Jump to content
The Corroboree
Evil Genius

The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

Recommended Posts

You know I have a wife and 3 kids right? I'm pretty much immune to word games. I've been hardened in the fiery furnace of vernacular nonsense and circular antagonism and come out the other side whole.

 

I get that Waterboy wants to duke it out with you too, now... Will leave you guys to it.  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh uh. You are not a simpleton and I won't be manipulated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because someone doesn't understand science, doesn't make that science wrong. When 97% or greater of scientists agree on a subject such as global warming there just might be some truth to it. Ever wonder if you were not in fact as intelligent on a particular area of scientific study as the scientists with doctorates in that field? 

 

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 8:07 PM, DualWieldRake said:

 

Because you can measure global temperature to 1 degree over 100's of years

 

This 1 degree difference must be the same reason why i hear people talk about how they used to ice skate every winter
 

Retards

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

 

For you specifically, since you seem not to understand that bit of science. People that don't understand science to the same degree as those scientists with actual doctorates in their field of study might not be retards as you say, but instead, one might argue they were simply not as well educated on that particular subject. 

 

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-earth-millions-of-years-ago.html

 

"Determining one’s ambient temperature with a small amount of effort is ridiculously simple these days. Even a 5-year-old with absolutely no understanding of weather could tell you the current temperature by simply glancing at a smartphone. However, ascertaining temperature was not as easy two centuries ago. In fact, the modern instrumental temperature record could only tell us about the planet’s temperature trends over the last 150 years."

 

"In that case, how do scientists and researchers talk about the climatic conditions thousands or even millions of years ago? How can they tell what the temperatures of Earth were in the ancient past?

Short answer: Researchers estimate ancient temperatures using data from climate proxy records, i.e., indirect methods to measure temperature through natural archives, such as coral skeletons, tree rings, glacial ice cores and so on."

 

For more information... please read on.

 

"

When we see pictures of dinosaurs basking in tropical heat or wooly mammoths shivering in an ice-covered tundra, how do we know that they lived in such climates? We can tell indirectly from sediments and deposits laid down during these periods. The presence of tropical plant and animal remains at the polar latitudes indicate that significantly warmer conditions must have existed as compared to today. Conversely, the absence of tree pollen in the tundra probably means that conditions were too cold for trees to grow.

For more quantitative information you have to look in the oceans, and in particular, at the deep sediments that lie on the bottom of the seas. There, a steady rain of shells from small, surface-dwelling animals falls continually, eventually building up hundreds of meters of sediment. These sediments preserve the shells of these small animals for millions of years, all the way back to the age of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.

Fig. 1: Photo of foraminifera

Figure 1: Magnified (400x) photograph of a left coiling N. pachyderma foraminifera. (Photo: Deep Sea Repository at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University.)

The most important of these animals, foraminifera (or forams for short), make their tiny shells from a form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). This carbonate is found in many common geological features, such as the White Cliffs of Dover, which were once at the bottom of the sea.

What makes calcium carbonate important? The carbonate, originally dissolved in the oceans, contains oxygen, whose atoms exist in two naturally-occurring stable isotopes, 18O and 16O. The ratio of these two isotopes tells us about past temperatures. When the carbonate solidifies to form a shell, the isotopic ratio in the oxygen (written as δ18O) varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. The change is only a tiny 0.2 parts per million decrease for each degree of temperature increase. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for us to be able to estimate the temperature of the water in which the forams lived millions of years ago. From this, we can see that temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were about 10-15°C warmer at the time of the dinosaurs than they are today!

There is a complication, however. The δ18O value in the shells depends critically on what the δ18O value was in the surrounding sea water (H2O), and that can be as variable as the temperature! This variability arises because when water evaporates, the lighter molecules of water (those with 16O atoms as compared to those with 18O) tend to evaporate first. Therefore, water vapor is more depleted (fewer H218O molecules) than the ocean from which it evaporates. Thus, the ocean has more 18O in places where lots of water evaporates (like the sub-tropics) and less where it rains a lot (like the mid-latitudes).

Similarly, when water vapor condenses (to make rain for instance), the heavier molecules (H218O) tend to condense and precipitate first. So, as water vapor makes its way poleward from the tropics, it gradually becomes more and more depleted in the heavier isotope. Consequently snow falling in Canada has much less H218O than rain falling in Florida. Changes in climate that alter the global patterns of evaporation or precipitation can therefore cause changes to the background δ18O ratio. 

In addition, the great ice-sheets that once covered North America, consisting of snow falling in what is now Canada, were very depleted in 18O. Now, enough water was held in these ice sheets to reduce the global average sea level by about 120m. Furthermore, there was also enough depleted water trapped in the ice to increase the average isotopic content of the oceans. And so the first thing we see when we analyze the shells from the bottom of the ocean, is the waxing and waning of the great ice sheets over the last 3 million years (figure 2). The same pattern over the last 400,000 years can also be seen in the isotopes measured in ice cores drilled from the remaining ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Fig. 2: Istotopic ratio plot

Figure 2: The variations of 18O in carbonate averaged over a large number of different cores (in order to isolate a global signal) over the last 600,000 years. Most clear are the regular oscillations of the glacial ice volume which follows small changes to Earth's orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch forcing).

In consequence, the many records of δ18O in ocean sediments and in ice cores, contain information about the temperature, evaporation, rainfall, and indeed the amount of glacial ice — all of which are important to know if we are to understand the changes of climate in the Earth's history. Unfortunately, trying to disentangle these multiple effects is complicated since we have one measurement with many unknowns.

The paleoclimate group at GISS is working to try to decode these records using the latest generation of numerical models of the atmosphere and ocean circulation. In those models, we have included most of the physics necessary to simulate the distribution of δ18O in the oceans and the atmosphere. In addition, we have developed models of foram ecology that allow us to estimate at what depths in the ocean and at what season the carbonate forms on average.

This sequence of models allows us, for the first time, to map simulated climate changes directly from the model to the carbonate in the sediments — the actual data that paleoceanographers have measured. Initial experiments have focused upon the large climate changes that occurred during the melting of the ice sheets between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago. The closer the modeled changes match those seen in the sediments, the greater the confidence we have in the realism of our models. 

While this new approach is unlikely to show that mammoths spent their time on the beach enjoying the sun, it may provide better understanding of the complicated sequence of events that marked the end of the ice age. It should shed light on the very rapid climate changes that have occurred in the North Atlantic and Europe at the end of the last ice age. Those particular changes have been associated with changes in the amount of heat carried poleward by the Gulf Stream. If we can understand that process, we may be better able to estimate the probability of its recurrence as a possible consequence of continued global warming.

Reference

Schmidt, G.A. 1999. Forward modeling and interpretation of carbonate proxy data using oxygen isotope tracers in a global ocean modelPaleoceanography 14, 482-497.

Contact

Please address all inquiries about this research to Dr. Gavin Schmidt."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line, if you don't understand science it does not make that science untrue nor does it make those that understand it retards or workers of great magical feats trying to deceive the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned a thing i had not thought about, how the water we contain is removed from our environment, he also mentioned air in tires. 

i worked this out - lets say we contain approx 5ltrs each, approx. 7.6 billion people = about 38 billion ltrs of water, about 15000 or so olympic swimming pools of water removed or contained from the environment, now add live stock, chickens, cows, pigs etc. that is alot of water contained in bodies.

I wonder what difference if any this may make to the environment and weather ?

What do ya think ? Hopefully i am not being to stupid in my half-arsed pondering lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 4:49 PM, Inyan said:

*snip*

 

What the hell, your copy paste is not even relevant.

 

You severely lack understanding of logic, science comes only second.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 1:40 PM, bardo said:

 

 

Well that's the whole point isn't it, painting a grim picture.

 

Whatever picture they are painting though it's not real, as in fake, as in computer simulation.

 

It's fine not to be smart but please just stop spewing your dumb shit here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 6

 

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

 

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.11,12 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.13,14

 

 

References

  1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

    B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

    Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

    V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

    B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

  2. In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

  3. National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

  4. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

    Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

    The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

  5. Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

  6. L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

    R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

    http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

  7. "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016
    https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1

    Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334 

    Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

  8. C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

  9. National Snow and Ice Data Center

    C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504

    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html

    Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.

  10. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7159

     

    Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean its make believe or fairy tales. Or worse, some global scientific conspiracy.

     

    Ignorance is one of the hardest things in the world to fight. And when that ignorance helps us sleep peacefully at night... especially so.

     

 

 

Edited by Inyan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Inyan said:

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century.....extended copy paste

 

We already established this a few pages back.

While it's technically not all that scientific (you should know the reason for that yourself)

 

Now i challenge you to present some kind of evidence for why this should be an issue at all

 

Others may also chime in since Inyan may gonna need some help on this one

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:

Now i challenge you to present some kind of evidence for why this should be an issue at all

 

 

A hotter planet is a pretty major issue for ecosystems. Just look at The Great Barrier Reef.

The Government has just conceded that it is doomed because of climate change.

 

 

 

The uncomfortable truth: The Great Barrier Reef is doomed

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-great-barrier-reef-is-doomed,10501

 

 

 

Coral reef bleaching 'the new normal' and a fatal threat to ecosystems

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/coral-reef-bleaching-the-new-normal-and-a-fatal-threat-to-ecosystems

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is doom an gloom from mass media

 

Im talking about negative effect of that 1 degree rise. It's been years already, where are the effects?

 

Quote

Now to coral. There was a big bleaching event in 2016, killing about 29%

 

The 1 degree rise was in the last hundred years, not in 2016.

 

Quote

The orange line says the average temperature would go above 1.2°C around 2026

 

Note the word would, it's extrapolated bs. Bozo's can't predict the weather half of the time

 

15 hours ago, Halcyon Daze said:

A hotter planet is a pretty major issue for ecosystems.

 

Challenge still stands

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/07/2018 at 0:48 PM, DualWieldRake said:
On 29/06/2018 at 4:40 AM, bardo said:

 

 

Well that's the whole point isn't it, painting a grim picture.

 

Whatever picture they are painting though it's not real, as in fake, as in computer simulation.

 

It's fine not to be smart but please just stop spewing your dumb shit here

 

Man it's not my "dumb shit" it's from nasa.

So you think nasa has a task of painting a grim picture rather than present data ?

On 21/07/2018 at 1:14 PM, DualWieldRake said:

Now i challenge you to present some kind of evidence for why this should be an issue at all

If you don't know what carbon dioxide breaks down to without googling it then maybe you don't know as much as you think, if you do then perhaps in this case your ignorance is willful.

Do you know what feedback loops are ?  what about albedo effect ? you know that salt water freezes at lower temps than fresh water ? 

There is no issue, there is only an issue if you care about the continuation of multi celled organisms

On 22/07/2018 at 9:53 AM, DualWieldRake said:

Bozo's can't predict the weather half of the time

That's meteorology not climatology, climatologists don't make models based on predictions they use data to make projections.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are in denial, spouting irrelevant dumb questions.

That wasn't part of the challenge.

 

Irregardless of what i know, name some examples of negative effects.

I love to learn.

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well apart from the tropical zones expanding from the equator and all life in the oceans dying from acidification there's not really an issue DualWield. Of course that will break a huge section of the food chain and many areas that were previously seas inland will be inundated again.

Humans probably won't survive, or our numbers will be dramatically reduced to the point of endangered species... but in the greater picture that's not really an issue either.

 

I don't know what all the hoo har is about. It's not the end of the world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2018 at 11:14 AM, DualWieldRake said:

You are in denial, spouting irrelevant dumb questions.

That wasn't part of the challenge.

 

Irregardless of what i know, name some examples of negative effects.

I love to learn.

Enlighten me to what it is that i am i denying ?

I think the questions posed are pretty darn relevant to the topic of climate change and it's negative effects, unless you think it's fine to have corrosive oceans ? do you think the arctic loosing it's ability to reflect large amounts of solar radiation is no big deal ? and hey who cares how the jet stream behaves, that's the northern hemispheres problem yeh

If you know something to discount the argument for climate change and global warming please share the data cause to me it's looking extremely dire and appears irreversible at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 4:21 AM, Northerner said:

Well apart from the tropical zones expanding from the equator and all life in the oceans dying from acidification there's not really an issue DualWield. Of course that will break a huge section of the food chain and many areas that were previously seas inland will be inundated again.

Humans probably won't survive, or our numbers will be dramatically reduced to the point of endangered species... but in the greater picture that's not really an issue either.

 

I don't know what all the hoo har is about. It's not the end of the world.

 

I can't take you serious anymore you are full of it.

 

Have any evidence for these claims whatsoever? Or is this just another fantasy you came up with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2018 at 3:27 AM, bardo said:

Enlighten me to what it is that i am i denying ?

I think the questions posed are pretty darn relevant to the topic of climate change and it's negative effects, unless you think it's fine to have corrosive oceans ? do you think the arctic loosing it's ability to reflect large amounts of solar radiation is no big deal ? and hey who cares how the jet stream behaves, that's the northern hemispheres problem yeh

If you know something to discount the argument for climate change and global warming please share the data cause to me it's looking extremely dire and appears irreversible at this point.

 

So where is the evidence of any of these negative effects?

 

All you do is ramble bs without backing it up, you're understanding of science and logic seems slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you've established in this thread is your an argumentative, self-opinionated trolling bitch. 

 

7 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:

All you do is ramble bs without backing it up, you're understanding of science and logic seems slim.

You do come out with some funny ironic  shit, because there's no science nor logic from  your quarter. 

 

No doubt you get the same traction at home.... Where they build walls for fear of the sea... With good reason. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/07/2018 at 9:30 PM, DualWieldRake said:

I can't take you serious anymore you are full of it.

 

Have any evidence for these claims whatsoever? Or is this just another fantasy you came up with?

 

On 25/07/2018 at 9:35 PM, DualWieldRake said:

So where is the evidence of any of these negative effects?

 

All you do is ramble bs without backing it up, you're understanding of science and logic seems slim.

Here is some very basic info for you, real nice and simple

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/acidity.html

You can use a computer which means you can research this topic further and the other points i mentioned. 

 

Edited by bardo
add
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×