New climate study raises alarm for Asian Megacities

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, h90 said:

I think he is very influential...it is him who started that all. It is the politicians who change the public opinions not climatologists. When I turn on the TV (if I would have one) I see Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, lots of Green Party people, etc...I don't see any climatologists.

If not for Al Gore there wouldn't be this program to slow and ultimately reverse climate change? Funny. People falsely credit Al Gore with claiming he invented the Internet. 

The fact is that the it's the overwhelming consensus of the climatological community that significant damage is already being inflicted by climate change and if it climbs over 1.5 degrees it starts to get a lot worse.

[Startmeup]

17 hours ago, placeholder said:

You got any evidence to support your contention? Or is it just more drivel?

The worlds foremost health and climate expert telling you we are all going to die from either climate change, pandemics or eating too much meat while he clocks up more emissions in one year than me and you do in our lifetimes. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-bought-43-million-san-diego-california-beach-house-2020-4

 

The west can continue on its track of green propaganda and its ever increasing price and unreliability of energy while China continues to provide reliable and cheap energy for its citizens and industry. 

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

This has got to be one of the most blatantly disingenuous comments I've ever seen posted. You compute your average by using 20 thousand years as your denominator. But 90% of the rise occurred over about 7000 years as rising temperatures accelerated the melting of the glaciers.  During that time the average rate of increase was 15mm per year or 1.5 centimeters.

That's quite correct. Most of the sea level rise (and presumable temperature rise) occurred between 20,000 and 7,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.6 millions years ago, and during that period there have been a number of Glacial Maxima and Interglacials. We are still, technically, in an Ice Age because the poles still have ice, but the warming and the sea level rise have slowed down significantly, which has presumably helped humans to create our civilizations.

 

Why you think this point is disingenuous is very puzzling. Are you a true 'Climate Change Denier', believing that climate only changes when humans burn fossil fuels'? ????

 

"And from about 3000 years ago until some time after the advent of the industrial revolution, sea levels were quite stable. As was the global temperature average.  Only in the last 100 years or so has the rise resumed at a much higher pace. What's more , the rate of increase is getting higher."

 

I'm guessing you still believe in the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph which covered up, and excluded research which shows that during the past 3,000 years, or so, there have been a number of warm periods at least as warm as the current period, and that such periods were 'approximately' global, although not perfectly synchronous.

 

From the following article: 
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf

 

"...as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal, advocates of the CO2 theory were very concerned about the strength of data that showed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the 20th century and that global warming had occurred naturally, long before atmospheric CO2 began to increase. The contrived elimination of the MWP and Little Ice Age by Mann et al. became known as “the hockey stick” of climate change where the handle of the hockey stick was supposed to represent constant climate until increasing CO2 levels caused global warming, the sharp bend in the lower hockey stick."
 

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That's quite correct. Most of the sea level rise (and presumable temperature rise) occurred between 20,000 and 7,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.6 millions years ago, and during that period there have been a number of Glacial Maxima and Interglacials. We are still, technically, in an Ice Age because the poles still have ice, but the warming and the sea level rise have slowed down significantly, which has presumably helped humans to create our civilizations.

 

Why you think this point is disingenuous is very puzzling. Are you a true 'Climate Change Denier', believing that climate only changes when humans burn fossil fuels'? ????

 

"And from about 3000 years ago until some time after the advent of the industrial revolution, sea levels were quite stable. As was the global temperature average.  Only in the last 100 years or so has the rise resumed at a much higher pace. What's more , the rate of increase is getting higher."

 

I'm guessing you still believe in the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph which covered up, and excluded research which shows that during the past 3,000 years, or so, there have been a number of warm periods at least as warm as the current period, and that such periods were 'approximately' global, although not perfectly synchronous.

 

From the following article: 
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf

 

"...as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal, advocates of the CO2 theory were very concerned about the strength of data that showed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the 20th century and that global warming had occurred naturally, long before atmospheric CO2 began to increase. The contrived elimination of the MWP and Little Ice Age by Mann et al. became known as “the hockey stick” of climate change where the handle of the hockey stick was supposed to represent constant climate until increasing CO2 levels caused global warming, the sharp bend in the lower hockey stick."
 

A video viewed thousands of times online disputes the reliability of an authoritative graph showing cooling global temperatures over 1,000 years and rapid warming in the 20th century. A speaker in the clip claims the chart falsely inflates the impact of man-made climate change. However, the graph is a reliable marker of warming temperatures largely as a result of human activity, climate experts told Reuters.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change-idUSL1N2S112H

 

In each case, the outcome was clear: global mean temperature began to rise dramatically in the early 20th century. That rise coincided with the unprecedented release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the earth's atmosphere, leading to the conclusion that industrial activity was boosting the world's mean temperature. Other researchers subsequently confirmed the plot.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That's quite correct. Most of the sea level rise (and presumable temperature rise) occurred between 20,000 and 7,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.6 millions years ago, and during that period there have been a number of Glacial Maxima and Interglacials. We are still, technically, in an Ice Age because the poles still have ice, but the warming and the sea level rise have slowed down significantly, which has presumably helped humans to create our civilizations.

 

Why you think this point is disingenuous is very puzzling. Are you a true 'Climate Change Denier', believing that climate only changes when humans burn fossil fuels'? ????

 

"And from about 3000 years ago until some time after the advent of the industrial revolution, sea levels were quite stable. As was the global temperature average.  Only in the last 100 years or so has the rise resumed at a much higher pace. What's more , the rate of increase is getting higher."

 

I'm guessing you still believe in the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph which covered up, and excluded research which shows that during the past 3,000 years, or so, there have been a number of warm periods at least as warm as the current period, and that such periods were 'approximately' global, although not perfectly synchronous.

 

From the following article: 
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf

 

"...as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal, advocates of the CO2 theory were very concerned about the strength of data that showed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the 20th century and that global warming had occurred naturally, long before atmospheric CO2 began to increase. The contrived elimination of the MWP and Little Ice Age by Mann et al. became known as “the hockey stick” of climate change where the handle of the hockey stick was supposed to represent constant climate until increasing CO2 levels caused global warming, the sharp bend in the lower hockey stick."
 

Let's start with the last thing first. Don Easterbrook is a crank who predicted global cooling starting at about 2000 

Comparison of "skeptic" geologist Don Easterbrook's projections of global cooling from his presentation at the 2008 American Geophysical Union annual meeting (green and blue) with observational data from the NASA GISS land-ocean dataset (red), showing the time period 1900 to 2100.  Easterbrook's temperature projections can be compared directly to the measurements in the overlapping period 2000 to 2010, where the IPCC and virtually all climate scientists have predicted continued warming.  Easterbrook's projections are inaccurate because he doesn't use a physics-based approach but simply relies on correlations from past climate patterns and largely ignores the now-dominant effect of human greenhouse gas emissions.

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=23

 

Here's the actual record of global temperature average since 1900

 

 

The "study" of Easterbrook's that you cite was published  in 2011. Was it even peer reviewed?

In fact the medieval warm period was not global nor was the Little Ice Age

 

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That's quite correct. Most of the sea level rise (and presumable temperature rise) occurred between 20,000 and 7,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.6 millions years ago, and during that period there have been a number of Glacial Maxima and Interglacials. We are still, technically, in an Ice Age because the poles still have ice, but the warming and the sea level rise have slowed down significantly, which has presumably helped humans to create our civilizations.

 

Why you think this point is disingenuous is very puzzling. Are you a true 'Climate Change Denier', believing that climate only changes when humans burn fossil fuels'? ????

 

"And from about 3000 years ago until some time after the advent of the industrial revolution, sea levels were quite stable. As was the global temperature average.  Only in the last 100 years or so has the rise resumed at a much higher pace. What's more , the rate of increase is getting higher."

 

I'm guessing you still believe in the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph which covered up, and excluded research which shows that during the past 3,000 years, or so, there have been a number of warm periods at least as warm as the current period, and that such periods were 'approximately' global, although not perfectly synchronous.

 

From the following article: 
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf

 

"...as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal, advocates of the CO2 theory were very concerned about the strength of data that showed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the 20th century and that global warming had occurred naturally, long before atmospheric CO2 began to increase. The contrived elimination of the MWP and Little Ice Age by Mann et al. became known as “the hockey stick” of climate change where the handle of the hockey stick was supposed to represent constant climate until increasing CO2 levels caused global warming, the sharp bend in the lower hockey stick."
 

It's not a promising sign when someone resorts to playing word games with a scientific issue. I try to be careful and specify either human caused climate change or anthropogenic climate change. Trying to exploit a lapse, particularly when the context is clear, is just a cheap deflection.

 

I had adequately explained why using 20000 years as a denominator instead of 7000 was disingenyuous. What exactly don't you understand about that?

 

The Michael Mann Hockey Stick has since been confirmed by many independent studies using different data.

This link will take you to a convenient compendium of those studies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

And obviously it continues to be confirmed by this century's global temperature averages.

 

Much of the denialism nonsense began after 1997-1998. That was a year of a very powerful El Nino. El Ninos give a powerful boost to global temperature. So, subsequently when temperatures declined from that year, the denialists claimed that it was due to global cooling. Because, apparently, in Denialist World, regression analyses and trendlines aren't a thing. Well, it's 2023 now, and despite the fact that there haven't been any  El Ninos since 2016, that 1997-98 el nino year is cooler than all of them. In fact, it doesn't even qualify for the top 10 warmest years anymore.

 

[3NUMBAS]

the centre of london is also said to be under water by 2100 as the thames will overflow into the centre ,many  condos wil be standing in water in chelsea  fulham and westminster

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

the centre of london is also said to be under water by 2100 as the thames will overflow into the centre ,many  condos wil be standing in water in chelsea  fulham and westminster

Well, London actually has an extensive and expensive barrier system to keep it from flooding. And they seem to be on top of the potential threat

https://tyndall.ac.uk/news/will-london-soon-be-underwater/

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

Didn't I mention in my previous post that warming and cooling periods are never completely synchronous, globaly?

 

Your linked article fails to mention that there's also no 'sound and reliable' evidence for globally coherent warming during the industrial era.

 

For example, whilst most glaciers might be melting and receding, the Hubbard Glacier, which is the largest glacier on the North American Continent, has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord.

 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf

 

Here's another example of an advancing glacier.

 

"No one in the world has seen a glacier grow from virtually the very first snowflake. The 25-year-old Tulutsa Glacier is the fastest growing new glacier in the world. While most of mountain glaciers are shrinking or disappearing because of global warming, this US glacier keeps advancing at an accelerated pace."
"Over the recent decades this baby glacier grew into the Hulk it is today and it’s growing in thickness by up to 15 meters per year." 

 

https://www.severe-weather.eu/cryosphere/earth-youngest-glacier-healthy-cryosphere-losing-battle-global-warming-rrc/

 

And of course, there's the example of the Antarctic, which has a general trend of increasing ice. From the following article: 
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice

 

"The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice."

 

[ozimoron]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Didn't I mention in my previous post that warming and cooling periods are never completely synchronous, globaly?

 

Your linked article fails to mention that there's also no 'sound and reliable' evidence for globally coherent warming during the industrial era.

 

For example, whilst most glaciers might be melting and receding, the Hubbard Glacier, which is the largest glacier on the North American Continent, has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord.

 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf

 

Here's another example of an advancing glacier.

 

"No one in the world has seen a glacier grow from virtually the very first snowflake. The 25-year-old Tulutsa Glacier is the fastest growing new glacier in the world. While most of mountain glaciers are shrinking or disappearing because of global warming, this US glacier keeps advancing at an accelerated pace."
"Over the recent decades this baby glacier grew into the Hulk it is today and it’s growing in thickness by up to 15 meters per year." 

 

https://www.severe-weather.eu/cryosphere/earth-youngest-glacier-healthy-cryosphere-losing-battle-global-warming-rrc/

 

And of course, there's the example of the Antarctic, which has a general trend of increasing ice. From the following article: 
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice

 

"The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice."

 

If a thousand glaciers are retreating and one is advancing are glaciers retreating or advancing?

[VincentRJ]

40 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If a thousand glaciers are retreating and one is advancing are glaciers retreating or advancing?

Far more than one glacier is advancing. I'm not disputing that we are currently in a warming phase, and that more glaciers are retreating than advancing. I'm making the point that the current rate of warming is not uniform and synchronous, globally,  and not unprecedented, and that there have been fare worse and much more sudden 'changes in climate' in the past.

 

For example, studies of ice cores from Law Dome in the Antarctic have provided a 1,000 year history of droughts in Australia, indicating that the worst drought in that 1,000 year period occured during the Medieval Warm Period in the 12th century AD, and was 39 years long.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Far more than one glacier is advancing. I'm not disputing that we are currently in a warming phase, and that more glaciers are retreating than advancing. I'm making the point that the current rate of warming is not uniform and synchronous, globally,  and not unprecedented, and that there have been fare worse and much more sudden 'changes in climate' in the past.

 

For example, studies of ice cores from Law Dome in the Antarctic have provided a 1,000 year history of droughts in Australia, indicating that the worst drought in that 1,000 year period occured during the Medieval Warm Period in the 12th century AD, and was 39 years long.

Climatologists have never claimed that climate change would be uniform.

[placeholder]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:19 PM, VincentRJ said:

Didn't I mention in my previous post that warming and cooling periods are never completely synchronous, globaly?

 

Your linked article fails to mention that there's also no 'sound and reliable' evidence for globally coherent warming during the industrial era.

 

For example, whilst most glaciers might be melting and receding, the Hubbard Glacier, which is the largest glacier on the North American Continent, has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord.

 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf

 

Here's another example of an advancing glacier.

 

"No one in the world has seen a glacier grow from virtually the very first snowflake. The 25-year-old Tulutsa Glacier is the fastest growing new glacier in the world. While most of mountain glaciers are shrinking or disappearing because of global warming, this US glacier keeps advancing at an accelerated pace."
"Over the recent decades this baby glacier grew into the Hulk it is today and it’s growing in thickness by up to 15 meters per year." 

 

https://www.severe-weather.eu/cryosphere/earth-youngest-glacier-healthy-cryosphere-losing-battle-global-warming-rrc/

 

And of course, there's the example of the Antarctic, which has a general trend of increasing ice. From the following article: 
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice

 

"The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice."

 

What do you mean there's no sound or reliable evidence. for globally coherent global warming? Average temperature of the troposphere and oceans has been on a sharp upward trend. Are you positing some mass conspiracy among the world's climatologists? Or do you believe that globally coherent means 100% homogeneity? I guess you must because you believe exceptions like a few glaciers somehow disprove....honestly, I don't even know how you exactly think they disprove anthropogenic global warmng.

Every year record high and record low temperatures are set. The question is do the highs outnumber the lows or the lows the highs. You think because some place report record lows that proves that there's no trend?

And no, Antarctica doesn't have a significant trend of increasing sea ice. In fact, for this year it has hit a record low. Climatologists aren't sure why. They don't think that it necessarily due to global warming.

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits a Record Low, but Role of Warming Is Unclear

Then, around the year 2014, the Antarctic trend abruptly reversed itself and the sea ice began rapidly declining. It hit a record-low minimum in 2017 and 2018, then rebounded slightly before hitting new records in 2022 and 2023.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-a-record-low-but-role-of-warming-is-unclear/

 

And in the eos article you linked to, to justify their claim that antarctic sea is is increasing the authors linked to this article:

Understanding climate: Antarctic sea ice extent

"The satellite record spans over four decades, and although the ice has shown increasing and decreasing trends over portions of that record, few of those trends have been statistically significant. Year-to-year variability has dominated, especially over the last decade. Since the year 2013, Antarctic sea ice has exhibited its highest and lowest extents on record—highest-ever winter maximum in September 2014, and lowest-ever summer minimum in February 2022. But the overall trend, as of early 2022, is nearly zero."

 

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

 

In short, it's trends that count. Isolated counterexamples are not proof of anything.

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by metisdead
After pasting a reply format the text you have pasted. An easy way to do this is to click the "Paste as plain text instead" option at the bottom of the reply box.

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Climatologists have never claimed that climate change would be uniform.

I think vincentrj is confused. I'm guessing he believes that absent 100% homogeneity, overall warming doesn't count.

[placeholder]

On 3/10/2023 at 9:31 PM, VincentRJ said:

Far more than one glacier is advancing. I'm not disputing that we are currently in a warming phase, and that more glaciers are retreating than advancing. I'm making the point that the current rate of warming is not uniform and synchronous, globally,  and not unprecedented, and that there have been fare worse and much more sudden 'changes in climate' in the past.

 

For example, studies of ice cores from Law Dome in the Antarctic have provided a 1,000 year history of droughts in Australia, indicating that the worst drought in that 1,000 year period occured during the Medieval Warm Period in the 12th century AD, and was 39 years long.

When was the last time there was a more sudden change in global temperature than in the recent past?

 

Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years

The climate is changing at a pace that's far faster than anything seen in 65 million years, a report out of Stanford University says.

The amount of global temperature increase and the short time over which it's occurred create a change in velocity that outstrips previous periods of warming or cooling, the scientists said in research published in today's Science.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

 

Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum

In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions6,7 our results show that global mean temperature has slightly but steadily warmed, by ~0.5 °C, since the early Holocene (around 9 thousand years ago). When compared with recent temperature changes11, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

Edited March 12, 2023 by metisdead
After pasting a reply format the text you have pasted. An easy way to do this is to click the "Paste as plain text instead" option at the bottom of the reply box.

[kwilco]

When I see an OP like this, I have to read it. It's great to see the climate deniers, conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers jostling for the position of most ignorant.

[AndyFoxy]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

When I see an OP like this, I have to read it. It's great to see the climate deniers, conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers jostling for the position of most ignorant.

I prefer to be honest.....this climate change stuff might be true, but I just don't care.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, AndyFoxy said:

I prefer to be honest.....this climate change stuff might be true, but I just don't care.

We don't care that you don't care. 

[kwilco]

5 hours ago, AndyFoxy said:

I prefer to be honest.....this climate change stuff might be true, but I just don't care.

How sad

[kwilco]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Didn't I mention in my previous post that warming and cooling periods are never completely synchronous, globaly?

There's one!

How about the moon landings??

[AndyFoxy]

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

We don't care that you don't care. 

Lol…..you care enough to reply though

[KhunLA]

7 hours ago, kwilco said:

When I see an OP like this, I have to read it. It's great to see the climate deniers, conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers jostling for the position of most ignorant.

As I read, to see who are the most hypocritical.

 

Global Warming, glaciers melting, seas rising, CO2, carbon footprint ... the outrage.

 

I don't deny, but I'm also not concerned about it.  Surprising those that are concerned, haven't gone Solar or drive EVs. 

 

Even I care a bit about, and can do something, about the local air so we use both.  And we're the ignorant ones ????

 

Lots of talking, no doing ... HYPOCRITES

 

Just think if all you hypocrites, cared as much, about all our local concerns and used solar & EVs, instead of talking about it, then might actually compound globally and have an impact on what you are so outraged about.

Edited March 10, 2023 by KhunLA

[kwilco]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

As I read, to see who are the most hypocritical.

 

Global Warming, glaciers melting, seas rising, CO2, carbon footprint ... the outrage.

 

I don't deny, but I'm also not concerned about it.  Surprising those that are concerned, haven't gone Solar or drive EVs. 

 

Even I care a bit about, and can do something, about the local air so we use both.  And we're the ignorant ones ????

 

Lots of talking, no doing ... HYPOCRITES

...clearly a Brexiteer!

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think vincentrj is confused. I'm guessing he believes that absent 100% homogeneity, overall warming doesn't count.

I think it's you who is confused. I was addressing the flaw in the following article you linked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

"No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.
"This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."

 

The point I've been making is that warm and cold periods are never globally coherent, whether in the past or the present, although it makes sense that the degree of the 'lack of global coherency' is never the same at any given point in time.

 

The greatest threat to humanity in the future (exluding the possibility of a World War 3), is the foolish notion that we can make the climate of the planet benign by reducing our emissions of C02 from fossil fuels.

 

The historical records from the fairly recent past, say 3,000 years, which include proxy records from tree rings and sediments, newspaper articles, the memories of indiginous populations, and so on, indicate that sudden and rapid changes in climate have destroyed past civilizations, or at least made life very uncomfortable.

 

Imagine what it would be like if we had another 39 year drought in South Eastern Australia when energy supplies were unreliable and expensive due to the move towards unreliable renewables, and the shutting down of coal and gas plants.

 

We need to protect ourselves from the recurrence of known, extreme weather events of the past. To do this requires plentiful supplies of cheap energy, in order to build more elevated roads, strengthen people's homes, relocate homes that were foolishly built in flood plains, build more dams, reshape the landscape, and so on.
 

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think it's you who is confused. I was addressing the flaw in the following article you linked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

"No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.
"This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."

 

The point I've been making is that warm and cold periods are never globally coherent, whether in the past or the present, although it makes sense that the degree of the 'lack of global coherency' is never the same at any given point in time.

 

The greatest threat to humanity in the future (exluding the possibility of a World War 3), is the foolish notion that we can make the climate of the planet benign by reducing our emissions of C02 from fossil fuels.

 

The historical records from the fairly recent past, say 3,000 years, which include proxy records from tree rings and sediments, newspaper articles, the memories of indiginous populations, and so on, indicate that sudden and rapid changes in climate have destroyed past civilizations, or at least made life very uncomfortable.

 

Imagine what it would be like if we had another 39 year drought in South Eastern Australia when energy supplies were unreliable and expensive due to the move towards unreliable renewables, and the shutting down of coal and gas plants.

 

We need to protect ourselves from the recurrence of known, extreme weather events of the past. To do this requires plentiful supplies of cheap energy, in order to build more elevated roads, strengthen people's homes, relocate homes that were foolishly built in flood plains, build more dams, reshape the landscape, and so on.
 

The point you were making is invalid. Apparently you don't understand the concept of trends. Somehow, you believe that unless there's absolutely no exceptions, then the change is not "coherent".  This is obviously nonsense. Even most denialists don't take that as a basis for their opposition to ACC. They claim that the data gathered is wrong and/or predict (falsely) the the climate will cool. You're pretty much out there on your own. Feeling lonely much?

 

As for your assertion that because there have been climate disasters in the past, therefore it can't get any worse, that's also bizarre. As is your implicit rejection of the work of John Tindall, the 19th century Irish physicist, and Eunice gifted amateur physicist Foote, the discoverers of the greenhouse effect. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

The point you were making is invalid. Apparently you don't understand the concept of trends. Somehow, you believe that unless there's absolutely no exceptions, then the change is not "coherent". 

Of course I understand the concepts of trends. Climate always changes over any given period of time. It changes locally and globally. However,the change is never 100% coherent, globally. There will always be certain areas which are cooling, whilst other areas are warming, and there will always be some areas that are becoming drier whilst other areas are becoming wetter.

 

What you don't seem to understand is the complexity of the situation and that the role played in the current warming, by increases in minuscule amounts of a trace gas, such as CO2, cannot be accurately quantified, and that future predictions of changes in climate are unlikely to be accurate, and that many past predictions from the Alarmists have already been proved wrong.

 

However, what can be accurately quantified are the benefits of increased CO2 levels for plant growth and crop production. We can apply the true scientific method by experimenting with crop growth in true greenhouses. No computer models are required.

 

Satellite imagery has also shown that during the past 30 years, the additional greening of the planet due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, is equivalent to an area the size of the USA.

 

CO2 is one of the essential molecules for the existence of all life.

 

For God's sake, get real!!
 

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

As I read, to see who are the most hypocritical.

 

Global Warming, glaciers melting, seas rising, CO2, carbon footprint ... the outrage.

 

I don't deny, but I'm also not concerned about it.  Surprising those that are concerned, haven't gone Solar or drive EVs. 

 

Even I care a bit about, and can do something, about the local air so we use both.  And we're the ignorant ones ????

 

Lots of talking, no doing ... HYPOCRITES

 

Just think if all you hypocrites, cared as much, about all our local concerns and used solar & EVs, instead of talking about it, then might actually compound globally and have an impact on what you are so outraged about.

Personally driving an EV will do nothing much more than give you a warm, fuzzy feeling. What wiill benefit the planet most is to vote for leaders who will not pocket the fossil fuel bribes and deny there's a problem. 

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Satellite imagery has also shown that during the past 30 years, the additional greening of the planet due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, is equivalent to an area the size of the USA.
 

 

And you still haven't a clue about what trends mean except when it suits your purpose. You claim that the planet is getting greener. Are all areas of the planet getting greener? Are no areas of the planet getting less green? Applying your logic to this question, unless the planet is gettering greener everywhere, your claim is invalid. Doublethink much?

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course I understand the concepts of trends. Climate always changes over any given period of time. It changes locally and globally. However,the change is never 100% coherent, globally. There will always be certain areas which are cooling, whilst other areas are warming, and there will always be some areas that are becoming drier whilst other areas are becoming wetter.

 

What you don't seem to understand is the complexity of the situation and that the role played in the current warming, by increases in minuscule amounts of a trace gas, such as CO2, cannot be accurately quantified, and that future predictions of changes in climate are unlikely to be accurate, and that many past predictions from the Alarmists have already been proved wrong.
 

And your nonsense that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to make a difference is just nuts. Following up on Tyndall's work, the Swedish physicist Arrhenius precisely measured the power of CO2's heat trapping ability. This research dates back to 1896! Stop making things up.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

And you still haven't a clue about what trends mean except when it suits your purpose. You claim that the planet is getting greener. Are all areas of the planet getting greener? Are no areas of the planet getting less green? Applying your logic to this question, unless the planet is gettering greener everywhere, your claim is invalid. Doublethink much?

Yes, inevitably cold climates get greener as they become warmer.  Simple logic escapes climate change deniers.