It's getting warm

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:32 am
Per wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:38 am
Strangelove wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:51 pm
Per wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:29 am
... and speaking of Australia:
the link between the current extremes and anthropogenic climate change is scientifically undisputable.
:roll:
Yes, you can dispute it for political or commercial reasons, but scientifically it's undisputable! :drink:
Here, allow me...
the link between the current extremes and climate change is scientifically undisputable.
There now it's true. :drink:

Or maybe not...
Right, I see what you did. But most climate scientists claim there is a direct link between higher CO2 concentrations and higher temperatures through what is known as the greenhouse effect. CO2 levels are now at the highest point in the last 300 million years, and we know why. It is because we dug it out of the ground and released it into the

Oh, and once you go back more than 10 million years, it Used to be way hotter.
Not really a climate suitable for humans.
Last edited by Per on Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26671
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

Per wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:53 am
Right, I see what you did. But most climate scientists claim there is a direct link between higher CO2 concentrations and higher temperatures
Do they Per?

Do they? :mex:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:03 pm
Per wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:53 am
Right, I see what you did. But most climate scientists claim there is a direct link between higher CO2 concentrations and higher temperatures
Do they Per?

Do they? :mex:
Yup! :drink:
One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... ure-change
Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
In 1895, Svante Arrhenius first calculated the impact that increasing carbon dioxide could have on Earth’s temperature. Since then, scientists have further refined their understanding of the greenhouse effect and the role our rising carbon emissions are having on it.

Chief among the impacts of our emissions is the rise in the global temperature.
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/ ... mperatures
Scarcely any expert with a record of contributing to climate science now doubted that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for the unprecedented warming all around the world since the 1970s.

A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet's content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued steadily after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space.

Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called the visible increase of the planet's heat content a "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming (see graph below). Moreover, in each separate ocean basin there was a close match between the pattern of rising temperatures measured at each location and depth and detailed model calculations of where the greenhouse effect warming should appear. Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun's output, could not produce these patterns. Evidently the modelers were on the right track.

Yet amid all the uncertainties about how carbon cycles operated, how much could we trust the computer models to work under circumstances different from the present? Scientists are more likely to believe something if they can confirm it with entirely independent lines of evidence, preferably from somewhere nobody had looked before. Just such new evidence came up in the 1990s, thanks to an unexpected alliance of paleontology and plant physiology. Studies of plant species that had changed little since the rise of the dinosaurs (magnolia for one) showed that if you exposed them to a higher level of CO2, the structure of their leaves changed. Ancient fossil leaves showed just such changes. Several kinds of chemical studies of ancient rocks and soils helped pin down how the level of the gas had swung widely over geological ages, and the temperature too.

A sustained effort by many geochemists and their allies managed to get numbers for the "climate sensitivity" in past eras, that is, the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level. Over hundreds of millions of years, a doubled level of the gas had always gone along with a temperature rise of three degrees, give or take a degree. That was in startling agreement with the range of numbers coming from many computer studies. So the computer modelers had not missed anything essential. When wholly different approaches arrive at the same numerical result, scientists gain confidence that they are somehow in touch with reality.

It was reassuring that there seemed scant possibility of a Venus-style runaway greenhouse apocalypse. It was less reassuring to see what the climate had looked like in the ancient eras when CO2 had stood at a high level — a level that humanity would eventually reach if we went on burning all available oil and coal. The Earth had been virtually a different planet, with tropical forests near the poles and sea levels a hundred meters higher. To be sure, it would take many thousands of years to melt entire polar ice caps. But in the meantime even a modest sea-level rise would disrupt humanity's teeming coastal populations. And as many scientists pointed out, if humanity's emissions continued they seemed bound to bring not only "a warming unprecedented in the past million years," but changes "much faster than previously experienced by natural ecosystems..."
In the first decade of the 21st century international panels of experts reviewed the evidence, and announced conclusions that were checked and endorsed by virtually all the major national science academies, scientific societies, government science agencies and other bodies representative of scientific expertise. All of these bodies declared that the world faced a serious problem, andrecommended that governments adopt strict policies to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. (All, that is, except a few self-appointed panels composed primarily of people with limited expertise in climate science, representing ideological and business interests that opposed all forms of government regulation.) Individual climate scientists, were almost unanimously in agreement with the consensus in its broad outlines — to be precise, at the start of the century 97% agreed with it, and a decade later well over 99% of those publishing in the field. Of course they continued to argue vehemently over details, as always in frontier research. Critics pounced on every apparent discrepancy. They published long lists of scientists who denied there was any problem — although the lists included hardly any scientist who had made significant contributions to climate research.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
The Brown Wizard
MVP
MVP
Posts: 11842
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: It's getting warm

Post by The Brown Wizard »

Per working for the government spending hours upon hours every day countering all strangeloves casual comments:

:lol:

Swedens tax rate is going from 57 to 58% next year exclusively due to this
Witchcraft... Oh, but it IS. A dark and terrible magic...

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

The Brown Wizard wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:48 pm
Per working for the government spending hours upon hours every day countering all strangeloves casual comments:

:lol:

Swedens tax rate is going from 57 to 58% next year exclusively due to this
Hey, I told you I came home hours ago.... Pay attention!

And between my two last posts, I took the decorations off the xmas tree, threw the tree out, vaccuumed and took the dog for a walk. :thumbs:

But wow, a full percent of Sweden’s annual taxation - for me?! :o
Wow, thanks! Guess I can retire now. :)
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Micky
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13295
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Micky »

Image
"evolution"

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 11902
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Topper »

100,000's of thousands of years is fuck all
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26671
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

Per wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:44 pm
One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... ure-change
Ahh but you see, warming precedes CO2 levels, not the other way around:

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

"According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations."


Per didn't you just say that politics is a big part of the AGW discussion?

Haven't I said before that the so-called scientific community in the field of AGW has been corrupted by politics?

You still push this bullshit after Climategate and Climategate2?

Your source is the NOAA, well check this out:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02- ... arming-dat
ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data

Dr John Bates' disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called 'Pausebuster' paper is the biggest scientific scandal since 'Climategate' in 2009 when, as Britain's Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a 'trick' to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Britain's Mail on Sunday today revealed astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

Image
(you really should read that entire article)

More on NOAA's propaganda:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/busin ... censorship
NOAA Scientist Turns Climate Skeptic, Recounts Censorship

By Joseph Valle | August 1, 2019 5:14 PM EDT

The “science is settled” liberal media don’t want people to know there are scientists, even award-winning ones, who dispute the idea of catastrophic global warming.

Because outlets ignore and censor such scientists, curious individuals must turn to other sources such as English journalist James Delingpole’s columns or podcast, the Delingpod. On the July 25 podcast, he interviewed award-winning, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Dr. Rex Fleming about his conversion from global warming alarmism to skepticism..

The scientist also discussed manipulation of data within NOAA, accusing a few individuals of “fiddling” with ocean and atmospheric data under the Obama Administration. He also brought up the prominent scientific organizations’ censorship of viewpoints by refusing to publish skeptical scientific papers.

Fleming admitted that for years he supported and “funded projects” by scientists attributing global warming to carbon dioxide in spite of “having doubts” while working for NOAA.

“Eventually I just read enough to realize it’s a totally wrong direction,” he said. “And so, in the past ten years, I’d say, I’ve been on the other side.” His shifting views made it far more difficult to be published though.

Although Fleming holds an undergraduate degree in math and a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, he could not get published by prominent U.S. scientific groups. He is also the author of The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.
(read all of that article as well)
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:02 pm

Per didn't you just say that politics is a big part of the AGW discussion?
Absolutely! The only ones truly questioning anthropologic global warming are politicians receiving hefty handouts from big oil and coal. If it weren’t for this, there wouldn’t be much of a discussion as there is near consensus among the scientists in the field.
You still push this bullshit after Climategate and Climategate2?

You still push this bullshit? :lol:

It’s been well established that climategate was a huge nothingburger.

Russian employed hackers released a bunch of e-mails quoted out of context ahead of a major climate meeting in order to create confusion.
There was nothing there. The ”trick” referred to was a discussion of methods of how to best join two different sets of data in a way to make it presentable. There was no evil agenda, and no falsification of data.

We’ve already been over this.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

But the fossil fuel companies are as desperate as the tobacco companies were when links to cancer came out.
They are doing whatever they can to muddy the waters.

But yeah, sure. You’ve convinced me.
195 governments and 99% of climate scientists are all involved in a nefarious commie plot, and only a handful of stable geniuses in tinfoil hats know the truth. Sure. ;)

:lol:
Last edited by Per on Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Micky
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13295
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Micky »

Per wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:01 pm

But the fossil fuel companies are as desperate as the tobacco companies were when links to cancer came out.
They are doing whatever they can to muddy the waters.
more mud
"evolution"

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26671
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

Image

The term "Scientific consensus" is the very definition of an oxymoron Per, there is zero room for opinion in Science...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26671
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

Image
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26671
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

During the last hundred years the temperature has increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C
Read it.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26671
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

Image

(data for pie chart: https://sciencing.com/elements-makeup-e ... 51571.html )

(the thin red line is the CO2... can you see it?)

Very little CO2 in the atmosphere.

To say a ridiculously slight rise in that minuscule amount would significantly affect the global climate is patently absurd.

Per, your "Scientific consensus" is politics, not Science...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6307
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:56 pm
Image

(data for pie chart: https://sciencing.com/elements-makeup-e ... 51571.html )

(the thin red line is the CO2... can you see it?)

Very little CO2 in the atmosphere.

To say a ridiculously slight rise in that minuscule amount would significantly affect the global climate is patently absurd.

Per, your "Scientific consensus" is politics, not Science...
Yeahno, that’s not how it works.

”To say the ridiculously miniscule amount of plutonium I laced your beer with would significantly affect your health is patently absurd...” :drink:

And the CO2 amount has almoust doubled.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at Australia... :shock:

In the 19th century, when they worried about when the next ice age might come, scientists figured out that the temperature could probably be raised by increasing the most important green house gas, ie carbon dioxide.

Maybe it was the fear of ice ages that drove them to start burning all that coal? :|
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

Post Reply