Is global warming even real?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Ilikeponies579, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Nah
    They couldn't afford me.........
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Then you're just a sucker, man.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    perhaps

    (my perspective)
    My intellectual curiosity just ain't for sale.
    Money is used to get things, and the only things I ever really wanted as a young man couldn't be bought.

    (lets play the ball in your court)
    How much would you charge for your integrity?
    A million dollars?
    A hundred thousand dollars?
    A new car?
    How about a snickers bar and a hand job?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Come on. There won't be all those pesky cars anymore, polluting the air. Coastal cities will be pollution free . . . and fun, just outside your door.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You have the horse before the cart. My source noted how dry a 12 year period was, and then noted not such a dry spell had occured in the region for 900 years. No "start date." No cherry picking - just an observed fact reported. It is very common type of observation. For example on the cold side: "This lake has not frozen over since I was a kid." some old man may say.
     
  9. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Of course there will be new dangers in the coastal city parks . . .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Why choose 900 years?
    Why not say the second worst drought in 1100 years?
    Why not say the third worst drought in 3000 years?
    Why not say the fourth worst drought in 4200 years?
    why not say the fifth worst drought in 5000 years.

    Why go for the sensational instead of the informational?
    Why only offer up a partial truth?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,422
    Really.
    The guy who posts stuff he found on Breitbart in a science forum;
    the guy who has several times posted temperature data for the climate optimum in various locales within the North Atlantic region as being counterevidence against the seriousness of agw implications (even, a couple of times, summer daily high temps);
    the guy who posted accusations of cherry-picking and this bit of goofy:
    about a tree ring analysis of a 900 year time line - the range covered by their ring sequence, according to the authors;

    declares that he doesn't "accept" the general and approximate shape of the graph of one of the most thoroughly and professionally chewed-over data sets ever to hit the public discussion.

    Ok.
    But if we're not "accepting" this: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
    or this: http://www.clim-past.net/8/227/2012/
    or this: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013NatGe...6..339P

    then what are we going to "accept"?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    OK
    lahoma
    OK
    (OU-my 1st university)

    So when you post "Ok", I have a different perspective, (a non temporal relativity?)
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    I've posted a lot of data and charts from professionals in the field that show many warm and cool periods within the holocene not evident in your cherished hockystick.
    To each his own.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,422
    No, you haven't.
     
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    see above
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,422
    Puzzling. Are you still confused about the difference between "local" and "global", as earlier?
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    "It's only local"
    may not be the lamest, lazyist, most oft repeated idiocy I have read. Though, maybe not quite as imaginative as "an elephant ate my homework", it does comes close.
    Each and every site that yields information about past climate--temperature-moisture-etc... is local to that site.
    When those working in the field find the same patterns in the south pacific, canada, the andes, china, sweeden, wisconsin, siberia, the alps, etc...etc...
    each and every one of their studies was local. Could it be otherwise? But, combined, we get a better global picture.
    When you see them all together then local in very different parts of the world becomes something greater---"GLOBAL!".
    Only an obdurate fanatic trying desperately to hang on to his/her ignorance would then still insist
    "It's only local"
    .....................There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    In all fairness I did post about a seeming pool of warm water welling up between sheets of sea ice south of Greenland which seems to have been responsible for the noted radical do event swings during the recent glacial period. The trend was the same for Greenland, Antarctica, and Iceland, but the other 2 were more gradual(less abrupt, and less pronounced).

    Let's consider the MWP and the LIA:

    Zunli Lu, et.al.
    “ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula,

    Neukom, R., Luterbacher, et.al.
    (Southern south america)
    "summer temperature reconstruction suggests that "a warm period extended in SSA from 900 (or even earlier) to the mid-fourteenth century," which they describe as being temporally located "towards the end of the Medieval Climate Anomaly as concluded from Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions." And as can be seen from the figure below, the warmest decade of this Medieval Warm Period was calculated by them to be AD 1079-1088, which as best as can be determined from their graph is about 0.17°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period."

    Zhang De'er:
    "Since the thermal optimum of the Holocene, the general trend of temperature in China has been a decline with secondary fluctuations of cooling and warming. The cooling stage, namely the Little Ice Age, has been discussed in more detail elsewhere (Grove, 1988; Zhang, 1991, 1992), as have the warming stages in the Han Dynasty (second century B.C.) and the Tang Dynasty (seventh to ninth centuries) (Chu, 1973). As for the Medieval Warm Period, nominally assigned to A.D. 900 to 1300, its existence in China has also been established"

    From Britannica:
    "Medieval warm period (MWP), also called medieval warm epoch or little climatic optimum...
    Many studies show... evidence of relatively warm temperatures ... in several regions, including the North Atlantic, northern Europe, China, and parts of North America, as well as the Andes, Tasmania, and New Zealand. "

    Arseneault, D. and Payette, S. 1997.
    "tree-ring and growth-form sequences obtained from more than 300 spruce remains buried in a presently treeless peatland in northern Quebec to produce a proxy record of climate for this region of the continent between 690 and 1591 AD. Perhaps the most outstanding feature of this history was the warm period it revealed between 860 and 1000 AD. Based on the fact that the northernmost 20th century location of the forest tree-line is presently 130 km south of their study site, the scientists concluded that the "Medieval Warm Period was approximately 1°C warmer than the 20th century."

    Do you not realize that "It was only local" has become really lame?
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Ooops?
    Why Ooops?
    Did you lick the wrong rock again?
    (reminds me of the joke about the flood in the Fizzy's factory)
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Alternately:
    "... man-made climate change is so absolutely apparent that all the experts agree, and that anyone who doubts is crazy, stupid, or politically motivated..."

    "What we really need to do is to gather up all of the anthropoenic global warming deniers anthropogenic climate change deniers heretics, witches, politicians, virgins, and philatelists, tie them to stakes, pile kindling around their feet, and set them on fire!"

    Wait a minute!------Why virgins?

    No reason really, it's just easier to get peoples attention when you use that word---------"virgins"-----yeh, that does it.
    We need more virgins in heaven. There are suicide bombers up there waiting for them.
    ...........................

    Ooops

    .............................
    Will no one speak up for the philatelists?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,422
    And what you see, altogether like that, agrees quite well with the hockey stick. This is not a surprise, because the various hockey sticks that updated the original (I posted links to three, there are something like fifteen) were compiled from that data, by looking at it all together - globally. And since they are essentially graphs of the same data you are posting here, only compiled globally as you are not doing, it is not surprising that they do not conflict with it.

    So when you post these little individual studies as if they somehow conflicted with the overall view, you appear to be failing to take that overall view. (You also appear to have overlooked my own posting of much of it, earlier - such as the remnant spruce growing far north of the current tree line in Quebec, the badger holes found in permafrost around Hudson Bay, and so forth - proving that summer temps - at least - were recently warmer than they are now in northern Quebec etc.

    You also appear to have forgotten the consideration your New Zealand warming and SA coastal Pacific Ocean warming and all those others received long ago when you first posted them, noting in particular that this warming far from Greenland and the Arctic was comparatively slow and mild and delayed, exactly as one would expect from an attenuated flux of heat from deglaciating North America.)

    All this also conflicts with the hypothesis of a grand solar maximum explaining the current warming, of course.

    And it most definitely fails to reassure the alarmed person foreseeing high probabilities of very bad things from the current, much different, global, rapid, and CO2 driven, warming. AGW.

    So as I posted before, twice now: what's your argument? What are you trying to argue? Because the only argument visible so far, from your hints and innuendoes, is that the fact that things were warm at times in the past for various reasons means the current AGW is not a threat, is not happening as measured, is not caused as it appears to be caused, and will have few if any of the predicted bad effects.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    jeeeze ice
    You are really mixing up the time-frames.
    ....................
    ok-post your revised hockey stick
    .............
    meanwhile consider:
    "Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large."
    from Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K. Linsley, Delia W. Oppo
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,422
    Three linked above. Already. A couple of them, iirc, including some of your linked studies in their data sets.

    Sure. Not only consider, but quote:
    In other words, the global warming of the past seems to have been much slower than what we are seeing now. Takes longer to heat the ocean, right?
     

Share This Page