Global warming may be twice what climate models predict

July 5, 2018 by Alvin Stone, University of New South Wales
Global warming may be twice what climate models predict
Sunset. Credit: Patrik Linderstam, Unsplash

A new study based on evidence from past warm periods suggests global warming may be double what is forecast.

Future may eventually be twice as warm as projected by climate models and sea levels may rise six metres or more even if the world meets the 2°C target, according to an international team of researchers from 17 countries.

The findings published last week in Nature Geoscience are based on observational evidence from three over the past 3.5 million years when the world was 0.5°C-2°C warmer than the pre-industrial temperatures of the 19th Century.

The research also revealed how large areas of the polar ice caps could collapse and significant changes to ecosystems could see the Sahara Desert become green and the edges of tropical forests turn into fire dominated savanna.

"Observations of past warming periods suggest that a number of amplifying mechanisms, which are poorly represented in climate models, increase long-term warming beyond climate model projections," said lead author, Prof Hubertus Fischer of the University of Bern.

"This suggests the carbon budget to avoid 2°C of global warming may be far smaller than estimated, leaving very little margin for error to meet the Paris targets."

To get their results, the researchers looked at three of the best-documented warm periods, the Holocene thermal maximum (5000-9000 years ago), the last interglacial (129,000-116,000 years ago) and the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.3-3 million years ago).

The warming of the first two periods was caused by predictable changes in the Earth's orbit, while the mid-Pliocene event was the result of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that were 350-450ppm – much the same as today.

Combining a wide range of measurements from ice cores, sediment layers, fossil records, dating using atomic isotopes and a host of other established paleoclimate methods, the researchers pieced together the impact of these climatic changes.

In combination, these periods give strong evidence of how a warmer Earth would appear once the climate had stabilized. By contrast, today our planet is warming much faster than any of these periods as human caused continue to grow. Even if our emissions stopped today, it would take centuries to millennia to reach equilibrium.

The changes to the Earth under these past conditions were profound – there were substantial retreats of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and as a consequence sea-levels rose by at least six metres; marine plankton ranges shifted reorganising entire marine ecosystems; the Sahara became greener and forest species shifted 200 km towards the poles, as did tundra; high altitude species declined, temperate tropical forests were reduced and in Mediterranean areas fire-maintained vegetation dominated.

"Even with just 2°C of warming – and potentially just 1.5°C – significant impacts on the Earth system are profound," said co-author Prof Alan Mix of Oregon State University.

"We can expect that sea-level rise could become unstoppable for millennia, impacting much of the world's population, infrastructure and economic activity."

Yet these significant observed changes are generally underestimated in climate model projections that focus on the near term. Compared to these past observations, appear to underestimate long term warming and the amplification of warmth in Polar Regions.

"Climate models appear to be trustworthy for small changes, such as for low emission scenarios over short periods, say over the next few decades out to 2100. But as the change gets larger or more persistent, either because of higher emissions, for example a business-as-usual-scenario, or because we are interested in the long term response of a low emission scenario, it appears they underestimate change," said co-author Prof Katrin Meissner, Director of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre.

"This research is a powerful call to act. It tells us that if today's leaders don't urgently address our emissions, global will bring profound changes to our planet and way of life – not just for this century but well beyond."

Explore further: Lessons about a future warmer world using data from the past

More information: Hubertus Fischer et al. Palaeoclimate constraints on the impact of 2 °C anthropogenic warming and beyond, Nature Geoscience (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0146-0

Related Stories

Heat still on despite warming slowdown

April 23, 2015

The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.

Recommended for you

142 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
2 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2018
Moving the goal posts. i.e. Desperation.
carbon_unit
4.2 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2018
Climate change denier desperation... the bad news continues to accumulate. Where do you get your information from? Consider what happened when the head of the Cato Institute's climate and environmental policy shop, who had appeared on the likes of CNN, NBC, and Fox, had a moment of clarity, realized he was supporting a BS position.
https://inquiring...es-sides Interview starts around 7:20. (Between the t and e in Climate in the player bar.) You have been suckered.

All areas of scientific research are subject to continued study and revision as further data accumulates and models are refined. I would also note that any one study is certainly not definitive, but the accumulation is certainly on the side of climate change as real and a threat to future stability. When the Sahara goes green, what becomes of areas that used to get that moisture?

axemaster
4.5 / 5 (31) Jul 05, 2018
It's been incredibly depressing as a young person to watch this crisis slowly metastasize over my lifetime. I was born in 1990 and have been hearing about this for my entire life. I went into science, first as a physicist, and now as an electronics engineer, and seeing the gap in understanding between the science culture and the layperson culture is just heartbreaking.

I went into science because I love it, and because I wanted to improve the world. It's sad to say, but the world is headed down a very dark path. Our technology has the promise to create a near-utopia in my lifetime, but our culture is greedy and malevolent. So many people seem to take such pleasure in the suffering of others.

I don't know how this can be fixed. I can only hope that my generation hasn't been ruined yet, and that things will improve as the old generations pass away.
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2018
michbaskett
4 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2018
I am very sorry that the younger people on this planet will have to deal with what the previous generations have left them. It isn't going to be pretty. One thing that seems to ignored to a very large degree is the fact that the real problem is there are far too many people on this planet. If we can reduce the number to no more than 10% of present population than we can have a far better chance of alleviating the problems our numbers of people have wrought upon nature.

We need to get rid of the foolish notion that we can conquer nature and, instead, live with nature. In a contest between humans and nature, nature will always win. It's much more powerful than we are. Let us not give nature the opportunity to prove it to us.
howhot3
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 05, 2018
You shouldn't be depressed about this deep mess. You should be angry and at the climate deniers and their supporters and enablers. #walkawaygop.
carbon_unit
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 05, 2018
michbasket: Agreed, but the true nature of nature is that it simply does not care. There is no contest. We can poison seas, create wastelands, ruin the Earth. Nature will go on acording to the rules of physics/biology. It's all a matter of human stupidity, of not caring about long term consequences, caring only for the quick $$$.

howhot3:
You shouldn't be depressed about this deep mess. You should be angry and at the climate deniers and their supporters and enablers. #walkawaygop.
VOTE!
TheVogon
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2018
Even if the current "goal posts" are correct, that's not exactly good news. but it could be a whole lot worse it seems.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2018
You shouldn't be depressed about this deep mess. You should be angry and at the climate deniers and their supporters and enablers. #walkawaygop.
-- howShat da Turd
The Chicken Little jackass brays again. Ask this Jackass when he stopped burning fossil fuel or consuming power generated from it, and he dodges the question. Typical Chicken Little burning fossil fuel like there is no tomorrow and so long as he brays like a jackass he can blame the heretics.
aksdad
1.9 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2018
This one is ripe for debunking.

climate models appear to underestimate long term warming

No, they appear to OVERestimate warming. By a lot. See for yourself what was reported in IPCC AR5 (2013) when comparing the climate models to measured temperatures:

https://www.ipcc....S-14.jpg

FYI, global temperature rise has been almost flat since 1998. The trend since 1978 (when they started measuring with satellites) is +0.13 C per decade, far less than predicted by the models.

https://www.nsstc..._bar.png

Funny how all the studies claiming disastrous levels of warming or sea level rise studiously avoid reporting measurements of the real world. They love their models because they can make them say whatever they want. Speculation is so much more fun for alarmists than reality.
PTTG
4.5 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2018
Scott Pruitt got shamed out of office. Too bad the rest of you deniers have even fewer principles.
Anhaga
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2018
Lest the younger contributors to this thread think all we oldsters are to blame, believe me, we aren't. Youth are not alone in this battle against the greed of corporations and stupidity (and cupidity) of governments. All of us have to do what we can to pressure those who have power to change things, and do our own little bit as well, even when it's inconvenient. It really feels this year that we've reached some sort of tipping point. It is terrifying.
howhot3
4.6 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2018
You know what @Askdaddy dude, I really don't want to say flatout that your a liar; but your claims are beyond normal. "FYI, global temperature rise has been almost flat since 1998. The trend since 1978 (when they started measuring with satellites) is +0.13 C per decade, far less than predicted by the models.". You have so many false assumptions in this. First you need to ask yourself, "What atmospheric changes occur when about 10 GtC (Gigatons of carbon) from fossil fuel combustion and cement and are added yearly?" And also acknowledge the growth is about 2,GtC every decade. When you recognize the heat trapping capability of CO2, you have to realize that your claims of global temperatures being flat are just bogus lies.

It sounds to me like your claims are just wishful thinking from another dumb ass climate denier.

tblakely1357
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2018
"It's been incredibly depressing as a young person to watch this crisis slowly metastasize over my lifetime."

Well, I had to worry about being turned into a lump of radioactive charcoal so get over it soy-boy.
Thorium Boy
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2018
How many millions of people are now drawing an income (usually from taxpayers) from this biggest fraud since world wide communism? Funny how the global warming bandwagon got really going just around the time the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union fell.
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2018
Moving the goal posts. i.e. Desperation.


This is literally the opposite of moving the goalposts, unless you think the saying refers to moving the goalposts closer so you'll meet it more easily. The only desperation is denier idiots frantically yelling at reality.

This one is ripe for debunking.

climate models appear to underestimate long term warming

No, they appear to OVERestimate warming. By a lot. See for yourself what was reported in IPCC AR5 (2013) when comparing the climate models to measured temperatures:

https://www.ipcc....S-14.jpg


Aksdad your own links show none of this is true.
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2018
How many millions of people are now drawing an income (usually from taxpayers) from this biggest fraud since world wide communism? Funny how the global warming bandwagon got really going just around the time the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union fell.


Apparently the Berlin Wall fell in the mid 1800s and the Soviet Union fell in 1953. If you don't know anything about climate science, stop posting about it.

http://theconvers...ce-18578
SteveS
5 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2018

No, they appear to OVERestimate warming. By a lot. See for yourself what was reported in IPCC AR5 (2013) when comparing the climate models to measured temperatures:

https://www.ipcc....S-14.jpg


Try reading the text rather than just looking at the prety pictures

The section you fixate on starts at pg 85
ForFreeMinds
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2018
Amazing - the climate models have all been proven to way overestimate warming, and now someone says they underestimate the warming by half. All the Chicken Littles predictions of rising sea levels and other effects have failed to come true. And so many fail to see the unholy alliance between green corporations and government (such as Al Gore becoming a billionaire by investing in green companies getting government subsidies). And so many climate scientists have been shown to be fudging and manipulating the data. And there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature - look at history longer than 50 years: https://wattsupwi...-levels/

And still people believe this propaganda. All I've seen other than that, is weather. But I have seen models of the Sun suggesting we're going to have a little Ice Age starting around 2030.
Ojorf
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2018
Your mind is so free it fell out of your head and rolled into the gutter.
ZoeBell
Jul 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2018
Global CO2 emissions stalled for the third year in a row - but the CO2 levels rise as if nothing would ever happen.
ZoeBell

So you think that if the RATE at which we add more CO2 into the atmosphere ISN'T ITSELF increased, even though that still means we are STILL continuingly adding more CO2 into the atmosphere, we shouldn't expect this continuous more CO2 being added to the atmosphere (by us) to result in an increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Wow. You are even more stupid than I thought.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2018
Watching deniers is weird. Here is a great example - https://www.youtu...FYAg_DPw So despite being stupidly wrong - they continue to argue that the earth is flat - and all of science is made up. Look at Aksdad. The first to comment on every climate change article. Presented with the facts that so easily contradict his/her rubbish. But first on the next article. Weird.... Another example - snoosebaum links to a blog site that so fundamentally misunderstands the subject - a five year old would see through it. I will unpack that really fast. The site says
a small amount of something cannot heat a large amount of something without extreme differences in temperature
That statement is accurate - but has no relevance to the role C02 and Methane are playing in the warming of the planet. But old goofy snoosebaum will be first on the list to try again next time around. Truly weird.
Pumastar
5 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2018
it's coming
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2018
Lol, it's a personality trait impossible to shake, antigoracle and his sockpuppet asking daddy's got flat heads thats why they can't see further than the next tree branch, and my golly gee, looki here, he made headlines today (Again) scratching his head:

https://medicalxp...ain.html
ZoeBell
Jul 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2018
SteveS
5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2018
But I'm not global warming denier - https://i.imgur.com/8FHqM9C.gif.. :-)


Zoe are you zephir?

Why the sock puppet, were you banned from here too?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2018
snoosebaum - your article says
Al Gore took the data provided in a "worst-case scenario" and intentionally twisted it, rebranding it as "Global Warming," making tens of millions of dollars in the process
Now - obviously you don't know this - so pay attention. Al Gore is not a scientist. He does not do research. He does not speak for the scientific community. It makes you look really stupid to come on a science site - and to show how little you understand about climate change.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2018
Zoe
But I'm not global warming denier
Yes you are. You said this -
These emissions aren't human caused
You are wrong. Read the section here "Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2" https://www.ucsus...NJtJKiM8

The science is very clear. Denying it makes you a denier.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2018
aksdad: "This one is ripe for debunking." Why refer to yourself in the third person?
ZoeBell
Jul 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2018
@ZoeBell.
climatic change is of geothermal origin - not anthropogenic one, the carbon dioxide levels are consequence of it (not origin) and even increased levels of it don't contribute to temperature of atmosphere due to saturation effect withing stratopause. The Earth is heated by marine water and soil, which releases methane which is getting oxidized to CO2.
You're falling into the 'simplistic-analysis-and-conclusions trap' that the earlier modelers did. Your own observations above support the more recent models warning that 'tipping point' is brought nearer as the warming trend started by human activity causes ever more: 'outgassing' from ocean/land clathrates/permafrosts etc; increasing emissions from more extreme/frequent peat/forest fires; and more volcanism where 'ice caps' increasingly melting and 'freeing' more pre-existing geothermal 'inputs'. All these things are further exacerbated as more CO2 increases in atmos 'vertical column' globally. Rethinkit, mate. :)
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2018
snoosebaum - I don't understand the relevance of linking your article on Hansen's predictions. When I used the term 'stupidly wrong' - I was primarily talking about your blog article - that is so wrong - a five year old would be laughing. But please enlighten us as to what your Hansen article brings to the debate. Looking at this graph https://curryja.f...8-am.png I would say that reality has pretty much validated his forecasts....
greenonions1
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2018
Zoe
IMO people contribute to current carbon dioxide levels by some 20% max
And you don't understand the absurdity of your opening statement - "In my opinion." You don't understand that your opinion, and my opinion - are of no relevance to the reality of science. When your opinion - disagrees with the overwhelming body of evidence, and the consensus of science - your opinion is wrong. You don't only need to rethink the climate issue, you need to rethink the relevance of your personal opinion - in the grand scheme of the universe.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2018
@antigoracle.

Hi, long time no 'speak'! Is your fossil/gop/russian-troll-factory 'shilling job' now only a 'part time' pocket-money earner for you these days? :)

Anyhow, your "chicken little" taunts @howhot3 are missing the point (actually, more than one point); as follows:

1) No-one is suggesting we stop all fossil fuel use; rather a 'mix' with renewables to bring emissions down to non-dangerous levels.

2) Natural-disaster-Insurance companies data now confirms my earlier predictions (made to you/other deniers for years now) that increasing 'back-to-back' natural disasters is making it impossible for communities all over the globe to absorb/recover before the next one hits; so it's prudent cost/waste saving measure to prevent further warming which the many and various communities are suffering in real life NOW.

So, are you going to call all those affected communities calling for greater/urgent actions/policies against climate-warming 'chicken littles' as well, mate? :)
ZoeBell
Jul 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2018
hey onions ,did u know stratospheric co2 was 380's in 2005 , Theres lots of mixing going on , i bet the stratosphere is already saturated so wheres the warming ?
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2018
i bet the stratosphere is already saturated so wheres the warming ?
What do you mean by saturated? What exact warming are you looking for? What are your credentials for questioning the consensus of science? How much research have you done? What is your Phd in?

Here - is this the warming you are looking for? https://en.wikipe...maly.svg
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2018
lol
greenonions1
5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2018
Zoe
My body of evidence is also extensive
Your reddit threat is not a body of evidence. Half of the threads in there actually seem to support the consensus science regarding climate change. You don't overturn science with a reddit thread. You have to do research - and publish - and take your knocks with the big guys. It seems this is what we are up against here in the U.S. with the new Trump approach. Everyone is allowed and opinion - and you can get your opinion from reddit if you prefer not to make one up for yourself....
leetennant
5 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2018
When your opinion - disagrees with the overwhelming body of evidence, and the consensus of science - your opinion is wrong
My https://www.reddi...arming/. I can indeed be still wrong like anyone - but I'm definitely guessing my stuffs neither.


Let me guess, your "body of evidence" is a YouTube video by an anti-vaxxer. #headdesk
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2018
snoosebaum - your article says
Al Gore took the data provided in a "worst-case scenario" and intentionally twisted it, rebranding it as "Global Warming," making tens of millions of dollars in the process
Now - obviously you don't know this - so pay attention. Al Gore is not a scientist. He does not do research. He does not speak for the scientific community. It makes you look really stupid to come on a science site - and to show how little you understand about climate change.


Thats what happens when antigoracle and his socks, dumb, dumb and dumber comment on real science, it's like baboon chatter, barking and chest thumping without thinking, as the ability to do so is not possible.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2018
lol


A knee-jerk reaction from antigoracle's sockpuppet, there was a banana in the next tree so those two pea's in his skull had to decide between trying to give yet another dumb answer or just act on impulse laughing out loud with joy when he realized the bananas is within grasp in the next tree (guess which won) ;)
Old_C_Code
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2018
Ten years ago some said there would be no snow by 2015. Miami should be underwater by now, ugh. I know, I'm stupid, I'll shut up. Sorry.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2018
i bet the stratosphere is already saturated so wheres the warming ?

What do you mean by saturated?

It's not really possible to saturate the greenhouse gas effect. Making this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the greenhouse gas works and how spectral lines work. Regardless, the greenhouse gas effect occurs in the troposphere and has very little to do with the stratosphere, so the original comment was very silly indeed.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2018
Ten years ago some said there would be no snow by 2015....

Old_C_Code

This couldn't have been said by someone who understood the scientific facts behind the greenhouse effect and global warming so he didn't speak for the scientists but only for the layperson ignorant.
Nobody who understands the rudimentary facts of the greenhouse effect and about our current global climate status would claim this or believe such an idiotic claim of 'no snow anywhere'.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2018
Ten years ago some said there would be no snow by 2015. Miami should be underwater by now, ugh.

This sounds made up. Can you point to any scientific source that makes either of these claims. The one about Miami is obviously fictitious. That some random person might have said that is meaningless as there are a lot of extremely silly people in the world. Someone actually claimed that global warming is due to dark matter in the ocean and you don't get much sillier than that.
humy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2018
. Someone actually claimed that global warming is due to dark matter in the ocean and you don't get much sillier than that.

That must be the silliest one I ever heard.
Here is just a few less silly but still pretty silly ones;

https://www.rolli...-200530/

I also once found myself arguing against someone claiming that all global warming is caused by heat from volcanos.
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2018
Ten years ago some said there would be no snow by 2015. Miami should be underwater by now, ugh. I know, I'm stupid, I'll shut up. Sorry.


Ten years ago I overheard a conversation in a pub where some random drunk said that CFCs would destroy all life in the universe. That has never happened so the science of CFCs is clearly nonsense.
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2018
few people know, that for example potassium generates as much heat during its decay as the incoming energy from Sun
Good old president Trump uses that "few people know" line a lot. It is code for 'we have a secret society - who have special knowledge - that most people are not privy to.' Actually of course - scientists are well aware of the issue of radio active decay of elements - and certainly incorporate that knowledge into the understanding of the earth's energy system - https://blogs.agu...ts-heat/
So folksy little quips about 'I know something you don't know' are cute - but where is the research?
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2018
...Most of things which I'm linking here is very easy to find at the web - we just cannot find them within official sources of mainstream physics, ....

yes, things like flat Earth and aether and goddidit.
Guess why such nonsense isn't part of ANY physics i.e. whether "official" or "unofficial" or "mainstream" or not...
You are delusional.
humy
5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2018
it's visible even on this very forum, where all alternative sources of information are immediately downvoted and attacked.

yes, like alternative sources of information for flat Earth and aether and goddidit.
The problem is, these 'alternative sources' for so-called 'information' are for a load of shite.
guess why they are "immediately downvoted and attacked"...
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2018
things like flat Earth and dark matter in oceans causing global warming
Flat Earth is indeed nonsense and dark matter in oceans has extraterrestrial origin. The mainstream physicists are inventing these theories themselves, because they're not aware of their consequences .

this is simply false. The consequences of flat Earth being true would be, for example, we should be able observe the 'edge' of the Earth. These nonsense theories, including yours, make predictions that can clearly be observed to be false.
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2018
things like flat Earth and dark matter in oceans causing global warming
Flat Earth is indeed nonsense and dark matter in oceans has extraterrestrial origin. The mainstream physicists are inventing these theories themselves, because they're not aware of their consequences .

this is simply false. The consequences of flat Earth being true would be, for example, we should be able observe the 'edge' of the Earth. These nonsense theories, including yours, make predictions that can clearly be (and are) observed to be false. And no physicists are inventing flat Earth theory.

ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2018
Hi, long time no 'speak'! Is your fossil/gop/russian-troll-factory 'shilling job' now only a 'part time' pocket-money earner for you these days? :)

Anyhow, HAWW..HEE.. are missing the point (actually, more than one point); as follows:

1) HAWW...HEE... bring emissions down to non-dangerous levels.

2) ...Insurance companies data now confirms my earlier predictions ... increasing 'back-to-back' natural disasters is making ...HAWW..HEE...communities are suffering in real life NOW.
--RealityCheckTard

So, Reality Jackass, please forward me the info on anyone paying for that "shilling job". I'm sure I can find a charity that can use the money.

1) So, what is a non-dangerous level of CO2? To reach this, what level must YOU reduce your CO2 footprint? When are you going to start?

2) Find me a SINGLE peer reviewed study that conclusively shows any natural disaster was caused by human produced CO2.

Keep braying jackass, you will save the world. :)
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2018
It's fairly trivial to prove Zephyr/Zoe wrong. First, Zoe should remember that he believed that the co2 effect was saturated and that the stratopause was somehow involved. Neither is true, indicating Zoe's grasp of physics is limited. But here's the proof he's wrong:
1. Basic physics says that increasing CO2 levels by as much as we have should have warmed us by about as much as the earth has warmed. Zoe needs to show why basic physics is wrong or accept that his dark matter conjecture has very limited effect on global temperature
2. Global temperature anomalies are greatest over land and over the polar regions. If it was the oceans causing the warming, the anomalies would be greatest over oceans. And Arctic sea ice would have to be completely gone.
3. Global warming is greatest in the northern hemisphere, where most of the land is. The Southern Hemisphere has been spared most of the heating due to the buffering of the oceans.
ZoeBell
Jul 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2018
[p]In geothermal model the heat is generated by low energy nuclear reactions in both soil/crust, both marine water[/p]
This is trivially disproven. If it was a geothermal source, the ocean would warm from the bottom up, rather from the top down. If you believe that there's a geothermal source, you need to show (quantitatively) the data showing a very drastic increase in heat coming from the earth. Data currently shows that geothermal heating is a small fraction of the known anthropogenic heating. That seems to rule geothermal out as a significant source of the current warming.

I'll also point out that Zoe thought the gravitational constant varied on ~6 year cycle. This is known not to be true. The initial report of this was shown to be false quite some time ago due to an error in the analysis of the data. There is no cycle and no evidence of the gravitational constant changing.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2018
It's fairly trivial to prove Zephyr/Zoe wrong...HAAWW....HEE... But here's the proof he's wrong:
1. Basic physics says that increasing CO2 levels by as much as we have should have warmed us by about as much as the earth has warmed...HAAWW...HEE
2. Global temperature anomalies are greatest over land and over the polar regions. If it was the oceans causing the warming, the anomalies would be greatest over oceans..
3. Global warming is greatest in the northern hemisphere...
--Another Braying Jackass
1) The 1930s saw the most extreme weather, when human CO2 was insignificant: http://www.c3head...938.html
2) Please educate yourself on that "little" thing called El Nino.
3) Where is Australia again. https://www.thegu...dy-shows
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2018
https://skeptical...fect.htm , i have to post a warmer site so the
expert warmers know what the theory is . zzzzzz,,,,,,,,,
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2018
https://wattsupwi...nternet/

Ol' c code knows of watt he speaks
greenonions1
5 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2018
I read your link snoosebaum - not sure what your point is. You were the one who said
i bet the stratosphere is already saturated so wheres the warming ?
I did not understand your term 'saturated' so asked for clarification.

You link to a decent site - that says that the construct of saturation regarding climate change is a 'myth.' What is your point?
humy
5 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2018

1) The 1930s saw the most extreme weather, when human CO2 was insignificant:

irrelevant; weather isn't climate.
No specific weather event can be entirely attributed to climate change.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2018
zoe
the bottom-up approach of mainstream science, which I'm not interested about
Understood. The scientific method can be tedious. Looking for evidence to support your theory. Having to defend your theory against critics. Dealing with underlings trying to replicate and expand on your findings etc. etc. etc. Much easier to watch youtube - and write your own theories. Interesting that you would come to a site that presents main stream scientific information. Probably you are here to school us on the brilliance of your insights. I'm good with the scientific method. The gps in my cell phone works really well. Shame Uncle Ira is not with us any more - he would probably lend you the pointy hat....
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2018
It's fairly trivial to prove Zephyr/Zoe wrong...HAAWW....HEE... But here's the proof he's wrong:
1. Basic physics says that increasing CO2 levels by as much as we have should have warmed us by about as much as the earth has warmed...HAAWW...HEE


Monkey Goracle and his goons swinging those trees like there's no tomorrow, we hear the echo's of your barking quite clearly, what we don't see is anything backing up any of it (as usually the case)
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2018
I read your link snoosebaum - not sure what your point is.

You link to a decent site - that says that the construct of saturation regarding climate change is a 'myth.' What is your point?


His point is that he eagerly wants to make himself look dumb and stupid (a point he makes very clearly quite often on this site)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2018
"might be double"

-or might be half - who's to know?

Hey did you see that globular dust storm on mars? What's up widdat? And all these meteors zipping past - somethings going on, that's for sure.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2018
''I read your link snoosebaum ''

no you didn't , another effect of global warming , its turned you into an ass
greenonions1
4.9 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2018
no you didn't ,
Yes I did - and I asked you what your point was. That of course would require you to actually formulate an idea - and then put it into words. It is much easier to be a potty mouth - and throw insults around at people. You and goracle are very similar. You like to insult people - but you have no ability to actually understand the subject matter.
SURFIN85
5 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2018
We need to de-escalate consumer capitalism and fast, but I think its too late. Human psychology is mean and idiotic
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2018
We need to de-escalate consumer capitalism and fast, but I think its too late. Human psychology is mean and idiotic
Hate to tell you but when this comes down the human population is going to crash, and they will not go quietly. There's going to be nuclear war over water. And billions will die.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 08, 2018
The Chinese will take the Himalaya. The Indians are fools to negotiate with them. The Indians should build as many nuclear weapons as they can to make themselves a nasty hard target.

If we're talking strategy.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2018
''I read your link snoosebaum ''

no you didn't , another effect of global warming , its turned you into an ass

Yes HE DID, So DID I dumbnuts, we see you're pulling bafoonish one liners out of your ass, YET again
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2018
@antigoracle.

The Russian-Troll-Factory-for-hire was exposed more than once now. The GOP/Fossil/ Russian Govt and their corrupted Lobbyists/Politicians have been using it to influence opinion and obfuscate facts for some time now. Did you miss the news? Where have you been, mate?! :)

Or are you just pretending ignorance because you were/are paid mercenary and/or willing political 'stooge' employed/exploited by same?

Either way, your posts betray your 'interests/biases' quite nicely/clearly; so no use you denying the all too obvious, @antigoracle. :)
So, what is a non-dangerous level of CO2?
Approximately that which Earth system capable of recycling quickly enough to prevent build-up much beyond that which prevailed pre-industrial-revolution emissions/levels 'net balance'.
Find me a SINGLE peer reviewed study that conclusively shows any natural disaster was caused by human produced CO2.
Disingenuous. Not fair dinkum. You betray yourself again, mate. :)
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2018
@antigoracle.
1930s saw the most extreme weather, when human CO2 was insignificant:
Learn relevant global history in context of industrial revolution-caused deforestation/coal/oil extraction/burning for domestic/commercial space-heating, powering of factories/railways, making Iron/Steel and Chemicals etc (spectacularly accelerating in quantities/volume of production leading up to World War I due to munitions, ships/trains etc for that 'industrialized war').

From your own linked references:
World Climate Growing Warmer, Say Russians, Citing Arctic Data; Two Professors Independently Find Change in Temperatures–They See a Gulf Stream Relation, but Look for Deeper Causes TEMPERATURE RISE OVER WORLD SEEN

December 12, 1938...
Ironic, that Russians noted the warming long before it became fodder for GP/Fossil/Russian lies campaign! :)

So ENORMOUS INCREASES in CO2 emissions leading up to 1930s was NOT "...when human CO2 was insignificant". Ignorance/lie on your part? :)
Urgelt
4 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2018
Da Schnieb wrote, "The Chinese will take the Himalaya."

I'm sure China would be happy to accept the Himalyas, but what they likely covet most is:

- The Western Pacific and the China sea, as much as they can grab and control.

- Taiwan.

- Siberia.

Siberia is the big prize. It's sparsely populated, has vast untapped resources, at least parts of it will be agriculturally improved as warming progresses while China's own agricultural output is likely to suffer from warming.

China sends a *lot* of its citizens North to Siberia to work. If Russia suffers political instabilities - eventually almost a certainty, look at their history - China will have a ready-made excuse to intervene to protect its citizens.
EnricM
5 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2018
global temperature rise has been almost flat since 1998.


He refers to the temperature he measures on a globe he has on his desk. He must also be the kind of guy who thinks the earth is hollow because "you can see it in Google Earth" ;)
elofson
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2018
According to another study, the effect of CO2 might be exaggerated with 46%.
Studies that don't play into the climate alarmist narrative don't get any attention of journalists and the liberal-left.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2018
According to another study, the effect of CO2 might be exaggerated with 46%.
Studies that don't play into the climate alarmist narrative don't get any attention of journalists and the liberal-left.

Can you post a link to it please.
Aroryborealis
not rated yet Jul 09, 2018

"....seeing the gap in understanding between the science culture and the layperson culture is just heartbreaking."
-axemaster, (Jul 05) I'm a 'Boomer that has always been concerned about future generations. ({ref. comment @} https://phys.org/...ted.html )
You have my profound respects. It's evident you're empathetic, enlightened.....and, although it can perturb those two siblings, you're also very....passionate.
Don't let it get in your way. USE IT.
Fulfill the destiny a great mind once wrote about.... not so long ago:
"I went into science because I love it, and because I wanted to improve the world."
Dug
1 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2018
There was a recent summary of both temp and sea level rise 30 years out comparing the original climate change warnings by James Hansen - to actual current data. They were substantially off and all to the high side. That doesn't mean climate change is not an issue, but it may not be as dramatic and or happening as fast as theoretical C02 driven mechanisms had projected. (https://www.wsj.c...623442).
leetennant
5 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
There was a recent summary of both temp and sea level rise 30 years out comparing the original climate change warnings by James Hansen - to actual current data. They were substantially off and all to the high side. That doesn't mean climate change is not an issue, but it may not be as dramatic and or happening as fast as theoretical C02 driven mechanisms had projected. (https://www.wsj.c...623442).


That's the most compelling link to nothing I've ever read
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
There was a recent summary of both temp and sea level rise 30 years out comparing the original climate change warnings by James Hansen - to actual current data. They were substantially off and all to the high side. That doesn't mean climate change is not an issue, but it may not be as dramatic and or happening as fast as theoretical C02 driven mechanisms had projected. (https://www.wsj.c...29623442).]https://www.wsj.c...623442).[/url]

That's the most compelling link to nothing I've ever read

Oh, poor Leetenant Jackass, if only it had a brain it would realize that the link, in error, included the bracket and dot. So, here yer go -- https://www.wsj.c...29623442
greenonions1
5 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
Oh, poor Leetenant Jackass
As always - resorting to name calling. Here is a transcript of Hansen's testimony from 1988 - image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

If you understand what is actually happening in terms of the climate - it seems clear that Hansen presented the knowledge that they had at the time very well.
There is a need for improving these climate models, and there is a need for global observations if we're going to obtain a full understanding of these phenomena


image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
Follow up on last post - you may have to copy and paste the link - it does not seem to work by just clicking on it. Alternatively you can go to this site - https://twitter.c...10207746

There is a link in there you can click on...
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2018
dumbnuts antigoracle quote

Oh, poor Leetenant Jackass, if only it had a brain it would realize that the link, in error, included the bracket and dot. So, here yer go -- https://www.wsj.c...29623442

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp


If you had at least 2 pea's in that hollow skull, you'd try and imagine that your banana's ain't going to grow if fossil fuels continue to wreck the world.... So much for all the swinging and wild thumping of yours ;)

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2018
SteveS
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2018
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/09/latest-paper-predicting-global-warming-could-be-far-worse-than-predicted-is-so-much-hot-air/


Christopher Monckton - MA in classics, diploma in journalism studies

Hubertus Fischer obtained his PhD in physics from the University of Heidelberg (Germany) in 1997. After a postdoctoral stay at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, he returned to Germany to take up a position at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research, where he was promoted to Senior Scientist in 2001. In 2008 he was appointed Full Professor of Climate Physics at the Physics Institute of the University of Bern in Switzerland.
SteveS
5 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2018
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/09/latest-paper-predicting-global-warming-could-be-far-worse-than-predicted-is-so-much-hot-air/

Christopher Monckton - MA in classics, diploma in journalism studies

Katrin J. Meissner

Degrees
Ph.D., Physics, Universität Bremen, Germany, 1999
Diplôme d'Etudes Approfondies, Ocean-Atmosphere Dynamics, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI, France, 1996
Graduate Engineer, Ecole Centrale de Lille, France, 1995
Deutsches Abitur, Französisches Gymnasium Berlin, Germany, 1989
Baccalauréat Français, Französisches Gymnasium Berlin, Germany, 1989

SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/09/latest-paper-predicting-global-warming-could-be-far-worse-than-predicted-is-so-much-hot-air/


These are just the first two of the 50 odd authors from 17 countries that Christopher Monckton (MA in classics, diploma in journalism studies) thinks he knows more than.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2018
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2018
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/07/sixty-years-of-no-troposphere-warming/


Pretty picture, but they appear to have left out the 2016 and 2017/18 la nina and the 1991/92 and 1994/95 el nino. Obviously they didn't fit their narrative

http://origin.cpc...I_v5.php

Also satellite data is affected by lower stratospheric cooling.

http://www.remss....Products
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
This "study" reminds me of this -- http://hockeyscht...ear.html
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
https://www.thegw...2017.pdf

'', until about 1995 the stratospheric
temperature record shows a persistent decline, ascribed by some scientists to the effect
of more and more heat being trapped by CO2 in the troposphere below. However, this temperature
decline ends around 1995–96, and a long temperature plateau has since then characterised
the stratosphere. Thus, the stratospheric temperature pause initiated 5–7 years before a similar
pause commenced in the lower troposphere.''
TheVogon
3 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2018
Lower Tropospheric Temperature for 2017 is the second warmest in recent history:

http://www.remss....history/
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2018
http://www.remss....climate/

''But....

The troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict. Note that this problem has been reduced by the large 2015-2106 El Nino Event, and the updated version of the RSS tropospheric datasets. ''

so we have a '' problem '' do we ? how will we stay in business without the 'right ' results ?
SteveS
5 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2018
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/03/State-of-the-Climate2017.pdf

'', until about 1995 the stratospheric..."


http://images.rem...ies.html

the higher you look the greater the cooling, it's almost as if something is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. I wonder what it could be?
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2018
SnooseLose dumbnuts antigoraqcle sock quote https://wattsupwi...hot-air/


LOL always coming up with useless references, go catch that banana instead ;)

HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2018
antigoracle dumbnuts wrote: This "study" reminds me of this -- http://hockeyscht...ear.html


Reminds me how DUMB you are as this dumb argument has been debunked decades ago, yet you and your GOONS still think it's something to talk about, making you look like a hilarious hipocrate it's best you keep swinging those trees, the only thing you can prove is that yellow banana is right there in front of you

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 year
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2018
antigoracle sockpuppet dumbnut
blahblah...by the large 2015-2106 El Nino Event,
so we have a '' problem '' do we ? how will we stay in business without the 'right ' results ?


You have a problem yes, clearly again showing your utmost incompetence in this field, El Nino has nothing to do with it Dumb Nuts.

The El Niño Southern Oscillation is an internal phenomenon where heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean and cannot explain an overall buildup of global ocean heat. This points to an energy imbalance responsible for the long term trend (Wong 2005).
Data analysis, physical observations and basic arithmetic all show ENSO cannot explain the long term warming trend over the past few decades. Hence the irony in Bob Carter's conclusion "The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2018
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2018
here's some HOT stuff

https://www.cbc.c....4739817
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2018
here: show me some hockey sticks , any month any location , monthly avg's

http://www.bom.go...month=01
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2018
Amazing - the climate models have all been proven to way overestimate warming, and now someone says they underestimate the warming by half. All the Chicken Littles predictions of rising sea levels and other effects have failed to come true. And so many fail to see the unholy alliance between green corporations and government (such as Al Gore becoming a billionaire by investing in green companies getting government subsidies). And so many climate scientists have been shown to be fudging and manipulating the data. And there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature - look at history longer than 50 years: https://wattsupwi...-levels/

And still people believe this propaganda. All I've seen other than that, is weather. But I have seen models of the Sun suggesting we're going to have a little Ice Age starting around 2030.


Freefromthinking. Sad.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2018
snooseloose antigoracle sockmuppet quoted from a book: Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.


Quoting phrases from a psychology book is not going to improve your stance no matter how hard you swing those branches nor will it erase years of foolish babble with your own sock puppets on this site,

You can't use a phrase from book thinking it will be a substitute for scientific evidence of Human Induced Climate Change or somehow in your mind think it justifies the stupidity and foolish lies you represent here each day. It's your own fault for representing yourself as foolish, and you can blame your own inner impulses you attributed to yourself for it no matter how much you try to deny it ;)
dramputti4
4.9 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2018
Fossil Fuels is destroying the earth
gomamit
5 / 5 (13) Jul 11, 2018
here: show me some hockey sticks


been debunked above by helo and countless of times before can you not read the comments or having trouble grasping the meaning of science ?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2018
Ten years ago some said there would be no snow by 2015. Miami should be underwater by now, ugh.

This sounds made up. Can you point to any scientific source that makes either of these claims. The one about Miami is obviously fictitious. That some random person might have said that is meaningless as there are a lot of extremely silly people in the world. Someone actually claimed that global warming is due to dark matter in the ocean and you don't get much sillier than that.


Ha, good one!!
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2018
godamit: show me some hockey schticks . meanwhile

https://www.zeroh...ld-rises
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2018
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2018
here: show me some hockey sticks , any month any location , monthly avg's

http://www.bom.go...month=01


Just ignoring the idea that you can tell anything by the temperature record of one small geographical area
1. your own link shows an incomplete dataset, which is why we aggregate in the first palce and
2. your own link has a note saying the temperature record before 1910 was unreliable and the data has not be quality controlled.

STOP CHERRYPICKING
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2018
well i can pick any from any country that shows the data , ain't no hockey schticks.
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2018
well i can pick any from any country that shows the data , ain't no hockey schticks.


Show me something that's not cherry picked that doesn't show a hockey stick. Because average global temperature records do - that's why you keep linking to everything but the actual datasets that matter.
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2018
Here's something new from NASA on ice loss
https://www.nasa....er-focus
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2018
why don't you have a look for yourself ?
greengnome
5 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2018
Because YOU do not know how climate science works, nor do you care, leetennant does know. Your cherry picked data as always and ever proves absolutely Nothing.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2018
Snoose said
why don't you have a look for yourself ?


Well - that's an interesting point right? How much do we 'look for ourselves,' and how much do we depend on the scientists who are studying the topic to look for us?. Did YOU look at the calculations that went in to setting up the gps on your phone - to make sure the scientists were not tricking you, and sending you to the wrong address? Did you take any ice cores, or sediment cores or tree ring measurements? How many climate satellites have you built and calibrated? I guess the point here is that we either trust the process of science, or we don't. If we don't - we are in a pickle. How do we know anything?

But since snoose asked - let's take a look -

https://www.epa.g...perature

Your turn snoose...
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2018
https://climatech...growing/

by the way how do you make impossible measures without creating a fiction ?
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018
Snoosebaum's link is hilarious. It proves that sea level isn't rising because sandy beaches may be growing - ignoring, of course, that mechanisms for sandy beach growth may be unrelated to (or even enhanced by) sea level rise. And it links to a paper that claims that it's impossible for sea level to rise because (I am not making this up) the radius of the earth at the equator is greater than the radius at the poles. So ice that melts at the poles can't move to the equator because gravity won't let the water go "uphill". There's a helluva lot of other silliness in the paper, but I thought that was funny.

Is that the best that Snoosebaum's anti-science movement can come up with? We really do need more competent "skeptics".
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2018
lol zzzzzz, what the article actually says ,

''According to Khan, "Geophysical shape of the earth is the fundamental component of the global sea level distribution. Global warming and ice-melt, although a reality, would not contribute to sea-level rise."''

probly bs

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2018
''probly bs'' , maybe not , off the goog.. .

''In combination, the equatorial bulge and the effects of the surface centrifugal force due to rotation mean that sea-level effective gravity increases from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the Equator.''
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018
''probly bs'' , maybe not , off the goog.. .

''In combination...''


from the same source, your quote continues
"The same two factors influence the direction of the effective gravity (as determined by a plumb line or as the perpendicular to the surface of water in a container). Anywhere on Earth away from the Equator or poles, effective gravity points not exactly toward the centre of the Earth, but rather perpendicular to the surface of the geoid, which, due to the flattened shape of the Earth, is somewhat toward the opposite pole. About half of the deflection is due to centrifugal force, and half because the extra mass around the Equator causes a change in the direction of the true gravitational force relative to what it would be on a spherical Earth."

"somewhat toward the opposite pole"

ie towards the equator
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018
''probly bs'' , maybe not , off the goog.. .

''In combination..."


Also all this extra water at the poles wouldn't just pile up forever, it would increase the pressure below it, which would force the water towards areas of lower pressure at the same depth.

ie towards the equator
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018
''probly bs'' , maybe not , off the goog.. .

''In combination...


The centrifugal force that causes the equatorial bulge also affects water, it forces it towards lower latitudes.

ie towards the equator
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2018
here is the article referred to above , nothing about gravity:

https://www.natur...-24630-6
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2018
here is the article referred to above , nothing about gravity:

https://www.natur...-24630-6


''probly bs'' , maybe not , off the goog.. .

''In combination, the equatorial bulge and the effects of the surface centrifugal force due to rotation mean that sea-level effective gravity increases from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the Equator.''


Why did you mention it then?

btw you linked to the wrong paper
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2018
Yes, an object will weigh more at the poles than at the equator. I don't think anybody would argue that point. But here's all you need to know about the claim that global warming can't cause sea level to rise because water won't go "uphill": there is lots of water in the oceans at the equator. If the "uphill" claim held any water (see what I did there? ;), then all the water would run towards the poles. That it doesn't means the author of the no-sea-level-rise-due-to-global-warming paper is something of an idiot. And it wasn't very difficult to figure that out - if you didn't you should be asking yourself how you missed it. There's a lot more idiocy in his paper (cherry picking one point on the earth to disprove global sea level rise is typical silliness for the anti-science movement). But the "uphill" argument was so egregiously silly that anyone should have seen it.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2018
Snoose said
why don't you have a look for yourself ?


Well - that's an interesting point right? How much do we 'look for ourselves,' and how much do we depend on the scientists who are studying the topic to look for us?. Did YOU look at the calculations that went in to setting up the gps on your phone - to make sure the scientists were not tricking you, and sending you to the wrong address? Did you take any ice cores, or sediment cores or tree ring measurements? How many climate satellites have you built and calibrated? I guess the point here is that we either trust the process of science, or we don't. If we don't - we are in a pickle. How do we know anything?

But since snoose asked - let's take a look -

https://www.epa.g...perature

Your turn snoose...


Slam dunk... yet again lol
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2018
here is the article referred to above , nothing about gravity:

https://www.natur...-24630-6


''probly bs'' , maybe not , off the goog.. .

''In combination, the equatorial bulge and the effects of the surface centrifugal force due to rotation mean that sea-level effective gravity increases from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the Equator.''


Why did you mention it then?

btw you linked to the wrong paper


Snoose, snoozed....again

"Did YOU look at the calculations that went in to setting up the gps on your phone - to make sure the scientists were not tricking you, and sending you to the wrong address?"

No gps signal in the jungle where he live's, cellphones probably looks like some kind of banana to him ?
snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
HAW HAW ! lol

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.