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

The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

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!

Y'know, I thought Loren was more like the math wiz than a climate guru. And it's funny that you mention it because I was just about to enter the observation that math is so cult-like- they tell you stuff like 2+2=4, and anyone who disagrees with the consensus of the self-appointed math "experts" is looked upon as a heretic.
Such a cult!!
 
 Global temperature record
 Geologic temperature record
 Milankovitch cycles
 Dansgaard–Oeschger event
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
 Quaternary glaciation
 Last Glacial Maximum
 Younger Dryas

Over the Pleistocene Epoch, the last 2.5 million years, continental glaciers have come and gone several times, with a period of about 41,000 years before about 700,000 years ago, and a period of about 100,000 years after that. The current geological epoch, the Holocene, is much like the other interglacial parts of the Pleistocene - they had close to the same average temperature.

These comings and goings are the result of Milankovitch astronomical cycles. The Earth and the other planets pull on each other, making their orbits have some complicated Spirograph-like quasi-periodic wobbles. This combines with the Earth's spin precession to change what pattern of sunlight each part of the Earth receives over the year. When the Sun is (a little bit) high and close in the summer in high northern latitudes, the hot summers will melt the glaciers, ending the glacial period or "Ice Age". When the Sun is (a little bit) low and far in that season and location, snow won't melt and the glaciers will return.
 
 Geologic temperature record
Climate History at scotese.com
 Carbonate–silicate cycle
 Snowball Earth
 Huronian glaciation

For much of the last 500 million years, most of the Phanerozoic Eon, the Earth was warmer on average than in the Holocene, with the main exception being the Carboniferous with its southern glaciations. But this was an *average* increased temperature, and it was due to high latitudes being warmer than today. That was due to ocean currents much like the present-day Gulf Stream, but going to much higher latitudes, currents made possible by the continents' drifting.

In the Cretaceous and early Cenozoic, land at latitudes near the poles got warm enough to have cool-temperate climates - something like the present-day northeastern US or northwestern Europe.

Before that 500 million years, the picture is less clear, but there were planetwide glaciations in the late Proterozoic, over roughly 650 - 750 million years ago, glaciations that produced a "Snowball Earth" or at least a "Slushball Earth". Around 2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago, early in the Proterozoic, was another one, the Huronian glaciation.


So high-latitude temperatures were sometimes several degrees higher than today. How about low-latitude temperatures? I couldn't find direct evidence, but I've found indirect evidence: coal, fossils of forests. From this evidence, the Earth has had forests since the mid-Devonian, about 380 million years ago. This indicates that the warmest parts of the Earth have had temperatures close to their present-day temperatures for all that time, and likely for much of the Earth's earlier history. That is a result of the carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle. Too warm, and rocks weather faster and absorb CO2, cooling the Earth down. Too cool, and unabsorbed CO2 accumulates, warming the Earth up.

But this cycle is very slow, with a timescale of typically around a million years. That is why the Earth can have faster climate variations, which indeed it does.
 
File:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikimedia Commons
 Faint young Sun paradox

The Last Time the Globe Warmed - YouTube - the  Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)
 Anoxic event
 Permian–Triassic extinction event
End-Permian extinction, which wiped out most of Earth's species, was instantaneous in geological time

The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere in its past, about 10 times as much in the Jurassic and 25 times as much in the Cambrian. However, their greenhouse effects produced temperatures close to present-day ones, at least if the occurrence of tropical forests is a good guide. I use that because it is hard to get lots of plant growth in a very hot and/or arid environment -- water either evaporates too fast or there is not much water to begin with.

The solution is a curious fact about the Sun. It is slowly getting brighter as helium accumulates in its core and makes it more difficult for light to get out of it - mostly X-rays at the core's temperatures. When the Sun started nuclear fusion, it was only 70% as bright as it is today, and it was hard for there to be much liquid water on the Earth's surface without a very strong greenhouse effect. This is the "faint young Sun paradox".

So as the Sun gets brighter and brighter, it slowly pushes the silicate-carbonate mechanism into making less and less CO2 in the atmosphere, and in a billion years or thereabouts, the CO2 level may be too low to support most plant life. This also means that it took more CO2 in the past to produce temperatures much like present-day temperatures. Which is what we find.


But there were events in the past with CO2 well in excess of what the silicate-carbonate thermostat tends to maintain. Like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) of about 55.5 million years ago. It had a big injection of CO2 into the atmosphere that raised temperatures by about 5 - 8 C. It made nice temperate forests in the Arctic - and 36 C temperatures in equatorial oceans. Not surprisingly, it had a mass extinction.

There were somewhat similar events earlier - oceanic anoxic events. A warmed ocean dissolves less O2, meaning less decomposition, meaning deposits of undecayed organisms in sediments - mostly algae. This results in black shales, and baked black shales make petroleum and natural gas. So global warming is a likely source of our oil and gas deposits. OAE's also produce mass extinctions.

Then the Permo-Triassic mass-extinction event. It was huge; it is the biggest-known mass-extinction event, even bigger than the K-Pg event, the killer of the (non-avian) dinosaurs. It drove something like 96% of marine species and 70% of land-vertebrate species into extinction. Major groups were driven into extinction, like trilobites and eurypterids (sea scorpions), or else got drastically reduced in diversity without ever recovering, like brachiopods and crinoids (sea lilies). Brachiopods look superficially like bivalves - very superficially. They were abundant over much of the Paleozoic, but afterward, it was bivalves that became abundant.

A curious consequence of the mass extinction was that rivers in South Africa's Karoo Basin shifted from meandering to braided, consistent with much of the ground cover being lost as a result of that mass extinction.

The P-Tr event had a big injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, and also an 8 C temperature rise.


So we have big injections of CO2 and big temperature rises in the PETM, the P-Tr event, and likely OAE's. Injecting CO2 into the atmosphere is what we are doing right now with fossil fuels.
 
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.

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!

"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!

Your behaviour is.

Iv'e posted hundreds of failed predictions from decades ago right up to the present time. Methinks the problem is that the " climate" cultists only see what their closed minds allows them to see!

https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/
 
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.



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



Your behaviour is.

Iv'e posted hundreds of failed predictions from decades ago right up to the present time. Methinks the problem is that the " climate" cultists only see what their closed minds allows them to see!

https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/

I don't have the time to dig through 50 predictions by random people who ate not climate scientists about stuff that isn't the climate. If there is one climate prediction by a climate scientist in there, can you point it out specifically?

That you haven't done so rather suggests there isn't one.
 
The biggest evidence for CO2-induced overheating is not on our planet but on a neighboring one: Venus. The story of its discovery is a very interesting one, but I'll skip over it. Its atmosphere is nearly all CO2, with a surface pressure of about 90 bar - and a column density about 100 times the Earth's. Its temperature is about 450 C (842 F), and the longest that any spacecraft has functioned on its surface is a little more than 2 hours.

Some spacecraft have sent back pictures from that planet's surface, and as one would expect, it is barren and rocky.
 
Some spacecraft have sent back pictures from that planet's surface, and as one would expect, it is barren and rocky.

That's because the Democrats shut down all their industry.
</downunder ignorance>
 
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.



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



Your behaviour is.

Iv'e posted hundreds of failed predictions from decades ago right up to the present time. Methinks the problem is that the " climate" cultists only see what their closed minds allows them to see!

https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/

I don't have the time to dig through 50 predictions by random people who ate not climate scientists about stuff that isn't the climate. If there is one climate prediction by a climate scientist in there, can you point it out specifically?

That you haven't done so rather suggests there isn't one.

Typically cultist post. Ever hear of Prof Tim Ball? How about the co founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore? Unlike most people in the climate industry who depend on government grants, or work to reach a pre arranged climate model, people like those employed by the IPCC which is wholly funded by the UN. Which climatologist is going to commit a career suicide by exposing the whole thing as a charade?

 
Last edited:
Care to post ONE, just ONE climate cultist prediction of doom [like the Arctic Circle been ice free by 2013] made in say, the last decade you can point to and say, see, there's proof right there!

Care to post ONE, just ONE, climate prediction of doom by a current climate scientist that failed to come true?

I'll do much better than just one!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

Let's start with number one.

A. Failed predictions

1. Warming rate predictions
1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.
Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here.

2. Temperature predictions
1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.” See here, page xi.
Reality check: From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures has been 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2 emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario.

The IPCC Business as Usual scenario did not occur:
  • most major polluters reduced emissions growth as art of the Kyoto Protocol which was ratified two years after the FAR was published.
  • the 2008 GFC slowed down economic development and the accompanying growth in emissions.

So this blogger "Javier" just another bullshit artist.
 
Typically cultist post. Ever hear of Prof Tim Ball? How about the co founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore? Unlike most people in the climate industry who depend on government grants, or work to reach a pre arranged climate model, people like those employed by the IPCC which is wholly funded by the UN. Which climatologist is going to commit a career suicide by exposing the whole thing as a charade?

Clearly your problem with climate science runs deeper than a couple of predictions. You've accused scientists of incompetence and deceit, and the UN of political interference. You're also unable to distinguish between climate scientists, political activists, and media pundits. You're not making any apparent effort to understand what the science actually says--even to argue against it. As far as evidence, you've just been citing the articles and videos that come up in web searches for "failed climate predictions". You certainly don't read or watch the things you post because they contradict each other and your own opinions, some of which are downright wacky. It's just slinging shit hoping for something to stick.


If I had to choose one thing that I think would convince someone that climate science is trustworthy, I would point to the fact that climate models have consistently made accurate predictions about the future climate.

Here's how you test that:
1. You take predictions from a published paper.
2. You take the CO2 and temperature measurements.
3. You see if they line up.

As Zeke Hausfather shows, they do.

If you believe that the IPCC made a fake "pre arranged climate model" (whatever the fuck that means), or if you think that computer models are, by their very nature, suspect, then you have to explain why the models actually work.
 
Back
Top Bottom