Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

Oh please, the chart is a plotting of what is considered anomilous measurements nothing more. trying to establish that the chart is indications of anything else.

The chart is exactly what the scientific community claim it to be, I agree, that however is not what is stated here.

Simple to say, you do know what an anomaly actually is???

as there is no astablished line of bases to what anomaly is being measured I used the word prediction. This however seems to have limited your focus. shall we say agreed base??? I don't know what you wish to set the basis but an anomaly does have a predicated basis


I don't have time to return to this today, but simple to say, suggestion that that chart is anything other than difference in measurmetn and expected outcome is fabrication. nothing more.

 

No it isn't. This chart is plotting ALL measurements. You are confused as to what the term "anomaly" means.

Yes. Like I said I know exactly what an anomaly is.

I repeat...no predictions are included in this chart. And that's probably a good thing for you because predictions have underestimated the amount of sea ice melt that has occurred globally and especially in the Arctic region.

Anomaly analysis is used frequently in climate sciences and pretty much all scientific disciplines and for good reason. It has a lot of advantages. In this context an anomaly is the measured value of something relative to something else. For example, the Celsius temperature scale is itself an anomaly scale. Specifically it is the temperature relative to the freezing point of water. +10C means the measurement is 10 Kelvin higher than the freezing point of water. Likewise, in this specific case the measurements of sea ice extents are relative to the 1981-2010 baseline. The baseline is arbitrary and it literally doesn't matter what baseline period you use. The chart will look EXACTLY the same regardless. It is convention to use the most recent 30yr period as a baseline. That is why 1981-2010 is chosen. But, we could have used 1971-2000 and yet the chart would still look exactly the same.

So why use anomalies instead of raw data? Because they are more accurate. Here's how. Let ΔE be the change in extent. And ΔE = (Mn+B)-(Mo+B) where Mn is the newest measurement and Mo is the oldest measurement. B is the systematic bias of each measurement. Watch what happens here. ΔE = (Mn+B)-(Mo+B) = (Mn-Mo) + (B - B) = Mn - Mo. Did you catch it? When doing anomaly analysis the systematic bias B cancels out. That means you don't even need to know what the biases of the measurements even are because they just cancel out when doing anomaly measurements. The only difference in the chart mamooth posted is that we are using Mi and Ma where 'i' is individual measurement and 'a' is the average measurement over a certain period.

And why use standarized measures instead of raw? Because this better represents the magnitude of the changes based on how the data self describes it's variance. For example, a measurement that lies with 1σ (or 1 standard deviation from the mean) is said to represent 67% of the samples. 2σ is 95%, 3σ is 99.7%, and so on. Notice the odd behavior of the Antarctic sea ice extents. The extent whipped sawed from a 3.5σ record high event to a 5σ record low event. Did you know a 5σ event is said to occur with a probability of 1-in-1744278? This is an alarming event. How did we go from such an unlikely record high to an even more unlikely record low? And of course the trend on the Arctic sea ice is quite clearly down. This is expected. The prediction is that northern hemisphere temperatures and especially the north pole will increase faster and thus cause more ice melt than that of the southern hemisphere and south pole.

By the way, why are sea ice extents such an import measurement?

 

Just out of curiosity would you be happier if earth was cooling or would you still be a doomsdayer? Earth's climate is not stagnant you know. We will always be cooling or warming

 

When you use the "paid shill" tactic it is pointless having any other discussion with you because you have at that point conceded defeat. Have a nice day.

 

As the dead link showed, you were linking to stuff you couldn't be bothered to read, but still calling it proof. Very dishonest. You were busted for being a propaganda parrot, your had no response, so you're sulking and leaving. Don't worry. Given your past record, nobody expected better of you, so you're not disappointing anyone.

This is where you now go searching for some different debunked propaganda piece by some other paid shill. Then you'll start a new thread where you link to it, toss a lot of insults, and declare that everyone has to refute the entire thing or you win. When people try to discuss it, you'll whine about getting insults as an excuse to not discuss it.

We on the rational side could do that ... oh wait, we actually couldn't. Being on the rational side means we reject such intellectual cowardice.

 

Yes our planet is constantly changing in climate but this time the changes do not match scientific norms without adding in atmospheric composition interference. What I "Prefer" is irrelevant in this.

 

Now I do apologise with my previous post on this but I was extremely time poor and frankly I did not give it any real attention. So as promised I will return to it.

Now if you had made this point at the start we could have all had a good laugh and let your credibility die the death you put it too.

Personal attacks so quickly??? Clear demonstration of the desperation…
However, this personal attack I love the best. You thought by presuming to label me as arrogant this would somehow win an argument or swing others to support your efforts. Give you a hint, look up the term arrogant, you might get an idea about the pot calling the kettle black…

Err no it is showing anomalies, nothing more. You extrapolate that it shows the measurement you claim. Perhaps you should actually examine the paper this graph came from and find the other 3 anomaly graphs to find the graph you want this one to represent. You’re laying claim that this graph actually shows something the scientists are yet to release the data and papers that support that theory. The measurement or how it is plotted in no way supports your premise.

Oh Ad hominin,
Totally irrelevant, I have said nothing of what the sea ice melts of how it affects the oceans. I will say this; My focus has been on the Thermocline Ocean Currents, one of the Key drivers of climate on the planet. This has been attributed in the Antarctic sea ice theory that while the size of area has increased by over 8% some considerable anomalies have arisen in density. Since the study is extremely difficult due to many influences such as seasonal growth and melt and temperature changes the study which you claiming this chart is clear demonstration of is still being conducted.

YES, it is exactly what the scientific community claims it is. UNFORTUNATELY, it is not what is being claimed here.

Are you seriously trying to suggest there is ambiguity in the terms of reference??? Honestly are you really trying to suggest that to support your belief this chart is more than a chart of deviations from a standardised method of predications???

Oh I see you claim it is a chart of differences (deviations) from the average… That is what I have been saying all along so… Err not to put a fine point on it again, to be a deviation you must have predicated expectations to which is deviated from… If it is not a predicated measurement then in no way could it be considered to be demonstrative of reality as it is booked in hindsight which then becomes the mean not the reality… It is a chart of deviations… AS THE TITLE STATES.

Reality, NO. but yes that is the point. It is a chart showing the anomalies not the reality…

The fabrication is that this chart supports a claim of decline in sea ice. It does not. It does however support the science which is being used to test the theory of what is occurring because that is what it was designed to do. As stated previously, if you go to the paper that is provided you will find many more charts of anomalies that are used to validate the science not demonstrate the results or the theory.

You see you leave out that this is a standardised chart, meaning it is accepted science on the basis of the measurement, in this case the average. This discounts ALL outside influences that could dramatically change the outcomes because should these anomalies fall well out (as you suggest 20 below the mean) then the results have to be further substantiated to consider reality of influence.

Yes I am arrogant, I make no apology or care. if you haven’t worked out this stupid and foolish personal attack is far more damaging to you rather than me.

For example, YOU’RE COMMENTING IN A POLITICAL FORM.

Now not only that, you’re demanding I am wrong and you’re so far above me you normally don’t respond to people like me all in the same sentence. Most of us arrogant people like to separate out arrogance from our stupidity but you’re so good you didn’t need too.

And last, you demand I am wrong because whatever. I only state the obvious that you lose credibility when you post information claiming they are more than they are, as has been done here. Now I leave the assertion of who is right to those who read my words, I don’t claim victory as you do. After all your argument has been with an onlooker saying you have discredited you argument with somebody else by laying claim to something that is incorrect. I don’t argue with the onlooker like you.

And I could go on. But this is more like the fire box calling the kettle black…

 

No, it appears you want to introduce ambiguity in the terms of reference to make this chart fit your ideals. A chart of anomalies charts anomalies and nothing more. Again discrediting your argument by trying to depict another meaning.

Not according to the above you don’t.

Now, I don’t know why no predictions would be good for me, I guess you’re still building your strawman.


IN this case, there has to be a prediction and a deviation from that prediction to be chart to even come close to being argued that it shows some basis of what is really happening. OTHERWISE you are taking a subjective average, basing all measurements against that average as being a demonstration of a deviation outside the expectations. While you could do this to say you see an issue in the basis of activity over the timeframe, it is extremely poor science to say it is a demonstration of reality as that precludes all outside influence of the measurements such as the one force considered to be a main driver of your argument… Thermocline Ocean Currents…

Ok let us look at temperature then. Everybody understands temperature…


Let us say at this place I am at on December 2nd the average temperature is 25c. So we predict that next December the temperature will be 25c using a standardized method of using averages. YOUR claim is that if it as 24c or 26c which is an anomaly to that method, it is demonstrative to reality. Now We decide to chart this anomalies, how to we do it??? Well we could plot 1C as the anomaly or we could plot +-1c. we could also plot 1 anomaly or we could plot + or -. BUT if we really wanted to demonstrate the reality we would plot the actual temperature.

Now any normal person would say, ***** if you predicted months out within 1 degree the temperature of the day no matter which direction it is no anomaly, so we go even further and set a scientifically acceptable measurement such as mean with an error level of say 5c. The 5c error level coming from the mean of the top temp recorded to the mean to the lowest. Since I made the temperatures up I can suggest this was the result. SO the if the temp blows out to 35 or drops to 15 we have a 5c anomaly which we again can plot in many ways. NONE OF WHICH, demonstrates the reality as you claim.

Oh I have to laugh, Now you admit that an anomalous chart is important for showing anomalies in measurement not measurements???


Keep building your strawman, but I am beginning to wonder if you’re going to try attributing the sea ice melt to the Thermocline Ocean currents. That would make me laugh when you try to affirm a theory that has already been debunked by the scientific community themselves as observations have not met the theory…

 

So, two things here. Acknowledging that the Antarctic doesn't behave the way it "should" should actually tell you something about what you expect. Second, the observation that you again "expect" an outcome and don't see it doesn't cause you to question your expectation, only that you believe that the contrivance of your expectation must be correct. That seems super problematic, unscientific, actually. And as with all of these kinds of opinions, it is underpinned entirely in faith. Faith in the dogma which then demands that instead of actually doing real science, you'd take more comfort in ignoring the science to bask in your faith.

 

Of course this is the obvious question. And of course, when asked, those who believe won't actually answer that. The question is, why does dynamic climate bother them so much? And the only answer I can come up with is, it makes a living for them. Portending doom is a money making pursuit. Whether it be devoting time and resources to discovery of telling the doom, or spending time collecting the taxes based on the doom, it makes money. It seemingly becomes the self fulfilling prophecy of creating a financial self perpetuating money engine.

When you ask for solutions, there are none, other than taxing based on behavior. And now that those have been shown to be simply engines for the creation of yet more output that will create more issues. It seems antithetical then that the solutions being proffered would in any demonstrable way change the "direction" of climate change. That, in and of itself, should frame the conversation for evaluation.

What do we do then? Just tolerate the weight of the faith? Perhaps. Clearly the faithful don't have a solution.

 

" When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"

 

Was the little ice age era a "scientific norm" and would you prefer glaciers were gobbling up towns now as they were then?

 

"Climate change" is a safe description for leftist alarmists who want political change. It used to be called "global warming" which has always come in trends. Any one who has ever been outside knows climate always changes so they can't go wrong with the new title.

 

WOW....you have an interesting skill of ignoring data you do not like. And honestly I do not even care what happens anymore because it is too late to do anything about it and I'll be dead before it gets bad.

 

Nah, the observation is that you are unwilling to be reflective, and this only cements the observation. Of course there is data. The question isn't about the data, it's about your assumptions or, as you put it, expectations of what you expect. That isn't a data conversation, that's an expectation problem.

 

You are totally confused as to what the term "anomaly" means in this context. All it means is that the measurements are expressed in terms of being relative to something else. It does not mean that some data points are shown while others aren't. I repeat all data points are shown. For example, if the extent were 5 million sq km in 2016 and the 1981-2010 average were 10 million sq km then the anomaly is -5 million sq km. You can think of an anomaly in this context as being the exact same concept as a change in value relative to another value.

There are no predictions in that chart whatsoever. I posted the link to the raw data. You can rebuild the chart yourself by find the mean from 1981-2010 and using that as your anomaly baseline. You then subtract the baseline off of each individual data point. Those are the anomaly values. You then compute the standard deviation of the whole dataset and divide your individual data points by the standard deviation to get how sigma values the anomaly deviates from the standard. This is a really common way of presenting data in pretty much all disciplines of science.

Correct. If you choose your baseline as 25C then the anomaly for a 26C value would be ΔT = 26C - 25C = 1C. You just happen to use a forecasted value as your data point. That's fine. But, it doesn't have to be a forecasted value. It could be an actual observation.

When dealing with forecasts and the skill of those forecasts scientists typically use what's called an anomaly correlation coefficient. This is a little bit different than just a trivial anomaly. The ACC score is used to grade a forecast relative to another. Usually the baseline forecast is the climatological average. A climatological average is used as the baseline because it represents a forecast that is better than a random guess, but it doesn't require any degree of skill to compute. The statistical technique used here is usually the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Any quantity that can be predicted and observed can have an ACC score. ACC values > 0.6 are said to have skill. 1.0 is a perfect prediction.

Note that none of this has anything to do with the chart mamooth posted because it doesn't use predictions at all. All of the data points used in that chart are actual real observations. It's just that they are first normalized to an anomaly baseline and then "standardized" via the ubiquitous standard deviation calculations.

First, I made no such statement. In fact, I already explained why presenting data in terms of anomalies (or changes relative to a baseline) is useful. Second, I actually asked you a question to test your knowledge of the subject matter. I'll ask again. Why is sea ice extent an important metric to track?

I'm not sure what strawman you speak of. I'm just trying to explain to you what that chart shows.

Also, why do you think the Arctic sea ice is melting so rapidly?

 

Global Warming - The secular increase in the global mean surface temperature over long periods of time.

Climate Change - The changes in the geosphere as a direct result of global warming.

 

I suppose I am confused, after all the cornerstone of any science is the accuracy of the science. Since you continue to wish to introduce ambiguity in the science I have to wonder how that helps in accuracy of the science.
Anomaly means a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form. In this case that would be a deviation from expected results. There is no ambiguity.

Now I don’t know if there is a prediction or not but I did explain, if their isn’t then there is no way you can claim it has any indication of what is happening as you are no longer relying on a base of averages or standardised measurements but selecting a point in time and claiming anomalies against that measurement. Again extremely poor science.

Demanding I go and validate your claim, sorry it is your poor judgement to stick like glue with one aspect of your argument, not mine.

WOW, that one flew so far over your head you didn’t even hear the engines. First I used a standardised method to create a reference of base. Secondly you seem to miss the point that there are at least 3 ways to graph that manipulate the graph to mean whatever I want it to mean not the reality of what is going on.

Yeah, Yeah you want to sound like your got a grasp when clearly your just trying to cloud the issue.

LOL, Now clearly you think you have built your strawman and you’re coming in for the kill.


You say the chart uses real observations yet it is not what is plotted, it is the anomalies that is plotted. This those anomalies might well be measurements but they are not the actual observations they are the deviation between observations and expectations… THAT IS THE POINT. The chart is claimed to be plotting the actual observations as you just stated and the title itself tells all it is anomalies. OR do you now want to say that is not correct???

no not in so many words.

Sorry not interested in dancing to your tune, I am not the person claiming to be the knowledge here. I am just pointing out that the failure is, well to put it in perspective, the ambiguity of evidence provided in a deceptive nature.

That strawman… after all you automatically think I am climate change denier because you think there is a point of difference here. I was interested exactly when you were going to burrow into the theorised causation but you are too busy trying to find error than actually discuss the issues.

 

Climate change......and when we have cold winters you can blame that too!

 

I'm not introducing any ambiguity. I'm just explaining what that chart shows. And I've already explained how anomaly analysis helps with accuracy. But, it goes beyond accuracy. There are other reasons to use anomaly analysis as well. For example, it makes homogenizing and comparing different datasets easier.

I think this is where the confusion is. It's important to note that "anomaly" when used in this context does not mean what you think it does. It does not have the same meaning in the field of climate science as it does in everyday vernacular. So if you're trying to apply the dictionary definition then I can see how you are getting confused.

Again, there are no predictions used in that chart at all. None whatsoever. That chart is created from raw observations of the actual extent at different points in time. This is no more poor science than the Celsius scale is poor. Think about it. If you're this upset by the idea of expressing a measurement in terms of another then you have to despise the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales as well because that's exactly what both do. Neither are absolute scales. The values expressed by both are in reference to some arbitrary baseline. For Celsius the baseline is the freezing point of water. For Fahrenheit the baseline is the freezing point of a salt brine. The chart mamooth posted is effectively defining it's own scale. It is scale based on the 1981-2010 average. All values in the chart are in reference to that. The concept is exactly the same as the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales except one measurements temperature and one measures sea ice extents.

Can you explain in more detail what you're talking about?

I'm not following you. What strawman do you think I'm building? Be specific.

I'll repeat this again. That chart is based off of actual observations only. The actual observations are first "anomalized" and then "standardized". The anomalization step is just the trivial subtraction of the baseline value. The standardization step is the computation of the standard deviations. If you're hang up here is that you want to a see a chart that shows the data without anomalization and standardization then that is totally understandable. Just download the data from the following site. The data is already in Excel format so you can whip up as many charts as you like. You want to do the anomalization step? Go for it! You want to take a stab at the standardization step? Go for it! And maybe you just want to see the raw data as-is. Piece of cake!

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis

False. It is not the deviation between observation and expectation. It is actually the standard deviation between observation and the 1981-2010 average. Expectation has nothing to do with it.

The chart is showing actual observations after the anomalization and standardization steps. If that's not how you want to see the data then you are certainly free to build your own chart based off the raw data. I provided you a link to the raw data above.

What is deceptive about that chart? Be specific.

Do you think the data from which it is built is wrong?

Do you think presenting the data using a custom scale (anomalization) is wrong?

Do you think presenting the data in terms of standard deviation is wrong?

What is it specifically you think is wrong or deceptive?

What strawman? That chart is showing what both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents are doing. I'm not even making an argument...yet. I'm just telling what the chart is.

But, if you want me to make an argument here it is. Arctic sea ice extents are declining because the north pole is warming. Warmer conditions generally lead to less ice. It's that simple. And the north pole happens to be warming at a rate that is 2.5x higher than the global mean. This is expected behavior. The north pole has always been predicted to warm faster than the south pole...by a lot. The question is why did south pole sea ice extents gradually rise even to the point of having record highs and then suddenly transition to a state of record lows within a couple of years?

And again I ask...why sea ice extent an important metric to track? Why not just track volume?

Also, when sea ice melts does it raise or lower sea levels?

I'm asking these questions because I want you to think critically about sea ice behavior.

 

Which was supposed to be occurring because of CO2, but somehow stopped 20 years ago even though CO2 has continued to increase.

Or because of global cooling, which is somehow also caused by CO2; but like global warming, climate change is not caused by any of the factors that caused all the previous Holocene climate changes. According to climate change deniers, that is....

 

Lack of strict definitions, ambiguity of definitions, use of well defined terms and values contrarily to their definitions are an undeniable proofs of pseudoscience iamanonman represents.

He will be weaseling his way out and around and he wouldn’t get tired.

Of course, you are correct, the graph, even if to accept that pseudoscientists did not cheat, has no use for anything.

It does not show any warming or cooling or change or deviation from what is would be if there was no man on planet.



I remember when I asked a “sceptic” a simple question – "What is “climate CO2 sensitivity” you and iamanonman are arguing about."

I asked 3 times and got no answer.

Then I googled and found “climate CO2 sensitivity” was used by a well known, PHD and a professor and if I remember correctly testifying before the Congress.

You can google yourself and tell me the name.

What a moron.

The Congress and the professor.



Global Climate or International Climate (The IPCC) is an undefined value and it is in total contradiction to the definition of climate, given and used since 1985.

None of the climates of the earth was observed showing any signs of change when The International Panel on Climate Change was formed.

And none of them has shown any significant signs of change since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köppen_climate_classification

Anyone who argues for, or against, or in the middle of CC is an ignorant of any science and an illiterate moron.


So, let me get it straight – you do BELIEVE that some Global Climate (non existing, undefined and directly contradicting the definition of climate which has been in use for almost a century) is changing?

Do you believe in existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

As stated you are trying to suggest there is multiple terminology for the standardised anomaly special meaning to scientific community. That is the clear definition of ambiguity…

I agree anomaly charts do have special purpose in the accuracy of science as their purpose is to demonstrate the accuracy of the science. You are trying to tell the world they are direct demonstrations of the reality of what is going on. THAT IS INCORRECT.

Are you serious??? You say you’re not trying to introduce ambiguity in the first paragraph and then tell us that in this case the term anomaly in context is not the dictionary definition but something else.

What you just posted here is the clear example of ambiguity… I really don’t know how to respond to utter garbage like that… Grasping at straws that just don’t exist…

And here we see you clearly don’t understand what is posted as definitive evidence of what is occurring is deception at best…

There is no point repeating your claim to suggest it suddenly is right, brow beating me into believing you or trying to present yourself as intelligent suddenly means your point of AGW is proven in this case.

Clearly, agreeing with what I said and pointing to the science used in better predictions does nothing to support the claim. You agree that the basic average of temperatures and any measurement outside is the anomaly your claiming as evidence yet the truth is reality is that the temperature is not outside natural deviation so while it is a posted anomaly as to the average the reality is that without any more input it is nothing but a measure that evaluates the use of standardised anomaly as the rule. Of which if we followed your explanation of this chart would be failure of the science behind the theory of sea ice melt.


Now the fact the science does appear in flux the latest on this science is before 2015 new theory was created and is being studied at present. Since that was reference I have to assume you’re actually just fabricating the point to support your stance as clearly you agree with me about what this chart represents. I don’t know if the science is at fault from this one chart but given the way you portray it, clearly you belief is.

strawman about strawmen, you are desperate aren’t you?

What a load of crap. YOUR actually suggesting now that the chart is filtering of the actual observations. You do realise that what you have just stated is a corruption of the observations NOT demonstration of the reality???

well we know you would say that, after all you have decided to introduce ambiguity to science to try and portray accuracy.

Now as I stated just two quotes up, your trying to claim that your taking the observations and filtering the average (being the standardised method) and claiming that is actual observations… As my premise this entire time has been misrepresenting the science, not only do you admit that but you clearly demonstrate the willingness to promote it.

the use of.

did I say that???

As some indication of the reality, ABSOLUTELY. The world thinks it is wrong and frankly this deception I point out is the very reason you have such opposition to the theory.

AS ABOVE.
Wow how to ask the same question twice.

asked and answered.

The strawman that I oppose what is happening… NO I oppose the use of data which is used to validate the science not the results…

I don’t care what argument your want to make here, that is YOUR strawman not mine…

BUT clearly, there is no indication of what is claimed of the evidence provided to support such theory… deceptive to suggest it is there and that it proves your argument of Antarctic and Artic ice decline as that is not the argument presented.

Again keep building your strawman.
This is irrelevant to what I have stated…

irrelevant dribble.

No ,you’re asking these questions because you want to move the discussion away from your deception of trying to support an argument with false evidence.

What I love about these strawman arguments is that you clearly want to try and show some superior understanding of what is occurring at the poles and you want to introduce some irrefutable evidence that supports your stance. NOW this would have to be a huge deception as I already indicated the science is now out on this very subject due to the anomalies of the Antarctic growth of over 8% in the face of the theory of shrinkage. As I already pointed out the theory has now change to account for such but is still under investigation so ANY claim that it is scientifically supported is fabrication again… Which is the point.

 

I hate to say it, but I hope they are right and the climate is rising.

As from my view and close watch of the failed thermocline ocean current study the ocean currents are slowing which if continues will bring another ice age. While all the alarmists are spruiking the man is killing the planet and we need to cut the period of examination down to 450 thousand years so we can show a rising trend. If you examine all the data we have for 5milling years which actually corresponds with the last time the ice caps froze over there is a serious trend down in temperature.

Should we expect the ice caps to remain we should expect further cooling of the planet NOT warming. The alarmist view might be BS but the reality of possibility is actually far more serious. The fact that they want to homogenise the data to show what they wish to portray destroys their credibility to the argument.


What was it??? “another win for AGW” perhaps they should have said “we got another lie through”…

 

Delusional.

See the graph? Strong warming. Deniers cultists, OTOH, been predicting imminent cooling nonstop for the past 40 years. They can't admit they've been as wrong as it's possibleto be for the past 40 years, so they makes up stories about supposed global cooling.

What are you babbling about? For example, CO2 has been a driver of all past climate changes. Orbital factors started each warmup, but then CO2 took over and kept the warmups going.