Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

Rolling your eyes at the back of your empty head?? All of these ice ages were caused by extreme events, including the one that killed the dinosaurs. What, 60 million years ago. The freezing is usually pretty quick, months.. the thawing takes MILLIONS of years... until now..

Nope. "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years); changes in the earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth–Moon system; the impact of relatively large meteorites and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age



Millions of years of thawing right?

[MultiVerse]

Good point...the ice age that ended 20k years ago must have happened magically. To look at even the past 500 years as a point of determining human impact on a planet that has sustained life for 3.5 billion years is laughable. The climate has always changed and always will.

Earth’s ice ages are thought to be caused by the wobbling of the planet’s orbit changing its orientation to the sun and causing more or less sunlight to hit higher latitudes, especially the polar regions. Under the right conditions as the earth warms up more CO2 is released into the atmosphere which explains, in part, why CO2 sometimes appears to lag a warming trend. The opposite happens, the planet cools, if atmospheric carbon dioxide is low enough and polar regions receive less sunlight.

What we've seen from past global temperature reconstructions is the warming and cooling is not uniform across time and space for the planet. Sometimes Antarctica begins warming or cooling for thousands of years before northern latitudes like Greenland do the same, and vice versa.


The late 20th century stands out, however. In the most recent decades, record-high temperatures are found simultaneously over almost the entire globe. In contrast there is no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.


And those findings are based on 700 climate records in an open-access database. The come from glacial ice, ocean sediments, tree rings, corals and other sources. The resource allows scientists to recreate wide snapshots of global climate that would have been extremely difficult just a few short years ago.

People have already made feeble attempts at rebutting this latest research (2019) by presenting selectively chosen graphs – each presented in isolation – and then claiming that as proof even though those climate records are also included the open-access database.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2013...-last-ice-age/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

https://www.unibe.ch/news/media_news...index_eng.html

[SumJongGuy]

Nope. "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years); changes in the earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth–Moon system; the impact of relatively large meteorites and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age



Millions of years of thawing right?

Back to extreme and catastrophic events causing the large scale climate changes.. Everything else is well over the 50-100 years this shift has taken.. What's the large scale event causing the warming this century?? Best you can do is show a chart with THOUSANDS of years in 50s and 100s increments? Gotta do better than that LOL

[MultiVerse]

A quick note, your chart(s) sometimes give the impression that past warming/cooling events were global, occurring at the same pace and highly correlated. But that's not necessarily what we see in the records:

[ron johnson]

The late 20th century stands out, however. In the most recent decades, record-high temperatures are found simultaneously over almost the entire globe. In contrast there is no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.

You keep stating this as fact based on one study which has only been out for a month. We have a number of other studies that I have shown you in another post that do not agree with the conclusions of that study.

[MultiVerse]

You keep stating this as fact based on one study which has only been out for a month. We have a number of other studies that I have shown you in another post that do not agree with the conclusions of that study.

Nope. You presented a webpage with selectively chosen graphs – each presented in isolation – which is hardly a rebuttal.


And it's not just the Neukom paper[1] suggesting the late 20th century stands out (for the most recent decades, record-high temperatures are found simultaneously over almost the entire globe).

Another recent (2019) paper[2] suggests the 20th century, not unexpectedly, is unique during the common era: it has the largest global-mean warming trends over periods of at least 20 years.


Both studies show that the warmest period of the last 2,000 years was most likely in the 20th century. They also show that this was the case for more than 98 percent of the surface of the earth. This shows – once again – that modern climate change cannot be explained by random fluctuations, but by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

What we didn’t know until now is that not only average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years, but also that a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.





[1] Neukom, R., Steiger, Nathan, Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Wang, J., & Werner, J. P. (2019). No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the pre-industrial Common Era. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

[2] PAGES 2k Consortium. (2019). Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era. Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0

Koch, A., Brierley, C., Maslin, M. M. & Lewis, S. L. Quat. Sci. Rev. 207, 13–36 (2019).

Schurer, A. P. et al. Nat. Geosci. 11, 220–221 (2018).

https://www.unibe.ch/news/media_news...index_eng.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0428-1

[Svengali]

Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering

‘A toxic mix’
YouTube isn’t the only online platform where climate denial is rampant. There are numerous blogs, Facebook groups, Twitter accounts, and thinktank websites spreading misinformation about climate change, its impact, and solutions.

“We know that polluting interests and state actors like Russia (one of the countries likely to profit from climate change) are involved in creating troll farms and bots whose sole purpose is to promote climate change disinformation and denial and foment online discord and conflict,” said Michael E. Mann, director, Earth System Science Center at the Pennsylvania State University, US, in an email to ThePrint.

“How much of the climate denial noise we see is due to that, and how much is due to misguided individuals taken in by this misinformation is hard to say,” he added. “But the simple answer: It’s a toxic mix of both.”

Climate deniers project warming as a matter of debate despite the fact that scientists have unequivocally established through long-term data records and analysis that the Earth is indeed warming at an unprecedented rate because of human activity.

A survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers found a 97 per cent consensus that humans are causing climate change by emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere primarily through the burning of fossil fuels.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.00036/full

[ron johnson]

Back to extreme and catastrophic events causing the large scale climate changes.. Everything else is well over the 50-100 years this shift has taken.. What's the large scale event causing the warming this century?? Best you can do is show a chart with THOUSANDS of years in 50s and 100s increments? Gotta do better than that LOL

Things like the Milankovitch cycle, solar output, and earth-moon orbit are not considered extreme events. The Milankovitch cycle is believed to be responsible for the very large ice ages you see every ~100k years: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0807134127.htm

There is no large scale event causing the warming this century. I've already told you a half degree warming in 60 years is not abnormal.

My chart with a timescale in thousands of years is there to show you that it doesn't take "millions of years to thaw out of an ice age."

[ill-advised strategy]

So when is it officially time to migrate this behind the political asshattery wall?

If not now, when?

[ron johnson]

A quick note, your chart(s) sometimes give the impression that past warming/cooling events were global, occurring at the same pace and highly correlated. But that's not necessarily what we see in the records:

EPICA is a Greenland ice core. Vostok is an Antarctic ice core. Notice the time scale. When we go back hundreds of thousands of years we don't have a lot of good options for proxies. Here's a deep sea sediment proxy which correlates well with the ice cores:

[ron johnson]

Nope. You presented a webpage with selectively chosen graphs – each presented in isolation – which is hardly a rebuttal.


And it's not just the Neukom paper[1] suggesting the late 20th century stands out (for the most recent decades, record-high temperatures are found simultaneously over almost the entire globe).

Another recent (2019) paper[2] suggests the 20th century, not unexpectedly, is unique during the common era: it has the largest global-mean warming trends over periods of at least 20 years.


Both studies show that the warmest period of the last 2,000 years was most likely in the 20th century. They also show that this was the case for more than 98 percent of the surface of the earth. This shows – once again – that modern climate change cannot be explained by random fluctuations, but by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

What we didn’t know until now is that not only average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years, but also that a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.





[1] Neukom, R., Steiger, Nathan, Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Wang, J., & Werner, J. P. (2019). No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the pre-industrial Common Era. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

[2] PAGES 2k Consortium. (2019). Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era. Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0

Koch, A., Brierley, C., Maslin, M. M. & Lewis, S. L. Quat. Sci. Rev. 207, 13–36 (2019).

Schurer, A. P. et al. Nat. Geosci. 11, 220–221 (2018).

https://www.unibe.ch/news/media_news...index_eng.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0428-1

No, each of those graphs are from separate studies.

I'm highly skeptical of a paper that tacks on our most accurate temperature recordings (instrumental record of the past 150 years) to a historical record of hundreds of poorer temperature recordings (proxies). Averaging hundreds of proxies is bound to smooth out past temperatures. To compare that to modern temperatures they should be averaging the same proxies, not using the instrumental record of recent years.

[MultiVerse]

I'm highly skeptical of a paper that tacks on our most accurate temperature recordings (instrumental record of the past 150 years) to a historical record of hundreds of poorer temperature recordings (proxies). Averaging hundreds of proxies is bound to smooth out past temperatures. To compare that to modern temperatures they should be averaging the same proxies, not using the instrumental record of recent years.

EPICA is a Greenland ice core. EPICA is a Greenland ice core. Vostok is an Antarctic ice core. Notice the time scale. When we go back hundreds of thousands of years we don't have a lot of good options for proxies. Here's a deep sea sediment proxy which correlates well with the ice cores:

You have continuously presented Greenland's GISP2 – in particular Easterbrook's misrepresentation – as a proxy to conflate Greenland with past worldwide global climate conditions.

But that's not even true with Greenland as a whole. For example, DYE-3 in southern Greenland indicates a Holocene warming trend while Renland and Agassiz in central and northern Greenland show a cooling trend over similar time frames. Other sites in Greenland show warming and cooling that occurs at different times and are nonsynchronous.

And that's just Greenland in the North Atlantic where a person might expect temperatures to correlate, and yet they often have different inflection points occurring at different times.

[k2skier112]

I've never voted R.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[SumJongGuy]

I've never voted

Fixed it for you komrad. Only American citizens are allowed to vote.

[ron johnson]

You have continuously presented Greenland's GISP2 – in particular Easterbrook's misrepresentation – as a proxy to conflate Greenland with past worldwide global climate conditions.

But that's not even true with Greenland as a whole. For example, DYE-3 in southern Greenland indicates a Holocene warming trend while Renland and Agassiz in central and northern Greenland show a cooling trend over similar time frames. Other sites in Greenland show warming and cooling that occurs at different times and are nonsynchronous.

And that's just Greenland in the North Atlantic where a person might expect temperatures to correlate, and yet they often have different inflection points occurring at different times.

If I've used GISP2 as a proxy for worldwide temperatures then that would be a mistake, but I believe I have been using it specifically in relation to Greenland, or to show how quickly temperatures have spiked in the past. It is the highest resolution we have for Greenland ice cores looking at the past 20,000 years. Is there any source other than skepticalscience that claims Easterbrook messed up the timescale of the graph? You would think with how much use the GISP2 data gets there would be more than a skepticalscience post on it.

It is alarming the differences in the various ice cores for Greenland alone, although the majority show the Holocene to be trending colder. Perhaps our temperature records aren't especially reliable?

[ron johnson]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I know, its hard to believe some people don't need a political party to tell them what to think.

[SumJongGuy]

It is alarming the differences in the various ice cores for Greenland alone, although the majority show the Holocene to be trending colder. Perhaps our temperature records aren't especially reliable?

10) Poisoning the well

[WMD]

Ron, do you work for, or are you affiliated or associated with Americans for Prosperity in any way?

[neufox47]

what about:

6. CO2 is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
7. human activity contributes 0.01% of the 0.04%

I like those two, those are my favorites.

Those two are your favorites because you are a certified moron. 7 is absolutely false. Tell us again how NOAA was hyping Harvey and it was all to get people riled up. You knew it wasn’t going to stall based on your “research”.

[old goat]

Snow season (whatever that means) in the Val d'Aosta (south side of Mont Blanc) has declined by 38 days since 1960.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/photo...-italian-alps/

[neufox47]

Do you have an actual paper confirming that the Easterbrook scale is wrong? You would think there would be more than just a skepticalscience post about it. In any case, we have other Greenland ice cores which may not show as much warmth as GIST2, but do show warmth:

Attachment 292139


Temperature reconstruction from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7

Attachment 292142

Already posted this: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ancien...y-thought.html

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal..._alley2000.txt

You can look at the data yourself. The data point that starts the graph is 95 years before present. “Present” is 1950. He sites this data set in his paper. Are you arguing that in 2010 or 2000 the average temp at gisp2 was -31.59? This is really easy, basic stuff.

[ron johnson]

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal..._alley2000.txt

You can look at the data yourself. The data point that starts the graph is 95 years before present. “Present” is 1950. He sites this data set in his paper. Are you arguing that in 2010 or 2000 the average temp at gisp2 was -31.59? This is really easy, basic stuff.

Okay, looks like Easterbrook is definitely wrong. I do question skepticalscience's attempted reconstruction resulting in them giving the GISP2 site a temperature of -28.1 for 2000-2009. This study: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2011GL049444 attempts to reconstruct the GISP2 site and determines a temperature of -29.9 for 2001-2010.

[WMD]

Okay, looks like Easterbrook is definitely wrong. I do question skepticalscience's attempted reconstruction resulting in them giving the GISP2 site a temperature of -28.1 for 2000-2009. This study: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2011GL049444 attempts to reconstruct the GISP2 site and determines a temperature of -29.9 for 2001-2010.

Ron, do you work for, or are you affiliated or associated with Americans for Prosperity in any way?

[Benny Profane]

Jezuz, tonight I listened to two highly paid news anchors on two different major news networks attribute this hurricaine Dorian to climate change. For fucks sake.

[iceman]

You gotta stop watching the news Benny.