When will Earth's energy imbalance, turns from warming to cooling?

[Lord of Planar]

I LOVE (love, love, love) how anything that disagrees with you is a "lie".

That looks pretty professional.

I'm speaking of the lies from the pundits. The ignorant masses listen to the media. The media lies. in general, their only concern is prophet, and that means coloring the facts.

Is it your claim that the pundits are honest?

What about that BBC article you pushed as factual. I pointed out from the paper where they lied.

Are you claiming I am wrong? Please do explain if so.

 

[longview]

Ummmm—it’s quite ridiculous to think that AGW could somehow be “laboratory tested”, every bit as ridiculous as saying that evolution that has happened over billions of years can be “laboratory tested”. You and Lord don’t know much about science if you think that it only happens in the “laboratory”. Could the atom bomb be tested “in the laboratory” or was it all basically theory until the first one was set off. We’re talking about the ATMOSPHERE here and there are many other scientific methodologies being used other than the “laboratory”. I can’t believe you actually said that.

Actually it is ridiculous the suggest The Who is more important than the data, and yes how the climate has responded in the past to warming perturbations, is a way to test how it will likely respond in the future.
P.S. Trinity was a lab test of the atom bomb!

 

[istodolez]

I'm speaking of the lies from the pundits. The ignorant masses listen to the media. The media lies. in general, their only concern is prophet, and that means coloring the facts.

Is it your claim that the pundits are honest?

What about that BBC article you pushed as factual. I pointed out from the paper where they lied.

Are you claiming I am wrong? Please do explain if so.

Oh man! I just love it that you never, ever assume someone might be either mistaken or simply disagree with you. No, in your view, they are ALWAYS LIARS.

If you really want people to believe you are an adult you will use language more carefully.

Stop accusing everyone you disagree with of "lying" all the time.

 

[watsup]

Actually it is ridiculous the suggest The Who is more important than the data, and yes how the climate has responded in the past to warming perturbations, is a way to test how it will likely respond in the future.
P.S. Trinity was a lab test of the atom bomb!

That’s not “in the lab”. That’s methodologies outside of “the lab”.

 

[watsup]

I'm speaking of the lies from the pundits. The ignorant masses listen to the media. The media lies. in general, their only concern is prophet, and that means coloring the facts.

Is it your claim that the pundits are honest?

What about that BBC article you pushed as factual. I pointed out from the paper where they lied.

Are you claiming I am wrong? Please do explain if so.

“The pundits”. *L*. It’s all “pundits and blogs” to Lord. Evidently real climate scientists don’t work on this stuff.

 

[calamity]

“The pundits”. *L*. It’s all “pundits and blogs” to Lord. Evidently real climate scientists don’t work on this stuff.

lol...deniers only trust laymen. Experts are all part of the "conspiracy" to sell the "global warming hoax."

It's not a rational position to take. But, they do stick to it.

 

[watsup]

lol...deniers only trust laymen. Experts are all part of the "conspiracy" to sell the "global warming hoax."

It's not a rational position to take. But, they do stick to it.

See my “Denier Talking Points” thread. They hit a lot of them every single week.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh man! I just love it that you never, ever assume someone might be either mistaken or simply disagree with you. No, in your view, they are ALWAYS LIARS.

If you really want people to believe you are an adult you will use language more carefully.

Stop accusing everyone you disagree with of "lying" all the time.

The BBC article pushed the idea of the cooling time-frame as fact, when the paper only had that number in the abstract. The BBC clearly did lie by definition. The abstract is all that anyone could see in that paper unless, like me, have access to that journal. Now either the journalist didn't have access to anything past the abstract, they didn't understand the paper, or they didn't expect anyone to fact check.

I am very disappointed in you. You took a media article as fact without doing fact checking. This is why I point out "confirmation bias on your part." You have done this so many times, I have lost count. You keep passing yourself off as better than me, yet you constantly make sophomoric mistakes.

The article was clear in that they were expanding the general idea of interglacial periods. The abstract never said the 1,500 years was their conclusion. The addressed the low eccentricity as I have on numerous occasions.

I would appreciate it if you stopped passing yourself off as better than others, until you stop making such idiotic mistakes.

 

[longview]

That’s not “in the lab”. That’s methodologies outside of “the lab”.

The walls of the "lab" are not as well defined as you assume!
A lab test, is something that others can repeat, and get similar results, like Einstein's eclipse photograph.

 

[watsup]

The walls of the "lab" are not as well defined as you assume!
A lab test, is something that others can repeat, and get similar results, like Einstein's eclipse photograph.

That still has nothing to do with evolution that took billions of years or AGW which is occurring over many decades in the atmosphere. To think that they could somehow be “repeated” in the “lab” shows a severe lack of understanding of science. It’s a ridiculous statement.

 

[longview]

That still has nothing to do with evolution that took billions of years or AGW which is occurring over many decades in the atmosphere. To think that they could somehow be “repeated” in the “lab” shows a severe lack of understanding of science. It’s a ridiculous statement.

I think so! Our lab is, how the climate has responded to past temperature perturbations.
The physics does not change, so the future response, should be similar to the past response.

 

[calamity]

I think so! Our lab is, how the climate has responded to past temperature perturbations.
The physics does not change, so the future response, should be similar to the past response.

In theory, we should be in a cooling phase. That we are not, and instead are now warming should raise flags. That you fail to see this is kind of funny. It's like you are literally bending over backwards to deny AGW.

 

[longview]

In theory, we should be in a cooling phase. That we are not, and instead are now warming should raise flags. That you fail to see this is kind of funny. It's like you are literally bending over backwards to deny AGW.

You say in theory we should be in a cooling phase, who said that, do you have an actual citation?
In theory, we may enter a cooling phase sometime in the next few thousand years, but that is no certainty
that we should have already entered another cooling phase.
I do not deny that Human activity has an effect on the climate, but am skeptical of the
mid to high end of the predicted feedbacks.
How the climate has responded to past warming perturbations, (Pre 1950 warming),
shows a 2XCO2 ECS of between 1.2 and 2.2 C, with an average of 1.76C.
If you put that into perspective, it means that without any technology improvements, by about 2070,
average temperatures will be about 1.76C higher than the pre industrial temperatures.
But seeing as we are improving technology all the time, and could soon eliminate transport from the emission category,
as well as storing poor duty cycle zero emission energy, the prospect looks good that we will never hit the first doubling of CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In theory, we should be in a cooling phase. That we are not, and instead are now warming should raise flags. That you fail to see this is kind of funny. It's like you are literally bending over backwards to deny AGW.

That isn't the case. This idea is expecting cycle to repeat itself that has more variables that we had time to track. The next ice age will be far longer. Around 10,000 years from now. I will add my personal claim that it will be even longer than that, because the eccentricity will reach a very low point in 26,000 years, and I will contend the effects of the eccentricity is underestimated.

The abstract of this paper even puts earlier thoughts out as far as 1,500 years. Not now, but this paper say why it shouldn't be for another 10,000 years:

Determining the natural length of the current interglacial.

Now the abstract does say "Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5 ppmv." However, the article itself is challenging this idea. Not agreeing with it. However, the paper is not available to the general public. I subscribe to Nature Geoscience, so I have full access. The first paragraph of the paper says:

The notion that the Holocene (or Marine Isotope Stage 1, MIS1), already 11.6 thousand years (kyr) old, may be drawing to a close has been based on the observation that the duration of recent interglacials was approximately half a precession cycle (∼11 kyr; ref. 8). However, uncertainty over an imminent hypothetical glaciation arises from the current subdued amplitude of insolation variations as a result of low orbital eccentricity (Fig. 1). It has thus been proposed that at times of weak eccentricity–precession forcing, obliquity is the dominant astronomical parameter driving ice-volume changes, leading to extended interglacial duration of approximately half an obliquity cycle (∼21 kyr; ref. 9). In this view, the next glacial inception would occur near the obliquity minimum ∼10 kyr from now.
[/QUOTE]

It would help your knowledge if you read ther actual papers instead of what the lying pundits tell you.

 

[istodolez]

The BBC article pushed the idea of the cooling time-frame as fact, when the paper only had that number in the abstract. The BBC clearly did lie by definition. The abstract is all that anyone could see in that paper unless, like me, have access to that journal. Now either the journalist didn't have access to anything past the abstract, they didn't understand the paper, or they didn't expect anyone to fact check.

I am very disappointed in you. You took a media article as fact without doing fact checking. This is why I point out "confirmation bias on your part." You have done this so many times, I have lost count. You keep passing yourself off as better than me, yet you constantly make sophomoric mistakes.

The article was clear in that they were expanding the general idea of interglacial periods. The abstract never said the 1,500 years was their conclusion. The addressed the low eccentricity as I have on numerous occasions.

I would appreciate it if you stopped passing yourself off as better than others, until you stop making such idiotic mistakes.

I LOVE how everyone on earth who disagrees with you (even if by mistake) is LYING.

This is NOT making you appear to be an adult.

 

[istodolez]

“The pundits”. *L*. It’s all “pundits and blogs” to Lord. Evidently real climate scientists don’t work on this stuff.

And note that whenever anything disagrees with Lord, they are "LYING". No one on earth can be in error or simply disagree with the Lord...they must be lying.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I LOVE how everyone on earth who disagrees with you (even if by mistake) is LYING.

This is NOT making you appear to be an adult.

Junior high? Maybe. Seems about right. Typos out the wazoo, petulance, black-and-white thinking, accusations.

That's it.

I see you are incapable of addressing the topic again, so you ounce again, resort to personal cuts. This action of your is clearly making you not look like an adult. You accuse me here of your own failures.

 

[OrphanSlug]

How about we slow down the damage to things as we see them now, before getting into a contest over what things should be in fantasy land?

 

[Lord of Planar]

How about we slow down the damage to things as we see them now, before getting into a contest over what things should be in fantasy land?

Where would you start? I would start with actual pollution like chemicals and aerosols we output. For the most part, the USA and other first world nations have mastered minimizing our impact on the environment, but how do you get the other nations of the world to comply?

How do you solve the problems of land use changes without putting a legal cap on birthrates?

Have any suggestions?

 

[Lord of Planar]

And note that whenever anything disagrees with Lord, they are "LYING". No one on earth can be in error or simply disagree with the Lord...they must be lying.

I'm sorry that you think that. I wish you would expand your mind instead of being to black and white.

 

[longview]

How about we slow down the damage to things as we see them now, before getting into a contest over what things should be in fantasy land?

It is subjective if the observed changes to the climate are more beneficial than harmful.
Earth is greening up all over, and the pant hardiness zones are increasing in size, allowing more arable land.

 

[istodolez]

I'm sorry that you think that. I wish you would expand your mind instead of being to black and white.

"too" is the word you were looking for. Professionals know the difference between "to", "too" and "two".

(Sorry you are so poor with the language.)

 

[istodolez]

I see you are incapable of addressing the topic again, so you ounce again, resort to personal cuts. This action of your is clearly making you not look like an adult. You accuse me here of your own failures.

LOL! And again you go for the junior high school "Nuh-huh! I'm not that...YOU ARE!"

What a child.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Where would you start? I would start with actual pollution like chemicals and aerosols we output. For the most part, the USA and other first world nations have mastered minimizing our impact on the environment, but how do you get the other nations of the world to comply?

How do you solve the problems of land use changes without putting a legal cap on birthrates?

Have any suggestions?

We have no choice but to appeal to international organizations and treaty, then link international participation to policy. Sounds rough but there is not much else available to organize a change all nations at least in part agree to.

As for the birthrate bit, the baiting in your question, I'll respond with the 'I generally dislike everyone born on a Thursday' theory.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"too" is the word you were looking for. Professionals know the difference between "to", "too" and "two".

(Sorry you are so poor with the language.)

It would be nice if for once you would address things related to the topic, and stop going out of your way to attack me. I showed you wrong, and all you do is find ways to bully me for pointing out the facts you don't like.

I have noticed several spelling mistakes in your posts as well. I just don't point them out because it doesn't address the topic.

So... back to the BBC article you linked. After I pointed out its shortcomings, what is your viewpoint?