• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

 
 
 
Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene « RealClimate

At the beginning of the Holocene, around year -10,000, the average temperature was the reference temperature - 0.2 C. It went up to +0.2 C at year - 8000, roughly stayed that way until -3500, then started to decline, getting to -0.35 C by the 19th cy. Its recent increase has been *very* fast, *much* faster than anything previous, and greater than the early-Holocene peak.
I think for three reasons it is extremely likely that there was not such a rapid warming before:

1. There are a number of high-resolution proxy data series over the Holocene, none of which suggest that there was a previous warming spike as strong as in the 20th Century. Had there been such a global warming before, it would very likely have registered clearly in some of these data series, even if it didn’t show up in the averaged Marcott curve.

2. Grant Foster performed the test and hid some “20th C style” heating spikes in earlier parts of the proxy data to see whether they are revealed by the method of Marcott et al – the answer is a resounding yes, they would show up (albeit attenuated) in the averaged curve, see his article if you are interested in the details. [Update 18 Sept: one of our readers has confirmed this conclusion with a different method (Fourier filtering). Thanks!]

3. Such heating must have a physical basis, and it would have to have quickly disappeared again (would it have lasted, it would be even more evident in the proxy data). There is no evidence in the forcing data that such a climate forcing could have suddenly appeared and disappeared, and I cannot imagine what could have been the mechanism. (A CO2-induced warming would persist until the CO2 concentration decays again over thousands of years – and of course we have good data on the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases for the whole Holocene.)
Click to expand...
 
Berkeley Earth - going from -1.6 C in 1850 to +0.8 C today. Our planet is definitely getting warmer, and getting warmer at an unprecedented pace.

Report: Global temps are the highest they've been in 4,000 years - on what I'd posted on earlier for the Holocene. Has some more graphs.

Rebound after Ice Ages
Claim: It can take centuries or thousands of years for temperatures to fully rebound out of an ice age. Global warming may be nothing more than a rebound from the last ice age, or the Little Ice Age.

Why this claim is wrong: The time scale for warming depends in large part, of course, on the magnitude and cause of the forcing. If climates are "relaxing" from the last Ice Age, such that each incremental change in Milankovich insolation forcing means a bit warmer planet, leading to a bit less ice, etc, and if the ice is miles thick and covering vast areas of the northern hemisphere, then yes - it can take many hundreds or even a few thousand years for quasi equilibrium to migrate temperatures slowly upward. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the current situation. The forcing is not the slow migration through equilibriums described above, but a rapid external forcing through strong injection of greenhouse atmospheric gases directly into the fastest responding, lowest thermal mass, lowest thermal capacitance element in the system - the atmosphere. The thermal and CO2 capacitance of the ocean is vastly bigger than that of the atmosphere, due to its mass. But it is into the Earth's thin, low-mass atmosphere that we are directly forcing CO2, with no regard to its equilibrium level. Next, the evidence is strong from both theory and observed correlation that the Ice Ages are primarily controlled by the Milankovitch cycles.
Click to expand...
Mid-century CO2 levels might be as high as they've ever been in 50 million years
If we keep emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate, the international team of researchers concludes that by mid-century CO2 levels could rise to around 600ppm. This much CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t been seen since the Eocene, some 50 million years ago.

During the Eocene, our planet looked radically different. The global mean surface temperature was 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today, there was little to any permanent ice and as such sea levels were much higher. During the Eocene, the Canadian Artic looked more like a tropical paradise complete with palms and swimming crocodiles.
Click to expand...
 
angelo said:
FMD................it's bullshit that the ice sheets were predicted to have long ago melted and are still there?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's bullshit. Show us the paper that makes the prediction.

angelo said:
Earth has had an atmosphere for billions of years, and " greenhouse effect" is part of what makes life possible on this planet. Were there no greenhouse, there would be no plant or animal life.
Click to expand...

Having trouble keeping track of your own bullshit? Just a few days ago, you posted this:

angelo said:
https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.
Click to expand...

That "real life astrophysicist" claims that the greenhouse effect isn't real. You tell us to listen to this guy because you assume he's an expert, yet you can't even manage to do it yourself.

angelo said:
CO2 makes up less than 3% of this atmosphere. I've posted a list of elements that make up Earth's atmosphere before. By far the biggest contributor to Earth's climate is water vapor, not CO2 which is a plant food!
Click to expand...

That's correct.

Water vapour is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect, but CO2 is also a contributor, and even a relatively small amount of atmospheric CO2 provides radiative forcing. This is understood perfectly well by climate scientists.

CO2 is plant food, which is why we need to stop clearing so much of the vegetation which is absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, and why we need to stop burning fossilised plants for energy.

If you had even a basic understanding of climate science then you wouldn't be so impressed by your little factoids.
 
bigfield said:
Yes, that's bullshit. Show us the paper that makes the prediction.



Having trouble keeping track of your own bullshit? Just a few days ago, you posted this:

angelo said:
https://youtu.be/IAUT8vz35lQ

Remove the alarmists blinkered view of the subject and listen to a real to life astrophysicist.
Click to expand...

That "real life astrophysicist" claims that the greenhouse effect isn't real. You tell us to listen to this guy because you assume he's an expert, yet you can't even manage to do it yourself.

angelo said:
CO2 makes up less than 3% of this atmosphere. I've posted a list of elements that make up Earth's atmosphere before. By far the biggest contributor to Earth's climate is water vapor, not CO2 which is a plant food!
Click to expand...

That's correct.

Water vapour is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect, but CO2 is also a contributor, and even a relatively small amount of atmospheric CO2 provides radiative forcing. This is understood perfectly well by climate scientists.

CO2 is plant food, which is why we need to stop clearing so much of the vegetation which is absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, and why we need to stop burning fossilised plants for energy.

If you had even a basic understanding of climate science then you wouldn't be so impressed by your little factoids.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest we substitute for fossil fuels? Apart from using nuclear power generation and hydro, because according to the opinion of many including this environmentalist. solar and wind will quadruple the price of power generation once the subsidies are removed.

 
angelo said:
What do you suggest we substitute for fossil fuels?
Click to expand...

I suggest we use nuclear power. For discussion, see this thread.

angelo said:
Apart from using nuclear power generation and hydro, because according to the opinion of many including this environmentalist. solar and wind will quadruple the price of power generation once the subsidies are removed.
Click to expand...

The price of electricity has no bearing on the science.
 
Tell that to the poor, who in many parts of the world can't afford to even switch on a light because of high power prices. These people are relying on the science to bring power prices to an affordable level.
 
angelo said:
Tell that to the poor, who in many parts of the world can't afford to even switch on a light because of high power prices. These people are relying on the science to bring power prices to an affordable level.
Click to expand...

That's a political problem, not a scientific one. We can easily supply clean, affordable energy to our citizens using current technology.
 
angelo said:
lpetrich said:
angelo said:
Earth has had an atmosphere for billions of years, and " greenhouse effect" is part of what makes life possible on this planet. Were there no greenhouse, there would be no plant or animal life. CO2 makes up less than 3% of this atmosphere. I've posted a list of elements that make up Earth's atmosphere before. By far the biggest contributor to Earth's climate is water vapor, not CO2 which is a plant food!
Click to expand...
angelo, I suggest visiting planet Venus some time. It has plenty of CO2 in its atmosphere, CO2 that gives it a super greenhouse effect.
Click to expand...

I had to read that statement twice. Are you finally admitting the sun has influence on a planet's climate? Do pray tell, How did Venus acquire so much CO2 when there are no humans there burning fossil fuels?
Click to expand...

Venus went into a thermal runaway that baked the carbon out of the rocks. Note that Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is a lot closer to the sun. Eventually Earth might end up the same way, it depends on whether enough water escapes before it gets that hot.
 
These U.S. Cities Are Most Vulnerable to Major Coastal Flooding and Sea Level Rise | Climate Central - has a list of 25 cities that are vulnerable to coastal flooding, sorted by the populations at risk from this calamity. New York City was on top, Miami FL was second, and all the others were Florida cities except for Charleston SC and Atlantic City NJ.

The page has a risk-zone map that is initially set to NYC, but that can go to anywhere in the world. For the sea-level rise indicator, choose meters to get a larger range (30 meters ~ 100 feet). The feet one only goes to 10 ft (3 m). Look at many coastal cities, You'll be shocked at how low many of them are. Even some inland cities are vulnerable, like DC, Philadelphia, and London.

Ice is melting in Greenland and Antarctica. It is measured by the GRACE gravity satellites and their successors. Ice accumulates in the local winter and melts in the local summer - melting more than it accumulates. So Greenland and Antarctica are slowly losing their ice cover.

Greenland's ice sheet just lost 11 billion tons of ice -- in one day - CNN
Greenland Ice Loss 2002-2016 : GRACE-FO
Antarctic Ice Loss 2002-2016 : GRACE Tellus
Accelerating changes in ice mass within Greenland, and the ice sheet’s sensitivity to atmospheric forcing | PNAS
Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era | PNAS
Ice Sheets | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
Always what might be in a non specified future by some alarmists, or in 12 years by the prophets of doom that have no idea or the credible science to back up their falsehoods!

How about showing one, just one prediction of doom that's actually happened!
 
Let's strip away the idiotic rhetoric about "doom" and ask a meaningful question: have climate scientists accurately predicted changes in climate?

The blog Carbon Brief looks at eight prediction, including the first five IPCC reports, and shows that yes, the experts have been accurately predicting warming since the 1970's.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Never mind the hyperbole coming from politicians, because the scientific predictions are alarming without embellishment.
 
angelo said:
Here's 50 years [only] of failed climate catastrophes from people who should know better before putting pen to paper.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
Click to expand...

I can see it, now.

Angelo's sitting in the lounge room in his faux-leather recliner, with a spare bath towel over the armrest so his arm doesn't stick to it while he's flipping channels, and he's watching The Bachelorette. There's an ad break, so he picks up his iPod, which is perpetually plugged into AC power because the battery went flat one time, and opens the Tapatalk app.

Tapatalk shows him that there are new posts in a thread, so he clicks on it. The app takes him to the last post, rather than the first unread, because Tapatalk is shit, but dammit he paid $2.99 for it so he's gonna use it. There's been some new posts, and some of them seem to have replied to his last post, so it's time to post something else to keep them busy. The Bachelorette is almost back on; he needs make this quick or he might miss a change to ogle Angie in a bikini. OK: Bookmarks, "bing.com", "failed climate predictions", finds one he hasn't used yet, copy the link, back to Tapatalk, paste, something-something-pen-to-paper, post.

Dammit, no bikini, but her nips are poking out. Heh heh, bet that wouldn't be happening if global warming was real.
 
Is this your way of saying you don't have any failed predictions by actual climate scientists to offer?

Because you've been asked how many times? and didn't provide one.

angelo said:
I suppose that Loren Pechtel, among others here, are the climate gurus, and anyone who disagrees with the " consensuses " is blasphemy and worthy of losing one's head!
Click to expand...

"blasphemy" is not a word that refers to people.

If this is not like being a cult member of some sort, I don't know what is!
Click to expand...

Your behaviour is.
 
angelo said:
I suppose that Loren Pechtel, among others here, are the climate gurus, and anyone who disagrees with the " consensuses " is blasphemy and worthy of losing one's head! If this is not like being a cult member of some sort, I don't know what is!

https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/what-you-know-about-climate-change-is-probably-wrong-ddd20e1a09d
Click to expand...

"Anyone who disagrees with the consensuses" ⟶ The scientifically illiterate idiot mouthing off in the science forum.

"Is blasphemy" ⟶ is just plain wrong

"and worthy of losing one's head" ⟶ and is a big fucking crybaby when he gets called out on his dumb shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom