Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

It’s beating a dead horse at this point

!!!!!

Paleoclimatologists have brought to light new information but many beliefs about ice ages and CO2 lagging temps formed decades ago and those prior beliefs haven’t been updated since.

According to who?

India’s northward flight and collision with Asia was a major driver of global tectonics in the Cenozoic. About 68 million years ago the India-Asia continent-to-continent collisions marks the beginning of a macro scale highly effective CO2-sequestration process for changing the global carbon budget in the atmosphere. A chemical reaction takes place binding atmospheric CO2 with newly formed compounds sequestering CO2. CO2 over the Middle and Late Eocene reach sufficiently low levels to trigger the expansion of Antarctic ice sheets at around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. [1] [2]

The onset of Antarctic glaciation, rooted in environmental changes ~33.7 million years ago, is the beginning of Earth’s modern climate characterized by polar ice sheets and large equator-to-pole temperature gradients. Results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds.[3]

About 3 million years ago the Earth crosses a critical threshold in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere so that the relationship with the sun in the shape of Earth's orbit and its axis tilt, which has periodicity, emerges as climate signals. The 41,000 and 100,000 year glacial-interglacial Milankovitch cycle shows up as the growth and decay of ice sheets over time.

Milankovitch cycle cooling happens when: 1) The Earth's orbital cycles trigger initial cooling. 2) As the planet cools the oceans cool and because cold water has a higher degree of CO2 solubility it soaks up carbon from the atmosphere. 3) Lower sea surface temperatures also changes ocean circulation. 4) Resulting in decreased of deep ocean ventilation. 5) And elevated carbonate weathering on exposed glacial shelves. 6) And enhanced CO2 utilization in the Southern Ocean. [4][5]

Milankovitch cycle warming happens when: 1) The Earth's orbital cycles trigger initial warming. 2) Arctic ice melts flooding the oceans with fresh water which changes ocean circulation. 3) Over the course of millennia this leads to oscillation between the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. 4) Several millennia later as a result of the initial ocean warming large amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. 5) After the influx of CO2 the vast majority of warming, something like 90-93%, occurs. [6]



[1] Muttoni, et al. (2008). Equatorial convergence of India and early Cenozoic climate trends
[2] Macdonald et al. (2016). Low-latitude arc–continent collision as a driver for global cooling.
[3] Pagani et. al. (2011). The role of carbon dioxide during the onset of Antarctic glaciation.
[4] Ganopolski, et al. (2019) Mid-Pleistocene transition in glacial cycles explained by declining CO2 and regolith removal
[5] Farmer et al (2019) Deep Atlantic Ocean carbon storage and the rise of 100,000-year glacial cycles
[6] Shakun et al. (2012 )Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

Of the six studies MV sites, only three have relevance to what we have been discussing, which is the large scale shifts between greenhouse earth and icehouse earth. MV got upset at me for using a graph of interglacial periods over the past 400,000 years, and said that he wasn't discussing the interglacial periods of icehouse earth which studies [4], [5], and [6] are looking at.

All three of MV's relevant studies are looking at the same general time frame (the cooling of the past 65mm years), and he is right that the leading theory for the cooling is a decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels. I have already presented this study: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa...2-indicated-by that finds there is still much uncertainty about the cooling associated with this period.

MV continues to ignore everything pre 65mm years ago, which includes the bulk of the cycles between greenhouse earth and icehouse earth, despite my repeated requests.

[ron johnson]

hubris noun
hu·​bris | \ ˈhyü-brəs \
Definition of hubris
: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

Nothing hubristic about any lay-person being able to see major flaws in the study.

[ron johnson]

Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1926-2018)
The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. This information is provided through Situation Reports, which have been in use for several decades. Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireIn...otalFires.html

Forest Service doesn't agree, but even if we take NIFC's position, we end up having a tiny sample size that you will be hard pressed to make any conclusions from.

[ron johnson]

Heck, it's so easy, you should be publishing your own study, amirite?

That wouldn't be as easy as pointing out two obvious flaws.

[Bunion 2020]

[old goat]

You can't be a climate expert by surfing the web in your pajamas. Fortunately Ron didn't decide to be a surgeon.

[MultiVerse]

- The three macro studies are representative, not exhaustive.


-- The remaining glacial integlacial studies were cited because not only is the "leading theory for the cooling is a decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels," but CO2 is also a major forcing with Milankovitch cycles, even though it was suggested on the previous page that the, "scientific community don't support it"



--- The Margret Steinthorsdottir Fossil Plant Stomata paper that Ron posted is interesting. Uncertainties in the magnitude and impact of an effect (climate sensitivity) may exist. But as with anthropogenic global warming where the basic radiative physics of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is unassailable, the broad view of the India-Asia collision effects on both regional and global climate are accepted.

FWIW, fossilized stomata (plant cells in leaves) often come up at the low end of pCO2 and scientitsts question the technique for modern CO2. Margret's paper even discusses some of the issues. If stomata were the only data point, which not even Margret is suggesting then yes that would emphasizes a high range of plausible equilibrium climate sensitivity.

In fact, Margret Steinthorsdottir has another recent paper based on plant data which suggests Arctic warming thresholds will be reached much sooner than expected. [1]


[1] Steinthorsdottir et al (2019). Hot summers ahead? Multi-decadal spring season warming precedes sudden summer temperature rise in pre-anthropogenic climate change.

[dan_pdx]

That wouldn't be as easy as pointing out two obvious flaws.

Two obvious flaws that NASA wasn't bright enough to notice, right? You are a clever chap!

[ron johnson]

You can't be a climate expert by surfing the web in your pajamas. Fortunately Ron didn't decide to be a surgeon.

Don't worry, I know I'm no expert. All you need is a brain and a willingness to use it to see through the obvious BS littered throughout this topic.

[frorider]

Don't worry, I know I'm no expert.

Noted. Thanks.

[rideit]

All you need is a brain .

This is ironic

[ron johnson]

-- The remaining glacial integlacial studies were cited because not only is the "leading theory for the cooling is a decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels,"

This quote of mine is for cooling of the past 65mm years.

but CO2 is also a major forcing with Milankovitch cycles, even though it was suggested on the previous page that the, "scientific community don't support it"

This is not known.

[ron johnson]

Two obvious flaws that NASA wasn't bright enough to notice, right? You are a clever chap!

Like I said, it ought to tell you something about NASA.

[iceman]

we have tracked down the cause of global warming, it's ron johnson's hot air.

[dan_pdx]

Like I said, it ought to tell you something about NASA.

Well, I don't know Ron, either you're a rocket scientist and they're incompetents who don't have a junior high level understanding of the things they're studying, or NASA are rocket scientists and you're incompetent.

I mean, I know NASA are rocket scientists, so...

[k2skier112]

Don't worry, I know I'm no expert. All you need is a brain and a willingness to use it to see through the obvious BS littered throughout this topic.

this entire post is ironic

[ron johnson]

Well, I don't know Ron, either you're a rocket scientist and they're incompetents who don't have a junior high level understanding of the things they're studying, or NASA are rocket scientists and you're incompetent.

I mean, I know NASA are rocket scientists, so...

Everyone who works at NASA is a rocket scientist?

What do rocket scientists know about climate?

[dan_pdx]

Everyone who works at NASA is a rocket scientist?

What do rocket scientists know about climate?

Rocket scientists in the figurative sense, I guess - they also do have this division: https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/

Those guys are chumps and a paid troll on a ski forum knows everything there is to know, is that what you're getting at?

Like I said before, you should publish your insights and pat yourself on the back while all the climatologists in the world get started rethinking the last few decades of their work.

[ron johnson]

Rocket scientists in the figurative sense, I guess - they also do have this division: https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/

Those guys are chumps and a paid troll on a ski forum knows everything there is to know, is that what you're getting at?

Like I said before, you should publish your insights and pat yourself on the back while all the climatologists in the world get started rethinking the last few decades of their work.

You are acting like I'm making some bold claims that only a real climate scientist/rocket scientist are qualified to make. Anyone should be able to see that a 45 year sample size is a major limitation for a study like this especially when there is evidence that wildfires were significantly worse in the past. You should also be able to see that ignoring all confounding variables like fire suppression, human development, and utilities infrastructure are major limitations. Combine the two and its pretty clear this study is worthless unless you want to make headlines and keep that gravy train of climate science funding flowing.

[dan_pdx]

You are acting like I'm making some bold claims that only a real climate scientist/rocket scientist are qualified to make. Anyone should be able to see that a 45 year sample size is a major limitation for a study like this especially when there is evidence that wildfires were significantly worse in the past. You should also be able to see that ignoring all confounding variables like fire suppression, human development, and utilities infrastructure are major limitations. Combine the two and its pretty clear this study is worthless unless you want to make headlines and keep that gravy train of climate science funding flowing.

I'm saying as a good American (making an assumption there), you have an obligation to unmask these fraudsters, not on Internet forums, but in the halls of power! Go get 'em!

[SumJongGuy]

America's largest private coal miner files for bankruptcy

[stalefish3169]

This is fine.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

[WMD]

Combine the two and its pretty clear this study is worthless unless you want to make headlines and keep that gravy train of climate science funding flowing.

This is so true. Those fucking billionaire climate scientists will say anything to keep the funding going so they can get even bigger yachts and 3rd and 4th houses in Jackson, the Yellowstone Club and Aspen!

[ron johnson]

This is so true. Those fucking billionaire climate scientists will say anything to keep the funding going so they can get even bigger yachts and 3rd and 4th houses in Jackson, the Yellowstone Club and Aspen!

Those climate scientists don't have a job if global warming isn't viewed as a major problem.

[SumJongGuy]

Those climate scientists don't have a job if global warming isn't viewed as a major problem.

This is such a crock of bullshit. We've had the need for climate scientists for eons. They plan corp engineering so seeds are designed to thrive in predicted climate. National security is another key aspect of the climate forecasting. Yelling at people to go green is about way more than energy futures and the climate scientists aren't the ones lining their pockets from that aspect.