Seems awful cold for the "hottest" year on record

[Stryder50]

I cited the change in 2023 as an indicator that the warming is continuing. What the climate change has been over the last century is important but more important is increasing rate global temperature change.

Rate is not as significant as overall change, up or down.

Today the temp was 70 degrees F.; now at night is is 55 degrees F.
Are you going to try and tell me that this rate of change is more important than the amount of change, or the average of the day and night peak temps ???

 

[Stryder50]

And again, for the science and climate ignorant advocates of ACC & AGW, a refresher on the various climate zones of Earth;

Etc., etc., etc., etc., ....
What is "good" for one zone may not be "good" for others. The problem with applying "averages" as a reference or guideline.

 

[Crick]

Rate is not as significant as overall change, up or down.

Incorrect.

Today the temp was 70 degrees F.; now at night is is 55 degrees F.
Are you going to try and tell me that this rate of change is more important than the amount of change, or the average of the day and night peak temps ???

Science tells us that temperature change requires adaptation and if it changes too quickly, there is insufficient time to accomplish that adaptation.

 

[Stryder50]

Incorrect.

Science tells us that temperature change requires adaptation and if it changes too quickly, there is insufficient time to accomplish that adaptation.

You pro-ACC/AGW drones have been ranting for several decades now that the turning/danger point is five, or ten, or fifteen years away; and it is going to happen because of 1-2 degree C. (3-5 degree F) change in average temperatures of the planet. A claim yet to be proven it should be added.
That's your "rate of change" which you claim is too soon to adapt to.

Summers here where I live will often peak in the 90sF while Winters can get down to the teensF. That a larger range of change and at a quicker rate for adaptation than what you are peddling. Yet we flora and fauna make it through alright.

Meanwhile have you changed your lifestyle to total carbon free to comply with the lies and sham you are hustling ???
Or do you just "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk" ???

 

[Crick]

You pro-ACC/AGW drones have been ranting for several decades now that the turning/danger point is five, or ten, or fifteen years away; and it is going to happen because of 1-2 degree C. (3-5 degree F) change in average temperatures of the planet. A claim yet to be proven it should be added.
That's your "rate of change" which you claim is too soon to adapt to.

As just demonstrated in another post here, the current rate of temperature increase is several thousand times any temperature change the dinosaurs experienced.

Summers here where I live will often peak in the 90sF while Winters can get down to the teensF. That a larger range of change and at a quicker rate for adaptation than what you are peddling. Yet we flora and fauna make it through alright.

You do not have the same flora and fauna as locations with less warm summers and with less cool winters. If that changes, the animals and plants will have to migrate but since they are not migratory animals, it is not something they will actively undertake. If a certain animal needed to move south the process to get him there would be the continual demise of his brethren at the north end of their range. If another animal needed to move north, the process to get her there would be the continual demise of her brethren at the sourth end of their range.

Meanwhile have you changed your lifestyle to total carbon free to comply with the lies and sham you are hustling ??
Or do you just "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk" ???

I have changed many things. So have you, but you just don't want to admit it.

 

[Stryder50]

As just demonstrated in another post here, the current rate of temperature increase is several thousand times any temperature change the dinosaurs experienced.

You do not have the same flora and fauna as locations with less warm summers and with less cool winters. If that changes, the animals and plants will have to migrate but since they are not migratory animals, it is not something they will actively undertake. If a certain animal needed to move south the process to get him there would be the continual demise of his brethren at the north end of their range. If another animal needed to move north, the process to get her there would be the continual demise of her brethren at the sourth end of their range.

I have changed many things. So have you, but you just don't want to admit it.

Sorry Charlie, but this is your usual pile of lies and fabrications.
You don't provide any specifics and just throw out gross and unproven generalizations.
"several thousand times" ...
"do not have the same flora and fauna as locations with less warm summers and less cool winters" - what sort of double talk and useless mumble jumble is that ??? The plants and animals out my door and in my backyard remain the same from one year to the next. !!!
Once again you prove to be a lies factory.
You have nothing but delusions and distortions!

 

[Crick]

Sorry Charlie, but this is your usual pile of lies and fabrications.
You don't provide any specifics and just throw out gross and unproven generalizations.

You would be the one that is lying. My numbers for the dinosaurs came from this source

"several thousand times" ....

And I showed my math

"do not have the same flora and fauna as locations with less warm summers and less cool winters" - what sort of double talk and useless mumble jumble is that ???

It is a simply observation that the flora and fauna in any given location is dependent in great part on the annual climate at that location. Do you find a lot of tropical plants and animals in Northern Canada, Tierra del Fuego, Greenland, Antarctica or Siberia? How often do we see Puffins, Musk ox or Walrus at the Equator? Why not? And why do you have such trouble understanding simple English?

The plants and animals out my door and in my backyard remain the same from one year to the next. !!!
Once again you prove to be a lies factory.
You have nothing but delusions and distortions!

As temperatures change, the ranges of plants and animals will change. Denying that is precisely as stupid as the fools here who claim two photos of the Statue of Liberty prove the world's seas aren't rising.

 

[Stryder50]

You would be the one that is lying. My numbers for the dinosaurs came from this source

View attachment 970370


And I showed my math

It is a simply observation that the flora and fauna in any given location is dependent in great part on the annual climate at that location. Do you find a lot of tropical plants and animals in Northern Canada, Tierra del Fuego, Greenland, Antarctica or Siberia? How often do we see Puffins, Musk ox or Walrus at the Equator? Why not? And why do you have such trouble understanding simple English?

As temperatures change, the ranges of plants and animals will change. Denying that is precisely as stupid as the fools here who claim two photos of the Statue of Liberty prove the world's seas aren't rising.

1) Your chart/graph shows the temperature range of change for the dinosaurs as going from @15 to @31 for a net range of change that is 16.
For the present it shows from @10 to @18 for a net range of 8.
8 is about half of 16, or 16 is double of 8, but neither is "several thousand times" difference as you state in #145 above.
Do you have problem doing simple math ?

2) In #143 you've written what reads as temperature changes within a local latitude or climate zone. Now you are changing your tune to claim you were meaning different latitudes and different climate zones. That is "moving the goal posts" which invalidates your comments either way and is another form of dis-information or lying.

3) I wasn't talking about the assorted habitat ranges of flora and fauna, but of the adaptation to temperature changes within a narrow range, such as my backyard. Your statements in #143 and next posts after made it sound you referring to localized conditions(single range) and not assorted ranges.

4) I understand "simple English", but seems you have trouble writing "simple English", among other issues you have trouble with like simple math and simple science, etc.

 

[Crick]

1) Your chart/graph shows the temperature range of change for the dinosaurs as going from @15 to @31 for a net range of change that is 16.
For the present it shows from @10 to @18 for a net range of 8.
8 is about half of 16, or 16 is double of 8, but neither is "several thousand times" difference as you state in #145 above.
Do you have problem doing simple math ?

The values I was comparing were the RATES of CHANGE.

2) In #143 you've written what reads as temperature changes within a local latitude or climate zone. Now you are changing your tune to claim you were meaning different latitudes and different climate zones. That is "moving the goal posts" which invalidates your comments either way and is another form of dis-information or lying.

In post #143 I said no such thing.

3) I wasn't talking about the assorted habitat ranges of flora and fauna, but of the adaptation to temperature changes within a narrow range, such as my backyard. Your statements in #143 and next posts after made it sound you referring to localized conditions(single range) and not assorted ranges.

I said, in various posts, that as the Earth's climate changes, the conditions in any given spot will very likely change and, over time, that will lead to changes in flora and fauna AT THAT LOCATION.

4) I understand "simple English", but seems you have trouble writing "simple English", among other issues you have trouble with like simple math and simple science, etc.

So far in this conversation, I have made no mistakes whatsoever. I have, however, had to explain some pretty blatant basics to you.

 

[Crick]

WRONG!

Depending upon which rate of mitochondrial DNA genetic mutation you go with, homo sapiens sapiens branched off from tree of general hominid evolution anywhere between 150,000 to 300,000 years ago.

Per the graph I presented above, that would imply that our version of humans has experienced at least one "glacial/inter-glacial" cycle; if not 2-3 such cycles.

You may want to brush up on your anthropology, evolution, natural history, human history, geology, and other natural sciences courses since it appears you are a bit "rusty" on these essentials.

I have posted repeatedly in this forum that modern humans have been here for ~200,000 years and that we have been through a glacial-interglacial cycle. But the warming of the last 150 years is NOT a product of the Milankovitch Cycle forcings that produce those periods but of greenhouse warming of the CO2 and other GHGs we have added to the atmosphere. Living through a glacial-interglacial cycle does not prepare us for what we are beginning to experience.

 

[Crick]

1) Your chart/graph shows the temperature range of change for the dinosaurs as going from @15 to @31 for a net range of change that is 16.
For the present it shows from @10 to @18 for a net range of 8.
8 is about half of 16, or 16 is double of 8, but neither is "several thousand times" difference as you state in #145 above.
Do you have problem doing simple math ?

No, but you do. The numbers I provided were RATES OF CHANGE. Divide those temperature changes by the time span over which they took place.

2) In #143 you've written what reads as temperature changes within a local latitude or climate zone. Now you are changing your tune to claim you were meaning different latitudes and different climate zones. That is "moving the goal posts" which invalidates your comments either way and is another form of dis-information or lying.

You're a fucking idiot. ALL I said in post #143 was "Incorrect" and "Science tells us that temperature change requires adaptation and if it changes too quickly, there is insufficient time to accomplish that adaptation." Temperature differences between day and night or between the equator and the poles do not make moot the changes of the Earth's average temperature on a climatic time scale.

3) I wasn't talking about the assorted habitat ranges of flora and fauna, but of the adaptation to temperature changes within a narrow range, such as my backyard. Your statements in #143 and next posts after made it sound you referring to localized conditions(single range) and not assorted ranges.

Why don't you get back to us when you've figured out what to which post of mine you actually wanted to refer. And depending on where you live, the temperature range of your backyard over the course of a year could be over 50 or 60C

4) I understand "simple English", but seems you have trouble writing "simple English", among other issues you have trouble with like simple math and simple science, etc.

Sorry, but that is not what our converesations here have demonstrated.

 

[ding]

No, but you do. The numbers I provided were RATES OF CHANGE. Divide those temperature changes by the time span over which they took place.

You're a fucking idiot. ALL I said in post #143 was "Incorrect" and "Science tells us that temperature change requires adaptation and if it changes too quickly, there is insufficient time to accomplish that adaptation." Temperature differences between day and night or between the equator and the poles do not make moot the changes of the Earth's average temperature on a climatic time scale.

Why don't you get back to us when you've figured out what to which post of mine you actually wanted to refer. And depending on where you live, the temperature range of your backyard over the course of a year could be over 50 or 60C

Sorry, but that is not what our converesations here have demonstrated.

How much resolution do you believe there is when using paleoclimate proxy temperatures?

 

[Crick]

How much resolution do you believe there is when using paleoclimate proxy temperatures?

Depends, don't it.

 

[ding]

Depends, don't it.

Do tell. What does it depend upon?

 

[Crick]

Do tell. What does it depend upon?

How far back you're looking. The specific proxy in use. Local conditions during the intervening span of time. The accuracy of your equipment. The handling of the proxy materials.

 

[ding]

How far back you're looking. The specific proxy in use. Local conditions during the intervening span of time. The accuracy of your equipment. The handling of the proxy materials.

Let's say as far back to 3 million years when the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. You know... when the ice age began.

Wouldn't you first have to list the various proxies?

 

[Crick]

Let's say as far back to 3 million years when the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. You know... when the ice age began.

Wouldn't you first have to list the various proxies?

Any paper I've seen using proxies listed them in detail.

 

[ding]

Any paper I've seen using proxies listed them in detail.

Great, so tell me their resolution. Because everything I have read says they are ~2000 years. So you can't make the comparison you are making.

 

[Crick]

Great, so tell me their resolution. Because everything I have read says they are ~2000 years. So you can't make the comparison you are making.

That obviously does not apply to proxy reconstructions of the past 1-2,000 years. Here is a quote from Marcotte about Shakun and his reconstruction of the entire Holocene:

Global Temperature Reconstruction: We combined published proxy temperature records from across the globe to develop regional and global temperature reconstructions spanning the past ~11,300 years with a resolution >300 yr; previous reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperatures primarily spanned the last one to two thousand years. To our knowledge, our work is the first attempt to quantify global temperature for the entire Holocene.

So, like I said, it depends.

And, apparently, you don't read a lot.

 

[ding]

That obviously does not apply to proxy reconstructions of the past 1-2,000 years. Here is a quote from Marcotte about Shakun and his reconstruction of the entire Holocene:

Global Temperature Reconstruction: We combined published proxy temperature records from across the globe to develop regional and global temperature reconstructions spanning the past ~11,300 years with a resolution >300 yr; previous reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperatures primarily spanned the last one to two thousand years. To our knowledge, our work is the first attempt to quantify global temperature for the entire Holocene.

So, like I said, it depends.

And, apparently, you don't read a lot.

How many times do I need to show you that today's slope is no different than in the past?