Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9032 total)
51 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (5 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,969 Year: 2,615/14,102 Month: 280/703 Week: 101/158 Day: 11/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1195
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 16 of 828 (749657)
02-06-2015 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
02-06-2015 1:06 PM


Let me lay out your idiocy. The net result of human respiration over a lifetime is to remove carbon from the atmosphere. All of the carbon breathed out comes from food consumed. Food comes from atmospheric carbon. But since most of us die with more carbon in our bodies than we are born with, our burial represents a net removal of carbon. You are a blooming idiot.

quote:
A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago.[43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT TO HUMANITY'S CURRENT METHANE RELEASE. There are several ways other than breathing, that humans produce carbon dioxide. Including ways to keep warm in winter.

Please keep posting, you represent the knee-jerk childishness of much of the scientific community very well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2015 1:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 02-07-2015 7:00 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2015 10:31 AM marc9000 has responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 591 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 17 of 828 (749667)
02-07-2015 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:35 PM


You do realize that CO2 and methane are different substances and that we don't breathe out methane, don't you?? And "humanities' current methane release" would include methane from landfills and cattle yards. Breathing DOES produce CO2, that is correct. And yes breathing contributes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. BUT, plants fix that CO2 into sugars and then we eat those plants (or we eat animals that eat plants) and our bodies use that sugar as a carbon source to provide energy and growth. So we take in more carbon than we release as CO2, which means the NET effect on atmospheric CO2 is negative.

The problem is that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the way we mass produce meat in this country contributes significantly to methane production. Grass fed cattle don't produce as much methane as grain fed cattle and we have huge feedlots of grain-fed cattle. Also, as I mentioned, huge quantities of methane are released by landfills as the garbage decomposes. Some landfill companies are actually tapping into this and using it to produce energy.

No one that knows anything about climate change denies the contribution of methane to global warming.

There are several ways other than breathing, that humans produce carbon dioxide. Including ways to keep warm in winter.

Wow. Of course there are other ways that humans produce CO2 besides breathing, that's the whole point. We heat our homes with a carbon source that has been sequestered under ground from millions of years. Releasing that carbon source as CO2 and CH4 is what is causing a NET increase in atmospheric carbon.

So now it sounds as if you agree that humans are the major contributor to global warming.

you represent the knee-jerk childishness of much of the scientific community very well.

Are you really the appropriate one to be pointing fingers?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:35 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 7:09 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 591 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 18 of 828 (749669)
02-07-2015 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:26 PM


then COOLING is the only thing that could solve the problem, right?

There has been some discussion as to ways to artificially cool the planet, but they are just too uncertain as to what side effects they might have. I personally hope that they aren't trying any of those techniques yet.

I'm kinda surprised you don't buy into this conspiracy theory that the government is using chemtrails to spray chemicals that reduce global temperatures.

They're ethics, they're political, and the scientific community can butt the hell out,

It's the scientific community that said "hey, we have a problem here." And at first met with stiff resistance. But through continuing efforts and by verifying the data and conclusions they were making, slowly people began to wake up and realize that what the scientific community was saying was real and that we need to respond to it.

unless they can show some accountability and be much more transparent about how they get their measurements.

I outline some of that in a previous thread, but you ignored it. Human activity is the primary source of atmospheric carbon and that human activity is contributing significantly to global climate change. That case is now a slam dunk. It just can no longer be denied by anyone by the most stubborn.

You are right in pointing out the demands we have as consumers for energy consumption. This is one of the things that culturally needs to change. We need to be aware of the ways we waste energy and be willing to change our lifestyles to reduce the amount of energy we consume. So yes, there is a huge cultural component to this issue.

There is also a huge political component to the issue. Politicians are primarily concerned about getting re-elected, so they won't take any action that might hurt their support base. Their is also the unwillingness of the two parties to agree on what action to take, both parties simply wanting to take the opposite stance of the other, so government action is constantly in a stalemate, with only tiny shifts one way or the other as power changes back and forth.

Cap and trade and carbon credits is a terrible idea, but it's the only thing anyone was willing to do so it is better than nothing. And yes, some people are going to make money from it, so what? Some people are going to make money from developing alternative sources of energy. Good for them. That is what drives progress, unfortunately.

Science is kind of stepping back now. What else can they do? The case has been made and it is very well supported. Now it is up to the cultural and political forces to take action. Humans have made a mess of this world and it is time for us to do something about it.

One thing the scientific community is doing now is beginning to shift our thinking from "is the climate changing?" to "how do we react to climate change?" Since it is inevitable that global temperatures will rise significantly in the next 50 years, we are looking at not so much how to stop it, but how to live with it. For example, plant breeders are looking at developing crops that will be better suited for the changing climate.

Marc, the debate about climate change is over. It is real and it is serious. The debate about how to respond is what lies before us.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:11 PM herebedragons has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 19 of 828 (749672)
02-07-2015 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:35 PM


quote:
A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release

So now you are going to pretend that your comments referred to methane? Let's check that...

marc9000 writes:

Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons.

So I take it we can all agree that what you actually wrote in your post was just ignorant. There is no need to distinguish between carbon dioxide from exhaling and carbon from any number of human activities because exhaling does not increase atmospheric carbon. Increase in carbon dioxide happen either by taking carbon that is not currently in the atmosphere and burning it, or by affecting mechanisms like photosynthesis that remove carbon dioxide.

IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT TO HUMANITY'S CURRENT METHANE RELEASE. There are several ways other than breathing, that humans produce carbon dioxide.

Methane is not carbon dioxide. Further, your quote is comparing all of humanity's methane release (which is also dominated by the technological component) to the dinosaurs digestive methane release, and not the tiny amount of methane that humans fart out.

Humans don't increase carbon dioxide levels simply by living and breathing. Period. You have no clue, marc9000. Absolutely none. You are incapable of doing the least bit of vetting of the ideas about global climate change that your brain manufactures.

ABE:

Would it be too hard to familiarize yourself with the actual arguments deniers make that actually require some thought to address?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:35 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:32 PM NoNukes has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 20 of 828 (749691)
02-07-2015 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:26 PM


Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
marc9000 writes:

I suspect Razd is working on some lengthy comparisons for me,

And here they are! But WAIT, Razd lost interest in this thread at exactly the same time as someone else with very identical views and posting style jumped right in, supporting Razd's links perfectly! It's a scientific miracle!

Or the knowledge of global warming is so pervasive that just about anyone can answer your concerns, probably even high school kids that haven't had an education handicapped by institutional ignorance (like creationist schools) ...

So I'll just touch on one of your more willfully ignorant comments ... and go long on that:

http://townhall.com/...ing-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

quote:
There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

First I wonder if you know what small scale variations around a long term trend actually show ... which is small scale variations that don't significantly alter the long term trend ...

Second I wonder if you know that this purported pause in global warming was just based on atmospheric data not the total system data ...

Third I wonder if you know that most of the global warming is going into the ocean ...

Fourth I wonder if you know that the global records of surface warming used at the time (for that claim) were not complete ...

Fifth I wonder if you know that global warming is not consistent around the globe (some areas are actually cooling because of changing climate patterns) ... and those patterns are also changing ...

Curiously I did a google on global warming pause debunked and got over two million results, the top of the list was:

quote:
Yeah, About That Global Warming “Pause” …

If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the ongoing noise about global warming, then you’ve heard of the so-called pause. This is the idea that the planet hasn’t actually been warming for the past 15 years or so.

However, this is baloney. First off, the plot used by people who would deny the Earth is warming up (and that humans are behind it) only shows the temperature of the air over land and ocean. But our atmosphere (pardon the weird metaphor) doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the extra heat retained by our planet is also warming the oceans. In fact, most of that heat is going into deep ocean waters.

Second, if you look at temperatures historically, we see ups and down like this every few decades; you have to look at the overall multidecade trend and not focus on some short (and cherry-picked) time frame.

And now we have something else to add to that list: The “pause” may not exist at all.

A new study shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise. The problem, say the authors, is that the global surface temperatures have been based on incomplete data, with some regions left out (most notably over Africa, the Arctic, and Antarctica). The most northerly latitudes have been warming faster on average than other spots on Earth since the late 1990s, so if you leave them out you see a somewhat cooler global average than you should.

The graph above shows their results. It’s what’s called a “temperature anomaly” plot, which shows how temperatures deviate away from an average over a period of time. The usual plot you see is in black—what’s called the HadCRUT4 data, derived from ground measurements—and you can spot the “pause” in the more recent temperatures. The green line is from a more detailed mathematical analysis of the data, and the blue line includes satellite data that can fill in much of the missing temperature records from the poles and Africa. (You can get more details on this in an excellent article in the Guardian by John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli.)

Clearly, these new techniques show that the pause has gone away. When you include better coverage and analyze the data more carefully, the Earth’s surface is warming right along with everything else. As the authors themselves say:

The existence of bias in recent global mean temperature estimates has been confirmed by multiple means. This bias leads to an underestimation of recent temperature trends.

By the numbers, far from pausing, overall the Earth is warming 2.5 times faster since 1997 than the previous figures indicate. To be clear, warming over the past few years has slowed a bit compared with a few years before but not nearly as much as has been previously claimed, and we know that most of that heat is going into the oceans anyway.

In other words, global warming hasn’t stopped.


So what we can say is that different parts are affected to different degrees (pun intended of course) ... and that when the warming trend shifted to the polar regions it went unnoticed, not that it went away.

The warming at the poles are part of a threshold pattern, that when a certain level of warming has been reached that the conditions change on how much is reflected back into space vs what is absorbed in/on the surface.

Do you know that a 2°F change in ocean surface temperature can be the difference between a small hurricane and a big one?

Another variation pattern is important is where atmospheric temperatures rises and more net heat is put into the surface water, and then into the deep oceans via upwelling (that brings up colder water) and sinking currents (which takes warmer surface water down into the depths). One of these sinking currents is at the northern end of the Gulf Stream as part of the global conveyor belt pattern of global currents.

quote:

Surprising Depth to Global Warming's Effects

The oceans are the flywheel of the climate system. As atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the Earth system is warming, and over 90 percent of that increase in heat goes into the ocean. Knowing how much heat the ocean absorbs is vital to understanding sea level rise (the oceans expand as they warm), and predicting how much, and how fast, the atmosphere will warm.

Most estimates of ocean warming have been limited to the upper 700 meters of water, owing to the limited availability of ocean-temperature data below that depth. Since about the turn of the millennium, the Argo array, an international system of robotic profiling floats, has massively increased ocean sampling to 2,000 meters, and allowed scientists to show conclusively that ocean warming extends below 700 meters.

However, the ocean is also warming near the bottom, in the coldest waters of the abyssal zones. Oceanographers measure the abyssal ocean to depths of 6,000 meters by lowering accurate recording thermometers and other instruments to the ocean floor on long cables from research vessels. During the 1980s and 1990s, an international program called the World Ocean Circulation Experiment collected thousands of such profiles around the globe.

During the 2000s, we and our fellow oceanographers returned and re-measured ocean properties at many of those sites. We detected a consistent warming signal in the abyssal ocean around the globe. The strongest warming is occurring in the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, at a rate of approximately 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade. [Warming in Deep Southern Ocean Linked to Sea-Level Rise]

Further north, abyssal ocean waters are also warming, but at a rate of about one tenth of what we see in the deep Southern Ocean. Even though the temperature increases are small, because they are spread over huge ocean basins in layers a few kilometers thick, they quickly add up.


Note that most of the global warming is sequestered in the deep ocean and does not show in surface temperature records. This deep ocean warming can affect the deep ocean currents the same way that atmospheric climate patterns have been affected changing the weather patterns and the way they distribute energy around the globe.

So even if there were a "pause" in atmospheric warming trends, that is only 10% of the total systematic heating of the globe, and heating has continued in the ocean.

And if you are really worried about methane then you should be very worried about warming in the arctic, but that is another issue for another day.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 73
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010
Member Rating: 6.6


(2)
Message 21 of 828 (749705)
02-07-2015 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:26 PM


marc9000 writes:


But if it's uncertain usable data, then its testability and falsifiability fade quickly.


It's usability would indeed depend on its degree of certainty or precision. However you seem to be suggesting that any degree of uncertainty would necessarily make all the data completely unusable (or its usability would fade?).

I would agree that the pre-1850 data is of limited use, as evidenced by the extreme fuzziness of the extended hockey stick handle indicating a high degree of uncertainty. One way to test it is to see if it correlates with known global climatic cooling events caused by major volcanic eruptions, which indeed it does.

Laki 1783-1784
Tambora 1815
Cosiguina 1835

Usable? Well, you could certainly use it to plan a European vacation using a time machine. You could avoid the "year without a summer" in 1816.

Falsifiable? Some data was indeed "falsified" (filtered out). See: http://berkeleyearth.org/about-data-set

marc9000 writes:


The applications of uncertainty are obviously quite subjective in science, not surprisingly, considering most of its members very one-sided political views.


Explain please how uncertainty is "applied" in science. It can be a subjective decision what methods of statistical analysis are applied to a problem. Is that what you're talking about? Muller implied that he used various methods and all yielded similar results. All of his data and methods are available online: http://berkeleyearth.org.

Yes indeed, few scientists tend to be Republicans (something like 10%). That 10% can and do perform research, publish papers, and participate in the peer review process. The entire 100% can (and often do) cry foul when they identify bias in published research. Can you tell us what bias or subjectivity in particular was used in Muller's work? Or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

marc9000 writes:

...[Muller] never said anything about Gore's and Steyer's private jets.


Of course not. The subject was science, not celebrity gossip.

marc9000 writes:

"Natural carbon cycle" v technological carbon cycles, I'm not yet seeing how the carbon dioxide measurements of each are distinguished from each other.


"Technological carbon cycle" is a term so rarely used that it's hard to get a handle on it. It seems to mostly apply to industrial methods for capturing and recycling carbon in their emissions and processes.

The carbon cycle is (per wiki) the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. The "natural carbon cycle" seems to be used in 2 ways. One is the carbon cycle minus carbon created through man's burning of fossil fuels. The other is the carbon cycle minus carbon created through any activity of man, including agriculture, waste processing, etc.

marc9000 writes:

claims about global warming seem to focus on only the past few centuries, not millions or billions of years


They necessarily focus on the past few centuries because that's how long we've been recording things like temperatures, sunspots, and volcanoes. Some of the relevant data can be pushed back a few thousand more years using ice cores. Other info, like Milankovitch cycles, have been calculated back to 500,000,000 years BP.

However, given what we know of natural cycles, anything older that about 10,000 years is mostly irrelevant. At that time scale, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age virtually disappear into mere blips. Are you keen to deny that these periods represented climate change as well? With time scales of millions of years, Earth's temperatures are virtually flat. Always.

If you wanted to detect whether you are coming down with a fever today, would you need to see records from when you were an infant?

marc9000 writes:

[Muller] himself (in the previous vid the interviewer showed him of himself) said that there were no increases in temperature in the past 10 years. 12 years, according to this column ...


And he immediately follows that statement with, "... But we don’t expect it to happen every year. It’s a gradual thing that builds up." Since he confidently contradicts the "no warming" stance in both videos we've seen, I'd say your point is moot.

That column doesn't mention Muller. You can find denier blogs denying warming for every count in the range of 10 to 18 years, and sometimes even in the 30 year range. Several claim there has been a cooling trend for x number of years.

You can't believe everything you read on the internet. Fancy that!

marc9000 writes:

So Muller, and this author, agree that there has been no global warming since the mid 1990's.


Muller makes it clear that global warming is indeed in progress and that man is certainly contributing to it. He and that author obviously disagree about the fact of global warming and man's hand in it.

marc9000 writes:

[Muller] himself ... said that there were no increases in temperature in the past 10 years. 12 years, according to this column ... Muller (and other sources) say that there has been no temperature increase ... Muller and others say the increase has thus far, stopped since about 1997 ... NOTHING since 1997 ...

We have no updates from Muller since 2009 on his "no warming" stance. 2010 and 2014 each reached the number one spot with NASA. Muller says Earth is still warming. Mainstream climatologists do too. The "hiatus" is not a "halt", it's only a slowdown.

The "no warming" meme seems to have been born from articles in the UK's Daily Mail by David Rose, in which he distorted and outright lied about the Met Office's data and stance on global warming.

The earliest one seems to be this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ght-Thames-freezing-again.html

Which forced the Met Office to clarify things with this:
https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/...media-29-january-2012

Then Rose struck again...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...rt-prove-it.html#ixzz29ZOznOnr

... and again forced the Met Office to set the record straight:
https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/...media-14-october-2012

This article contains a good summary of the problems with Rose's chronic "no warming" spin. It also has graphs that non-scientists can understand:
http://www.theguardian.com/...l-global-warming-stopped-wrong

This article has more general info about Rose's sleaziness in reporting on climate science and other issues:
http://www.theguardian.com/.../08/david-rose-climate-science


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2015 7:54 PM glowby has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 22 of 828 (749708)
02-07-2015 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by glowby
02-07-2015 6:15 PM


Usable? Well, you could certainly use it to plan a European vacation using a time machine. You could avoid the "year without a summer" in 1816.

Curiously, I wonder why they did not compare data to the dendroclimate data, especially what is shown by the three long dendrochronology that extend back over 8,000 years and which show frost rings for the "year without a summer" and other volcanic influences on global climate.

Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions (abstract)(1)

quote:
Frost damage to the wood of mature trees is a rare phenomenon caused by temperatures well below freezing at some time during the growing season, when secondary wall thickening and Iignification of immature xylem cells in the annual ring is not yet complete. Freezing promotes extracellular ice formation and dehydration which result in crushing of the outermost zone of weaker cells, leaving a permanent, anatomically distinctive record in the wood [8]. ...

Frost-damage zones have been produced in the annual rings of subalpine bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva D. K. Bailey and P. aristata Engel.) at intervals of a few decades to a few hundred years for at least the past 4,000 yr. They are observed at localities ranging from California to Colorado, a distance of some 1,300 km. In the course of tree-ring chronology development, the presence and type of frost damage in dated annual rings from living trees [10-12] and sub-fossil wood [13,14] was routinely noted. ...

... Wexler's basic premise seems to be supported by Lamb's observation [21] of southward displacement of the sub-polar low-pressure zone in the North Atlantic sector in the first July following a great eruption, and continuing in some cases for 3 - 4 yr. ...

... Synoptic situations more typical of winter may be expected to occur in late spring and in early autumn. Such a scenario seems to have been followed in the frost-ring year of 1884, ...


  1. LaMarche, V.C. Jr., Hirschboek, K.K., Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126 abstract http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v307/n5947/abs/307121a0.html

We can see the evidence of frost-rings for 1817 (following the "year with no summer"), and for 1884, after the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. There are several other notable events shown going back to 1601 CE, however there was no frost-ring for 1785 when one of the highest DVI's was recorded.

The thicknesses of the rings record the temperature variations from year to year, and these rings are well studied and documented.

There is also evidence of significantly wider rings in the Bristlecone Pines in modern years showing significant warming of their environment:

quote:
Abstract

Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) at 3 sites in western North America near the upper elevation limit of tree growth showed ring growth in the second half of the 20th century that was greater than during any other 50-year period in the last 3,700 years. The accelerated growth is suggestive of an environmental change unprecedented in millennia. The high growth is not overestimated because of standardization techniques, and it is unlikely that it is a result of a change in tree growth form or that it is predominantly caused by CO2 fertilization. The growth surge has occurred only in a limited elevational band within ≈150 m of upper treeline, regardless of treeline elevation. Both an independent proxy record of temperature and high-elevation meteorological temperature data are positively and significantly correlated with upper-treeline ring width both before and during the high-growth interval. Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites.


  1. Salzer, M.W., Hughes, M.K., Bunn, A.G., Kipfmueller, K.F., Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Biological Sciences - Environmental Sciences, PNAS 2009 106 (48) 20348-20353; published ahead of print November 16, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0903029106 http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.full

The full paper is available at the link, and I have other information on tree rings and climate markers.

They necessarily focus on the past few centuries because that's how long we've been recording things like temperatures, sunspots, and volcanoes. Some of the relevant data can be pushed back a few thousand more years using ice cores. Other info, like Milankovitch cycles, have been calculated back to 500,000,000 years BP.

However, given what we know of natural cycles, anything older that about 10,000 years is mostly irrelevant. At that time scale, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age virtually disappear into mere blips. Are you keen to deny that these periods represented climate change as well? With time scales of millions of years, Earth's temperatures are virtually flat. Always.

Again the dendro-chonology record not only measures time accurately, but it measures carbon content -- with special attention of course to 14C, but 13C as well.

See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for some additional links on dendrochronology and other annual layer age measurements and their correlations.

Enjoy

ps -- peek to see how I made a white background:

Edited by RAZD, : ps


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by glowby, posted 02-07-2015 6:15 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by glowby, posted 02-07-2015 9:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 73
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010
Member Rating: 6.6


(1)
Message 23 of 828 (749717)
02-07-2015 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
02-07-2015 7:54 PM


Apparently comparisons of his instrumental temperature data to proxy ones are beyond scope. From their FAQ: http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
quote:
Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of satellite data, tree ring and proxy data, or climate model accuracy. Scientists at Berkeley Earth remain skeptical of many elements of "climate change" - including attribution of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events to global warming.

He seems to be making a special effort to keep things relatively simple, as marc9000 requested for non-scientific folks, in a sincere effort to help skeptics and deniers understand the data.

This is all I can find at the Berkeley Earth site regarding comparisons with things other than CO2 levels: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/...nnouncement-jul-29-12.pdf

quote:
Berkeley Earth compared the shape of the gradual rise over 250 years to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials) and to solar activity (known through historical records of sunspot numbers), and even to rising functions such as world population.

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes “Much to my surprise, by far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”


I see some similarity between his graph of temps and sunspot activity surrounding the Dalton Minimum.

Oh yes! Much nicer with the white background. Thanks!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2015 7:54 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1195
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 24 of 828 (749809)
02-08-2015 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by herebedragons
02-07-2015 7:00 AM


No one that knows anything about climate change denies the contribution of methane to global warming.

I wonder why Richard Muller didn't mention methane in the vid in the o/p? At the end of the vid, he seemed pretty adamant that carbon dioxide was IT.

So now it sounds as if you agree that humans are the major contributor to global warming.

The numbers, 1 degree over 50 years, 2.5 degrees over 250 years, show me that it's not happening to any extent that it has to be scientifically or politically addressed. Those 2.5 degrees, over a period that the population went from under 1 billion to over 7 billion, could very well have been contributed by humans. But it's important to divide "human causes" into 2 distinct classifications; 1) the mere existence of humans, and 2) the late 20th and early 21st century of technological activity of humans.

Except for population control, which never has and never will get anywhere, science has no way of addressing the mere existence of humans. All of it's attempts to combat global warming have to target current technological activities of humans, which involve ethics and politics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 02-07-2015 7:00 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1195
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 25 of 828 (749810)
02-08-2015 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by herebedragons
02-07-2015 7:48 AM


There has been some discussion as to ways to artificially cool the planet, but they are just too uncertain as to what side effects they might have. I personally hope that they aren't trying any of those techniques yet.

I'm kinda surprised you don't buy into this conspiracy theory that the government is using chemtrails to spray chemicals that reduce global temperatures.

The only conspiracy theories that I buy into are actions and tricks that are similar, or exactly alike actions and tricks that actual history shows have happened before.

It's the scientific community that said "hey, we have a problem here."

Yes, 2.5 degrees over 50 years, and no one but us is qualified to determine that it's a problem. And we'll address it! And cash in on it while we're at it! We'll issue commands about which technological companies will succeed, and which will fail. We'll sell carbon credits to anyone who has the bucks. We'll make everyone drive econobox cars, and we'll freely allow billionaires that we like, like Al Gore to fly his private jet all he wants. We''ll tell farmers new green ways to grow that food, and if it makes a mess of the economy, we won't take the blame. And we won't call it politics, we won't call it tyranny, we'll call it science!!

And at first met with stiff resistance. But through continuing efforts and by verifying the data and conclusions they were making, slowly people began to wake up and realize that what the scientific community was saying was real and that we need to respond to it.

I don't see evidence anywhere that a noticeable percentage of people are ready to concede their liberties to attempts to somehow control one degree of temperature change in 50 years.

They got a taste of "response to it, in my area, from the late 1990's to about 2005, and they REALLY woke up. The EPA of the Bill Clinton administration got auto emissions testing started. Some people were denied the use of their cars to drive to work so they could make a living, and when some of them realized that Al Gore was freely allowed to fly his jet anywhere he wanted, (polluting hundreds of times more than their car), they got Patrick Henry-style FIGHTING mad. They got Ted Nugent-style FIGHTING mad. The U.S. had a very bloody internal war 150 years ago, due to slavery and states rights, at a time when blacks weren't very well respected anywhere in the country, including the north. What do you think of the possibility of a future internal global-warming war in the U.S.? Would you like to see it? Thankfully, as things were getting really tense, the greater Cincinnati test program ended in about 2005. No explanation as to why, maybe it was the more relaxed EPA of the Bush administration. Maybe it was only intended as a test, to find out how the sheeple would react. Or maybe some arrogant test officials were afraid of getting their heads blown off. No wonder most all global warming advocates also like gun control. For everyone except the government and its EPA, of course.

marc9000 writes:

unless they can show some accountability and be much more transparent about how they get their measurements.

I outline some of that in a previous thread, but you ignored it.

Which thread was that, the one you linked to in a previous message in this thread, the one I started about something other than global warming, the one where I had about 15 opponents hammering on me? How about linking your previous outline of transparency in measuring methods, or re-posting it here?

Human activity is the primary source of atmospheric carbon and that human activity is contributing significantly to global climate change. That case is now a slam dunk. It just can no longer be denied by anyone by the most stubborn.

What is the difference between climate change and global warming? The two terms seem to be used interchangeably.

You are right in pointing out the demands we have as consumers for energy consumption. This is one of the things that culturally needs to change. We need to be aware of the ways we waste energy and be willing to change our lifestyles to reduce the amount of energy we consume. So yes, there is a huge cultural component to this issue.

So you admit that it is ethics, politics, and NOT SCIENCE?

Cap and trade and carbon credits is a terrible idea, but it's the only thing anyone was willing to do so it is better than nothing. And yes, some people are going to make money from it, so what?

$18 Trillion in debt, that's so what. Money is generated from production. Some people who don't eat, sleep and breath science have opinions too.

Science is kind of stepping back now. What else can they do?

Not surprisingly, since some of their doom and gloom predictions for 2013 didn't come true. But the stepping back never completely stops, this thread was started for example, using a vid that was over 2 years old. Selling global warming fear by repeating it over and over again does tend to change the minds of uninterested, uninformed people.

The case has been made and it is very well supported. Now it is up to the cultural and political forces to take action. Humans have made a mess of this world and it is time for us to do something about it.

What have YOU done personally? Is there anything in your lifestyle that's going to change to help address it? Here's an idea, if so many people are convinced that global warming is something to be feared and addressed, then all they have to do is volunteer to change their own lifestyle to address it, then all those non believers can be left alone!

One thing the scientific community is doing now is beginning to shift our thinking from "is the climate changing?" to "how do we react to climate change?" Since it is inevitable that global temperatures will rise significantly in the next 50 years...

One more degree? Two? What is the projection? Numbers please.

Marc, the debate about climate change is over. It is real and it is serious. The debate about how to respond is what lies before us.

Maybe in the scientific community and the Democrat party. But not everywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by herebedragons, posted 02-07-2015 7:48 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 02-09-2015 10:08 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1195
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 26 of 828 (749811)
02-08-2015 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
02-07-2015 10:31 AM


So now you are going to pretend that your comments referred to methane? Let's check that...

marc9000 writes:


Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons.

So I take it we can all agree that what you actually wrote in your post was just ignorant.

I didn't specify which end was doing the exhaling! Seriously, it was you, earlier, who made the distinction between biological versus technological sources of carbon dioxide. If biological carbon dioxide is doing any sizable contribution to global warming, why should technological carbon dioxide, be made to negate not only its own contribution, but also offset something else that has nothing to do with technology?

There is no need to distinguish between carbon dioxide from exhaling and carbon from any number of human activities because exhaling does not increase atmospheric carbon.

But mere human existence does!

Methane is not carbon dioxide. Further, your quote is comparing all of humanity's methane release (which is also dominated by the technological component) to the dinosaurs digestive methane release, and not the tiny amount of methane that humans fart out.

The Wikipedia link I referred to earlier claimed a close comparison to the several thousand (or several million) dinosaurs fart machines to 7 billion human fart machines.

Humans don't increase carbon dioxide levels simply by living and breathing. Period. You have no clue, marc9000.

Living, breathing, burning things to keep warm, driving even the tiniest compact cars, allowing rich global warming activist billionaires to fly jets, oh yes they do, clueless one.

Would it be too hard to familiarize yourself with the actual arguments deniers make that actually require some thought to address?

I put up a link in a previous post showing some. Here it is again just for you. None of you has done anything with them. Razd took one, and copy/pasted a whole bunch of rabbit trails to try to draw me into years worth of dances that the scientific community has come up with. A typical diversion tactic from a basic discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2015 10:31 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2015 10:45 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2015 1:03 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1195
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 27 of 828 (749812)
02-08-2015 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
02-07-2015 3:41 PM


Re: Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
Or the knowledge of global warming is so pervasive that just about anyone can answer your concerns, probably even high school kids that haven't had an education handicapped by institutional ignorance (like creationist schools) ...

Except for 31,000 scientists ?

So I'll just touch on one of your more willfully ignorant comments ... and go long on that:

It wasn't MY comment, it was the comment of someone writing a column, that had more time and ability to research than I could.

It would have been more impressive if you'd have addressed each of his 5 points briefly and concisely. The global warming scare is only a few decades old, unlike evolution, which has had about 100 years to politically strengthen itself. Evolution is pretty advanced in finding ways to rationalize its failures. Global warming advocates have a long way to go to rationalize their failures.

http://www.breitbart.com/...%20-findings-arctic-ice-increase

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/...ce-coverage-up-50-percent


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2015 3:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Pressie, posted 02-08-2015 11:52 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 29 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2015 7:27 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 31 by jar, posted 02-09-2015 9:51 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2015 12:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 28 of 828 (749815)
02-08-2015 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by marc9000
02-08-2015 8:42 PM


Re: Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
marc9000 writes:

Except for 31,000 scientists ?

This means that more than 10 million US scientists in atmospheric, environmental, earth sciences, computer, mathematical sciences, physics, aerospace sciences, chemistry, biology, agriculture, medicine, Engineering and general science did NOT sign the petition.

You should take note.

Edited by Pressie, : Got quote brackets wrong


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5810
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(5)
Message 29 of 828 (749817)
02-09-2015 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by marc9000
02-08-2015 8:42 PM


Re: Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
Except for 31,000 scientists ?

quote:
"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
National Academy of Sciences

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

quote:
Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[20] the movie Star Wars,[19] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[21]

Wiki

After 17 years of being shown to be fake you still trot this out as viable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Pressie, posted 02-09-2015 7:51 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 30 of 828 (749818)
02-09-2015 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by AZPaul3
02-09-2015 7:27 AM


Re: Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
To me the most humorous part on that website was that they referred to an "article" on climate change "published" in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Who "peer-reviewed" that "article" on climate change? Dr Drake Ramoray?

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2015 7:27 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021