New Sclerosponge Temp Reconstruction Indicates We've Already Experienced 1.7C of Warming

[EMH]

And the Joooos!!

You love the Co2 Fraud because it is enriching dishonest Jews like you...

 

[EMH]

So based on the simple physics of radiative forcing, 1.2C of the 1.7C is from natural warming as the planet returns to its pre-glacial period temperature like it has been doing for the past 3 million years when the ice age began.

Of course it helps to have a clue what an ice age is, and what it isn't, and you do not...

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You love the Co2 Fraud because it is enriching dishonest Jews like you...

Sorry, clown, not a Jew.

 

[EMH]

Sorry, clown, not a Jew.

Thanks - you just made the ZPF list...

 

[Orangecat]

Nobody cares.

Nobody who understands context, at least.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks - you just made the ZPF list...

Is that the list of all the people who made you look like an idiot?

 

[EMH]

Is that the list of all the people who made you look like an idiot?

Why does the Old Testament say Moses LOOKED DIFFERENT when he came down the mountain??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does the Old Testament say Moses LOOKED DIFFERENT when he came down the mountain??

Because he was banging your ex?

 

[EMH]

Because he was banging your ex?

Because the one who came down the mountain was NOT THE SAME GUY, the very first

ZIONIST PEOPLE FRAUD

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because the one who came down the mountain was NOT THE SAME GUY, the very first

ZIONIST PEOPLE FRAUD

If you say so......DURR

 

[Lastamender]

Nobody cares.

HEY! Maybe Sponge Bob does.

 

[mamooth]

Before opening the thread, I knew it would consist entirely of the logical people presenting evidence, and denier trolls throwing tantrums in response.

I was right. Not that it was a hard prediction to make. It's been the pattern here for over a decade.

This is why we can't have nice things. Deniers -- that is to say, Trump cultists -- are incapable of behaving like adults. They demonstrate that here over and over.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is why we can't have nice things.

You guys don't want nice things, you want more expensive, less reliable energy.
All so it'll be 0.1 degrees cooler in 2100.

 

[jc456]

Before opening the thread, I knew it would consist entirely of the logical people presenting evidence, and denier trolls throwing tantrums in response.

I was right. Not that it was a hard prediction to make. It's been the pattern here for over a decade.

This is why we can't have nice things. Deniers -- that is to say, Trump cultists -- are incapable of behaving like adults. They demonstrate that here over and over.

Stop throwing tantrums then

 

[ChemEngineer]

IF the Climate Change Panic was "fact, fact, fact," as the panickers have been preaching for decades, there could not be thousands of scientists signing petitions, letters, and presenting compelling research DISPUTING the wild exaggerations which have been spectacularly wrong for decades. Study the following, AlGorians, and learn, please:
_____________________________________

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Daniel J Boorstin, historian, professor, attorney, and writer; 12th librarian of the U.S. Congress

Why Scientists Disagree
About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report
on Scientific Consensus
Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer
NIPCC
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
(110 Pages Book)
xix​

Key Findings
Key findings of this book include the following:
No Consensus
# The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that
scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion
of fossil fuels on the global climate.
# The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for
a “scientific consensus” in favor of the catastrophic man-made global
warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed
and often deliberately misleading.
# There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important
scientific issues in the climate change debate.
# Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on
scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global
warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and
probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Why Scientists Disagree
# Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many
fields of study. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or
two of these disciplines.
# Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational
evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the
parameters of models.

xix
​

xx WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
# IPCC, created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact
on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a
political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.
# Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias
include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.
Scientific Method vs. Political Science
# The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly
stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from
human-related greenhouse gas emissions.
# The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate
indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in
animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability.
# In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit
hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and
make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.
Flawed Projections
# IPCC and virtually all the governments of the world depend on global
climate models (GCMs) to forecast the effects of human-related
greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.
# GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon
dioxide (CO2), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly
modeled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter
to their mission to find a human influence on climate.
# NIPCC estimates a doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from
280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7
Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming.
# Four specific forecasts made by GCMs have been falsified by
real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has
been no global warming for some 18 years.

xxi​

KEY FINDINGS
False Postulates
# Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century
surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability.
# The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than
previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks.
# Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 followed increases in
temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO2 levels could not
have forced temperatures to rise.
# Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming.
In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere.
# A warming of 2°C or more during the twenty-first century would
probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world
would benefit from or adjust to climate change.

Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence
# Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at
“unnatural” rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact
on the climate.
# Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and
regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability – in
some places rising and in others falling.
# The link between warming and drought is weak, and by some measures
drought decreased over the twentieth century. Changes in the
hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a
closer correlation with multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do
with global temperature.
# No convincing relationship has been established between warming over
the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events.

​

xxii WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
Meteorological science suggests just the opposite: A warmer world will
see milder weather patterns.
# No evidence exists that current changes in Arctic permafrost are other
than natural or are likely to cause a climate catastrophe by releasing
methane into the atmosphere.
Policy Implications
# Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice,
policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment
organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political
conflicts of interest.
# Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate
policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography,
geology, weather, and culture.
# Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based
on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to
turn their attention to the real problems their people and their planet face.
Nov 27, 2023

John Clauser, is a theoretical and experimental physicist who cheerfully calls himself a “climate change denialist.” A graduate of Cal Tech and Columbia University, in 2022 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Over 1800 Scientists Have Signed the Declaration There is No Climate Emergency

World Climate Declaration There is no climate emergency

_________________________________
Link to a brilliant scientific paper presented to the EPA regarding their ill-advised climate change policies:
Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf (co2coalition.org)
______________________
The Political Origins of the Climate Change Swindle
by Lynne Balzer
August 15, 2023
The Political Origins Of The Climate Change Swindle

A Canadian oil magnate and friend of David Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1992.
Maurice Strong (1929-2015)
Strong had been chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Conference, at which he advocated population reduction and the lowering of living standards in the interest of “saving the environment.” [emphasis, links added]
Strong asked, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
He also boldly claimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

______________

New York Post article - 2020
All 29 glaciers are still in Glacier National Park

__________________________
Ocean's aren't rising either.
Obama's $14,000,000 oceanfront mansion is one mile to the west of Nantucket, on Martha's Vineyard

He bought it after telling Americans, "Climate change is the biggest threat facing America."
____________________
_____________________________
Observation: Increasing CO2 By 7,000 ppm Has A 0.3°C Temperature Differential

Real-World Observation: Increasing CO2 By 7,000 ppm Has A 0.3°C Temperature Differential
By Kenneth Richard on 30. March 2023

Surface air CO2 concentrations vary by 100s to 1,000s of ppm within a span of hours to days or weeks across the natural world. The observational evidence suggests these variations are neither driving or even causing temperature changes.

According to recent field research (Mungai, 2021) conducted in Kenya, the observed CO2 concentrations in the atmospheric air above mofette springs (8) averages 3,400-4,800 ppm. Interestingly, the temperatures associated with these high CO2 levels are “relatively low” or “cold” (~21.5 to 29.5°C) compared to ambient temperatures at other nearby sites with ~400 ppm CO2.

The study also shows that when CO2 increases from 5,253 ppm in wet season to 12,138 ppm in dry season over a mofette springs site, there is only a 0.3°C temperature differential (23.4°C vs. 23.1°C) associated with this >7,000 ppm CO2 change. The sensitivity of the surface air temperature to these extremely high CO2 variations would appear to be vanishingly small – or non-existent.
Similarly, CO2 concentrations in the surface air over cities typically vary by 100s of ppm within a span of hours. CO2 also fluctuates by these magnitudes from season to season.
During the warmest part of the day (mid-afternoon) or the hottest summer month, the CO2 concentrations dip to their lowest values.
For example, as the mid-afternoon (summer) CO2 concentrations in urban environments dip to 285, 359, 402, or 388 ppm, whereas just before dawn (winter), when air temperatures are coldest, CO2 climbs to 588, 788, 743, or 754 ppm (McRae and Graedel, 1979, Gorka and Lewicka-Szczebak, 2013, Kumar and Nagendra, 2015, and Gonzalez de Castillo et al., 2022, respectively.)

A rather similar profile occurs over non-urban areas such as above tree cover or over grassy meadows.
In areas where trees are prevalent, CO2 concentrations have been observed to flux from 328 ppm in the mid-afternoon to 632 ppm at 3 a.m., when it is 3-4°C colder than it was 12 hours earlier (Hamacher et al., 1994).
Over meadows, CO2 routinely varies from 280 ppm to 980 ppm within a span of hours (Szaran et al., 2005). Sometimes the variation differentials reach >1,000 ppm (266 to 1,430 ppm). Once again, the higher CO2 ppm values are associated with degrees colder temperatures than the lower CO2 concentrations.
None of these real-world observations of rapid and significant surface air CO2 flux support the contention that surface air CO2 concentrations are the driver or cause of surface air temperature changes.

• Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.
• In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.
• In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt predicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
• In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had expanded over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)
• On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.
• In 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.
• On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

 

[frigidweirdo]

The carbonate skeletons of long-lived sponges give excellent sea surface temperature values prior to their widespread instrumental measurement. A reconstruction using them for SST values shows greater post-industrial warming than prior reconstructions

https://rdcu.be/dxUyr

This is a link to Nature.com/Climate Change which has no paywall.

"Anthropogenic emissions drive global-scale warming yet the temperature increase relative to pre-industrial levels is uncertain. Using 300 years of ocean mixed-layer temperature records preserved in sclerosponge carbonate skeletons, we demonstrate that industrial-era warming began in the mid-1860s, more than 80 years earlier than instrumental sea surface temperature records. The Sr/Ca palaeothermometer was calibrated against ‘modern’ (post-1963) highly correlated (R2 = 0.91) instrumental records of global sea surface temperatures, with the pre-industrial defined by nearly constant (<±0.1 °C) temperatures from 1700 to the early 1860s. Increasing ocean and land-air temperatures overlap until the late twentieth century, when the land began warming at nearly twice the rate of the surface oceans. Hotter land temperatures, together with the earlier onset of industrial-era warming, indicate that global warming was already 1.7 ± 0.1 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2020. Our result is 0.5 °C higher than IPCC estimates, with 2 °C global warming projected by the late 2020s, nearly two decades earlier than expected."​

Happens very 100,000 years or so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Before opening the thread, I knew it would consist entirely of the logical people presenting evidence, and denier trolls throwing tantrums in response.

I was right. Not that it was a hard prediction to make. It's been the pattern here for over a decade.

This is why we can't have nice things. Deniers -- that is to say, Trump cultists -- are incapable of behaving like adults. They demonstrate that here over and over.

Because I haven't posted.

Then again I'm not a "denier".

I know that temperatures rose in the past. Clearly not because of human industrialization.

Then because of what? And temperatures were HIGHER every single time in the past 400,000 years than they are right now.

 

[mamooth]

I know that temperatures rose in the past. Clearly not because of human industrialization.

I see you invoking three different fallacies there.

1. The mistaken belief that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate

2. The misunderstanding of how lag time works in climate cycles. After a CO2 spike, it takes centuries for the climate to stabilize at the final higher temperarture. Centuries haven't passed since the human CO2 spike, so the comparison to peaks of past cycles is invalid.

3. And the mistaken belief that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, and so every cycle has to work in exactly the same way.

 

[mamooth]

IF

If you had even one argument that didn't suck, you wouldn't have to post an avalanche of BS.

But you don't, so you do.

You fail hard at science, math, and basic logic, not to mention English. Given the degree of your ignorance, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Here's a thought, oh poster child for EAS (Engineers' Arrogance Syndrome). Show us your single best argument, and we'll discuss it. Do you have the guts to do that?

 

[jc456]

I see you invoking three different fallacies there.

1. The mistaken belief that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate

2. The misunderstanding of how lag time works in climate cycles. After a CO2 spike, it takes centuries for the climate to stabilize at the final higher temperarture. Centuries haven't passed since the human CO2 spike, so the comparison to peaks of past cycles is invalid.

3. And the mistaken belief that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, and so every cycle has to work in exactly the same way.

Show the evidence man can change climate