But they have lumped the feedback from CO2 in with CO2, right?
So that is sort of suppressing or hiding the relationship between CO2 and temperature, right?
Global Warming? Where?
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
So that is sort of suppressing or hiding the relationship between CO2 and temperature, right?
No.
No.
Why don't you actually do some reading and cure your abysmal ignorance?
God you're stupid.
Mushroom
Gold Member
You know, I have seen that graph over and over for a while now, and I love pointing out that it is complete coprolite.
Notice, it has only about a .25c difference between the MWP and the LIA, right? And that the MWP is significantly colder than it is now?
Oh, and the LIA had a temperature drop of over 1c. Which is nowhere even close to what that image is showing.
Well, true fact, the MWP is 2c warmer than it is currently. And I gotta love that huge spike at the end. According to that, the temperature has skyrocketed by around 1c since the year 2000.
When in reality, the increase since Y2K is only 0.08c.
When your own reference image is that obvious garbage, it really demands a retraction. Because unless you believe that we have risen around .75c in two decades, that is obviously a nonsensical reference image.
It is nonsense like this that makes me doubt most of the claims. I consider it more religion than science, as it is all about belief and not actual facts. And people will outright lie and expect it to be believed.
Or do you think that the LIA was not 1c or more lower than it was in the MWP? Because trust me, any real "climate scientist" that tried to make that kind of claim would be laughed at even by the AGW fanatics.
Oh, and another thing I noticed, it has the MWP as being colder than the RWP. In fact, the RWP is not even on that chart, it was completely ignored. However, the MWP was 1c warmer than the RWP, so where exactly is that reflected in that chart? Because neither the RWP nor the DACP is indicated on that chart. And that was also a significant climate shift, as it was the first time in recorded history that glaciers started to grow again.
This is why for decades I have encouraged people to "vet their sources". And not just post something because you like or agree with it, make sure that it actually makes some kind of sense.
Mushroom
Gold Member
As so typical from what I have seen. Attack anything and anybody you do not like.
Can somebody actually have an actual discussion with you and not have you simply make attack after attack against them?
Great show me the breakout using your handy dandy radiative forcing component graphic you are so fond of using.
This is pretty simple. If they don't lump feedback from CO2 in with the radiative forcing of CO2 then they aren't hiding it. But if they do lump feedback from CO2 in with the radiative forcing of CO2 then they are hiding it.
So show me how they present the feedback from CO2 separately from the radiative forcing of CO2. Then I will correct my belief and statement.
Exactly.
Yes.
Why don't you do a search for my posts and see if they're long enough for you. I saw one of yours where you claimed geologist's outrage about the declaraton of the Anthropocene. I wanted to discuss that with you but I haven't come back across it. I guess I should do a search of yours.
Last edited:
Vet their sources? How about just naming some sources? How about a few links supporting those numbers? And, since you failed to mention it, how about some discussion of the regionality of the MWP, the LIA, the RWP and the DACP?
Mushroom
Gold Member
Yet another typical dodge.
In case you were not aware, almost the entire current Ice Age is "regional". Primarily affecting North America and Europe, and to a much lesser or negligible effect South America, Africa, and Asia.
I always find it funny how people seem to forget that. The very thing we are discussing was almost entirely restricted to two continents. Yet funny, how people will go on and on about "microclimates" and how a tiny change in some increase in LA affects global weather. But when the history of past climate changes is not in keeping with the claims, suddenly they are to be dismissed as "regional"
Of course, in this case the "region" is the size of one or two continents and the drop of over 1c... but it's regional, ignore it.
But since you brought it up, why include the almost laughable incorrect temperature change of the MWP and LIA, and not even highlight the RWP and DACP?
You know, this is not the first time I have brought this up. And once again, no clear answer, just word salad.
And I need sources that the RWP, DACP, MWP, and LIA even happened? Oh holy freaking hell, do I also need to provide sources that water is wet, the sun is hot, and that water freezes at sea level at 0c?
I thought I was trying to have an actual debate with an adult. Not an argument with a child. But maybe I should not be surprised, I have actually met multiple AGW fanatics that actually do believe that none of those previous warm or cold periods even exist. So I should not be surprised that you could be another one.
But here, I am too tired to go over that much basic climate history in any detail. So here is something I almost never do.
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia
Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia
Roman Warm Period - Wikipedia
Typical? So, people typically ask you to explain and expand on your statements and you decline, accusing them of dodging the issue. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a perfect case of projection.
"The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene. Glacial periods are colder, dustier, and generally drier than interglacial periods. These glacial–interglacial cycles are apparent in many marine and terrestrial paleoclimate records from around the world."
I do not because, as I just demonstrated, your statement is false.
What do you believe we are discussing?
I have read a great deal of material re AGW in the last 20 years and I have not seen anyone claiming that microclimate changes in LA will affect global weather. I have certainly seen comments going in the other direction: that weather or climate changes in LA are indicative of global change. Do you have any examples of the comments moving in the other direction?
Is that how it works? So, are you suggesting the the LIA was NOT regional? Or are you suggesting that global warming - "the very thing we are discussing" - IS regional? In either case, I'd really like to see something besides your 'opinion' on the matter. If you have a point to make, I think we'd all like to see some scholarly backing for it.
I didn't say to ignore it. I just wanted to make certain that someone had told you they weren't global.
The MWP was only slighly regional. The LIA more so. The RWP was regional and started before that graph began. The DACP was was regional, complex, overlapped with the LALIA and there is disagreement about it's start and stop points. And then there is the point that while you might be seeing the tail end of the RWP, the DACP just doesn't seem to be visible in those data at all. Beyond that, you'd have to ask the authors. From my point of view, the critical portion of that graph, of course, is the warming after 1880. Showing that warming and cooling took place prior to human industrialization does not have the relevance that many deniers (yourself excluded) would like to give it.
We have had very, very few conversations prior to yesterday or the day before, so that's not very impressive. I have had many conversations with other posters about the LIA and the RWP and the MWP and their various levels of regionality, but none of them have ever produced any points of significance with regard to AGW. If you think you have or that you could, please elaborate.
USMB believes that you - as someone OTHER than the OP in this thread, aren't obligated to provide diddly squat. I, however, think that if you put up numbers, scientific ethics says you should provide a source. I did not say that you needed to show evidence that those periods existed; they are common terms in this forum. I asked, quite clearly, for support for the numbers you provided, particularly for regional phenomena.
[Smiles]
So did the adults.
You think a request for sources is childish? How does that explain USMB's requirement of them in OPs under precisely these circumstances? How does that explain their universal use in refereed science publications? Is everyone being childish except poster Mushroom?
No, you should not.
I have seen such discussions in the past but in every case I've witnessed, that simply centered around regionality.
Always handy to have a label.
Well, thank you. But, you know, you ought to do things like this often. So, let's have a look.But here, I am too tired to go over that much basic climate history in any detail. So here is something I almost never do.
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia
Well, the first thing that catches your eye is that Wikipedia's LIA article uses the EXACT same graphic that you called a "joke" and "complete coprolite". And the article states in the very first sentence that "The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region.[2]" with that footnote going to
- Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy (1971). Times of Feast, Times of Famine: a History of Climate Since the Year 1000. Barbara Bray. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-374-52122-6. OCLC 164590.
That must be a little embarrassing.
This one begins "The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.[1]"Roman Warm Period - Wikipedia
with that footnote going to
- Cambell, Ian D; Campbell, Celina; Apps, Michael J; Rutter, Nathaniel W; Bush, Andrew BG (1998). "Late Holocene similar to 1500yr climatic periodicities and their implications". Geology. 26: 471–473. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1998)026<0471:LHYCPA>2.3.CO;2.
Okay, so what bearing do the MWP, the LIA, the RWP, the DACP and the LALIA have on the conclusion of very, very close to all the world's climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming has been taking place since the Industrial Revolution (a period also loosely known as The Anthropocene). I saw one post of yours in which you denied being a denier. But if that's the case, why so critical of so much of the science?
Last edited:
Your world is crumbling around your feet. That stinging you feel is pride.
Mushroom
Gold Member
I find it even more funny when what they claimed is in direct contradiction to the facts. Like that the Roman Warm Period "only affected the North Atlantic".
Since when exactly does Italy and the Middle East get affected by the North Atlantic? Because much of the evidence in historical records was the large grain surpluses in the entire Mediterranean basin. So that alone puts that claim it was a local regional event to bed.
But wait, I'm not done. Rolling my sleeves up to prove there is nothing inside of them....
Now there is a hell of a lot more in that reference, but the very fact that there is clear zoological records that seals were well south of their traditional grounds in the Southern Hemisphere pretty much screams it was not "regional" as some try to claim. And there is also plentiful evidence that it affected North America as well as South America.
Which like Antarctica does not border the North Atlantic. However, want to know what does pass through the North Atlantic? The Atlantic Current.
These are among the contradictions I love pointing out. They attempt to at the same time claim that any affect on the climate humans make is global, and at the same time that any previous changes were only regional. Meanwhile, neglecting to even consider the fact that that "region" is where there was a high literacy rate for the era so there is actual historical documentation for the warming. The Romans wrote about it, the Egyptians wrote about it, and even the Chinese commented on record rice production.
And when looking at evidence ranging from Antarctica to South America and up to British Columbia, there is also evidence of the warming happening also. But no, it was "regional", and therefore must be dismissed.
That is the absolutely worst kind of scientific mindset I have ever seen. And there absolutely a reason why I consider it to be more of a religion than actual science. Most act like born-again evangelicals than people who can actually reason in a logical manner.
And if anybody actually is curious, I am not a denier, I am a skeptic. However, I also am far more worried about the massive deforestation going on than I ever have been about CO2. There is a reason rainforests have long been called the "lungs of the planet", and we are destroying them at record rates when at every other time in the past they would be expanding and flourishing at this time. Warmer and wetter conditions with high CO2 is exactly what they need. That is why in commercial greenhouses they often pump in more CO2, to encourage the plants to grow. But this is not happening, they are shrinking and not growing.
Which of course would reduce their ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
This is why so many that accuse me of "denial" are so absolutely wrong. I am concerned about CO2, but it has not a damned thing to do with emissions. It has entirely to do with the destruction of the very system our planet uses to remove excess CO2. And these lunatics absolutely refuse to ever address that issue.
Which is why they will eventually be proven wrong by cooler temperatures. For now they are riding the interglacial period coattails. But even in interglacial periods there can be cooling trends of several decades. But regardless of that their predictions of catastrophe will not occur. There will be no hockey stick rise in temperature.
Mushroom
Gold Member
That is an illusion that is based primarily on having more direct observation than ever before.
Notice on every single chart, all of the temperatures have a very large range, that gets larger the farther one goes back in time. Yet as we draw closer to the modern era, that variation decreases rapidly.
That is primarily because prior to around the 1850s there we no really accurate thermometers. And until the middle of the 20th century there were not many of them and they were scattered. But as anybody that studies geology knows, the farther you go back in time, the more you have to simply guess to fill in the missing data that simply does not exist. There is a reason why in so many of these kinds of topics, I bring up the "Palm Tree Line".
That is something I actually made up myself, from my experience collecting fossilized palm trees in Idaho decades ago. Primarily because it is easy to visualize, we all know what palm trees look like, and we know their range in the past. And in the above image, that is the range that palm trees will grow without direct human intervention today. And that is what it is today in North America it runs up the California coast to roughly San Francisco, and on the East Coast up to the Carolinas.
But 10 mya, not only were there palm trees in Idaho, they grew along the Arctic Coast in Alaska. And they were growing there until around 2.5 mya.
And for time periods like 2.5 or 10 mya, the only way we can guess at the temperatures is looking at what plants and animals we can find in the fossil record. And that gives a very wide range, we we can make educated guesses based off of that.
I think the difference is that that study geology know how variable things like that are. And these New Age types want instant gratification and perfect stability. Something this planet has never given.
I understand. It’s an artifact of a global temperature reconstruction that smooths out the climate fluctuations seen in northern hemisphere ice cores which is the gold standard for climatic change.That is an illusion that is based primarily on having more direct observation than ever before.
Notice on every single chart, all of the temperatures have a very large range, that gets larger the farther one goes back in time. Yet as we draw closer to the modern era, that variation decreases rapidly.
That is primarily because prior to around the 1850s there we no really accurate thermometers. And until the middle of the 20th century there were not many of them and they were scattered. But as anybody that studies geology knows, the farther you go back in time, the more you have to simply guess to fill in the missing data that simply does not exist. There is a reason why in so many of these kinds of topics, I bring up the "Palm Tree Line".
That is something I actually made up myself, from my experience collecting fossilized palm trees in Idaho decades ago. Primarily because it is easy to visualize, we all know what palm trees look like, and we know their range in the past. And in the above image, that is the range that palm trees will grow without direct human intervention today. And that is what it is today in North America it runs up the California coast to roughly San Francisco, and on the East Coast up to the Carolinas.
But 10 mya, not only were there palm trees in Idaho, they grew along the Arctic Coast in Alaska. And they were growing there until around 2.5 mya.
And for time periods like 2.5 or 10 mya, the only way we can guess at the temperatures is looking at what plants and animals we can find in the fossil record. And that gives a very wide range, we we can make educated guesses based off of that.
I think the difference is that that study geology know how variable things like that are. And these New Age types want instant gratification and perfect stability. Something this planet has never given.
But I’d love to hear what IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT has to say on this subject because I know she has strong opinions on it and is super intelligent and not afraid of expressing her opinions.
And who has made that claim?
All by itself? You'd think those scientists might have noticed something like that and taken it into consideration but I guess they're just not up to Mushroom-level knowledge and thinking, eh? Let's just have a look at the link you provided to inform us on the Roman Warm Period. Wikipedia.
It starts with "The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.
and
"More recent research, including a 2019 analysis based on a much larger dataset of climate proxies, has found that the putative period, along with other warmer or colder pre-industrial periods such as the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period," were regional phenomena, not globally-coherent episodes.[7] That analysis uses the temperature record of the last 2,000 years dataset compiled by the PAGES 2k Consortium 2017.[7]"
So, a whole lot of actual scientists actually studying this actual period in time, conclude that it was very clearly regional.
Why would you go to Petaluma's Granicus site to get a copy of Singer and Idso's "Reconsidered"? Are you a civic employee for the City of Petaluma? The book has its own fucking website: https://climatechangereconsidered.o...I-Physical-Science-10-17-2013-entire-book.pdf
The actual experts disagree. I just don't see seal poop trumping the dozens of other proxy records that clearly indicate it was not warm all over. If you'd like to throw all those out, we can throw out the RWP in its entirety. And I've yet to see what bearing this has on contemporary warming. Did Singer and Idso have something to tell you on that front?
This is where you put a little laughey face.
I assume you either mean the Gulf Stream or the North Atlantic Current. You do not mean the Atlantic Current as half of it is below the Equator.
You must have a rough life.
Who is "They" and let's see some links and quotes please. Cause, you really sound as if you're just making shit up.
That sounds like a bad case of regional bias you've got there. Don't forget that most of our history was written by Europeans. The Chinese had culture while Euros were still flinging shit at each other.
Are you claiming that the experts that have published on this topic were unaware of any of these points?
I hope you're aware how silly you come across with comments like this.
What is "it"? Believing the RWP was regional?
Do you mean that they make pronouncements without - or even in contradiction to - the evidence to support their claims?
I don't want to judge your viewpoint but, around here that's not much of a distinction.
Why worry about deforestation if you're not worried about CO2? Heavily invested in lumber futures?
Hmm... I wonder if that might have something to do with human influences.
And we need them.
Shrinking? Do you mean the individual plants or the forests?
Now you have me confused. You said you were far more worried about deforestation than CO2 but now you're saying that you're worred about deforestation BECAUSE of CO2. Those two statements don't buddy up too well.
Because you're confused about forests?
Emissions? What happened to the Amazon rainforests? And why doesn't it have anything to do with emissions?
They do? That has not been my experience. I find people that are very concerned about global warming are often also very concerned about environmental issues like the deforestation of the Amazon. There are multiple large charities that do nothing but attempt to stop Amazon deforestation. Here are nine of them:
I've got a suggestion for you Mr Mushroom. Before you put this claim or that claim down in your post here, spend ten seconds to find out whether or not it is a fact. It will be a win-win for all of us.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Kilmar Garcia bodycam video shows Garcia with 8 people with no IDs who don't speak English.
- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 0
-
FBI Agent Elvis Chan, Key Figure in 2020 Election Censorship Scheme, Placed on Terminal Leave- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 3
-
Illegal Alien with Lengthy Criminal History Fatally Shoots Texas Father in Front of His Children- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 10
-
China Erupts: Furious Workers Riot as Factories Collapse Under Trump’s Tariffs- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 9
-
