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

[ron johnson]

- The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. 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.


-- The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”*

The second period extends from the mid-1970s to today:

“The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

“The extraordinary rate of the industrial-era temperature increase is evident on timescales longer than approximately 20 years”

--- The Neukom paper has the warmest multidecadal peak of the Common Era occurring in the late twentieth century.**


---- *Notes: The papers(s) reference material points to studies describing the strong role of internal variability, including cold anomalies in both the Atlantic and the Pacific in the early twentieth century.

** Late twentieth century warming is much greater than early twentieth century warming:

Attachment 293079

My question that you quoted doesn't seem to be answered by anything that you wrote. The graph you posted seems to be a fake. I've never seen a graph from NASA showing only .31'C warming in the first half of the 20th century. Your graph's early 20th century warming looks a lot different from this graph which includes NASA GISS:

[uglymoney]

Global Warming with the Dems right now on CNN. Excellent. At least they are talking about it. Agree or disagree with their positions they are making it an issue. Contrast to the other party with heads in sand.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ron johnson]

I call BSL on this!

You have no real data. It has all been debunked. You are lying.

You have repeatedly told me I am lying, and when I ask you point out what I am lying about, you don't respond.

[Bunion 2020]

Those heads are not down in the sand, they are up and in the ass.

Hows that view Ronbo.

[MultiVerse]

Well, you have been using the PAGES paper as a confirmation of your position, so I think its fair for me to use it. In any case, the Neukom paper is not public so I can't see anything other than the abstract, but I did find this link with two graphs from the paper: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/07...000-years.html The top graph is extremely odd as it shows 1.5'C of warming from ~1975 to 2000 from instrumental data which is more than double the warming I've seen from any record for that period. What is the Y axis supposed to mean? '51-year warming rate ['C per century]'?

The bottom graphs appear to show that early 20th century was a global phenomenon, and quote: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed." So it looks like the warming pre 1950 was global in nature according to this paper. And according to the PAGES temperature record, the pre 1950 warming is very similar to the post 1950 warming.

In any case the point remains that you cannot unequivocally state that this is the only time the earth has warmed this quickly and synchronously in the past 2000 years. There are hundreds of studies at odds with these two papers:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...9008193601&z=2

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/

- It's fair for you to use it, and I never claimed otherwise, only that the way you were using it doesn't make sense.

-- If the chart looks weird it might be because it is showing 30 yr ensemble medians for the individual temperature reconstructions to illustrate warming trends at timescales of 20 years and longer.

--- While I appreciate your links, you are missing the point. The data is not suggesting there wasn't a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) with warm regions, etc. Instead, from a spatiotemporal standpoint preindustrial forcing, unlike today, was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multiple decades and centennial timescales. In other words, regional warm and cold periods existed even when the globe was going through cold or warm periods at different times.

----- Also, I read a couple of the notrickszone studies at random and they left out key details. For example, notrickszone quotes the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) "OPT-0015 indicates that ocean heat content was larger during the Medieval Warm Period than at present" but fails to include the next line "not because surface temperature was greater, but because the deep ocean had a longer time to adjust to surface anomalies."

If you look at the charts in the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) paper you see that surface temperatures today are higher for OPT-0015 than during the Medieval Warm Period and that global average Common Era surface temperature anomalies (figure 1) are also higher.

The notrickszone appears to engage in both cherry picking and purposeful misrepresentation.

---- Anyway, this is what a broad cross section of data and models indicate:
1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.

[MultiVerse]

My question that you quoted doesn't seem to be answered by anything that you wrote. The graph you posted seems to be a fake. I've never seen a graph from NASA showing only .31'C warming in the first half of the 20th century. Your graph's early 20th century warming looks a lot different from this graph which includes NASA GISS:

Your question was answered. What we've seen repeatedly from you in this thread is either willful ignorance, or it takes you a long time to grasp concepts.

The data points on the two charts are essentially the same. Both charts clearly have less area under the curve pre-1950 than post 1950. Have you not seen a graph with a smoothing curve?

Deniers also have a history of faking graphs to make early 20th century global warming appear as large as the warming after 1950 so maybe that's why it looks different:

http://web.archive.org/web/200805050...windlers-list/

[WMD]

You have repeatedly told me I am lying, and when I ask you point out what I am lying about, you don't respond.

Everything. Every single point you make has been debunked and is BSL!

[From_the_NEK]

RJ must get paid by the word.

[SumJongGuy]

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

Remember this from some graduate level statistics and a chaos theory course. Yes, I passed, Bs in statistics and an A in Chaos Theory and it's Implications. Still leave the climate science to the peer reviewed experts because I didn't sleep at a holiday in. But, ya, exponential smoothing is pretty common.

[ron johnson]

- It's fair for you to use it, and I never claimed otherwise, only that the way you were using it doesn't make sense.

If I am using it wrong, then you were using it wrong to support your Neukom paper.

-- If the chart looks weird it might be because it is showing 30 yr ensemble medians for the individual temperature reconstructions to illustrate warming trends at timescales of 20 years and longer.

I think you said you had read the paper. Can you copy/paste the chart description?

--- While I appreciate your links, you are missing the point. The data is not suggesting there wasn't a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) with warm regions, etc. Instead, from a spatiotemporal standpoint preindustrial forcing, unlike today, was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multiple decades and centennial timescales. In other words, regional warm and cold periods existed even when the globe was going through cold or warm periods at different times.

I know what your point is. My point is there is a lot of other research that suggests the MWP did produce warm temperatures at a global scale for multiple decades.

----- Also, I read a couple of the notrickszone studies at random and they left out key details. For example, notrickszone quotes the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) "OPT-0015 indicates that ocean heat content was larger during the Medieval Warm Period than at present" but fails to include the next line "not because surface temperature was greater, but because the deep ocean had a longer time to adjust to surface anomalies."

If you look at the charts in the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) paper you see that surface temperatures today are higher for OPT-0015 than during the Medieval Warm Period and that global average Common Era surface temperature anomalies (figure 1) are also higher.

The notrickszone appears to engage in both cherry picking and purposeful misrepresentation.

---- Anyway, this is what a broad cross section of data and models indicate:
1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.

Is there anything more cherry picky than using one paper (maybe 2?) that is reliant on modeling as the basis for your statement? I link the papers not to say that they are all better papers, but to show that there is a lot of research on the MWP that suggests otherwise. You need more evidence than what you are presenting to state such a thing as fact. A more appropriate statement would be that new research suggests that 1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years etc, etc.

Just as another example, this paper finds that modern global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe and some areas were cooling: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm

[ron johnson]

Your question was answered. What we've seen repeatedly from you in this thread is either willful ignorance, or it takes you a long time to grasp concepts.

I'll go through your points.

"The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. 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."

-When are they ending the "early 1900s"? The warming lasted until mid century.

"The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”

-Based on the graph from that paper I don't see how they can make the bolded conclusion, and at the same time conclude that the warming post 1950 was globally synchronous at multiple decades. Also we have this quote on the Neukom paper: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed."

"The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

-By two industrial-era periods they mean early 1900's-1940's and post 1970's right?

The data points on the two charts are essentially the same. Both charts clearly have less area under the curve pre-1950 than post 1950. Have you not seen a graph with a smoothing curve?

Deniers also have a history of faking graphs to make early 20th century global warming appear as large as the warming after 1950 so maybe that's why it looks different:

http://web.archive.org/web/200805050...windlers-list/

I didn't post the right graph. Should be this one which shows ~.5'C pre 1950 warming after smoothing:

[ron johnson]

Everything. Every single point you make has been debunked and is BSL!

Should be pretty easy to find some then, but that would require more effort than copy/pasting sensational news articles.

[WMD]

Should be pretty easy to find some then, but that would require more effort than copy/pasting sensational news articles.

Your points don't deserve debate. I'm glad you are enjoying the articles. I have lots more to share.

[neufox47]

Well, you have been using the PAGES paper as a confirmation of your position, so I think its fair for me to use it. In any case, the Neukom paper is not public so I can't see anything other than the abstract, but I did find this link with two graphs from the paper: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/07...000-years.html The top graph is extremely odd as it shows 1.5'C of warming from ~1975 to 2000 from instrumental data which is more than double the warming I've seen from any record for that period. What is the Y axis supposed to mean? '51-year warming rate ['C per century]'?

That’s because it is a warming rate you moron. Not the amount of warming. The rate of warming and its expressed as something other than degrees per year. This is why no one should listen to you. You lack basic understanding of scientific and mathematical concepts. You use your ignorance to latch onto individual points and miss the forest for the trees; you don’t grasp the concepts. Just like when you claimed the ocean was rising at linear rates and not accelerating. You were too stupid to understand a line graph.

What training do you have in science? Math?

[SumJongGuy]

What training do you have in science? Math?

North KaKalaKi banned exponential math to forecast sea level rise either because the legislators couldn't comprehend it or because it was hitting the property values of their beach houses.

If it ain't Y=MX+B it's illegal LOL!


New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise

[stuckathuntermtn]

He's finally right about one thing: I haven't been paying attention to what he is saying. Neither should you.

[Kinnikinnick]

So Ron Johnson,

In some sense you’re right, statistically speaking we have a data set of 1. Our reality on a single earth in a single solar system. And without you know a 30-40 or more data sets we can’t mathematically predict with a high degree of confidence what’s going to happen.

But that said, what course of action do you think is prudent?:

A) to act cautiously and plan for the worst

B) ignore it and take whatever comes


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MultiVerse]

I'll go through your points.

"The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. 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."

-When are they ending the "early 1900s"? The warming lasted until mid century.

"The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”

-Based on the graph from that paper I don't see how they can make the bolded conclusion, and at the same time conclude that the warming post 1950 was globally synchronous at multiple decades. Also we have this quote on the Neukom paper: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed."


"The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

-By two industrial-era periods they mean early 1900's-1940's and post 1970's right?



I didn't post the right graph. Should be this one which shows ~.5'C pre 1950 warming after smoothing:

If I am using it wrong, then you were using it wrong to support your Neukom paper.

I think you said you had read the paper. Can you copy/paste the chart description?

I know what your point is. My point is there is a lot of other research that suggests the MWP did produce warm temperatures at a global scale for multiple decades.

Is there anything more cherry picky than using one paper (maybe 2?) that is reliant on modeling as the basis for your statement? I link the papers not to say that they are all better papers, but to show that there is a lot of research on the MWP that suggests otherwise. You need more evidence than what you are presenting to state such a thing as fact. A more appropriate statement would be that new research suggests that 1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years etc, etc.
Just as another example, this paper finds that modern global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe and some areas were cooling: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm

1 - There was a natural warming period following a series of volcanic eruptions beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatial-climate variability. The paper focuses on the, “last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions” which happens to overlap with the start of the industrial era.

2 - Then, per your chart, there's a brief cooling trend until about 1915 followed by a warming trend through the 1940s, which “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including (some) anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”

3 - After that, from about 1975 to the present we see the, "warmest multidecadal peak of the Common Era occurring in the late twentieth century."

4 - I never used the chart. You used the chart, and incorrectly.

5 - The text you quoted from my post is the description of the chart.

6 – Yes, there are other papers on the MWP but they are using a more limited data set and even a random sample of the ones you posted don’t support your claims. In fact, your sources keep misrepresenting the scientific literature.

7 – I’ve been referencing three, not two, papers and now I’m referencing four papers. Your paper finds that modern global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe for most of the twentieth century, until the second half of the twentieth century.

Prior to 1950 there is lots of warming/cooling spatial-variability. Then, the cooling spatial-variability slowly goes away as time moves towards the present with a warming period affecting the whole planet. The paper reinforces this fact by stating that after 1950 multidecadal variability cannot be separated well from the warming trend.

Figure 3 from your paper illustrates the point:

You can see from your own source how the bands of warming expand and merge to cover the entire planet, all of which is described in the paper.

[old goat]

Things each side gets wrong:

libs: Don't appreciate the fact that developing world incentives run contrary to goals of west in terms of efficiency/waste reduction. Even full compliance by the developed world will be offset by a quickly growing & economically limited developing world.

cons: Ignore the fundamental responsibility to not do wasteful shit when more efficient & clean methods are readily available. Generally not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior.

One of the costs of combating climate change will be for the rich countries to pay for carbon free development in the poor ones. I've long thought that it takes a lot of chutzpah for Northern Hemisphere countries that long ago cut down most of their forests to be lecturing Brazil and other rain forest countries about cutting theirs. If we want Brazil to stop cutting and burning we should be paying for it.

[MultiVerse]

Things each side gets wrong:

libs: Don't appreciate the fact that developing world incentives run contrary to goals of west in terms of efficiency/waste reduction. Even full compliance by the developed world will be offset by a quickly growing & economically limited developing world.

cons: Ignore the fundamental responsibility to not do wasteful shit when more efficient & clean methods are readily available. Generally not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior.

There's a tendency for humans to embrace narratives—scientific or not—that back arguments, ideologies, and conclusions that are core elements of their point of view.

Putting people into boxes is much easier than understanding their point of view. It's not so much "not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior" as it is a perception that liberals are using climate change as a trojan horse to enact social justice or even a Chinese hoax to topple existing hierarchies.

I don't think Ron is a Russian plant or a troll or any of the other ad hominems, I think he's sincere, because a lot of what he's saying is more or less in alignment with the worldview of maybe half the population. Ron even seems reasonable once it becomes clear that there's a passionate and sincere segment of the population that believes decreasing carbon emissions is not only wrong but that instead we should be increasing emissions because all life on earth depends on CO2.

[SumJongGuy]

There's a deep religious undertone in the resistance and denial crowd. They're so quick to call the movement towards lowering carbon emissions a religion followed by fanatics. All the while, they believe changes of this magnitude happening globally can only be caused by and controlled by God. Hence, at every turn and new pool of data and analysis pointing the finger at us, they scoff and insist it's either false, imaginary, or purely natural AKA God's work.

[WMD]

"Slow, intense and unrelenting: The science behind Hurricane Dorian’s most dangerous qualities"

The science connecting climate change to hurricanes like Dorian is strong. Warmer oceans fuel more extreme storms; rising sea levels bolster storm surges and lead to worse floods. Just this summer, after analyzing more than 70 years of Atlantic hurricane data, NASA scientist Tim Hall reported that storms have become much more likely to “stall” over land, prolonging the time when a community is subjected to devastating winds and drenching rain.

But none of the numbers in his spreadsheets could prepare Hall for the image on his computer screen this week: Dorian swirling as a Category 5 storm, monstrous and nearly motionless, above the islands of Great Abaco and Grand Bahama.

Seeing it “just spinning there, spinning there, spinning there, over the same spot,” Hall said, “you can’t help but be awestruck to the point of speechlessness.”

After pulverizing the Bahamas for more than 40 hours, Dorian finally swerved north Tuesday as a Category 2 storm. It is expected to skirt the coasts of Florida and Georgia before striking land again in the Carolinas, where it could deliver more life-threatening wind, storm surge and rain.

“Simply unbelievable,” tweeted Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Georgia and former president of the American Meteorological Society. “I feel nausea over this, and I only get that feeling with a few storms.”

The hurricane has matched or broken records for its intensity and for its creeping pace over the Bahamas. But it also fits a trend: Dorian’s appearance made 2019 the fourth straight year in which a Category 5 hurricane formed in the Atlantic — the longest such streak on record.


Shocking though the storm has been, meteorologists and climate scientists say it bears hallmarks of what hurricanes will increasingly look like as the climate warms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/scien...rainbow&wpmm=1

[WMD]

There's a tendency for humans to embrace narratives—scientific or not—that support arguments, ideologies, and conclusions that are preexisting elements of their worldview.

Putting people into boxes is much easier than understanding their point of view. It's not so much "not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior" as it is a perception that liberals are using climate change as a trojan horse to enact social justice or even a Chinese hoax to topple existing hierarchies.

I don't think Ron is a Russian plant or a troll or any of the other ad hominems, I think he's sincere, because a lot of what he's saying is more or less in alignment with the worldview of maybe half the population. Ron even seems reasonable once it becomes clear that there's a passionate and sincere segment of the population that believes decreasing carbon emissions is not only wrong but that instead we should be increasing emissions because all life on earth depends on CO2.

I disagree. Ron is a paid troll. He follows the Americans for Prosperity playbook exactly. He posts too much, and has too many denier bullshit talking points at his fingertips to be just a sincere "knuckle dragger" who believes we need to increase CO2.

We have all seen this before on here. Attack anyone who disagrees with you. Say things like, "why don't you believe in science?" or "Why don't you trust the IPCC?" to get people to argue obscure, untrue points. The goals are to confuse and create doubt. This is the denier playbook.

[m2711c]

Why don’t you believe in science?

[MultiVerse]

I disagree. Ron is a paid troll. He follows the Americans for Prosperity playbook exactly. He posts too much, and has too many denier bullshit talking points at his fingertips to be just a sincere "knuckle dragger" who believes we need to increase CO2.

We have all seen this before on here. Attack anyone who disagrees with you. Say things like, "why don't you believe in science?" or "Why don't you trust the IPCC?" to get people to argue obscure, untrue points. The goals are to confuse and create doubt. This is the denier playbook.

Maybe. But if you read the comments section of sites Ron posts a lot of the people are saying the same thing as Ron. It seems un-economical for paid trolls to be saying the same thing to each other on obscure websites. It seems possible that they've sincerely, and maybe subconsciously, embraced their worldview regardless of how it came about.