Printable View
The good news is, in the future guys like Ron will have been proven wrong and they will be dead. Yo Ron, maybe speed it up a bit and go park your boat in a hurricanes path or there is lethal seaweed growing in France now. Maybe go for a walk in the tide pools?
Ah but you didn't read it, if that was your conclusion. Maybe try reading the bolded paper title and the Abstract again. Sentence by sentence. Your obfuscation is a re-occurring theme among the deniers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
They are comparing the Cook 97% agreement study with a different study done later by Powell, 2016 that suggested the agreement is 99.99%. They are claiming Powell is overestimating the consensus by restricting the peer reviewed lit papers to the ones implicitly making a claim AGW is not occurring- which occurred on average 1 in 17,000+ publications within the field. It makes no comparisons to studies of plate techtonics other than to point out a similar level of agreement among the scientific field exists on both agw and plate techtonics, but that there is quite a different level public opinion support for these similarly well established facts.
Hmmmmmm, so all this started right about the time the Romans nailed that Jewish carpenter to a cross all cause he claimed to be some Deities son?Quote:
Average global temperatures are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
I am sensing a trend.
He was flat earther, clearly needing to be crucified, don't ya' know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not bunion
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
this is your mantra moron, posting fake shit!
do the world a favor and jump off a cliffQuote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
The point that gets glossed over is...
Earth's climate has reached temps multiple times in the past that would make it uninhabitable for the vast majority of life..
Even if we could reverse all of the damage we've done.. The question is whether or not we can regulate Earth's climate.
Have we sped up climate change? Yes.. Can we slow it down? Yes.. Can we stop it? Highly doubtful. If we could stop it, do we know the long term consequences of doing so? No..
Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app
"Al Roker just got back from Greenland, and he’s horrified by what he saw there"
https://www.fastcompany.com/90403895...t-he-saw-thereQuote:
In Greenland, the glaciers are melting. And they’re not just melting—they’re vanishing at an astonishing rate. Just this year, ice melts in the country contributed to an average global sea level rise of more than one millimeter. That may not seem like a lot, but after the hottest summer in Greenland’s record, about 440 billion tons of ice have melted off the country’s massive ice sheet. Over time, there’s enough ice in Greenland to raise sea levels by more than seven meters.
NASA’s OMG mission is ongoing, and Today’s weather and feature anchor Al Roker recently joined it in Kulusuk, Greenland, as part of a new reporting unit at NBC that will focus on telling the story of climate change. Roker says that Arctic regions serve as “the canary in the coal mine” for climate change, as readily visible changes there signify serious problems to come for the rest of the planet. Greenland’s melting glaciers mean the eventual disappearance of habitable land in low-level areas ranging from Bangladesh to Florida. “The ripple effects [from Arctic] areas result around the globe, including the United States,” Roker says.
This is the kind of research NBC’s new Climate Unit will continue to focus on. The unit will debut its work on Sunday, September 15 with an on-the-ground reporting series titled “Climate in Crisis” that will run through Friday, September 20 across NBC News, MSNBC, Telemundo, and NBC News Digital Sunday. While Roker’s trip to Greenland will highlight the many consequences of the country’s glacier melt, Lester Holt’s will travel to Alaska, his home as a child, to showcase what happens what a permafrost thaws does to cities.
...
The new unit will focus on how climate change affects all different areas of society. “It’s not just, ‘Oh, there’s more severe weather,'” says Roker. For example, he explains, “There are 3,500 military facilities we have in this country and around the globe. Half of them are going to be susceptible to climate change.”
For Roker, this fact is among the most surprising he’s learned in his climate change research so far. “Climate security is the number one threat for Homeland Security. You think of the obvious stuff,” he says, “but it never dawned on me that that would be one of the sidebars.”
The more “obvious stuff” can currently be seen most dramatically in the proverbial coal mine of Greenland, where NASA has been finding water at tropical temperatures right at the base of glaciers. “Their initial findings are that the rate of ice melt could be double what they expected in the next several years, if this continues,” says Roker. “The effects that we were expecting to see in 50 or 60 years may be more like 20 or 30 years, or maybe even less. The rate at which things are picking up is very surprising to people, especially the scientists.”
What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
It's pretty promising if the climate sensitivity is closer to 1'C. If that is the case, there isn't much more warming that can be caused by CO2 alone. You would think these scientists would have a better grasp on the climate sensitivity of CO2 since this is all 'settled science.'Quote:
Neither end of that estimate range sounds promising. Especially with no end to the increasing level and rate of pollution.
Some graphs in here to give you an idea: https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2014/02/26/the-thought-experiment-that-first-made-me-a-climate-skeptic/#774004fd20e5Quote:
With current CO2 levels at 0.042%, When is this "logarithmic diminutive effect" expected to start kicking in? millennia? eons? How many doublings? (Some math to help - 5 doublings get us to almost 1%). How strongly does it kick in? Seems to be basic atmospheric physics you're proposing. If its meaningful, the models are surely accounting for it already.
Again, why are you proposing this geoengineering experiment? Do you not find it reckless?
Methinks you're trolling now.
I'm not proposing any geoingeneering experiment. This is what our society has done, there is little that can be done about it at this point.
Global warming hasn't caused an increase in floods, so I'm not too worried about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_pdx
The point is we have no consensus whatsoever on how dangerous AGW is for society.
Your hurricane reference confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
I don't think the two of us are going to make any progress in this discussion. You have limited evidence for these claims, and zero evidence for these claims if you look solely at proxy records. You are only able to come to these claims when you compare instrumental records to proxy records.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
This started up again because of this post from Grape_Ape: "You have to be completely fucking retarded if you think that our climate is behaving normally (as in, the way it did behave up until about 2000). As skiers, we should have a finger on the pulse of this shit. I do. Some idiots don't. WTF"
He is saying that it should be obvious to anyone that the climate of the past 20 years has been wildly abnormal. I'd love to know in what way.
I didn't read it, but I read this summary of it: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ctonics-a-hoaxQuote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
I stand by my stupid statement.
It's really a moot point anyway because all this study tries to determine is if humans are causing global warming or not. This has never been a point of contention of mine. My point is that these consensus studies get used to try to prove that the vast majority of scientists believe human caused global warming is dangerous for society. That is a lie, there is no consensus on that.
That's nice. Run along now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
Not quite. The largest glacier in Greenland has been gaining mass the past 3 years: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growingQuote:
Originally Posted by WMD
And its not the only one:
Attachment 294000
Attachment 294001
Your Neukom paper says as much itself: "Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era. Tree-ring records, the most frequently used proxy archive in the PAGES 2k database, are sometimes unreliable in registering slow climate changes over several centuries or longer. Moreover, some other proxies — particularly records from marine and lake sediments — exaggerate variations at multidecadal or centennial timescales. It is still an open question how well we can compare global temperatures across this entire 2,000-year span."Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
You think its just a coincidence that in this graph from Neukom et al the two largest warming spikes are during the instrumental era? And the first big warming spike is mostly naturally caused:
Attachment 294002
Sure, my paper suggests that most of the planet is warming at the same time post 1950, but it tells us nothing about the previous 2000 years.
It's worth pointing out that we shouldn't expect see tototally linear trends. There will be ebb and flow on shorter times scales. The real concern is if long term the retreats are bigger than the advances.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
This is the point I'm making. There is no 'settled science' on how all these positive and negative feedbacks will interact.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
Agree, just pointing out that another one of WMD's links is not reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
You should know what I think because we've discussed this already. We went from a relatively violent volcanic period to a relatively quiet volcanic period.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
So it's not just a coincidence. The first so called big warming spike marked the end of the little ice age. In the early 1800s after a sequence of volcanic eruptions led to widespread global cooling, there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatio/climate variability, with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. After that, in addition to other natural forcing humans played a role as well.
Are you claiming that a spike or valley in a large sampling invalidates the observation of trends in the large?Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
Cherry pick much? You are incredibly dishonest. 2012 set the record for greatest melt in Greenland. 2019 came close to beating that record, and although it didn't, it continues the trend of the ice sheet melting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
The long term trend is serious melting. You use one glacier and a three year time frame. Wow. How does that cherry taste?
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...greenland-ice/Quote:
A 2019 study by Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram looked at 28 glaciers in Greenland with long-term data. Nearly all are melting, with only one or two that could be considered somewhat stable.
“One glacier retreating looks like carelessness, but 28 retreating is the sign of something going on,” Mottram told The Associated Press.
A 2017 study concluded that coastal glaciers and icecaps — what Willis is studying — reached a “tipping point” for ice loss in 1997 and since then have been rapidly deteriorating. A NASA satellite found that Greenland’s ice sheet lost about 255 billion metric tons a year between 2003 and 2016, with the loss rate generally getting worse.
I totally know that I want you to go kill yourself or leave this site you POS Troll :fuckyou:Quote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
Do you have 2 heads? One for up your ass and one in the sandQuote:
Originally Posted by ron johnson
So you attribute the Little Ice Age to volcanic activity, and the early 1900's warming to the lack of volcanic activity? Then what do you make of the period from 1050-1100? There was a similar lack of volcanic activity like we see in the early 1900's, yet global temperatures decreased:Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
Attachment 294030
And what of 1400-1450? Similarly little volcanic activity and temperatures started decreasing. Why didn't we see more cooling from 1250-1300 given the massive amount of volcanic activity?