|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 16, 2019 11:15:52 GMT -5
Methinks the lot of you are wanking your knobs over what the "scientists" have to say a wee bit too much ("97% Consensus" was proven to be a scam)
Actually it's 99% of all climate science studies these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hlidskjalf on Mar 17, 2019 0:16:38 GMT -5
Climate change is real and fully supported by science. Denying climate change is stupid. Humans are causing an increase of CO2 due to the CO2 we are emitting for energy production, and temperature has a very strong correlation with CO2.  Source: climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensusIf you look at the last 500 000 years you get the bigger picture and can figure out where we are heading. We are in a period with long ice ages that last for 100 000 years. The warm periods don't last very long and the next ice age can arrive any day. As you can see the warm period we are in is significantly cooler than the last warm periods.
Here are the last 65 million years. We are in a much colder period than ever before.
Maybe the last ice age was the last one for now? Don't think so when you look at the other glacial periods the last 500 million years below. The last time it was as cold as it is now is 350 million years ago. 100 million years before the dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Mar 17, 2019 6:05:32 GMT -5
If you look at the last 500 000 years you get the bigger picture and can figure out where we are heading. We are in a period with long ice ages that last for 100 000 years. The warm periods don't last very long and the next ice age can arrive any day. As you can see the warm period we are in is significantly cooler than the last warm periods. Here are the last 65 million years. We are in a much colder period than ever before. Maybe the last ice age was the last one for now? Don't think so when you look at the other glacial periods the last 500 million years below. The last time it was as cold as it is now is 350 million years ago. 100 million years before the dinosaurs. Mayor ice age are believed to be started by variations in the Earth orbit, by variations of the axial tilt, [1] by the motion of tectonic plates etc... which are all modifications which happen on very large time scales and are somehow predictable. Less predictable contributions (on shorter time scales) can also come from variation in the solar energy output or from the eruption of very large volcanoes, for example. From the astronomical point of view (Earth orbit, axial tilt etc...) the peak of the next major ice age is predicted to happen in about 80 000 years and, being caused by very slow variations on astronomical scale and such, it will probably take thousands of years before really kicking in and everything gets covered by ice. What I want to underline is that these major fluctuations are relatively slow, in the time scale of millennia or longer. What sometimes is called "little ice age" instead would be mostly caused by fluctuations in the solar energy output, which is not so easy to predict and (when considered alone) have relatively short term effects. Also very large volcanic eruptions could cool down the earth for a while, but we would need catastrophic level eruptions to see the effects for years. Also, without the contribution from the Earth orbit & co, these factors should not be able to bring us back to a mammut scenario. The climate change addressed up to now in this thread instead has the characteristic to be very quick, we are talking about a sensible rise happened within a century or less, the time scale of this phenomenon is definitively different. |
|
|
|
Post by Hlidskjalf on Mar 17, 2019 7:19:33 GMT -5
If you look at the last 500 000 years you get the bigger picture and can figure out where we are heading. We are in a period with long ice ages that last for 100 000 years. The warm periods don't last very long and the next ice age can arrive any day. As you can see the warm period we are in is significantly cooler than the last warm periods. Here are the last 65 million years. We are in a much colder period than ever before. Maybe the last ice age was the last one for now? Don't think so when you look at the other glacial periods the last 500 million years below. The last time it was as cold as it is now is 350 million years ago. 100 million years before the dinosaurs. Mayor ice age are believed to be started by variations in the Earth orbit, by variations of the axial tilt, [1] by the motion of tectonic plates etc... which are all modifications which happen on very large time scales and are somehow predictable. Less predictable contributions (on shorter time scales) can also come from variation in the solar energy output or from the eruption of very large volcanoes, for example. From the astronomical point of view (Earth orbit, axial tilt etc...) the peak of the next major ice age is predicted to happen in about 80 000 years and, being caused by very slow variations on astronomical scale and such, it will probably take thousands of years before really kicking in and everything gets covered by ice. What I want to underline is that these major fluctuations are relatively slow, in the time scale of millennia or longer. What sometimes is called "little ice age" instead would be mostly caused by fluctuations in the solar energy output, which is not so easy to predict and (when considered alone) have relatively short term effects. Also very large volcanic eruptions could cool down the earth for a while, but we would need catastrophic level eruptions to see the effects for years. Also, without the contribution from the Earth orbit & co, these factors should not be able to bring us back to a mammut scenario. The climate change addressed up to now in this thread instead has the characteristic to be very quick, we are talking about a sensible rise happened within a century or less, the time scale of this phenomenon is definitively different. The next ice age may peak in 80 000 years, but given that every ice age the last 5 million years have lasted 100 000 years while the warm periods have lasted 10 000 years, it is very probable that the next ice age will begin any time. It is 11 000 years since the last ice age ended so we are long over due. The temperature will start to drop little by little until the snow don't melt during the summer. Then it will be to late. Civilization as we know it will cease to exist especially since we will run out of oil. Scientists don't know what exact mechanisms are behind the cycles, but what we do know is that the next ice age will come. Man made co2 levels will not be able to compete with a cycle that has lasted for millions of years. And the next ice age will not be a little ice age like the one in the 1700-1800, but a major one. 100 000 years is a long time and no one is prepared at all. |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Mar 17, 2019 9:30:35 GMT -5
The next ice age may peak in 80 000 years, but given that every ice age the last 5 million years have lasted 100 000 years while the warm periods have lasted 10 000 years, it is very probable that the next ice age will begin any time. It is 11 000 years since the last ice age ended so we are long over due. The temperature will start to drop little by little until the snow don't melt during the summer. Then it will be to late. Civilization as we know it will cease to exist especially since we will run out of oil. Scientists don't know what exact mechanisms are behind the cycles, but what we do know is that the next ice age will come. Man made co2 levels will not be able to compete with a cycle that has lasted for millions of years. And the next ice age will not be a little ice age like the one in the 1700-1800, but a major one. 100 000 years is a long time and no one is prepared at all. Not all the interglacial periods lasted the same, nor the ice ages did. Looking at the scientific literature, it looks like the most of the current scientific research suggest that the current interglacial period is definitively not going to finish tomorrow [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8]. Basically, a recurrent point is that the current earth orbit & co suggest that the conditions for a new ice age won't be present before 1000 years or more, but a precise date can't be pointed out and some scientists preferred to don't draw conclusion at all. Also, many of these articles suggest that the increase of greenhouse effect could be able to delay the beginning of a large ice age by a couple of other millennia, or so. As you see, the time scale for this kind of reasoning is millennia, not decades nor centuries. Within this time, the civilisation will surely become different from how we know it now (either getting better or worse, who knows?) Instead, the most of sources I can find about an imminent (= within few decades) new ice age are related to the possibility of a mini ice age caused by a decreasing of the solar activity, which periodically come out from articles like this one [9]. This kind of positions tend to be much more debated within the scientific community, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 17, 2019 23:32:51 GMT -5
What sometimes is called "little ice age" instead would be mostly caused by fluctuations in the solar energy output, which is not so easy to predict and (when considered alone) have relatively short term effects. Also very large volcanic eruptions could cool down the earth for a while, but we would need catastrophic level eruptions to see the effects for years. Also, without the contribution from the Earth orbit & co, these factors should not be able to bring us back to a mammut scenario.
Heard about this? According to a new study the Little Ice Age was accelerated by the North American natives being wiped out and it created massive reforestation. [1]
The next ice age may peak in 80 000 years, but given that every ice age the last 5 million years have lasted 100 000 years while the warm periods have lasted 10 000 years, it is very probable that the next ice age will begin any time. It is 11 000 years since the last ice age ended so we are long over due. The temperature will start to drop little by little until the snow don't melt during the summer. Then it will be to late. Civilization as we know it will cease to exist especially since we will run out of oil. Scientists don't know what exact mechanisms are behind the cycles, but what we do know is that the next ice age will come. Man made co2 levels will not be able to compete with a cycle that has lasted for millions of years. And the next ice age will not be a little ice age like the one in the 1700-1800, but a major one. 100 000 years is a long time and no one is prepared at all.
Assuming mankind will survive, in 80,000 years according to astrophysicist Michio Kaku we have been a Kardashev Scale type II civilisation for ages, meaning that we can harness all the energy the sun creates. By that time, probably dozens of similar stars. With all that energy and technology we can do what the fuck we want with our planet, for example prevent ice ages from happening.
Therefore I think that if the next ice age doesn't happen in the next 200-300 years which is extremely unlikely, there won't be any more ice ages, unless it's in our best interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 20, 2019 2:25:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Mar 20, 2019 7:03:35 GMT -5
Did any of you at least tried to look at the methods used for obtained those data and maps? It's all published (not just on the NOAA, NASA etc... sites, but also and most notably on serious scientific papers). I would do the research myself, but I don't have much time this week.
Anyway, you are mostly focusing on how the media report the scientific data, which is very different from the actual scientific communication.
A scientific paper on this topic looks like:
- we want to evaluate the global temperature for a certain period, how can we do it?
- description of the land and ocean weather stations databases employed
- for evaluating the global temperature it is required to evaluate the temperature also in the places from which punctual measurements are not available, so that it is not feasible to cover the whole planet with weather stations some model for extrapolating the temperature in the missing point is required.
- description of the model employed (many of them are open-access, so you can see the code used and, if you know how, try to use it)
- data analysis with that model
- conclusion: employing the model described, we obtained the temperature pattern XXX over the period AAA. By comparing it withe analogous data analysis on the previous years, the results show this general trend. Often the conclusion also underlines the limits of the method employed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 20, 2019 7:42:44 GMT -5
This 2002-2018 data from Inukjuak really shows how the distribution is shaped. When the ice onset is delayed and the thaw is completed earlier, in particular June, July and December get a lot warmer. It's also evident that the Labrador Peninsula has gotten a lot warmer so far this century compared to before. It'd seem like for every degree the earth will warm, a climate like Inukjuak will more than double that. When this will make significant inroads into May and not just June and July is anyone's guess.
1971-2000:
2002-2018, a lot of beaten monthly warmth records in that timeframe:
That warming is sort of Svalbard-esque in the parts of the season when the ice cover isn't there and the western inflow of water is milder than before. Side-by-side, these averages look a lot different.
In all likelihood, Inukjuak now is a subarctic rather than polar climates and some taiga trees would sustain rather well if planted, judging by how summers appear now, with the proviso they might be too windy. They've moved up to a level comparable to Tromsø but with more cold snaps for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 23, 2019 1:46:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 23, 2019 1:54:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 23, 2019 1:58:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Mar 23, 2019 5:38:53 GMT -5
That article is evidently intended to cause useless arguments, but at least it points out a couple of interesting papers showing some serious debate in peer-reviewed papers. The most of the papers also seem to be open-access. One of the first high-cited articles about consensus --> Oreskes, 2004The paper from which the 97% consensus comes from --> Cook et al, 2013Answer to the article, which contested method and results --> Tol , 2014Reply to the last article, with re-analysis of the info on the base of the underlined issues --> Cook et al, 2014Comparison with other consensus evaluation studies, confirming the 97% consensus: Cook et al, 2016Answer on the last paper, which again contest the results: Tol, 2016Notice that prof. Tol works for the economy department of the University of Sussex, while Dr Cook works for the Center for Climate Change Communication of the George Mason University (previously, university of Queensland, Australia). None of the people involved in this debate seem to have a pure scientific background. Anyway, reading the actual papers it is immediately evident that all the problems and arguments arise from the fact that the original article, the one from which the "97% consensus among all scientist" datum comes from, actually says something different. From the abstract alone you can read: Basically, there are some debate on the method for evaluating the consensus (which field is it? Sociology?), depending on the method the numbers obtained are different, but at the end all those papers agree on the fact that there are much more papers which underline that the evidences are sufficient to support the AGW position than papers which underline that the evidences disprove AGW, while a large share papers draw much more cautious conclusions (as often scientists do) and prefer to don't expose themselves on either position on the base of the evidences they know. The research is actually not even a survey among climate scientists, they have just read a lot of papers on the topic and classified them. Anyway, scientific consensus could also be wrong, this doesn't demonstrate much. Still, to read the real sources instead of bad online articles would not be bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 26, 2019 3:07:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 26, 2019 4:41:33 GMT -5
I would urge you all to watch this particular interview with Dr. John Christy; he—a climate scientist himself, alongside experience of establishing climate models, comprising the very method(s) in which they were established—exposes the true results of Climate Change; the impact that Co2 really yields upon the complex nature of the global climate, as well as how such data is being interpreted in the political environment.
Take your time, watch the video and learn something new...or merely dismiss him as a "denier"—your choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 28, 2019 17:02:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Apr 6, 2019 11:46:18 GMT -5
It's about time we start calling alarmists deniers instead because they're denying reality:
 |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Apr 6, 2019 12:18:22 GMT -5
If you look at the last 500 000 years you get the bigger picture and can figure out where we are heading. We are in a period with long ice ages that last for 100 000 years. The warm periods don't last very long and the next ice age can arrive any day. As you can see the warm period we are in is significantly cooler than the last warm periods. Here are the last 65 million years. We are in a much colder period than ever before. Maybe the last ice age was the last one for now? Don't think so when you look at the other glacial periods the last 500 million years below. The last time it was as cold as it is now is 350 million years ago. 100 million years before the dinosaurs. Mayor ice age are believed to be started by variations in the Earth orbit, by variations of the axial tilt, [1] by the motion of tectonic plates etc... which are all modifications which happen on very large time scales and are somehow predictable. Less predictable contributions (on shorter time scales) can also come from variation in the solar energy output or from the eruption of very large volcanoes, for example. From the astronomical point of view (Earth orbit, axial tilt etc...) the peak of the next major ice age is predicted to happen in about 80 000 years and, being caused by very slow variations on astronomical scale and such, it will probably take thousands of years before really kicking in and everything gets covered by ice. What I want to underline is that these major fluctuations are relatively slow, in the time scale of millennia or longer.What sometimes is called "little ice age" instead would be mostly caused by fluctuations in the solar energy output, which is not so easy to predict and (when considered alone) have relatively short term effects. Also very large volcanic eruptions could cool down the earth for a while, but we would need catastrophic level eruptions to see the effects for years. Also, without the contribution from the Earth orbit & co, these factors should not be able to bring us back to a mammut scenario. The climate change addressed up to now in this thread instead has the characteristic to be very quick, we are talking about a sensible rise happened within a century or less, the time scale of this phenomenon is definitively different. Sure the timescales are huge and of course the planet wouldn't reach the apex of any particular glacial period immediately but to say the change would be slow is an assumption. And what about magnetic pole reversal (which undoubtedly affects climate)? Have you ever heard of the Legend of Steens Mountain in Oregon? The rocks there are plain evidence of a catastrophically sudden pole reversal, ~15 mya. Here is an interesting read: phys.org/news/2018-12-complex-history-earth-magnetic-reversals.htmlHere is an interesting video with a geologist (nice Icelandic landscape there with sleet/snow weather in one of the shots  ) |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Apr 6, 2019 12:31:53 GMT -5
I would urge you all to watch this particular interview with Dr. John Christy; he—a climate scientist himself, alongside experience of establishing climate models, comprising the very method(s) in which they were established—exposes the true results of Climate Change; the impact that Co2 really yields upon the complex nature of the global climate, as well as how such data is being interpreted in the political environment. Take your time, watch the video and learn something new...or merely dismiss him as a "denier"—your choice. 1:20 in and Dr. Christy says C02 is not the controlling factor. That's exactly that I think. CO2 is one of many factors and a minor one at that. "It's so EASY to understand FOLKS" - LKJ1988  |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Apr 6, 2019 13:12:44 GMT -5
|
|
)