Activists Brace for Failure at COP21

[Lord of Planar]

Wow...

The mind of a "true believer."

 

[flogger]

Count me not surprised some local areas are sometimes warm.

Again, point out the scientific literature that says Mann, Marcott and Pages 2K are all 'discredited'.

Because the literature suggests the exact opposite.

The literature says nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the world can you find the 20th century temperature uptick in Marcott or Mann and the complete absence of the MWP I now challenge you to link one from anywhere which does so :waiting:

Meanwhile and for the umpteenth time

Medieval Warm Period

Please note these graphs are interactive and lead to their respective paper or abstract

I notice you also failed to answer my question about the proxies Marcott and Mann used ?

 

[Threegoofs]

The literature says nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the world can you find the 20th century temperature uptick in Marcott or Mann and the complete absence of the MWP I now challenge you to link one from anywhere which does so :waiting:

Meanwhile and for the umpteenth time

Medieval Warm Period

Please note these graphs are interactive and lead to their respective paper or abstract

I notice you also failed to answer my question about the proxies Marcott and Mann used ?

You find the data in Marcott et al and Pages 2k.

That's the most comprehensive look at the data.

Sorry you don't like the results.

 

[flogger]

Wow...

The mind of a "true believer."

I don't believe for a moment this guy really believes what he says. Its simply the politics of envy dressed up in a pseudo environmentalist garb.

He just thinks that pursuing this will somehow deliver the kind of worldview he wants to see imposed upon us. :roll:

 

[flogger]

You find the data in Marcott et al and Pages 2k.

That's the most comprehensive look at the data.

Sorry you don't like the results.

You clearly haven't read it because the data within the studies themselves don't fit the results. They have to be perverted through climate models to do that

There is not a single proxy contained therein that is anything like the much publicised graphs and I challenge you to prove me wrong :waiting:

 

[Threegoofs]

You clearly haven't read it because the data within the study itself doesn't fit the results.

There is not a single proxy contained therein that is anything like the much publicised graphs and I challenge you to prove me wrong :waiting:

I realize you like single proxies because the data is so variable you can cherry pick the ones you like, but these are comprehensive looks at multiple proxies.

Go back to the gun threads. You did much better there.

 

[flogger]

I realize you like single proxies because the data is so variable you can cherry pick the ones you like, but these are comprehensive looks at multiple proxies.

Go back to the gun threads. You did much better there.

So (as ever) you decline the challenge.

I'll let that speak for itself :laughat:

 

[Threegoofs]

So (as ever) you decline the challenge.

I'll let that speak for itself :laughat:

Your 'challenge' is weak.

Your inability to bolster your ideas with published literature is even weaker.

 

[flogger]

Your 'challenge' is weak.

If that were really so there can be no excuse for your lack of response to it then can there ? :lol:

Your inability to bolster your ideas with published literature is even weaker.

Unless you actually look at what gets presented to you then you'll never know so I'm more than happy to let others be the judge of that

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Depends upon the amount of increase and the point at which that becomes a problem.

Can you tell me what amount of CO2 would cause a temperature rise which would be a problem, and what that rise would be and what the problem would be? Thanks.

You and I both know that this point is still being studied and evaluated by the experts. It is the singular point upon which skeptics can legitimately hang their hat as a potential reason why we shouldn't worry about climate change.

OK, so you can't give any sort of consensus answer from the experts.

Can you give me you thoughts?

 

[Tim the plumber]

First, how do you know that the previous droughts were worse?

Ancient pollen and charcoal preserved in deeply buried sediments in Egypt's Nile Delta document the region's ancient droughts and fires, including a huge drought 4,200 years ago associated with the demise of Egypt's Old Kingdom, the era known as the pyramid-building time.

USGS Release: Climate and Drought Lessons from Ancient Egypt (8/16/2012 10:00:00 AM)

If you can answer this question (presumably by citing to research that, in turn, cites to various temperature proxies and studies on the subject), then you can answer your follow up question about how we can "know" - i.e. perform a detailed studied and reach a conclusion with a varying degree of confidence - that the current drought was caused or made worse by human activity.

That's my point! I don't see how we can know that the present slightly warm period has increased the drought in Syria.

First off, I highly doubt that the "models are the same." And secondly, there was no pause in the warming since 1998.

Are you denying the data that says that there has been no significant/measurable increase in temperatures since 1998??????? Really????

Setting aside the various temperature records that I could cite about 2014 being the hottest year on record, 2015 being the new hottest year on record, 9 of the top 10 hottest years over the past decade, etc. etc. - Let me try to get you to think of it with this analogy:

Let's say that I want to learn how to jump really high and each year I train myself to get better and better at jumping. I measure myself each year, but just to get an idea of what I want to do, let's say that about ten years ago, I jumped on a trampoline to get up to a certain goal and I set that as my "high point" for the year. And with each passing year, I get progressively closer to that point without the use of a trampoline until, finally, I can actually jump higher than I did even when I used the trampoline. And then the next year, I brought back the trampoline and when I jumped on it, I went much higher than I did 10 years ago on the same trampoline. In that scenario, you would be correct to say that my ability to jump kept improving over the ten year period even though I only finally jumped as high 10 years later.

What?

In the same vein, you can look at global temperatures the same way. The reason you use 1998 as the previous high mark (again, this was replaced in 2014), is because 1998 was the year of a rather strong El Nino that pushed temperatures greatly above the years immediately before or after. Over the course of the next 15-17 years or so, the global temperatures have steadily increased although they never reached the high mark that was artificially created by the El Nino effect (read: trampoline). And then, in 2014, the Global temperatures did pass the mark set in 1998 and, with the new El Nino predicted to exist in 2015/2016, we will see a new dramatic high mark - much like jumping on that trampoline again.

Edit: I am actually quite proud of that analogy. Gonna have to save that one for future use.

The models which were used to make the predictions in 1998 of lots of warming, of there never again being snow in England etc. have turned out to not be reliable. They have been clearly demonstrated to be highly wrong.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Wingnut blog post, and moving goalposts to a regional phenomenon.

So the idea that all the world's regions had the same temperature drop at the same time makes it a regional thing and not global works how????

 

[Threegoofs]

So the idea that all the world's regions had the same temperature drop at the same time makes it a regional thing and not global works how????

When posting, please attempt to make sense.

Thanks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When posting, please attempt to make sense.

Thanks.

He does.

Please attempt to comprehend.

 

[MrT]

USGS Release: Climate and Drought Lessons from Ancient Egypt (8/16/2012 10:00:00 AM)

That's my point! I don't see how we can know that the present slightly warm period has increased the drought in Syria.

So essentially you are telling me that you do trust a USGS study on ancient droughts, but not current studies on the same topic.

Are you denying the data that says that there has been no significant/measurable increase in temperatures since 1998??????? Really????

What?

The models which were used to make the predictions in 1998 of lots of warming, of there never again being snow in England etc. have turned out to not be reliable. They have been clearly demonstrated to be highly wrong.

No, 1998 was a very hot year - and it was specifically because of the large El Nino event experienced that year (hence, the analogy to the trampoline). The trampoline allows you to jump higher. The El Nino event allows the Global Temperatures for that year to reach higher. If I take away the trampoline, and you continue to practice, then you are still getting better at jumping - even if you don't jump higher than with the trampoline. If I take away the El Nino event, and temperatures continue to rise, then the Earth is still warming - even if the temperatures don't reach the same point as when the El Nino event existed. It is really a quite simple analogy. Hopefully, this further explanation helps.

And you and I both know that you are mischaracterizing the "models" as if they are monolithic (there are hundreds of models made each year) or as if they predict one result (each model is crafted with a margin of error). The models are quite accurate if you remember that they have a margin of error instead of just looking to the most extreme iteration of the model.

 

[MrT]

OK, so you can't give any sort of consensus answer from the experts.

Can you give me you thoughts?

I can refer you to the IPCC 5 for the latest consensus answer from the foremost experts in this particular field. But if you want my thoughts, here they are:

The current CO2 concentration (400 ppm) is already higher than any concentration experienced by modern humans (source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif )and it will lead, because CO2 concentration shows a roughly 40 year lag between it and the temperature increase (source: Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect ) to significant problems around the planet. This problem should become evident considering the fact that we have already experienced a 1.04 celsius degree increase over the expected temperature for the month of October (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/ ). If our CO2 from 40 years ago has already led to a 1.04 degree increase, when it was roughly 335 ppm, and we have only gotten better at creating CO2 since that moment (source: http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Trend/acceleration-of-atmospheric-co2.html ), then the expected increase will probably be at or above the 2 degree increase which scientists estimate to be a dramatic turning point.

If you need me to list the problems associated with Global Warming, then let's start with the basics of drought and famine (which has already resulted in problems for California and Syria), a higher frequency of stronger hurricanes (we saw three category 4 hurricanes at the same time in the Pacific ocean this year for the first time ever), warmer oceans that will lead to ocean acidification and the bleaching of coral, and a whole bunch of other issues that are not coming to me off the top of my head at the moment.

 

[flogger]

I can refer you to the IPCC 5 for the latest consensus answer from the foremost experts in this particular field. But if you want my thoughts, here they are:

The current CO2 concentration (400 ppm) is already higher than any concentration experienced by modern humans (source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif )and it will lead, because CO2 concentration shows a roughly 40 year lag between it and the temperature increase (source: Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect ) to significant problems around the planet. This problem should become evident considering the fact that we have already experienced a 1.04 celsius degree increase over the expected temperature for the month of October (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/ ). If our CO2 from 40 years ago has already led to a 1.04 degree increase, when it was roughly 335 ppm, and we have only gotten better at creating CO2 since that moment (source: Accelerating Rise of Atmospheric CO2 | CO2 Trend | Current CO2 ), then the expected increase will probably be at or above the 2 degree increase which scientists estimate to be a dramatic turning point.

If you need me to list the problems associated with Global Warming, then let's start with the basics of drought and famine (which has already resulted in problems for California and Syria), a higher frequency of stronger hurricanes (we saw three category 4 hurricanes at the same time in the Pacific ocean this year for the first time ever), warmer oceans that will lead to ocean acidification and the bleaching of coral, and a whole bunch of other issues that are not coming to me off the top of my head at the moment.

So given that CO2 levels are unarguably the highest they have been since the last glaciation and CO2 has the significance you believe it does. Why aren't todays temperatures the highest we have seen over that period as evidence in the ice core data from both poles clearly illustrates ? Not only aren't they the highest they are not even close

Ice Cores

 

[MrT]

So given that CO2 levels are unarguably the highest they have been since the last glaciation and CO2 has the significance you believe it does. Why aren't todays temperatures the highest we have seen over that period as evidence in the ice core data from both poles clearly illustrates ? Not only aren't they the highest they are not even close

Ice Cores

A) Your interpretation is not correct.

B) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

 

[Tim the plumber]

When posting, please attempt to make sense.

Thanks.

He does.

Please attempt to comprehend.

You said that the multiple local proxy records from all over the earth do not give evidence of a world wide warm period because they are too local.

Do you really think this?????

 

[flogger]

A) Your interpretation is not correct.

B) The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

Somebody better tell the real world to get with the programme then

 

[flogger]

You said that the multiple local proxy records from all over the earth do not give evidence of a world wide warm period because they are too local.

Do you really think this?????

I can't imagine what he thinks Marcott and Mann were using in their 'sacred' scriptures

 

[Tim the plumber]

So essentially you are telling me that you do trust a USGS study on ancient droughts, but not current studies on the same topic.

I am unable to see the paper so I don't know what it says. A press report on the paper is not the same thing.

The report on previous droughts does show that there have been lots more of them and that they seem to have been more sever. I would like to have found a better site but there you go.

No, 1998 was a very hot year - and it was specifically because of the large El Nino event experienced that year (hence, the analogy to the trampoline). The trampoline allows you to jump higher. The El Nino event allows the Global Temperatures for that year to reach higher. If I take away the trampoline, and you continue to practice, then you are still getting better at jumping - even if you don't jump higher than with the trampoline. If I take away the El Nino event, and temperatures continue to rise, then the Earth is still warming - even if the temperatures don't reach the same point as when the El Nino event existed. It is really a quite simple analogy. Hopefully, this further explanation helps.

And you and I both know that you are mischaracterizing the "models" as if they are monolithic (there are hundreds of models made each year) or as if they predict one result (each model is crafted with a margin of error). The models are quite accurate if you remember that they have a margin of error instead of just looking to the most extreme iteration of the model.

I am not an idiot. Obviously there is a wide margin of error in the models. So wide they are basically useless.

Even so none, yes none, have predicted the 18 years of not warming up since 1998. Thousands of them have all missed. Even with their vast error margins.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I can refer you to the IPCC 5 for the latest consensus answer from the foremost experts in this particular field. But if you want my thoughts, here they are:

The current CO2 concentration (400 ppm) is already higher than any concentration experienced by modern humans (source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif )and it will lead, because CO2 concentration shows a roughly 40 year lag between it and the temperature increase (source: Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect ) to significant problems around the planet. This problem should become evident considering the fact that we have already experienced a 1.04 celsius degree increase over the expected temperature for the month of October (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/ ). If our CO2 from 40 years ago has already led to a 1.04 degree increase, when it was roughly 335 ppm, and we have only gotten better at creating CO2 since that moment (source: Accelerating Rise of Atmospheric CO2 | CO2 Trend | Current CO2 ), then the expected increase will probably be at or above the 2 degree increase which scientists estimate to be a dramatic turning point.

If you need me to list the problems associated with Global Warming, then let's start with the basics of drought and famine (which has already resulted in problems for California and Syria), a higher frequency of stronger hurricanes (we saw three category 4 hurricanes at the same time in the Pacific ocean this year for the first time ever), warmer oceans that will lead to ocean acidification and the bleaching of coral, and a whole bunch of other issues that are not coming to me off the top of my head at the moment.

This is the first time I have heard of a 40 year delay and see big problems supporting that. How did CO2 produced in the 1930's cause the 1970's heating? There was so little produced that if that was a significant factor then we would be boiling now. So no that idea buys the farm.

Wow! 3 storms at the same time!!! So F.ing what?

Ever heard of random chance?

Bleaching of coral; You know that slightly warmer water is the cause???? How do the corals in the Red sea manage?

Droughts that are not as sever as have happened and are nothing out of the range of normal variation of climate don't scare me either.

 

[MrT]

This is the first time I have heard of a 40 year delay and see big problems supporting that. How did CO2 produced in the 1930's cause the 1970's heating? There was so little produced that if that was a significant factor then we would be boiling now. So no that idea buys the farm.

Setting aside that I never said CO2 was the sole cause, you can review the link and associated research yourself on that topic.

Wow! 3 storms at the same time!!! So F.ing what?

Three category four hurricanes in the same ocean at the same time for the first time in recorded history. That's what.

Bleaching of coral; You know that slightly warmer water is the cause???? How do the corals in the Red sea manage?

There are a lot of species of coral. Some are more susceptible to temperature increases and variations.

Droughts that are not as sever as have happened and are nothing out of the range of normal variation of climate don't scare me either.

How do you define the "normal variation of climate?" For example, are you limiting yourself to the last 10,000 years? Are you limiting yourself to the time period of modern man in any way?

 

[Tim the plumber]

There are a lot of species of coral. Some are more susceptible to temperature increases and variations.

So the species will change a little in some places then. Maybe...

How do you define the "normal variation of climate?" For example, are you limiting yourself to the last 10,000 years? Are you limiting yourself to the time period of modern man in any way?

Hey let's be conservative, make it 7,000 years. There have been hotter periods and colder ones.