The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE

https://www.climatethemovie.net/

It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

On 3/31/2024 5:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:
> The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE
>
> https://www.climatethemovie.net/
>
> It's rather an uphill battle I fear.
>

The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the
creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
it, they tended to listen. Science denial is science denial, but what
is the real issue with global warming?

We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely did
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
increasing for thousands of years.

We need to better define what the crisis is.

We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate. The
temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now. We
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
bad as they got without human industrial interference.

There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
ice age. We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to
be that bad. We got a taste of what things would be like when
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
to be responsible for our current global warming. Since we are around
the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
getting colder without human intervention. Europe would have been
rendered nearly uninhabitable. The Greenland colony died out during
this cold period. North America's northern latitudes would have likely
failed to be colonized by Europeans. The industrial revolution would
have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator. We would be
crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.

So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is. The earth has seen
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago. If we delay the
next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm
period is extended. What we observe today are the remnants of what has
survived thousands of years of reduced habitat. A lot of arctic species
had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution. Arctic
ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice. Things
started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago. It
may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
that something that we want to happen? Do we want to go back to a time
when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around? The Islands
worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
out and more of the coral atolls be exposed. They would have issues
with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
be something above sea level during the next warm period.

So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
probably, has to be figured out.

Ron Okimoto

On 31/03/2024 18:19, RonO wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 5:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:
>> The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE
>>
>> https://www.climatethemovie.net/
>>
>> It's rather an uphill battle I fear.
>>
>
> The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
> become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
> the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
> on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
> creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
> had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the
> creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
> it, they tended to listen.  Science denial is science denial, but what
> is the real issue with global warming?
>
> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Some
> people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
> methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.  We likely did
> accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
> but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
> increasing for thousands of years.
>
> We need to better define what the crisis is.
>
> We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
> the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
> earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
> million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
> interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate.  The
> temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
> 500,000 years.  The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
> ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now.  We
> have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
> bad as they got without human industrial interference.
>
> There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
> the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
> ice age.  We might delay the next ice age.  This really doesn't seem to
> be that bad.  We got a taste of what things would be like when
> temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
> didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
> to be responsible for our current global warming.  Since we are around
> the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
> getting colder without human intervention.  Europe would have been
> rendered nearly uninhabitable.  The Greenland colony died out during
> this cold period.  North America's northern latitudes would have likely
> failed to be colonized by Europeans.  The industrial revolution would
> have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator.  We would be
> crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
> get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.
>
> So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is.  The earth has seen
> warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
> levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
> before.  So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
> what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.  If we delay the
> next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm
> period is extended.  What we observe today are the remnants of what has
> survived thousands of years of reduced habitat.  A lot of arctic species
> had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution.  Arctic
> ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
> highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice.  Things
> started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago.  It
> may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
> that something that we want to happen?  Do we want to go back to a time
> when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
> year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around?  The Islands
> worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
> out and more of the coral atolls be exposed.  They would have issues
> with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
> water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
> be something above sea level during the next warm period.
>
> So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
> probably, has to be figured out.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Thank you so much for your comprehensive response, Ron. 🙂

Much appreciated.

Please clarify "NCSE" - I'm not certain to what organisation you refer.

--
David

RonO wrote:

> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Some
> people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
> methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.  We likely did
> accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
> but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
> increasing for thousands of years.

Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
and declaring that it doesn't match.

Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the
Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present
interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
level is maybe 16 feet too low.

So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.

So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
high at all, but actually pretty low.

"Ah, science!

Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
"Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.

Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!

Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
first place.

Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.

Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.

Google how much CO2 humans exhale.

Google the size of the human population at that time.

Google the size of the human population at the present.

Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
produces.

There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
billion tons.

REALITY: The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
for them.

Do the math.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On 3/31/2024 3:39 PM, JTEM wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>
>> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Some
>> people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible
>> because methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.  We likely
>> did accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
>> dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already
>> been increasing for thousands of years.
>
> Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
> not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
> and declaring that it doesn't match.
>
> Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the
> Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
> from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present
> interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
> level is maybe 16 feet too low.
>
> So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
> unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
> ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
> Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
> imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.
>
> So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
> just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
> high at all, but actually pretty low.
>
> "Ah, science!
>
> Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
> "Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
> the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
> thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.
>
> Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
> back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
> absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
> according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
> years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
> human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!
>
> Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
> 8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
> CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
> first place.
>
> Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.
>
> Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.
>
> Google how much CO2 humans exhale.
>
> Google the size of the human population at that time.
>
> Google the size of the human population at the present.
>
> Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
> the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
> produces.
>
> There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
> have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
> 16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
> industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
> billion tons.
>
> REALITY:  The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
> yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
> banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
> airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
> for them.
>
> Do the math.

Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote. No one can do that for your post because you removed
just about everything and left just some uncontroversial facts. If you
are responding to the video, you should make that clear, but you seem to
have snipped out that part of the post.

Ron Okimoto

RonO wrote:

> Before you do that, you should

Gwobull Warbling isn't science. It's religion. You are worse than
the Young Earth Creationists because they at least know that
they're operating on faith.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:13:38 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:

>On 3/31/2024 3:39 PM, JTEM wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>
>>> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Some
>>> people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible
>>> because methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.  We likely
>>> did accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
>>> dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already
>>> been increasing for thousands of years.
>>
>> Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
>> not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
>> and declaring that it doesn't match.
>>
>> Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the
>> Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
>> from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present
>> interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
>> level is maybe 16 feet too low.
>>
>> So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
>> unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
>> ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
>> Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
>> imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.
>>
>> So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
>> just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
>> high at all, but actually pretty low.
>>
>> "Ah, science!
>>
>> Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
>> "Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
>> the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
>> thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.
>>
>> Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
>> back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
>> absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
>> according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
>> years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
>> human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!
>>
>> Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
>> 8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
>> CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
>> first place.
>>
>> Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.
>>
>> Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.
>>
>> Google how much CO2 humans exhale.
>>
>> Google the size of the human population at that time.
>>
>> Google the size of the human population at the present.
>>
>> Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
>> the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
>> produces.
>>
>> There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
>> have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
>> 16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
>> industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
>> billion tons.
>>
>> REALITY:  The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
>> yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
>> banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
>> airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
>> for them.
>>
>> Do the math.
>
>Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
>actually wrote. No one can do that for your post because you removed
>just about everything and left just some uncontroversial facts. If you
>are responding to the video, you should make that clear, but you seem to
>have snipped out that part of the post.
>
Exactly as has been his standard MO for years, and the
reason why any response to him is a waste of time.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 12:19:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

>On 3/31/2024 5:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:
>> The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE
>>
>> https://www.climatethemovie.net/
>>
>> It's rather an uphill battle I fear.
>>
>
>The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
>become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
>the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
>on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
>creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
>had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the
>creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
>it, they tended to listen. Science denial is science denial, but what
>is the real issue with global warming?
>
>We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
>people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
>methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely did
>accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
>but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
>increasing for thousands of years.
>
>We need to better define what the crisis is.
>
>We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
>the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
>earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
>million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
>interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate. The
>temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
>500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
>ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now. We
>have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
>bad as they got without human industrial interference.
>
>There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
>the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
>ice age. We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to
>be that bad. We got a taste of what things would be like when
>temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
>didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
>to be responsible for our current global warming. Since we are around
>the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
>getting colder without human intervention. Europe would have been
>rendered nearly uninhabitable. The Greenland colony died out during
>this cold period. North America's northern latitudes would have likely
>failed to be colonized by Europeans. The industrial revolution would
>have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator. We would be
>crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
>get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.
>
>So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is. The earth has seen
>warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
>levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
>before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
>what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago. If we delay the
>next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm
>period is extended. What we observe today are the remnants of what has
>survived thousands of years of reduced habitat. A lot of arctic species
>had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution. Arctic
>ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
>highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice. Things
>started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago. It
>may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
>that something that we want to happen? Do we want to go back to a time
>when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
>year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around? The Islands
>worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
>out and more of the coral atolls be exposed. They would have issues
>with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
>water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
>be something above sea level during the next warm period.
>
>So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
>probably, has to be figured out.
>
>Ron Okimoto

The crisis is from not just the high levels of CO2 and CH4 but also
CO2's unprecedented rapid rise, making it difficult for both nature
and civilization to adapt to AGW changes. CH4 levels are also
increasing, not just from anthropic sources, but also from rotting
organic matter which was previously sequestered in permafrost, but is
now exposed due to AGW, one of many positive feedback loops. That CH4
is removed from the atmosphere more quickly isn't nearly as important
in the short term as its greater ability to absorb solar energy, which
is 26-87 times that of CO2.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCt2MhOzWVE>

If you think past glaciers were no fun, just consider living during
the Permian Extinction. AGW deniers would have us do nothing until
the world's continents become deserts and the world's oceans become
anoxic swamps.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 3/31/24 3:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:
> The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE
>
> https://www.climatethemovie.net/
>
> It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

The website's intended audience appears to be illiterate people. I
didn't find any text summarizing, much less laying out and supporting,
Durkin's points. If you would be willing to do supply such text, then I
can discuss it with you.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 3/31/24 5:08 PM, JTEM wrote:
>  RonO wrote:
>
>> Before you do that, you should
>
> Gwobull Warbling isn't science. It's religion. You are worse than
> the Young Earth Creationists because they at least know that
> they're operating on faith.

The issue is worse than religion; it is fundamentalist economics. It
particularly demonstrates the market failures of externalities and power.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Symptom of a major personality disorder, Bob Casanova wrote:

> Exactly as has been his

Courageously replying to yourself, again. Well. Less chance
of having your fantasy of relevance shattered...

You're a narcissist. A classic narcissist, utterly convinced
of it's own worthlessness. That's why you need to do this.

I'm laughing at you.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery wrote:

> The crisis is from not just the high levels of CO2 and CH4 but also
> CO2's unprecedented rapid rise, making it difficult for both nature
> and civilization to adapt to AGW changes.

How long did it take the climate to warm up for the Medieval Warm
Period, exactly?

Do you have any clue what so ever? Of course not. You're simply
regurgitating the media, convincing yourself that it's "Science,"
and believing this makes you intelligent.

> If you think past glaciers were no fun, just consider living during
> the Permian Extinction. AGW deniers would have us do nothing until
> the world's continents become deserts and the world's oceans become
> anoxic swamps.

As I pointed out, JUST FROM THE RISE IN HUMAN POPULATION, we are
producing more than twice as much CO2 as the fantasy claims to
have gotten your AGW started in the first place, back in the 19th
century, JUST FROM BREATHING.

Humans breathing produce more than TWICE AS MUCH CO2 as your
climate scriptures claim was enough to start AGW, looking at the
rise in human population.

Your own narrative is self refuting.

Not only would it be pointless to take any action but, the planet
would be better off if it were warmer. The Quaternary Period is an
ice age. The planet was warmer before it started. Ending the ice
age means making it warmer. Not ending the ice age means that
mountains of ice will once again scrape the northern hemisphere
clean.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 11:18:19 -0400, JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> The crisis is from not just the high levels of CO2 and CH4 but also
>> CO2's unprecedented rapid rise, making it difficult for both nature
>> and civilization to adapt to AGW changes.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCt2MhOzWVE>

>How long did it take the climate to warm up for the Medieval Warm
>Period, exactly?

Specify exactly how Medieval Warm Period is especially relevant.

>Do you have any clue what so ever? Of course not. You're simply
>regurgitating the media, convincing yourself that it's "Science,"
>and believing this makes you intelligent.
>
>> If you think past glaciers were no fun, just consider living during
>> the Permian Extinction. AGW deniers would have us do nothing until
>> the world's continents become deserts and the world's oceans become
>> anoxic swamps.
>
>As I pointed out, JUST FROM THE RISE IN HUMAN POPULATION, we are
>producing more than twice as much CO2 as the fantasy claims to
>have gotten your AGW started in the first place, back in the 19th
>century, JUST FROM BREATHING.

The above presumes the rise in human population appeared by magic,
perhaps from God breathing life into dust.

>Humans breathing produce more than TWICE AS MUCH CO2 as your
>climate scriptures claim was enough to start AGW, looking at the
>rise in human population.
>
>Your own narrative is self refuting.
>
>Not only would it be pointless to take any action but, the planet
>would be better off if it were warmer. The Quaternary Period is an
>ice age. The planet was warmer before it started. Ending the ice
>age means making it warmer. Not ending the ice age means that
>mountains of ice will once again scrape the northern hemisphere
>clean.

The cite you deleted makes clear there's a difference between ice ages
and interglacials. Try reading for comprehension instead.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> Specify exactly how Medieval Warm Period is especially relevant.

No. You are a goddamn jackass troll.

You pretended that something was unprecedented, yet admit that
you haven't the faintest clue as to WHAT the precedents are.

Now double down and pretend you didn't do either of these things,
like a good mental case.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:34:14 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> posted yet
another self-parody:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Specify exactly how Medieval Warm Period is especially relevant.
>
>No. You are a goddamn jackass troll.
>
>You pretended that something was unprecedented, yet admit that
>you haven't the faintest clue as to WHAT the precedents are.
>
>Now double down and pretend you didn't do either of these things,
>like a good mental case.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> To know less than

If you want to know what the Holocene should look
like the last thing you should ever do is compare
it to the Holocene. You'd compare the Holocene to
the Eemian... in which case, it's too cold right
now. It's cold and sea level is roughly 16 feet
too low.

Compare this interglacial to the last one and it's
cold. It's the opposite of warm. Which explains
why the Gwobull Warbling fraud compares the
Holocene to itself and then declares it doesn't
match.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 02:35:02 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you want to know what the Holocene should look
>like the last thing you should ever do is compare
>it to the Holocene.

Also, don't piss into the wind.

>You'd compare the Holocene to
>the Eemian... in which case, it's too cold right
>now. It's cold and sea level is roughly 16 feet
>too low.

The Eemian was the penultimate interglacial. There were many other
interglacials. Some were warmer and some were colder than now. You're
cherrypicking.

>Compare this interglacial to the [previous] one and it's
>cold. It's the opposite of warm. Which explains
>why the Gwobull Warbling fraud compares the
>Holocene to itself and then declares it doesn't
>match.

I know of no authoritative article which compares the Holocene to
itself.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

RonO wrote:

>
> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Some
> people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
> methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.

They are right to worry. The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per square
meter as compared to pre-industrial times. Crudely speaking, this
accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.

Why is it so? Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is not
that short, being about 11 years. As it is far more effective at
absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.

When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water vapour,
which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself. And this effect lasts.

The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a century,
is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4 will be long
gone at the end of that period.

It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in the
atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial times,
but CH4 is up 160%.

Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us. As the world
warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered organic
carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2. Arctic soils, in particular, hold
vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more than tropical soils.
Field experiments have shown that the rate at which arctic areas are
giving off greenhouse gases is increasing. This positive feedback could
grow very nasty indeed.

We likely did
> accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
> but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
> increasing for thousands of years.

Time scales matter.

The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about 20k
years ago, most of that in the first 10k. We have now warmed the earth
one degree C in less than two centuries. And eight billion of us depend
on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to that earlier climate.

It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
stable ecosystems. Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant (and
less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub. And that's just the beginning.

>
> We need to better define what the crisis is.
>
> We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
> the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
> earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
> million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
> interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate.  The
> temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
> 500,000 years.  The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
> ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now.

Eemian warmth was different. At this time the orbital eccentricity was
more than double the current value. With perihelion occurring in
summer, this led to strong increases in summer temperatures, decreases
in winter. The obliquity was also larger, meaning more heat in higher
latitudes.

The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also be
difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and polar
records. Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not directly
comparable to our little experiment which will be year-round warmth,
with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.

And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
people.

  We
> have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
> bad as they got without human industrial interference.
>
> There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
> the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
> ice age.

As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
interpretation.

  We might delay the next ice age.  This really doesn't seem to
> be that bad.

Nor would it be good. Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms. If we
still are an industrial society when the next one comes along - some
time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to deal with it.

Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to Julius
Caesar worrying about world war II.

We got a taste of what things would be like when
> temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
> didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
> to be responsible for our current global warming.

The little ice age ended well before CO2 from industry became a
significant factor in climate. It has been shown that stratospheric
aerosols caused by increased volcanism account for about 60% of the
little ice age cooling. Given the noisy data, that's about as good as
can expect, though solar, GHG and land-use effects were also accounted for.

  The earth has seen
> warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
> levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
> before.  So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
> what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.

You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels. See above.

William Hyde

RonO wrote:

> Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
> actually wrote.  No one

Ah! The collective doubles-down on it's stupidity, yet
again!

FOR ONCE, just stand by your own goddamn position. You don't
always have to be such a pussy.

The earth hasn't been warming for thousands of years. And even
THAT kind of time frame is laughable! The Holocene, our
present ice age, if some 2.6 million years old!

Honey cakes, "The Little Ice Age" ended and the planet started
to regain what it had lost. We never made it. We still haven't
reached the highs seen before "The Little Ice Age."

If you lend me $100 and I pay you back $80, you're $20 poorer,
NOT $80 richer! Same with temperatures. We lost warmth during
"The Little Ice Age" and we never climbed back up to what we
lost. It's cold.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery wrote:

> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you want to know what the Holocene should look
>> like the last thing you should ever do is compare
>> it to the Holocene.

> Also, don't

You're proving my point: You're retarded.

> The Eemian was the penultimate interglacial. There were many other
> interglacials. Some were warmer and some were colder than now.

How many had cars? Jet planes?

Again, you are retarded.

And it doesn't matter if you want to feel that comparing THIS
interglacial to the last on is unfair, because comparing THIS
one to THIS one is retarded.

So I can see the appeal, for you.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On 4/17/24 1:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
>  RonO wrote:
>
>> Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
>> actually wrote.  No one
>
> Ah!  The collective doubles-down on it's stupidity, yet
> again!

There is no collective. Ron's stupidity is his own. Jillery's stupidity
is her own. My stupidity is my own.

And of course your stupidity is unique.

JTEM wrote:

> The earth hasn't been warming for thousands of years. And even
> THAT kind of time frame is laughable!  The Holocene, our
> present ice age, if some 2.6 million years old!

Quaternary Period. Sorry.

The Holocene is the present "Interglacial," the present warm
period...though not very warm.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

John Harshman wrote:

> There is no collective.

...insisted the collective.

What triggered you this time? Because other than denying
your existence here -- "The collective doesn't exist!"
-- you couldn't identify anything you disagreed with.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On 4/17/24 7:15 PM, JTEM wrote:
>  John Harshman wrote:
>
>> There is no collective.
>
>         ...insisted the collective.
>
> What triggered you this time? Because other than denying
> your existence here -- "The collective doesn't exist!"
> -- you couldn't identify anything you disagreed with.

I have no interest in dealing with your crap, most of the time. I'm now
experimenting to see if I can convince you of one tiny and obvious bit
of reality. Solipsism is a bad look for you.

John Harshman wrote:

> I have no interest

And yet you replied. You read and reacted, allegedly
to what I typed, yet you have no interest and you're
a totally different personality disorder from your
present symptoms of your extensive mental health issues.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5