Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

Totally. Hydrogen Fuel Cells will eventually take over. A shame development of that technology got distracted and interrupted by one of the most environmentally damaging technologies there is.

Yes, the motor technology already exists, and can convert cars already on the road. Electric motors in the hubs replace existing hubs and all that is required is the power source and some new wiring.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

Of course I'm wrong if you keep moving the goalpost (the trait climate alarmist).

You wrote:

 

But the funny thing is that it is NOT declining. What's even funnier is that you then post a picture of a diagram that shows exactly my point (thanks for that!!). 

The sea ice extent in antarctica is higher now (not in September, but NOW) than it was 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. Looks like it is more or less at the same level as 2016 now to be fair.

 

Diagram from https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

 

And to address my initial point: why is this data removed from the diagram posted on NSIDCs front page? Why is it that the current ice level is always presented in charts that makes it look like the level is the lowest EVER? It isn't, the sea ice extent is growing.

This is just plain nuts. Do you understand that there is a record in this thread of exactly what you wrote about this? 

Here's what you wrote first:

"Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years."

I pointed out that the graph you included with that comment actually contradicted your claim. I also included an article that showed sea ice had declined dramatically from 2014-2017. 

 

You countered with this:

"It's not declining dramatically. The data shows that the volume of sea ice is increasing. From 2014 the levels declined? Here's from NSIDC 2014:"

. In my reply I pointed out that the article you linked to dated from 2014 so how could it possibly disprove what I wrote. I also included an article about how the extent of Antarctic Sea Ice had rapidly declined from its record levels.

 

Your reply"

"I say it WAS declining. It's not declining anymore - it's increasing. 2018 and 2019 levels are higher than the years 2012-2017."

This is also false since 2014 was actually the year of the highest recorded level of Antarctic sea ice extent ever. Ever. You even included a graph which once again contradicted your assertion. I didn't bother with that at the time. 

 

Your reply:

"So it is not the highest level in the 30-40 years, it is the second highest (the only exception being 2014)...?"

 

I replied with data and a graph from Copernicus showing that that sea ice extent at its highest point in the latest cycle was the 15th lowest out of the last 40 years.

 

ANd here was your genuinely confused reply to that:

"And....THERE you switched from discussing the current conditions, subject of the discussion, and instead decided to bring the data for September into scope."

The reason I included September is that it is generally the month where the Antarctic sea ice extent is greatest.  And since you were claiming either first or second place for 2019 that showed you were wrong. But to humor you, I did find a source that showed that latest figures on sea ice extent which is January 2020. Ya know, as current as can be.  And according to that, January was below the average in sea ice extent. What makes your comment particularly ludicrous is that you earlier cited a report dating from 2014 as evidence to support your case. And your complaining about what's current?

 

You followed it up with this:

"But the funny thing is that it is NOT declining. What's even funnier is that you then post a picture of a diagram that shows exactly my point (thanks for that!!). 

The sea ice extent in antarctica is higher now (not in September, but NOW) than it was 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. Looks like it is more or less at the same level as 2016 now to be fair."

But this in no way contradicts this: 

"By the end of the month, extent was nearly within the interquartile range of the median extent, though still below average."

Below average. What does below average mean to you?

And as for your original paranoid claim about the NSIDC not offering comparisons of earlier years on its charts... So what? With practically no digging I found this. 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

It's from the NOAA. And it doesn't really buttress your case about 2018 and 2019 being higher than anytime from 2012 to 2017, does it? In fact, it disproves it.

In fact, even the graph you just produced shows sea ice extent for 2020 being somewhat below the median. You know 15 from the bottom out of the last 40 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by bristolboy

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You need to get a new man, the one you have will not be the candidate.

 

 

Which pulls the rug from under everything else you said thereafter.

What are you even talking about?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

Totally. Hydrogen Fuel Cells will eventually take over. A shame development of that technology got distracted and interrupted by one of the most environmentally damaging technologies there is.

I take it you are referring to fossil fuels.

[Gene1960]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:21 PM, UbonThani said:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

 

Pollution is cooling us

There is another factor in that.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285947980_Hydrogen_degassing_of_the_earth_Natural_disasters_and_the_biosphere
Hydrogen degassing of the earth: Natural disasters and the biosphere

The role of natural disasters is very important in humanity's evolution. The author proposes that there is a common reason for the current intensification of natural disasters at the global scale. This reason is the increase of emission of reduced gases, primarily hydrogen, via degassing from deep within the Earth. The process of inner core crystallization leads to the release of hydrogen, which is then accumulated at the boundary of the liquid core and the mantle and diffuses outward to the Earth's surface. The gravitational influence of the Moon and Sun on the Earth modulates this process. The impacts of this degassing on the biosphere and humans are three-fold: (1) Passing from the Earth's core to space, the gas flow affects each geochemical barrier. There are three important consequences: (a) intensification of seismic and volcanic activity; (b) massive decline of aerobic biota and development of blue-green algae in the oceans due to gas outbursts along mid-ocean ridges; and (c) ozone layer depletion over degassing centers. The author presents a theoretical concept of the Earth degassing-driven depletion of the ozone layer. Spatial correlation of the most stable negative ozone anomalies with the major rift zones, degassing channels, and monitoring results of the dynamics of subsoil hydrogen gas content support the author's concept.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Gene1960 said:

There is another factor in that.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285947980_Hydrogen_degassing_of_the_earth_Natural_disasters_and_the_biosphere
Hydrogen degassing of the earth: Natural disasters and the biosphere

The role of natural disasters is very important in humanity's evolution. The author proposes that there is a common reason for the current intensification of natural disasters at the global scale. This reason is the increase of emission of reduced gases, primarily hydrogen, via degassing from deep within the Earth. The process of inner core crystallization leads to the release of hydrogen, which is then accumulated at the boundary of the liquid core and the mantle and diffuses outward to the Earth's surface. The gravitational influence of the Moon and Sun on the Earth modulates this process. The impacts of this degassing on the biosphere and humans are three-fold: (1) Passing from the Earth's core to space, the gas flow affects each geochemical barrier. There are three important consequences: (a) intensification of seismic and volcanic activity; (b) massive decline of aerobic biota and development of blue-green algae in the oceans due to gas outbursts along mid-ocean ridges; and (c) ozone layer depletion over degassing centers. The author presents a theoretical concept of the Earth degassing-driven depletion of the ozone layer. Spatial correlation of the most stable negative ozone anomalies with the major rift zones, degassing channels, and monitoring results of the dynamics of subsoil hydrogen gas content support the author's concept.

Citations 4, references 45.

 

The first three pages of an undergraduate essay on ‘Why I need to complete a research sabbatical in Thailand’ usually surpasses that. 

 

 

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take it you are referring to fossil fuels.

No, I am not.

[brokenbone]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You said, and I quote:

 

And it is ridiculous to blame oil execs for what fuels all of mankind's progress.

 

So unless you want to argue that the fire in Plato's allegory of the cave was a coal fire, man up and admit you are talking utter hogwash.

 

We haven’t even got to the part fossil fuels did not play in the development of language, writing, mathematics, medicine ...the list goes on.

 

Away with you and your hogwash.

still, you cant deny we can thank fossil fuel for enriching earth atmosphere with co2,

up from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, humans are at this stage in earth history

the only force that can recycle co2 back into the atmosphere at a higher rate

then it is sequestered by shell building life forms in the seas.

other then burning fossil fuel and cement production,

how do you propose we combat co2 sequestration ?

[brokenbone]

does hypothesis comes and goes as a fashion ?

 

imaginary changes of climate

the queenslander, saturday, january 21, 1871.

 

every

season is sure to be " extraordinary," almost

every month one of the driest or wettest, or

windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known. Much

observation, which ought to correct a tendency

to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have

rather a tendency to increase it. And many

seem now to regard three dry hot years in

 

succession as betokening some general change

of climate, as if it was not perfectly certain, ia

the wide range of the table of what we call

chances, that with our existing condi- I

tions of climate such a combination must

erery now and then recur. We know an

ingenious theorist who would fain persuade us

that a cycle of six hundred unfavorable years

has just reached its termination, and that

English agriculturists, who left off making wine

 

about A.p. 1250 because their grapes ceased to

ripen, will soon be making it again, and con

tinue to do so for an equivalent number of cen

turies. Others, speculating quite as conjectur

ally and even more absurdly, seem to attribute

the impending change of climate—of which

they assume the reality—to the operation of men.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/27264330?searchTerm=imaginary changes of climate&searchLimits=dateFrom=1871-01-01|||dateTo=1871-12-31

 

copyright and public domain

Generally, however, a copyright owned by a company under the work for hire doctrine expires either 95 years after it was first published or 120 years after it was created, whichever comes first. If the author's employment contract did not contain a work for hire clause, the copyright generally endures for 70 years after the author's death.

https://info.legalzoom.com/newspapers-copyright-laws-22848.html

Edited February 25, 2020 by brokenbone

[metisdead]

Off topic political troll posts and the off topic replies have been removed. 

[bristolboy]

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The search was over ages ago. Hydrogen is the way to go, and if all the money used on battery powered cars had been used to perfect hydrogen in cars we'd be using that now.

Batteries are a dead end because of limited raw materials, limited life and pollution.

20 hours ago, Forethat said:

Totally. Hydrogen Fuel Cells will eventually take over. A shame development of that technology got distracted and interrupted by one of the most environmentally damaging technologies there is.

Really? The big problem isn't the technology for exploiting hydrogen.   The problem is in sourcing. Where did you think that the vast majority of hydrogen for use as fuel currently comes from?

"There are four main sources for the commercial production of hydrogen: natural gas, oil, coal, and electrolysis; which account for 48%, 30%, 18% and 4% of the world's hydrogen production respectively.^[6] Fossil fuels are the dominant source of industrial hydrogen.^[7] Carbon dioxide can be separated from natural gas with a 70-85% efficiency for hydrogen production and from other hydrocarbons to varying degrees of efficiency."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

 

Lately, great progress has been made in increasing the efficiency of hydrogen generation via electrolysis. The ultimate goal would be to generate hydrogen using excess solar and wind power. In effect, storing solar and wind energy, But it's not there yet.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by bristolboy

[Forethat]

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent has grown for several consecutive years.

Climate alarmists: "False!!!  There was a lot more ice 1963. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent was at record levels in 2014.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! There would have been A LOT MORE ice if the earth wasn't in a cooling cycle. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

Fact: For the third consecutive year, the ice levels in February are greater than previous year, showing that the volume of sea ice in February is increasing.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! The ice levels in September 1963 was lower. The Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know WHY!?? We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

In 20 years this will have been forgotten. Most likely, the increased ice levels and cooler climate will be blamed on CO2 emissions and global warming. 

"You should have paid the carbon tax to avoid the greenhouse gas effect, that way we would have avoided the global cooling. Now we're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

[bristolboy]

Just now, Forethat said:

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent has grown for several consecutive years.

Climate alarmists: "False!!!  There was a lot more ice 1963. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent was at record levels in 2014.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! There would have been A LOT MORE ice if the earth wasn't in a cooling cycle. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

Fact: For the third consecutive year, the ice levels in February are greater than previous year, showing that the volume of sea ice in February is increasing.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! The ice levels in September 1963 was lower. The Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know WHY!?? We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

In 20 years this will have been forgotten. Most likely, the increased ice levels and cooler climate will be blamed on CO2 emissions and global warming. 

"You should have paid the carbon tax to avoid the greenhouse gas effect, that way we would have avoided the global cooling. Now we're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

There's 2 things going on in your response: your recitation of certain facts and your invention of fictional persons reactions and scenarios about. The invention part is too sad and too silly to warrant any attention.

Clearly this is all about the fact that your contention that Antarctic sea ice was at record levels was refuted and then your retreat slightly to conceding that it was at the second highest level was also refuted as well.

In fact, as of January 2020, Antarctic sea ice levels were at their 15 lowest level of the past 40 years. Once again here's the graph from Copernicus showing said fluctuation.

https://sunshinehours.net/2020/02/23/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-53-2020/

As for them increasing the past few years, so what? We know that Antarctic sea ice levels fluctuate a lot. Are you claiming some kind of rising trend that will continue well into the future?  

 

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent has grown for several consecutive years.

Climate alarmists: "False!!!  There was a lot more ice 1963. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent was at record levels in 2014.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! There would have been A LOT MORE ice if the earth wasn't in a cooling cycle. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

Fact: For the third consecutive year, the ice levels in February are greater than previous year, showing that the volume of sea ice in February is increasing.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! The ice levels in September 1963 was lower. The Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know WHY!?? We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

 

In 20 years this will have been forgotten. Most likely, the increased ice levels and cooler climate will be blamed on CO2 emissions and global warming. 

"You should have paid the carbon tax to avoid the greenhouse gas effect, that way we would have avoided the global cooling. Now we're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

And what makes ludicrously clueless your remarks about the ignorance of others is the fact that you cited an article from 2014 to support your claim that Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high level.

Edited February 26, 2020 by bristolboy

[Forethat]

Climate alarmists: "From 2014 to 2017 sea ice levels declined precipitously. We're DOOOMED!!"

Mature: "2014? You are wrong, the ice levels was at record high 2014. Here's an article to show how wrong you are: https://weather.com/science/environment/news/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-all-time-record-high-nsidc-20141008

Climate alarmists:"Ha!! You reference an article from 2014 to support your claim that Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high level? We're DOOOMED!!!"

 

Honestly, we're not getting anywhere with this. 

 

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Climate alarmists: "From 2014 to 2017 sea ice levels declined precipitously. We're DOOOMED!!"

Mature: "2014? You are wrong, the ice levels was at record high 2014. Here's an article to show how wrong you are: https://weather.com/science/environment/news/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-all-time-record-high-nsidc-20141008

Climate alarmists:"Ha!! You reference an article from 2014 to support your claim that Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high level? We're DOOOMED!!!"

 

Honestly, we're not getting anywhere with this. 

 

Well, whoever "mature" is, he certainly isn't you who less than 24 hours ago claimed that sea ice is at a record high level based on a 2014 article.

And I doubt a genuine "mature" would engage in creating the kind of childish caricatures that you indulge in doing.

And while the the climatological scientific community aren't making any claims for the significance of Antarctic sea ice extent one way or another, there are developments in the Antarctic that are genuinely concerning. 

[Forethat]

Fact: The ice will melt whether we like it or not. It has melted before and it will melt again one day. There's nothing we can do about it. We cannot control the climate.

Climate alarmist: "We need to PANIC and we need to pay more carbon tax, otherwise the ice will melt and then we're all DOOOMED!!!" 

 

On a more serious note, it is quite obvious to people with a mature view on climate change that panic is usually not the preferred state for solving immensely complicated energy- and economic policy issues on a transnational level. 

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

On a more serious note, it is quite obvious to people with a mature view on climate change that panic is usually not the preferred state for solving immensely complicated energy- and economic policy issues on a transnational level. 

or even be rational, so thats a good reason to do the best to cause panic

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

Fact: The ice will melt whether we like it or not. It has melted before and it will melt again one day. There's nothing we can do about it. We cannot control the climate.

Climate alarmist: "We need to PANIC and we need to pay more carbon tax, otherwise the ice will melt and then we're all DOOOMED!!!" 

 

On a more serious note, it is quite obvious to people with a mature view on climate change that panic is usually not the preferred state for solving immensely complicated energy- and economic policy issues on a transnational level. 

Someone else who doesn't understand the concept of rate.

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who doesn't understand the concept of rate.

the rate now is the same rate it has been for the past 400 years,

what of it ?

well except that we reached a plateau that is, and some studies even

show a cooling has begun. no doubt that will also cause a

resounding 'hallelujah' we messed up, earth cooling this fast just gotta be mans fault, too. what will the scapegoat be ? my guess the blame will fall on fertilizers, of which co2 can be considered to belong to

Edited February 26, 2020 by brokenbone

[Forethat]

40 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the rate now is the same rate it has been for the past 400 years,

what of it ?

well except that we reached a plateau that is, and some studies even

show a cooling has begun. no doubt that will also cause a

resounding 'hallelujah' we messed up, earth cooling this fast just gotta be mans fault, too. what will the scapegoat be ? my guess the blame will fall on fertilizers, of which co2 can be considered to belong to

The cooling issue is cyclical. In the 70's it was believed that we were being thrown into an ice age. 50 years later it's the opposite. Give it another 40-50 years and we'll be back where we started - threats of an imminent ice age.

 

And the less intellectually gifted will line up and let the preacher's heeeeeeaaal them all as long as they are willing to pay.

Jeeezus.....it's like a bad episode of Fawlty Towers combined with The Emperor's New Clothes and The Candid Camera.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Forethat

[Monomial]

On 2/20/2020 at 9:26 AM, stephenterry said:

How many ostriches are there in governments? Isn't it crystal that the planet will go t*ts up unless we address global warming.

 

For starters, we, the earth's population, must radically cut animal products from our diets. Factory farms must be terminated and, instead, use water supplies and land crops to feed humans, not cows, sheep, pigs and chickens. The odd turkey on thanksgiving day, excepted.

 

Otherwise, support the blinkered ostriches...

 

You do realize how many absolutely critical medications come from the byproducts of those animals you want to eliminate? Things like heparin alone require the slaughter of hundreds of millions of pigs every year in order to provide the raw materials. Get rid of the animals, watch modern medicine fall into chaos.

 

I personally am going to wake up in the morning, enjoy some tasty bacon, secure in the knowledge that I am doing my part to save millions with coronary diseases.

 

Guns don't kill people. Vegans kill people.

 

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, brokenbone said:

the rate now is the same rate it has been for the past 400 years,

what of it ?

well except that we reached a plateau that is, and some studies even

show a cooling has begun. no doubt that will also cause a

resounding 'hallelujah' we messed up, earth cooling this fast just gotta be mans fault, too. what will the scapegoat be ? my guess the blame will fall on fertilizers, of which co2 can be considered to belong to

Can you share with us a link to those peer-reviewed studies showing that global cooling is occuring? Because according to the NOAA and Copernicus, amongst other, the last 5 years have actually been the warmest on record. And only one of those 5 years had a powerful El Nino to account for that. And the decade from 2010 through 2019 was the warmest on record. The second warmest being the previous decade. And only one of those years had a powerful El Nino to account for that. And January of 2020 is the warmest January on record.

Also, i noticed that your chart of Central England's temperatures ends in 2009. Here's a chart that actually came from the Met office and not from some denialist:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

 

Looks a bit different, no? In fact for all of the 350 years covered by this graph, you notice how the right side has an unprecedented concentration of above average years starting in the late 70's? I don't see the cooling that you claimed. Doublethink much?

And as pointed out earlier, the right y axis in the graph you use only shows emissions of CO2 and leaves out the baseline level of CO2 which is more than 2/3 of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A cheap and stupid trick. In addition, it makes no account for the lag time of temperature increase. Even if greenhouse gases were reduced to a net emission of zero, temperatures would continue to rise for some time.

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, Forethat said:

The cooling issue is cyclical. In the 70's it was believed that we were being thrown into an ice age. 50 years later it's the opposite. Give it another 40-50 years and we'll be back where we started - threats of an imminent ice age.

 

And the less intellectually gifted will line up and let the preacher's heeeeeeaaal them all as long as they are willing to pay.

Jeeezus.....it's like a bad episode of Fawlty Towers combined with The Emperor's New Clothes and The Candid Camera.

 

Nonsense. In fact, even back in the 70, the majority of literature on the subject favored warming:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

"Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false... In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf

And how desperate do you have to be to use a movie to support your case? Do you understand that this movie was fictional and the words spoken were the invention of screenwriters? 

[brokenbone]

7 hours ago, Monomial said:

Guns don't kill people. Vegans kill people.

here, have an upvote

[brokenbone]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Can you share with us a link to those peer-reviewed studies showing that global cooling is occuring? Because according to the NOAA and Copernicus, amongst other, the last 5 years have actually been the warmest on record. And only one of those 5 years had a powerful El Nino to account for that. And the decade from 2010 through 2019 was the warmest on record. The second warmest being the previous decade. And only one of those years had a powerful El Nino to account for that. And January of 2020 is the warmest January on record.

Also, i noticed that your chart of Central England's temperatures ends in 2009. Here's a chart that actually came from the Met office and not from some denialist:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

 

Looks a bit different, no? In fact for all of the 350 years covered by this graph, you notice how the right side has an unprecedented concentration of above average years starting in the late 70's? I don't see the cooling that you claimed. Doublethink much?

And as pointed out earlier, the right y axis in the graph you use only shows emissions of CO2 and leaves out the baseline level of CO2 which is more than 2/3 of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A cheap and stupid trick. In addition, it makes no account for the lag time of temperature increase. Even if greenhouse gases were reduced to a net emission of zero, temperatures would continue to rise for some time.

its the same graph with a different resolution and scale,

the biggest anomaly is the 1700-1710 interval.

the scientists say plateau was reached 2000 and cooling started 2015.

i dont really care for the co2 in the graph, i care for the scale

that better display what has been going on with temperature since 1659,

the depth of the minor ice age.

about validity of NOAA data presentation

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

the freaking bookmarks are disappearing so i cant store bookmarks,

if i by chance come across them i will link scientists that suggest a cooling trend from around 2015, NASA gives the basis here

 

[brokenbone]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. In fact, even back in the 70, the majority of literature on the subject favored warming:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

"Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false... In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf

And how desperate do you have to be to use a movie to support your case? Do you understand that this movie was fictional and the words spoken were the invention of screenwriters? 

there is an tremendous abundance of documentation about the cooling from 1970,

scientists and media kept reporting every week how we were entering a new ice age,

the scaremongering was as high in amplitude as it is today about warming,

and prior to that from 1920 it was scaremongering how the arctic was melting,

the alarmists comes and goes like a predictable sinus wave, just like the climate. the climate cycles are unstoppable, and perhaps the alarmists are nearly as unstoppable.

the only thing that sticks out now is the frequency of the alarmists

relentless drivel, never before in history is it repeated three times a day,

i blame media and comfort for it, humans by large no longer struggle with

filling the tummy, industrialism, power generation, and technological advances saw to that, the downside is now theres millions of people with nothing better to do then prophesying doom

Edited February 27, 2020 by brokenbone

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

its the same graph with a different resolution and scale,

the biggest anomaly is the 1700-1710 interval.

the scientists say plateau was reached 2000 and cooling started 2015.

i dont really care for the co2 in the graph, i care for the scale

that better display what has been going on with temperature since 1659,

the depth of the minor ice age.

about validity of NOAA data presentation

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

the freaking bookmarks are disappearing so i cant store bookmarks,

if i by chance come across them i will link scientists that suggest a cooling trend from around 2015, NASA gives the basis here

 

 

30 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

its the same graph with a different resolution and scale,

the biggest anomaly is the 1700-1710 interval.

the scientists say plateau was reached 2000 and cooling started 2015.

i dont really care for the co2 in the graph, i care for the scale

that better display what has been going on with temperature since 1659,

the depth of the minor ice age.

about validity of NOAA data presentation

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

the freaking bookmarks are disappearing so i cant store bookmarks,

if i by chance come across them i will link scientists that suggest a cooling trend from around 2015, NASA gives the basis here

 

 

It is true that climatologists detected a possible but weak link between global temperature and sunspot activity. The less sunspot activity, the lower the average global temperature. But sunspot activity has been in a sharp decline in the very period where global warming accelerated. So if there is a connection between sunspot activity and global warming, that's even a stronger argument for greenhouse gases being the cause.

And as I suspected, that paper you cited isn't peer reviewed and the people who endorsed it mostly aren't climatologists and all of them are denialists. In fact, it was published on the web site of one of the authors. That's your idea of credibility?

One author, Joseph D'Aleo claims to have a doctorate but it turns out to be only an honorary doctorate.

Another one, Craig Idso, was the director of environmental energy at Peabody, a coal mining company.

Here's a few links to fact checks on this ridiculous report:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers

This is the best you've got? 

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

there is an tremendous abundance of documentation about the cooling from 1970,

scientists and media kept reporting every week how we were entering a new ice age,

the scaremongering was as high in amplitude as it is today about warming,

and prior to that from 1920 it was scaremongering how the arctic was melting,

the alarmists comes and goes like a predictable sinus wave, just like the climate. the climate cycles are unstoppable, and perhaps the alarmists are nearly as unstoppable.

the only thing that sticks out now is the frequency of the alarmists

relentless drivel, never before in history is it repeated three times a day,

i blame media and comfort for it, humans by large no longer struggle with

filling the tummy, industrialism, power generation, and technological advances saw to that, the downside is now theres millions of people with nothing better to do then prophesying doom

Once again, here is a link to a peer reviewed published paper that showed that, in fact, most papers in accredited peer-reviews science journas from the years 1965 to 1979 predicted global warming due to the rise greenhouse gases.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

"Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false... In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf

 

 

 

[brokenbone]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It is true that climatologists detected a possible but weak link between global temperature and sunspot activity. The less sunspot activity, the lower the average global temperature. But sunspot activity has been in a sharp decline in the very period where global warming accelerated. So if there is a connection between sunspot activity and global warming, that's even a stronger argument for greenhouse gases being the cause.

And as I suspected, that paper you cited isn't peer reviewed and the people who endorsed it mostly aren't climatologists and all of them are denialists. In fact, it was published on the web site of one of the authors. That's your idea of credibility?

One author, Joseph D'Aleo claims to have a doctorate but it turns out to be only an honorary doctorate.

Another one, Craig Idso, was the director of environmental energy at Peabody, a coal mining company.

Here's a few links to fact checks on this ridiculous report:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers

This is the best you've got? 

the temp increase since minor ice age has been on large scale large linear,

with the biggest anomaly 1700 to 1710.

as for sorting out correlations that can be dismissed off the bat,

nothing beats geological records, and the geological record

show both a correlation and an inverse correlation between temp & co2

stretching for 100 million years in a row each,

it can thus be concluded that

1] to whatever extent co2 has any influence over temp,

it is overshadowed by some other force(s) orders of magnitude more significant, and

2] there is no co2 feedback in either direction, or it would have shown itself

within a few million years already, i.e break the correlation/inverse correlation

long, long before that 100 million years in a row trend, but it didnt