• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

bubbabgone said:
I've always said you can make graphs like those play songs and dance to them if you get to choose the timeframe and axis graduations.
When you can't do that, you either change the data or draw a line through the unfortunate sections and hope no one notices.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You can do that with graphs.

That’s what your denier bloggers do.

However, scientists who study this understands the data in depth, and are not fooled by graphical tricks.

That’s why the OVERWHELMINGLY agree that AGW is real, and is a looming problem globally.

And it’s why you still whine about ‘climategate’ and pretend data from 20 years ago was manipulated when the last 20 years of science have only confirmed what we were pretty sure of.
 
longview said:
It was actually 44 years ago, and possible cooling was a real concern.
https://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt
The NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES put together a report for
UNITED STATES COMMITTEE FOR THE GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH PROGRAM in 1975.
In reality while warming is hypothesized to be bad, we know from historical records that cooling would actually be very bad.
Warming, so far, just seems to be increasing the amount a arable land, without much downside.
Click to expand...

On a very short search I find that Global Cooling papers were as early as 1970
https://www.pnas.org/content/67/2/898.short
It was pretty much the whole decade of the '70s. By the '80s it had morphed
into "Nuclear Winter" much like "Global Warming" morphed into "Climate Change"
and around 1990 or so, I swear I saw "Nuclear Winter" and "Global Warming"
stories running at the same time in the so-called popular press. Maybe even
in the same publication.

In any case, the polar bears are fine, Antarctica isn't melting, multi-meter sea
level rise isn't happening, forest fires are less frequent, floods and droughts
aren't occurring more often nor are hurricanes or extreme tornadoes. Heavy
industry and the world's economy aren't ever going to be powered by wind
mills or solar panels and contrary to popular belief an increase in CO2 is mostly
beneficial.
 
Steve Case said:
On a very short search I find that Global Cooling papers were as early as 1970
https://www.pnas.org/content/67/2/898.short
It was pretty much the whole decade of the '70s. By the '80s it had morphed
into "Nuclear Winter" much like "Global Warming" morphed into "Climate Change"
and around 1990 or so, I swear I saw "Nuclear Winter" and "Global Warming"
stories running at the same time in the so-called popular press. Maybe even
in the same publication.

In any case, the polar bears are fine, Antarctica isn't melting, multi-meter sea
level rise isn't happening, forest fires are less frequent, floods and droughts
aren't occurring more often nor are hurricanes or extreme tornadoes. Heavy
industry and the world's economy aren't ever going to be powered by wind
mills or solar panels and contrary to popular belief an increase in CO2 is mostly
beneficial.
Click to expand...

Your referenced paper talks about substantial warming from CO2.

It’s also a one and a half page opinion piece.

But thanks for the diligent literature search [emoji849]
 
Visbek said:
lol

1) You obviously didn't bother to read the paper to which you pointed. Again, it's trying to explain why CO2 dropped during the Ordovician ice age. Do you really not understand how that does not support your claim?


2) As to the chart.... The early CO2 proxy measurements had a resolution of about 10 million years; the glacial period in question was probably 1 million years long. Unsurprisingly, newer techniques (which by now are nearly a decade old) have higher resolutions, and they show... wait for it... drops in CO2 levels during the Late Ordovician period.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821000115X
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gs...-evidence-for-a-short?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I.e. you're relying on denier crap that is at least a decade old. No surprise there.


3) Unsurprisingly, the end of the Ordovician Ice Age was accompanied by... wait for it... increases in CO2 ppm. Huh.

So no, your outdated denialist misunderstanding of science does not, in fact refute the causal impact of CO2 on global temperatures.



lol

No, I missed it because you didn't bother to actually read what you were linking
Click to expand...

I read the paper and it said nature overwhelmed whatever effect CO2 was having. And that's the way it goes in the climate world.
Maybe the point was too subtle for ya. It does require some reasoning on the part of the reader.
Maybe you should read it again but this time try to find where it said the cooling wasn't a natural occurrence.

The CO2 level was still well over 4000 PPM when temps plummeted.
 
bubbabgone said:
I showed you a graph of the hurricane occurrence data. You just don't accept it.
Click to expand...
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.


Weather events are no more extreme than in cycles past.
Click to expand...
*bzzt* wrong https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm


Zwally is respected ... but his results don't conform to what you want to believe so you make up something about his measurements being less accurate.
Click to expand...
:roll:

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
 
JC Callender said:
Do you find it odd that Miami is still considered such a desirable destination?
Click to expand...

Good point. People are building buildings with estimated economic life of 50 years and lenders are making 30 year loans on them, and AGW's are claiming Miami will be gone in 12. Or was it 19 years ago?

Somebody must be wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
Your referenced paper talks about substantial warming from CO2.

It’s also a one and a half page opinion piece.

But thanks for the diligent literature search [emoji849]
Click to expand...

So you didn't like that one. Here's one that doesn't talk about the CO2 Boogyman:

Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 96, No. 2, Feb. 1968

A Comparison of the Climate of the Eastern United
States During the 1830s with the Current Normals
E.W. Wahl
...
Abstract
A comparison of climatic data for the eastern United States
from the 1830’s and 1840’s with the currently valid climatic
normals indicates a distinctly cooler and, in some areas,
wetter climate in the first half of the last century. The recently
appearing trend to cooler conditions noticed here and elsewhere
could be indicative of a return to the climatic character of
those earlier years. ​

Here [in the United States] and elsewhere.

You guys want to deny that the Global Cooling existed in academia.
Apparently you think the popular press at the time just decided to
make it up. Well really where do you think the reporters of the
day got their information from if it wasn't from academia?

Did I just construct a "Straw Man"? I don't think so.

Well you can correct me if I'm somehow wrong.
 
jimbo said:
I did. Didn't see any answers to any questions. Great explanation of what IPCC supposedly does. One of which is not conduct any research.
Click to expand...

I guess when you come up with a question, we can’t point you in the right direction.
 
Steve Case said:
So you didn't like that one. Here's one that doesn't talk about the CO2 Boogyman:

Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 96, No. 2, Feb. 1968

A Comparison of the Climate of the Eastern United
States During the 1830s with the Current Normals
E.W. Wahl
...
Abstract
A comparison of climatic data for the eastern United States
from the 1830’s and 1840’s with the currently valid climatic
normals indicates a distinctly cooler and, in some areas,
wetter climate in the first half of the last century. The recently
appearing trend to cooler conditions noticed here and elsewhere
could be indicative of a return to the climatic character of
those earlier years. ​

Here [in the United States] and elsewhere.

You guys want to deny that the Global Cooling existed in academia.
Apparently you think the popular press at the time just decided to
make it up. Well really where do you think the reporters of the
day got their information from if it wasn't from academia?

Did I just construct a "Straw Man"? I don't think so.

Well you can correct me if I'm somehow wrong.
Click to expand...

So you post one thing that basically says the opposite, and you want to keep rabbit holing until you find one?

No thanks. Your credibility is shot already.
 
bubbabgone said:
I read the paper and it said nature overwhelmed whatever effect CO2 was having.
Click to expand...
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.


The CO2 level was still well over 4000 PPM when temps plummeted.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess when you come up with a question, we can’t point you in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I didn't post the questions, Someone else did. I didn't see any answers.

The IPCC home page answers nothing.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you post one thing that basically says the opposite
Click to expand...
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

Threegoofs said:
and you want to keep rabbit holing until you find one?
Click to expand...

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.

Threegoofs said:
Your credibility is shot already.
Click to expand...

I stand by and I want credit for what I post.
If I'm wrong about something I will say so.
 
Visbek said:
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/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm



:roll:

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
Click to expand...

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 ...
hurricane-frequency-us-major.png
th

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.
 
Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Steve Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
bubbabgone said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bubbabgone said:
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 ...
th

.
Click to expand...

LOL!

You realize that just writing a line that you want to see on a graph doesn’t make a ‘trend’, right?
 
Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bubbabgone said:
Your source says "extreme weather events have become more frequent over the past 36 years," ... why choose the past 36 years?
Click to expand...
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
 
Steve Case said:
Did they? The Global Cooling scare was about cooling after World War II. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Click to expand...

The scientific global cooling scare peaked in the early 1970s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom