Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 222

Thread: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

  1. #191
    Educator
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    USA - Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,081

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    So you post one thing that basically says the opposite
    No it didn't, it said:

    In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth
    increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C.

    Did it mention CO2? Yes, said so right in the title

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    and you want to keep rabbit holing until you find one?
    The operative thought in that is, I found one. And it said that same thing the
    first one said, namely that there was a temperature decrease since 1940.

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Your credibility is shot already.
    I stand by and I want credit for what I post.
    If I'm wrong about something I will say so.
    Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle. Dixie Lee Ray

  2. #192
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,059

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Good gravy. How many times do I need to say it? Current climate science does not predict an increase in the FREQUENCY of tropical storms. Some researchers think there could be fewer tropical storms in the future. What is happening is that hurricanes are becoming wetter, more intense, move more slowly (hence do more damage), and produce larger storm surges. And yes, those effects are actual and documented, see links already provided.

    So no, I did not in any way criticize the research which shows a consistent frequency of storms.

    I mean, seriously. Do you not just not understand that "frequency" and "intensity" are not the same thing? Yeesh.



    *bzzt* wrong https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0321130859.htm





    No, nothing is "made up." Zwally specified his data sources, and he did not use research projects known to be more reliable (notably GRACE). And again, Zwally himself is not a denier, and is very clear he was worried his work would be willfully distorted by deniers (as you've done here).


    And again You haven't even touched:
    • larger and more intense heat waves
    • forest fires happening in unprecedented areas (e.g. the northern parts of Sweden... which are in the Arctic Circle, by the way)
    • loss of ice/glacial masses in Greenland, Himalayas, the Arctic etc
    • loss of fresh water
    • rapid rise in sea levels
    • acidification of oceans
    • massive loss of coral reefs
    • rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
    • rapid increase in global temperatures
    • more extreme weather events
    • permafrost starting to melt
    heh heh ... this is good.
    Your source says "extreme weather events have become more frequent over the past 36 years," ... why choose the past 36 years?
    Here's why ...

    And CO2 was increasing the entire time while frequency of intense hurricanes were fluctuating as weather events always have.
    Those little devils keep getting you because you accept without question.

    IF EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT THEN NOTHING IS

  3. #193
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,059

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    You obviously didn't read the paper, because it says nothing even remotely along those lines.

    Yet again, the point is that they believe a proliferation of non-vascular plant life (e.g. lichens) was a causal factor in a *cough* DROP in CO2 during the Late Ordovician. Specifically, they believe chemical changes made to the rocks of that time (weathering) resulted in a drawdown of CO2.

    Here's the abstract:

    It has been hypothesized that predecessors of today’s bryophytes significantly increased
    global chemical weathering in the Late Ordovician, thus reducing atmospheric CO2
    concentration and contributing to climate cooling and an interval of glaciations.
    Studies that
    try to quantify the enhancement of weathering by non-vascular vegetation, however, are
    usually limited to small areas and low numbers of species, which hampers extrapolating to
    the global scale and to past climatic conditions. Here we present a spatially explicit modelling
    approach to simulate global weathering by non-vascular vegetation in the Late Ordovician.
    We estimate a potential global weathering flux of 2.8 (km3 rock) yr1, defined here as
    volume of primary minerals affected by chemical transformation. This is around three times
    larger than today’s global chemical weathering flux. Moreover, we find that simulated
    weathering is highly sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentration. This implies a strong
    negative feedback between weathering by non-vascular vegetation and Ordovician climate.

    (Emphasis added.)

    So no, it's not that some vague "nature" magically cooled the planet. It's that the activity of planets drew down CO2 levels in the atmosphere temporarily, and enough to cause glaciation at the South Pole.

    I can only surmise that you half-read the first paragraph of an article which summarizes the paper, and flat-out misunderstood it. Impressive.



    lol

    So basically, you don't understand that land masses at the South Pole are still capable of cooling enough to glaciate, even when CO2 levels are higher than they are today.

    Yeah, I think you're done.
    Okay. I'll try one more time because you just don't want to get it.
    What caused that "proliferation of non-vascular plant life (e.g. lichens)" and the "chemical changes made to the rocks of that time" that affected CO2 concentration?
    Was the cause anthropogenic?

    The comment about CO2 levels was not about the Antarctic.
    I was telling you that CO2 levels were enormously high during millions of years of the Ordovician ice age (as well as others) despite those enormously high CO2 levels.

    IF EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT THEN NOTHING IS

  4. #194
    Proud member of the 'ilk'

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,776

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    No it didn't, it said:

    In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth
    increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C.

    Did it mention CO2? Yes, said so right in the title



    The operative thought in that is, I found one. And it said that same thing the
    first one said, namely that there was a temperature decrease since 1940.



    I stand by and I want credit for what I post.
    If I'm wrong about something I will say so.
    LOL.

    It’s a page and a half.

    Surely you can see where he explicitly states CO2 May contribute to significant warming by 2000.

    And... he was right! It has!
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,795

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Okay. I'll try one more time because you just don't want to get it.
    What caused that "proliferation of non-vascular plant life (e.g. lichens)" and the "chemical changes made to the rocks of that time" that affected CO2 concentration?
    Was the cause anthropogenic?
    Wow. You've completely lost the plot. No one ever said that AGW is the only way the climate changes. No one even said that CO2 is the only possible explanation for climactic changes.

    You do know that human beings didn't exist 450 million years ago, right...?


    The comment about CO2 levels was not about the Antarctic.
    I was telling you that CO2 levels were enormously high during millions of years of the Ordovician ice age (as well as others) despite those enormously high CO2 levels.
    lol

    Hello? Check the map again. 450 million years ago, during the Ordovician period, most of the Earth's land mass was in a supercontinent (Gondwana) which was located at the South Pole. Since you forgot, the South Pole tends to be colder than the rest of the planet. (Meaning it's more likely to form glaciers, over a few million years, than if the land in question is at 43° North.)

    Since you still don't understand the sources you linked, the causal chain here is:
    - early plant life weathered rocks, which over the course of hundreds of thousands of years sequestered CO2 in the oceans
    - as CO2 levels fell, temperatures fell
    - this, likely combined with other factors (orbital changes, volcanic activity, ocean current changes etc), contributed to glaciation at the South Pole

    Most importantly: We should note that yes, it is possible for natural events (again, like volcanoes and orbital changes) to cause changes in global temperatures without any changes in CO2. The possibility of that happening (which, again, is apparently not the case with the Late Ordovician glacial event) does not in fact refute either the claims that CO2 is a major GHG, or that AGW is the primary driver of climate change in the present day. The very idea is absurd.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

  6. #196
    Proud member of the 'ilk'

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,776

    Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    heh heh ... this is good.
    Your source says "extreme weather events have become more frequent over the past 36 years," ... why choose the past 36 years?
    Here's why ...

    .
    LOL!

    You realize that just writing a line that you want to see on a graph doesn’t make a ‘trend’, right?
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  7. #197
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,059

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Wow. You've completely lost the plot. No one ever said that AGW is the only way the climate changes. No one even said that CO2 is the only possible explanation for climactic changes.

    You do know that human beings didn't exist 450 million years ago, right...?



    lol

    Hello? Check the map again. 450 million years ago, during the Ordovician period, most of the Earth's land mass was in a supercontinent (Gondwana) which was located at the South Pole. Since you forgot, the South Pole tends to be colder than the rest of the planet. (Meaning it's more likely to form glaciers, over a few million years, than if the land in question is at 43° North.)

    Since you still don't understand the sources you linked, the causal chain here is:
    - early plant life weathered rocks, which over the course of hundreds of thousands of years sequestered CO2 in the oceans
    - as CO2 levels fell, temperatures fell
    - this, likely combined with other factors (orbital changes, volcanic activity, ocean current changes etc), contributed to glaciation at the South Pole

    Most importantly: We should note that yes, it is possible for natural events (again, like volcanoes and orbital changes) to cause changes in global temperatures without any changes in CO2. The possibility of that happening (which, again, is apparently not the case with the Late Ordovician glacial event) does not in fact refute either the claims that CO2 is a major GHG, or that AGW is the primary driver of climate change in the present day. The very idea is absurd.
    Climate has always changed without human interference.
    Recovering from the LIA (as with all the others) could not have been caused by humans creating CO2 and yet recover it did.
    And here we are in that recovery with all the natural climate influences we've always had that are too numerous to mention and still obviously not accounted for by IPCC modelers.

    IF EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT THEN NOTHING IS

  8. #198
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,795

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Your source says "extreme weather events have become more frequent over the past 36 years," ... why choose the past 36 years?
    zomg... so ridiculous.

    Yet again!!! You're looking at frequency.

    To make matters worse, those figures are only US landfall -- which is only a portion of the total number of hurricanes.

    To make matters even worse, as ThreeGoofs noted: The line on the chart is not actually a trend line. Here's an actual trend line, same numbers:

    Cat 3-4-5 per decade.png

    Maybe you ought to scrutinize your own sources. Or, y'know, actually read them.


    And again, you haven't even touched:
    • larger and more intense heat waves
    • forest fires happening in unprecedented areas (e.g. the northern parts of Sweden... which are in the Arctic Circle, by the way)
    • loss of ice/glacial masses in Greenland, Himalayas, the Arctic etc
    • loss of fresh water
    • rapid rise in sea levels
    • acidification of oceans
    • massive loss of coral reefs
    • rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
    • rapid increase in global temperatures
    • more extreme weather events
    • permafrost starting to melt
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

  9. #199
    Sage
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    north carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,418

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    Did they? The Global Cooling scare was about cooling after World War II. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
    The scientific global cooling scare peaked in the early 1970s.

  10. #200
    Educator
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    USA - Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,081

    Re: Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

    Quote Originally Posted by marke View Post
    The scientific global cooling scare peaked in the early 1970s.
    Here's one from 1979

    Spokane Daily Chronicle Friday October 12, 1979
    Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle. Dixie Lee Ray

Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •