HockeyStick, finally updated with modern trees, collapses

I see you still don't understand what a logical fallacy is.

 

There are a few things that can cause an Ice Age.

#1. Milankovitch Cycles.

#2. Changes in Earth's Celestial Mechnics due to influence by other Celestial Factors.

#3. The staling of the Earth's Ocean Heat Transference Current System due to too much fresh water melt.

#3. is the one we have to worry about.

AboveAlpha

 

Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years, so the oceans are losing heat. We just have to get to that trigger point at which snows linger through the northern summer. Solar cycle 25 is going to be one of the lowest we have seen. Who knows, maybe it will be the trigger.

 

Oh...I forgot one.

#4. Decrease in Solar Output.

But if #4 Happened we can all kiss the Human Race GOODBYE!!!

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Earth is not cooling.

We have an enormous amout of Polar and Greenland Ice Melt that can attest to that.

AboveAlpha

 

I posted a paper the other day that shows we have cooled for the last 2000 years at a fairly consistent rate, at least in northern Europe. When we are in an interglacial, it is always warm enough to melt glaciers. They have been receding long before CO2 is alleged to be the driver and at times at faster rates. If you look at the jet stream that is bringing cold weather to the US it is also bringing warm air to Greenland. Greenland melted more than it is now during the last interglacial.

We have been in an ice age for the last 2.5 million years, hypothesized due to the shift in continents. Before that, as I understand it, there was no ice at the poles and seas were 30 ft higher which is normal for earth before the continents cut off major ocean currents. Right now another hypothesis for the Arctic melt is ocean currents that flow through the Barents sea.

We can only hope that it gets warmer instead of colder.

 

Unlike any warming or cooling trend in the last 100,000 years....we have a Super Accelerated RATE of Ice Melt and in 100,000 years of Ice Core Data we have not only the highest levels currently in 100,000 years of CO2 and CH4 but the HIGHEST RATE OF ACCELERATION of CO2 and CH4 in Earth's Atmosphere.

THAT...is the problem....the current RATE of Ice Melt.

Global Temp. Increases are also existing at the Highest Rate in 100,000 years.

Now at this point it really doesn't matter whether a person want's to argue whether the runaway Polar and Greenland Ice Melt is being caused by Man Made CO2 and thus CH4 PPM in Earth's Atmosphere or not.

The REALITY is Sea Levels are going to keep rising...and do so very QUICKLY.

The U.S. Military is aware of this and has been planning for it for a LONG time as they use the data ONLY being presented by the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Office of Science at Oak Ridge National Laboritories.

You know...those same nice people who produce Weapons Grade Nuclear Fuel of all U.S. Nuclear Forces and all U.S. Nuclear Powered Vessels.

AboveAlpha

 

I hope you realize you are talking about direct measurements which we have only had a relatively short time and even past proxy records do not back up your claim.

The longest actual temperature record, Central England, still very short and every other temperature record we have is shorter to the point of the shortest, satellite data.



Greenland Ice Core Temperatures

 

Although Ice Core Samples tend to be used to measure past levels in PPM of gases such as CO2 and CH4 in our Atmosphere....Ice DENSITY at specific points on such cores measures Temps. as this determines at what temp. the ice was packed and compressed.

AboveAlpha

 

When somebody asserts that small things cannot possibly have large effects, that's a logical fallacy.

 

Actually, that's not true either. Temperature in ice core records is deduced from the ratio of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 in the water molecules, usually called δ18O for short. Because O-18 is heavier than the normal O-16, it evaporates less readily, and therefore the isotopic proportion tells you the temperature of the sea surface at the time it evaporated.

 

Yes and what determines the existence of varying ratio's of Isotopes of Oxygen in Ice Core Samples?

AboveAlpha

 

After reviewing I fail to see anything which would indicate the cycles have changed. He states the orbit is virtually circular in 50,000 years which is typical. This is what causes the glaciations. If there is something in there to support his summary (below), I don't see it.

Operative word "could" not will. It's supposition based on models which vary depending on the variables they input.

Do 97% of climate scientists agree? Do any astrophysicists agree? I don't see there is any variation in the Milankovitch Cycle which would indicate a change in the glacial cycles.

I've seen this analogy a few times lately and fail to see how it is a relevant comparison. CO2 is not a toxin. It was much more prevalent in past eras and life still thrived.

 

This is something I hinted at before, and is both known and also not fully understood.

The effects on both the jet stream and ocean currents is known to have large effects on the weather of the planet, as are things like salinity levels of the oceans. It is known that changes can have large impacts on the weather on a global scale, but to the degree and how rapidly this happens is not really known. Primarily because it comes from evidence that shows the results over large periods of time.

For example, we know that among the warmest periods of the history was during the time of Pangaea, during the Ordovician and Silurian epochs. Where the planet was much warmer then it is today, the atmospheric pressure much higher then it is today, humidity much higher, and no ice caps at all (resulting in a sea level over 200 meters higher then present day). But this was still broken by a 30 million year period of mass glaciation (known as the Early Paleozoic Icehouse, with glaciers covering up to 80% of the surface of the planet).

Then at the end you had a massive drop in CO2 and a matching rise in O2 levels. Much of this is speculated on oceanic dead zones caused by having a single global ocean, but this can only be speculation.

For example, it is known that at around 4 million years ago, the North and South American Plates met. This would have had a large impact on ocean currents, stopping all flow from the current Pacific Ocean with the current Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. And we also know that at around the same time a large global cooling event happened.

But is there a cause and effect? Really impossible to tell, the evidence does not give enough detail to tell us.

This is the problem I see with most of these scientists. They are taking evidence of various forms, and trying to force it to meet their theory. Instead of adjusting their theory to meet the evidence. But plate tectonics is known to have impact on global weather patterns, of that there is no doubt.

 

Again you are wrong. Some things can, some things don't, some are negligible. Nobody, not even the alleged deniers in science, claim that CO2 might not have an effect. The debate is how much or if it is the disaster the religion of doom claims. Comparing disease to the climate is a real logical fallacy.

 

Climate science is one of the messiest sciences and is also very young. There are so many known unknowns and unknown unknowns that it should give anyone pause that someone can say with any authority what will happen 100 years from now.

 

Faster how?


graph from Church 2008

 

A scientist would be stupid to not say solar variation is a big factor, but TSI peaked around 1950 and cannot explain the warming trend since then.

 

Why do some people think that refuting a 20 year old graph invalidates all of the work that has been done since then?

 

All of what work? We are still hearing the same kind of predictions, and have yet to see any factual proof. They are animals chasing their tails, trying to make their research prove their results and predictions instead of analyzing the data impartially and creating theories based off of that.

And nothing in here is really new or revolutionary. It is known that as an ice age ends you have periods of rapid warming, accelerated as the ice sheets melt and reflect less radiation back into space, causing the planet to warm faster. And that every ice age studied has had a similar end. In fact, what is unusual this time is the period of time we have paused at our current level, several thousand years with minor fluxuations. In other interglacials it got much hotter then it is now, much faster.

That is why some actually question if we are still in an ice age or not, and what is the actual definition of such. How far do the ice sheets retreat before the ice age is over? There is not even a firm consensus over this little fact. Is the ice ago over when the north pole is ice free? Or is it over when the ice sheets stop growing?

If people want to take the latter definition, the ice age ended less then 200 years ago.

 

So, we are just along for the ride, and its egoism that would think differently. Yeah, that makes lots of sense to me. Perhaps we are not as great as we think we are? LOL. Our opinions of ourselves is just too great.

Of course man can pollute the earth, cut down hits forests, and if we become too much of a problem, the earth will just shake us off like a dog shaking off water. And perhaps, since we are cutting down the rain forests so a few can profit, the earth is doing what it has to do to increase co2 levels for plants love the stuff, and this is how the earth is taking care of itself. So we want to now try to keep the earth from doing what it wants, to balance itself? LOL. Obviously the earth wants more co2 and by George, it will get what it needs. It took billions of years to arrive at where it is today, and man isn't gonna stop its evolution. In fact, she is just using us to get what she wants. More than one way to look at this.

 

The Earth does not "want" as it is not a sentient being.

 

Freeman Dyson, not a slouch, but a brilliant guy, said that co2 could be addressed by land management. But there isn't great sums of money to be made in land management, at least not near the amount as can be made in the ways the hysterical want to address any warming, from man made co2.

So why don't these hysterical people advocate stopping the deforestation of rain forests? Why don't they want to use land management? Probably because they have more than one agenda, and they are trying to serve another agenda.

They have tunnel vision, and will not be happy until they can crash economies making more people suffer than a warming could ever make suffer. For it's obviously about control, as most things are. They want to control others, even entire nations. It's ego gratification. For if they were really concerned about co2 levels they would take a natural approach and push for land management, which al gore wants no part of, for he cannot get richer from that.


In the end, you cannot take the UN its IPCC or the brain dead who are hysterical seriously. For they are only serious about one move forward. Given that china is a major source of co2 and even worse unnatural pollution, who is more interested in feeding their people than we are, the hysterical are also being utter fools. But hysterics makes for fools, and you can set your watch by that fact.

I don't have a very good opinion of these man made global warming, or climate change people. I think they are basically idiots.