Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[BHS1975]

https://skepticalscience.com/pliocene-2018.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BHS1975]

It’s been far warmer in the past on the earth vs now. And ice free too.

“Pollen from three subarctic sites in the Norwegian Sea, northern Iceland and Labrador Sea indicate that mid-Pliocene January temperatures in Norway, Iceland and southeastern Canada were 4 to 10°C warmer than today (Willard 1994). … Evidence of both mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forests places mean July temperatures 10°C warmer than today [in Arctic Canada] (Vincent 1990). In addition, northwestern Alaska air and sea temperatures during peak Pliocene interglacials were considerably warmer than present, by 7 to 8°C, with no permafrost, and absent or severely limited sea ice (Carter et al. 1986; Kaufman and Brigham-Grette 1993).”

“The consensus among these proxies suggests that Arctic temperatures were ∼19 °C warmer during the Pliocene than at present, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ∼390 ppmv.”


“Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”
“[A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000 years ago]. … Some species thought to be dependent on summer sea ice (e.g., polar bears) survived through these periods.”

Here is a chart that goes back 10k years.
View attachment 29037

Sea lvls where 10-22m higher too. Going back to the Pliocene is not a good thing and it just gets worse beyond that. Large mammals like us wouldn’t survive in a hothouse state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SETNwx]

These arguments using very old natural climate change events are red herrings and in utterly bad faith. Our current extreme climate change event is mostly man-made and happening in hundreds of years rather than thousands, tens of thousands or millions of years. So silly.

 

[MichaelJ]

These arguments using very old natural climate change events are red herrings and in utterly bad faith. Our current extreme climate change event is mostly man-made and happening in hundreds of years rather than thousands, tens of thousands or millions of years. So silly.

You call .3-.7C over a hundred years increase extreme? Now who is acting in bad faith?

 

[BHS1975]

You call .3-.7C over a hundred years increase extreme? Now who is acting in bad faith?

Try over 1C at this point since the 1880s and yes thats extreme, especially considering most of the warming was over the last 35 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BHS1975]

Good observation. Yes, it is mainly the lows rather than the highs that are so mild, which has been a common thing throughout the E US during the 2010s warmth throughout the year. On this 0Z EPS, RDU is about 5 AN overall but with the lows about 8 AN (~39 vs 31 normal) and the highs only about 2 AN (~52 vs 50 normal).

This is exactly what I would expect from more long wave radiation getting trapped in the troposphere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BHS1975]

Delete


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Try over 1C at this point since the 1880s and yes thats extreme, especially considering most of the warming was over the last 35 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry brother, but I'm not impressed with 1 degree c ... considering their average temp, and ice melts at 32 degrees f . I think you polar ice cap melting boys need to be looking at the sun. If there is truly this issue, 1 degree c (1.8 degrees f) isn't the culprit. I know you can remember days that you got snow and the temp stayed well below freezing but the snow melted where the sun shine on it? At the same time in the shade of the forest the snow didn't melt? Also, you probably remember days when the snow fell, the temp went to 1 degee c and it was overcast ...the snow melted very little. It's got to be the sun,(or lack of cloud cover ) that affects melt in that region because the temps are so cold.

 

[snowlover91]

This news article from 2004 warned we would face catastrophe in the next 20 years and by 2020 would see a Siberian climate in Britain along with other catastrophic scenarios. As 2019 comes to a close and 2020 is only a few days away.... well let’s just say there is 0 evidence for this predicted catastrophe 15 years later.

“Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents”

 

[Broken024]

I'm sorry brother, but I'm not impressed with 1 degree c ... considering their average temp, and ice melts at 32 degrees f . I think you polar ice cap melting boys need to be looking at the sun. If there is truly this issue, 1 degree c (1.8 degrees f) isn't the culprit. I know you can remember days that you got snow and the temp stayed well below freezing but the snow melted where the sun shine on it? At the same time in the shade of the forest the snow didn't melt? Also, you probably remember days when the snow fell, the temp went to 1 degee c and it was overcast ...the snow melted very little. It's got to be the sun,(or lack of cloud cover ) that affects melt in that region because the temps are so cold.

Roy from Alabama is smarter than science.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Roy from Alabama is smarter than science.

Where I'm from matters little in this debate. I'm proud to be from Alabama. Logic can be found in any state if you will let go of things you've been brainwashed into believing just because" they say so". I gave a simple experiment you might try that delivered a scientific conclusion.. I didn't need a computer, just simple logic. You guys might try getting your noses and out of your computers a little bit and see what the real world is like. Or maybe try proving things through experimentation rather than trying to extrapolate conclusions with incomplete data. Or are you really interested in the TRUTH?

 

[Broken024]

Where I'm from matters little in this debate. I'm proud to be from Alabama. Logic can be found in any state if you will let go of things you've been brainwashed into believing just because" they say so". I gave a simple experiment you might try that delivered a scientific conclusion.. I didn't need a computer, just simple logic. You guys might try getting your noses and out of your computers a little bit and see what the real world is like. Or maybe try proving things through experimentation rather than trying to extrapolate conclusions with incomplete data. Or are you really interested in the TRUTH?

Have you considered scientific research with computers that can process way more information than you can are more accurate? Your logic is simply 'I don't believe/understand so it isn't true'. It's similar to people arguing the earth isn't round because it is flat in front of them.

 

[Broken024]

Have you considered scientific research with computers that can process way more information than you can are more accurate? Your logic is simply 'I don't believe/understand so it isn't true'. It's similar to people arguing the earth isn't round because it is flat in front of them.

To add to this

Roy from Alabama is smarter than science.

Are you just saying ice is melting because it has been abnormally sunny?

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Have you considered scientific research with computers that can process way more information than you can are more accurate? Your logic is simply 'I don't believe/understand so it isn't true'. It's similar to people arguing the earth isn't round because it is flat in front of them.

Are you serious? Did you read my initial post? Computers are great, but they have yet to invent one that can compare to the human brain. Computers are simply a tool like a thermometer. I believe the flat earth theory was the science of the day. Kinda like Global warming is...excuse me I mean global cooling(1970s), global climate change is or was ...who knows what to believe?

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

t

To add to this

Are you just saying ice is melting because it has been abnormally sunny?

To respond to your question, If there is polar ice melt, it has happened before. Evidence of water levels over the mountainous regions would indicate the necessity of the water in the ice around the poles.......unless you beieve in the Great flood that God sent. I do believe in that, but I also know the sun's heat fluctuates generally according to solar max and solar min. Also, pollution has been proven to cool the earth.

 

[Broken024]

t

to respond to your question, If there is polar ice melt, it has happened before. Evidence of water levels over the mountainous regions would indicate the necessity of the water in the ice around the poles.......unless you beieve in the Great flood that God sent.

It isn't that climate change has never happened its that humans are contributing to it... but I rest my case, your point that the sun melts ice probably was never considered by scientists. Can't believe they missed that.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

It isn't that climate change has never happened its that humans are contributing to it... but I rest my case, your point that the sun melts ice probably was never considered by scientists. Can't believe they missed that.

I don't get what your saying? You might want to look into who benefits financially from the Global whatever agenda. You might find some of your heroes not to be lily or should I say snow white. If you will, consider the amount of co2 humans put into the atmosphere vs what is released naturally. If you will allow yourself to, you can see that there is great financial gain for a few that are at the top of this erroneous theory. They have good reason to "miss that"!

 

[Broken024]

I don't get what your saying? You might want to look into who benefits financially from the Global whatever agenda. You might find some of your heroes not to be lily or should I say snow white. If you will, consider the amount of co2 humans put into the atmosphere vs what is released naturally. If you will allow yourself to, you can see that there is great financial gain for a few that are at the top of this erroneous theory. They have good reason to "miss that"!

You are basically spitting out climate change denial talking points - climate changed in past, "someone" is making money, and global cooling in the 70s. I agree it's possible climate change may not be as great as presented but your argument about ice melting in the sun is the cause and that anyone who believes the majority of scientific study is brainwashed is asinine. One could argue that your belief of god flooding the earth is brainwashing.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

You are basically spitting out climate change denial talking points - climate changed in past, "someone" is making money, and global cooling in the 70s. I agree it's possible climate change may not be as great as presented but your argument about ice melting in the sun is the cause and that anyone who believes the majority of scientific study is brainwashed is asinine. One could argue that your belief of god flooding the earth is brainwashing.

There is much more evidence to support the flood, and all the Word of God, than there is for global warming(the way it is presented). It's hard for me to understand how anyone could feel there is sufficient data to support global climate change to the point that people accept it as fact. These so called global climate scientist have spewed their predictions time and again, and things have not happened as they predicted. they have been caught red handed changing data to support their religion. You believe what you want, but I find it unreasonable to continue trusting so called experts that can't get it right. I've lived through several different directions these so called scientist promote, and they have a common denominator.....fear. They are fear-mongers that thrive on the less experienced(less informed). Just because most educated people believe in something that doesn't make it right. Most educated people are not truly the most educated.

 

[Rain Cold]

There is much more evidence to support the flood, and all the Word of God, than there is for global warming(the way it is presented). It's hard for me to understand how anyone could feel there is sufficient data to support global climate change to the point that people accept it as fact. These so called global climate scientist have spewed their predictions time and again, and things have not happened as they predicted. they have been caught red handed changing data to support their religion. You believe what you want, but I find it unreasonable to continue trusting so called experts that can't get it right. I've lived through several different directions these so called scientist promote, and they have a common denominator.....fear. They are fear-mongers that thrive on the less experienced(less informed). Just because most educated people believe in something that doesn't make it right. Most educated people are not truly the most educated.

I'm a Bible believer. I also believe that climate change is happening. I don't think those two things stand opposed to each other. The debate is certainly there to be had in terms of the cause, duration, and outcome. I also don't doubt there is an agenda behind a lot of what we hear. You have to have your head in the sand to not believe that. Even if you set all the conspiracy/deep state stuff aside, even if you do that, you still get smacked right in the face with the fact that the stuff we *think* we know for sure has a sneaky way of completely changing as we learn more about our world...actually, as we just learn. That pretty much goes for everything. Just look at a little history. You don't even have to be all that smart to figure this out. And as it relates to climate and weather, you can look at the messaging that has been put forth as fact or near fact over the last several decades.

I'm not scared of climate change. It is not going to be the end of mankind. The oceans are not going to rise to the point of drowning everyone along the coasts of the world. That doesn't mean that the climate isn't changing, to some degree. And it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what we can to take care of our planet and preserve life.