- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,583
- Reaction score
- 28,948
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yup . You claimed it was from a 'denier' blog so prove it ? (I'm waiting to humiliate you by posting the full paper but am enjoying watching your contortions in the meantime) :waiting: #3
Oh please. Post the ‘kobayashi’ study with your half graph
There ya go. No 'half graphs' necessarry
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444
It’s half the graph.
The key part is not the noisy temp variations, it’s the curve and averages.
The conclusion says... the opposite of what you claim.
I think you should find the ‘Kobayashi’ study instead.
It couldn’t be worse! LOL
I swear there could be 50 years without snow, sea levels could rise by 10 feet, and entire regions could become deserts and you will still have people saying "actually the earth is getting colder" as soon as they feel a cold breeze.
Oh brother. Yes, 50 million years ago the earth was hotter. Here's why climate change is still a major problem.A bit like people saying todays conditions are unprecedented by deliberately ignoring the precedents you mean ? :roll:
lolNope.
If you're not going to look at the links people give you then you shouldn't challenge what they say...
lolthe article demonstrated that Nature overwhelmed CO2 levels. Not the reverse. THAT was the point and you missed it because of your blinders.
Even over the last 1000 years the study illustrates our current temperatures are within natural norms. These arent climate models they are direct measurements
I guess as a consequence the rich won't be giving you their money any time soon.
Get smarter work harder
LOL.
From the abstract:
“Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. “
Maybe ‘kobayashi’ says something different! LOL
Yet their graph spectacularly fails to illustrate that. I guess they were worried about getting paid..... or published via the hysteria of 2011 :wink:
Thankfully since its peak 12 years ago this hysteria has almost evaporated entirely from the mainstream media
So you think they can’t interpret their own paper correctly?
Yeah. That’s a denier for ya!
Yep. Again, you fail to understand the actual claims made by climate scientists about hurricanes -- even when I point them out to you repeatedly. Hmmmm.- Nope ...
:roll:- "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers....
So prove my graph was from a 'denier blog' as you claimed ? :waiting: #6
Ignorant people don't know the different between weather and climate. The weather goes up and down, but climate trends are long-standing. Sure, we had a cold snap, but guess what, today in my region we broke the record for the warmest February 6 ever recorded, at 83 degrees. So, the cold snap went out, and a hot one followed. That's weather. If we were to say about the cold snap, "there is no global warming," then we'd have to a few days later, say about the hot snap, "there is global warning."
The correct way is that we don't pay attention to weather snaps, but rather to climate averages, and these are going unequivocally up over the years.
This is very obvious, but it is amazing how many ignorant people don't understand the difference.
You’ve been eviscerated already.
But it’s not the full figure from the paper, was it?
What you've done is construct a straw man argument.
Most of the people on these boards will tell you that
there's been warm-up over the last century. The
disagreement is whether or not it's a problem.
So simply prove my graph was from a denier blog and did not appear in a peer reviewed paper ? Whats the problem ? :waiting: #7
I have to say, I am not sure trolley you used to arrive at that destination.I guess you’re just gonna just roll with the fact that the paper literally says the opposite of what you claimed.
I don’t need to do your homework. Hell- I directed you to the paper since you didn’t even know the authors name!
So Greenland decadal mean temperature, is still within the envelope of natural variability,Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100.
If warming has been noticeably occurring for the last century then why did experts claim just 50 years ago that research proved the earth had been cooling at an alarming rate over the previous century?
It was actually 44 years ago, and possible cooling was a real concern.Did they? The Global Cooling scare was about cooling after World War II. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Given the short duration of these graphs its a bit like tailoring your wardrobe by looking out your window one day in July and deciding thats it I don't need jackets or long trousers..... ever :lol:
Yep. Again, you fail to understand the actual claims made by climate scientists about hurricanes -- even when I point them out to you repeatedly. Hmmmm.
:roll:
Yes, I've seen deniers latch onto Zwally's work; Zwally himself was worried that would happen. (https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ntist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612).
As mentioned in other discussions here rather recently, Zwally (who is a respected researcher) is using less accurate measures of measurement. And again, I pointed out that the bigger concern is the loss of ice shelves. We don't know yet if that's going to happen, but events like the collapse of Larsen Ice Shelf C is not a good sign.
Anyway... so far, that means you have failed to refute the following impacts of AGW in recent years:
• more extreme weather events (heat waves, high precipitation events, cold snaps etc)
• hurricanes that are larger, more intense, travel slower, and produce larger storm surges
• larger and more intense heat waves
• forest fires happening in unprecedented areas (e.g. the northern parts of Sweden... which are in the Arctic Circle, by the way)
• loss of ice/glacial masses in Greenland, Himalayas, the Arctic etc
• loss of fresh water
• rapid rise in sea levels
• acidification of oceans
• massive loss of coral reefs
• rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
• rapid increase in global temperatures
• more extreme weather events
• permafrost starting to melt
Just to name a few.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?