New research questions the rate of climate change

November 8, 2018 by Laura Varney, Heriot-Watt University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Climate change may be occurring even faster than first thought.

That is according to a ground-breaking new study by Dr. Clayton Magill from the Lyell Centre at Heriot-Watt University.

Scientists measured the vast migration of sea bed materials such as clay and sand, a process that occurs over thousands of years.

The research found that constant movement resulted in the erosion of trapped within the ocean floor and that these fossils release their harmful carbon dioxide, which is a strong greenhouse gas.

Researchers previously thought that the rate of erosion on these fossils was significantly slower – hence was slower.

Now the study, published in Nature sheds new light on the how fast climate change is actually happening.

Dr. Clayton Magill said: "There are some outstanding gaps in current knowledge about the imminent impacts of climate change on ocean environments and in this study we show that there are still large unknowns in the major sources of fossil carbon on earth.

"We don't know how much carbon is trapped in the ocean but now we've proven the process, it could pose catastrophic threat to earth's climate."

The study also raises questions about how best to deal with marine pollution across the globe.

Dr. Magill continues: "We found that many pollutants stick to and there are issues if polluted clays transport over time from one region to another.

"For example, polluted clays from China can be transported by time to Vietnam – and transport times might be decades or centuries.

"There's still a lot to discover about climate change and marine pollution over time, but this study highlights the fact that change could be happening a lot faster than academics once thought possible."

Explore further: Role of kelp forests in mitigating climate change under threat

More information: Clayton R. Magill et al. Transient hydrodynamic effects influence organic carbon signatures in marine sediments, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06973-w

Related Stories

Deglacial changes in western Atlantic Ocean circulation

July 27, 2018

A new study carried out by an international team of researchers, using the chemistry of ocean sediments has highlighted a widespread picture of Atlantic circulation changes associated with rapid climate change in the past.

Video: The carbon cycle

February 26, 2018

As part of the way Earth works as a system, carbon is continuously passed between the ocean, the land and the atmosphere. This involves a range of different processes, some of which can be observed by satellites.

Recommended for you

126 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Nightmare
1.4 / 5 (39) Nov 08, 2018
Or maybe the climate is changing more slowly than we thought, mistaking weather for climate. Search and research until the desired result is concluded, then crow crow crow.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (33) Nov 08, 2018
then crow crow crow.

Let's hold you to that.
Almost all new research concludes that the effects and speed of AGW have probably been underestimated.
It's becoming clearer all the time.
... crow, crow, crow.
HeloMenelo
4.1 / 5 (28) Nov 08, 2018
Antigoracle's sockpuppet douggie forgot to wake up from his nightmare that he is a hopeless scientist with yet another self inflicted delusional comment
theredpill
1.8 / 5 (29) Nov 08, 2018
" Search and research until the desired result is concluded,"

In the case of making the world believe a trace gas that comprises .00042% of the atmosphere dictates the temperature of the entire thing, it was more of a "look here, not there" dog and pony show based around statistical manipulation, data smoothing and of course...outright lies. Funny Ojorf, the math of relativity makes sense to you but on the issue of CO2 controlling atmospheric temperature, where the math blatantly doesn't add up...you are fine with it.

Definitely a neat bunch here.

Anonym518498
1.6 / 5 (26) Nov 08, 2018
the sky is falling the sky is falling call a wambulance
aksdad
1.5 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2018
this study highlights the fact that climate change could be happening a lot faster than academics once thought possible

For those who have difficulty with comprehension, "could" isn't the same thing as "is". In fact climate change could also be happening a lot slower.

There is no single scientific measure of the "rate of climate change". Any claim that it's "faster" is an opinion; almost always hyperbole otherwise it wouldn't make it in the news. Apocalyptic headlines get attention. "Life is pretty good, nothing to complain about" doesn't agitate people so it never ends up in the news.

There ARE scientific (well, statistical) measures of global average sea level rise and global average surface air temperature and neither of these show that they're happening faster. In fact, they both appear to be slowing down slightly.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

https://www.nsstc...climate/

When in doubt, ready the study carefully and look at the data.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (27) Nov 08, 2018
Meh, there's a lotta coulda woulda shoulda in there. But it does call the carbon cycle into question, once all this seafloor CO2 gets into the ocean; it means the ocean might not be able to absorb as much CO2 as we thought. That will modify AOGCMs in the future, once we actually figure out what's happening. I don't consider this nearly as bad news as the discovery of extra heat in the oceans from last week. Maybe we could just put all the deniers on mute and discuss the science.
Old_C_Code
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 08, 2018
Maybe we could just put all the deniers on mute and discuss the science.


The plant food CO2 is not a poison, and has only made Earth greener. Alarmists need to be muted.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (27) Nov 08, 2018
I had you off mute for a while, but back you go.

CO2 is not "plant food." And more CO2 doesn't make most plants grow better, especially if it's accompanied by drought.

You can kill grass by putting too much plant food on it. More is not always better, nor is more always more.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2018
@Old_C
The plant food CO2 is not a poison, and has only made Earth greener. Alarmists need to be muted.
that is like saying: "Iodine is not poison because it helps humans live and it's needed for life: people against Iodine consumption need to be muted"

need we address the fact that you still have yet to actually show *any* refuting papers for the 50+ studies I presented on this topic?

.

@redpill
Funny Ojorf, the math of relativity makes sense to you but on the issue of CO2 controlling atmospheric temperature, where the math blatantly doesn't add up
if any of the anti-AGW crowd could prove this in any way, it would have been refuted in the journals

making the claim that "the maths don't add up" while not presenting validated evidence as been presented to you is no different than the electric looneyverse crowd saying MS Scientists don't understand plasma physics...
Old_C_Code
1.8 / 5 (21) Nov 08, 2018
lol, Capt: comparing CO2 to iodine is insane, would be funny to see you EXHALE iodine every breath. We've been as high as 8000 ppm in Earth's history, we are currently at 425 ppm or so.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2018
@Old_C, you're inane as usual. Humans couldn't survive in the historical climates with those high CO2 ratios. Just making schit up. Sorry if you're all butthurt because the climate change problems are still being found out and just about every story is bad.

I propose we put you in a box with an 8000 PPM CO2 concentration and see how you do.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (21) Nov 08, 2018
@Doug_Nightmare
@theredpill
@aksdad
@Old_C_Code.

Update yourselves on the reality/facts before proceeding to further deny (from demonstrable ignorance/politics) the obvious; which even the most hardened (former) denialists in Australian farming community are now fast realizing to their rapidly accelerating horror/cost every day now (yes, for many 'the sky is falling'; ruining them and generations to come. I predicted the increasingly extreme/back-to-back GLOBAL CATASTROPHES in my posts to @antigoracle long ago; these are damaging environment/ecosystems that support the world populations beyond their recovery capabilities (not to mention the infrastructure/agriculture etc costs/recovery etc, which societies are increasingly unable to 'make up' in time before the next catastrophe hits). I also predicted to @antigoracle et al the outgassing from all sorts of previously 'dormant' clathrates etc which would exacerbate/accelerate warming/catastrophes even further. Good luck. :)

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2018
@Old_C, might wanna look this over before you volunteer:

Occupational CO2 exposure limits have been set in the United States at 0.5% (5000 ppm) for an eight-hour period. At this CO2 concentration, International Space Station crew experienced headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. Studies in animals at 0.5% CO2 have demonstrated kidney calcification and bone loss after eight weeks of exposure. A study of humans exposed in 2.5 hour sessions demonstrated significant effects on cognitive abilities at concentrations as low as 0.1% (1000ppm) CO2 likely due to CO2 induced increases in cerebral blood flow. Another study observed a decline in basic activity level and information usage at 1000 ppm, when compared to 500 ppm.


https://en.wikipe...Below_1%
Old_C_Code
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 08, 2018
Ugh... It won't ever get near 5000 ppm in modern history, and so much "science" around climate change is BS, you get funded by simply proving something is effected by climate change in a negative way. So you get endless articles like this. With endless "geniuses" telling everyone what to think, based on no real evidence, other than a bit of warming, which is good for Earth.

I'm truly amazed at you guys and your insistence that climate change is a problem.

We've had a half degree C warming in a century, and no evidence even a 2 degree C warming will be a problem for the next century. Miami is not under water, but it will be in a few centuries, naturally.

Alarmists are bumbed out that there aren't more hurricanes and tornadoes killing people. Fraudulent hearts.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2018
It'll get above 500 PPM, it's already above 400 PPM, and that's enough to cause cognitive deficiency.

Whadda ya want, a bunch of cognitively deficient people with nuclear weapons?

C'mon, man, think about this.

Meanwhile stop spouting your talking point about it having been 8000 PPM. The obvious response is, not while humans were here, not to mention thousands of animal species.
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2018
@Old_C_Code.
We've had a half degree C warming in a century, and no evidence even a 2 degree C warming will be a problem for the next century. Miami is not under water, but it will be in a few centuries, naturally.

Alarmists are bumbed out that there aren't more hurricanes and tornadoes killing people. Fraudulent hearts.
Mate, its more COMPLICATED than you seem to believe.

The catastrophes are now coming back-to-back! Hardly sufficient time to recover infrastructure and costs before the next catastrophe hits. That's the trend now, after only half degree C warming!

Also, I've long pointed out that its the ATMOSPHERE that determines LAG rate for heat loss to space. I even gave the Planet Mercury example; it has NO atmopspheric LAG to speak of; hence, despite receiving HUMONGOUS heat/energy input from the sun, its night-side temps plunge to CRYOGENIC levels!

And please be aware that plant stomata/other processes change with changing CO2 levels, etc!

Rethinkit. :)
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2018
PS @Old_C_Code.

And the main reason why hurricanes etc are not killing as many people as they might have, is because NOW we have better forecasting/emergency evacuation and post-even support/health assistance from national emergency funding; and so on. So any arguments based on lives lost MISSES THE POINT of the dangers we face increasingly now all over the globe; because the infrastructure/environment/societal COSTS are becoming UNSUSTAINABLE, and will all too soon ruin/deplete economies/resources of even the most advanced nations. Just recently the INSURANCE INDUSTRIES have been forced to review their actuarial tables to reflect that increasing cost/burden/complexity brought by obvious REALITY trending in weather/climate exacerbated disasters. Then there's global dislcations/wars! Many factors/effects to be considered; not just the simplistic/sloganistic ones you have been 'fed' by denialist propaganda 'spiels' for GOP/Fossil lobbies/troll factories. Rethinkit, mate! :)
snoosebaum
1.5 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2018
so somebody is tracking the uncovering of sea bottom fossils all over the world ? or in one area ? how big was that area ? how much of the total sea bottom is composed of carbonate ?

what a joke , modern times, say any bs you want, nobody knows.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2018
So, you're going to vote for money for this research to be done, right @snoose?

Right?

No ticket no laundry.
guptm
5 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2018
Climate is changing for sure. It's true that the rate of change may be faster than thought. Read Page 25 of Chapter 1 of just released Living Planet Report 2018.

Here: https://c402277.s...eads.pdf
frflyer
4.4 / 5 (26) Nov 08, 2018
The usual twisting of facts into lies and the usual denier mantras of disinformation from deniers here.

As for the tired

argument about CO2 being a trace gas.

For starters, All the greenhouse gases combined only make up 0.5% of the atmosphere. Yet without them, the global average temperature would be 30 C (54 F) colder, a snowball in space.

The companion talking point for deniers is that human emissions are a tiny fraction of the CO2 that naturally comes from natural sources, oceans etc.
The problem with this argument is that all those natural members of the fast carbon cycle give and take Carbon. When fossil fuels are burned, it is a one way street. This is an absurd argument, concerning the background overall global flux of Carbon in and out of the atmosphere.
If you add a few ppm per year it adds up.

frflyer
4.4 / 5 (27) Nov 08, 2018
And here is what is actually going on.

sources of carbon:
land 120 Gt
ocean 90 Gt
human 7 Gt

sinks for carbon:
land 122 Gt
ocean 92 Gt
human 0 Gt
net change: 3 Gt source - And it's all human!
-----------------

"although human emissions are only 5% (actually maybe 3%) of the flux in and out of the atmosphere every year, they account for more than 100% of the net. The other inputs and outputs would balance — as they have very closely for 10,000 years — but our "tiny" contribution has upset that balance. And since our excess has accumulated, we're responsible for all of the increase since pre-industrial times. Which amounts to about 40% more CO2 than was there in pre-industrial times."

Tamino at Open Mind blog
frflyer
4.2 / 5 (26) Nov 08, 2018
Then there is the common denier arguments about CO2 being thousands of ppm in the past, with no understanding of what that means or does not mean.

When CO2 was that high, the planet warmed - A Lot
Other times when CO2 was that high, many millions of years ago, like during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods, the Sun was Several percent Weaker. It would take 3,000ppm CO2 just to prevent glaciers and ice sheets from forming.
-------------
Someone here said that there hasn't been much warming now.
That is total BS. When the last glacial period began to end 20,000 years ago, it took 11,000 years to warm by about 5 C. That averages 2,200 years for each 1 C warming. We have warmed the planet by 1 C since 1900 and by 0.6 C since 1960

Why? because we have increased atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than nature did in the last 450,000 years - at its very fastest. And most certainly true for the past 800,000 years, as ice core data shows
frflyer
4.2 / 5 (26) Nov 08, 2018
Old_C_Code said:
"We've had a half degree C warming in a century, and no evidence even a 2 degree C warming will be a problem for the next century."

That is False/ There has been 1 C warming since 1900 and 0.6 C since 1960.
And if you think 2 C warming is no big deal, you don't know what you're talking about. There is only about 5 C difference between today and 20,000 years ago, when ice sheets were at maximum extent, just before they started melting. It took 11,000 years to warm back up to temps similar to today, peaking about 9,000 years ago.
----
"The plant food CO2 is not a poison"
False argument
There is no shortage of CO2 for plants. They did fine for the past 800,000 years, when CO2 was never over 300ppm. Now over 400ppm
An important principle in Agricultural science is Liebig's 'Law of the Minimum'. Essentially that a plant's growth is limited by whichever resource is most restricted.

frflyer
4.2 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2018
more on the plant food sound byte deniers love to echo

from Skeptical Science
"Repeated experimental data (ex. the FACE experiments) show that increased CO2 levels have adverse consequences on food quality. Photosynthetic activity does increase, but the protein and iron content of major crops such as wheat, rice, and barley drop by 5 to 15% under elevated CO2 conditions (viz., levels expected in year 2100).

The reason seems to be that increased CO2, despite increasing overall photosynthetic activity and thus plant size, robs certain plants (i.e. C3 plants) of their ability to process nitrogen, which is required to convert carbon to protein. Moreover, additional application of nitrogen to the plant (ex. through fertilizer) does not appear to ameliorate this."

frflyer
4.2 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2018
Guess what was a major player in ending every glacial period?
CARBON DIOXIDE
Glacial periods (ice ages) come and go when Milankovitch cycles trigger those changes in climate. (changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the angle of the Earth's axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane.

But those Milankovitch cycles are not strong enough to melt ice sheets and warm the world to interglacial conditions on their own. Feedbacks that kick in, after the initial warming, are what do much of the warming.
And CO2 is a major player as a feedback.
Now humans are putting CO2 Directly into the atmosphere - over 30 Billion tons a year. So CO2 is acting as a climate forcing, not a feedback.

It's been estimated that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are nearly 3 times as strong as radiative climate forcing, as those Milankovitch cycles.
According research by Shakun et al., - 7% of the warming happened before the CO2 increase and 93% after the CO2 increase.
Old_C_Code
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2018
That is False/ There has been 1 C warming since 1900 and 0.6 C since 1960.


BULLCHIT data!!! .... It's been .5 degrees C since 1900.

Again, I'm truly amazed at you guys and your insistence that climate change is a problem.

You make the cost of energy higher than ever. Oil companies love you guys.
philstacy9
1.4 / 5 (21) Nov 08, 2018
"The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by climate models contains more than 70 different sorts of problems."

http://joannenova...on-land/
https://www.breit...le-data/
howhot3
4.3 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2018
From the article, "Climate change may be occurring even faster than first thought." Duhhh, No kidding.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2018
Old C
lol, Capt: comparing CO2 to iodine is insane, would be funny to see you EXHALE iodine every breath
actually, it's the perfect analogy
Both CO2 and Iodine are required for life
Both are beneficial, but in too-low or too-high amounts they're deadly
Both are considered poisonous depending on the dose or exposure ("Capable of harming or killing")

the analogy works, regardless of your strawman argument of "exhale"

especially considering your argument that it's "plant food CO2" and the multiple studies and FACE experiments that proved that it can be just as damaging to plants
(those would be the 50+ studies you've continued to ignore and you haven't been able to refute)
in Earth's history
before you continue with this strawman, perhaps you should look up "rate of change" and see what it means

not even going to mention the whole "evolution" problem you're ignoring
(you know: in earth's history humans all lived underwater and had gills)
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (23) Nov 09, 2018
@Old_C, you're lying again.

https://www.clima...perature

Read 'em and weep. Maybe we'll call you a waaaaambulance.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (23) Nov 09, 2018
Old C
It's been .5 degrees C since 1900
http://www.woodfo...gl/trend

perhaps you would like to retract your statement?
Every scientific source out there proves you wrong on that one
Again, I'm truly amazed at you guys and your insistence that climate change is a problem
Again, I'm truly amazed at your capacity for ignoring empirical evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda or political views
frflyer
4.3 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2018
philstacy9

Jo Nova is an amat
frflyer
4.6 / 5 (22) Nov 09, 2018
philstacy9

Jo Nova is not qualified. She has a bachelor degree in an unrelated field and a graduate degree in science communication. She is a disinformer.
And Breitbart??? Are you kidding me?

You need much better sources.

HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2018
Old C
It's been .5 degrees C since 1900
http://www.woodfo...gl/trend

perhaps you would like to retract your statement?
Every scientific source out there proves you wrong on that one
Again, I'm truly amazed at you guys and your insistence that climate change is a problem
Again, I'm truly amazed at your capacity for ignoring empirical evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda or political views


Knockout and we're not even past round one, as usual old C Moron (aka antigoracle's sockpuppet) Not wasting one word to proclaim his love for being ang ignorant goon and showing his lack of understanding the reality we live in and science. Going to be fun weekend stupifying this fool.
Old_C_Code
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 09, 2018
Helo: you're an unaccomplished punk trying to tell the experienced they are morons. What have you accomplished in life? A degree or two? Dumbazz. Your fun weekend, proves you accomplish nothing.
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 09, 2018
Experienced.. ? You mean experienced in dung diggin ? You bet i can't compete there ;) You have proven us over the years everyday that you are below kindergarden grade in understanding climate change, just look at your comments and ratings above, everytime getting caught out on a lie or barking out something without able to provide anything whatsoever to prove your heresay, now that means you won't understand my or anyone's scientific qualifications and expertise, besides, conversing meaningfully with an ignorant bafoon is not my style, i'd rather highlight their stupidity as i do here everyday ;)
szore88
1.2 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2018
I lived through the Great Ice Age of the 1970's, climate change is real...
Old_C_Code
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2018
Experienced in logic, you turd. You're probably another comp sci major that can't program.
Old_C_Code
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2018
Prior, it wasn't supposed to snow by 2016. Now it's supposed to be a quicker change ... hmm ... so it will stop snowing by 2014 now? hehe
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2018
Experienced in logic, you turd. You're probably another comp sci major that can't program.


Your stupidity defies all logic, here... have another banana... ;)
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2018
Helo: are you are racist calling me a monkey?
frflyer
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2018
" it wasn't supposed to snow by 2016"

Another idiotic denier belief. Nobody said that. EVER. It is a deliberate misquote of something someone said. Deniers do this ALL THE TIME
frflyer
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2018
"szore88"

And another idiotic denier belief based on twisting the facts

The global cooling scare of the 70's is mostly a denier myth, though some popular magazine got the public's attention on what was a minor hypothesis, with only 7 published research papers.
During the same time frame there were 42 or 44 papers on AGW.

SIX TIMES AS MANY papers on AGW in the 1970s

There was never anything within a million miles of consensus on cooling.
Compare the 7 papers on cooling, with the 13,950 peer reviewed papers published between 1991-2012. Or compare it with the 10,000 papers used in the 2007 IPCC report.

Some scientists were researching what would happen if humans increased aerosols like sulfur oxides in the atmosphere Fourfold.
These aerosols are emitted when fossil fuels burn. They reflect sunlight back into space.

snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2018
''Another idiotic denier belief. Nobody said that. EVER.'''

https://wattsupwi...nternet/
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2018
@snoose
''Another idiotic denier belief. Nobody said that. EVER.'''

https://wattsupwi...nternet/
1- wuwt isn't science. it is a blog, AKA opinion, and it's not scientifically validated information

2- from the website
Editor:

Anthony Watts
3- watts is a college dropout and has no academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines, so using his blog as validation for your claim when the blog itself states that the website referring to [x] has deleted the page, but miraculously, he has a PDF of it, but you can't verify it's existence without referring back to watts or people who have watts PDF...

nonsensical and incapable of being validated

Epic fail is epic
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2018
stupers; in this case he was just documenting the MSM which i don't think has to be ''scientifically validated ''
Spiked Punch
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2018
Helo: you're an unaccomplished punk trying to tell the experienced they are morons. What have you accomplished in life? A degree or two? Dumbazz. Your fun weekend, proves you accomplish nothing.


Jesus as if the cluster of climate change isn't enough, we have to deal with the Willful Ignorance of folks like you! Personally I prefer to listen TO THE EXPERTS and not some clueless CUCK. You related to TRUMP? lol
snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2018
Phyllis Harmonic
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2018
The plant food CO2 is not a poison


Put an air-tight bag over your head, seal it around your neck and start breathing. That panic you feel is caused by an increase in CO2 by only a tiny amount, and not the lack of oxygen. Why do you suppose that is?
SteveS
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2018
Helo: are you are racist calling me a monkey?

No, he's being speciesist, as he's denigrating monkeys by comparing them to you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2018
@snoozer
stupers; in this case he was just documenting the MSM which i don't think has to be ''scientifically validated ''
it doesn't matter if he is documenting menstruation rate of discharge in adult chow-bulldog mix canids - if ya can't validate the claims then you are essentially believing that [x] is true because watts said it, which is far from scientific

in point of fact, most of his arguments stem from his personal ignorance of the topic which should be viewed with scepticism given the fact that he can take college courses on the topic free

then add into it the dearth of publications in any reputable journal and you can see why using him as a source for anything is reckless, not scientific in any way

that isn't scepticism
that is literally religion in a nutshell (emphasis on "nut", IMHO)

so the point stands: the source material is not reputable and the evaluation by watts is pseudoscience
sassifras69
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2018
Science is full of blind spots. I bet that none of you even realize what our current climatic cycle is actually called. Do any of you know what our current climate is? "The Quaternary Glaciation." I am hoping that some of you already knew this because it is so "Freakin" easy to find this information.
Question two...What is the name of our current position in the quaternary glaciation? We are currently in what is called an "Inter-glaciation" Now everyone look up what inter-glaciation means.
So now that you've done that you realize that I am being honest and everything i've said is common knowledge. What is making this easy to understand information so hard to notice? And for all of you who are angry at me, why? I haven't defended human pollution. I'm just trying to get a whole movement to notice something that they are overlooking.

You are a fool if you talk about Earth's climate and refuse to discuss what our current climate is.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2018
stuper , well that was a lot of typing for nothing , he merely recorded an article [ that was later hidden by your gang ] that made false predictions .
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2018
" it wasn't supposed to snow by 2016"

Another idiotic denier belief. Nobody said that. EVER. It is a deliberate misquote of something someone said. Deniers do this ALL THE TIME


It's what Gore said in his movie dopey.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2018
Put an air-tight bag over your head, seal it around your neck and start breathing. That panic you feel is caused by an increase in CO2 by only a tiny amount, and not the lack of oxygen. Why do you suppose that is?


LOLOL,That's absurd, you guys are such paranoid goofballs.
frflyer
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
snoosebaum

WUWT is the very worst climate website there is. I call it WTFUWW

Anthony Watts and his lost followers believe the most absurd nonsense about climate science, and are largely conspiracy theory nuts. WUWT is so bad, that there is a website that constantly debunks the pseudo science presented there. It is a joke. Many other real climate science blogs have also debunked Anthony, his contributors and the absurd comment section, over the years.

HotWhopper

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
@Old_C, noticed you didn't have any response to being caught lying about the temperature record.

Nor about what higher CO2 does to you.

Typical denier. Run away, little denier. Your betters will do something about it while you're still whining.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
Science is full of blind spots. I bet that none of you even realize what our current climatic cycle is actually called.
It's actually the Meghalayan age of the Holocene epoch. It started about 1,500 CE, about 420 years ago. The Holocene epoch started 11,700 years BP at the end of the last glaciation. There have been no glaciers since then and their return is not expected for 30,000-50-000 years. Technically the Meghalayan age ended in 1950; the current age has not yet been named but geologists are thinking of calling it the "Anthropocene." Bet you can't guess why.

If you're going to argue about this, you should know that we are currently in an interglacial; these are predictable by the Milankovic cycles which happen due to variations in Earth's orbit that are well predictable by orbital mechanics. That's how we know when the next glaciation is coming.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2018
@Old_C, noticed you didn't have any response to being caught lying about the temperature record.


I never lied about the temperature record. .5 a degree C per century increase, it's not a lie, your BS altered data is the lie. Made headlines around the world they were fudging data, by removing lower temp data. Showing any links about climate change are meaningless, since it's a totally political subject now, with fools like yourself sucking mainstream cock to no end.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
I should also state that the Holocene epoch is the second of two epochs in the Quaternary period; this period began 2.58 million years BP with the onset of the Pleistocene epoch, which was the start of the current glaciation, which will resume as I said above in 30-50 thousand years after the Holocene interglacial. Humans as we would define them have only existed during the late Pleistocene and the Holocene. If you were to meet a pre-human, except for a Neanderthal, you would see them as smart chimpanzees. You could have a drink in a bar with a Neanderthal and you wouldn't notice anything unusual.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2018
@Old_C, I showed a temperature record from the NOAA that says you lied.

Are you saying the NOAA is lying?

Got any more conspiracy theories? Maybe the satellites have supersekrit IR absorbers so they get the wrong temperature. Or maybe they don't know and AGW is actually an FBI cunspirasy. I guess that one comes right after Pizzagate in which you found Hillary was running a child sex ring from the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2018
Getting seriously tired of nutjob right wing cunspirasy theories. The science is out there; you might not like it but the EU nutjobs don't like pictures of black holes either. Get over it.
frflyer
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
Old_C_Code
"It's what Gore said in his movie dopey."

No it isn't. LIke I said, deliberately MisQuoted.

For starters, in his movie, Gore talked about the possible shutting down of the Gulf Stream, because of all the melting fresh water in the Arctic, and how it could cause colder weather in the Northern Europe. So more snow?
The meridional overturning circulation or AMOC, is the larger system of currents that the Gulf Stream is part of. It has been slowing down.

And I think you have your imagined villains mixed up, and that is was not Al Gore who was misquoted. It was about the effects on England's snow. Nonetheless, deniers tell a false version of what was said.

frflyer
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
And by the way, Al Gore does not represent the science. He is not a scientist. His interest comes from having a famous climate scientist as professor in college in the 1960s. The professor was researching AGW, what was then a hypothesis.
Now it is a Theory, just like Gravity, + Heliocentric model of the solar system are scientific theories.
frflyer
4 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2018
Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

https://skeptical...rors.htm
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2018
''Anthony Watts and his lost followers believe the most absurd nonsense ''

do you mean like the article above ? and the lost followers below ?
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
WUWT is so bad, that there is a website that constantly debunks the pseudo science presented there.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
...
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

So much for the denier cult site WUWT.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2018
snoozer
well that was a lot of typing for nothing
well, you can always stop
he merely recorded an article [ that was later hidden by your gang ] that made false predictions .
1- conspiracist ideation sans evidence

2- I [still] don't have a gang

3- you still can't prove any gang hid the supposed document

4- the supposed document can't be proven to exist without accepting a singular source (watts)

5- if a document has only a single source, and said source proclaims secondary sources that can't be validated, and all other sources utilise the only source [watts] then you have an unverifiable claim

this is no different than the idiot reg mundy claiming "no gravity" but referring everyone to his book as the only source and then claiming Science Mag published it, but deleted it, and reg proves that in his book with a JPG

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Old C
.5 a degree C per century increase, it's not a lie, your BS altered data is the lie
except that the graph I put up is the unajusted data and still refutes your claims
Showing any links about climate change are meaningless, since it's a totally political subject now
except that I've provided no less than 50 studies to you that directly refute this claim

it wasn't politics
it was science
Global science
Science from places that dislike the US and don't eat bacon Science

validated science

Old_C_Code
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Are you saying the NOAA is lying?


If NOAA says over a half degree C per century... YES.

50 studies...LOL. What political horse manure.
Old_C_Code
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Fewer and fewer people think climate change is an important issue, now down to 53% in a recent poll found climate change the most important issue. Healthcare topped the list at 80%.

The alarmist story isn't working anymore. Global science? lol, now that sounds political.

Old_C_Code
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Captn: you're a sensible guy, but it's easy to see how you try to rationalize everything as confirmed science fact, but it's just not man.

You'll never hear "97% of mathematicians agree; calculus works", because 100% agree. If only 97% (though a bogus value) says so, there's a problem.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2018
Old C
Captn: you're a sensible guy, but it's easy to see how you try to rationalize everything as confirmed science fact, but it's just not man
a singular study is a point of interest. You might say that it can be determined to be wrong, or not a fact

However, a study that is validated moves from being a point of interest to a fact

validation is the backbone of science
it's how we went from horseback riding to the SR-17 in 50 yrs

.

the problem isn't my perspective but rather your insistence that there is some grand conspiracy to produce false science that is global in nature (as it would have to be)

if your arguments were factual you would be able to present scientific rebuttal instead of just making claims and linking blogs (or falsely equating two disparate items in the hopes no one will notice)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2018
@old C
Fewer and fewer people think climate change is an important issue
evidence doesn't have a thing to do with belief
The alarmist story
I'm still not talking about alarmism
I'm talking about the science and evidence and your refusal to accept it over a blog claim
Global science? lol, now that sounds political
I see you missed the point...
You'll never hear "97% of mathematicians agree; calculus works"...
false equivalence
50 studies...LOL. What political horse manure
no
it's evidence

evidence that you continue to ignore because a blog told you to

that is the exact same thing as accepting the claims of a homoeopathic practitioner over your surgeon because you read on a blog that homoeopathy is better at treating broken femurs than orthopaedic surgeons

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2018
@Old_C_Code.
Fewer and fewer people think climate change is an important issue, now down to 53% in a recent poll found climate change the most important issue. Healthcare topped the list at 80%.
If you knew anything about psychology as applied to Survey Questionnaire design, purpose, statistics and interpretation, mate, then you'd know better than to just simplistically treat the two as 'mutually exclusive' like that. WE as an intelligent species can WALK AND CHEW GUM SIMULTANEOUSLY without falling over! :)

You should recognize that those results say that BOTH are CONNECTED, and BOTH are ABSOLUTELY important per se; differing only RELATIVELY, and ONLY within the comparison of IMMEDIACY of ACTION 'priorities' in the CONTEXT of ELECTION voting according to immediate-to-longer-term-urgency factor/achievability.

Don't keep falling for political/mercenary misinformation by GOP/RUSSIAN lobby/troll-factory.

Ask OZ farmers if predict catastrophes NOW were "alarmist". :)
sassifras69
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
If you're going to argue about this, you should know that we are currently in an interglacial;

Ok so I said inter-glaciation and you corrected me by saying it's called the interglacial? Really? I thank you for giving us the specific part of the Quaternary glaciation we are in. I didn't think it wise to be specific about those facts because I'm just attempting to make people realize that we are in an ice age and like you said, the glaciers will have another major advance again in roughly 50,000 years. But in between those major advances the earth still has mini ice ages like the one form 700 years ago.

Is the word "Ice Age" now considered a bad word. It apparently must be because I have not seen a single climate scientists say "Ice Age" when talking about our current climate. No matter how you try to defend them you can't excuse a person dedicated to climate who refuses to say what our current climate cycle is. Quaternary is an ice age and we are in the Quaternary.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2018
@Old C
Captn: you're a sensible guy, but it's easy to see how you try to rationalize...
there's a problem
chewed on this for a while - and here is the thing:
I don't like gov't intrusion and I prefer freedom and capitalism, but I also understand the need for gov't and the rule of law

if you're right, there is a global conspiracy

so, what does the evidence say?
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

we can find verifiable and validated evidence of a conspiracy, but it's to detract from the science and push an anti-AGW belief

still, no evidence proving that AGW is fake unless you accept someone's word (watts, et al) - but that is religion, not science

Taking that into consideration, and having experience with the gov't, I still find it *much harder to believe* in the global conspiracy that absolutely must exist for AGW to be "false" per your insistence

.

That isn't rational in any way
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2018
We're not "in an ice age." We're in an interglacial.

And now you're making an outrageous claim; there was no coordinated "Little Ice Age." There were minor glacial advances various places during the 13th, 16th, and 19th centuries. None of these rose to the level of a worldwide major glacial advance.

The Quaternary is not an "age." It's a period, which is longer than an age. Used colloquially, "The Ice Age" means the Pleistocene, the age prior to the current Holocene. This ended (along with the Pleistocene) 11,700 years ago. The correct term is "Pleistocene Glaciation." The current age, the Holocene, from a global climatic standpoint, is the "Holocene Interglacial."

Civilization is barely 5,000 years old. Does that give you some idea how long 50,000 years is? Apparently not.

You're not prepared to argue on factual grounds, so I won't bother with you any more. Bye now.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2018
Quaternary is an ice age and we are in the Quaternary.


Errr, no.Just no. As stated, we are in an interglacial. We warmed up after that, not counting the Loch Lomond stadial. We should be slowly cooling toward the next ice age. We aren't. We were. Not any more, though. Check out the mid-holocene warm period. Stuff is out of kilter. The fact that pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm, and is now > 400 ppm should explain why that is.
sassifras69
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
An "Ice age" is the whole cycle of glacial increases and melts. If the glaciers will again advance in 50,000 years then 100% we are STILL in an ice age. How can you not understand this. Our period of glacier formation and melts has been occurring for 2.5 million years. We are in the melting process with another glacier being predicted in 50k years. The term "ICE AGE" is the whole cycle, so how in the hell can you not understand that we are still in an ice age???

The Karoo Ice age from 360 million years ago lasted until 260 million years ago. That "Whole" period is called an ice age. During those 100 million years the glaciers formed and melted constantly.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
An "Ice age" is the whole cycle of glacial increases and melts. If the glaciers will again advance in 50,000 years then 100% we are STILL in an ice age. How can you not understand this. Our period of glacier formation and melts has been occurring for 2.5 million years. We are in the melting process with another glacier being predicted in 50k years. The term "ICE AGE" is the whole cycle, so how in the hell can you not understand that we are still in an ice age???

The Karoo Ice age from 360 million years ago lasted until 260 million years ago. That "Whole" period is called an ice age. During those 100 million years the glaciers formed and melted constantly.


Wrong. An ice age is a specific period. What we are now in is an interstadial.
sassifras69
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Dudes, sorry but interglacial literally means between glaciers. Our research shows us that during our recent ice age the glaciers have advanced and receded dozens of times, each time there was a time period between glaciers it is called an interglacial. Which is why the sea level was higher 170,000 years ago than our current. That was also during an interglacial.

The karoo ice age from 360 mya to 260 mya is the whole time period. The Quaternary ice age started 2.5 million years ago and as long as the glaciers will have another advance we are still in an ice age. This is why science is flawed because anyone with any intelligence can understand that if we are going to have another predicted glacial advance it is no different than being between glaciers in past glacial cycles. And in past glacial cycles you were in an ice age the whole time the glaciers were forming and retreating.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Repeating the same wrong thing over and over doesn't make it right.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Wrong. An ice age is a specific period. What we are now in is an interstadial.
Actually that's incorrect. An interstadial is a short gap in a glaciation; an interglacial is a long gap, one that's a significant fraction of the length of the prior or future glaciation. There is a significant probability that the human race (i.e. Homo Sapiens Sapiens) will be extinct by the onset of the next glaciation.

The problem with this misidentification is that it allows the troll to blur the distinction between interstadials and interglacials.
sassifras69
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Ok smart guys answer this. Is an ice age only the period when glaciers are at their full advanced stage or is it the whole cycle of repeated advances and melts?

You know the answer and i am sorry you can't accept this fact.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2018
Wrong. An ice age is a specific period. What we are now in is an interstadial.
Actually that's incorrect. An interstadial is a short gap in a glaciation; an interglacial is a long gap, one that's a significant fraction of the length of the prior or future glaciation. There is a significant probability that the human race (i.e. Homo Sapiens Sapiens) will be extinct by the onset of the next glaciation.


True. Sh!t checking by me. INTERGLACIAL was the word I was looking for. However, I stand by my point. Whatever it was.
Why is beer colder in NZ and AUS, than in UK, when NZ and AUS are warmer than the UK? Hmmm? That has got you mainstream lemmings scrabbling around, hasn't it?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
I am familiar with the five glacial periods in the history of Earth. Are you, @69?

If so name them.

I am also familiar with their origin in the Milankovic cycles. Can you state the exact circumstances of those cycles?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
The mark of an honest person is that they admit mistakes. @Jones scores; @69 fails and flails. "It was the referees! Tehey was teh biased againstum usses!" A troll is a troll is a troll. You can always make a troll fail and flail; just present evidence and watch them try to evade it. Look for this one to show up on physics threads with some weird EUdiot-esque "theory" based on YEC and Velikovsky.
sassifras69
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Of course i am, and how can anyone who has studied those cycles not be able to understand what cycle of climate we are currently having. I can't understand the lack of vision that you guys are having. Just imagine if you were alive 290 million years ago, the glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years. How in gods name are you not still in the Karoo ice age? And how is this so hard to comprehend? Furthermore, how can someone who knows glaciers are still predicted to reform at a regular interval of time which is how we know when the next one will for, not realize that is exactly what it means to be in an ice age??
Do you understand why I'm just shocked at how this apple to apple comparison is beyond some people. You can't convince me that at this exact time the apple which we always used to describe the whole cycle called an ice age is somehow exempt from being an apple.
sassifras69
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Here is a better question. Once the glaciers form again 50,000 years from now, are we now in a new ice age?
I should have asked this long ago and I apologize.
If we are in a new ice age when the glaciers form again then i am wrong, but if it is still called the quaternary then you are wrong.
sassifras69
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Guess what you two knuckleheads? I typed in this into a search (I already knew this answer but I wanted to shut these knuckleheads up) "Are we currently in an ice age? here is the answer.

By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the current ice age. The current ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, and the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.

Did you see the answer? It plainly said "we are in the interglacial period "OF" the current ice age." I doubt they can or will ever be able to accept this but there you are. Plain and simple.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
You don't know what the cycles are. And you won't look. For the record, they're Milankovic cycles and they're predictable using current math and gravity physics. They're oscillations in the orbital parameters of Earth.

This is basic stuff you'd have already found out if you'd ever actually researched what you're trolling about.

If you honestly want to find out what's going on we have the links but if you just keep shouting the same thing you can go whistle up your pants for it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Here is a better question. Once the glaciers form again 50,000 years from now, are we now in a new ice age?
The question is "will we then be in an ice age," and it's only so if you define "ice age" as a glaciation.

I should have asked this long ago and I apologize.
This got you points. You are now off ignore. I will answer all honest questions. But keep in mind that I won't judge anything from you honest if this turns out to be another troll trick or trap.

If we are in a new ice age when the glaciers form again then i am wrong, but if it is still called the quaternary then you are wrong.
It will be a new "ice age," because it will be a new glaciation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
One thing you'll need to do is abandon colloquialisms. "Ice age" is essentially meaningless. The correct term is "glaciation." An age is a sub-section of a period; we are in the Quarternary period, and the first part of it was the Pleistocene age. The Pleistocene was an age; the Holocene is an age. It's not divided up by number of years, but by geological stratigraphy, where major changes worldwide in the geological strata define the ages, periods, epochs, and eons.

There is no "current glaciation." We are in an interglacial. There was a prior glaciation, and according to the Milankovic cycles there will be a future glaciation, starting quite possibly after the extinction of our race. 50,000 years is a long, long time.
sassifras69
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Once agin...type into a search if we are in a curent ice age.

Answer....

By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the current ice age. The current ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, and the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.

It plainly says current ice age. it's an ice AGE. Stress on the word AGE. Ice age means the whole age of time when the glaciers are cycling their formations. I'm sure your anger will go away but right now it is affecting your ability to comprehend why we use the word AGEs to describe long term events.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
We are in the Holocene age. It's an interglacial.

You're repeating yourself over and over again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
it is affecting your ability to comprehend
Classic trolling.

We're done here. I even gave you an extra chance against my better judgement.
sassifras69
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Don't you dare ignore the answer that google gave me. Acknowledge it man. It plainly said we are in a current ice age.

I dare you to type in the question and post the answer.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Doesn't matter what you say anymore; it's obvious you're trolling. Didn't even read that and won't bother with anything further you might have to say, other than to point out you're still flailing and failing at trolling.
sassifras69
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Ok wait up. It is apparently a subject that is being disputed. Some climate scientists are willing to call it an ice age but others are trying to better define an ice age and call the periods between ice formations as not being part of the ice age.

So terminology is the issue her. You are right that it may not be called an ice age. But many scientists still hold onto the original terminology that describes the whole period as an ice age.

I am wrong by some theories and right by others. regardless we are still in an ice age by the old way of naming ages. But by not calling this an ice age it still doesn't change the fact that the glaciers will form again. And this seems really backward to pretend that were somehow removed from the cycle of glaciation by renaming the age. I doubt this terminology change has nothing to do with politics.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 10, 2018
Just in case any lurkerz doubt: https://en.wikipe...geology)
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
Nice to see "ice age" even mentioned in a climate article's comments. The Sun is never mentioned either.
sassifras69
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2018
Doesn't it bother you at all that in other ice ages we've never excluded a point between glaciers as a distinct event that was separate and thus not part of that ice age? Why now and never at any other time? Are we so close minded to think that we are different than every other period between glaciers? You truly believe that at this exact time we exist, sandwiched between glacial events it is different than every other point in time that was sandwiched between glacial events?

In all my years as a lab technician I have loved facts. You all should be bothered that there is a movement that want's to ignore the facts that up until right now, the presence of glaciers literally meant ice age. We have glaciers but it's not an ice age? I know these guys won't acknowledge what is disturbing about this trend of rewriting science to fit our current message. Am I dumb for wondering why we have always said glaciers meant ice age but now it's ok to ignore them? No, I'm not the blind one.
frflyer
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
Old_C_Code
"The Sun is never mentioned either."

That is not true. Anyway, the Sun's influence on climate has been rigorously studied.
It isn't the Sun.

The sun has been quiet since about 1960, and if anything has been declining in output since then. Yet 2/3 of the warming since 1880 happened since 1960.
There was a 100 year solar minimum in 2010.

If it were the sun, average global temperatures would be increasing more in daytime, in summer and in the tropics;
instead of at night, in winter, and at the poles. which is what is happening and what has been observed. And the stratosphere would also be warming

And those things observed are fingerprints of greenhouse gas warming.
----------------------
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2018
@sassi-69
In all my years as a lab technician I have loved facts
then let me help you understand something regarding Google:
just because there is *an* answer doesn't mean it is correct

This is why, in a STEM field, they require evidence for substantiation of claims
Some basics for you: http://www.auburn...ion.html

also note: some terminology in a particular field can be different than it's colloquial use
this is often demonstrated with people who are scientifically illiterate making claims about something being "only a theory", not comprehending what a scientific theory is

Another point: correlation doesn't equal causation
Just because *you* see a trend in something doesn't mean there is evidence demonstrating that [x] = what you think it does

Lastly: skip google and stick to google scholar, that way you can link your references easily
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2018
the Sun's influence on climate has been rigorously studied. It isn't the Sun.


You are either: insane, crooked, or stupid to actually believe this.

frflyer
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
from Jeff Masters Weather Underground blog

"Newly precise measurements confirm that the total solar energy reaching Earth actually doesn't change all that much from cycle to cycle. As a single cycle ramps up from minimum to maximum, the sun spits out as much as 10 times more energy in extreme ultraviolet wavelengths. However, the sun's total energy output (irradiance) goes up by a mere 0.1% during a solar cycle, and this boosts global surface temperature by no more than 0.1°C per cycle, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

https://www.wunde...num=3540
frflyer
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2018
Old_C_Code
No just informed by science. It is deniers who believe hundreds of lies, misconceptions, simple facts twisted into lies, like the one about CO2 as a trace gas.
Deniers believe lies about what NASA says. This happens frequently. Faked graphs or incompetently done graphs that are completely misleading. Steve Goddard is well known for doing this. Cherry picking short time frames to mislead perception of what the Trend is. Deniers will use this to claim warming has stopped. It's like saying the stock market is going down because it was down at 1 pm today.
And those who swallow this load of bs believe it with no skepticism , in case you were wondering why we call you deniers.
-------------

frflyer
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
sassifras69
"Some climate scientists are willing to call it an ice age but others are trying to better define an ice age and call the periods between ice formations as not being part of the ice age."

In popular parlance, what is called an "ice age" is what climate scientists call a glacial period, which alternate with shorter interglacial periods.
The confusion is in the public's mind, not climate scientists.
So yes, there is still an ice age and we are in an interglacial.

The word Theory is an example of the same thing. To the public, a theory is something between a hunch or wild guess and an actual hypothesis.
A hypothesis is not a Theory in science. In science, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a theory in the same way gravity and the heliocentric model of the solar system are theories. Settled science doesn't mean 100% complete. The theory of gravity isn't complete either.
I wouldn't jump off a tall building to test it if I were you.

---
frflyer
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
"As far as scientists can tell, the world has never experienced a rise in carbon dioxide like that of recent decades, which has happened 100 times faster than when the world was emerging from the last ice age.

The last time carbon dioxide levels reached 400 ppm was 3-5 million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene era.
"During that period, global mean surface temperatures were 2–3°C warmer than today, ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica melted and even parts of East Antarctica's ice retreated, causing the sea level to rise 10–20 m higher than that today," the WMO bulletin said."

https://www.scien...in-2016/
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2018
You can always tell the cranks; they don't want to use correct scientific terminology, but instead argue about colloquial terms as if that proves something.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2018
As for the Karoo "Ice age," it was actually two separate glaciations on two different continents. One during the Mississippian, and one during the Pennsylvanian.

The most interesting thing about these two glaciations is that they may have occurred as a result of the evolution and radiation of land-based plants. These plants sucked all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and replaced it with O2; concentrations went to 35% (today's is 21%) and CO2 went to under 300 PPM. This caused two glaciations; if you will, two "ice ages." The last one ended when the climate had turned sufficiently dry that the plants died out and the reptiles took over in the newly dry conditions and started making CO2, raising the level above 300 PPM and ending the Pennsylvanian glaciation, combined with the continents separating again and allowing circulation from the poles to the equator.
frflyer
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2018
Old_C_Code

"your BS altered data is the lie"
Ah, the usual denier tripe about "manipulation of data"

What they did do is make absolutely necessary adjustments to the raw data, which otherwise is useless. These adjustments are made to Reduce Bias, not to add bias.

If a temp measuring station is in the shade of a tree or building for decades, and that changes, an adjustment has to be made. Same thing if the reverse happens.

If the time of day when a station records temperature changes, adjustment has to be made. Say it was at dawn and gets changed to late afternoon at the hottest time of day. If no adjustment is made, a bias is introduced in the data set.

NOAA had to make changes to their data sets to integrate different types of measuring stations into their temperature data set for sea surface temperatures. Buoys, satellites, ships - have to be homogenized to make sense of them as a comprehensive data set
frflyer
4.4 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2018
"Adjusting U.S. Temperature Data"

"All the adjustment procedures are well documented, programs, raw and
adjusted data are publicly available, but deniers continue to imply either total incompetence or, far too often, outright fraud In truth, adjustments exist to make the data better.

To know that, Hausfather et al. (2016) compared station records before and after homogenization to a more reliable network of stations which don't need adjustment.

The results were extremely encouraging, showing that the adjustment
procedure for USHCN brought it much more closely into alignment with
USCRN. This is strong evidence that the adjustments are doing exactly
what they were intended to do: remove the influences that don't really tell
us about temperature change"

https://tamino.wo...re-data/
gkam
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2018
There is good news, too. The latest bids for 24-hour power were $21/MWh for wind plus battery storage and $32/MWh for PV plus storage. That is 2.1 cents/kWh and 3.2 cents/kWh respectively, which makes it cheaper than any other source.

PG&E is replacing several gas powerplants with battery storage. It is not only feasible, it is now economically desirable.

Our three year-old PV system on our house has paid off already with the addition of the two electric cars, and now house power and horsepower are free. That means alternative energy is financially beneficial to us, and the only roadblocks are the time it takes for the transition.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2018
"Adjusting U.S. Temperature Data"


Regardless of the increase, .5 deg C or 1 deg C, the past century, it's not an emergency. No evidence of dire problems anywhere due to the mildly rising temperature. But the alarmists have managed to increase the cost of energy for all. Again, oil companies love these higher prices.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2018
@old C
Regardless of the increase, .5 deg C or 1 deg C, the past century, it's not an emergency
that's a global average
your argument of "not an emergency" is based upon your ignorance of maths and physics
but, there is a cure! Start here: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

No evidence of dire problems anywhere due to the mildly rising temperature
Pierce, Barnett et al 2006, Francis,Vavrus (both), WIlliams et al, 2015, Lou, Wan et al 2001, Rosenzweig et al 2008, and "About 268,000 results (0.09 sec)" from Google Scholar alone

if you're getting your argument from watts or the political sites, you're intentionally ignoring fact to protect your beliefs

that is the very definition of delusion: https://en.wikipe...Delusion

Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2018
your argument of "not an emergency" is based upon your ignorance of maths and physics [


Oh Fck you dumbazz, I've had plenty of calculus and physics.

Stupid dope, I thought you had sense, but you are a jackazz.

How could doing differential equations make climate change an issue?

Fool.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2018
the final word , ''no''

https://www.youtu...vehbomrY
Old_C_Code
not rated yet Nov 11, 2018
snoose: Jordan Peterson is alt-right to these dopes. Ugh...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2018
@Old C
... I've had plenty of...
then why are you incapable of proving your argument?
... I thought you had sense...
I'm trying to get you to see that the evidence points in a particular direction
How could doing differential equations make climate change an issue?
you would be able to point to a study and dissect the maths, understanding what, exactly, is going on

moreover, you would be better equipped to comprehend the science

.

What you're demonstrating, regardless of your statements about literacy or competency in any subject, is that you're willing to ignore facts for your beliefs

lastly, your primary arguments are political and directly related to your fear and conspiracist ideation

Not one shred of evidence supporting your beliefs other than claims
plenty of validated evidence refuting your beliefs

call me what you will - the above demonstrates delusion, religious fanaticism or ignorance
take your pick
frflyer
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2018
Peterson is wrong in so many ways. Starting with his anit

Democrats and American liberals are not communist, or even socialists. Marxist? No. What is so hard to understand about the fact that every successful economy in the world, in a democratic country, is a mixed economy - capitalism with social programs. No planned economy, no government ownership of the means of production.
And if anything is to be feared today, it is more right wing extremism, like the Trump nightmare. Like the new fascist leaders of Brazil, and other countries slipping into strong man autocratic government.
The danger from Russia isn't communism anymore. It is oligarchy, strong man fascism. Trump's heroes
frflyer
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2018
Anyone who thinks environmentalism is extremist must live on a different planet.
It will be the issue of the century. And not just because of climate change.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Nov 12, 2018
Trump nightmare ? or postmodern neomarxist nightmare ? Maybe if our consensus biulding highly educated and unknown to us actual rulers would stop making egotistical blunders we wouldn't need Trump

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.