New report on climate change released today

[repoman]

He left this part out of his Ordovician post:

This has important implications for the climate system, since chemical weathering of silicate rocks such as granite results in a drawdown of atmospheric CO2 and may therefore lead to global cooling. During the weathering process CO2 dissolves in water as acid, and is then transported to the ocean where the carbon is buried as carbonate rock.

I have looked at this in the past and it seems complicated. When there is a lot on carbon dioxide in the air and water (in whichever form) then past a certain point too much causes some of the ocean floor carbonate to dissolve? Lots of stuff involving the effects of depth as well.

having a hard time wrapping my head around this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_compensation_depth

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm the dumb bastard here am I? Then please explain to this dumb cluck the lack of linkage between CO2 levels and temperatures in the established geological record of the Earth! Per favor!

Your post was talking about salt in the Himalayas. I don't see how this is related to temperature at all other than there needs to have been liquid water at the time the salt deposits were laid down. At the time they were laid down the area was not mountainous. That came later when the Indian subcontinent rammed into the south of the Asian continent. Every mountain on Earth is quite young compared to the age of the Earth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Darn facts keep getting in the way of the alarmist though!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160707101029.htm


During the Ordovician period, the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was about eight times higher than today. It has been hard to explain why the climate cooled and why the Ordovician glaciations took place. A new study, published in Nature Communications, shows that the weathering of rock caused by early non-vascular plants had the potential to cause such a global cooling effect.

"When we can better understand the carbon cycle in the past, we can better predict what happens with the climate in the future," says Philipp Porada of Stockholm University, one of the authors of the study.

Non-vascular plants, such as mosses, hornworts and liverworts, probably evolved during the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago. They are older than vascular plants, such as trees and grasses, and together with lichens, which are a symbiosis of fungi and algae, they formed the earliest terrestrial vegetation. Today's successors of these organisms are distributed worldwide and are characterised by their ability to survive in environments in which the supply of both water and nutrients is scarce. They are found in both cold and warm desert regions and are able to grow on rock surfaces and the bark of trees. Although they do not have real roots, they affect the surfaces on which they grow: the release of various organic acids dissolves underlying rock minerals.

The problem here is that you don't understand what you're posting. You see a fact that doesn't match up with your view of global warming and you declare it evidence it's false.

The only thing here I see that could be relevant is the higher CO2 levels.

<Thwacks angelo with a clue-by-6 as a clue-by-4 as proven inadequate>

This is about half a billion years ago. The sun didn't put out as much energy back then, higher CO2 levels were needed on Earth to maintain the same temperature.

 

[bilby]

Darn facts keep getting in the way of the alarmist though!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160707101029.htm


During the Ordovician period, the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was about eight times higher than today. It has been hard to explain why the climate cooled and why the Ordovician glaciations took place. A new study, published in Nature Communications, shows that the weathering of rock caused by early non-vascular plants had the potential to cause such a global cooling effect.

"When we can better understand the carbon cycle in the past, we can better predict what happens with the climate in the future," says Philipp Porada of Stockholm University, one of the authors of the study.

Non-vascular plants, such as mosses, hornworts and liverworts, probably evolved during the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago. They are older than vascular plants, such as trees and grasses, and together with lichens, which are a symbiosis of fungi and algae, they formed the earliest terrestrial vegetation. Today's successors of these organisms are distributed worldwide and are characterised by their ability to survive in environments in which the supply of both water and nutrients is scarce. They are found in both cold and warm desert regions and are able to grow on rock surfaces and the bark of trees. Although they do not have real roots, they affect the surfaces on which they grow: the release of various organic acids dissolves underlying rock minerals.

The problem here is that you don't understand what you're posting. You see a fact that doesn't match up with your view of global warming and you declare it evidence it's false.

The only thing here I see that could be relevant is the higher CO2 levels.

<Thwacks angelo with a clue-by-6 as a clue-by-4 as proven inadequate>

This is about half a billion years ago. The sun didn't put out as much energy back then, higher CO2 levels were needed on Earth to maintain the same temperature.

Also, nobody at that time was particularly concerned about the effect of climate and/or sea level on agriculture, coastal cities, or the ability for human beings to survive at all.

The planet can look after itself. But as a human, I am quite concerned about the planet's ability to support modern human civilisation, and very concerned about its ability to continue supporting that civilisation for a long time to come.

Changes in global temperature that are MASSIVELY faster than any seen in previous human history are a significant concern - and while predicting the detailed consequences of our carbon dioxide emissions is hard, there's some very simple physics that tells us that they will be significant; and some very simple observations that show that those significant impacts are already occurring.

Whatever happened 450MYA is not going to have had any effect on the humans who were there at the time, for the simple reason that there were none. So conditions that were incompatible with human life weren't a big deal. Today, I would assess even conditions incompatible with a sizeable human population to be a big deal. Eight to ten billion people need intensive agriculture, and many of them live in coastal cities - and losing either (far less both) would not be any fun at all.

Life on Earth will persist, but that's really only a consolation if you are a bacterium. The bacteria will be fine - and will evolve replacements for us given a few billion years.

 

[repoman]

If this was fair, Angelo's numerous responses of "so what, x happened in the deep past" , would be stricken from this discussion or color highlighted as repeatedly destroyed flailing bullshit.

Bilby nailed his ass to the bench with the above response.

 

[George S]

There is a solution to man's energy needs that does not use fossil fuels. Such a device would be welcome no matter whether the Earth is warming or cooling or to what degree. It works on cloudy days, it works on calm days, it is in development now. Untie that knot in your knickers. Be happy, don't worry! Our best scientists have a solution that doesn't need government funding.

Energy too cheap to meter. . . . With incredible new technologies the question is not could it be done but should it be done.

[YOUTUBE]ElulEJruhRQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[George S]

From the Sydney Morning Herald

‘Radical’ historian Blainey challenges climate-change orthodoxy

By Tony Wright
July 5, 2019 — 11.11am

Australia’s best-known historian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, has challenged the idea that the current level of climate change is either unique or largely the result of human behaviour.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07...-blainey-challenges-climate-change-orthodoxy/

"You have to be very careful that you’ve got good explanations for the past as well as for the present,” he said, in relation to climate change.

 

[George S]

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically/

[The Arctic changes:] Overall, it has been a consistent picture solidly in line with the expectations of the warming climate predicted from increases in greenhouse gases. In particular, modeled sea ice predictions showed marked Arctic sea ice decreases, and the actual decreases even exceeded what the models predicted (6).

The Antarctic situation has been quite different, with sea ice extent increasing overall for much of the period since 1978

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically/

[The Arctic changes:] Overall, it has been a consistent picture solidly in line with the expectations of the warming climate predicted from increases in greenhouse gases. In particular, modeled sea ice predictions showed marked Arctic sea ice decreases, and the actual decreases even exceeded what the models predicted (6).

The Antarctic situation has been quite different, with sea ice extent increasing overall for much of the period since 1978

Arctic sea ice reflects what freezes in the arctic. More is good.

Antarctic sea ice is mostly from glaciers, not from the sea. Thus more means the glaciers are moving faster, thus bad.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically/

[The Arctic changes:] Overall, it has been a consistent picture solidly in line with the expectations of the warming climate predicted from increases in greenhouse gases. In particular, modeled sea ice predictions showed marked Arctic sea ice decreases, and the actual decreases even exceeded what the models predicted (6).

The Antarctic situation has been quite different, with sea ice extent increasing overall for much of the period since 1978

Did you change teams all of a sudden or are you arguing evidence for global warming is actually evidence against global warming?

 

[bilby]

From the Sydney Morning Herald


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07...-blainey-challenges-climate-change-orthodoxy/

"You have to be very careful that you’ve got good explanations for the past as well as for the present,” he said, in relation to climate change.

Why the fuck would you take the word of an historian over the climatologists' consensus?

If your surgeon says that he and his colleagues have discussed your case, and they are confident that you have seriously obstructed arteries and requre urgent bypass surgery to save your life, do you say "But my lawyer says coronary disease is a myth, so there must be a different reason why I get out of breath after walking up two steps"?

 

[George S]

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically/

Did you change teams all of a sudden or are you arguing evidence for global warming is actually evidence against global warming?

I didn't know there were teams. Teams implies a decision regardless of evidence.

I don't believe that the computer models used by "climate scientists" are correct. I do believe in following the evidence wherever it leads.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically/

Did you change teams all of a sudden or are you arguing evidence for global warming is actually evidence against global warming?

I didn't know there were teams. Teams implies a decision regardless of evidence.

I don't believe that the computer models used by "climate scientists" are correct. I do believe in following the evidence wherever it leads.

That can’t possibly be true as you don’t even want to believe the data... at which point models are irrelevant.

The temps have risen and relatively very fast and there is a correlated CO2 increase. There are almost no natural causes that can be pinned to this temp increase.

Meanwhile mankind made rivers burn, put holes in the ozone, created dust storms, and even small earthquakes.

This idea that man can’t alter the climate seems quite willfully ignorant.

 

[repoman]

I didn't know there were teams. Teams implies a decision regardless of evidence.

I don't believe that the computer models used by "climate scientists" are correct. I do believe in following the evidence wherever it leads.

That can’t possibly be true as you don’t even want to believe the data... at which point models are irrelevant.

The temps have risen and relatively very fast and there is a correlated CO2 increase. There are almost no natural causes that can be pinned to this temp increase.

Meanwhile mankind made rivers burn, put holes in the ozone, created dust storms, and even small earthquakes.

This idea that man can’t alter the climate seems quite willfully ignorant.

"We" are not altering the climate, the carbon dioxide is altering the climate.

If burning carbon fuels made carbon dioxide AND carbon dioxide was NOT a greenhouse gas then we would not be altering the climate in that way.

But it is a greenhouse gas and the amount of it has rocketed up.

Is the human aspect of trying to find intentionality and agency in things part of this problem? The industrial revolution fed by carbon was not intended to heat the planet so it can't heat the planet in the minds of these idiots. Superstitious and egocentric stuff.

 

[bilby]

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically/

Did you change teams all of a sudden or are you arguing evidence for global warming is actually evidence against global warming?

I didn't know there were teams. Teams implies a decision regardless of evidence.

I don't believe that the computer models used by "climate scientists" are correct. I do believe in following the evidence wherever it leads.

That's good to know; I support wholeheartedly the following of evidence where it leads.

So, what evidence are you employing to reach your conclusion that the computer models are not correct?

To which models did you apply this test? If not to all of them, then what justification do you use to extrapolate your conclusion to the ones you didn't subject to this testing?

Why do you think your tests of the models are better and more valid than the ones done by the modellers, and/or during peer-review?

Have you contacted the teams of climate modellers involved, and explained why their models are not correct, and how they can improve them to take account of the issues you have found? That would be the appropriate thing to do, if you have discovered evidence of a common flaw in the modelling.

 

[George S]

Have you contacted the teams of climate modellers involved, and explained why their models are not correct, and how they can improve them to take account of the issues you have found? That would be the appropriate thing to do, if you have discovered evidence of a common flaw in the modelling.

There are others who have better climate credentials than I (I only have degrees in math and computer science.) who have done just that. They have been ignored by "climate science." "Climate Science" is a team with an agenda.
To paraphrase someone famous: There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and computer models. Something is wrong about the predictions of the IPCC computer models.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming <-- this one says the predictions have been "good enough" if not spot on.

This one says otherwise:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-observations/

 

[bilby]

Have you contacted the teams of climate modellers involved, and explained why their models are not correct, and how they can improve them to take account of the issues you have found? That would be the appropriate thing to do, if you have discovered evidence of a common flaw in the modelling.

There are others who have better climate credentials than I (I only have degrees in math and computer science.) who have done just that. They have been ignored by "climate science." "Climate Science" is a team with an agenda.
To paraphrase someone famous: There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and computer models. Something is wrong about the predictions of the IPCC computer models.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming <-- this one says the predictions have been "good enough" if not spot on.

This one says otherwise:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-observations/

There are people with an agenda on both sides of the debate. Why do you think that your second link is as reliable as (or more reliable than) your first? Neither is a primary source. The first is a blog by someone who clearly agrees that the climatologists have it broadly correct; and the second one is a very brief summary of a highly partisan presentation by a single politician - that's not proof that it's more biased than the first, but it's a huge red flag. Certainly, in both cases, more digging is needed to fact check the claims being made.

By the way, 'wrong' is not an absolute state. The climate models provide very good forecasts of future climate. They are not (and cannot be) perfect - but they don't need to be. They just need to be both a) better than any other forecasts; and b) continually improving. They meet both criteria.

It's wrong to say that the Earth is a sphere; It's also wrong to say that the Earth is flat. But to say that both claims are as wrong as each other, is wronger than the two put together.

https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

The climate models don't perfectly match observation. But to say that they are useless is still wrong. And of course, you can discard the models entirely, and just look at the observations - the warming trend is right there - and the only potential driver with which it comes even close to correlating over more than a decade is carbon dioxide levels.

We have models predicting that this will occur.
We have a well understood physical mechanism by which it should occur.
We have observations that show a strong correlation between the putative cause and the observed effect.

Even if you discard the models, there's enough here to compel any honest person to accept that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of observed warming of the planet.

And that this carbon dioxide comes mostly from burning of coal, gas, and oil by humans is undeniable (though that doesn't stop some fools from denying it, because humans are nuts).

Anthropogenic climate change is as certain as evolution. And as widely denied by the uneducated.

 

[Elixir]

There are people with an agenda on both sides of the debate.

Unquestionably true. There are differences, though. One side's agenda is of the "save the earth" variety while the other side's agenda is "save my megafortune".
Of course that's just on average, as there are people of both motives on both sides, but it's nowhere near an even split. And of course almost all of the big money is on one side.

 

[angelo]

View attachment 22301

I'm wondering. Is it Ordovician moss that explains this big sudden shift in climate for east central Florida? Don't blame the station. The signal is the same at DAB, MLB, VRB and some interior weather stations as well.

Oh dear! Do you have your tinfoil hat nearby?

 

[angelo]

He left this part out of his Ordovician post:

This has important implications for the climate system, since chemical weathering of silicate rocks such as granite results in a drawdown of atmospheric CO2 and may therefore lead to global cooling. During the weathering process CO2 dissolves in water as acid, and is then transported to the ocean where the carbon is buried as carbonate rock.

And that's causing what exactly?