Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Has Global Warming Peaked?

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Tue 05 Mar 2019, 19:04:09

No vertical axis labels. Cheap, crappy misdirection. The much yapped about Medieval warming anomaly was confined to the Northern Hemisphere and mostly Europe. It was the result of massive deforestation of the continent. Reducing high latitude vegetation cover and at the same time spewing fire aerosols into the atmosphere both act to increase surface temperatures.

Regional climate change is not equivalent to global climate change. Some places will get cooler and some will get warmer. It is tiresome to listen to the same shit over and over about how if it is cold at some point on the surface, then global warming must be a hoax. This is Medieval grade scientific illiteracy and even superstitious ignorance.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 05 Mar 2019, 19:30:11

Tiring indeed.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13240
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 05 Mar 2019, 20:43:37

The much yapped about Medieval warming anomaly was confined to the Northern Hemisphere and mostly Europe
.

There are several hundred published papers that would argue with you on that. A good summary of studies that have been conducted is available at:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C89.76481185150567&z=1

red flags indicate areas which were warm during 1000 – 1200 AD (the MWP) as indicated by published research referenced in the legend, green are documented as being wet, blue cold and yellow dry. There are lot’s of red flags throughout the southern hemisphere and areas of cold, wet or dry are scattered pretty evenly around the globe.

There is a recent good summary paper that points to widespread evidence of the MWP in South America.

Luning, S, et al, 2018. The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. Quaternary International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.041

The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a climatic perturbation with a core period of 1000-1200 AD that is well-recognized in the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Its existence in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) and the level of synchronicity with the NH is still a matter of debate. Here we present a palaeotemperature synthesis for South America encompassing the past 1500 years based on multiproxy data from 76 published land and marine sites. The data sets have been thoroughly graphically correlated and the MCA trends palaeoclimatologically mapped. The vast majority of all South American land sites suggest a warm MCA. Andean vegetation zones moved upslope, glaciers retreated, biological productivity in high altitude lakes increased, the duration of cold season ice cover on Andean lakes shortened, and trees produced thicker annual rings. Similar MCA warming occurred in coastal seas, except in the year-round upwelling zones of Peru, northern Chile and Cabo Frio (Brazil) where upwelling processes intensified during the MCA due to changes in winds and ocean currents. MCA warming in South America and the NH appears to have occurred largely synchronous, probably reaching comparable intensities. Future studies will have to address major MCA data gaps that still exist outside the Andes in the central and eastern parts of the continent. The most likely key drivers for the medieval climate change are multi-centennial Pacific and Atlantic ocean cycles, probably linked to solar forcing.


Some places will get cooler and some will get warmer. It is tiresome to listen to the same shit over and over about how if it is cold at some point on the surface, then global warming must be a hoax.


And it is equally tiresome to hear over and over about how if it is hot at some point on the surface then AGW is proven. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jedrider » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 00:12:42

"And it is equally tiresome to hear over and over about how if it is hot at some point on the surface then AGW is proven. :roll."

I would like to see the evidence that the ice lost was recovered after the Medieval warming, especially at the North and South poles and how sea level was reduced, as well, after the warming was over.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 07:54:04

It was the result of massive deforestation of the continent.


So supposedly that refutes the situation that humans are pumping 550 quad BTU of heat into the environment each year by burning fossil fuels? 550 quad is enough energy to heat all of the world oceans 1° F every 32 years. So you are claiming that an addition of 550 quad BTU has no effect? I'll have to inform my coffee pot that it will no longer needed. Spring is coming and I'll be mowing the grass.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jawagord » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 08:07:41

dissident wrote: The much yapped about Medieval warming anomaly was confined to the Northern Hemisphere and mostly Europe. It was the result of massive deforestation of the continent. Reducing high latitude vegetation cover and at the same time spewing fire aerosols into the atmosphere both act to increase surface temperatures.

Regional climate change is not equivalent to global climate change.


Quoting RealClimate again Dis? Perhaps you should change your name to Disinformation. There are real science blogs out there, not hard to find MWP all over the place. Check the map. Don’t deny the MWP, don’t deny the peak!

MWP Online Map
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid= ... haring_eid

About 1000 years ago, large parts of the world experienced a prominent warm phase which in many cases reached a similar temperature level as today or even exceeded present-day warmth. While this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been documented in numerous case studies from around the globe, climate models still fail to reproduce this historical warm phase. The problem is openly conceded in the most recent IPCC report from 2013 (AR5, Working Group 1) where in chapter 5.3.5. the IPCC scientists admit (pdf here):

http://diekaltesonne.de/mapping-the-med ... rm-period/

It is cold, it is windy, it is dangerous, it is an extraordinarily awkward environment to work in,” gasps Keith Mountain cheerfully as he stands atop the oxygen-poor Quelccaya ice cap 5,760 meters high in Peru’s southern Andes.

In Quelccaya cores, says Thompson, “you can see the medieval warm period when the Vikings settled in Greenland.
You can see the onset of the Little Ice Age in the early 1500’s that contributed to the demise of the Vikings. And you can see the warming in the 20th century.”

https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/ear ... n-ice-core
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 08:58:33

I would like to see the evidence that the ice lost was recovered after the Medieval warming, especially at the North and South poles and how sea level was reduced, as well, after the warming was over.


Since the Younger Dryas Evident, about 11,000 years ago, sea levels have risen 450 feet. That has been an average increase of 0.49 inches a year. Sea levels have been going up because the ice has been melting. Because we are in an inter-glacial period that means that the ice will keep melting until the next ice age shows up, and that sea levels will keep rising until then. The last 10 inter-glacial periods have lasted about 10,000 years. Until the next ice age comes along sea levels will not be reduced. Water must get to 32° F to freeze, and it must stay below 32° F to stay frozen. When sea levels stop rising that will mean that it is going to be getting really, really cold, and it will most likely stay cold for about 100,000 years. Anyone who is looking forward to that is probably part penguin.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 12:20:10

rockdoc123 wrote:And it is equally tiresome to hear over and over about how if it is hot at some point on the surface then AGW is proven. :roll:


Tiresome...if you're a denier.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 12:33:47

Tiresome...if you're a denier.


Denying exactly what? Your pretty quick with the labeling but I suspect have zero idea what you are talking about.

It is tiresome if you are a scientist....the logic doesn't hold. If it isn't OK to reference cold regions as being important then it is equally not OK to reference warm regions as being important. You need to admit your bias here.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Cog » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 16:35:09

pstarr wrote:I am a proud Denier


You do have some redeeming qualities pstarr.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12770
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 06 Mar 2019, 16:39:25

I am a proud Denier


Is the world in the same cycle that it has been in for the last million years? 100,000 glacial, 10,000 interglacial. It all freezes, and then for a brief period it warms up. The heat loss the earth must experience to produce an ice age is billions of times what humans are yet capable of producing. Until we have a better understanding of what drives that cycle, we know nothing. We need to let our science develop without trying to nudge it one way, or the other to expedite short term political opportunities. How can a problem be solved if the problem is still unknown?

I don't know if these estimates are even close, but to be on the safe side if you see a termite, stomp on it. You may be saving the world.

Image

http://historyinfographics.com/termites ... l-warming/
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 01:15:02

Heatwaves sweeping oceans ‘like wildfires’, scientists reveal


Global warming is gradually increasing the average temperature of the oceans, but the new research is the first systematic global analysis of ocean heatwaves, when temperatures reach extremes for five days or more.

The research found heatwaves are becoming more frequent, prolonged and severe, with the number of heatwave days tripling in the last couple of years studied. In the longer term, the number of heatwave days jumped by more than 50% in the 30 years to 2016, compared with the period of 1925 to 1954.

As heatwaves have increased, kelp forests, seagrass meadows and coral reefs have been lost. These foundation species are critical to life in the ocean. They provide shelter and food to many others, but have been hit on coasts from California to Australia to Spain.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/04/heatwaves-sweeping-oceans-like-wildfires-scientists-reveal

Original article

Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0412-1
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 01:39:56

clif wrote:
The heat loss the earth must experience to produce an ice age is billions of times what humans are yet capable of producing.

We don't produce the heat, we help the atmosphere trap what comes from the sun by increasing greenhouse gasses. We also are triggering positive feedbacks where the earth because of the increased temp from our actions which allows more greenhouse gasses to escape ...... into the already heated atmosphere increasing the cycle of green house gas accumulation.

PS: here is the twitter feed of the non scientist you tried to quote but failed to upload his very slanted image;

https://twitter.com/@realGKnight


As for the termites, well they have been doing their thing long before humans showed up, and all through the ups and downs of temps during the human history termites have been eating wood and releasing very recent biospheric ground based carbon that was produced by plants from very recent (on historical time frames) sunlight, unlike humans which have been releasing carbon from very old decayed organic material that was produced by (from historical time fames) ancient sunlight.

In other words, it isn't activity based on carbon in organic material sunlight from the last couple of centuries, but the carbon from decayed organic material that was long buried from sunlight from millions of years ago which is tipping the balance out of whack from the Holocene into the Anthropocene ....

Do keep pushing non scientific ideas from very politically motivated deniers .... keeps the conservation at least interesting to see which non scientific claims you will come up with next,to deny the simple fact humans are changing the planet in ways that are not conductive to any large mammalian life including even us humans......
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 07:11:32

What I’ve observed from watching these denier threads is that the deniers, as a group, have no consistent view of how the Earth is changing or what processes are responsible. You can’t argue because there are as many positions as deniers.

So deniers here: I have a couple of questions for you:

1-Is Earth warming, stable or cooling?

2-What is your theory to support you position?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13240
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 10:10:51

What I’ve observed from watching these denier threads is that the deniers, as a group, have no consistent view of how the Earth is changing or what processes are responsible. You can’t argue because there are as many positions as deniers.


First of all, enough with the BS "denier" label OK? First of all, what is being denied?......that someone disagrees with a poor characterization of what is actually going on? ....that they disagree with what you think is some kind of collective opinion? Science doesn't work that way, never has, never will.

Secondly, if you bothered to actually look at the arguments being made by those who you keep labeling in an insulting manner, scientists who have been actively researching in various aspects of climate science for decades, you would find that they actually don't have some sort of all-encompassing theory. You do not need an alternative theory to criticize one that is made. That is how science works. Someone proposes a theory, others pick it apart and point out the shortcomings and the individual who proposed the original theory can choose to adjust his theory, abandon it and/or create a new one. The point being made is climate is very complex and is not well understood as researchers like Judith Curry point out continuously. If you bothered to read the masses of literature there is always a new paper that is stating some aspect of the climate system is apparently different than what was formerly thought. If it is complex then the time needs to be spent to fully understand all of the interactions, make sure models include all of the characterizations of the various variables and their interactions. Man-made contributions of greenhouse gas obviously have a contribution, nobody is arguing otherwise ...what is being argued is how much of a contribution. The "deniers" as you call them are not saying...."I have a better theory". What they are saying is the current theory is insufficient as has been demonstrated by the failure of models and projections and needs considerable more study not influenced by political machinations. Suggesting there is a consensus and that is all you need is anathema to proper scientific investigation as has been shown numerous times through history.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 11:07:13

I also get annoyed at being labeled a denier for questioning the accuracy of the consensus or pointing out how often the consensus has been totally wrong in the past.
But as to the question "Has global warming peaked?" I would not agree with that unless the worlds glaciers stopped retreading and began to gain total mass for a few years. They are an unbiased source untroubled by politics and not in need of a funding source or need to publish.
Of course they don't speak to what has caused the present warming trend or to solutions to the problem if in fact there are solutions.
I think anyone that considers that we at present we are extracting and burning coal oil and natural gas at a rate equivalent to 288 million barrels of oil/day (best figure I could get together on a clean piece of paper with goggle) and that at least a third of the energy in those fuels goes out into the atmosphere( 94mbpdX5.8e^6BTU/b) the idea that humans have not warmed the atmosphere is ridiculous. Then add in the green house effect of the CO2 in the exhaust gases and you compound the problem.
But then comes the problem of what if anything to do about it. Suddenly stop burning the fuel? The people first forced to do so would certainly go to war with whoever was forcing them to go first and any war today could escalate to nuclear conflict which wouldn't be good for the atmosphere ,and those that need to breath it, at all.
Switch to renewables? Fine but how fast can you do that? And consider that a big wind tower has some 250 tons of metallurgical coal incorporated in making the steel for it.
Pile on carbon taxes? Us congress can't get enough votes to raise the gas tax 25 cents over five years much less the $4 to $6 proposed for a carbon tax.
In the end there is not much we can do and much less that we will do except deal with the aftermath of what actually happens.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9818
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 11:27:23

shortonoil wrote:
It was the result of massive deforestation of the continent.


So supposedly that refutes the situation that humans are pumping 550 quad BTU of heat into the environment each year by burning fossil fuels? 550 quad is enough energy to heat all of the world oceans 1° F every 32 years. So you are claiming that an addition of 550 quad BTU has no effect? I'll have to inform my coffee pot that it will no longer needed. Spring is coming and I'll be mowing the grass.


The hand drawn graph you posted has been debunked as a fake many times. Denier scammers love to amplify the magnitude to make it look like it was the same warming as we have today. This was not only not the case globally, but even regionally in Europe.

Image

When considering both hemisphere we get:

Image

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/magazine/2 ... ifferences

The Earth was following the expected cooling trend during an inter-glacial until the advent of industrialization. Once again, deniers deliberately ignore and obfuscate the term "global" to pimp their lies.

The amount of biomass burned in Europe during the medieval deforestation spasm was massive. More then enough to load the planetary boundary layer (PBL) with smoke aerosol for centuries. And aerosols in the PBL account for 8 C of the surface temperature. You can spout off your non sequitur BTU numbers all you want, but you merely show your utter ignorance of the science. The temperature is not maintained by direct heat emissions from combustion (as is also the case today, sunshine) but by the alteration of the radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 11:37:32

Rockdoc123:

So what do you think is happening? What is your theory to explain it? Not just pointing to Judith Curry, who from my understaning does not deny AWG, she questions the degree and wants research in additional factors.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13240
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 11:48:34

VT,

One should always look at fresh science, and of course there is a lot of different opinions in the AWG tent, no doubt. And I don’t hear you as a “denier”.

I do think there are a lot who claim to be within the AWG tent who do take it as religion, and I don’t support that either. You and I will always be open to criticism as long as we take an opinion.

There is no doubt that tough decisions face us. What to do about it? There are many things that start to help, the GND is most assuredly not one of them. And AWG is only one of the problems we face; pollution, resource depletion, financialninsecurity, human migration etc. all interact and compound the problems.

So we should choose our solutions wisely, and they to make sure what we do does not have some nasty side effect on a different crisis. Some solutions appear simple: adopt Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Simple, understandable, affordable, what’s not to love? Well it might put us into recession. Everything impacts everything else.

Perhaps at this point the best analogy is to an addict; there is no “no pain” solution. There is only a “less gross pain” path forward. And that’s not easy.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13240
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests