re: More proof that global warming is bullshite, Penguins are dying due to excessive ice

quote:

---

So given such "clear science" and your comical aversion to its requisite self-healing premise, how then do you explain cyclical ice age CO2 variances?

---

What period in particular do you want to discuss?

Different periods have different causes and effects, but the underlying science that drives these changes: like how orbital or axle shifts can affect sun radiation on the planets surface, photosynthesis, tectonic shifts, and the presence of GHG's is not in dispute, what those cause and effects were precisely and what variables were at work has some disagreement As it is impossible to a complete 4 billion year history, so some gaps in knowledge the further you go back into the historical planetary record exist.

CO2 can both lag and drive temperature changes. That is a common misconception denialist's perpetuate(or just don't understand). For instance an orbital shift can bring more of the suns radiation and heat to the surface, triggering melting that releases CO2 or methane captured in the earth into the atmosphere increasing the atmospheric concentration and creating a feedback loop. The proliferation of photosynthetic organisms and the carbon silicate relationship are ways the CO2 in the atmosphere can be reduced.

quote:

---

But as a warmist, you'll find yourself supporting a self-healing hypothesis in some form

---

Nope. No evidence for such nonsense. Thats how science works. Kinda like the flood nonsense you are getting on now. There isn't evidence of a mass extinction level flood 6000 year ago like the bible infers. And posting random pictures of Earth's topography without their context makes you look even more questionable. Especially if you are inferring they prove your argument.

quote:

---

You aren't proving evidence of the Great Deluge. Large scale regional flooding, but no mass extinction event.

---

Yeah, because all those dinos just wandered into the same pit to die. At the exact same time that conditions were right for them to be forever fossilized. Over and over again in all these different countries




7,600 fossils found in pit in China

16 fossils in La Brea tar pits found so far

1500 fossils found in Dinosaur Natl Park, Utah

Multpile fossil species found in Hell Creek Bed, Montana

Coelophysis Quarry, New Mexico over 1,000 rare species fossilized together

thousands of dinosaurs found in Alberta bonebed having drowned in flood




Only one force on Earth powerful enough to move that number of animals, that varied of species, and that amount of total weight, and stack them together as a last act before fossilization . . . . Water

quote:

---

You don't seem to realize what you are posting. Like usual.

---

:sigh: I have the sadz

You bolded this section and say it refutes 400,000 years of ice core data? Pease note the underlined words that you clearly missed before eagerly posting, demonstrating your lack of understanding of the meaning of words

quote:

---

but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2.

---

I just told you we are saying that you shouldn't assume nor expect MODERN temps to do any differently from the historic data that we have seen over and over and over in the ice core samples

quote:

---

OTOH by the Great Deluge you childishly mean a flood literally covering the entire planet up to the tallest peaks of the Himalayas, and Noah gathering pairs of all fauna from the 7 continents, then no. I'm not "proving evidence".

---

I was

quote:

---

Again, different periods have different causations

---

So here's the graph . . . AGAIN.



I have no idea which "periods" you're referring to.
Brake down causation for the apparent cyclical CO2 variances anyway you'd like.

or . . .

You can continue to dodge the question as you've quite obviously been doing.
Es macht nichts.

quote:

---

If you are unfamiliar

---

You're trying too hard.

quote:

---

thing that needs to be established is how ignorant on this topic are you?

---

You're really trying too hard.

quote:

---

I question if you even understand how the greenhouse effect works?

---

You questioned that earlier. Foolish then, foolish now.

Have I told you you're really trying too hard.

quote:

---

I told you what I believe.

---

I missed it. So, yes or no to this question?




"Do you believe that human generated CO2 is a danger, or a problem facing the future of mankind?"

quote:

---

quote:

---

Brake down causation for the apparent cyclical CO2 variances anyway you'd like.

---

No.

---

Well then for goodness sakes, shut your ignorant damn derisive mouth in criticizing Robb and others on the topic.


. . . . and you said the science was clear.

quote:

---

Well then for goodness sakes, shut your ignorant damn derisive mouth in criticizing Robb and others on the topic.

---

It is not my responsibility to nurture your knowledge gaps. If you find my unwillingness to jump through every hoop you want me to jump through derisive, while you continually refuse to establish any breadth or depth of knowledge on this topic you are demanding others to show, thats your call.

Especially when you can't even help me establish where your knowledge gaps are, by refusing to answer the sort of basic questions needed to gauge your competency level on atmospheric science. Or at least establish where the fault lines are, like if you accept the established relationship of how GHG's affect atmospheres? The ways CO2 can both lead and lag temp changes, and what can and has caused that.

So explaining that in one instance, 19,000 years ago, orbital cycles caused a change in the amount of sunlight hitting earth, causing ice melts in high latitudes and setting off a chain of events that disrupted the AMOC, that led to a shift in the heat in hemispheres, which eventually led to the oceans heating up more and giving up more CO2. An event where CO2 lagged temp increases for the period, but the effect of the orbital cycles created a feedback loop once the CO2 release was triggered that further intensified and spread the warming of the planet.

That is pointless to explain to you if you are struggling to grasp concepts like the Milankovitch Cycle or lack a competency in how changes in GHG compositions of an atmosphere intensifies and spreads warming. And it would be further silly to try and explain the differences between that period and now, or any period really, if we can't establish where your knowledge gaps are. Because than it is just spitting into the wind and spinning our wheels. You aren't going to absorb anything and you just wasted your's and mine's time.

quote:

---

It is not my responsibility to nurture your knowledge gaps.

---

Dude, whenever you actually EVER fill in my knowledge gaps, I'll happily let you know, as I have with others here. You have literally never approached that status. Not once. Not close.

quote:

---

So explaining that in one instance, 19,000 years ago, orbital cycles caused a change in the amount of sunlight hitting earth, causing ice melts in high latitudes and setting off a chain of events that disrupted the AMOC, that led to a shift in the heat in hemispheres

---

bullshite!
Are you capable of independent thought?
At all?

Regular, predictable, cyclical CO2 undulation X >1Myrs and you quote one instance, 19,000 years ago.

You are better than that! and unlike you I am a really good judge of intellectual capacity. THINK!