Climate Change Could Happen Slower for the Next Decade, Study Says

We should award him a Masters Degree in Climastrology!

 

It would just be easier to put him on ignore..........

But he sure as hell is entertaining.........

You don t need much more than 7th grade science knowledge to not buy into the (*)(*)(*)(*) they are trying to sell

 

They are actually called 'the scientific facts' by all the sane and rational people. So, of course, you have no response to the facts, just more meaningless drivel.

 

Kind of suspected that that was about when you must have dropped out, judging from the lack of any knowledge or understanding of science displayed anywhere in your posts.

Of course, the most educated and experienced experts on the climate in the world all agree that AGW is very real and very dangerous. So you can keep your ignorant "7th grade science knowledge" opinions to yourself. They are not only worthless, nobody cares what you think about it. If you had any evidence to back up your silly denialist claims, that would be different, but as it is, you got nothing but hot air, denier cult myths, crackpot conspiracy theories and deranged rightwingnut BS, without any scientific support whatsoever.

 

I wonder if there is a theology behind all this flat earth denialism, kind of like arguing Genesis against evolution. Or is it just in Rush we trust.

Just a few questions for the denialists just to find out how deep this kind of unscientific thinking runs.
1. What exactly IS your thinking on the argument between the evolutionists and the believers in Genesis based creationism? Do you think the earth is more than 10,000 years old?

2. Do you think the universe is geocentric, if not why?

3. How do you account for the high degree of correlation between CO2 and temperature, measured from ice studies going back 100s of thousands of years?

4. Do you think AGW is inspired by a conspiracy to set up a worldwide socialist government to take away your property and your rights? Please explain.

 

Typical alarmist response. Ain't got anything. Yep nice you all keep showing your hand. That you have nothing up your sleeve! hah. it's a trip to read the nonsense you all write. you have no idea what is what. too bad for you that you are LoSiNg the argument in the global press!!!!!! as the song goes, you all must keep pushin on your mumbo jumbo! BTW, what is your salary to push this junk?

 

The AGW hoax conspirators pay me well. Off to perform my job on another forum. TA TA!

 

that reflects my thoughts as well...CC denial isn't science based, the deniers try to dismiss the facts/evidence with magic...they're not debating from logic but with faith/self induced ignorance, they really should be posting in the religious forum or the conspiracy forum...the issue for deniers is politically driven not scientific...

I've noticed a few that will accept many other science topics without question even though they dont grasp it, but mention CC or AGW and suddenly they're all science experts and CC/AGW is political conspiracy by socialists...

 

1. Pure snark.

2. More snark.

3. How do you account for no warming from the 40's to the 70's and no warming from the beginning of this century with increasing CO2 if the correlation is of such high degree? How do you account for the glacial peroids when CO2 was much higher historically?

4. CAGW, as apposed to AGW is pure hype and hysteria for political gain. AGW, at least over land, is a fact but the alarmism around it isn't. The CO2 centric models which all the hype is based on have been falsified with observational science. Much of what is written in the media about it is also misleading such as increased sea level rise, not proven, increased hurricanes or hurricane intensity, never happened, increased tornadoes, didn't happen, along with a whole host of other alarmist fantasies. There are falsified temperature records like in Australia where unchange, unmoved, continuous records raw show declining temperatures but when they 'homogenize' the temperature with records 100s of miles away with stations that have moved or changed it suddenly changes from a decrease to an increase in temperature. Cherry picked use of proxy records to show the alarmist hockey stick that cannot be trusted. Decisions from the IPCC, not based on actual science, but on the 'expertise' of a select few with no documentation how they come to the decision. Climategate emails that prove that data is hidden to show favor for warming. Datasets short on duration. The unknowns and uncertainties in the science not reported to the media. Distortion of papers, like the one for the West Atlantic melting which don't tell the public that the whole of the one basin would have to melt for the sea to rise as much as claimed, which is not likely to happen, and estimated 200 to 900 year range for the glaciers discussed to collapse, which was also not reported on.

Is warming bad? The alarmists say it is world ending. Bunk. Cooling is much worse.

So many things wrong with CAGW I could go on but those steeped in the alarmist meme rarely read beyond a few blogs or anything that does not support their 'religion' of CAGW.

 

how warm is 120 PPM of CO2?

 

If the increase is held at that plus-120ppm level (400ppm) for a sufficient period of time, the global increase in temperatures is about 5 to 10 degrees F, according to the paleoclimate studies.

 

more information without evidence. let's see the study.

 

You've seen it many times but you deny reality every time.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.


***

 

I deny your sources. And explaining anything to you will be opposit of what you believe. I don't buy into the mumbo jumbo you post. I don't care how many times you post it. See that's where you're not smart. you have no brain to accept that I don't accept your posts. I spit at the NASA findings and data, I don't trust anything out of the IPCC. So what else do you have? Studies. Studies that have never been validated. You have no theory, because you have no proof of concept. so where does that lead us to, oh yeah, you message board yelling. I'm WiNnINg the argument, and you have no idea how to change course and try something different. It's real simple provide the proof of concept of 120 PPM of CO2 causes more than a .14 f degree change in temperature. I'm not moving off of the point, don't you GET IT!!!!!!

 

LOLOLOLOL.....pure mindless denial of science and reality.....bravo, jc, you're a true anti-science denier cultist....thanks for demonstrating that so clearly....

 

Do you even understand that the RECORD is of such a short period of time that this statement can be completely discredited by nothing more than pitching out the perspective of the myopic? Claiming this RECORD matters is like saying that you achieved a land speed RECORD idling out of your driveway this morning...because you don't count the next 1 mile down a suburban street at 35mph?

It is a cherry picked time frame. Labeling it a RECORD is just fear mongering designed to fulfill the legacy of Stephen Schneider.

 

That's some really crazy drivel there, dude. The "RECORD" simply refers to the period of time that instrumental temperature records have been kept by various scientific or governmental organizations around the world. The instrumental temperature record is obviously NOT some "cherry picked time frame", it is just the time frame for which such records even exist.

Scientists use the instrumental temperature record that runs back into the 1800s to examine recent temperature trends. These records show a strong rising trend in temperatures over that period. They put the instrumental record into perspective by analyzing proxie temperature records that can go back hundreds of thousands of years. They all show that the current warming, and particularly the very high rate of warming over the last century, is unprecedented in human history for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years.

The Earth was cooling slowly because of some slight orbital shifts, for the last 5 or 6 thousand years (about 1.3°F total cooling over that time period), until the twentieth century when the global average temperatures started to abruptly rise, climbing by about the same amount (about 1.3°F), but in only a century. The startling thing is that the rate of temperature rise over the last hundred years is over 50 times greater than the rate of natural cooling over the preceding 5000 years. That's one of the main differences between the current anthropogenic CO2 climate forcing and almost all of the previous natural climate forcings - the extremely fast pace of current temperature increases that very likely leaves the plants and animals and human civilizations and populations unable to adapt quickly enough to survive.

Earth Warmer Than in Most of the Past 11,300 Years
Bloomberg
Mar 7, 2013
(short excerpt)
The Earth is warmer now than during 70 to 80 percent of the time stretching back to the last Ice Age, according to researchers from Oregon State and Harvard universities who studied data from more than 73 global sites. ... The research is the longest global reconstruction of temperature records over the last 11,300 years and mirrors results covering the past 2,000 years. The study may provide additional context in refuting “arguments that what we’re experiencing today is part of some natural climate variability,” Marcott said.

Arctic is warmer than in 40,000 years
ClimateNewsNetwork
Oct 24, 2013
(excerpts)
Good news for Arctic mosses, if not for any other Arctic creatures: little tundra plants that have been buried under the Canadian ice can feel the sunlight for the first time in at least 44,000 years. The implication is that the Arctic is now, and has been for the last 100 years, warmer than at any time in the last 44,000 years and perhaps for the last 120,000 years. This also means that the Arctic is warmer now than it was in what geologists call the early Holocene, the end of the last Ice Age – when the peak summer sunlight was roughly nine per cent greater than it is today, according to Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado Boulder, in the US. The researchers used a technique called radiocarbon dating to establish that the mosses had been screened from the elements for at least 44,000 to 51,000 years. Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate for about 50,000 years, the mosses could have been buried for perhaps 120,000 years, since the last “interglacial” when the polar regions experienced a natural thaw.

Miller and colleagues report in Geophysical Research Letters that they did their fieldwork on Baffin Island in the Arctic Circle, and measured the radiocarbon ages of the dead mosses in at least four different locations. They were careful to pick their 145 samples within one metre of the receding ice cap. Since the ice is receding at two or three metres a year, they could be sure the plant tissues had just been exposed that season. Since the plants could only have taken root in sunlight, they were evidence that the exposed terrain was once free of ice. They became silent witnesses, telling researchers about the changes through time in the frozen North. “The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is. This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” said Miller.

Study: Pacific ocean now warming 15 times faster than in past 10,000 years
The Washington Post
BY JASON SAMENOW
October 31, 2013
(excerpts)
A new study finds Pacific ocean is taking in heat at the most rapid rate in many thousands of years, providing yet another indicator of global warming. The authors of the study, published in Science magazine, analyzed Pacific ocean sediment cores to reconstruct quantities of heat stored at the middle depths of the western Pacific going back 10,000 years. They found a general cooling trend – with some peaks and valleys along the way – until warming commences in the last few hundred years punctuated by a spike in the modern era, over the last 60 years. Here’s how Columbia University describes the temperature evolution:

"From about 7,000 years ago until the start of the Medieval Warm Period in northern Europe, at about 1100, the water cooled gradually, by almost 1 degree C, or almost 2 degrees F. The rate of cooling then picked up during the so-called Little Ice Age that followed, dropping another 1 degree C, or 2 degrees F, until about 1600. The authors attribute the cooling from 7,000 years ago until the Medieval Warm Period to changes in Earth’s orientation toward the sun, which affected how much sunlight fell on both poles. In 1600 or so, temperatures started gradually going back up. Then, over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F."​

The rate of change over the last 60 years is roughly 15 times faster than any other period, the authors conclude. “We’re experimenting by putting all this heat in the ocean without quite knowing how it’s going to come back out and affect climate,” said study coauthor Braddock Linsley, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It’s not so much the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change.”

 

Actually the 70s(Average) was higher than the 60s and the subsequent decades kept rising right up to the present - quite a run. The appropriate question is how come the long term climb in temperature due to ghg increase has periods of short term variability as for example the one that began around 1940. How about natural climate variability and man generated aerosols in the 1940 instance. Interesting that you slid right by ice studies going back 100s of thousands of years. Typical denialist, avoid the facts and inject meaningless trivia ie short term variability which is totally expected.

What about long term don't you get?

A different relationship between the sun and the earth.

Know anything about the rise in ghgs and the previous 5 extinction events?

I didn't think so.

Not only is the ocean warming but it is becoming more acidic. Not too nice for coral and other marine species, not to mention phytoplankton.

We can agree on that. Much of it treats denialism about climate change as serious scientific opinion.

Proven and accelerating. Be glad you don't live in Bangladesh where they have to take it seriously.

Just out of curiosity show me any IPCC report that predicts increased number of hurricanes and tornadoes in the near term. This is a typical denialist strawman.

I'm not going to argue the details of your possible source but your point is essentially meaningless. Warming is determined based on the average temperature for the entire earth for a year. I actually started a thread making the point that denialist may suffer from sort of cranial blockage that makes it difficult to handle that kind of base math.

Things like tree rings? The truth is proxy records are used in science for all sorts of studies. Perhaps you think we should only trust things that we can directly experience in present time. In that case I'd say the sun goes around the earth. The relatively recent hockey stick temperature configuration has been repeated in so many studies you could remove Mann from the equation and have to find some other scapegoat.

The IPCC represents a virtual consensus of climate scientists in most nations around the world. It alters its analysis as new data comes in and is subject to constant scrutiny from scientists around the world.

Denialists love to misread what were stolen private conservations. Not wanting to share some information with certain disingenuous political types is human but unfortunately not scientific. At best the hackers discovered even scientists can be human.

Probably IN the media would be more appropriate which likes to simplify everything. Scientific reporting is characteristically very hedged.

You played that gambit before and I called you on that with a scientific report that showed the differential melting-freeze based on region and also showed that Greenland was making the greater contribution to ice melt and was expected to continuing doing so for the forseeable future. I suggested that maybe you were simply reading in your biases rather than what the scientists were actually saying.

Kind of a dumb remark. Obviously both can kill you. It happens that severe warming is what presently is on the horizon and in historical terms it is happening extremely rapidly which is challenging species adaptation.

Unfortunately you haven't come up with any that debunks the science. Of course you can always find somebody who says things are going to come apart next year but that's not science. Unfortunately denialists live off that nonsense.

 

From the 40's to the mid 70's temperatures dropped. This is the reason the models are tuned to 1975. If they are tuned to the 60 year PDO cycle, warming is not so 'awesome'. Not sure what ice studies showing it was warmer previously helps your argument.

What about the hypothesis that it is supposed to continue warming due to the rise in CO2? If you think the rise from 1950, which is what the IPCC claims, is long term, then what do you call long term?

So now it was the sun all the way up until 1950?

Do you know what caused all extinction events? Ever heard of the asteroid hypothesis that correlates very well with extinction events?

Except that the ocean has not shown to be more acidic, that is another hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

Evidently you don't even know that science is all about skepticism. Without skepticism you would still believe the earth is flat or the universe revolves around the earth.

All long term records show the same rise and no acceleration unless you are in an area of land subsistence. Look at the long term records. Some areas the sea is dropping, some rising.

Hmmm, didn't mention the IPCC but it is one of the warmer fantasies.

Apparently you don't know that raw temperature records are not used in global temperature reconstructions. Ever here of 'homogenization'? When the data is manipulated, anything can happen, like what has happened in Australia.

Yet when inconvenient proxy records are hidden, like with Mann's Hockey Stick, it calls into question the motives of certain people, like what was shown in Climategate.

Wrong again. It is not a consensus of Climate Scientists. The lead author of the IPCC isn't even a Climate Scientists and the attribution decision is from only a select few and based on 'expert expertise' with no documentation of how that decision is made. Many past IPCC contributors have complaints about the way the IPCC decisions come about. You would know this if you had any curiosity.

So you think it is OK to hide data that is not conducive to warming? Curious since most warmers just ignore inconvenient facts anyway.

Especially when it fits a particular narrative that is more true belief than fact.

I have reported the same thing and shown the uncertainties also. The hype around West Antarctica revolves around a paper that was not reported accurately. There is also proof that Greenland has melted much more than today and seas were higher during the last interglacial so natural variability is being ignored over mass hysteria.

Except that all human evolutionary advances were made during warm periods, some warmer than today. Severe warming on the horizon is an hypothesis not fact. That is all part of the CAGW meme. Warming from cycle peak to cycle peak looking at the 60 year cycle is not so great and only natural after coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Of course not. When you are not willing to look at all the science your true belief will never be debunked. That is also part of the CAGW meme, ignore inconvenient science that does not support it.

 

On extinctions.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/677046

Around 12,800 years ago, a catastrophic event plunged much of the Earth into a period of cold climatic conditions and drought. This drastic climate change is called the Younger Dryas. It coincided with the extinction of the saber-tooth cats and the mastodon, and resulted in major declines in prehistoric human populations, including the termination of the Clovis culture.

 

On scientific accuracy.

http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/inventory-of-hide-the-decline/#more-19697

 

More humor from Michael Mann's lawsuit.

In his Curriculum Vitae he claims the defendants are misrepresenting facts. CV here http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

Scroll to the bottom of his CV and Mann claims he was co-author.

 

H-8, you make it clear once again you are all about ideology and conspiracy and not about serious science.

Just out of curiosity who or what is your inspiration? All that effort to avoid facts and evidence is kind of awesome. Psychologically there must be a lot at stake for you as there is for those who continue to hang on to the idea that we all stem from Adam and Eve.

In my rather extended debunk of H-8's usual silliness I kind of missed the boat in my oversimplification of the 5 extinction events. There were a wealth of contributions including but going beyond global warming. This wikipedia piece addresses the complexity of the phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

 

Completely verified. The Earth has continued to warm - the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice, the land surfaces and permafrost - all have continued to warm up, as predicted by the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Too bad you're so lost in the myths and fantasies of your reality denying cult that you are blind to the evidence.

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
13 November 2013

Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated
13 June 2014

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
10 December 2013

Global warming ucontinues with no slow down
March 27, 2013

Global Warming Is Rapidly Accelerating
12/31/2013

New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
25 March 2013

Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail
17 April 2013

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms
MARCH 25, 2013

UN: GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING, AND WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES
July 3, 2013

Accelerated Warming Driving Arctic Into New Volatile State
December 5th, 2012

New Research Confirms Global Warming/Ocean Acidification Accelerating Faster Than Previously Thought
MAR 27, 2013

Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists
ABC News Video

 

LOL, posting from liberal outlets, a cartoonist CAGW blog, and showing one of the excuses (now up to 52) for the pause is just funny to watch.