Global Warming WTF??

[furrowtickler]

What I find difficult to understand is how weather change in one region, or ten thousand regions is difficult to impossible to get right from one day to the next with much accuracy, but climate change, the result of all those weathers over decades is for sure going result in a temperature rise. Boggling, really, for anyone to be that confident!

As to what happened to the Mayans, even the authors of the report state that more study is required to determine what caused their society to collapse. Multiple factors could have been at play, and likely were. To be so definitive takes a big set.

Agreed
One thing for certain it was not cause by burning fossil fuels ...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Agreed
One thing for certain it was not cause by burning fossil fuels ...

Surely you can't believe that climate changed (for better or worse) before fossil fuels. I've seen Micheal Mann's hockey stick graph with my own eyes, climate was completely steady, in a perpetual state of utopia before we started burning fossil fuels. No little ice age, no medieval warm period, just goldilocks temperatures for 2000 years.

[Guest]

Surely you can't believe that climate changed (for better or worse) before fossil fuels. I've seen Micheal Mann's hockey stick graph with my own eyes, climate was completely steady, in a perpetual state of utopia before we started burning fossil fuels. No little ice age, no medieval warm period, just goldilocks temperatures for 2000 years.

now , now , mustn't bring up facts , lol

[burnt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVS6TWIU8AAYX6K.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVS6TWIU8AAYX6K.jpg

[AlbertaFarmer5]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVS6TWIU8AAYX6K.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVS6TWIU8AAYX6K.jpg

[ATTACH]2522[/ATTACH]

Burnt, That graph is obviously fake news. It has wiggly lines long before the fossil fuel Era, Which we all know could not have happened because it does not fit the agenda, please go back and repost the hockey stick grap, Be for this corrupts any of the simple minds.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=434&p=2

B]Climate Myth...
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)[/B]

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

What the science says...

This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.

Most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present. Figure 4 shows temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. With the exception of a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago, the entire period from 1,500 to 10,500 years ago was significantly warmer than present.

This is Easterbrook’s Fig 4:

easterbrook_fig41.jpg

It’s a graph he’s used before, in various forms, almost certainly copied and altered from the original (click image below to see source: the NOAA web page for Richard Alley’s 2000 paper The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, though DE credits it as “Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997″, misspelling Kurt Cuffey’s name in the process:

Easterbrook continues:

Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.

This is his Fig 5:

easterbrook_fig5.png

Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.

Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version):

GRIPtempBox480.png

I’ve added lines showing the average temperatures for the 1850s (blue) and the last 10 years (red), and the difference between those is a warming of 1.44ºC. I’ve also added the two most recent GISP2 temperature data points (for 1847 and 1855, red crosses). It’s obvious that the GRIP site is warmer than GISP2 (at Summit Camp). The difference is estimated to be 0.9ºC on the annual average (Box, pers comm).

Let’s have ago at reconstructing Easterbrook’s Fig 5, covering the last 10,000 years of GISP2 data. It looks like this (click for bigger version):

GISP210k480.png

The GISP2 series — the red line — appears to be identical to Easterbrook’s version. The bottom black line shows his 1855 “present”, and it intersects the red line in the same places as his chart. I’ve added a grey line based on the +1.44ºC quantum calculated from the GRIP temperature data, and two blue crosses, which show the GISP2 site temperatures inferred from adjusted GRIP data for 1855 and 2009.

Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. The two blue crosses on the chart show the GISP site temperatures (adjusted from GRIP data) for 1855 and 2009. It’s clear there is a calibration issue between the long term proxy (based on ∂18O measurement) and recent direct measurement of temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue — which is what Don Easterbrook is trying to show. Here’s his conclusion:

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list. The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It’s really much to do about nothing.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.

The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.

[chuckChuck]

Give up! Only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris accord last June.

Why waste your time discussing climate change science which you know almost nothing about. It is all fake news anyway and all scientists are wrong and probably socialists too!

Just admit even if humans are causing climate change you don't want to do anything about it because you will be dead and it will be someone else's problem. You are only interested in the here and now and who cares if it ****s up the planet and rising oceans flood many coastal cities. You don't like liberal city dwellers anyway.

[Guest]

Burnt, That graph is obviously fake news. It has wiggly lines long before the fossil fuel Era, Which we all know could not have happened because it does not fit the agenda, please go back and repost the hockey stick grap, Be for this corrupts any of the simple minds.

LIKE a lot !!

[blackpowder]

Your starting to use some common sense Chuckchuck. Good for you.
No one would advocate waste or harmful pollution. CO2 is somewhere else on the scale.


https://www.prageru.com/videos/can-climate-models-predict-climate-change

Now, I know some will instantly discredit the source as there is bias in all places.
But if one side can speak then another should be able to without being burned at the stake.

I don't spend time going on ****aloo websites to bang my head against the wall.
Maybe some should rethink their resources spent on farm marketing websites with a preponderance of libertarian independent business people.
Perhaps some website devoted to the class war they seem to support would happily take both their time and their money.

The lowering of our standard of living for what seems guilt purchase reasons, so far has made a few light bulb and windmill makers wealthy. Doesn't sound like its gonna stop Mother Nature whichever way she goes. Peoplekind (thanks Trudope) has better places for betterment investing.

[Hamloc]

Give up! Only one Conservative MP voted against supporting the Paris accord last June.

Why waste your time discussing climate change science which you know almost nothing about. It is all fake news anyway and all scientists are wrong and probably socialists too!

Just admit even if humans are causing climate change you don't want to do anything about it because you will be dead and it will be someone else's problem. You are only interested in the here and now and who cares if it ****s up the planet and rising oceans flood many coastal cities. You don't like liberal city dwellers anyway.

Chuck if you read my posts I was not saying the temperature did not change. What I did ask is if we are all polluters how would you apply the tax, keeping in mind that methane has 25 times the greenhouse effect of C02 and nitrous oxide 300 times the effect of C02. Would we then become uncompetitive? Do you think with carbon taxes in Canada we can compete with other grain producing countries with no tax? Do you not realize once the genie is out of the bottle that taxes will only escalate?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

See, I told you it was fake news. And chuck came along just in time to prove that it is fake news with another cut and paste. Nothing to see here folks, Just believe in the hockey stick everything else is obviously fake news. The ice ages never happened, that was never farming on Greenland, Glaciers in the Alps never contracted and expanded, Societies never failed due to climate variations.

Thanks Chuck, I know I can count on you to prove my point every time.

[Blaithin]

I find it almost distressing that people who rely so much on the weather and climate seem to have little actual understanding of it.

Yes, we have had cold days. It is winter after all, it's to be expected. Anyone having issues with rusty's in their wheat btw?

They're having a blast here because the wheat was 40^ going into the bin at harvest. Smoking hot harvest that it was here. Then there's the fact that rusty's are incredibly cold tolerant. What's the fact sheet on them on the Sask ag website say... takes 12 weeks at a grain temp of -5 to kill them. A week of -20. They're still alive and kicking here unless the grains been treated. I keep hearing farmers say they've never had bug issues like this.

Must not be as cold or as cold for as long as we seem to think when we feel it on our cheeks.

Similar weather patterns are what lead to the pine beetle taking off.

Perhaps if you don't want to believe the scientists and find that Polar Bear documentaries can be faked, you should look no farther than pests you have to deal with.

Climate is constantly changing. If you're in denial of that you're a meathead. The only thing you can dispute is if people have an affect on it and how much of an affect that might be.

[burnt]

Some interesting info here, if you are into science -

https://twitter.com/ClimateRealists https://twitter.com/ClimateRealists

[Guest]

I find it almost distressing that people who rely so much on the weather and climate seem to have little actual understanding of it.

Yes, we have had cold days. It is winter after all, it's to be expected. Anyone having issues with rusty's in their wheat btw?

They're having a blast here because the wheat was 40^ going into the bin at harvest. Smoking hot harvest that it was here. Then there's the fact that rusty's are incredibly cold tolerant. What's the fact sheet on them on the Sask ag website say... takes 12 weeks at a grain temp of -5 to kill them. A week of -20. They're still alive and kicking here unless the grains been treated. I keep hearing farmers say they've never had bug issues like this.

Must not be as cold or as cold for as long as we seem to think when we feel it on our cheeks.

Similar weather patterns are what lead to the pine beetle taking off.


Perhaps if you don't want to believe the scientists and find that Polar Bear documentaries can be faked, you should look no farther than pests you have to deal with.

Climate is constantly changing. If you're in denial of that you're a meathead. The only thing you can dispute is if people have an affect on it and how much of an affect that might be.

but we had 2 or 3 of the coldest harvests that we have had the 3 years prior . anyways as the scientists on here tell me , thats just weather , same as the 35 degrees we had this harvest . can't have it both ways ?
i don't think anyone on here disputes that man is giving the earth a hard time , thats a given. but saying a stupid carbon tax that will put canada at a disadvantage while india and china build more coal fired generators , is beyond stupid! and shutting down perfectly good coal fired generators here before alternatives are found is even stupider. paying money into trudeaus play fund and calling it a carbon tax is the problem . i and probably most on here are all for cleaning up pollution , air and environmental . thats not what this carbon tax bullshit is about . proof is all around you when you see millions of lights left on 24-7 in the cities , a $7M ARTIFICIAL ice arena in between the parliament buildings and the rideau canal(longest ice skating area in the world) that trudeau couldn't use because it was too COLD!!!! trudeau taking largest party ever to paris accord? make no mistake , none of these so called activists give a shit about any of it . i guess they have never heard of WEBEX , none of these bullshit holiday free for alls are necessary in this digital age , at our expense. meanwhile farmers have been doing their part , def systems, zero till , efficiencies in most aspects of farming . make no mistake , the only meatheads are the sheeple that are buying this hook, line and sinker ? nearly every farmer i know are very environmentally friendly , too bad we couldn't say the same about our city cousins . the waste in the cities blows my mind . we don't even leave our yard lights on , other than when we are working at night in the yard . when you fly over a city , that is criminal , seeing the entire city , buildings and all , lit up like daylight .

[Hamloc]

Caseih, well put. Unfortunately the posters on here are just like politicians, if your question any aspect of climate change you are an idiot and a denier. When you ask any questions about carbon tax levels or structure or what will be taxed or try to have a reasonable conversation about competitiveness all you hear is crickets!!! In a socialist's mind oil is evil and we must tax tax tax!!!