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

[WMD]

His game is to create doubt about climate change, so when we argue he wins. The arguing allows him to make it seem there is still a debate about the science or renewable energy. There isn't.

[ron johnson]

-- I cited a couple of the studies the last time this came up:

Throughout the last 2,000 years, external factors such as volcanic eruptions or solar activity were not intense enough to cause markedly warm or cold temperatures across the whole world for decades, or even centuries

These 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.

-- Plus, your point is more than a little silly because the Earth consists of more than just the Northern Hemisphere. If your point underrepresents half the planet then it's not much of a point, maybe half a point.

Even then you're relying on data from decades ago whereas the latest research is based on 700 climate records in a growing open-access database.

If you're an honest broker then it's time for you to update your prior beliefs because recreating wide snapshots of global climate like those in the studies would have been extremely difficult just a few short years ago.




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

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).

I'm still only seeing one study from you on this - Neukom et al 2019, and one paper which uses the same dataset as Neukom (PAGES 2k Consortium). I don't see the relevance of the Koch and Schurer papers you cited. The point remains that you cannot state as fact that this is the warmest period globally over the last 2000 years, there is far too much research that doesn't agree with that conclusion. It would be like me stating that 'we now know that human activity has little influence on the climate' just because we have two new papers suggesting that low level cloud cover controls the climate: https://electroverse.net/new-scienti...imate-not-man/

If the hockey stick graph doesn't work, I'll use the one straight from your PAGES 2k Consortium:

It shows the same thing as the hockey stick. A 'natural' warming spike up to 1950 looking about the same as the 'unnatural unprecedented' spike from 1950 on. What a coincidence. Perhaps our recent records are more accurate than older proxies? And when you average out hundreds of past proxies and tack the instrumental record on to the end you aren't getting an accurate graph?

[ron johnson]

This is the climate change thread. Where did I allege anything you beg to differ with me on about hurricanes?

You seek to find the edge of the debate and quibble on pedantic terms. Then mischaracterize any support for alternative energy or endorsements of climate change as synonymous with your pedantic debate.

I'm lost on why you are bringing up hurricanes. I don't remember you being involved in the hurricane discussion.

I am not mischaracterizing anything about extreme weather and alternative energy. The alarmist extreme weather camp and alternative energy supporters are the ones mischaracterizing. We know for a fact that there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather from the records of the instrumental era. To conflate these events with global warming is a mischaracterization. To look at the price of solar panels or wind power and assume that the price would be the same in a 100% non carbon renewable system is a mischaracterization.

[ron johnson]

The same climate scientists you don't believe about anything else? You really are a piece of work.

Kind of shows how shoddy their position is when you can use their own conclusions against their conclusions.

[old goat]

Why do you guys keep feeding this troll? Like, you think you're actually going to convince him? Maybe his spelling and grammar makes him look like less of an ignorant tool at first, but not the message.
Just tell him he's a dumb fuck and stop responding.

Because it keeps him in his mom's basement searching right wing climate sites and posting on TGR instead of on the streets shooting people with his assault rifle.

[ElCollier23]

Do you guys think it's too late to change our ways? I'm actually scared of what's happening all around the world. I just avoid the news most of the times.

[byates1]

https://corvink.com/products/save-th...l-unisex-shirt

[old goat]

Kind of shows how shoddy their position is when you can use their own conclusions against their conclusions.

Hmm, let me think about this for a moment.



Nope, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

[ron johnson]

Hmm, let me think about this for a moment.



Nope, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

I guess I have to spell it out for you. According to MultiVerse and other alarmists, the warming caused from humans releasing CO2 is unprecedented for its sharp rise while occurring at a global scale. The same data that they use to to reach this conclusion shows that there is a rise from 1900 to 1950 that was caused naturally and looks exactly the same. Thus the warming from CO2 is not unprecedented.

[MultiVerse]

It shows the same thing as the hockey stick. A 'natural' warming spike up to 1950 looking about the same as the 'unnatural unprecedented' spike from 1950 on. What a coincidence. Perhaps our recent records are more accurate than older proxies? And when you average out hundreds of past proxies and tack the instrumental record on to the end you aren't getting an accurate graph?

Kind of shows how shoddy their position is when you can use their own conclusions against their conclusions.

The same data that they use to to reach this conclusion shows that there is a rise from 1900 to 1950 that was caused naturally and looks exactly the same. Thus the warming from CO2 is not unprecedented.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, several large tropical volcanic eruptions occurred within less than three decades. The 1815 Tambora eruption, an eruption in 1808 or 1809 whose source is unknown and eruptions in the 1820s and 1830s. As a result, global temperatures fluctuated substantially in the early to mid-1800s at the transition from mostly natural to substantial anthropogenic forcing because the climate system was recovering from volcanic cooling after recovering from a sequence of volcanic eruptions.

Only after the 1850s did the transition into the period of anthropogenic warming start. The eruptions first led to cooling followed by a period of recovery. The recovery began with the Industrial Revolution, after which greenhouse gases took over as the driver of planetary warming. [1]


Co-author of the Nature paper[2], Nathan Steiger, from Columbia University, USA, said, "The main takeaway is that climate variability in the contemporary period is very different than what’s happened in the past 2,000 years. This is definitely further evidence that fossil fuels and anthropogenic activity actually has fundamentally changed the climate."



[1] "Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions" Nature Geosciencevolume 12, pages650–656 (2019)

[2] 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

[ron johnson]

During the first half of the nineteenth century, several large tropical volcanic eruptions occurred within less than three decades. The 1815 Tambora eruption, an eruption in 1808 or 1809 whose source is unknown and eruptions in the 1820s and 1830s. As a result, global temperatures fluctuated substantially in the early to mid-1800s at the transition from mostly natural to substantial anthropogenic forcing because the climate system was recovering from volcanic cooling after recovering from a sequence of volcanic eruptions.

Only after the 1850s did the transition into the period of anthropogenic warming start. The eruptions first led to cooling followed by a period of recovery. The recovery began with the Industrial Revolution, after which greenhouse gases took over as the driver of planetary warming. [1]


Co-author of the Nature paper[2], Nathan Steiger, from Columbia University, USA, said, "The main takeaway is that climate variability in the contemporary period is very different than what’s happened in the past 2,000 years. This is definitely further evidence that fossil fuels and anthropogenic activity actually has fundamentally changed the climate."



[1] "Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions" Nature Geosciencevolume 12, pages650–656 (2019)

[2] 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

Why are you talking about the 19th century? We are talking about 1900-1950. The majority of that warming has nothing to do with CO2, and according to your sources it was a global phenomenon just like the warming of today.

[MultiVerse]

Because the trend began after the 1850s which anyone can clearly see on charts you posted above.

The sequence looks like this: volcanic cooling, a warming recovery period, then greenhouse gases took over as the driver of planetary warming.

It's all in the paper. The paper (2019) describes the subsequent spatiotemporal activity forced by volcanic eruptions in the 19th century, activity that was unlike the anthropogenic global warming of today.


To reiterate, volcanic cooling in the early 1800s followed by a warming recovery period around 1850 onward then greenhouse gases took over as the driver of planetary warming.

[ron johnson]

Because the trend began after the 1850s which anyone can clearly see on charts you posted above.

The sequence looks like this: volcanic cooling, a warming recovery period, then greenhouse gases took over as the driver of planetary warming.



It's all in the paper. The paper (2019) describes the subsequent spatiotemporal activity forced by volcanic eruptions in the 19th century which is unlike the anthropogenic global warming of today.

Greenhouse gasses did not take over the warming until after 1950. This is not controversial.

[old goat]

I guess I have to spell it out for you. According to MultiVerse and other alarmists, the warming caused from humans releasing CO2 is unprecedented for its sharp rise while occurring at a global scale. The same data that they use to to reach this conclusion shows that there is a rise from 1900 to 1950 that was caused naturally and looks exactly the same. Thus the warming from CO2 is not unprecedented.

Nope, still not making sense. Try again.

[WMD]

Greenhouse gasses did not take over the warming until after 1950. This is not controversial.

Yes, I believe it was the coup of October, 1953, when greenhouse gases finally took over global warming.

It was bloody and violent, but a decisive victory for greenhouse gases. The other forces affecting climate have never recovered and are still in hiding in remote pockets of the planet.

[MultiVerse]

Nope, still not making sense. Try again.

Yes, I believe it was the coup of October, 1953, when greenhouse gases finally took over global warming. It was a bloody and violent coup.

Yeah, in the early 1800s after a sequence of five volcanic eruptions within 28 years led to widespread global cooling there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s characterized by pronounced climate variability.

I think the point he's trying to make is the time period prior to 1950 looks the same as the time period after 1950. But the latest research indicates the heat uptake during the period of climatic turmoil prior to 1950 does not occur in a globally uniform way, and with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

It is the second half of the 20th century rapid warming period when the whole planet is affected at the same time for the first time with 98% of the Earth’s surface affected by the change in climate.

[SumJongGuy]

It is the second half of the 20th century rapid warming period when the whole planet is affected at the same time for the first time.

The massive increase in productivity, farming, industrial revolution, etc also spawned massive increases in population globally.... and lots of them now have their own cars, lawn mowers, weed whackers, etc.. in addition to the coal plants used for the additional electrical grids. To say that's not unprecedented is just plain obtuse.

[neufox47]

Greenhouse gasses did not take over the warming until after 1950. This is not controversial.

Take over? What is your dumb ass talking about now? Do you even know how a complex system works? Source for your idiocy?

This is going to be just like when I had to explain to you how to read a graph isn’t it?

[ron johnson]

Nope, still not making sense. Try again.

You should probably join SumJong and sit this one out at this point.

[ron johnson]

Yeah, in the early 1800s after a sequence of five volcanic eruptions within 28 years led to widespread global cooling there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s characterized by pronounced climate variability.

I think the point he's trying to make is the time period prior to 1950 looks the same as the time period after 1950. But the latest research indicates the heat uptake during the period of climatic turmoil prior to 1950 does not occur in a globally uniform way, and with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

It is the second half of the 20th century rapid warming period when the whole planet is affected at the same time for the first time with 98% of the Earth’s surface affected by the change in climate.

Bolded is exactly what I am saying, and your favorite data source (PAGES 2k) shows that the heat uptake pre 1950 DID occur in a globally uniform way.

[ron johnson]

The massive increase in productivity, farming, industrial revolution, etc also spawned massive increases in population globally.... and lots of them now have their own cars, lawn mowers, weed whackers, etc.. in addition to the coal plants used for the additional electrical grids. To say that's not unprecedented is just plain obtuse.

Jesus Christ buddy, is it possible for you post anything of use or relevance in this thread? We are talking about the temperature rise post 1950 and whether that is unprecedented or not.

[ron johnson]

Take over? What is your dumb ass talking about now? Do you even know how a complex system works? Source for your idiocy?

This is going to be just like when I had to explain to you how to read a graph isn’t it?

Take over the natural warming pre 1950. Am I supposed to provide a source when we talk about CO2 being a greenhouse gas or do we just accept that as fact? It is well accepted that CO2 was a minor contributor to the pre 1950 warming. Even skepticalscience accepts this: https://skepticalscience.com/global-...th-century.htm

[MultiVerse]

Bolded is exactly what I am saying, and your favorite data source (PAGES 2k) shows that the heat uptake pre 1950 DID occur in a globally uniform way.

Your claim relies on a single 2D chart of temperature averaging. The recent studies however go into detail describing the spatial coherence of warming. The "Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions" 2019 study, for example, illustrates how the temperature and precipitation anomalies do not occur in a globally uniform way.

The point being, from a spatiotemporal standpoint preindustrial forcing, unlike today, was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multiple decades and centennial timescales.

[SumJongGuy]

Z axis is well beyond Ghost Kook Jonson's wheelhouse here.. They didn't have that on the YouTube University curriculum.

[ron johnson]

Your claim relies on a single 2D chart of temperature averaging. The recent studies however go into detail describing the spatial coherence of warming. The "Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions" 2019 study, for example, illustrates how the temperature and precipitation anomalies do not occur in a globally uniform way.

The point being, from a spatiotemporal standpoint preindustrial forcing, unlike today, was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multiple decades and centennial timescales.

How many ways are you trying to have it? You use PAGES 2k data when it fits what you are trying to say, and dismiss it when it doesn't agree with what your are trying to say.

The quotes you posted from the 2019 ice age study tell us nothing about the 1900-1950 warming.