13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[Wuwei]

Humans have already adapted to a wide range of temperatures. The problem is a rate of change of temperature that is so fast that most species cannot adapt to it quickly enough. A supervolcano, large asteroid, or real fast increase in greenhouse gases, may create such a fast change in temperature.

An ideal temperature isn't the issue. It's a high rate of temperature change that will cause a hardship to life on earth.

.

 

[basquebromance]

"i'm not anti-science. i'm just a big fan of oxygen"

 

[SSDD]

Humans have already adapted to a wide range of temperatures. The problem is a rate of change of temperature that is so fast that most species cannot adapt to it quickly enough. A supervolcano, large asteroid, or real fast increase in greenhouse gases, may create such a fast change in temperature.

An ideal temperature isn't the issue. It's a high rate of temperature change that will cause a hardship to life on earth.

.

Yet more bullshit...the only proxy studies that have sufficient resolution to to make claims about periods as small as 100 years show us that over the past 10,000 years, there have been temperature changes far exceeding anything we have seen in shorter time spans.

You have absolutely no evidence that the amount of, and rate of change we have seen is in any way extraordinary...in short, it is a fiction...a bald faced lie...entirely made up in an effort to support an alarmist narrative.

Here are the proxy studies with sufficient resolution to make claims about temperature changes on century scales and they show precisely the opposite of what you, and other hand waving, hysterical alarmists claim.

First is the GISP2 study derived from ice cores taken in Greenland. True, they are taken from above the Arctic circle, but ice cores are the only proxy capable of providing the resolution required to make claims on a century scale...and climate science has been telling us for decades that the polar regions are the canaries in the coal mine and whatever happens there, will follow globally.

The second gold standard temperature reconstruction is derived from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica. A close look at the temperature change tracks nicely with the GISP2 study indicating that the changes, and rates of change were global...unless of course you can provide a rational, scientifically valid reason that polar temperature reconstructions would show similar temperature increases and decreases on similar time scales but the globe between the two ice cores was somehow left out of whatever change happened in the polar regions.

And an ideal temperature is precisely the issue. It is the claim of climate science that an ice age provides the ideal temperature for life on planet earth and the fact that the earth is warming out of an ice age is cause for alarm and heralds impending catastrophe when the fact is that we haven't even warmed to the mean temperature from the time of the onset of the little ice age. It is pure alarmist hysterical handwaving without basis in fact.

 

[Wuwei]

Humans have already adapted to a wide range of temperatures. The problem is a rate of change of temperature that is so fast that most species cannot adapt to it quickly enough. A supervolcano, large asteroid, or real fast increase in greenhouse gases, may create such a fast change in temperature.

An ideal temperature isn't the issue. It's a high rate of temperature change that will cause a hardship to life on earth.

.

Yet more bullshit...the only proxy studies that have sufficient resolution to to make claims about periods as small as 100 years show us that over the past 10,000 years, there have been temperature changes far exceeding anything we have seen in shorter time spans.

You have absolutely no evidence that the amount of, and rate of change we have seen is in any way extraordinary...in short, it is a fiction...a bald faced lie...entirely made up in an effort to support an alarmist narrative.

Here are the proxy studies with sufficient resolution to make claims about temperature changes on century scales and they show precisely the opposite of what you, and other hand waving, hysterical alarmists claim.

First is the GISP2 study derived from ice cores taken in Greenland. True, they are taken from above the Arctic circle, but ice cores are the only proxy capable of providing the resolution required to make claims on a century scale...and climate science has been telling us for decades that the polar regions are the canaries in the coal mine and whatever happens there, will follow globally.

The second gold standard temperature reconstruction is derived from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica. A close look at the temperature change tracks nicely with the GISP2 study indicating that the changes, and rates of change were global...unless of course you can provide a rational, scientifically valid reason that polar temperature reconstructions would show similar temperature increases and decreases on similar time scales but the globe between the two ice cores was somehow left out of whatever change happened in the polar regions.

And an ideal temperature is precisely the issue. It is the claim of climate science that an ice age provides the ideal temperature for life on planet earth and the fact that the earth is warming out of an ice age is cause for alarm and heralds impending catastrophe when the fact is that we haven't even warmed to the mean temperature from the time of the onset of the little ice age. It is pure alarmist hysterical handwaving without basis in fact.

Strawman, strawman, strawman.

First, the graphs you show have only a ± 2 ℃ span which is well within the ability for humans to survive. I never said life would not survive the temperature swings. Thank you for showing that point.

Second, I never said that a rapid rise in temperature has not happened before. We all know it has. It is within the natural variation over at least the last few thousand years. Thank you for showing that point.

Third, I have not done any “pure alarmist hysterical handwaving without basis in fact.” I said that fast global temperature changes will cause a hardship to life on earth. I did not say we are all going to die!!!

I would guess that rapid temperature swings over the last few thousand years caused hardship for some species, but if that were to continue from today, human hardship would be more serious because we are a much much larger population entrenched in coastal areas. Arable land would move to inconvenient places for farmers, etc. A large temperature change in 100 years is close to the current median life span so that people would have to adapt within their lifetime.

Creating a strawman has bent you out of shape with your usual hysterical caustic invectives.

.

 

[SSDD]

I would guess that rapid temperature swings over the last few thousand years caused hardship for some species, but if that were to continue from today, human hardship would be more serious because we are a much much larger population entrenched in coastal areas.

Wild assed guesses...the stock in trade of hysterical handwaving alarmists....the maximum and minimum temperature on earth on any given day spans about 200 degrees...a degree in a decade would be nearly undetectable...

 

[Wuwei]

Wild assed guesses...the stock in trade of hysterical handwaving alarmists....the maximum and minimum temperature on earth on any given day spans about 200 degrees...a degree in a decade would be nearly undetectable...

I told you many times I am not a CAGW warmist. Just because I challenge your hysterical denial of fake science doesn't mean that I believe much of the emotional hype in the news. Save your rant for somebody else.

.

 

[SSDD]

Wild assed guesses...the stock in trade of hysterical handwaving alarmists....the maximum and minimum temperature on earth on any given day spans about 200 degrees...a degree in a decade would be nearly undetectable...

I told you many times I am not a CAGW warmist. Just because I challenge your hysterical denial of fake science doesn't mean that I believe much of the emotional hype in the news. Save your rant for somebody else.

.

Of course you are....anyone who would spout unsupportable nonsense about the dangers inherent in the rate of change when we are in the midst of a 20 year pause is most certainly an alarmist...you just never stop lying do you?

 

[Wuwei]

Of course you are....anyone who would spout unsupportable nonsense about the dangers inherent in the rate of change when we are in the midst of a 20 year pause is most certainly an alarmist...you just never stop lying do you?

Strawman again.
I thought you might purposely misread that so I purposely bold faced "if" in my post #364. But you misread it anyway. Look at it again. I have no idea nor conjecture what the future holds as far as the earths mean global temperature. Just because I criticize your fake physics made you want to "erroneously" jump to conclusions about what I think. You never stop lying do you.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?

No?

Weird!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?

No?

Weird!

No, SSDD's stupidity hasn't changed the 75/77 figure.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?

No?

Weird!

No, SSDD's stupidity hasn't changed the 75/77 figure.

Well, nobody can change your delusions but you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?

No?

Weird!

No, SSDD's stupidity hasn't changed the 75/77 figure.

Well, nobody can change your delusions but you.

It's no delusion, SSDD is stupid.

 

[Wuwei]

It's no delusion, SSDD is stupid.

It's hard to tell if he's a stupid, a "flat earth" type nut case, or a troll.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's no delusion, SSDD is stupid.

It's hard to tell if he's a stupid, a "flat earth" type nut case, or a troll.

.

Based on his discussion with Dr. Raeder, he's stupid.

 

[Wuwei]

It's no delusion, SSDD is stupid.

It's hard to tell if he's a stupid, a "flat earth" type nut case, or a troll.

Based on his discussion with Dr. Raeder, he's stupid.

Thank you for the clarification. I was loosing sleep wondering about it.

.

 

[SSDD]

So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?

No?

Weird!

The consensus is falling apart on its own...actual science is being done these days and it isn't looking good for the AGW hypothesis...you, alas, are so blinded by your bias that you can't see the whole thing falling apart before your very eyes...you are a victim of groupthink...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The consensus is falling apart on its own...

Hmm,no, that's a ridiculous lie.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The consensus is falling apart on its own...

Hmm,no, that's a ridiculous lie.

Exactly their was no consensus.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The consensus is falling apart on its own...

Hmm,no, that's a ridiculous lie.

Exactly their was no consensus.

.

And that's another ridculous lie.


Seriously, the best way to embarrass you guys is just to let you talk.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The consensus is falling apart on its own...

Hmm,no, that's a ridiculous lie.

Exactly their was no consensus.

.

And that's another ridculous lie.


Seriously, the best way to embarrass you guys is just to let you talk.

Tell us what did they agree on besides they love government grants?

.