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

[MultiVerse]

Dismissing? It's simply the relaying of information contained in recent studies, some of which require more than a single 2D chart to illustrate.

The temperature data, including the 1900-1950 warming, used to generate the reconstructions is freely available and open to the public.

[old goat]

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

You seem to be getting pretty hot under the collar, which is contributing to global warming. It would help if you would cool off.
May I point out that you cannot "win" this argument, no matter how many graphs you post and how many people you insult. Neither can those of us you're arguing with. And even if you or we could win, what difference does it make here on this little ski forum? So there is no reason for you to get so worked up and frustrated when you can't get everyone to agree with you.

[ron johnson]

Dismissing? It's simply the relaying of information contained in recent studies, some of which require more than a single 2D chart to illustrate.

The temperature data, including the 1900-1950 warming, used to generate the reconstructions is freely available and open to the public.

We are talking about temperature. You do not need more than a 2d chart to illustrate it. None of the quotes you've taken from the studies have done anything to prove your point. All I see from you are these two quotes:

"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."

-Pretty vague, they are trying to make it sound like greenhouse gas emissions starting during the IR were the main driver of modern warming. We know greenhouse gas emissions did not have a significant influence on the warming until after 1950.

"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."

-What do they consider the contemporary period? After 1950? After 1900? After 1850? If it's after 1950, then their conclusion is wrong based on the data they are using. If its after 1900 or 1850, then they are conflating the post 1950 greenhouse gas warming with pre 1950 natural warming to create their unprecedented warming.

[reckless toboggan]

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

[MultiVerse]

I have read the reports (plural). They go into some detail both discussing and illustrating the temperature anomalies. Among the key takeaways is how previous periods of warming and cooling were often regional rather than global events. In other words, regional warm and cold periods existed even when the globe was going through cold or warm periods at different times.

A single 2D chart oftentimes amalgamates regional shifts creating the appearance of global shifts.

[ron johnson]

You seem to be getting pretty hot under the collar, which is contributing to global warming. It would help if you would cool off.
May I point out that you cannot "win" this argument, no matter how many graphs you post and how many people you insult. Neither can those of us you're arguing with. And even if you or we could win, what difference does it make here on this little ski forum? So there is no reason for you to get so worked up and frustrated when you can't get everyone to agree with you.

You guys seem a bit more upset than I am. I've been the one receiving the insults. I think I called neufox dense once and I've certainly implied that SumJong is stupid, but he hasn't left me much of a choice based on his posts.

I haven't been trying to win some 'global warming is fake' argument. I have been trying to counter all the false, hysterical propaganda that gets posted in here. If there is one thing I've learned more than any from this discussion is that people are even more close minded than I would have thought. Agree with me or not, I have made many salient points. If you say I cannot win this argument, well, that is a reflection on yourself. It's like you are part of a great team, and you will support your guys no matter what. If they stretch the truth a bit here, and lie a bit there, well thats fine because they are your guys and you like them.

[SumJongGuy]

to counter all the false, hysterical propaganda that gets posted in here..

[ron johnson]

I have read the reports (plural). They go into some detail both discussing and illustrating the temperature anomalies. Among the key takeaways is how previous periods of warming and cooling were often regional rather than global events. In other words, regional warm and cold periods existed even when the globe was going through cold or warm periods at different times.

A single 2D chart oftentimes amalgamates regional shifts creating the appearance of global shifts.



Nope, they are not "trying to make it sound like greenhouse gas emissions starting during the IR were the main driver of modern warming. " In fact, this was mentioned in the earlier post above, "with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

Do you not realize that the Neukom study is based on the graph?

Lets try to be clear on what you are saying. You are saying that the warming post 1950 is unprecedented because it is happening at a global scale, and thus the warming pre 1950 was not happening at a global scale? If this is the case, where is your evidence for the pre 1950 warming not occurring on a global scale?

[ron johnson]

Yes, how ironic that a guy who has been unable to post a single truthful, relevant, or coherent thing in this thread finds that ironic.

[old goat]

If you say I cannot win this argument, well, that is a reflection on yourself.

I have to say, you've outdone yourself with that one. Congratulations.

[NWFlow]

The one thing I will say ron isn't wrong about is the current cultural climate's inability to foster critical thinking. There's actually a fair amount of interesting discussion in this thread, and multiverse is doing a great job carrying the rational, scientific torch.

But saying things like "Fox news lolol - Ron Johnson you dummy" doesn't really contradict the larger point that Ron is trying to make -- that plenty of irrational propaganda also exists around global warming and climate change. The bourgeois + class has certainly latched on to the topic and is unlikely to be able to even begin to define the MWP etc.

Not saying Ron's right about a lot of the science, but not sure he's wrong about some of the pseudo-religious fervor that a lot of people can display on this topic.

And FWIW, my main Arctic climate / permafrost professor was (and remains) a climate skeptic.

[k2skier112]

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

Please take this advice, you sound dumber after each post

[SumJongGuy]

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.

Umm we're also talking about why. More people burning more fossil fuels/carbon emmissions is why according to everyone but a few educated people and you.

[WMD]

The one thing I will say ron isn't wrong about is the current cultural climate's inability to foster critical thinking. There's actually a fair amount of interesting discussion in this thread, and multiverse is doing a great job carrying the rational, scientific torch.

But saying things like "Fox news lolol - Ron Johnson you dummy" doesn't really contradict the larger point that Ron is trying to make -- that plenty of irrational propaganda also exists around global warming and climate change. The bourgeois + class has certainly latched on to the topic and is unlikely to be able to even begin to define the MWP etc.

Not saying Ron's right about a lot of the science, but not sure he's wrong about some of the pseudo-religious fervor that a lot of people can display on this topic.

And FWIW, my main Arctic climate / permafrost professor was (and remains) a climate skeptic.

I follow a lot of climate scientists, and the general consensus is that this is wrong. The climate crisis is worse than most people realize, and the media fails to really grasp the severity of the problem. We should be more distraught than we are. We mostly ignore the scientists on this issue, and it is thanks to people like Ron and his funders.

Start here to see for yourself: https://www.climaterealityproject.or...follow-twitter

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. "
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/


Here is an article about the depression climate scientists are experiencing because society is mostly ignoring the truth about this crisis: "It’s the End of the World as They Know It - The distinct burden of being a climate scientist"

https://www.motherjones.com/environm...ientist-grief/

[Mofro261]

Nat Commun. 2019; 10: 3502.
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians

Abstract
We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.


....

In what follows, we characterize and compare these CC actors at various levels of aggregation: first, by comparing their scientific authority and media visibility at both the individual and group levels; and second, by mapping their associations that are manifest in media co-visibility networks and scientific co-citation networks. Our approach accounts for the variation in visibility across a wide range of sources, from main-stream to non-mainstream sources. By simultaneously accounting for each individual’s scientific authority, our quantitative analysis contributes to the CC communication literature by revealing the degree to which prominent contrarian voices benefit from the scalability of new media, in particular the large number of second-tier news sources and blogs that do not implement rigorous information quality assessment standards. Such disproportionate media visibility of contrarian arguments and actors not only misrepresents the distribution of expert-based beliefs (28,36,39), it also manifestly undermines the credible authority of career CCS experts and reinforces the trend of CCC presiding over public scientific discourse (40), which all together hinders prospects for rapid public action on CC (41).

[NWFlow]

I follow a lot of climate scientists, and the general consensus is that this is wrong. The climate crisis is worse than most people realize, and the media fails to really grasp the severity of the problem. We should be more distraught than we are. We mostly ignore the scientists on this issue, and it is thanks to Ron and his funders.

Start here to see for yourself: https://www.climaterealityproject.or...follow-twitter

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. "
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/


Here is an article about the depression climate scientists are experiencing because society is mostly ignoring the truth about this crisis: "It’s the End of the World as They Know It - The distinct burden of being a climate scientist"

https://www.motherjones.com/environm...ientist-grief/

No, i totally get this, and I guess I would be what is characterized as a climate scientist -- at least peripherally (and certainly a depressed one). I am not saying he's right and I agree things are definitely way worse than at least globally we are preparing for. I am just saying that he's not wrong with regards to some of his cultural criticisms. I have an extremely hard time believing that someone with a nefarious agenda other than trolling for somewhat interesting anonymous debate is really going to devote any time to deliberately sowing misinformation on fucking TGR...seems to me he's a decently informed troll and is skeptical of some scientific conclusions. I understand that globally this is quite dangerous, but I gave the example of my former professor as a skeptic who is likely more passionate about Arctic climate than any of us and has spent the better part of his life and career living and working in the Arctic simply to show that it is possible to actually spend time thinking about this shit and being skeptical.

Yes, these kind of attitude is dangerous politically and is being used for roundly unscientific political gain by various right wing agencies, but skepticism and challenging established hypotheses is essentially the basis of scientific thought.

Plus, when people become SO CERTAIN about something has inherently uncertain as the climate system, it's probably hard for folks to not poke a little fun.

[NWFlow]

Yeah, but just saw mofro referencing the that nice nat comms piece. I'll go back into my corner and stop paying attention to the trolls. Sorry, everyone.

[ron johnson]

Umm we're also talking about why. More people burning more fossil fuels/carbon emmissions is why according to everyone but a few educated people and you.

No, we are not talking about the why. Please find where I have argued that the warming post 1950 wasn't driven mainly by CO2. I'll save you the time, I never have.

[ron johnson]

I follow a lot of climate scientists, and the general consensus is that this is wrong. The climate crisis is worse than most people realize, and the media fails to really grasp the severity of the problem. We should be more distraught than we are. We mostly ignore the scientists on this issue, and it is thanks to people like Ron and his funders.

Start here to see for yourself: https://www.climaterealityproject.or...follow-twitter

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. "
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/


Here is an article about the depression climate scientists are experiencing because society is mostly ignoring the truth about this crisis: "It’s the End of the World as They Know It - The distinct burden of being a climate scientist"

https://www.motherjones.com/environm...ientist-grief/

What you mean to say is you follow a lot of climate scientists who are also activists. As if a website who's mission is to "catalyze a global solution to the climate crisis by making urgent action a necessity across every level of society," is going to offer an impartial list of climate scientists to follow on twitter.

[ron johnson]

Nat Commun. 2019; 10: 3502.
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians

Abstract
We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.


....

In what follows, we characterize and compare these CC actors at various levels of aggregation: first, by comparing their scientific authority and media visibility at both the individual and group levels; and second, by mapping their associations that are manifest in media co-visibility networks and scientific co-citation networks. Our approach accounts for the variation in visibility across a wide range of sources, from main-stream to non-mainstream sources. By simultaneously accounting for each individual’s scientific authority, our quantitative analysis contributes to the CC communication literature by revealing the degree to which prominent contrarian voices benefit from the scalability of new media, in particular the large number of second-tier news sources and blogs that do not implement rigorous information quality assessment standards. Such disproportionate media visibility of contrarian arguments and actors not only misrepresents the distribution of expert-based beliefs (28,36,39), it also manifestly undermines the credible authority of career CCS experts and reinforces the trend of CCC presiding over public scientific discourse (40), which all together hinders prospects for rapid public action on CC (41).

This was making the rounds a couple weeks ago and received a huge amount of criticism. Climate scientist Judith Curry called it "the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal."

https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/t...s-enforcement/

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/skeptics-get-49-more-media-and-other-fairy-fantasy-stories-from-nature-gossip-mag/

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/08/15...ommunications/

[WMD]

What you mean to say is you follow a lot of climate scientists who are also activists. As if a website who's mission is to "catalyze a global solution to the climate crisis by making urgent action a necessity across every level of society," is going to offer an impartial list of climate scientists to follow on twitter.

Read the article about depressed climate scientists. They want to just do science but must become activists because they see doom and their findings are being dismissed, rather than taken seriously.

[WMD]

This was making the rounds a couple weeks ago and received a huge amount of criticism. Climate scientist Judith Curry called it "the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal."

https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/t...s-enforcement/

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/skeptics-get-49-more-media-and-other-fairy-fantasy-stories-from-nature-gossip-mag/

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/08/15...ommunications/

You cite Judith Curry as your "climate scientist?" Hahahahahahahaha. Made me squirt water out of my nose! Good one!

[ron johnson]

You cite Judith Curry as your "climate scientist?" Hahahahahahahaha. Made me squirt water out of my nose! Good one!

Yes, she is one of the most reasonable voices in the field. You know she was one of the first to theorize that global warming would cause worsening hurricanes? The alarmists liked her then, they don't like her so much now that she is backtracking on that since there is nothing in the data showing that to be the case.

I'm curious, what is your gripe with her? It's a bit funny you have issue with Curry when the first person on your who to follow on twitter link is Michael Mann.

[SumJongGuy]

Yes, she is one of the most reasonable voices in the field. You know she was one of the first to theorize that global warming would cause worsening hurricanes? The alarmists liked her then, they don't like her so much now that she is backtracking on that since there is nothing in the data showing that to be the case.

I'm curious, what is your gripe with her? It's a bit funny you have issue with Curry when the first person on your who to follow on twitter link is Michael Mann.

I love how you type "the alarmists" like it's some kind of small group of whack jobs. Again Irony to 100 on a two dimensional graphic..

[WMD]

"Hurricanes and Climate Change

"Evidence continues to mount that human-induced climate change is causing hurricanes to grow stronger and more destructive. Hurricanes are producing heavier rain, their storm surges are riding atop higher sea levels, and in many cases they are lingering longer over land, causing increased flooding and infrastructure destruction."

https://www.sciline.org/quick-facts/...tm_campaign=qf

The Essentials

The five costliest U.S. Earth-system disasters (including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fires, and all kinds of extreme weather) have all been hurricanes, and all five have occurred within the past 15 years: Harvey (2017), Katrina (2005), Sandy (2012), Irma (2017), and Maria (2017). 1
Hurricanes get their energy from ocean heat; the warmer the water is, the stronger a hurricane can get. More than 90% of the excess heat trapped in the climate system due to human-caused global warming has gone into the oceans, providing the added energy driving recent hurricanes’ extreme wind intensities and the increased evaporation that has resulted in associated torrential rainfall. 2
Globally, the last few decades have seen a growing proportion of strong hurricanes and a corresponding shrinking proportion of weak ones. Specifically, from 1975 to 2010, the proportion of Category 4 or 5 hurricanes (the highest wind speeds) increased by 25-30 percent for every 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperature due to human causes, resulting in a near doubling of the proportion of those most intense hurricanes. 3
Both heavy rain and storm surge—water pushed ashore by heavy winds—contribute to flooding, which causes the vast majority of hurricane-related deaths and financial losses. The amount of rain falling in recent hurricanes has increased due to climate change, including in Harvey (by 20 to 38 percent), 4,5 Katrina, Irma, and Maria. 6 Hurricanes are also producing higher storm surges due to sea level rise. 7
Climate-change-related perturbations in atmospheric winds like the jet stream may be contributing to a trend in which hurricanes are moving more slowly over the United States 8 (slowing by 17% over the past century), 9 and are increasingly likely to “stall” near the coast, potentially leading to catastrophic local rainfall and flooding. 10
There has been a significant increase in how quickly hurricanes intensify in the Atlantic basin in recent decades, an expected symptom of global warming. 11 Hurricanes that intensify rapidly are difficult to forecast accurately and prepare for, especially when this occurs close to the coast, and cause a disproportionate amount of human and financial losses. 12
Globally, hurricanes are reaching their maximum intensities further from the tropics, shifting toward temperate, heavily populated coastal regions that have not historically experienced them. Northern Hemisphere hurricane peak intensities have shifted northward by 100 miles in the past 30 years. 13
Pitfalls to Avoid

Avoid asking whether climate change “caused” a particular hurricane to slow, intensify rapidly, etc., as there are always many contributors to any weather event. Instead, ask whether climate change contributed to the intensity of a hurricane or the likelihood of its especially damaging behavior (such as stalling over a coastline)—questions that scientists can increasingly answer with confidence given recent advances in attribution science.

FOOTNOTES

1. NOAA Office for Coastal Management: Hurricane Costs 2. IPCC, 2014, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 4. 3. Holland, G. et al., (2014), Climate Dynamics, 42, 617. 4. Risser, M. D., et al., (2017), Attributable human-induced changes in the likelihood and magnitude of the observed extreme precipitation during hurricane Harvey, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12457–12464, and Wang, S. Y. et al., (2018) 5. Wang et al., Quantitative attribution of climate effects on Hurricane Harvey’s extreme rainfall in Texas, Env. Res. Lett., 13, 054014. 6. Patricola, C. and Wehner, M., (2018), Anthropogenic influences on major tropical cyclone events, Nature, 563, 339–346. 7. Rahmstorf, S., (2017), Rising hazard of storm-surge flooding, PNAS, 114 (45), 11806-11808 8. Kossin, J. P., (2018), A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed, Nature, 558 (7708), 104 9. Kossin, J. P., (2019), Matters Arising, Reply to Moon et al. and Lanzante, J.R.. Nature, 570, E16-E22. 10. Hall, T. M. and Kossin, J. P., (2019), Hurricane stalling along the North American coast and implications for rainfall, Climate and Atmospheric Science. 11. Bhatia et al., (2019), Recent increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates, Nature Communications, 10, 635. 12. Emanuel, K., (2017), Will global warming make hurricane forecasting more difficult?, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 98, 495-501. 13. Kossin, J. P., et al., (2014), The poleward migration of the location of tropical cyclone maximum intensity. Nature, 509, 349-352.