Japan just recorded its earliest cherry blossom bloom in 1,200 years. Scientists warn it's a symptom of the larger climate crisis

[Threegoofs]

You know, when I present papers, you guys cannot read them and claim I'm lying. What's the point when you only rely on someone else telling you what is and isn't true?

Here is one I linked before:

Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications | Science

science.sciencemag.org

​

The lag in the climate response to a forcing is a sensitive function of equilibrium climate sensitivity, varying approximately as the square of the sensitivity, and it depends on the rate of heat exchange between the ocean's surface mixed layer and the deeper ocean. The lag could be as short as a decade, if climate sensitivity is as small as 0.25°C per W/m2 of forcing, but it is a century or longer if climate sensitivity is 1°C per W/m2 or larger. Evidence from Earth's history and climate models suggests that climate sensitivity is 0.75° ± 0.25°C per W/m2, implying that 25 to 50 years are needed for Earth's surface temperature to reach 60% of its equilibrium response.​

​

There are other papers indicating a lag of several decades.

I get really tired of your denial of science, and making false accusations of me.

So you’re telling us that the IPCC is ignoring papers by James Hansen, one of the most prominent members of the climate research community going back decades? The guy who was a contributing author to the IPCC?

LOL.

This ones so stupid I might consider wasting time to actually find it referenced in AR5,but you’d whine about how the authors don’t understand the paper as well as you do, so I won’t bother.


You’re hilarious. Really

 

[Lord of Planar]

Prove it.

I have linked the money for studies some years back. I would know where to find it now. The AGW people got something like 99 times more money than the non AGW people.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And here is the “abstract” which you forgot to include:

“Abstract
Our climate model, DRIVEN MAINLY BY INCREASING HUMAN-MADE GREENHOUSES GASSES and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.”

Do you agree with the capitalized portion?

Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications | Science

science.sciencemag.org

When you remember that is states their climate model is indicating that, yes. It specifies "Our climate model." It doesn't surprise me at all that their model is mainly driven by CO2 levels.

We know the models are algorithms made by what is believed. Models are often wrong. We should also remember that photosynthesis on the planet possible converts that much net energy into more complex molecules, and that some energy imbalance is required or else we would be a cooling planet.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you’re telling us that the IPCC is ignoring papers by James Hansen, one of the most prominent members of the climate research community going back decades? The guy who was a contributing author to the IPCC?

LOL.

This ones so stupid I might consider wasting time to actually find it referenced in AR5,but you’d whine about how the authors don’t understand the paper as well as you do, so I won’t bother.


You’re hilarious. Really

I'm saying they ignore parts of papers and even whole papers that don't suit their agenda.

What about the paper I linked in post #147?

 

[watsup]

When you remember that is states their climate model is indicating that, yes. It specifies "Our climate model." It doesn't surprise me at all that their model is mainly driven by CO2 levels.

We know the models are algorithms made by what is believed. Models are often wrong. We should also remember that photosynthesis on the planet possible converts that much net energy into more complex molecules, and that some energy imbalance is required or else we would be a cooling planet.

I was simply pointing out that you were once again cherry picking a single paragraph from the paper without acknowledging that the paper did indeed support the thesis that CO2 is indeed the primary factor in the present global warming. Just more “leg of the elephant” input from you, as usual.

 

[watsup]

I'm saying they ignore parts of papers and even whole papers that don't suit their agenda.

What about the paper I linked in post #147?

You ignore parts of 5e papers that you link when they don’t suit your agenda, As above. Quite dishonest.

 

[watsup]

I have linked the money for studies some years back. I would know where to find it now. The AGW people got something like 99 times more money than the non AGW people.

You are welcome to find the link again. Perhaps, and most probably, the reason is that it is those scientists who are doing serious work on climate change as opposed to denier dilettantes. Like those who sign petitions, for instance, instead of doing research and compiling data.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I was simply pointing out that you were once again cherry picking a single paragraph from the paper without acknowledging that the paper did indeed support the thesis that CO2 is indeed the primary factor in the present global warming. Just more “leg of the elephant” input from you, as usual.

I was showing one aspect of the science, not ever mentioned by the IPCC et. al.

Why is everything black and white to you? Is that the limits of your thinking?

There are multiple variables in play. The fact that I choose one aspect doesn't mean what you seem to think.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You ignore parts of 5e papers that you link when they don’t suit your agenda, As above. Quite dishonest.

"5e?"

What on earth are you speaking of? Please back up your claim.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are welcome to find the link again. Perhaps, and most probably, the reason is that it is those scientists who are doing serious work on climate change as opposed to denier dilettantes. Like those who sign petitions, for instance, instead of doing research and compiling data.

No need. You guys are 100% blind to the facts you don't like. It will not matter no matter what I present. Arguments like Koch brothers donating an insignificant few millions for research, you guys endlessly jump on, but you ignore the several billions spend for the AGW agenda.

Why would I try to convince you if facts denied before?

I have better things to do than prove anything to someone so uneducated in the topic.

 

[code1211]

Yes the experts know about the sun. You didn't discover the sun. (Sorry to rip the Nobel out of your hands so brusquely).

The key is why is it warming? Is the sun getting stronger? Interestingly enough the experts (who DO KNOW ABOUT THE SUN) have factored that in and found that solar forcings cannot account for the majority of the warming over the last 50 or so years.

And yet the warming has brought us to a point of warming at which we are just about smack dab in the middles of the two degree or so temperature range we have enjoyed for about 10,000 years.

We are about as warm as we were 5000 years ago and about a degree cooler than we were 8000 years ago.

Do your experts assert that the mean is outrageously warm? I'm betting they do.

That aside though, What do your experts say is the PRIMARY cause of warming?

 

[code1211]

You do know that we are talking about the EXCESS of global warming over and above that which is "normal" from the sun, right. And it is indeed human-produced CO2 that is the culprit in this case. Please do some research on the topic so that you will better understand to.

I am talking about what you posted.

YOU said that experts have cited CO2 the PRIMARY cause of warming.

Again, do you know what PRIMARY means?

Examining 50, 150 or 200 years is a little foolish in terms of paleo climatology.

Aside from that, our current warming is being measured starting at the coldest point during the Holocene.

We are currently just about right smack dab in the middle of the two degree temperature range established for the Holocene.

 

[watsup]

I am talking about what you posted.

YOU said that experts have cited CO2 the PRIMARY cause of warming.

Again, do you know what PRIMARY means?

Examining 50, 150 or 200 years is a little foolish in terms of paleo climatology.

Aside from that, our current warming is being measured starting at the coldest point during the Holocene.

We are currently just about right smack dab in the middle of the two degree temperature range established for the Holocene.

What effect is human-produced CO2 having in the climate?

 

[watsup]

No need. You guys are 100% blind to the facts you don't like. It will not matter no matter what I present. Arguments like Koch brothers donating an insignificant few millions for research, you guys endlessly jump on, but you ignore the several billions spend for the AGW agenda.

Why would I try to convince you if facts denied before?

I have better things to do than prove anything to someone so uneducated in the topic.

And yet more psychological projection .
And evidently you DON’T have anything better to do because you have apparently spent literally years here presenting your denier theories. And, of course, political and scientific conspiracies.

 

[watsup]

I was showing one aspect of the science, not ever mentioned by the IPCC et. al.

Why is everything black and white to you? Is that the limits of your thinking?

There are multiple variables in play. The fact that I choose one aspect doesn't mean what you seem to think.

Fine. So the leg of an elephant is actually a tree. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

 

[watsup]

I am talking about what you posted.

YOU said that experts have cited CO2 the PRIMARY cause of warming.

Again, do you know what PRIMARY means?

Examining 50, 150 or 200 years is a little foolish in terms of paleo climatology.

Aside from that, our current warming is being measured starting at the coldest point during the Holocene.

We are currently just about right smack dab in the middle of the two degree temperature range established for the Holocene.

How is it foolish if a brand new factor is introduced, namely human-produced CO2. Would not a competent climate scientist want to discover what sort of effect that is having??????

 

[watsup]

"5e?"

What on earth are you speaking of? Please back up your claim.

Yes, we fully acknowledge that you are very good at pointing out typos.

 

[Threegoofs]

And yet the warming has brought us to a point of warming at which we are just about smack dab in the middles of the two degree or so temperature range we have enjoyed for about 10,000 years.

We are about as warm as we were 5000 years ago and about a degree cooler than we were 8000 years ago.

Do your experts assert that the mean is outrageously warm? I'm betting they do.

That aside though, What do your experts say is the PRIMARY cause of warming?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Because global warming is a myth. Man has no effect on the atmosphere . That's why catalytic convertors and strictor emissions standards didn't reduce smog in L.A.

The People's Republic of China is the world's leading annual emitter of greenhouse gases and mercury. An estimated 1.24 million people died from exposure to air pollution in the PRC in 2017, according to a recent study in the medical journal The Lancet but we all know that correlation does not prove cause.

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and ever increasing amounts of it in our atmosphere have no effect on our climate.

That's why.

Where did you copy & paste this from? Looks like it came from a late night comedy show. Please provide proof, not ridiculous opinion that CO2 is not a green house gas.

 

[watsup]

Where did you copy & paste this from? Looks like it came from a late night comedy show. Please provide proof, not ridiculous opinion that CO2 is not a green house gas.

Next they’ll be claiming that it’s “not pollution”.

 

[Loulit01]

Where did you copy & paste this from? Looks like it came from a late night comedy show. Please provide proof, not ridiculous opinion that CO2 is not a green house gas.

Sometimes, as in this case, people can't spot my sarcasm. When I think that may happen I switch to my sarcasm font, usually Comic Sans MS. That's not an option here so I'm using Courier New because it's distinct from the other fonts.

BTW, I didn't copy/paste anything. It's 100% original sarcasm.

 

[code1211]

What effect is human-produced CO2 having in the climate?

Difficult to tell.

Obviously, NO Climate Scientist has been able to tell us with any authority. Maybe someday, they'll figure it out.

My guess is that by the time they have a decent ability to address the problem, the problem will have gone away.

Right now, my Japanese Maple in the back yard has leaves as it did at this time last year. Last year we suffered a late hard freeze. I'm watching the forecasts to help me plan if it happens again this year.

The leaves fall off and come back the wrong color with a freeze. Hoping to have beautiful backdrops to the pics of gatherings on the patio this year.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

 

[code1211]

How is it foolish if a brand new factor is introduced, namely human-produced CO2. Would not a competent climate scientist want to discover what sort of effect that is having??????

That sounds reasonable.

However, the process that is being used is that the conclusion was announced and then the research is ongoing.

CO2 concentration right now is above 400 ppm. By far the highest in the last half million years.

Global temperature, however, is stubbornly remaining lower than it has been over the last 500 million years in general and over the last 500 Thousand years in particular.

Addressing the rise of CO2 is probably a good thing, and that is being done strongly in the US and, in varying degrees of weakness, less so around the world.

I object to being lied to. When anyone tells me that a particular thing is causing another particular thing and the evidence says EXACTLY the opposite, I start to wonder why they are lying.

Don't you?

Paleoclimatology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

<snip>


<snip>

 

[watsup]

Difficult to tell.

Obviously, NO Climate Scientist has been able to tell us with any authority. Maybe someday, they'll figure it out.

My guess is that by the time they have a decent ability to address the problem, the problem will have gone away.

Right now, my Japanese Maple in the back yard has leaves as it did at this time last year. Last year we suffered a late hard freeze. I'm watching the forecasts to help me plan if it happens again this year.

The leaves fall off and come back the wrong color with a freeze. Hoping to have beautiful backdrops to the pics of gatherings on the patio this year.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

Thank you for letting us know what conditions are in your back yard. It just shows that all that research and data compiled by climate scientists is all for naught.

 

[watsup]

That sounds reasonable.

However, the process that is being used is that the conclusion was announced and then the research is ongoing.

CO2 concentration right now is above 400 ppm. By far the highest in the last half million years.

Global temperature, however, is stubbornly remaining lower than it has been over the last 500 million years in general and over the last 500 Thousand years in particular.

Addressing the rise of CO2 is probably a good thing, and that is being done strongly in the US and, in varying degrees of weakness, less so around the world.
I object to being lied to. When anyone tells me that a particular thing is causing another particular thing and the evidence says EXACTLY the opposite, I start to wonder why they are lying.

Don't you?

Paleoclimatology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

<snip>


<snip>

You apparently know about the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years and even millions of years ago, but can't seem to determine the cause of present global warming.