Last time Earth hit these CO2 levels there were trees at the South Pole

[Oneuli]

ODD how you find my referencing your own comment, to be amusing!!

Hahaha! The low comedy just doesn't stop. You really think it was "referencing" my comment that was amusing?! That's a riot. Of course not. It was your absolutely braindead misinterpretation of it that was so funny.

Does this mean that you weren't being serious, when you first mentioned the "coal dust"; because why would you otherwise bring it up??

The reason I brought it up will be obvious to absolutely any person with an average or better IQ who reads the thread. I'd been challenged with the supposed impossibility of a person melting an iceberg. I lay out a simple procedure that would allow a person to harness the sun's energy more effectively to greatly accelerate the melting. That procedure was also particularly relevant since, in terms of Physics, it has a great deal in common with the way that extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are greatly accelerating global warming.

Got it now? Nah, I didn't think so.

What I find interesting, is your NEED to try to denigrate someone who challenges your presentations.

I'd welcome a challenge. Since your'e utterly incapable of providing one, though, I also welcome the opportunity to ridicule you. What else are you good for?

 

[Oneuli]

The Medieval Warming Period which NASA GiSS and that fat fraud Michael Mann, have tried to eradicate, was considerably warmer than today.

What would make you think that? Be specific, please. Note, I'm not asking what makes you think that period was warmer than today in one particular location (e.g., northern Europe), but rather what would make you think it was warmer globally. And keep in mind that DJ Easterbrook, a retired geologist rather than a climate scientist, is an infamous Heartland institute hack, rightly ridiculed by the actual scientific community for his wildly off-base predictions of global cooling. He's awfully popular at propaganda sites like ScienceDirect.com, but that's simply because he tells the kooks what they want to hear, not because he has data to back up his nonsense.

 

[Oneuli]

of course its true.......stop lying.....

Oh look, the little coward has run away again. It couldn't answer the challenge to explain what made it think the statement was true, so it just reiterated that it was true and fled. Well, at least your retreats are comically inept, so we get the consolation of laughing at your ass waggling away.

 

[Oneuli]

lol....if we are talking about the impact of the industrial era it must really suck for you to realize that the incidents of global warming that happened a hundred thousand years ago were worse than the current cycle........

What do you mean by "worse"? If you mean they were longer, that's certainly true, since the current one just started. If you imagine they were more rapid, though, then you're displaying a hilarious level of ignorance, since the current warming trend is several times more rapid than the fastest periods of prior warming, going back a few hundred thousand years, at least.

 

[Bigdog]

No. The rich are going to be in a position to protect themselves from the impact of climate change to a fairly major degree. If an area becomes inundated, they can move to higher ground. If somewhere gets oppressively hot, they can afford a summer home somewhere more temperate, or just to pay for better climate control. If food prices sky-rocket, it'll still be cheap relative to their incomes. But the poor and middle class will suffer badly.

Switching from fossil fuels to alternative sources will cause energy prices to skyrocket, and energy shortages. The peasants will starve and the rich libs will still be able to affort their jetsetter lifestyle. Warm periods in human history are prosperous periods. The Year without a Summer, 1916, was a disaster for humans.

Let me add, conversely, if the planet starts to cool, you will also See mass starvation. If CO2 starts to drop below 200 ppm, plant species will start to die off.

Historical climate data is "smoothed" and does not show every minute temperature spike like satellite data. Contrasting instrument data with prozy data breaks a cardinal rule of "scientific methodology". It is inexcusable. Yet that is exactly what the Al Gorians have done.

 

[Oneuli]

no.....it is not the majority of educated people......

Yes, it definitely is, if we define "educated" as having at least an undergraduate degree. Climate change denialism is a minority position, which is found most commonly among the poorly educated, and in poorly educated regions of the country and the world. The only significant exception to this rule is among American Republicans, for whom education doesn't actually make them more likely to believe the science. But elsewhere in the world, and in other groups within the US, there's a solid correlation between being more educated and being more willing to accept the mainstream climate position.

You can see that geographically here:

https://climatecommunication.yale.e...-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county

As you can see, in high-education areas, like Eastern Massachusetts, or the Bay area in California, there's a high percent of Americans who admit climate change is happening and that it is mostly caused by human activities. In the places where the poorly educated congregate, however (e.g., throughout Appalachia and the rest of the Bible Belt), the percentage falls considerably. A map of US counties by education and by climate change denialism mirror each other very closely (the higher the percentage of educated residents, the lower the denialism):

For the most part, denialism is the vice of the ignorant, and those politicians and industrialists who prey on the ignorant.

 

[Bigdog]

Oneil, your map looks a lot like a U.s. Population density map

Ever notice, only well-off Whites latch on to the Al Gorian hoax.

 

[cancel2 2022]

What would make you think that? Be specific, please. Note, I'm not asking what makes you think that period was warmer than today in one particular location (e.g., northern Europe), but rather what would make you think it was warmer globally. And keep in mind that DJ Easterbrook, a retired geologist rather than a climate scientist, is an infamous Heartland institute hack, rightly ridiculed by the actual scientific community for his wildly off-base predictions of global cooling. He's awfully popular at propaganda sites like ScienceDirect.com, but that's simply because he tells the kooks what they want to hear, not because he has data to back up his nonsense.

Jeez, you're so predictable and lazy to boot. You just went to Skeptical Science and DeSmogBlog and repeated their bullshit. If you are going to be so shitty about qualifications, then note that Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, is a mathematican and not a "trained climate scientist". He sits on his arse in an office in New York running CMIP5 models all day long. You'd have probably dismissed Einstein because he was only a patents clerk or Newton because he wasn't a trained physicist.

Oh by the way, Anthony Watts who you also disparage has been vindicated in his belief that the Urban Heat Island effect is real and by NOAA no less. Feel free to search for some Dana Nuccitelli knocking copy, good luck.

This weather station is in a bloody car park ffs!



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...siting-leads-to-artificial-long-term-warming/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1

 

[Oneuli]

Oh. Ok

So it isn’t about the temperature. Got it

What is an appropriate rate of change?

The slower the rate of change, the easier it will be to adapt to it. If by "appropriate" you're asking what rate of change we could adapt to with relatively little hardship, I'd say an historically normal rate of change -- something in line with what we've seen in natural cycles at other points in human history. Even that will impose some challenges (the same way that natural climate change was tough on some humans and ecosystems in the past), but most people and ecosystems would take it in stride.

Past periods of emergence from ice ages tended to have a rate of warming around 0.08-0.14 degrees (C) of warming per century. The problem now is we've had more like 0.7 degrees in the last century (5 times the top of that natural range), and all evidence points to an acceleration of the warming. See here for the monthly temperature anomaly:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/p12/12/1880-2019.csv

If you do a polynomial trendline on that, you see that it's a curve that rises upward (it's a much better fit for the data, with an R-squared value of 0.8754, than you'd get for a linear trend-line, with an R-squared of 0.7586). We've got an accelerating problem on our hands.

If you use that data to create a twelve-month moving average, you'll see the current anomaly is 0.82, and that ten years ago it was 0.57. That's an increase of 2.5 degrees (C) per century -- eighteen times the top speed of natural warming in the past. Will things keep going at the current break-neck speed? Hopefully not. But even if it slowed to a tenth the current pace, that would still be about twice the natural rate of post-ice-age warming. And, since we've been looking at an accelerating problem up to this point, there's a risk that it will actually accelerate still more.

So, what's an "appropriate" rate of change. I wouldn't be alarmed if we saw a sustained rate of change about a twentieth what we had over the course of the last decade. That would still be fast enough that, long-term, it could result in a slew of extinctions and major disruptions to human society, but we wouldn't expect to be left with radically impoverished biodiversity and centuries of seriously depressed quality of life for most humans.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Switching from fossil fuels to alternative sources will cause energy prices to skyrocket, and energy shortages. The peasants will starve and the rich libs will still be able to affort their jetsetter lifestyle. Warm periods in human history are prosperous periods. The Year without a Summer, 1916, was a disaster for humans.

Let me add, conversely, if the planet starts to cool, you will also See mass starvation. If CO2 starts to drop below 200 ppm, plant species will start to die off.

Historical climate data is "smoothed" and does not show every minute temperature spike like satellite data. Contrasting instrument data with prozy data breaks a cardinal rule of "scientific methodology". It is inexcusable. Yet that is exactly what the Al Gorians have done.

Look how GISS tortures the data!! I hope that Will Happer and the PCCS get on Gavin Schmidt's case and haul him before them to explain their 'corrections'

 

[Oneuli]

Switching from fossil fuels to alternative sources will cause energy prices to skyrocket, and energy shortages.

Fortunately. Although that's what the denialists were predicting a decade or two ago, back when scalable alternative sources of energy were vastly more expensive than fossil fuel equivalents, events have overtaken that propaganda. These days, the lifetime cost of solar PV per unit of energy has already gotten down to or below where coal was back when the denialists started pushing that meme, and coal was the cheapest option.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3271101/solar-power-costs-half-what-coal-costs.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...aper-than-running-existing-coal/#195dbec031f3

These days, cheap natural gas has lowered the floor still further, but alternative fuels are creeping up on its costs, and already the difference is not enough to cause energy prices to "skyrocket" if we were to switch ("nudge upwards" would be a more accurate description). What would happen if we switched to solar rapidly is that for a few years average costs would nudge upwards, relative to natural gas, but then would fall gradually, first to where natural gas was, then below it. There'd be some minor short-term hardship for major long-term benefits.

The problem, politically, is that the wealthy people who own our politicians don't give a shit that the fossil-fuel-oriented economy will cause untold suffering for the "peasants" for generations. The rich people know they can shelter themselves and their families from that suffering using the blood money they extract now through their control of fossil fuel resources. So, people like the Koch brothers pay politicians good money to avoid making any changes.

Historical climate data is "smoothed" and does not show every minute temperature spike like satellite data.

Yes. And that smoothed data tells us that we're currently experiencing warming at vastly beyond the rate of prior natural cycles of warming.

Contrasting instrument data with prozy data breaks a cardinal rule of "scientific methodology". It is inexcusable

It definitely doesn't. It's true that proxy (or "prozy," as the imbeciles would have it) needs to be expressed with a higher range of uncertainty than modern data, which is just what the scientists do when they graph them together (proxy data showing up with wider gray bands of uncertainty around them). But the current rate of warming exceeds the historical pace of natural warming by such a monstrously large degree, that even if you were to rework the proxy graph to start at the low point of a gray band and end at the high point, to allow for the most rapid rate that could have been happening based on uncertainty bands, you'd STILL get a rate of warming far below what we're currently experiencing.

 

[Oneuli]

Oneil, your map looks a lot like a U.s. Population density map

Yes, more educated people are more likely to live in densely settled areas.

Ever notice, only well-off Whites latch on to the Al Gorian hoax.

First, "Al Gorian hoax" makes you sound like a halfwit. If what you're trying to claim is that "only well-off Whites believe the mainstream scientific position that humans are causing rapid climate change," then no, that's definitely wrong. It's a majority position among educated people around the world.... and that includes many countries that lack a white majority. The hotbeds of denialism are areas of low-education (but not necessarily low-wealth) whites. And denialism is particularly uncommon among the young, who are poorer as a whole. Bring together a batch of urban 20-somethings with negative net worths thanks to their crushing student loan debt, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a denialist among them, whereas if you find yourself some fat, middle-aged member of the Midwestern landed aristocracy, denialism is a likely position.

I'd wager that, if anything, the correlation is the opposite of what you imagine. That, controlling for education level, you'll find a higher percentage of denialists among well-off whites, at least within the US.

On a related note, this is an interesting discussion of why denialists are more likely to be racists:

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/c...e-likely-be-racist-obama-trump-climate-change

 

[cancel2 2022]

Yes, more educated people are more likely to live in densely settled areas.



First, "Al Gorian hoax" makes you sound like a halfwit. If what you're trying to claim is that "only well-off Whites believe the mainstream scientific position that humans are causing rapid climate change," then no, that's definitely wrong. It's a majority position among educated people around the world.... and that includes many countries that lack a white majority. The hotbeds of denialism are areas of low-education (but not necessarily low-wealth) whites. And denialism is particularly uncommon among the young, who are poorer as a whole. Bring together a batch of urban 20-somethings with negative net worths thanks to their crushing student loan debt, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a denialist among them, whereas if you find yourself some fat, middle-aged member of the Midwestern landed aristocracy, denialism is a likely position.

I'd wager that, if anything, the correlation is the opposite of what you imagine. That, controlling for education level, you'll find a higher percentage of denialists among well-off whites, at least within the US.

On a related note, this is an interesting discussion of why denialists are more likely to be racists:

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/c...e-likely-be-racist-obama-trump-climate-change

What a load of unmitigated arrogant bullshit. Why is that you claim that only trained climate scientists can deal with such a complex subject, yet, what are you exactly? All I see is an auto-didact that's knows a little about stats and is able to read Skeptical Science and DeSmogBlog.

 

[Oneuli]

Oh by the way, Anthony Watts who you also disparage has been vindicated in his belief that the Urban Heat Island effect is real and by NOAA no less.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...siting-leads-to-artificial-long-term-warming/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1[/QUOTE]

Anthony Watts had his "urban heat island" meme demolished by the data. Were you unaware of that? He had pushed the meme that the warming trend was just an artifact of heat islands. So, the data was re-crunched using only pristine locations and it confirmed that the trend was substantially identical across the same geographic footprint whether you used the full data set or just the data set that wouldn't be impacted by the heat island changes.

 

[cancel2 2022]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...siting-leads-to-artificial-long-term-warming/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1

Anthony Watts had his "urban heat island" meme demolished by the data. Were you unaware of that? He had pushed the meme that the warming trend was just an artifact of heat islands. So, the data was re-crunched using only pristine locations and it confirmed that the trend was substantially identical across the same geographic footprint whether you used the full data set or just the data set that wouldn't be impacted by the heat island changes.

More bullshit, you're just full of it! If you are just going to regurgitate everything you read on Skeptical Science then you'll never learn. It is not just him, it is NOAA saying that as well, were you unaware of that?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Fortunately. Although that's what the denialists were predicting a decade or two ago, back when scalable alternative sources of energy were vastly more expensive than fossil fuel equivalents, events have overtaken that propaganda. These days, the lifetime cost of solar PV per unit of energy has already gotten down to or below where coal was back when the denialists started pushing that meme, and coal was the cheapest option.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3271101/solar-power-costs-half-what-coal-costs.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...aper-than-running-existing-coal/#195dbec031f3

These days, cheap natural gas has lowered the floor still further, but alternative fuels are creeping up on its costs, and already the difference is not enough to cause energy prices to "skyrocket" if we were to switch ("nudge upwards" would be a more accurate description). What would happen if we switched to solar rapidly is that for a few years average costs would nudge upwards, relative to natural gas, but then would fall gradually, first to where natural gas was, then below it. There'd be some minor short-term hardship for major long-term benefits.

The problem, politically, is that the wealthy people who own our politicians don't give a shit that the fossil-fuel-oriented economy will cause untold suffering for the "peasants" for generation. The rich people know they can shelter themselves and their families from that suffering using the blood money they extract now through their control of fossil fuel resources. So, people like the Koch brothers pay politicians good money to avoid making any changes.



Yes. And that smoothed data tells us that we're currently experiencing warming at vastly beyond the rate of prior natural cycles of warming.



It definitely doesn't. It's true that proxy (or "prozy," as the imbeciles would have it) needs to be expressed with a higher range of uncertainty than modern data, which is just what the scientists do when they graph them together (proxy data showing up with wider gray bands of uncertainty around them). But the current rate of warming exceeds the historical pace of natural warming by such a monstrously large degree, that even if you were to rework the proxy graph to start at the low point of a gray band and end at the high point, to allow for the most rapid rate that could have been happening based on uncertainty bands, you'd STILL get a rate of warming far below what we're currently experiencing.

Yet Michael Shellenburger, a committed Californian environmentalist has seen the light. You will one day as well!!

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

 

[Oneuli]

Look how GISS tortures the data!! I hope that Will Happer and the PCCS get on Gavin Schmidt's case and haul him before them to explain their 'corrections'

The reason the fossil-fuel-industry servants are hesitant to get into such things with actual scientists is that the methodology is solid. The point of compiling these kinds of animated gifs is not to highlight any actual methodological problem, but rather to convince very poorly educated conservatives that there must be something fishy going on. You've got a bunch of rank amateurs, like Steven Goddard (the pseudonym for a disgraced blogger with no training in the topic) who put this garbage together with the intent to deceive people who have even less understanding of the topic than they have.

 

[Oneuli]

What a load of unmitigated arrogant bullshit.

Awww, did I hurt your feelings? Good.

 

[Grokmaster]

Yes, more educated people are more likely to live in densely settled areas.



First, "Al Gorian hoax" makes you sound like a halfwit. If what you're trying to claim is that "only well-off Whites believe the mainstream scientific position that humans are causing rapid climate change," then no, that's definitely wrong. It's a majority position among educated people around the world.... and that includes many countries that lack a white majority. The hotbeds of denialism are areas of low-education (but not necessarily low-wealth) whites. And denialism is particularly uncommon among the young, who are poorer as a whole. Bring together a batch of urban 20-somethings with negative net worths thanks to their crushing student loan debt, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a denialist among them, whereas if you find yourself some fat, middle-aged member of the Midwestern landed aristocracy, denialism is a likely position.

I'd wager that, if anything, the correlation is the opposite of what you imagine. That, controlling for education level, you'll find a higher percentage of denialists among well-off whites, at least within the US.

On a related note, this is an interesting discussion of why denialists are more likely to be racists:

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/c...e-likely-be-racist-obama-trump-climate-change

What nonsense.

 

[cancel2 2022]

The reason the fossil-fuel-industry servants are hesitant to get into such things with actual scientists is that the methodology is solid. The point of compiling these kinds of animated gifs is not to highlight any actual methodological problem, but rather to convince very poorly educated conservatives that there must be something fishy going on. You've got a bunch of rank amateurs, like Steven Goddard (the pseudonym for a disgraced blogger with no training in the topic) who put this garbage together with the intent to deceive people who have even less understanding of the topic than they have.

More arrant bullshit, Tony Heller knows a damn sight more about climate science than you ever will. Anyway, hopefully the PCCS will get up and running soon and the climate hucksters like Mann, Gore and Schmidt will finally be forced to account for themselves.

Here is a far more reasoned and rational analysis of Stephen Goddard/Tony Heller. She has her criticisms as well but prefers to argue the science than the usual attempt at character assassination by you and your ilk.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/