@greenman3610 Yes there is. Why people like you who are convinced of AGW have to deride those opinion differs from yours with your " crock of the week attacks". When there is much evidence against such. Even Einsteins theory is now being challenged. But you have all the answers there in your basement and we are the fools. You sir are an idealistic green fool.
@greenman3610 Well when you have results that prove what you are saying then ill listen to your opinion. But seeing as we don't have the 300 mm rise in sea levels predicted or our dams ran dry or 75 per cent of our glaciers gone as your green comrades predicted. Then we see your opinions fail.
Foolish to claim the science settled when so many disagree and can show cause to why. It's cyclic and wrapping it in a green blanket and trying blame man for it is self centered and plain arrogant when the earth has warmed more in the past with less co2 than it is now. Wake up
if you have ever studied geology, plate tectonics and global warming you might realize what will happen when antarctica defrosts. currently greenland is on record as rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. antarctica will also rise out of the sea (once enough ice melts) and is connected to every tectonic plate around the world, directly or indirectly. it has the potential to crack the earths crust and makes any other issue pale in comparison.
@SourdoughMusk Excuse me??? They have much evidence, and have asked for a public debate many times and never recive one. The only evidence those for AGW have is based on 150 years of climate study feed into flawed models that don't take into account water vapor or realistic cloud cover.
complete bullshit all just fake data temperature measurements taken from areas in cities near concrete car parks and such places look lets face it if this is real there nothing we can do about it i know your going to say oh what about solar panels and wind turbins thats just complete utter crap there no way to stop pollution without inventing a new fuel source thats not polluting and so far we haven't got one
If nothing can be done about the invented disaster, it means that we cannot be controlled politically by tax and legislation. The IPCC and UN then will have no power over us. They will fight to the end for this power.
@Besetho global warming is all about funding united nations and then the un can go around pretending to fix something that's not broken and people making billions like al gore i have been hearing global warming shit from the 80's when will we see something really happen. temperature normal , rain fall patterns normal , sea level normal, why don't they admit it, look we tried to con everybody but you lot wised up sorry about that . emergency over but no they keep the fantasy going
You have these stupid modeling programs that say We are to blame, yet they also feed back an answer of 500 to 1000 years before we see a change for our actions of total cessation of fossil fuels now ??? It is a disgrace to science the way those opposing this lie are derided and ridiculed publicly. In the court of law that is our democracy, both sides must be given equal forum to present discussions on case at hand, never is slander or mudslinging allowed, yet it is with climate skeptics ???
There is no global record starting 1880, there is a scetchy record. Then, NOBODY denies temps have been rising, not even the craziest "denier" actual denies that, and hence you made it up. Then you go on to say that deniers want us to look at post 1998 data only -- what nonsense. The point made is exactly that acknowledged (not denied) warming has been happening - but it has been warming since PRE-industrial times. Warming is not denied, the cause is questioned. You have good vids, this is crap.
yes and no. On FOX they say there is no warming. And they say that because there isn't any - and they refer to 1998 - ...
What I meant so say is that nobody denied a historic warming, e.g. since 1880, or earlier. Say, Anthony Watts and the like surely don't deny a warming trend. And again, this is even crucial to their own argument - had there been no warming, or if it only started with industrialisation e.g. post WW2, then you wouldn't be here making YT videos on the subject now.
there is no temp data base on earth that shows no warming. Every year after 2000 has been warmer than ALL years for the last 2000, except 1998, an anomalous el nino year. See pat michaels (big deal skeptic scientist) shoot the 1998 meme down here
watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
and see John Christy (another big deal skeptic) set the record straight here
When you say "get out more", what you really mean is staying in and watch more YT vids, hm? How about I just refer you to your own vid to 1:36 - where you show no warming since 1998, of which I say it's the deniers' claim and in so far correct. So we agree here. We disagree in that there is no historic denial of trend, which you portray. And please leave FOX out - when I say "nobody", I still try to maintain SOME sort of standard. Nobody denies warming, only contribution. Dito.
there's a basic assumption here that you know how to read a graph, or, are willing to listen to what the scientists who compile those graphs tell you about them.
I do not draw my own conclusions - I listen to the people that have spent their lives doing this, and translate what they are telling us.
If you refuse to listen to NASA, the National Academy, and even "skeptic" experts about temps, but insist on parroting the Fox view of the world - well, that speaks volumes.
You must have been traumatized by FOX or something, you keep bringing it up while in this part of the world, we are blessed in that we only incidentially get to learn what that actually is. I already said that I don't even consider FOX.
Your problem is that you cannot distinguish between a general agreement and a critique of the details. You have a reflex to jump at anything other than praise. I'm not even repeating myself the 4th time, read what I say, not what you want to read.
current CO2 levels are at 389 ppm and rising. it wont be long before antarctica begins to thaw as fast as greenland currently is, which btw is rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. when antarctica thaws enough it too will rise out of the sea. it is connected to every tectonic plate around the world and will crack the earths crust. this isnt doomsday bull, this is science, and quite likely the worse threat facing mankind.
@Besetho with co2 about to hit 400 ppm and the perma frost defrosting to boot (which, btw, releases billions of tons of methane, a GHG which is 20 times worse than co2) one side only has to wait and keep spreading the message while morons keep ignoring the evidence that, yes, virginia, the earth is getting warmer and has been doing so since the industrial revolution began. this will not only cause ecological upheaval but will indeed defrost antarctica almost overnight. we have about 3 years.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
If you look at Ice Cores going back 100,000 years you will a Pattern that the Climate has NEVER been stable. The Global temp Increases and then Drops off a Cliff, and it then starts again. Whether Change Paranoia ONLY looks the Past 100 years, and the Previous 99,900 are simply Ignored. And.....The temperature 20,000 years was hotter by a couple of degrees with less "CO2" in the Atmospgere. If you want to know the truth about who are Driving the Weather Change Paranoia just FOLLOW THE MONEY.
:)) you made the same thing by picking the 1980-2005 period. all your videos seem to be way beyond stupidity. i`ve watched a lot and they are all the same. you contradict yourself all the time. can`t you realize that? in all your videos. jesus!
I'll gladly be the climate scam denier of the week. or the year if you wish .
Look outside, the weather is normal where you are right now. No matter where you are the temperature is well within the range of normal temperatures for this time of year. The ice caps are just fine. Antarctica has a record amount of sea ice.
The north pole too is fine. The glaciers of Greenland are calving (a sign of health).
This is really a case of the chicken little syndrome (on steroids).
Yes, if you adjust all the data, it clearly proves Global Heating.
(On your cherry picking chart (4:14) you only show to 1970, why not show back to 2000 B.C. or further. It is not hot or cold compared to what the earth has or will be. Enjoy the climate my friend it could be worse.)
Its a negative PDO all downhill from here. This video bores me sensless the ninth warmest year in the last 29 years yawn. The name calling means that the argument is lost. The Planet is cooling abruptly. Who is desperate? You should be happy that cooling has started or does that no fit the agenda?
@greenman3610 AMSU-A temperature, Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps.Dr Maue COAPS. The Kyoto Protocol is dead Russia, Japan, Canada have pulled out of the second phase. Common sense is winning!
@greenman3610 The point is that Global warming is dead also. Look forward to 30 years at least of cooling. As usual you are behind the curve looking at the past and trying to forsee the future. The Point is that everything has changed while you were blinded by the greenhouse theory. The Grand Solar minimum has started! there is a cold PDO, AMO, AO is negative. I cannot debunk the Greenhouse theory as there is nothing to debunk! no evidence! It was the Sun that caused past warming.
actually, we just came out of the lowest solar minimum in 100 years, meanwhile, 2009 was the second warmest, and 2010 the warmest in the instrumental record.
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
As Nasa has pointed out, even a descent into a Maunder minimum condition would be overwhelmed by a mere 7 years of greenhouse gas releases.
Still, we'll look for that cooling, anytime now, I'm sure.
@greenman3610 Nasa (Hansen) does not have a clue! Carbon dioxide overwhelm a Maunder minimun lol. This is nothing but utter bullshit. Ofcourse NASA will have forgot to include negative feedbacks in their calculations, they should stick to space travel. Why dont you watch the cloud mystery on youtube and enjoy some sensible science?
@greenman3610 YOU are the denier , you deny cooling as it happens before your eyes. I see you are partial to making little videos on youtube. Do I sense a touch of hypocracy from you? If youtube is so low maybe you should stop using it youself. Go struggle with NASA and stay there.
@greenman3610 YOU are the denier , you deny cooling as it happens before your eyes. I see you are partial to making little videos on youtube. Do I sense a touch of hypocracy from you? If youtube is so low maybe you should stop using it youself. Go struggle with NASA and reality. You live in a world on computer models . The real world does not care what computer models tell you. I hope that there is global warming it is a lot easier to cope with than the opposite.
Since when did NASA become an authority on climate. NASA is essentially a missile development program.
Your expression "greenhouse gas releases" refers to what? Evaporation of sea water (the biggest source of greenhouse gas) methane from decaying vegetation on land and in the ocean (2nd largest source)
volcanoes (3rd largest source) release of CO2 from the ocean (4th largest source) or manmade CO2 (negligible tiny fraction). And CO2 is also the weakest greenhouse gas.
It is part of Nasa's mission statement to better understand and protect the home planet.
Greenhouse gases are released every day from oceans, forests and soils. They are also absorbed - in about the same amount. This has been in rough balance until humans started digging up old sequestered carbon from deep in the earth. see explanation here
at the same video you can see why the "volcano" canard is nonsense as well. The US geological survey has the data. Human release about a hundred times as much GHGs as volcanoes.
Appreciate the opportunity to set this straight - thanks!
STAWMAN. You were talking about air force one and the president, as well as nuclear war. THAT'S irrelavent to this whole thing and what I was talking about. Denying global warming is dangerous.
Denying global warming is common sense and defending against silly spending and regulation.
If you want to practice your global warming faith behind closed doors, you have the right, but don't expect me to add to your collection plate with MY taxes.
And stop proselytising in public schools. My daughter had to watch An Inconvenient Truth twice in high school with no rebuttal against the Al Gore BS.
What the fuck are you talking about? Global warming isn't a religion. Whoever told you that is a fucking tool. And I have nothing to do with your daughter's education, though I should seeing as how you're content with telling her it's ok to pollute our planet.
There is no way that scientific method can prove there is man made global warming. There no separate extra control earth without man. So any belief in global warming is based on faith.. therefor a religion.
That whole liberal point of view is a religion.
Many people pray to God, but liberals pray to big government.
And so the liberal faithful think it their duty to believe in global warming, as part of their liberal religion.
@vidmanx0 It also deprives us of oxygen and increases temperatures when it traps heat. This melts polar ice caps and increases sea levels thus disrupting ocean currents and causing more weather problems.
@NUTCASE71733 Actually, grass and crops absorb more CO2 than forests. There have been periods throughout history where there has been much higher concentrations of CO2 than what we have now and typically there has been an explosion in vegetation growth during those periods. Forest fires give off massive CO2 and then it is reabsorbed into the vegetation. The planet is self-correcting in that respect.
Carbon taxes are nothing but an excuse for leftists to try to redistribute wealth.
WRONG. The bigger a plant is, the more carbon dioxide it absorbs. If a tree is burned down all the carbon it absorbed is released into the atmosphere, and since whole forests are destroyed almost every day it just adds to the problem, not the solution.
“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
this "arctic specialist" was a Aviator, military leader, author and polar explorer not a scientist and the christian science monitor isn't a science journal.
While a brilliant physicist Oppenheimer wasn't a climate scientist and the st.martin's press is also not a scientific journal.
I read the bit on David Viner, that was the paper putting words based on a small phrase, I can't find him actually saying "within a few years" on his own. Read the original article from the independent
thanks greenman, I'm actually an avid watcher of both you and potholer, I appreciate any one that is actually willing to read and track down sources such as you and pot do keep up the good fight.
“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”
Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990
While I see the quote "children just aren't going to know what snow is" from David Viner, he never stipulates a time period and the "within a few years" is given by the news paper. Also the independent and the personal opinion of any given scientist isn't a peer reviewed paper.
Lol, "They made it very clear that anyone who says warming has stopped has his or her head in a place it shouldn't be". Hilarious rereading of the statement..
The film, according to a UK court case, is "broadly accurate", and was approved by a judge for school children across the country. As a popular science piece, it will hold up in 20 years.
It was almost all partial differential equations. I had no idea there was so much math that goes into weather predictions. The associate professor teaching told us, "No one understands friction." That meas when wind touches the ground or trees, that it slows down, and no one has a perfect model for that.
In Engineering we would use Reynolds number to approximate what happens when air flows over a heat sink when no laminar flow
Weather isn't climate, as an example if a flood occurs in a desert it doesn't stop being a desert.
Weather is chaotic, climate is the average over many decades, in this case it's the globe it's self is the system. You can't technically have a "perfect model" of the temperature of every single molecule in a cup of water, but you can get the average temperature of the molecules in the system.
Cherrypicking, a technique that deniers have mastered, but also something that Greenman has mastered. For example, he has claimed that 2010 is the warmest year on record even though the year is still not over, and the second half of 2010 has been cooler than the year before. Then he would go on to claim rising sea levels without saying how much. This is typical bogeyman scare.
Nasa has named 2010 the warmest meteorological year. The meteorological year ended on november 30.
for announcement in science mag, google
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever
The event is all the more impressive because we have been in a low solar minimum, during a cooling la nina event, with several large volcanic eruptions.
The last four peer-reviewed papers published on sea level rise all conclude there has been no acceleration detected, either recently or anytime in the last century. The IPCC 2007 AR4 report concludes the same.
But one doomsayer writes an editorial in Nature that disagrees, and Greenman is willing to disregard all that. This is why AGW alarmists have become such laughingstocks.
Interested readers can Google any of these papers, using the references in my earlier posts.
Readers wishing to read what the actual *science* says should refer to one of the papers I mentioned: "Reconstruction of Regional Mean Sea Level Anomalies", or " Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry".
Both papers conclude sea level rise is moderate (~6 inches/century) and not accelerating.
Greenman's "well written and readable update" is simply an editorial, and is no more the official position of Nature than a letter to the editor that appears in your local paper.
Readers wishing to read what the actual *science* says should refer to one of the papers I mentioned: "Reconstruction of Regional Mean Sea Level Anomalies", or " Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry".
Both papers conclude sea level rise is moderate (~6 inches/century) and not accelerating.
Research Update: Journal of Geophysical Research, paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges" - Aug 2010.
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration"
Six inches of sea level rise per CENTURY, and no acceleration of that trend. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
Dr. James Hansen, the "father of global warming" predicted in 1988 that within 20 to 25 years, large parts of NYC would be flooded, and that winds would be so strong that the rest of the city would have to tape over windows to prevent them from being broken. He also predicted fresh water would be so scarce that water would be "by request only" in restaurants, and a vast increase in crime due to the "summer heat waves" NYC would have even in the winter.
Hansen did in fact predict widespread flooding for NYC by the year 2000, along with many other terrible effects of global warming. If you doubt this, Google "Hansen Global Warming Salon Magazine Interview".
Yet another failed prediction for the Church of Global Warming.
Actually-- as reported by the Journal of Geophysical Research, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and the IPCC -- no acceleration of sea level rise this century.
COAPS Hurricane Center Update, Sept 2010: Global hurricane activity at a 33-year low. Pacific hurricane activity at the lowest point since record-keeping began.
Remember when global warming was going to make hurricanes worse? Oops!
Professor Phil Jones, climatologist at the center of the ClimateGate scandal, admits under questioning, "no global warming for the last 15 years, global cooling for the last 10 years".
Climatologist Kevin Trenberth chimes in also: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't". 10/12/2009.
Research Update: Journal of Geophysical Research, paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges" - Aug 2010.
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration"
Six inches of sea level rise per CENTURY, and no acceleration of that trend. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
@ttowntom So they came up with the same last-century estimate as the IPCC did 3 years ago--what is the breaking news here? So what's their prediction for the next one? Oh yeah...they didn't make one.
Last century? No...both teams of researchers measured *current* sea level rise. And both concluded it isn't accelerating, and remains at the same slow pace it was 100 years ago. (a rate far smaller than the sea was rising several thousand years ago, btw).
I'm sorry to disappoint the Chicken Little types, but the sky isn't falling.
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration."
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your logical analysis. One study looked at sea level rise from 1900 to 2006, the second study examined the period from 2004 to 2007. Neither study looked at "the last century" alone.
Both studies concluded sea level was was trivial, not accelerating, and thus not a problem. Sea level has been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. The current rate is actually *slower* than the average rate over that entire period
@ttowntom and if I had said "the last century alone" I would stand corrected. Please don't put words in my mouth and then tell me I'm wrong.
I don't remember reading the word "trivial"--editorial comment? Nor anything about the rate being slower than in 1900. Perhaps you have the full article at your disposal?...or is that just some more editing?
Sorry, bu you don't get off that easily. Both papers examine *current* sea level rise. When I reminded you of that fact, you responded with the snide "got glasses" remark, implying- mistakenly, I might add- that I was wrong. Show a little backbone and admit your error, and we can move on.
so far, your track record of misinterpreting, misquoting, or otherwise bolluxing your citations is near perfect. If you are going to cite things, then you'd better cite things that you can produce outside of a paywall, otherwise, I will assume that, just like all your citations that I have so far been able to read, you are continuing to blow hot air.
It's obvious how desperately you wish to distort science to frighten people, but any reader can easily Google any of the papers I've quoted. What part of "no significant acceleration" and "a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr" do you not understand? That's direct from the researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany, in the paper "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges".
If readers prefer, they can use the results from the NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry. In their paper entitled: "Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE", they concluded a rate of a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/yr (from GRACE data), or a trend of 2.4 ± 1.1 mm/yr from JASON-1 data.
That works out to somewhere between 1.5 and 13 inches per **century**.
"During our study period the individual components of sea level experienced weak El Nin ̃ o conditions in 2004 – 2005 and 2006 – 2007 and a moderate La Nin ̃a, which began developing in mid- 2007. As a consequence, sea level rise (1.5–2.4 mm/a) during the period is 33 – 50% slower than the rate reported in the 4AR. (IPCC report 2007) " (continued)
Most of the sea level rise during 2004–2008 occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (3.1 mm/a) and the rate of sea level rise in the Northern Hemisphere (0.2 mm/a) was the lowest of any four-year period since regular altimetry observations began. In particular, the rate in sea level rise in the Indian ocean observed by altimetry was 4.7 mm/a and 7.4 mm/a from Envisat and Jason-1, respectively."
Unfortunately, you don't understand them. That paper reports a sea level rise of ~20cm (7.5 inches) per **century.** It says that, in the absence of ENSO conditions, the rise might be 1/3 to 1/2 higher .... *still* far too small for concern. It also says that S Atlantic sea level rise is the smallest ever observed.
How you twist that into "our cities are about to be flooded!" is beyond the grasp of any rational mind.
Unsurprisingly, you intentionally left out the best parts from the paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges". Allow me to fill them in:
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration."
This more recent paper finds an even slower rate of rise, and no acceleration of the trend. Oops!
@ttowntom 1.7 mm/a +- .5 for **the past century** is the consensus. But--how do the 80%+ higher altimeter readings for '02-'07 **close the budget**? If anything, it looks like a **closing window** on the rapid melt of Greenland ice sheet, permanent sea ice, and Antarctic land ice observed by GRACE & that can only be attributed to AGW.
Eh? You've managed to totally misinterpret what the paper is even about. The "budget" that needs closing here is the attempt to reconcile *observed* sea level rise with the *calculated* losses from glaciers & ice sheets, summed with thermal expansion. Previous attempts to do this had failed. (Because expected ice losses continually resulted in far greater sea level rises than actually seen)
This paper successfully does so, integrating mass loss calculations with the observational data, and putting to bed claims of catastrophic sea level rise. Their resultant trend was 1.5mm/year, which is less than 6 inches per **century** ... a rate far too small to be any concern whatsoever.
So it seems Al Gore's recent purchase of a luxury oceanfront condo was justified after all. It won't be flooded for the next thousand years or so, at least.
Let me try to rephrase...the paper found that the steric (density component) + Grace (melt component) = observed sea level by concluding that 1.5 = 2.4 or 2.7
Come, are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself? Or is English not your native language?
The paper combined 4 sources to conclude a sea level rise of 1.5 mm/yr. When the appropriate error bars are taken into account, this is in agreement with direct readings taken by either JASON-1 or Envisat satellites, both of which have greater total errors than the combined method used.
It did not conclude that "1.5 = 2.4 or 2.7". Stop acting like a scientific illiterate.
@ttowntom with overlapping error bars, then it could be either 1.5 or 2.7, or .5 or 3.7...that nails it alright; and thanks for reviewing the article--that was really educational
Actually, using the error bars *properly*, it could be as little as 0.5 mm per year ... or a rate of only 2 inches per century. That's the best case ... but even the worst case is a rate far too slow to get worried about. A rate much less than the average rate of rise over the last 20,000 years, in fact.
@ttowntom yes, or it *could be* 3.7--within the error bar of the most recent satellite altimeter readings. My points are 1) although the 1.7 mm/a is widely accepted over the last century, the error range is too wide in a 5 year study to support your lack of concern; 2) we know from Grace and glacier studies that land & sea ice has been melting at an alarming rate; 3) more AGW will insure this continues for centuries. And remember, we have only flourished in last 5 K yrs.
Whether the rate is 0.5 or 3.7 mm/yr or anywhere in between, the rate is far too small for concern. Even the high end of that is SLOWER than the average rate over the last 20,000 years. Your "alarming rate" is less than normal, since the end of the last ice age.
And its not just a '5 year study'. The second of the two papers examines the period from 1900 to 2005. It also found no acceleration in the rate. Not in the last 105 years.
You don't seem to realize that permanent polar icecaps are a very rare feature, across geologic time. They form briefly during ice ages, then melt away. They'll continue to do so whether or not man is here, and whether we drive SUVs or Priuses.
Sea level has risen 140 meters (that's 140,000 mm) in the last 20,000 years. In one period, it rose more than 20,000 mm in just 200 years. Thats 100 mm per year ...or maybe as much as 200 times faster than the present rate.
what you've stated is EXACTLY the reason why we are in trouble.
The planet did not just accidentally come out of an ice age. It responded to long term orbital forcings, which were hundreds of times smaller than what man is currently applying thru GHGs.
Yet the tiny forces applied over long periods of time caused feedback effects that resulted in meters of sea level rise over very short periods.
These orbital forcings are NOT in play today - the changes we are seeing now are mad made.
Don't be ridiculous. Milankovitch forcings are not "hundreds of times smaller". In fact, we don't have any idea exactly how large or small they were. We do know, however, that current GCM models can't explain them (or much of anything else).
As for sea level rise, the earth warmed 15C when it exited the last ice age ... and it took 7,000 years AFTER that before we experienced Meltwater Pulse 1A, the rapid sea level rise you refer too. That's how slow ice sheets respond to climate change.
You also ignore the fact that, barring another ice age, the ice caps are going to melt away anyway .. with or without mankind.
150 years of global warming has resulted in *zero* acceleration of sea level rise -- and southern sea ice that's actually growing, not shrinking. The last time the earth warmed 15C, it took 7,000 years before sea levels rose rapidly. How long will it a far smaller increase take to register?
@ttowntom I think we are considered to be in an ice age, the Quaternary. And I don't think Ice caps *melt away* during interstadials--at least they haven't in the last 600,000 years. If we were to *force* all the polar ice to melt & lose that negative feedback to higher temps & higher CO2--we would be heading back to the Cretaceous.
What do you find so wrong with the Cretaceous? Paleogeology records countless extinction events caused by cooling. But warming? The most rapid warming event of the last 300 million years was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Temps rose as much as 15F .. and what happened? Some deep-sea protozoans went extinct ... but even more new mammalian species emerged.
Fossil record supports evidence of impending mass extinction
--Global temperatures predicted for the coming centuries may trigger a new ‘mass extinction event’, where over 50 per cent of animal and plant species would be wiped out, warn scientists at the Universities of York and Leeds.
The research team has, ...discovered a close association between Earth climate and extinctions .. over the past 520 million years
The principal researcher on that 3-year old "study" was Gareth Jenkins ... who at the time was a student at the University of York. His supervisor, Dr. Peter Mayhew, also contributed.
Worse is the fact that the paper does not do anything at all even resembling 'warn of a new mass extinction event in coming centuries'. That summary is, of course, total fiction
The earth has survived asteroid strikes that caused 500-foot tall tidal waves to circle the planet three times, strikes that fractured the earth's crust and sprayed molten lava over half the planet, baking the surface in infrared radiation and raising temperatures up to as much as 150F, followed by raining of toxic compounds for months, then extreme cooling due to lack of sunlight.
Even that didn't force "over 50% of all species" extinct. In fact, all major mammal families survived K-T. (cont)
As already stated, the best pattern for comparing warming is the PETM event. It was roughly 4X as large as the IPCC is predicting for modern warming -- and what actually happened during it? A few deep-sea amoebids went extinct, but most other plant and animal families flourished. Mammal diversity actually *increased*.
I'm glad you asked that. Sea level rose about 20 meters during PETM ... or about 1 mm per year. (10 cm per century). Sea level rise that slow is, of course, entirely trivial, and as far from catastrophic as one could possibly imagine.
Again, PETM was a warming event roughly 4X as large as the IPCC is currently predicting for contemporary warming.
it is well known that the planet was icecap free before 34 million years ago.
ie sea levels were 200+ feet higher than today.
moreover, PETM occurred on a 20,000 year time scale, as opposed the decadal to century scale we are now experiencing.
too see a decent graph, google
File:65 Myr Climate Change.png
where one can make out where antarctic glaciation took place, about 34 million years ago, as a result of lowered co2 levels over many millions of years.
It is a regular feature of denialist thought, that they speak of events that take place on totally non human time scales, ie 20,000, 200,000, 2 million years, as if "no problem", life went on.
"Dont worry, in 500,000 or 5 million years everything will be ok and new animals will evolve" will be a tough sell to your grandchildren.
No need to apologize for your errors; I recognize your limitations.
Yes, PETM occurred over 20,000 years ago. So? Are you suggesting plants and animals didn't go extinct because they somehow "evolved" to adapt to higher temperatures? Evolution takes millions of years.
PETM was a warming pulse roughly 4X as large as the IPCC is predicting for modern warming...and far from being catastrophic, it was actually beneficial to the earth and life upon it.
Put another way, the PETM event saw as much warming as the IPCC now predicts in about a 5,000 year period...and experienced four of those events, back-to-back. Plant and animal life flourished (except for a few deep-sea protozoans, tsk tsk).
5,000 years is of course orders of magnitude too small for plants and animals to adapt. If a temperature rise didn't extinct them in 5,000 years, the same rise wouldn't extinct them in 50 years, or even 5.
Speaking of adaption, while most plants and animals require millions of years to adapt and evolve, mankind is different. Thanks to technology and intelligence, we can adapt nearly overnight. That's the fact the alarmists fail to recognize.
If an area receives less rainfall, we irrigate, or switch crops. If it receives more, we dam, drain, or switch crops. Man can adapt to temperatures anywhere from 50 below to +110, and do it far faster than climate changes.
This is why GW skeptics have regularly offered to bet alarmists that, even if their claims of climate change DO come true, that global agricultural production will still continue to increase every year. And not only increase, but increase faster than does population.
So far, no alarmist has been willing to take that bet. It's one of the few things they've actually been smart about.
Finally, I don't know whether you're simply being gullible or disingenous by characterizing the End-Permian as a 'warming event'. It had at least three separate causes and phases, the most significant of which was a series of large asteroid strikes.
Google "End-Permian catastrophe by a bolide impact: Evidence of a gigantic release of sulfur from the mantle" for just one of countless papers on the subject.
Funny what you learn when you actually, you know, "read stuff".
@ttowntom "Warm climates are *good* for life. Period."
Yes and no--it is good for infectious diarrhea causing virus and bacteria, cankers, spores, fungi, dandelions, mosquitoes, malaria, poison ivy, jelly fish, giant squid attacks and hookers at ski resorts; bad for polar bears, walruses, seals, lobsters, salmon, cod, grey whales, penguins, frogs, arctic fox, Koala bears, big horn sheep, mountain goats, grizzly bears, birds and coral reefs around the world. Is that your idea of good???
If cold weather was "good" and warm weather "bad", we'd have millions of people moving and vacationing to Alaska and the Nothern Terrorities each year, rather than places like Florida, Hawaii, and Southern California.
The average temperature of the planet is 54F. Ever set your house thermostat that cold? People - and all the plants and animals we depend on, prefer something in the 70-80 degree range.
In fact, the 'greenhouse effect' is named for greenhouses ... you know, that place where plants grow much *better* than they do outside?
What do they do in commercial greenhouses? They raise the temperature a few degrees and artificially raise CO2 levels to about 1000-1200 ppm, or 3X higher than what atmospheric CO2 is at present.
@ttowntom The most productive farmland in the world is mid-western US--average temperature in Iowa, 48 deg. Greenhouses are useless as tits on a boar in the Sahara and the SW US--the climates most likely to expand from global warming. Too much heat kills, period. PS But if you decide to move to a greenhouse, remember to drink plenty of fluids and chew beetle nut and coca leaf-- it helps you get through the day.
The US Midwest is the most productive farmland in the world because of modern agricultural methods. Simply extending use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and high-yield crop strains to the Third World will more than double global food production. By the year 2100, future advances in agricultural science will likely double that again.
Today, over 25X as much crop damage occurs from frost as heat stress. An extra couple of degrees isn't going to change that.
@ttowntom I'm afraid the major gains from that have already taken place, and with little success in Africa, and what may turn out to be unsustainable conditions in the success stories. Chemical poisoning, nitrogen run-off dead zones, insect and weed resistance, small farmers forced out, marginal land, water shortages, etc--nothing that will be fixed by higher temps and CO2. As for the US, the studies show negative relationship between warming trend and crop production over last 40 years.
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Even in the US, where you claim the "major gains" are all in the past, we're still seeing increases in yields per acre of several percent per decade. The rest of the world is catching up also, which is why we now feed 6.6 billion people on less farmed land than we used to feed only 1 billion. World agricultural production has risen every year for the last 50 ... and the increase shows no signs of stopping.
And while you continue to recycle the same old scare stories from the 1960s -- all of which failed to come true -- agricultural science continues to improve. New higher-yield crop species are continually introduced, new, safer pesticides are developers, etc.
Another important factor is that countless studies have shown that higher atmospheric CO2 **increases** the water efficiency of plant growth. Plants need less water to grow in a high-CO2 environment.
Your last statement is a flat-out lie. In 1960, corn yield in the US averaged 58 bushels/acre. Last year, it averaged 147 bushels/acre. And some high-tech test farms are producing over 340 bushels/acre. A longer growing season and higher atmospheric CO2 can boost that to 450 bushels ... in other words, more than 3 times the current US average, and more than TEN times the current world average.
There will be no shortage of food in the future world. There's be far too much, in fact.
Study: Warming Causing Decline in Global Crop Production
correction, the study covered two decades and or course the impact of warming has absolutely nothing to do with tech advances that increased corn yields which you are trying to conflate to support your ridiculous argument
@greenman3610 Yes there is. Why people like you who are convinced of AGW have to deride those opinion differs from yours with your " crock of the week attacks". When there is much evidence against such. Even Einsteins theory is now being challenged. But you have all the answers there in your basement and we are the fools. You sir are an idealistic green fool.
Adirtybird 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610 Well when you have results that prove what you are saying then ill listen to your opinion. But seeing as we don't have the 300 mm rise in sea levels predicted or our dams ran dry or 75 per cent of our glaciers gone as your green comrades predicted. Then we see your opinions fail.
Adirtybird 4 weeks ago
@Adirtybird
not aware of any of those predictions. You certainly won't see them in any of my videos.
Is there something actually germane and relevant you'd like to discuss?
greenman3610 4 weeks ago
Foolish to claim the science settled when so many disagree and can show cause to why. It's cyclic and wrapping it in a green blanket and trying blame man for it is self centered and plain arrogant when the earth has warmed more in the past with less co2 than it is now. Wake up
Adirtybird 4 weeks ago
@Adirtybird
many disagree with evolution.
this series deals with science, not opinion.
greenman3610 4 weeks ago
boring
oxycodonez 1 month ago
if you have ever studied geology, plate tectonics and global warming you might realize what will happen when antarctica defrosts. currently greenland is on record as rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. antarctica will also rise out of the sea (once enough ice melts) and is connected to every tectonic plate around the world, directly or indirectly. it has the potential to crack the earths crust and makes any other issue pale in comparison.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
Global COOLING deniers love their bullshit computer models, don't they?
Why not look at some real empirical evidence, instead of your models.
Besetho 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk Excuse me??? They have much evidence, and have asked for a public debate many times and never recive one. The only evidence those for AGW have is based on 150 years of climate study feed into flawed models that don't take into account water vapor or realistic cloud cover.
Adirtybird 1 month ago
@Adirtybird
your ignorance is showing.
The debate takes place in the scientific literature, not at the elks club.
And it's been going on for 150 years. the major issues were settled 60 years ago.
watch?v=uHhLcoPT9KM
greenman3610 1 month ago
complete bullshit all just fake data temperature measurements taken from areas in cities near concrete car parks and such places look lets face it if this is real there nothing we can do about it i know your going to say oh what about solar panels and wind turbins thats just complete utter crap there no way to stop pollution without inventing a new fuel source thats not polluting and so far we haven't got one
vmgqie 2 months ago
@vmgqie
impressively argued. great documentation. bravo.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610 you alarmist types don't seem to accept it there is fuckall we can do about it
vmgqie 2 months ago
@vmgqie
You are right, but you are missing the point.
If nothing can be done about the invented disaster, it means that we cannot be controlled politically by tax and legislation. The IPCC and UN then will have no power over us. They will fight to the end for this power.
Besetho 1 month ago
@Besetho global warming is all about funding united nations and then the un can go around pretending to fix something that's not broken and people making billions like al gore i have been hearing global warming shit from the 80's when will we see something really happen. temperature normal , rain fall patterns normal , sea level normal, why don't they admit it, look we tried to con everybody but you lot wised up sorry about that . emergency over but no they keep the fantasy going
vmgqie 4 weeks ago
@vmgqie stirling solar dishes have been around for a decade or more, check them out sometime.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
The Ocean can warm the Atmosphere but the Atmosphere cannot warm the Ocean. Think about it!!!
david222444 2 months ago
How about adding a 13000yr line
angelicscorn 3 months ago
You have these stupid modeling programs that say We are to blame, yet they also feed back an answer of 500 to 1000 years before we see a change for our actions of total cessation of fossil fuels now ??? It is a disgrace to science the way those opposing this lie are derided and ridiculed publicly. In the court of law that is our democracy, both sides must be given equal forum to present discussions on case at hand, never is slander or mudslinging allowed, yet it is with climate skeptics ???
Adirtybird 3 months ago
@Adirtybird How is it a disgrace to science that the skeptic community has no solid scientific evidence to support their claims?
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
This is crap. Pure crap.
Adirtybird 3 months ago
There is no global record starting 1880, there is a scetchy record. Then, NOBODY denies temps have been rising, not even the craziest "denier" actual denies that, and hence you made it up. Then you go on to say that deniers want us to look at post 1998 data only -- what nonsense. The point made is exactly that acknowledged (not denied) warming has been happening - but it has been warming since PRE-industrial times. Warming is not denied, the cause is questioned. You have good vids, this is crap.
Baerchenization 4 months ago
@Baerchenization
"NOBODY denies temps have been rising, not even the craziest "denier" actual denies that, "
well, you've got people on Fox news and in the US Senate who absolutely deny it. They say we are cooling. It's on video, dude.
watch?v=YVh7z-0oo6o
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
You are not paying attention to the depths of craziness in the denial community. There is a disconnect from reality.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610
yes and no. On FOX they say there is no warming. And they say that because there isn't any - and they refer to 1998 - ...
What I meant so say is that nobody denied a historic warming, e.g. since 1880, or earlier. Say, Anthony Watts and the like surely don't deny a warming trend. And again, this is even crucial to their own argument - had there been no warming, or if it only started with industrialisation e.g. post WW2, then you wouldn't be here making YT videos on the subject now.
Baerchenization 4 months ago
@Baerchenization
there is no temp data base on earth that shows no warming. Every year after 2000 has been warmer than ALL years for the last 2000, except 1998, an anomalous el nino year. See pat michaels (big deal skeptic scientist) shoot the 1998 meme down here
watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
and see John Christy (another big deal skeptic) set the record straight here
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM#t=5m10s
you need to get out more.
I'm here to help.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610
When you say "get out more", what you really mean is staying in and watch more YT vids, hm? How about I just refer you to your own vid to 1:36 - where you show no warming since 1998, of which I say it's the deniers' claim and in so far correct. So we agree here. We disagree in that there is no historic denial of trend, which you portray. And please leave FOX out - when I say "nobody", I still try to maintain SOME sort of standard. Nobody denies warming, only contribution. Dito.
Baerchenization 4 months ago
@Baerchenization
there's a basic assumption here that you know how to read a graph, or, are willing to listen to what the scientists who compile those graphs tell you about them.
I do not draw my own conclusions - I listen to the people that have spent their lives doing this, and translate what they are telling us.
If you refuse to listen to NASA, the National Academy, and even "skeptic" experts about temps, but insist on parroting the Fox view of the world - well, that speaks volumes.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610
You must have been traumatized by FOX or something, you keep bringing it up while in this part of the world, we are blessed in that we only incidentially get to learn what that actually is. I already said that I don't even consider FOX.
Your problem is that you cannot distinguish between a general agreement and a critique of the details. You have a reflex to jump at anything other than praise. I'm not even repeating myself the 4th time, read what I say, not what you want to read.
Baerchenization 4 months ago
current CO2 levels are at 389 ppm and rising. it wont be long before antarctica begins to thaw as fast as greenland currently is, which btw is rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. when antarctica thaws enough it too will rise out of the sea. it is connected to every tectonic plate around the world and will crack the earths crust. this isnt doomsday bull, this is science, and quite likely the worse threat facing mankind.
vengencefrom1979 3 months ago
@vengencefrom1979
This is one of the most rediculous claims I have ever had to refute.
There is no chance that Antarctica or Greenland will thaw.
Both have survived mush warmer periods in the past than even the IPCC's worst projection.
Greenland would need a rise of 10c, and this level to be sustained for 5,000 years before it would melt.
East Antarctica would not melt, and West Antarctica would take tens of thousands of years to melt at that temperature.
Check our the science (not IPCC bull)
Besetho 1 month ago
@Besetho with co2 about to hit 400 ppm and the perma frost defrosting to boot (which, btw, releases billions of tons of methane, a GHG which is 20 times worse than co2) one side only has to wait and keep spreading the message while morons keep ignoring the evidence that, yes, virginia, the earth is getting warmer and has been doing so since the industrial revolution began. this will not only cause ecological upheaval but will indeed defrost antarctica almost overnight. we have about 3 years.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
If you look at Ice Cores going back 100,000 years you will a Pattern that the Climate has NEVER been stable. The Global temp Increases and then Drops off a Cliff, and it then starts again. Whether Change Paranoia ONLY looks the Past 100 years, and the Previous 99,900 are simply Ignored. And.....The temperature 20,000 years was hotter by a couple of degrees with less "CO2" in the Atmospgere. If you want to know the truth about who are Driving the Weather Change Paranoia just FOLLOW THE MONEY.
JPMorganMustDie 6 months ago
@JPMorganMustDie
I crushed this canard months ago
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
greenman3610 6 months ago
:)) you made the same thing by picking the 1980-2005 period. all your videos seem to be way beyond stupidity. i`ve watched a lot and they are all the same. you contradict yourself all the time. can`t you realize that? in all your videos. jesus!
andreiuta171 6 months ago
@andreiuta171
then they should be easy to refute.
It's so weird that these videos come down exactly where all the major scientific groups on the planet do.
really bizarre.
greenman3610 6 months ago
I'll gladly be the climate scam denier of the week. or the year if you wish .
Look outside, the weather is normal where you are right now. No matter where you are the temperature is well within the range of normal temperatures for this time of year. The ice caps are just fine. Antarctica has a record amount of sea ice.
The north pole too is fine. The glaciers of Greenland are calving (a sign of health).
This is really a case of the chicken little syndrome (on steroids).
Txsray 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, if you adjust all the data, it clearly proves Global Heating.
(On your cherry picking chart (4:14) you only show to 1970, why not show back to 2000 B.C. or further. It is not hot or cold compared to what the earth has or will be. Enjoy the climate my friend it could be worse.)
jeurek 8 months ago
Comment removed
jeurek 8 months ago
great graphics
Plomomedia 8 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Its a negative PDO all downhill from here. This video bores me sensless the ninth warmest year in the last 29 years yawn. The name calling means that the argument is lost. The Planet is cooling abruptly. Who is desperate? You should be happy that cooling has started or does that no fit the agenda?
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
then you'll have no problem showing what data set supports your claim.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 AMSU-A temperature, Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps.Dr Maue COAPS
david222444 8 months ago
@greenman3610 AMSU-A temperature, Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps.Dr Maue COAPS. The Kyoto Protocol is dead Russia, Japan, Canada have pulled out of the second phase. Common sense is winning!
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
well, let's see. MSU temps are up consistently over 3 decades.
check.
Arctic ice down for the last 50 years.
check
COAPs seems to be aligned with the mainstream on climate and energy alternatives.
check.
Kyoto is kind of a dead issue, that enlightened companies and countries have already gone way beyond.
so, what's your point?
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 The point is that Global warming is dead also. Look forward to 30 years at least of cooling. As usual you are behind the curve looking at the past and trying to forsee the future. The Point is that everything has changed while you were blinded by the greenhouse theory. The Grand Solar minimum has started! there is a cold PDO, AMO, AO is negative. I cannot debunk the Greenhouse theory as there is nothing to debunk! no evidence! It was the Sun that caused past warming.
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
actually, we just came out of the lowest solar minimum in 100 years, meanwhile, 2009 was the second warmest, and 2010 the warmest in the instrumental record.
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
As Nasa has pointed out, even a descent into a Maunder minimum condition would be overwhelmed by a mere 7 years of greenhouse gas releases.
Still, we'll look for that cooling, anytime now, I'm sure.
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Nasa (Hansen) does not have a clue! Carbon dioxide overwhelm a Maunder minimun lol. This is nothing but utter bullshit. Ofcourse NASA will have forgot to include negative feedbacks in their calculations, they should stick to space travel. Why dont you watch the cloud mystery on youtube and enjoy some sensible science?
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
right. What was I thinking looking to NASA for science, when it's so much easier to just lay back and watch it on YouTube.
Curious viewers can google
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
for a good discussion of this and other issues, including a prediction made in January 2009 that has borne out in the past year.
you stick to youtube, I'll struggle along with NASA
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 YOU are the denier , you deny cooling as it happens before your eyes. I see you are partial to making little videos on youtube. Do I sense a touch of hypocracy from you? If youtube is so low maybe you should stop using it youself. Go struggle with NASA and stay there.
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
2009, second hottest year. 2010 hottest year.
looking for that cooling. any time now.
will stay with NASA.
viewers who wish to join me can google
nasa key indicators climate
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 YOU are the denier , you deny cooling as it happens before your eyes. I see you are partial to making little videos on youtube. Do I sense a touch of hypocracy from you? If youtube is so low maybe you should stop using it youself. Go struggle with NASA and reality. You live in a world on computer models . The real world does not care what computer models tell you. I hope that there is global warming it is a lot easier to cope with than the opposite.
david222444 8 months ago
@greenman3610
Since when did NASA become an authority on climate. NASA is essentially a missile development program.
Your expression "greenhouse gas releases" refers to what? Evaporation of sea water (the biggest source of greenhouse gas) methane from decaying vegetation on land and in the ocean (2nd largest source)
volcanoes (3rd largest source) release of CO2 from the ocean (4th largest source) or manmade CO2 (negligible tiny fraction). And CO2 is also the weakest greenhouse gas.
Txsray 7 months ago
@Txsray
It is part of Nasa's mission statement to better understand and protect the home planet.
Greenhouse gases are released every day from oceans, forests and soils. They are also absorbed - in about the same amount. This has been in rough balance until humans started digging up old sequestered carbon from deep in the earth. see explanation here
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610
at the same video you can see why the "volcano" canard is nonsense as well. The US geological survey has the data. Human release about a hundred times as much GHGs as volcanoes.
Appreciate the opportunity to set this straight - thanks!
greenman3610 7 months ago
I'm sure that Al Gore's large investments in carbon trading companies over the last decade are all about saving the planet.
vidmanx0 10 months ago
@vidmanx0
I suspect they are for the same reasons as his large investments in the internet. He sees the future clearly, and wants to make money.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610
You got it backwards Gore sees the money clearly and wants to make the future.
Txsray 7 months ago
If you show 1000 years of temperature data, you'll see that we're in a fairly cool period. You're the cherry-picker, you deceptive prick.
vidmanx0 10 months ago
Thanks greenman. This is well done.
zpike3 11 months ago
@zpike3
you're welcome.
many more on the way.
greenman3610 11 months ago
Greenman has a woosy liberal voice.
I have deep masculine conservative voice.
Like the growl of an animal, the voice tells you of the physical prowess, and is a warning.
The warning from greenman is "I talk like a woman. But would a woman make all these global warming hoax videos?"
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
You're becoming a bit of a celebrity with these posts.
Are you sure you don't work for "The Onion"?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
You have 20k hits.
Lady Gaga has over a billion.
No one is a celebrity here.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
"I think you're a twat based on your ridiculous statement, but it isn't a nice thing to do so I'll wear pancakes on my head."
That's what your post sounded like; have you any idea how absurd you sound?
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
I designed the switching power supply for the mil-star up link terminal in Air force One.
It is very high performance.
If there is a nuke war, Obama is going to need my technology.
If there is ever any global warming, I will need to eat my hat.
tnekkc 11 months ago
@tnekkc
And that's relevant HOW exactly?
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Global warming is ALWAYS irrelevant.
tnekkc 11 months ago
@tnekkc
STAWMAN. You were talking about air force one and the president, as well as nuclear war. THAT'S irrelavent to this whole thing and what I was talking about. Denying global warming is dangerous.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Denying global warming is common sense and defending against silly spending and regulation.
If you want to practice your global warming faith behind closed doors, you have the right, but don't expect me to add to your collection plate with MY taxes.
And stop proselytising in public schools. My daughter had to watch An Inconvenient Truth twice in high school with no rebuttal against the Al Gore BS.
tnekkc 11 months ago
@tnekkc
What the fuck are you talking about? Global warming isn't a religion. Whoever told you that is a fucking tool. And I have nothing to do with your daughter's education, though I should seeing as how you're content with telling her it's ok to pollute our planet.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
There is no way that scientific method can prove there is man made global warming. There no separate extra control earth without man. So any belief in global warming is based on faith.. therefor a religion.
That whole liberal point of view is a religion.
Many people pray to God, but liberals pray to big government.
And so the liberal faithful think it their duty to believe in global warming, as part of their liberal religion.
tnekkc 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 CO2 is NOT pollution. More CO2 = more vegetation.
vidmanx0 10 months ago
@vidmanx0 It also deprives us of oxygen and increases temperatures when it traps heat. This melts polar ice caps and increases sea levels thus disrupting ocean currents and causing more weather problems.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@vidmanx0 Besides that the fact we keep chopping/burning down forests reduces the amount of CO2 absorbed back and thus we get less oxygen.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Actually, grass and crops absorb more CO2 than forests. There have been periods throughout history where there has been much higher concentrations of CO2 than what we have now and typically there has been an explosion in vegetation growth during those periods. Forest fires give off massive CO2 and then it is reabsorbed into the vegetation. The planet is self-correcting in that respect.
Carbon taxes are nothing but an excuse for leftists to try to redistribute wealth.
vidmanx0 10 months ago
@vidmanx0
"higher co2 in the past' dodge, see here
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
greenman3610 10 months ago
@vidmanx0
WRONG. The bigger a plant is, the more carbon dioxide it absorbs. If a tree is burned down all the carbon it absorbed is released into the atmosphere, and since whole forests are destroyed almost every day it just adds to the problem, not the solution.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
TheZzzz1 1 year ago
@TheZzzz1
this "arctic specialist" was a Aviator, military leader, author and polar explorer not a scientist and the christian science monitor isn't a science journal.
While a brilliant physicist Oppenheimer wasn't a climate scientist and the st.martin's press is also not a scientific journal.
I read the bit on David Viner, that was the paper putting words based on a small phrase, I can't find him actually saying "within a few years" on his own. Read the original article from the independent
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21
more here
watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
thanks greenman, I'm actually an avid watcher of both you and potholer, I appreciate any one that is actually willing to read and track down sources such as you and pot do keep up the good fight.
garith21 1 year ago
“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”
Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990
TheZzzz1 1 year ago
Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.”
David Viner, East Anglia CRU, 2000
TheZzzz1 1 year ago
@TheZzzz1
While I see the quote "children just aren't going to know what snow is" from David Viner, he never stipulates a time period and the "within a few years" is given by the news paper. Also the independent and the personal opinion of any given scientist isn't a peer reviewed paper.
garith21 1 year ago
junk video
controlfreakssuckass 1 year ago
Man made global warming is not going to last as long in Brit courts as slavery did.
tnekkc 1 year ago
Lol, "They made it very clear that anyone who says warming has stopped has his or her head in a place it shouldn't be". Hilarious rereading of the statement..
Muad420 1 year ago
Cherry picking facts?
Gore did not bother, but made a whole film or pure lies.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc He's a politician, after all. Your point?
Muad420 1 year ago
@Muad420
My kid had to watch that in two different classes in high school. It was not presented as some crazy liberal cult, it was presents as science.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc Oh. Too bad. I haven't seen it myself, but I've heard it is something of a propaganda piece.
Muad420 1 year ago
@tnekkc
The film, according to a UK court case, is "broadly accurate", and was approved by a judge for school children across the country. As a popular science piece, it will hold up in 20 years.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@tnekkc
actually, not.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@tnekkc MORON!
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979
I took Atmospheric Science 301 at the U of W.
It was almost all partial differential equations. I had no idea there was so much math that goes into weather predictions. The associate professor teaching told us, "No one understands friction." That meas when wind touches the ground or trees, that it slows down, and no one has a perfect model for that.
In Engineering we would use Reynolds number to approximate what happens when air flows over a heat sink when no laminar flow
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
Weather isn't climate, as an example if a flood occurs in a desert it doesn't stop being a desert.
Weather is chaotic, climate is the average over many decades, in this case it's the globe it's self is the system. You can't technically have a "perfect model" of the temperature of every single molecule in a cup of water, but you can get the average temperature of the molecules in the system.
garith21 1 year ago
Cherrypicking, a technique that deniers have mastered, but also something that Greenman has mastered. For example, he has claimed that 2010 is the warmest year on record even though the year is still not over, and the second half of 2010 has been cooler than the year before. Then he would go on to claim rising sea levels without saying how much. This is typical bogeyman scare.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
Nasa has named 2010 the warmest meteorological year. The meteorological year ended on november 30.
for announcement in science mag, google
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever
The event is all the more impressive because we have been in a low solar minimum, during a cooling la nina event, with several large volcanic eruptions.
The seas are rising.
google
nasa key indicators
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
got anything else?
greenman3610 1 year ago
The last four peer-reviewed papers published on sea level rise all conclude there has been no acceleration detected, either recently or anytime in the last century. The IPCC 2007 AR4 report concludes the same.
But one doomsayer writes an editorial in Nature that disagrees, and Greenman is willing to disregard all that. This is why AGW alarmists have become such laughingstocks.
Interested readers can Google any of these papers, using the references in my earlier posts.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Readers wishing to read what the actual *science* says should refer to one of the papers I mentioned: "Reconstruction of Regional Mean Sea Level Anomalies", or " Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry".
Both papers conclude sea level rise is moderate (~6 inches/century) and not accelerating.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Greenman's "well written and readable update" is simply an editorial, and is no more the official position of Nature than a letter to the editor that appears in your local paper.
Readers wishing to read what the actual *science* says should refer to one of the papers I mentioned: "Reconstruction of Regional Mean Sea Level Anomalies", or " Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry".
Both papers conclude sea level rise is moderate (~6 inches/century) and not accelerating.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Being published in Nature is something several cuts above the local
crank's letter to the editor, or the obsessive troll spamming a website.
readers can decide for themselves.
google
a new view of sea level rise
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Research Update: Journal of Geophysical Research, paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges" - Aug 2010.
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration"
Six inches of sea level rise per CENTURY, and no acceleration of that trend. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Dr. James Hansen, the "father of global warming" predicted in 1988 that within 20 to 25 years, large parts of NYC would be flooded, and that winds would be so strong that the rest of the city would have to tape over windows to prevent them from being broken. He also predicted fresh water would be so scarce that water would be "by request only" in restaurants, and a vast increase in crime due to the "summer heat waves" NYC would have even in the winter.
All total balderdash, of course.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Did you invent this lie or are your just repeating it?
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
Hansen did in fact predict widespread flooding for NYC by the year 2000, along with many other terrible effects of global warming. If you doubt this, Google "Hansen Global Warming Salon Magazine Interview".
Yet another failed prediction for the Church of Global Warming.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom as reported in "Watts Up With That"...yeah, that's a good source for 3rd hand gossip
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
Actually-- as reported by the Journal of Geophysical Research, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and the IPCC -- no acceleration of sea level rise this century.
Sorry Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling.
ttowntom 1 year ago
COAPS Hurricane Center Update, Sept 2010: Global hurricane activity at a 33-year low. Pacific hurricane activity at the lowest point since record-keeping began.
Remember when global warming was going to make hurricanes worse? Oops!
ttowntom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Professor Phil Jones, climatologist at the center of the ClimateGate scandal, admits under questioning, "no global warming for the last 15 years, global cooling for the last 10 years".
Climatologist Kevin Trenberth chimes in also: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't". 10/12/2009.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Research Update: Journal of Geophysical Research, paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges" - Aug 2010.
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration"
Six inches of sea level rise per CENTURY, and no acceleration of that trend. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Readers wishing to have the latest science put in perspective from NASA, google
nasa key indicators sea level
for a well written and readable update from the respected journal Nature, google
a new view of sea level rise
greenman3610 1 year ago
@ttowntom So they came up with the same last-century estimate as the IPCC did 3 years ago--what is the breaking news here? So what's their prediction for the next one? Oh yeah...they didn't make one.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@Juan,
Last century? No...both teams of researchers measured *current* sea level rise. And both concluded it isn't accelerating, and remains at the same slow pace it was 100 years ago. (a rate far smaller than the sea was rising several thousand years ago, btw).
I'm sorry to disappoint the Chicken Little types, but the sky isn't falling.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration."
Got glasses?
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@Juan,
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your logical analysis. One study looked at sea level rise from 1900 to 2006, the second study examined the period from 2004 to 2007. Neither study looked at "the last century" alone.
Both studies concluded sea level was was trivial, not accelerating, and thus not a problem. Sea level has been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. The current rate is actually *slower* than the average rate over that entire period
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom and if I had said "the last century alone" I would stand corrected. Please don't put words in my mouth and then tell me I'm wrong.
I don't remember reading the word "trivial"--editorial comment? Nor anything about the rate being slower than in 1900. Perhaps you have the full article at your disposal?...or is that just some more editing?
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce
For a good overview, try NASA by googling
key indicators sea level rise
for a discussion published in Nature, google
a new view of sea level rise
greenman3610 1 year ago
@Juan,
Sorry, bu you don't get off that easily. Both papers examine *current* sea level rise. When I reminded you of that fact, you responded with the snide "got glasses" remark, implying- mistakenly, I might add- that I was wrong. Show a little backbone and admit your error, and we can move on.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
so far, your track record of misinterpreting, misquoting, or otherwise bolluxing your citations is near perfect. If you are going to cite things, then you'd better cite things that you can produce outside of a paywall, otherwise, I will assume that, just like all your citations that I have so far been able to read, you are continuing to blow hot air.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@green,
It's obvious how desperately you wish to distort science to frighten people, but any reader can easily Google any of the papers I've quoted. What part of "no significant acceleration" and "a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr" do you not understand? That's direct from the researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany, in the paper "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges".
ttowntom 1 year ago
If readers prefer, they can use the results from the NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry. In their paper entitled: "Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE", they concluded a rate of a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/yr (from GRACE data), or a trend of 2.4 ± 1.1 mm/yr from JASON-1 data.
That works out to somewhere between 1.5 and 13 inches per **century**.
Sorry Chicken Little, but the sky isn't falling.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
from the conclusion of that paper:
"During our study period the individual components of sea level experienced weak El Nin ̃ o conditions in 2004 – 2005 and 2006 – 2007 and a moderate La Nin ̃a, which began developing in mid- 2007. As a consequence, sea level rise (1.5–2.4 mm/a) during the period is 33 – 50% slower than the rate reported in the 4AR. (IPCC report 2007) " (continued)
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
(continued)
Most of the sea level rise during 2004–2008 occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (3.1 mm/a) and the rate of sea level rise in the Northern Hemisphere (0.2 mm/a) was the lowest of any four-year period since regular altimetry observations began. In particular, the rate in sea level rise in the Indian ocean observed by altimetry was 4.7 mm/a and 7.4 mm/a from Envisat and Jason-1, respectively."
You see, I actually read the papers.
Big fail, you poser.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@Green,
Unfortunately, you don't understand them. That paper reports a sea level rise of ~20cm (7.5 inches) per **century.** It says that, in the absence of ENSO conditions, the rise might be 1/3 to 1/2 higher .... *still* far too small for concern. It also says that S Atlantic sea level rise is the smallest ever observed.
How you twist that into "our cities are about to be flooded!" is beyond the grasp of any rational mind.
ttowntom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unsurprisingly, you intentionally left out the best parts from the paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges". Allow me to fill them in:
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration."
This more recent paper finds an even slower rate of rise, and no acceleration of the trend. Oops!
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom 1.7 mm/a +- .5 for **the past century** is the consensus. But--how do the 80%+ higher altimeter readings for '02-'07 **close the budget**? If anything, it looks like a **closing window** on the rapid melt of Greenland ice sheet, permanent sea ice, and Antarctic land ice observed by GRACE & that can only be attributed to AGW.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@Juan,
Eh? You've managed to totally misinterpret what the paper is even about. The "budget" that needs closing here is the attempt to reconcile *observed* sea level rise with the *calculated* losses from glaciers & ice sheets, summed with thermal expansion. Previous attempts to do this had failed. (Because expected ice losses continually resulted in far greater sea level rises than actually seen)
(cont.)
ttowntom 1 year ago
This paper successfully does so, integrating mass loss calculations with the observational data, and putting to bed claims of catastrophic sea level rise. Their resultant trend was 1.5mm/year, which is less than 6 inches per **century** ... a rate far too small to be any concern whatsoever.
So it seems Al Gore's recent purchase of a luxury oceanfront condo was justified after all. It won't be flooded for the next thousand years or so, at least.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Let me try to rephrase...the paper found that the steric (density component) + Grace (melt component) = observed sea level by concluding that 1.5 = 2.4 or 2.7
Your right...mission accomplished.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce,
Come, are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself? Or is English not your native language?
The paper combined 4 sources to conclude a sea level rise of 1.5 mm/yr. When the appropriate error bars are taken into account, this is in agreement with direct readings taken by either JASON-1 or Envisat satellites, both of which have greater total errors than the combined method used.
It did not conclude that "1.5 = 2.4 or 2.7". Stop acting like a scientific illiterate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
for credible information on sea level rise from NASA,
google
nasa key indicators sea level
For an overview of the latest science from an one
of the world's most respected experts on the topic, Stefan Rahmstorf, published in
the respected journal Nature,
google
a new view of sea level
ttowntom hates it when I refer people to actual, checkable facts.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@ttowntom with overlapping error bars, then it could be either 1.5 or 2.7, or .5 or 3.7...that nails it alright; and thanks for reviewing the article--that was really educational
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@Juan,
Actually, using the error bars *properly*, it could be as little as 0.5 mm per year ... or a rate of only 2 inches per century. That's the best case ... but even the worst case is a rate far too slow to get worried about. A rate much less than the average rate of rise over the last 20,000 years, in fact.
So much for the scare tactics.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom yes, or it *could be* 3.7--within the error bar of the most recent satellite altimeter readings. My points are 1) although the 1.7 mm/a is widely accepted over the last century, the error range is too wide in a 5 year study to support your lack of concern; 2) we know from Grace and glacier studies that land & sea ice has been melting at an alarming rate; 3) more AGW will insure this continues for centuries. And remember, we have only flourished in last 5 K yrs.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@Juan,
Whether the rate is 0.5 or 3.7 mm/yr or anywhere in between, the rate is far too small for concern. Even the high end of that is SLOWER than the average rate over the last 20,000 years. Your "alarming rate" is less than normal, since the end of the last ice age.
And its not just a '5 year study'. The second of the two papers examines the period from 1900 to 2005. It also found no acceleration in the rate. Not in the last 105 years.
ttowntom 1 year ago
You don't seem to realize that permanent polar icecaps are a very rare feature, across geologic time. They form briefly during ice ages, then melt away. They'll continue to do so whether or not man is here, and whether we drive SUVs or Priuses.
Sea level has risen 140 meters (that's 140,000 mm) in the last 20,000 years. In one period, it rose more than 20,000 mm in just 200 years. Thats 100 mm per year ...or maybe as much as 200 times faster than the present rate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
what you've stated is EXACTLY the reason why we are in trouble.
The planet did not just accidentally come out of an ice age. It responded to long term orbital forcings, which were hundreds of times smaller than what man is currently applying thru GHGs.
Yet the tiny forces applied over long periods of time caused feedback effects that resulted in meters of sea level rise over very short periods.
These orbital forcings are NOT in play today - the changes we are seeing now are mad made.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Don't be ridiculous. Milankovitch forcings are not "hundreds of times smaller". In fact, we don't have any idea exactly how large or small they were. We do know, however, that current GCM models can't explain them (or much of anything else).
As for sea level rise, the earth warmed 15C when it exited the last ice age ... and it took 7,000 years AFTER that before we experienced Meltwater Pulse 1A, the rapid sea level rise you refer too. That's how slow ice sheets respond to climate change.
ttowntom 1 year ago
You also ignore the fact that, barring another ice age, the ice caps are going to melt away anyway .. with or without mankind.
150 years of global warming has resulted in *zero* acceleration of sea level rise -- and southern sea ice that's actually growing, not shrinking. The last time the earth warmed 15C, it took 7,000 years before sea levels rose rapidly. How long will it a far smaller increase take to register?
The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom I think we are considered to be in an ice age, the Quaternary. And I don't think Ice caps *melt away* during interstadials--at least they haven't in the last 600,000 years. If we were to *force* all the polar ice to melt & lose that negative feedback to higher temps & higher CO2--we would be heading back to the Cretaceous.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
What do you find so wrong with the Cretaceous? Paleogeology records countless extinction events caused by cooling. But warming? The most rapid warming event of the last 300 million years was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Temps rose as much as 15F .. and what happened? Some deep-sea protozoans went extinct ... but even more new mammalian species emerged.
Warm climates are *good* for life. Period.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
For fun facts about extinction events, google
Fossil record supports evidence of impending mass extinction
--Global temperatures predicted for the coming centuries may trigger a new ‘mass extinction event’, where over 50 per cent of animal and plant species would be wiped out, warn scientists at the Universities of York and Leeds.
The research team has, ...discovered a close association between Earth climate and extinctions .. over the past 520 million years
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
in addition, readers may wish to learn about the Permian extinction event.
for a BBC special, google
the day earth nearly died
and for a scientific American article, google
impact from the deep
Permian extinction, a volcanically induced warming event that caused the death of 95 percent of all living things.
Fascinating what you learn when you, like, read stuff.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@Greenman,
The principal researcher on that 3-year old "study" was Gareth Jenkins ... who at the time was a student at the University of York. His supervisor, Dr. Peter Mayhew, also contributed.
Worse is the fact that the paper does not do anything at all even resembling 'warn of a new mass extinction event in coming centuries'. That summary is, of course, total fiction
(cont).
ttowntom 1 year ago
The earth has survived asteroid strikes that caused 500-foot tall tidal waves to circle the planet three times, strikes that fractured the earth's crust and sprayed molten lava over half the planet, baking the surface in infrared radiation and raising temperatures up to as much as 150F, followed by raining of toxic compounds for months, then extreme cooling due to lack of sunlight.
Even that didn't force "over 50% of all species" extinct. In fact, all major mammal families survived K-T. (cont)
ttowntom 1 year ago
As already stated, the best pattern for comparing warming is the PETM event. It was roughly 4X as large as the IPCC is predicting for modern warming -- and what actually happened during it? A few deep-sea amoebids went extinct, but most other plant and animal families flourished. Mammal diversity actually *increased*.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
and what was the sea level during the PETM?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman,
I'm glad you asked that. Sea level rose about 20 meters during PETM ... or about 1 mm per year. (10 cm per century). Sea level rise that slow is, of course, entirely trivial, and as far from catastrophic as one could possibly imagine.
Again, PETM was a warming event roughly 4X as large as the IPCC is currently predicting for contemporary warming.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
sorry.
it is well known that the planet was icecap free before 34 million years ago.
ie sea levels were 200+ feet higher than today.
moreover, PETM occurred on a 20,000 year time scale, as opposed the decadal to century scale we are now experiencing.
too see a decent graph, google
File:65 Myr Climate Change.png
where one can make out where antarctic glaciation took place, about 34 million years ago, as a result of lowered co2 levels over many millions of years.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
It is a regular feature of denialist thought, that they speak of events that take place on totally non human time scales, ie 20,000, 200,000, 2 million years, as if "no problem", life went on.
"Dont worry, in 500,000 or 5 million years everything will be ok and new animals will evolve" will be a tough sell to your grandchildren.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman,
No need to apologize for your errors; I recognize your limitations.
Yes, PETM occurred over 20,000 years ago. So? Are you suggesting plants and animals didn't go extinct because they somehow "evolved" to adapt to higher temperatures? Evolution takes millions of years.
PETM was a warming pulse roughly 4X as large as the IPCC is predicting for modern warming...and far from being catastrophic, it was actually beneficial to the earth and life upon it.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Put another way, the PETM event saw as much warming as the IPCC now predicts in about a 5,000 year period...and experienced four of those events, back-to-back. Plant and animal life flourished (except for a few deep-sea protozoans, tsk tsk).
5,000 years is of course orders of magnitude too small for plants and animals to adapt. If a temperature rise didn't extinct them in 5,000 years, the same rise wouldn't extinct them in 50 years, or even 5.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Speaking of adaption, while most plants and animals require millions of years to adapt and evolve, mankind is different. Thanks to technology and intelligence, we can adapt nearly overnight. That's the fact the alarmists fail to recognize.
If an area receives less rainfall, we irrigate, or switch crops. If it receives more, we dam, drain, or switch crops. Man can adapt to temperatures anywhere from 50 below to +110, and do it far faster than climate changes.
ttowntom 1 year ago
This is why GW skeptics have regularly offered to bet alarmists that, even if their claims of climate change DO come true, that global agricultural production will still continue to increase every year. And not only increase, but increase faster than does population.
So far, no alarmist has been willing to take that bet. It's one of the few things they've actually been smart about.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@greenman,
Finally, I don't know whether you're simply being gullible or disingenous by characterizing the End-Permian as a 'warming event'. It had at least three separate causes and phases, the most significant of which was a series of large asteroid strikes.
Google "End-Permian catastrophe by a bolide impact: Evidence of a gigantic release of sulfur from the mantle" for just one of countless papers on the subject.
Funny what you learn when you actually, you know, "read stuff".
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom "Warm climates are *good* for life. Period."
Yes and no--it is good for infectious diarrhea causing virus and bacteria, cankers, spores, fungi, dandelions, mosquitoes, malaria, poison ivy, jelly fish, giant squid attacks and hookers at ski resorts; bad for polar bears, walruses, seals, lobsters, salmon, cod, grey whales, penguins, frogs, arctic fox, Koala bears, big horn sheep, mountain goats, grizzly bears, birds and coral reefs around the world. Is that your idea of good???
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
If cold weather was "good" and warm weather "bad", we'd have millions of people moving and vacationing to Alaska and the Nothern Terrorities each year, rather than places like Florida, Hawaii, and Southern California.
The average temperature of the planet is 54F. Ever set your house thermostat that cold? People - and all the plants and animals we depend on, prefer something in the 70-80 degree range.
ttowntom 1 year ago
In fact, the 'greenhouse effect' is named for greenhouses ... you know, that place where plants grow much *better* than they do outside?
What do they do in commercial greenhouses? They raise the temperature a few degrees and artificially raise CO2 levels to about 1000-1200 ppm, or 3X higher than what atmospheric CO2 is at present.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom The most productive farmland in the world is mid-western US--average temperature in Iowa, 48 deg. Greenhouses are useless as tits on a boar in the Sahara and the SW US--the climates most likely to expand from global warming. Too much heat kills, period. PS But if you decide to move to a greenhouse, remember to drink plenty of fluids and chew beetle nut and coca leaf-- it helps you get through the day.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@Juan,
The US Midwest is the most productive farmland in the world because of modern agricultural methods. Simply extending use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and high-yield crop strains to the Third World will more than double global food production. By the year 2100, future advances in agricultural science will likely double that again.
Today, over 25X as much crop damage occurs from frost as heat stress. An extra couple of degrees isn't going to change that.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom I'm afraid the major gains from that have already taken place, and with little success in Africa, and what may turn out to be unsustainable conditions in the success stories. Chemical poisoning, nitrogen run-off dead zones, insect and weed resistance, small farmers forced out, marginal land, water shortages, etc--nothing that will be fixed by higher temps and CO2. As for the US, the studies show negative relationship between warming trend and crop production over last 40 years.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@Juan,
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Even in the US, where you claim the "major gains" are all in the past, we're still seeing increases in yields per acre of several percent per decade. The rest of the world is catching up also, which is why we now feed 6.6 billion people on less farmed land than we used to feed only 1 billion. World agricultural production has risen every year for the last 50 ... and the increase shows no signs of stopping.
ttowntom 1 year ago
And while you continue to recycle the same old scare stories from the 1960s -- all of which failed to come true -- agricultural science continues to improve. New higher-yield crop species are continually introduced, new, safer pesticides are developers, etc.
Another important factor is that countless studies have shown that higher atmospheric CO2 **increases** the water efficiency of plant growth. Plants need less water to grow in a high-CO2 environment.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Your last statement is a flat-out lie. In 1960, corn yield in the US averaged 58 bushels/acre. Last year, it averaged 147 bushels/acre. And some high-tech test farms are producing over 340 bushels/acre. A longer growing season and higher atmospheric CO2 can boost that to 450 bushels ... in other words, more than 3 times the current US average, and more than TEN times the current world average.
There will be no shortage of food in the future world. There's be far too much, in fact.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Study: Warming Causing Decline in Global Crop Production
correction, the study covered two decades and or course the impact of warming has absolutely nothing to do with tech advances that increased corn yields which you are trying to conflate to support your ridiculous argument
JuanVoyce 1 year ago