22:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
keepit wrote:
Consequences - Warming oceans.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans.
keepit wrote:
The ecosystem of the oceans might be the most sensitive to warming.

Critters and plant life in tidal waters have to go through the same seasons the rest of us do, plus the exposure to air twice a day. Fish go where the food is. Whales routinely swim from arctic waters to the tropics and back again. So do some penguins. Birds migrate. So do fish.
keepit wrote:
Humanity depends on the oceans for sustenance.

Not really. It depends on rainfall. There is nothing stopping rainfall.
keepit wrote:
Melting of glaciers - melting of glaciers causes sea level to rise.

What about glaciers that are growing? Where do you think the ice in those glaciers came from?
keepit wrote:
It's happening in small increments but if some of antarctic's ice shelf melt into the sea the ocean rise won't be incremental. It will be catastrophic.

The Antarctic ice shelf is growing, not melting. It is also floating. It can't increase the level of the oceans.
keepit wrote:
Warming of the oceans also causes sea levels to rise.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans.
keepit wrote:
Disruption of farmland - temperature changes cause vegetation growth to be disrupted.

Nope. Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than freezes, which damages some plants).
keepit wrote:
Etc.

The usual chants from the Church of Global Warming.
Want to hear some more?

* coral bleaching (even though no one is putting bleach on coral).
* melting ice caps (even though the winter ice extent on both ice caps is larger this last year).
* increasing CO2 (even though it's not possible to measure the global atmospheric levels of CO2, and CO2 has no capability to create energy out of nothing or to magically reduce entropy).
* loss of polar bears (even though the species is increasing in number, according to Canadian surveys).
* floods and droughts in the same area at the same time.
* increased hurricane activity (even though the number of storms and intensity of storms has decreased in many of the years of so-called 'global warming').
* the ice caps will be gone by 2013 (quote from Al Gore; during 2014, Antarctica experienced the largest winter ice extent EVER RECORDED).

Loser.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 23:31
keepit
★★★★☆
(1699)
Dream on ITN.
10-06-2020 00:18
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
keepit wrote:
Dream on ITN.

Care to present a counterargument?
10-06-2020 00:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Dream on ITN.

Care to present a counterargument?

Apparently not.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-06-2020 00:40
keepit
★★★★☆
(1699)
Itn,
If you'll pick a single part of your counterargument that you want to elaborate on, i'll respond. I just don't want to deal with a lot of issues at once. Sorry.
10-06-2020 02:28
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(585)
go with sea levels its my favorite.Where when and how
10-06-2020 02:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
keepit wrote:
Itn,
If you'll pick a single part of your counterargument that you want to elaborate on, i'll respond. I just don't want to deal with a lot of issues at once. Sorry.


Your job. Guess you have no argument left.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil10-06-2020 02:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
duncan61 wrote:
go with sea levels its my favorite.Where when and how


As you know, there has been no marked indication overall sea inundation other than river deltas silting up or sinking land. As you also know, since land moves and since the sea moves (they even both have tides), there is no valid reference to use as a zero to measure a sea level from.

Obviously, things like high and low pressure areas can affect sea levels in a localized area, causing the characteristic flooding in hurricanes and typhoons, and also the tide is different depending on where the Moon is, the season is, and to a limited extent where the other planets are, and of course the time of day for particular spot on Earth. Nearby land also affects the tides, causing them to sometimes rise higher than out at sea due to the speed and inertia of water (like a natural hammer pump).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 10-06-2020 02:47
10-06-2020 03:08
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2430)
It's not just the climate, the weather, ocean temperature, ice/ It's the entire world that is constantly changing, always moving. Nothing ever truly standing still. What was, will never be again, we always move forward. It's a huge planet, the only thing larger, is Al Gore's ego, in thinking mankind ever had, or ever will, have sufficient power to change the nature of this planet. The only climate that's change, 'at an alarming rate', is the political climate. The democrats are just running through all the signs, from their Book of Revelations playbook. Nice political stunt, but it's not the apocalypse in the prophesy, evil always fails. They proposed 'leader' hid in his basement, from what was essentially a common cold. They allowed cities to burn, to glorified a felon. Even though our 'savior' offered guidance and military assistance. The democrat leaders are now demanding cash, to repair and rebuild, all that was destroyed. No mention of the thousands of victims of those celebrating, the fall of a felon/hero. Didn't need federal help preventing further death and destruction, don't need federal help rebuilding.

Oceans warm/cool every year. Ice melts/reforms. All living things, will eventually die. New life is always born (except for abortion clinics). Cities burn, and will eventually rebuild, soon as they replace their impotent democrat leaders.
10-06-2020 05:29
keepit
★★★★☆
(1699)
ITN,
I guess you're right that sea level varies from place to place and for different reasons. I don't see any reason to measure it when there is such a small change.
What's your point?
A person can figure out that sea level is rising because the temp is going up. I agree that the temp change is hard to be precise about when the change is so small.
My point is that you don't need to measure temp when you know that with increasing CO2, the temp will go up.
And you don't need to measure the CO2 conc when you know that there's been a huge increase in fuel burning over the last 150 years, which has yielded very much CO2.
Bottom line, measurements don't need to be made to understand the changes, Just count the amount of fuel burned. Actually you don't even have to count, just look at history.
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil10-06-2020 07:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
keepit wrote:A person can figure out that sea level is rising because the temp is going up.

Nobody can measure the earth's temperature and validly claim that it's average global temperature is rising. Nonetheless, there are things any rational adult can do to verify that sea levels have not risen to any perceptible extent since the early 1940s

Ways to Verify there is no Discernible Sea Level Rise

keepit wrote: I agree that the temp change is hard to be precise about when the change is so small.

What makes you believe there is a change? You certainly did not take any measurements of the entire globe. In fact, nobody has, ergo you must be smoking something powerfully psychotropic to imagine something that cannot be perceived by anyone.

keepit wrote: My point is that you don't need to measure temp when you know that with increasing CO2, the temp will go up.

My point is that you don't need to believe in stupid violations of physics when you actually understand physics.

CO2 cannot increase the earth's average global temperature without violating physics. So, on that point, what magical superpowers do you attribute to CO2 that enables it to create energy out of nothing?

keepit wrote: And you don't need to measure the CO2 conc when you know that there's been a huge increase in fuel burning over the last 150 years, which has yielded very much CO2.

Did you measure the entire atmosphere's CO2 quantity to verify that any additional atmospheric CO2 resulting from combustion specifically did NOT return to plants where it was happily and greedily sucked up by plants that are starving for more and that are found all over the globe, including in the ocean?

I'm guessing you didn't, did you? You don't know any of the shit you claim to know, do you? You are lost in space without a clue, aren't you? You are wandering in the dark without a flashlight, aren't you? You are lost at sea without a paddle, aren't you? You have become totally lost in thought because it is completely unfamiliar territory, isn't it?

It's lonely in the dark, isn't it? Have you tried returning to Christianity? That might help.
.
Attached image:


Edited on 10-06-2020 07:05
10-06-2020 07:53
pjfent
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
James___ wrote:
pjfent wrote:


I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature variations, and came across the above.
As a layman, it brought some very alarming questions to mind, that I, unfortunately, don't have answers for.

Since we are technically living in the Quaternary ice age, and inhabiting a relatively short, warmer, interglacial phase at the moment, what does the future hold?

Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

Even with the upward temperature pressure of our greenhouse gas emissions, will there still be a gradual downward temperature trend that overwhelms what we have done and lead to an inevitable catastrophe for a human civilization of 7.6 Billion?

Are the real warming effects of our carbon emissions being masked by downward pressure by the other causative factors of the end of an interglacial phase?

Have we really averted a future catastrophe, by sheer luck, or do we need to slow, end, or even possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions, in the long term, to moderate our climate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/300px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png



I tend to think that we can't prevent the next ice age with what we know today. If you consider that "peak" cooling isn't very long when compared to the 60,000 years or so where the planet slowly cools.
If you take a closer look at the graphs, open one in windows paint and make the graph longer. Then you'll see a slight change over thousands of years. At the same time there's probably short periods of warming and cooling as observed over the last 2,000 years.


Thanks. I think your right, likely not a uniform transition at all, in real time. I suspect the lower number of historical samples just gives some illusion of past uniformity.
I wasn't really under the impression that a post inter-glacial temperature drop, if there is one, would be fast by any means, more that for us to have any effect on the final outcome would require world consensus and a long term commitment to a moderating strategy. Politics aside, I do believe that such a thing is remotely possible for us, It would just be an incredibly long term plan.
It would be quite ironic, though, if these carbon reducing initiatives are put into place over the next decades, while a slow post inter-glacial downward trend begins to push us slowly towards re-glaciation, before we realize that there is something else at work besides carbon reduction.
10-06-2020 10:29
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2430)
pjfent wrote:
James___ wrote:
pjfent wrote:


I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature variations, and came across the above.
As a layman, it brought some very alarming questions to mind, that I, unfortunately, don't have answers for.

Since we are technically living in the Quaternary ice age, and inhabiting a relatively short, warmer, interglacial phase at the moment, what does the future hold?

Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

Even with the upward temperature pressure of our greenhouse gas emissions, will there still be a gradual downward temperature trend that overwhelms what we have done and lead to an inevitable catastrophe for a human civilization of 7.6 Billion?

Are the real warming effects of our carbon emissions being masked by downward pressure by the other causative factors of the end of an interglacial phase?

Have we really averted a future catastrophe, by sheer luck, or do we need to slow, end, or even possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions, in the long term, to moderate our climate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/300px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png



I tend to think that we can't prevent the next ice age with what we know today. If you consider that "peak" cooling isn't very long when compared to the 60,000 years or so where the planet slowly cools.
If you take a closer look at the graphs, open one in windows paint and make the graph longer. Then you'll see a slight change over thousands of years. At the same time there's probably short periods of warming and cooling as observed over the last 2,000 years.


Thanks. I think your right, likely not a uniform transition at all, in real time. I suspect the lower number of historical samples just gives some illusion of past uniformity.
I wasn't really under the impression that a post inter-glacial temperature drop, if there is one, would be fast by any means, more that for us to have any effect on the final outcome would require world consensus and a long term commitment to a moderating strategy. Politics aside, I do believe that such a thing is remotely possible for us, It would just be an incredibly long term plan.
It would be quite ironic, though, if these carbon reducing initiatives are put into place over the next decades, while a slow post inter-glacial downward trend begins to push us slowly towards re-glaciation, before we realize that there is something else at work besides carbon reduction.


CO2 issues aside, the same people pushing for the changes, all agree there is an ice age coming, eventually. At some point, global cooling will cancel any perceived warming, and the crisis will be the coming big chill. Maybe it's better to save the combustibles for heating?

I still tend to believe there was a CO2 deficit, before we started burning stuff. There is currently a higher demand for CO2, than what we produce, or occurs naturally. CO2 is the only source of dietary carbon, and we get it from the vegetation, as do all living things. It's not just the human population that's been growing since the last ice age, but all species (except those man kills excessively). Even now, at the alarming 410 ppm CO2, that's barely half of what most plants need for ideal growth. At about 150 ppm. most plants aren't able to to produce enough to survive. We aren't even midway between plants dying and thriving. I'd prefer a warmer climate, if it means more food available.
10-06-2020 12:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
keepit wrote:
Climate scientists are concerned about the next hundred or so years. The ice ages and interglacials are of a so much larger scale that they don't really have an effect on the next hundred years or so.
Yeah that's my understanding too. It seems like it's less about what the change is but how fast it occurs.

Into the Night wrote:
Did you know that proxy data is not used in science?
Proxy data is used in science, engineering and everyday life.
Define "proxy data" in ITNese. You so often have your own unique definition for a term.

Into the Night wrote:Define 'climate change'.
In this case a increase in the mean annual temperature at at the bottom of the atmosphere/ground level of Earth. You keep asking that so you should know the answer by now.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Curious what you think the motive for the hoax is.
Wealth and power, ...
So when Louis Agassiz in the early 1800s first theorized there had been an ice age, based on the solid evidence of skeletons and frozen remains of large mammals found in Siberia, the motive was wealth and power for those who chose to believe him? Remember that Mr. Agassiz can't be the perpetrator of this hoax, he's just a guy saying stuff, the hoax is made real by those who believed in and supported his work. link

IBdaMann wrote:
Don't temperatures supposedly drop when the earth enters into supposed "ice ages"?
Keepit was not saying an ice age was coming anytime soon and I just pointed out that if the past is an indication it will take thousands of years. So that's not a relevant point.

gfm7175 wrote:
How do you know that oceans are warming? What data do you have? From when to when? Why is that time period holier than any other?
I don't know that we have usable data on ocean temperature but just to school you one more time: The Earth orbits the sun annually and it is not a perfectly circular orbit. Because of this the amount of solar radiance the Earth receives has a 365 day cycle. So that is the cycle for evaluating the mean temperature on Earth, it's annual. It's not a "holy" time frame it's just what is dictated by the Earths orbit.

Into the Night wrote:
Critters and plant life in tidal waters have to go through the same seasons the rest of us do,
I think we can all agree that plants an animals thrive in particular ecosystems. A ecosystem similar but with a slight shift in temperature will have different plants and animals. So clearly we see before us evidence that relatively slight changes in climate impact species. You don't have to die instantly to fail because conditions are no longer as favorable.

gfm7175 wrote:
Care to present a counterargument?
Care to actually respond? Or will it be more RQAA?

IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody can measure the earth's temperature and validly claim that it's average global temperature is rising.
This statement is a very powerful one. It claims VAST knowledge to say that it is impossible to determine the mean temperature of Earth at ground level to a margin of error smaller than an increase in that temperature.

Now if it's impossible you've got some explaining to do.

What is the largest change in the Earth's ground level temperature that is possible? What is the smallest margin of error for measuring the ground level temp of Earth that is possible? If they overlap then you overstated your assumption.

IBdaMann wrote:CO2 cannot increase the earth's average global temperature without violating physics. So, on that point, what magical superpowers do you attribute to CO2 that enables it to create energy out of nothing?
The energy is all from the Sun. CO2 has the ability to absorb and emit radiance (not really that amazing but it'll do the trick). I hope you'll continue our discussion of that here:link

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
10-06-2020 13:26
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(585)
Tmiddles wrote

I think we can all agree that plants an animals thrive in particular ecosystems. A ecosystem similar but with a slight shift in temperature will have different plants and animals. So clearly we see before us evidence that relatively slight changes in climate impact species. You don't have to die instantly to fail because conditions are no longer as favorable.

I would like to share this personal knowledge.In the fifties a school teacher called sticky glew in the southern town of Pemberton decided to set up a hatchery as a school project.Our waterways in west aus get to dry and to hot for the rainbow trout we have to survive much north of Perth however in the streams in the south they have thrived.The hatchery has grown to be a well set up plant and a few generations on the trout have adapted to warmer conditions and now other warm places buy our heat resistant Trout roe for stocking.A major success story,Also I am confident the trout in certain locations are self propagating even though we do not have the correct gravel streams they would normaly require.The origional stock came from the Russian river in Alaska and we may be a bit warmer on average than that place
10-06-2020 15:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
duncan61 wrote:...other warm places buy our heat resistant Trout...
Wow! I wonder why it didn't happen without human intervention? Those trout clearly had it wrong initially it's good Sticky Glue schooled them.
10-06-2020 15:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(585)
LOL good one man.The point is if the climate of Alaska was to change to the climate of South West Australia over 70 years the trout and salmon will probably adapt and they are a sensitive fish with skin,small limbs and a sense of smell.Ancient bony fish like carp perch and sunfish can live in anything so they will be fine.
10-06-2020 17:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tmiddles wrote:It seems like it's less about what the change is but how fast it occurs.

1) So you agree that keepit is simply babbling drivel when he drones on and on about what the chages will be.

2) What was that Climate Change function that enables us to determine "the rate of Climate Change"?

tmiddles wrote:Proxy data is used in science, engineering and everyday life.

... says the scientifically illiterate warmizombie (I know, I know, totally redundant)

If proxy data is involved then science it is not and religion it surely is. "Proxies" are used in religion every day as you mention.

tmiddles wrote: Define "proxy data" in ITNese.

A proxy measurement is a measurement of something other than what you need measured as though it will suffice.

Proxy data is immediately discarded in science.

Into the Night wrote:Define 'climate change'.
In this case a increase in the mean annual temperature at at the bottom of the atmosphere/ground level of Earth. You keep asking that so you should know the answer by now.[/quote]
... and you know that this definition makes you a science denier before you even get out of the starting gate, so you should know that you will never even get out of the starting gate with this definition.

You can't subdivide the atomic unit of the science you are using ... unless your intent is to deny that science. Your stall must be very comfortable.


tmiddles wrote: So when Louis Agassiz in the early 1800s first theorized there had been an ice age, based on the solid evidence of skeletons and frozen remains of large mammals found in Siberia, the motive was wealth and power for those who chose to believe him?

Are you planning on having Louis Agassiz join the conversation to explain his thoughts and to respond to cross-examination ... or are you planning to pretend to speak for him?

What makes Siberian skeletons and frozen remains "evidence" for anything other than certain animals were present in Siberia (whether they were born there, brought there by humans from somewhere else, blown in by a hurricane, accidentally dropped off by mistake from Noah's ark in the wrong place, etc... we cannot know) and that it was (gasp, shocking news) cold in Siberia?

tmiddles wrote: Remember that Mr. Agassiz can't be the perpetrator of this hoax,

... but you can!

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Don't temperatures supposedly drop when the earth enters into supposed "ice ages"?
Keepit was not saying an ice age was coming anytime soon and I just pointed out that if the past is an indication it will take thousands of years. So that's not a relevant point.

Nope. keepit is quite clearly implying that there won't be any ice age because we humans are apparently jacking up the temperature and that we humans are changing the "global climate" ... specifically such that nature and natural cycles aren't in charge anymore. Did you bother to actually read what keepit babbled?


tmiddles wrote: I don't know that we have usable data on ocean temperature

Who do you mean by "we"? If you mean "humanity" then yes we do. The US Navy and the Royal Navy (UK) have boatloads (pun intended) that get fed to the US Intelligence for use in pursuing national interests.

There is nonetheless insufficient data to calculate the ocean's average temperature to any usable accuracy.

There is insufficient data to calculate the oceans average alkalinity to a useful accuracy. The vast bulk of convenient measures are obviously at the surface and/or near river mouths where alkalinity is artificially low. The vast bulk of the ocean's alkalinity is never measured.

tmiddles wrote: but just to school you one more time: The Earth orbits the sun annually and it is not a perfectly circular orbit. Because of this the amount of solar radiance the Earth receives has a 365 day cycle. So that is the cycle for evaluating the mean temperature on Earth, it's annual. It's not a "holy" time frame it's just what is dictated by the Earths orbit.

So the "global climate" means a one-year time span? It's nothing more than a time interval?

How is it "changing" at an unprecedented rate due to man's activities?

IBdaMann wrote: This statement is a very powerful one. It claims VAST knowledge to say that it is impossible to determine the mean temperature of Earth at ground level to a margin of error smaller than an increase in that temperature.

Nope. It claims that I am applying standard statistical requirements, i.e. nothing out of the ordinary.

tmiddles wrote: Now if it's impossible you've got some explaining to do.

Nope. I have some DEMANDING to do, as in DEMANDING valid datasets that lead to the valid conclusions using standard statistical methods.

As I recall, I have been demanding valid datasets every time the topic of data arises, specifically so that standard statistical methods can be used ... or did you never notice?

tmiddles wrote: What is the largest change in the Earth's ground level temperature that is possible?

No person gets to determine what is impossible. Any person claiming "what is" bears the full burden to support the claim, and that requires unambiguous definitions and either existing science that supports it or valid datasets that lead to the conclusions claimed using standard statistical methods.

I am officially DEMANDING valid datasets that support whatever you happen to be claiming.


tmiddles wrote: The energy is all from the Sun.

You don't get to answer my question to someone else by altering the question.

keepit is claiming an increase in temperature, so he needs to account for the ADDITIONAL energy that he is attributing to CO2. Do you want to account for the ADDITIONAL energy provided by the CO2? The sun provides the same amount of energy before any new CO2 enters the atmosphere so if CO2 is increasing the temperature then CO2 is adding/creating energy.

Account for it. Any answer involving the sun is summarily dismissed.

tmiddles wrote: CO2 has the ability to absorb and emit radiance

... because it is matter. Yes.

I hope you'll answer the above question here. You know that you are insisting that CO2 has magical 1st-LoT-defying properties so just tell me about them, i.e. what does your faith call those magical superpowers? Do they have a special name? ... oh yes, "Greenhouse Effect"... I forgot.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil10-06-2020 17:40
pjfent
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
IBdaMann wrote:
pjfent wrote: Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

There is no greenhouse effect. That's just an urban legend for the scientifically illiterate.

You're a layman, you say? I'll take your word for it.




.


I was gonna ask you which oil company you work for, so I guess we're even.

Edited on 10-06-2020 17:42
10-06-2020 17:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
pjfent wrote:I was gonna ask you which oil company you work for, so I guess we're even.:)

Nope, I still win because I was going to ask you what highschool you dropped out of. :)

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-06-2020 20:19
pjfent
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
IBdaMann wrote:
pjfent wrote:I was gonna ask you which oil company you work for, so I guess we're even.

Nope, I still win because I was going to ask you what highschool you dropped out of.


.


Wrong again. I couldn't drop out of the Puslinch County Reform Academy until my sentence was complete.

I am guessing that you probably got a pretty decent post secondary education and even excelled, at least until you stopped taking your court ordered meds.
10-06-2020 21:57
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
pjfent wrote:
Wrong again. I couldn't drop out of the Puslinch County Reform Academy until my sentence was complete.

I am guessing that you probably got a pretty decent post secondary education and even excelled, at least until you stopped taking your court ordered meds.

Welcome to the forum, good buddy. I do enjoy "fresh insects" to peck at and devour.
10-06-2020 23:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
pjfent wrote:Wrong again. I couldn't drop out of the Puslinch County Reform Academy until my sentence was complete.

That was excellent! Your account is being credited.

So, how did you ever end up believing in the Global Warming crap? Is that a required part of the Puslinch parole program?

.
Attached image:

11-06-2020 04:38
pjfent
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
IBdaMann wrote:
pjfent wrote:Wrong again. I couldn't drop out of the Puslinch County Reform Academy until my sentence was complete.

That was excellent! Your account is being credited.

So, how did you ever end up believing in the Global Warming crap? Is that a required part of the Puslinch parole program?

.


I do believe that, actually. So far. But I am not invested in or fixated on, that position.
I am open to real evidence either way.
That could be attributable to the Puslinch Electro Shock therapy program though.
11-06-2020 04:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
pjfent wrote: I am open to real evidence either way.

Unfortunately, that is the crux of your problem. You are looking for "evidence."

You should be demanding science, not "evidence." Evidence is subjective on many levels. Science is purely objective.

You should start with anyone and everyone claiming that Global Warming is true. Demand the science that supports that position. You won't get any because there isn't any.

That should be all you need to know.

Just as my signature reads, Global Warming is the preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate. That church doesn't have any science supporting its WACKY dogma.

Hey, if you have any questions, let me know.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about Marxism, socialism, capitalism, communism, etc...

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil :

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s3401-10-2020 02:56
The Biggest Humanity Sin Many Religions Talking About With Divine Level Explanation2409-09-2020 03:39
Understand Humanity Life On Earth Through A Real Life Example202-09-2020 07:02
Humanity Must Take Control Of Their Own Destiny, Stop Relying On Others118-08-2020 19:58
sea ice717-08-2020 09:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact