Revi wrote:We've been keeping accurate records since 1850, and that would mean that roughly we would have 2 record highs per year, and 2 record lows. Last year we had 10 record highs and no record lows in Portland, Maine. I'm pretty sure it was around the same everywhere. We have already experienced the three hottest years since record keeping started. They were 2014, 2015 and 2016. The consequences have begun.
KaiserJeep wrote:
The satellite data - which are in fact direct measurements of mid-troposhere temperatures - have long been disputed because they do not show a warming trend anywhere as intense as suspect climate models based on suspect surface temperature data.
dohboi wrote:kj is hawking a very old and long-ago-debunked myth here. I try not to feed trolls, but for anyone interested in facts, they could start here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satell ... meters.htm
dohboi wrote:?
I would ask what the hell you are talking about, but I just remembered...I don't really give a damn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAqxWa9Rbe0
AdamB wrote:
There is no Anthropocene epoch.
AWG Vote (35 members):
1.Is the Anthropocene stratigraphically real? For: 34, Against: 0, Abstain: 1
2.Should the Anthropocene be formalised? For:30, Against: 3, Abstain: 2
3.Hierarchical level of the Anthropocene? Era: 2, Period: 1.5, Epoch: 20.5, Sub-epoch: 1, Age: 2, Sub-age: 0, None: 1, Uncertain: 3, Abstain: 4
4.Base/beginning of the Anthropocene? ~7ka: 0, ~3ka: 1.3, 1610 Orbis: 0, ~1800: 0, ~1950: 28.3, ~1964: 1.3, Diachronous: 4, Uncertain: 0, Abstain: 0
5.GSSA .v. GSSP? GSSP: 25.5, GSSA: 1.5, Uncertain: 8
6.What is the Primary Signal? aluminium: 0, plastic: 3, fuel ash particles: 2, carbon dioxide concentration: 3, methane concentration: 0, carbon isotope change: 2, oxygen isotope change: 0, radiocarbon bomb spike: 4, Plutonium fallout: 10, Nitrate concentration / nitrogen isotope change: 0, Biostratigraphic: extinction/ assemblage change: 0, Other (lead, persistent organic pollutants, technofossils): 3, Uncertain: 2, Abstain: 6.
All but one of the AWG’s 35 members agree that the Anthropocene is “stratigraphically real” (one abstained) and 30 agree (2 opposed, 3 abstentions) that the new epoch should be formally added to the Geological Time Scale.
The 35th annual International Geological Congress officially declared us in the Anthropocene last August.
Anthropocene: its stratigraphic basis As officers of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG; J.Z. and C.W.) and chair of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS; M.J.H.) of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), we note that the AWG has less power than Erle Ellis and colleagues imply (Nature 540, 192–193; 2016). Its role is merely advisory — to evaluate the Anthropocene as a formal unit in the geological timescale. Proposals must pass scrutiny by the AWG, the SQS and the ICS before being ratified by the Executive Committee of the International Union of Geological Sciences. The geological Anthropocene is not defined by holistic analysis of all human impacts on Earth, but by whether those impacts have produced suitable signals in the stratal record. Requirements include uniqueness, global extent, preservation potential and a synchronous base. A putative geological Anthropocene epoch would be nested within the Quaternary period, Cenozoic era and Phanerozoic eon. Myriad near-synchronous geological signatures in the stratigraphic record place its logical beginning in the mid-twentieth century, during the ‘Great Acceleration’ that marked a global increase in population, industrial activity and energy use. The ‘anthropogenic’ epoch of Ellis et al. is different, and obscures this major Earth system and stratigraphic change. By including all human impacts across the world over millennia, their Anthropocene extends diachronously through the Late Pleistocene and Holocene to the present day. This overlap makes it meaningless as a geological timescale unit. The rich archaeological record, furthermore, is a characteristic of
the Holocene epoch. The AWG is interdisciplinary, with representatives from geology, archaeology, history, soil science, ecology, oceanography, polar science, atmospheric chemistry and international law. It works with physical scientists, social scientists, humanists and artists. It publicizes its activities through open meetings and peer-reviewed literature, and invites feedback. Ongoing work to conceptualize the geological Anthropocene must nonetheless remain within the ICS mandate
They didn't set up the working group, that spent 7 years deliberating, just to dismiss their almost unanimous conclusion. (1 abstention, none opposed)
How stupid does he think people on here are?
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests