We have been over the "supposed to be cooling" stuff already, there is no real predicted timing for the beginning of the next ice age,Basically you are just going to ignore anything that is provided in response to your requests? Everything in science is wrong except your interpretation?
I like how you take large-scale changes like glacial/interglacial stuff and ignore the shorter term stuff going on since 1850. It's like thinking that a volcanic precursor expansion is meaningless since the earth itself isn't expanded as much as during the initial accretion stage. (Also sea level rise may have been increased after glaciation as LAND-BASED continental glaciation melts and raises sea water as well)
The glacial-interglacial stuff is interesting because we SHOULD BE GOING INTO A COOLING phase given what we know about Milankovich Cycles, yet we aren't. But I guess we just ignore that because it is incovenient?
We have been over the "supposed to be cooling" stuff already, there is no real predicted timing for the beginning of the next ice age,
The 1500 years is the uncertainty of when the next cooling cycle could begin, you are implyingRegardless of your insistence otherwise we do have a reasonable idea on the length of Milankovich Cycles and we have MANY glacial-interglacial cycles in the Cenozoic to establish a trend.
Besides, it's not like in 1500 years the temp is going to suddenly plummet!
These are related to orbital changes of the earth which take place over long periods of time.
As for the speed, have you read the report from the little ice age, where the glacier was creeping
The 1500 years is the uncertainty of when the next cooling cycle could begin, you are implying
that you know it already should have begun.
As for the speed, have you read the report from the little ice age, where the glacier was creeping
down the valley at the range of a musket shot per day, even in the summer!
Feedbacks work both ways!
I am not saying it did, but simply pointing out that cooling and the changes that follow it can happen quickly.The little ice age has nothing to do with the Cenozoic ice ages we are talking about.
I am familiar with James Hansen's activist role.Is this the James Hansen whose graphs and data you keep showing:
“Thirty years after a former Nasa scientist sounded the alarm for the general public about climate change and human activity, the expert issued a fresh warning that the world is failing “miserably” to deal with the worsening dangers.”
Ex-Nasa scientist: 30 years on, world is failing 'miserably’ to address climate change
James Hansen, who gave a climate warning in 1988 Senate testimony, says real hoax is by leaders claiming to take actionwww.theguardian.com
I am not saying it did, but simply pointing out that cooling and the changes that follow it can happen quickly.
I am familiar with James Hansen's activist role.
What post did I say the CO2 should not be considered the Primary cause of global warming?You keep claiming that human-caused CO2 should not be considered as the primary cause for global warming, but that other factors should be considered more greatly. Can you cite an actual climate scientist or scientists who agree with you? I'm not asking for more of your data and charts. I'm asking for you to cite some scientists who agree with your conclusions. Can you do that?
What post did I say the CO2 should not be considered the Primary cause of global warming?
I said that the warming from increased CO2 is not of much concern.
I think Richard Lindzen comes fairly close.
Lindzen Choi 2011
"In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally
exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. "
If you had bothered to look, I used Hansen's predictions as a comparison to show the the predictions were not holding up.That didn’t answer my question. He has long been a proponent that CO2 as produced by man’s efforts is far and away the most vital component of global warming, which would indicate that you are taking his data out of context and having it say exactly the opposite of his intent, which would further mean that we simply cannot trust any of your inputs that contain his data, or any others that contain data, for that matter.
That didn’t answer my question. He has long been a proponent that CO2 as produced by man’s efforts is far and away the most vital component of global warming,
which would indicate that you are taking his data out of context
and having it say exactly the opposite of his intent, which would further mean that we simply cannot trust any of your inputs that contain his data, or any others that contain data, for that matter.
People can point to any natural weather event and say, "There, this is evidence of global warming!!!"I am not certain what you mean by “of not much concern”. The environmental problems caused by global warming are already being felt around the world, and I doubt that there is anyone out there who says that they will not steadily get worse. Why should that not be of concern?
If you had bothered to look, I used Hansen's predictions as a comparison to show the the predictions were not holding up.
He may be an activist, but when he was doing actual science, his work was sound up to the point where he input his assumptions.
Read about the Wonderland model and ghost forcing.
People can point to any natural weather event and say, "There, this is evidence of global warming!!!"
just saying the words, does not make it so.
Here is one of the examples I already cited.It depends on what you mean by “not holding up”. When were the predictions made? Yes, predictions are models and are not mean to be exact, but there are also predictions whereby the actual conditions are WORSE, such as the melting of one in the Arctic. Overall, the arc of the various models are holding up in their basic formulation of increased CO2 and feedback, and again, it is WORSE than many predictions.
People can point to any natural weather event and say, "There, this is evidence of global warming!!!"
just saying the words, does not make it so.
What post did I say the CO2 should not be considered the Primary cause of global warming?
I said that the warming from increased CO2 is not of much concern.
I think Richard Lindzen comes fairly close.
Lindzen Choi 2011
"In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally
exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. "
First off there is almost no weather related event, that someone can point to and say with any certainty,Again, you did not answer the question. Why should we not be concerned about the potential for an increase in very devastating environmental effects? Of we caused the problem, should we not take on the responsibility to fix it? Why not?
Here is one of the examples I already cited.
Hansen 1997 had a reference of how much warming he expected by latitude, vs the observed warming by latitude from
The GISS, the data set Hansen set up.
Do you see any difference between the predicted and observed curves?
View attachment 67313483
First off there is almost no weather related event, that someone can point to and say with any certainty,
that the event would not have happened if CO2 levels had not increased.
Global greening is about the only thing that is beyond question from higher CO2 levels.
We have a responsibility to address the actual problems facing humanity, not the imagined ones!
We must quickly solve our energy problem, that is the long pole in the tent!
As I have said, since CO2 is the same in both Hemispheres, as is the surface 15 um emissions, then something other than CO2Worse than predicted:
“ Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.”
Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change
A book entitled Discerning Experts explains why—and what can be done about itblogs.scientificamerican.com
What, You cannot see that Hansen predicted peak warming at both poles, but the observedYou’re going to need to expand. Exactly what is it that you want me to see?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?