Global climate debate-the facts

Great deflection. The subject was Mann and not Nye. By this logic if an architect is friends with a carpenter it somehow makes him less of an architect. Especially if the carpenter has a problem explaining architecture. Like how many slaves were used to build the Pantheon compared to free men.

 

The title of the thread is "Global Climate Debate - The Facts." Neither Nye or Mann understand the facts.

 

Over the last 50 years at least, natural climate forcings were pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures, and since the Earth has, in fact, warmed up quite a bit, scientists are now fairly certain that pretty much all of the global warming over the last 50 years has been caused by humans.

The little ice age is not as significant to what is happening now with the Earth's climate as your science-free denier cult mythology fools you into believing. Nor is the current warming some kind of magical continuation of the end of the LIA, as your myths would have it.

In the real world....

The Little Ice Age was a period of colder than average temperatures and glacier advance between 16th and mid-19th centuries. Climate change deniers say that the over one degree C. global warming since 1850 simply represents a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Dr. Jeffrey Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography calls such interpretations a “red herring”, saying that whilst the warming since 1850 is “in part due to the recovery from the Little Ice Age”, that doesn’t hold true for warming of the last 50 years, which is a “very different animal” from the warming of the previous 100 years.

Severinghaus explained to us that the LIA is thought to have ended because: “The Sun underwent an increase in its energy output, especially in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, at the end of the Little Ice Age, and there was a lull in major volcanic eruptions.”

So the warming between 1850 to 1950 was: “consistent with warming caused by increases in solar output and decreases in climate-cooling volcanism.”

In contrast: “no such increase in solar output has occurred in the past 50 years, and volcanism has not changed significantly. These facts are undisputed. So natural factors cannot explain the warming of the past 50 years.“

So in recent decades, the planet has warmed in a different way:

“The warming of the past 50 years has been mostly at night, and it has been accompanied by profound stratospheric cooling, both “fingerprints” of an unnatural warming.”

As we have pointed out in previous blogs, only considering the surface temperature record does not tell the whole story about how much the Earth’s climate system has warmed. And, as Severinghaus explained to us, assuming scientists base global warming theory solely on the surface temperature record is not sound. He told us: “The real basis for prediction of future warming is that basic physics tells us that carbon dioxide absorbs heat, and human emissions of this gas will cause (and are causing) a rise in its atmospheric concentration. These facts are also undisputed.”

Severinghaus also cautioned against another common misconception frequently promoted by climate skeptic commentators: “We have long known that climate can change for natural reasons. But to assert that this implies that humans cannot also change the climate, is like saying that forest fires cannot be set by careless campers because lightning also causes forest fires. It is simply illogical. Climate change has multiple causes.”

 

Why was it warming from the mid 1800's on ?? You are claiming (as did SciGuyNye) that global warming has saved us from another ice age and that all that warming has been caused by humans ?? And that warming is a good thing ??

 

You were just told that. Do you just not bother to read the scientific facts that are shown to you?

Severinghaus explained to us that the LIA is thought to have ended because: “The Sun underwent an increase in its energy output, especially in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, at the end of the Little Ice Age, and there was a lull in major volcanic eruptions.”

So the warming between 1850 to 1950 was: “consistent with warming caused by increases in solar output and decreases in climate-cooling volcanism.”

In contrast: “no such increase in solar output has occurred in the past 50 years, and volcanism has not changed significantly. These facts are undisputed. So natural factors cannot explain the warming of the past 50 years.“

So in recent decades, the planet has warmed in a different way:

“The warming of the past 50 years has been mostly at night, and it has been accompanied by profound stratospheric cooling, both “fingerprints” of an unnatural warming.”

Indeed, the scientific evidence shows that the Earth has been cooling off very slowly for the last 5000 years, which would have eventually led to another full blown Ice Age in (estimates vary) somewhere between twenty to fifty thousand years. Some studies conclude that human generated carbon emissions will probably delay the start of the next Ice Age out to about a hundred thousand years from now.

And yeah, it is obvious from the fact that the world would have significantly colder now without the addition of so much carbon dioxide and methane generated or released by human activities over the last few centuries, that pretty much all of the global warming over the last 50 years or so has been caused by human activities.

That's really wacky, dude. Of course not!

In the real world....

Human emissions will delay next ice age by 50,000 years, study says
ROBERT MCSWEENEY
13 January 2016
The phrase “ice age” may bring to mind woolly mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, and perhaps Sid the sloth from the animated films. It certainly doesn’t suggest ideal conditions for us distinctly-not-woolly humans.

New research suggests that the impact of humans on the planet is pushing back when the Earth might descend into its next ice age.

While the Earth might have naturally cycled back into an ice age in 50,000 years’ time in the absence of emissions, we’re unlikely to see one for at least 100,000 years because of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere.

The findings highlight the huge impact that humans are having on the planet, say scientists not involved in the study.

Chilly cycles

Around 12,000 years ago, the Earth emerged from its last ice age. As the vast ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere receded, human civilization blossomed, making the most of the relatively mild conditions that we still enjoy today.

In the new study, published in Nature, researchers have worked out a formula for what triggers an ice age to start. The timing is based on two principal factors, they say: the amount of the sun’s energy the northern hemisphere receives during summer and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The amount of energy the Earth gets from the sun fluctuates naturally over many thousands of years because of subtle variations in the Earth’s position and orbit around the sun. These are known collectively as as Milankovitch Cycles.

Running simulations with an Earth System model, the researchers find that if atmospheric CO2 were still at pre-industrial levels, our current warm “interglacial” period would tip over into a new ice age in around 50,000 years’ time.

But CO2 emissions from human activity in the past, and those expected in the future, mean the next ice is likely to be delayed to 100,000 years’ time, the researchers say.

No practical importance

This may sound like good news – nobody wants another ice age anytime soon – but it isn’t a reason to thank fossil fuels, says lead author Dr Andrey Ganopolski from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He tells Carbon Brief:

“We do not believe that the fact that anthropogenic CO2 emission can additionally postpone the next ice age…has any practical importance – this is rather an illustration of not so well-known fact that anthropogenic climate change will last not hundreds, but hundreds of thousand years.”

This is a point that Prof Michel Crucifix from the Université catholique de Louvain picks up in an accompanying News & Views article. Even though the industrial revolution is only a few centuries old, human-caused emissions will keep atmospheric CO2 levels elevated for many thousands of years, he says:
“Anthropogenic CO2 will still be in the atmosphere in 50,000 years’ time, and even 100,000 years, which is enough to prevent any glaciation.”

As for holding off the next ice age, the damaging impacts of climate change will be felt long before then, says Prof Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading, who wasn’t involved in the study:
“The next ice age is not worth worrying about compared to immediate concerns about damaging human-caused climate change expected over the coming decades if no action is taken to mitigate this likelihood.”

Profound impact

The findings show just how profound the impact humans are having on the planet, says Prof Andrew Watson, Royal Society research professor at the University of Exeter:
“This study further confirms what we’ve suspected for some time, that the CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere will alter the climate of the planet for tens to hundreds of thousands of years.”

Prof Jonathan Bamber, a professor in physical geography at the University of Bristol, agrees:
“It is both remarkable and a little scary to think that, in a short space of time, humans have been able to modify the climate system in such a dramatic and profound way.”

Narrow escape

The researchers also looked back into the Earth’s history, and found that we narrowly missed descending into an ice age a few hundred years ago.

Natural CO2 levels during the most recent interglacial periods have been at around 280 parts per million (ppm), but have been as low as 240ppm in the more distant past.

Running their model for these different levels of atmospheric CO2, the researchers found that an ice age could have been triggered if CO2 had been at the lower level of 240ppm.

A recent study suggested that land clearance and early agriculture by humans around that time could be the reason for the extra 40ppm in the atmosphere. But Ganopolski and his co-authors say the changes to land use are unlikely to have caused such a large increase in CO2.

Avoiding the ice age was just down to luck, says Ganopolski:
“What we show in our paper is that we escaped the glacial inception naturally, thanks to a proper combination of Earth’s orbital parameters and natural CO2 concentration.”

So although humans aren’t behind this icy near-miss, it seems we are having a substantial impact on when the next ice age does finally appear.

 

Wonder if livefree understands that so far the alarmist community has a success rate of 0% on predictions?

Evidently he thinks posting word vomit with big and bold fonts actually means something.

 

These ^^ are the same inconsistencies which SciGuyNye attempted to dump on Tucker two days ago. And there is acknowledgement that global warming is beneficial.

 

All of that exists only in your ignorant misunderstanding of the science and the facts.

Nye made Carlson look like an idiot, which, of course, he is.

Global warming is definitely NOT "beneficial", and no one even remotely implied that it was.

You are very confused.

 

Economists disagree - global warming is net beneficial and has demonstrably been so in the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods.

If you think Nye made Carlson look like an idiot ... that explains a lot.

 

Complete BS! And typical denier cult deflection. There are no reputable economists who think that the current human caused, abrupt and very rapid global warming will be "beneficial" to our planet, our biosphere, or the human race.

 

You are not well informed. The consensus of economists who consider both the benefits and costs of global warming indicates that the benefits are greater than the costs for warming of 3 deg C from now. Plus the latest from SciGuyNye is that human CO2 emissions are saving us from damaging global cooling but that CO2 emissions will result in damaging global warming. So there must be a CO2 emission sweet spot where damaging cooling is avoided and damaging warming is also avoided. So where is this CO2 emission sweetspot ??

 

Just more unsupported claims without any basis in reality.

Show us some evidence of a consensus of all those economists

 

Dr. Richard Tol's papers which summarize those analyses.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL......ONE denier cult, fossil fuel industry stooge economist-whore, working for an AGW denial group in England, the GWPF, that is sponsored and run by fossil fuel interests, DOES NOT EQUAL your fraudulent "consensus of economists", you dishonest deluded dupe.

And you can't even link to these supposed papers when I challenge you to 'show us some evidence'. How pathetic.

 

Tol's paper summarized the work reported in ~ 20 papers.

 

Again, no evidence, no links, just your unsupported statement based on Tol's flakey claims.....and you are very reality-challenged, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, and Tol is a paid denier cult liar. Fail!

 

No curiosity, initiative, or willingness to exercise the scientific method.

 

Thanks for being so honest about yourself.

 

Funny with 2014 NASA now's says only 38% sure they were correct.

 

We export oil now, it is predicted in 2019 we will equal or be the top oil producer in the world ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia, the only reason the two coast rely on foreign oil is because of lack.of pipe lines

 

Wind turbines have lifetimes of 25 years. That's 4 times per century.


Wrong.....they last around 12 years and at the end of their life they only produce less then a third of there efficiently
.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-study-shows-signs-wearing-just-12-years.html



.

 

July 4, 2017 saw the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the northern hemisphere.

 

And yet, the response is irrelevant.


Perhaps if you want to dispute what's been said you could actually dispute what's been said rather than spouting irrelevancies.

 

Irelevant to those who want to drive around in clown cars , but not to us guys who love our big V8s


.

 

Thanks for acknowledging that your input is both irrelevant and valueless. An acknowledgement that simply confirms common knowledge.