6 of 7
6
What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?
Posted: 09 August 2017 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1443
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:40 AM
JohnH - 08 August 2017 07:10 PM

Yes, but I’d like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn’t be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.

Those people aren’t suggesting anything, they have been making a concerted attack on the valid science on human forced climate change which goes back decades. This isn’t about valid scientific skepticism and never has been. This is about an intentional, sophisticated, long term and highly funded campaign to deny the highly confident science on human forced climate change.

Deniers get their way by incessantly claiming we need more study and that we need to remove the “uncertainty” which is almost non-existent now anyway.

This is no different from climate change denial because it is climate change denial.

This is worth bring to the top of the page.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7740
Joined  2009-02-26
JohnH - 08 August 2017 07:10 PM

Here is a page I found in skeptical science that articulated the concern I’ve tried to express about climate change. It is a 2011 article but I don’t think things have changed dramatically since then. The suggestion is that warming could be double that currently anticipated due to issues not well researched at the time.  The article discusses some of the unsettled and or ignored issues leading to uncertainties in the models predicting future temperatures. Note that the quote below estimates a CO2 climate sensitivity of 8°C, double the currently used estimate of 3-4°C.
 

The exact value of climate sensitivity depends on which feedbacks you include, the climate state you start with, and what timescale you’re interested in. While the Earth has ice sheets the total climate sensitivity to CO2 is up to 8°C: 1.2°C direct warming, 1.8°C from fast feedbacks, 1°C from greenhouse gas feedbacks, and nearly 4°C from ice albedo feedbacks. The slow feedbacks have historically occurred over centuries to millennia, but could become significant this century. Including CO2 itself as a feedback would make climate sensitivity even higher, except for the weathering feedback which operates on a geologic timescale.

Write4U - 08 August 2017 01:40 PM

Does it sound reasonable to begin with ;

a) stopping human industrial pollution of the atmosphere by absolutely minimizing our CO2 release?
b) creating ecofriendly (non-polluting) power generation?
c) creating CO2 scrubbers, by planting large areas with trees and other efficient CO2 sequestration plants (such as hemp).
d) creating chemical CO2 destroying or sequestering devices before it is released into the atmosphere.
  (We are doing this with nuclear waste products, why can’t we do this with CO2)

Can we all agree that this would be a prudent and intelligent approach to slow down GW, at least our contribution to the problem?

Yes, but I’d like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn’t be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.

What I get from all this that you are not trying to make the point that science is not (and does not claim) to be truth.

You are trying to say that all science is false…....difference!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

You are just trying to subvert Science as a valuable source of information..290.gif

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
JohnH - 08 August 2017 07:10 PM

Yes, but I’d like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn’t be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.

So JohnH is basically saying he doesn’t care what the facts around climate change are, science seeks the best explanation for empirical data.

PR seeks a willing audience for their products.

Those “people” who are denying the valid science are working for the fossil fuel sector, they are basically salesmen for a deadly product. We no longer allow tobacco companies to advertise on TV or anywhere that vulnerable audiences like children can be exposed to their poisons.

we need to do the same with fossil fuels and that includes drying up the source of funding without which climate change deniers like JohnH will no longer have a motive to lie for money…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1443
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC - 09 August 2017 05:17 PM
JohnH - 08 August 2017 07:10 PM

Yes, but I’d like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn’t be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.

So JohnH is basically saying he doesn’t care what the facts around climate change are, science seeks the best explanation for empirical data.

PR seeks a willing audience for their products.

Those “people” who are denying the valid science are working for the fossil fuel sector, they are basically salesmen for a deadly product. We no longer allow tobacco companies to advertise on TV or anywhere that vulnerable audiences like children can be exposed to their poisons.

we need to do the same with fossil fuels and that includes drying up the source of funding without which climate change deniers like JohnH will no longer have a motive to lie for money…

Oh yeah and here again JohnH misrepresents the actual scientists and science they produce.

Anyone who’s been watching the ongoing development of climate observation platforms ( land, air, oceans, space), and processing super-computer power, and the out pouring of relevant studies over the past decades knows damned well that the research has been ongoing extremely vigorously and rigorous with very fruitful results for those with the curiosity and intellectual honesty to keep up with it

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

You want a more accepting audience for climate change deniers who are doing no research of their own, just attacking the valid research of others, don’t come to BC then.

What many thousands of us here would like is to be able to see the Sun again after being blanketed for most of the summer by the dense smoke of huge portions of province burning.

http://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a1e7b1ecb1514974a9ca00bdbfffa3b1

For many of us climate change stopped being an academic issue years ago, we don’t need peer-reviewed science to know it’s happening. We have unprecedented heat waves and droughts that create the perfect conditions for wildfires that can consume entire cities. We haven’t lost any here yet but that is certainly coming just as it did in Alberta in 2015 after a SPRING heat wave that set much of that province on fire.

Genuine Scientists have been warning us of this for years and now it’s coming true. And still the sociopaths for pay keep trying to claim it’s not happening, utterly disgusting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2113
Joined  2013-06-01
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 12:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  225
Joined  2017-07-06
MikeYohe - 09 August 2017 09:55 PM
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

Why are you arguing about something that’s not being debated in the climate science profession?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 12:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1443
Joined  2016-12-24
Adamski - 10 August 2017 12:00 AM
MikeYohe - 09 August 2017 09:55 PM
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

Why are you arguing about something that’s not being debated in the climate science profession?

For political points.  How else was an entire country brain-washed into allowing a mad man to inhabit USA’s White House.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 02:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  225
Joined  2017-07-06
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 August 2017 12:58 AM
Adamski - 10 August 2017 12:00 AM
MikeYohe - 09 August 2017 09:55 PM
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

Why are you arguing about something that’s not being debated in the climate science profession?

For political points.  How else was an entire country brain-washed into allowing a mad man to inhabit USA’s White House.

No it’s ideology. Your mad man is the result of the decay of capitalism over decades. Why are you surprised.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 06:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4058
Joined  2009-10-21
Adamski - 10 August 2017 12:00 AM
MikeYohe - 09 August 2017 09:55 PM
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

Why are you arguing about something that’s not being debated in the climate science profession?

Do you read the papers? Do you leave your mother’s basement? Ever?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7740
Joined  2009-02-26

What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?[/b

Absence of human industries!

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 11:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

As has already been posted the Milankovitch Cycles provide a very good explanation for why the temperatures dropped in the past producing the recent glacial periods.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/

The Earth circles the Sun in a flat plane. It is as if the spinning Earth is also rolling around the edge of a giant, flat plate, with the Sun in the center. The shape of the Earth’s orbit—the plate—changes from a nearly perfect circle to an oval shape on a 100,000-year cycle (eccentricity). Also, if you drew a line from the plate up through the Earth’s North and South Poles—Earth’s axis—the line would not rise straight up from the plate. Instead the axis is tilted, and the angle of the tilt varies between 22 and 24 degrees every 41,000 years (obliquity). Finally, the Earth wobbles on its axis as it spins. Like the handle of a toy top that wobbles toward you and away from you as the toy winds down, the “handle” of the Earth, the axis, wobbles toward and away from the Sun over the span of 19,000 to 23,000 years (precession). These small variations in Earth-Sun geometry change how much sunlight each hemisphere receives during the Earth’s year-long trek around the Sun, where in the orbit (the time of year) the seasons occur, and how extreme the seasonal changes are.

In the early 1900s, a Serbian mathematician named Milutin Milankovitch meticulously calculated the amount of sunlight each latitude received in every phase of Earth’s orbital variations. His work culminated in the 1930 publication of Mathematical Climatology and the Astronomical Theory of Climate Change. He theorized that the ice ages occurred when orbital variations caused the Northern Hemisphere around the latitude of the Hudson Bay and northern Europe to receive less sunshine in the summer. Short, cool summers failed to melt all of the winter’s snow. The snow would slowly accumulate from year to year, and its shiny, white surface would reflect more radiation back into space. Temperatures would drop even further, and eventually, an ice age would be in full swing. Based on the orbital variations, Milankovitch predicted that the ice ages would peak every 100,000 and 41,000 years, with additional “blips” every 19,000 to 23,000 years.

The paleoclimate record shows peaks at exactly those intervals. Ocean cores showed that the Earth passed through regular ice ages—not just the 3 or 4 recorded on land by misplaced boulders and glacial loess deposits—but 10 in the last million years, and around 100 in the last 2.5 million years.

Evidence supporting Milankovitch’s theory of the precise timing of the ice ages first came from a series of fossil coral reefs that formed on a shallow ocean bench in the South Pacific during warm interglacial periods. As the ice ages came, more and more water froze into polar ice caps and the ocean levels dropped, leaving the reef exposed. When the ice melted, the ocean rose and warmed, and another reef formed. At the same time, the peninsula on which the reefs formed was steadily being pushed up by the motion of the Earth’s shifting tectonic plates. Today, the reefs form a visible series of steps along the shore of Papua New Guinea. The reefs, the age of which was well-defined because of the decaying uranium in the coral, measured out the millennia between ice ages. They also defined the maximum length of each ice age. The intervals fell exactly where Milankovitch said they would.

This comes from genuine researchers working in the real world collecting massive amounts of data that are then formulated into coherent theories that give us a high confidence of what is occurring in regards to changes in the global climate due to natural and human created radiative forcings.

The deniers like JohnH and Mike Yohe start from the assumption that human emitted carbon dioxide must be omitted from these calculations because the corporations who fund them make their money by selling products that when burned now emit more than 100 times the CO2 as all tectonic activity on the Earth.

I’ll leave it up to people with any sort of critical thinking skills at all to decide who is more likely to be providing a rational explanation for global warming and climate change.

The choices are;

1. People who devote their lives to the objective study of natural phenomena with the intent to present genuine explanations that can then be used to formulate effective polices that can allow us to navigate through extremely dangerous conditions that will result if the evidence is ignored.

2. People working at what are in fact public relations firms heavily funded by corporations that make incredible profits selling products that we know play a central role in moderating the Earth climate when burned emitting billions of tons of CO2 a year.

Hint- It’s probably not a very wise choice to believe the people we know beyond any reasonable doubt are being paid very well to lie.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 06:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1443
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 09 August 2017 09:55 PM
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

LOL  LOL  LOL Says the guy who won’t reference his sources. claims and graphs.

Your double standard is amazing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1443
Joined  2016-12-24

Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained
Date: August 7, 2013
Source: ETH Zurich

Summary:
Science has struggled to explain fully {Still check it out, they’ve learned the lion’s share, remaining uncertainty comes down to chump change against the backdrop of all they’ve learned}
why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years.
As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, ‘
but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.

Weak effect with a strong impact ...
Simulating the ice and climate ...
The Milankovitch cycles ...

Journal Reference:

Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Fuyuki Saito, Kenji Kawamura, Maureen E. Raymo, Jun’ichi Okuno, Kunio Takahashi, Heinz Blatter.
Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 2013; 500 (7461): 190 DOI: 10.1038/nature12374


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170721095446.htm

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 7
6