Hot water and storms

[CrusaderFrank]

A few days ago it was 90F, today it was 65F. I'm pretty sure all my neighbors are now dead, probably frozen where they stood a few days ago

 

[ReinyDays]

How many times have you been told that it is not the absolute temperature that's going to take us down but the rate of change?

"Once again, Montana holds (perhaps) the world record for the sharpest drop in temperature as well as the sharpest increase. Browning, MT, saw its temperature drop 100°F, from 44°F to -56°F, in less than 24 hours as a result of a cold front passage on January 23-24, 1916. Fairfield, MT, saw an 84° drop (from 63°F to -21°F) in just 12 hours on December 24, 1924. This is generally credited as the record for any 12-hour period." -- Weather Underground -- March 16th, 2018 ...

You're peeing your knickers over 2ºF in 50 years ... that's pathetic ... you're setting feminism back 150 years this way ...

 

[ding]

How about...
View attachment 535079

1C in 80 years? Does that have any meaning to you?




You should be ashamed to just be that stupid.

None whatsoever. I've explained it to you several times. Do I need to explain it again?

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. CO2 would correlate with temperature and sea level. Post industrial revolution CO2 correlates with emissions but not temperature and sea level.

It seems their case for CO2 driving climate change is based upon the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that temperatures have been rising. The problem is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, the rate of sea level rise has not changed and temperatures are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacials. So it would be expected for temperatures to rise as we have not yet completed the interglacial cycle.

They will argue that the rate temperatures are rising is unprecedented. Unfortunately that's not true. 25 D-O events during the last glacial cycle show that temperatures rose from glacial temperatures to interglacial temperatures - 5C swings up and down - over the course of a few decades. That's even on NASA's website.

Here's what's really happening... we entered an ice age 2.7 million years ago. You can see the slope change on the oxygen isotope curve which is the well established proxy for temperatures. No one disputes the curve. The drivers were a gradually cooling of the planet coupled with the polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents; the south pole has a continent parked on top of it and the north pole has a mostly landlocked ocean on top of it. Also the rise of the Himalayas and the Panama isthmus. All these things changed the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and the ocean, but the biggest driver was both polar regions being isolated from the warmer marine currents.

But the glaciation threshold is different for each pole. Because the south pole has a continent parked on top of it, the southern hemisphere has a lower threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does because the north pole has an ocean parked over it. It is this difference which created increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. It is the northern hemisphere which dominates the climate of the earth. The coolest average temperatures occurs when the northern hemisphere is in winter and the warmest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere is in summer. Again... that's even on NASA's website.

You can see from ice cores during the last glacial cycle how much more erratic temperatures were in the northern hemisphere. By the way these are the D-O events from the Greenland ice cores. My point is that it is not unusual for there to be large temperature swings because that is the signature of the present ice age. We live in a period of bipolar glaciation. Never before has the earth been configured for bipolar glaciation. It is because we have bipolar glaciation where the poles do not have the same glaciation threshold that has led to increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. They have mistakenly correlated a period of warming and associated it with an increase from a minor greenhouse gas.

Here's the oxygen isotope curve.

Here is a zoomed in view of the oxygen isotope curve showing the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which clearly shows the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate.

And here is the climate data from the southern and northern hemisphere ice cores for the last glacial period where you can clearly see how much more erratic the climate of the northern hemisphere was compared to the southern hemisphere.

 

[Crick]

SHOW ME THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ON ANY OF YOUR GRAPHS.

God are you STUPID!!!

 

[ding]

SHOW ME THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ON ANY OF YOUR GRAPHS.

God are you STUPID!!!

You don't need the industrial revolution data to prove that since the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet that there has been increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate.

You don't need the industrial revolution data to prove that the cause for the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate is because the polar regions are uniquely configured for glaciation and have different thresholds for glaciation.

No one refutes this except maybe you.

 

[Crick]

You don't need the industrial revolution data to prove that since the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet that there has been increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate.

You don't need the industrial revolution data to prove that the cause for the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate is because the polar regions are uniquely configured for glaciation and have different thresholds for glaciation.

No one refutes this except maybe you.

You need the Industrial Revolution because that was the beginning of humanity's widespread use of fossil fuel to perform work and generate electricity.

 

[ding]

You need the Industrial Revolution because that was the beginning of humanity's widespread use of fossil fuel to perform work and generate electricity.

During an interglacial that was 2C colder than previous interglacials.

 

[Crick]

Tell me Ding, what bearing do you believe the difference between the North and South pole's glaciation potential has on the warming experienced over the last 150 years?

 

[ding]

Tell me Ding, what bearing do you believe the difference between the North and South pole's glaciation potential has on the warming experienced over the last 150 years?

Hard to say. The different thresholds for glaciation (lower in the south, higher in the north) affect the increased frequency of the fluctuations, the magnitude of the fluctuation and the length of the fluctuation. It's major impact is that of albedo. I see it as serving as a feedback to solar and orbital cycles. So to say how much of it is feed back and how much is it solar or orbital is hard to differentiate. Right now I think it's more solar.

 

[Crick]

Why?

 

[ding]

Why?
View attachment 536382

Because of this...

It's natural forces.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

 

[Crick]

I already posted a response to this exact same post in another thread. Very close to every single scientists accepts the conclusions of the IPCC. There is no debate taking place among the world's climate scientists. This exact same tactic was tried by the tobacco industry. Look how well it served them.

 

[ding]

I already posted a response to this exact same post in another thread. Very close to every single scientists accepts the conclusions of the IPCC. There is no debate taking place among the world's climate scientists. This exact same tactic was tried by the tobacco industry. Look how well it served them.

That a blanket denial, not a refutation.

This is far from settled. We are just started to get past the bias that is preventing honest dialogue and debate. Your argument serves no other purpose than to attempt to impede investigation. Shame on you. Science is never settled. There is no consensus. This paper proves there is no consensus.

"...Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress...."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Always with the BEAKED BIRDBRAIN the question is


Who should I parrot since I am incapable of thinking and practicing actual science....

No one. You will obviously pick someone that will prove the truth of that.

 

[Old Rocks]

I already posted a response to this exact same post in another thread. Very close to every single scientists accepts the conclusions of the IPCC. There is no debate taking place among the world's climate scientists. This exact same tactic was tried by the tobacco industry. Look how well it served them.

LOL Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against that we have a bunch of looney tunes on an anonymous message board claiming they know more than all the scientists in the world. LOL Yes, the same tactic was used by the tobacco companies. And now we know that the fossil fuel corporations knew exactly what their products were doing to civilization, and chose to hide and deny it. Like the tobacco industry, they should have to pay for those lies.

 

[ding]

LOL Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against that we have a bunch of looney tunes on an anonymous message board claiming they know more than all the scientists in the world. LOL Yes, the same tactic was used by the tobacco companies. And now we know that the fossil fuel corporations knew exactly what their products were doing to civilization, and chose to hide and deny it. Like the tobacco industry, they should have to pay for those lies.

This is far from settled. We are just started to get past the bias that is preventing honest dialogue and debate. Your argument serves no other purpose than to attempt to impede investigation. Shame on you. Science is never settled. There is no consensus. This paper proves there is no consensus.

"...Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress...."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

During an interglacial that was 2C colder than previous interglacials.

Silly ass, the CO2 hit 300 ppm during the last interglacial. So it was warmer. There were other factors, also.

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Feedbacks related to ice and atmospheric carbon dioxide caused abrupt warming during the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

 

[Old Rocks]

This is far from settled. We are just started to get past the bias that is preventing honest dialogue and debate. Your argument serves no other purpose than to attempt to impede investigation. Shame on you. Science is never settled. There is no consensus. This paper proves there is no consensus.

"...Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress...."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf

LOL Who can take any paper with Willie Soon's name on it seriously? Sure there are a few dingbat scientists out there willing to sell their credentials to the fossil fuel corporations just as many doctors and some scientists did for the tobacco corporations. However, as one can see from the policy papers of all the world's Scientific Societies, they are not considered credible sources.

 

[ding]

Silly ass, the CO2 hit 300 ppm during the last interglacial. So it was warmer. There were other factors, also.

View attachment 538364

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Feedbacks related to ice and atmospheric carbon dioxide caused abrupt warming during the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Thank you for proving you don't know what you are talking about.

The chart you posted literally shows the present temperature to be 2C below the peak temperatures of prior interglacials.

 

[ding]

LOL Who can take any paper with Willie Soon's name on it seriously? Sure there are a few dingbat scientists out there willing to sell their credentials to the fossil fuel corporations just as many doctors and some scientists did for the tobacco corporations. However, as one can see from the policy papers of all the world's Scientific Societies, they are not considered credible sources.

I'll take that to mean you can't disprove their claim that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.