15 of 25
15
Science, science, science.
Posted: 29 September 2017 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 211 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01

Anyone following the Carbon levels and how the models have been running hot? When to many scientists were pointing out the fact that it was going to be impossible to stay under the 2-degree mark. Making the one and a half target of the Paris agreement a joke. Guess what, all the numbers got changed. And now the one and a half target is possible.
 
The point I am driving at is that with baselines and datum points you can’t (but they are) be moving the data and changing the science. When we look at charts, we have no idea what baselines they used. Now that they changed the baseline for the Paris data. Does that make all the other charts using different baseline obsolete? Or does it just make understanding of the science more difficult and lead to more confusion?
 
The CMIP5 data uses the 1970-2000 baseline for updated forcings. Some models are using the RCP8.5 baseline. CMIP5 RCP4.5 with 1961-1990 baseline compared to HadCRUT4 with 1961-1990 baseline, have been used because with the models they predict less warming. And that seems to be the goal right now to predict less warming, where before it was to predict the worst outcomes. Have an election and the science changes. 

What are we saying. 
How much CO2 can we inject into the atmosphere before reaching the threshold of 1.5 degC? Right?
The answer is: it may vary from 1 to 3.5 in a ratio (245 GtCO2 vs 880 GtCO2) depending on the way you are computing the budget, right? (depending the dataset, the baseline, etc etc )
Can we seriously make a decision impacting billions of people with such an uncertainty?

 
But will any of this matter in five years because the whole base for the CO2/GHG effect is not matching the science the AGW is based upon.
 
I guess I should add a point being. The point being, when the IPCC says we need an answer to a climate question. They outline the baseline to be used by the many modeling groups. By changing which baseline and data sets the modeling groups must use, the IPCC can make the results hotter or cooler. There is only one real baseline in the science. The problem is that the CO2 concept needs several to try and keep its concept alive. This is not about the heating effects of the CO2, it is about the driving forces. CO2 is controlled by the forcings. And the forcings are where the disagreements are today. Not, denying CO2 heating.

[ Edited: 29 September 2017 10:45 AM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 212 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 29 September 2017 10:26 AM

What are we saying. 
How much CO2 can we inject into the atmosphere before reaching the threshold of 1.5 degC? Right?
The answer is: it may vary from 1 to 3.5 in a ratio (245 GtCO2 vs 880 GtCO2) depending on the way you are computing the budget, right?
(depending the dataset, the baseline, etc etc )
Can we seriously make a decision impacting billions of people with such an uncertainty?

Of course we can, why not, we should have allowed sober realism and enlightened self interest to get us started in the 70s
we’d be in a heck of a lot better shape than we are today, thank you very much.
We already know that 1° has initiated an awful lot of disruptions that will only compound other multipliers.

3.5°C will so radically change this planet, by then cryosphere will be gone and sea levels max’ed out, it’s doubtful humans will be around,
some areas will definitely be deadly, the wet-bulb temperature thing don’t you know.

In front of us we see the drum beat of hurricanes and you seem to think they aren’t having any impact on the resilience of our way of life.

You keep wanting exactitude, when the reality of weather is there is no exactitude - it’s a crap shot, had Irma been 30, 40 miles off in one direction it would have hammered Miami and we’da seen how that double whammy played out.  Instead it’s “just” Puerto Rico so we can ignore it (not funny but sadly true long face ).  Or another big one pin wheeling up the coast, hitting Cape Kennedy and other highlight, imagine the damage.  Not this year, but than won’t make the destruction any easier when it does come rolling in.  And the people will be crying “unbelievable”, “beyond anything we could have ever expected”, yeah right, sorry, but you just weren’t paying attention.
Or the one that decides to ram up Chesapeake Bay, or the Atchafalaya River.  Doesn’t matter that it comes in waves.  You pretend a few years of calmish weather means all is okay - rather than appreciating it’s all about heat sloshing around, accumulating, always the accumulating, and then being released when conditions line up.  West coast too, the weird things we need to expect in California and up the coast, droughts and deluges.

But it seems you have no conception, it’s all about taxes and profits to you, the rest just a fuzzy fantasy.

[ Edited: 07 October 2017 12:18 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 213 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24

But I actually dropped by simply to share something I stumbled upon.

Your hero scientist - you should like this one.

“It’ll be pretty hard now for anyone to claim that cyclone activity has not increased,” says Judith Curry,
an atmospheric researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, who was not involved in the study….

“People should now stop saying ‘who cares, storm activity is just a few per cent up’,” says Curry.
“It’s the strongest storms that matter most.” says Curry.

Here’s how I play, I’ll even share the source.  Ain’t that something.  smile

Nature: Hurricanes ARE getting fiercer — and it’s going to get much worse

https://thinkprogress.org/nature-hurricanes-are-getting-fiercer-and-its-going-to-get-much-worse-68d9ebf28204/
JOE ROMM - SEP 4, 2008

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 214 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 29 September 2017 10:26 AM

The point being, when the IPCC says we need an answer to a climate question.

This is arm waving, a snippet that ignores the context.

We need to get real. 

You even admit it’s CO2 driving the warming. Ergo, we need to stop adding so much into our atmosphere, or face ruinous prospects.
Simple compounding interest and cascading consequences.

(Incidentally, “heating” is such poor terminology since it invokes something active, like a fire heating room,
global “warming” is more accurate because what’s physically happening is an accumulation of heat. 
You still haven’t gotten that one figured out have you?)

It’s those simple very certain concepts and principles that people need to learn and understand.
Then the rest will make sense, at least in so far as our planet’s anthropogenic global warming,
who’s responsible and why it’s a very alarming thing.

Worrying about the exact speed, or expecting damages to be explained detail, is simply wasting precious time,
when our energies are needed elsewhere.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 215 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24
MikeYohe - 29 September 2017 10:26 AM

What are we saying. 
How much CO2 can we inject into the atmosphere before reaching the threshold of 1.5 degC? Right?
The answer is: it may vary from 1 to 3.5 in a ratio (245 GtCO2 vs 880 GtCO2) depending on the way you are computing the budget, right? (depending the dataset, the baseline, etc etc )
Can we seriously make a decision impacting billions of people with such an uncertainty?

 

According to who, you are notorious for posting complete garbage.

We are already having decisions made for us that are making the very survival of everyone on the planet up for question.

The fossil fuel corporations aren’t spending billions of dollars on disinformation campaigns and lobbying politicians because of how much scientific doubt there is, they are doing so because the vast amount of real research is showing catastrophic impacts from not mitigating human forced climate change from fossil fuels.

The polar ice sheets are already breaking down, that will negatively impact hundreds of millions of people and cost trillions in damages as some of the most valuable land on the planet goes under the ocean. Then we come to the hugely costly catastrophic weather events we’re already getting which are only going to get worse.

How the hell can anyone claim that it is too expensive to mitigate a growing disaster that is almost certainly guaranteed to be as bad as the worst extinction level events in the geological past if we follow the current course.

You are clinically insane if you think pumping 40 billion tons a year of the primary persistent greenhouse gas is safe when the basic science indicates it will redirect a huge amount of energy back to the Earth’s surface.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/20/atmospheric_co2_humans_put_40_billion_tons_into_the_air_annually.html

Every now and again a global warming denier will say that humans aren’t putting much carbon dioxide into the air, and it’s less than a lot of natural sources. I’ve pointed out that in fact, humans throw about 30 billion tons of it into the atmosphere every year, 100 times as much as volcanoes do. I got that number from a paper published a few years back.

Well, I just found out that paper is out of date. Guesss what the more accurate, current number for the human-made CO2 pollution put into the air every year is?

40 billion tons.

I keep pointing out to you that you wouldn’t even be able to post here if the fundamental science on this wasn’t as sound as it gets.

And all we get back is meaningless nonsense.

That’s all you are on this subject and that is all that climate change denial is. And claiming there is too much uncertainty and it’s too expensive to change course is full on climate change denial.

Come on up here and tell us our province isn’t on fire, go down to the Gulf and tell millions of people that was just a series of mild thunder storms they just went through.

I get that you don’t give a crap about other lives and the misery and death already being caused, but that is your problem, not that we don’t get how important it is to you that we keep burning billions of tons of CO2 until it’s entirely certain there is no going back.

That is a psychopaths choice, not a sane persons.

This guy is basically a truly annoying ad for coal, oil and gas.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 07:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 216 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24

Hey administrators here, how about some rules so we can have a genuine discussion on what is for many of us already a growing catastrophe.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19503/

If someone was trying to have a discussion on tobacco and the cancer it gave them and somebody from the tobacco lobby kept butting in to say there is no link, would that be acceptable.

This is exactly the same.

Climate change denial is not science it is pseudo-science, it is impossible to have a rational discussion about human forced climate change when someone is constantly inserting pseudo-science into the dialogue.

Create a pseudo-science section where Yohe and anyone like him can post whatever they like on the level of truly annoying spam in regards to human forced climate change, it is ridiculous that the rest of us are being forced to put up with nonsense.

I think it is grossly unfair that those of us who genuinely want to have a discussion that affects us deeply based on the evidence must do so figuratively looking over our shoulders for the next attack on reason by someone that is quite likely being paid to do just that. Attack reason for no valid reason other than self gain.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

For years, a network of fake citizens’ groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon’s involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.

This forum that is supposed to be based on rational inquiry has truly annoying spam blocking that neglects to block the most destructive spam in history.

Instead we the forum members have to put up with it endlessly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 08:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 217 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24

The scientific consensus position on this isn’t 50/50, or 75/25 or even 90/10.

The scientific position on this issue is 97% in support of anthropogenic global warming and 3% in doubt based on published articles. And the dissenting articles have all been shown to be flawed.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

The consensus position doesn’t exist because someone decided it did, it does because the vast amount of empirical evidence supports it.

The less than 3% unsupported articles are within the margin or error.

So why the hell are we forced to have the input of a position that in scientific terms doesn’t even exist?

There can only be one credible reason, it is for financial reasons not scientific. Financial in regards to people who are paid to post this non-existent position and financial in terms of where the money comes from to do this.

Just as with there being no rational doubt as to the existence and scale of human created climate change there is no doubt that there is in fact a fossil fuel sector funded campaign to clog up all rational discussion on climate change.

By not having a clear policy that reflects this here, CFI is in fact participating in this intellectual fraud.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 218 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 29 September 2017 12:50 PM

But I actually dropped by simply to share something I stumbled upon.

Your hero scientist - you should like this one.

“It’ll be pretty hard now for anyone to claim that cyclone activity has not increased,” says Judith Curry,
an atmospheric researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, who was not involved in the study….

“People should now stop saying ‘who cares, storm activity is just a few per cent up’,” says Curry.
“It’s the strongest storms that matter most.” says Curry.

Here’s how I play, I’ll even share the source.  Ain’t that something.  smile

Nature: Hurricanes ARE getting fiercer — and it’s going to get much worse

https://thinkprogress.org/nature-hurricanes-are-getting-fiercer-and-its-going-to-get-much-worse-68d9ebf28204/
JOE ROMM - SEP 4, 2008

 
Thanks CC, I appreciate the sharing. In post #120 I brought this up. In post #121 you made it clear that you did not want to talk about the subject. The point I was going to make was that the hurricanes were predicted a decade ago relating to the 11-year solar cycles. And a warning was giving to start getting ready for catergory-5 hurricanes.

Dr. Curry suggested to start getting ready for the coming category 5’s. Just think of how many billions could have been save if people could have heeded her warning.
We anticipate that it may take a decade for the observations to clarify the situation as to whether the hypothesis has predictive power. – Dr. Curry.

Dr. Curry was warning us a decade ago that this cycle was coming. We got eleven years of catergory-5’s to look forward to.

In summary, the central hypothesis and subhypotheses cannot be invalidated by the available evidence. We anticipate that it may take a decade for the observations to clarify the situation as to whether the hypothesis has predictive ability. In short, time will tell.
The strength of the tropical storm activity during the period of 1995–2005 (which is at least a decade away from the expected peak of the current AMO cycle, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), relative to the previous maximum 11-year period of 1945–55 (Table 1), shows a 50% increase in the total number of tropical storms, number of hurricanes, and number of category-4 and -5 storms
 
The key inference from our study of relevance here is that storms like Katrina should not be regarded as a “once-in-a-lifetime” event in the coming decades, but may become more frequent. This suggests that risk assessment is needed for all coastal cities in the southern and southeastern U.S. . . . The southeastern U.S. needs to begin planning to manage the increased risk of category-5 hurricanes.

  http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf
 
Another item Dr. Curry brought up back in 2006 that we have been talking about in this post is the effect money has on climate science.
The authors are not qualified to analyze the hurricane data. Logical fallacy: ad hominem.
The proponents of the connection between hurricanes and global warming are motivated by obtaining funding for their research. Logical fallacy: appeal to motive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 10:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 219 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 29 September 2017 01:03 PM

You even admit it’s CO2 driving the warming.

No. No. No. The CO2 is not the forcing of CO2. You got me totally wrong on that key point. The CO2 does create heat and the more heat, the more CO2 will stay in the atmosphere. But the CO2 is not the main driving force. Otherwise we would create a runaway paradox like the Snowball paradox, only with heat. 
 
Back to the decade old problem. We know that 100% of Climate Change is provided to Global Warming. That’s why Climate Change is a sub-category of Global Warming.
 
The big question has always been – How much of Global Warming is Climate Change? Most estimates have been small amounts. Then there are estimates as high as 25% to 50%.
 
CC, remember back four or five years ago, when everything was Global Warming. And we understood that the human factor heat had to be separated from Mother Nature’s Global Warming. And that was on the path of being done with the new sub-category called Climate Change. Which was needed so a baseline could be established for measurements. As in post #211, that has not worked the way we were hoping. 
 
One would think that creating the baseline would not be that big of a problem. Just pick a timeline. The cooling cycle takes 10K and the warming cycle takes 90K. We just came out of the warming. Therefore, we could use the last 90k years and create a baseline. That has been done, not with the 90K but using the last 10K years. The problem is that the baseline shows no heating from Climate Change. The heating today is right in line with the Global Warming. The IPCC mission is with Climate Change and not Global Warming. Therefore, the IPCC has not adopted one main baseline. How can they? It picks a number of years, like 50 for example and create a baseline for different tasks it wants to do. They have many baselines they are using. And they call that science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 10:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 220 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24

We all need to stop feeding this god damned troll… unless we are for the growing armageddon.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 221 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 29 September 2017 10:25 PM

No. No. No. The CO2 is not the forcing of CO2. You got me totally wrong on that key point. The CO2 does create heat and the more heat, the more CO2 will stay in the atmosphere. But the CO2 is not the main driving force. Otherwise we would create a runaway paradox like the Snowball paradox, only with heat. 

Not a lousy clue do you possess.

Yeah Doug, you are certainly correct.

Problem is he’s simply a parrot, what about Capital Research Center one of the outfits that feed him his nonsense.
Do we just allow them to continue owning the air waves, producing more self-certain clueless clones like our mikie?

Giving up is a great idea, sanity almost demands it, yet, yet, that only leaves them then.

“Climate Fears and Finance” - A look at Capital Research Center’s Dr. S.J. Allen’s fraud.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/cataloguing-capital-research-center.html

... If I visit CFI and am not careful my sparring mate Mikie The Contrarian will have me chasing another one of his shticks.  Which is how I discovered the scandalous Dr. S.J. Allen of the Capital Research Center where he’s Vice President & Chief Investigative Officer.  He previously served as press secretary to U.S. Senator Jeremiah Denton, as editor of Tea Party Review magazine, and as senior researcher for Newt Gingrich 2012. 

His presentation is another example of criminal behavior and a direct affront to We The People’s right to honestly hear what the real experts are trying to convey, without the constant cross screaming of such self-destructive deception and fraud.  Not to mention being treasonous to our children’s interests.

I couldn’t walk away from the challenge, Dr. Allen’s presentation is another stringing together of misrepresentations, innuendo and lies about a topic that is of critical importance to our future.  One that we need to get real about!  I’ve reproduced the text of his talk in Courier font with my responses in Verdana and supporting information indented. ...

You should see the deep pockets these guys have.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2017 12:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 222 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 29 September 2017 11:50 PM
MikeYohe - 29 September 2017 10:25 PM

No. No. No. The CO2 is not the forcing of CO2. You got me totally wrong on that key point. The CO2 does create heat and the more heat, the more CO2 will stay in the atmosphere. But the CO2 is not the main driving force. Otherwise we would create a runaway paradox like the Snowball paradox, only with heat. 

Not a lousy clue do you possess.

Yeah Doug, you are certainly correct.

Problem is he’s simply a parrot, what about Capital Research Center one of the outfits that feed him his nonsense.
Do we just allow them to continue owning the air waves, producing more self-certain clueless clones like our mikie?

Giving up is a great idea, sanity almost demands it, yet, yet, that only leaves them then.

“Climate Fears and Finance” - A look at Capital Research Center’s Dr. S.J. Allen’s fraud.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/cataloguing-capital-research-center.html

... If I visit CFI and am not careful my sparring mate Mikie The Contrarian will have me chasing another one of his shticks.  Which is how I discovered the scandalous Dr. S.J. Allen of the Capital Research Center where he’s Vice President & Chief Investigative Officer.  He previously served as press secretary to U.S. Senator Jeremiah Denton, as editor of Tea Party Review magazine, and as senior researcher for Newt Gingrich 2012. 

His presentation is another example of criminal behavior and a direct affront to We The People’s right to honestly hear what the real experts are trying to convey, without the constant cross screaming of such self-destructive deception and fraud.  Not to mention being treasonous to our children’s interests.

I couldn’t walk away from the challenge, Dr. Allen’s presentation is another stringing together of misrepresentations, innuendo and lies about a topic that is of critical importance to our future.  One that we need to get real about!  I’ve reproduced the text of his talk in Courier font with my responses in Verdana and supporting information indented. ...

You should see the deep pockets these guys have.

They aren’t going to stop ever, the only thing that will end this insanity is legal action and government policy.

This is clearly fraud, lawsuits have already begun. We’re not going to sway someone to a rational understanding of this fundamental crisis who’s entire way of life is based on denying it’s even happening. Maybe in 1988 or 1998 it made sense trying to talk sense to these frauds, but it’s almost 2018, 30 years since James Hansen went in front of Congress and began sounding the warning at a national level. The industry response was to immediately begin their denial campaign, it is now a well established livelihood for many people. The more we “argue” with them the more successful they are, the whole point is to create contention.

They don’t care if they look completely foolish, the point is to discredit the entire field of climate change study which they have in fact done.

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” - Mark Twain

By trying to engage these monumental fools the result is the study of climate change itself is discredited.

This is going to be decided at the polls and in court, the evidence is overwhelming in support of human created catastrophic global warming. At some point the truth will out, then there will be no more climate change deniers except the truly fringe groups and there will be no more fossil fuel sector.

It will be phased out and sued into oblivion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2017 12:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 223 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4267
Joined  2014-06-20
Offler - 02 September 2017 03:02 PM

I studied geology for 2 years on University of Komensky in Bratislava. I wanted to study paleontology, however i was forced to stop the study. Environmentalism was one of the subject of the study and my professor was RNDr. Peter Fedor.
Geology shows to us that there were times when Earth was much colder or hotter as its now. Records in this matter are milions and bilions years old. Climate is changing, and was changing long before the age of men.

Professor was asking us as students few questions:
1. Meteorology uses data about weather collected since 1780.
He compared 220 years of meteorological measuring to geological evidence.

2. Eruption of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatoa in 1883
He pointed out that both eruptions had impact on global climate - making Earth cooler for years, maybe decades, probably affecting collected data by meteorology. He made this remark in 2005, and he doubted about humans as a cause for climate change. Latest eruption at least comparable with two previous ones was Mount Pinatubo in 1991. (And Novarupta in 1912)

3. Earth pollution is bad enough
Now we know that chemicals which are result of industry can be found in Arctic and Antarctic ice samples, we know how wide-spread impact we really have.


Articles about simulations how will temperature increase, i read also that scientists got to scenario when global warming stopped only when they removed human industry from the simulation. When I simply asked them if they considered volcanic eruptions I didnt received any answer. I might doubt whether humans are factor in current climate change, but i would never use it as an excuse to continue with pollution. If we produce more CO2 that is biosphere (trees, phyytoplankton, other green plants) able to absorb back, it will act as a factor in current trend - even when the real amount of factors might be much higher as we now know.


“For most of the past 10,000 years, global average temperature has remained relatively stable and low compared to earlier hothouse conditions in our planet’s history. Now, temperature is among the highest experienced not only in the “recent” past—the past 11,000 years or so, during which modern human civilization developed—but also probably for a much longer period.

Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2017 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 224 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:47 AM
Offler - 02 September 2017 03:02 PM

I studied geology for 2 years on University of Komensky in Bratislava. I wanted to study paleontology, however i was forced to stop the study. Environmentalism was one of the subject of the study and my professor was RNDr. Peter Fedor.
Geology shows to us that there were times when Earth was much colder or hotter as its now. Records in this matter are milions and bilions years old. Climate is changing, and was changing long before the age of men.

Professor was asking us as students few questions:
1. Meteorology uses data about weather collected since 1780.
He compared 220 years of meteorological measuring to geological evidence.

2. Eruption of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatoa in 1883
He pointed out that both eruptions had impact on global climate - making Earth cooler for years, maybe decades, probably affecting collected data by meteorology. He made this remark in 2005, and he doubted about humans as a cause for climate change. Latest eruption at least comparable with two previous ones was Mount Pinatubo in 1991. (And Novarupta in 1912)

3. Earth pollution is bad enough
Now we know that chemicals which are result of industry can be found in Arctic and Antarctic ice samples, we know how wide-spread impact we really have.


Articles about simulations how will temperature increase, i read also that scientists got to scenario when global warming stopped only when they removed human industry from the simulation. When I simply asked them if they considered volcanic eruptions I didnt received any answer. I might doubt whether humans are factor in current climate change, but i would never use it as an excuse to continue with pollution. If we produce more CO2 that is biosphere (trees, phyytoplankton, other green plants) able to absorb back, it will act as a factor in current trend - even when the real amount of factors might be much higher as we now know.


“For most of the past 10,000 years, global average temperature has remained relatively stable and low compared to earlier hothouse conditions in our planet’s history. Now, temperature is among the highest experienced not only in the “recent” past—the past 11,000 years or so, during which modern human civilization developed—but also probably for a much longer period.

Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”


The cartoon chart is typical of the 2014 climate movement. That same article today would be pushing how the 11,000-year cycle is matching the Sun’s 11,000 cycle. Yet, the author Michon Scott used five sources for his news article. One of the papers from The Royal Society was all about “orbital forcing”. Which is the sun’s relationship to global warming. Yet, Scott did not tell his readers that the 11,000-cycle matched the same solar 11,000 cycles. To me that is dishonest. Or if he has, would he have gotten his new article printed? I think it shows that the science was going one direction and the public was going another.
 
The cycles of Ice Ages are Milankovitch Cycles. They follow the sun cycles. We are right now at the closest to the sun. The last time we were that close was over 100,000 years ago. Makes sense that was also the last time we were this hot.
 
Average global sea surface temperatures around 125,000 years ago were indistinguishable from the 1995 to 2014 average, the researchers estimate.
 
Previous estimates suggested that this period, the height of the last warm phase in the ongoing ice age, was as much as 2 degrees Celsius warmer.
http://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth’s-last-major-warm-period-was-hot-today

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2017 12:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 225 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 30 September 2017 10:26 AM

Average global sea surface temperatures around 125,000 years ago were indistinguishable from the 1995 to 2014 average, the researchers estimate.
 
Previous estimates suggested that this period, the height of the last warm phase in the ongoing ice age, was as much as 2 degrees Celsius warmer.
http://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth’s-last-major-warm-period-was-hot-today

What’s your point?

From that article:  “The last time Earth’s thermostat was cranked as high as it is today, sea levels were high enough to completely drown New Orleans (had it existed at the time), new research suggests.”

You still can’t digest the reality that Milankovitch operates on geologic time scales of thousands and tens of thousand of years. 
Milankovitch cycles have absolutely nothing to do with today’s warming, beyond a vague background wisp lost in a gale.

Profile
 
 
   
15 of 25
15