How Bad Is Global Warming?

[slimmouse]

OK Doc, Now Im scared.

But what about those tempearature graphs and trends over a significant "timescale".

Do you have any?

[stillrobertpaulsen]

OK, slimmouse, I'll bite.

But just this once. From now on, if you really want an answer to a question you could have answered yourself by simply googling "climate change graph" and clicking on Images, show some fucking rigor. Pretty please, with sugar on top.

The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier

—By Tim McDonnell
| Thu Mar. 7, 2013 12:05 PM PST


Average global temperature over the last ~2,000 years. Note the massive uptick on the far right side. Courtesy Science/AAAS

Back in 1999, Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann released the climate change movement's most potent symbol: The "hockey stick," a line graph of global temperature over the last 1,500 years that shows an unmistakable, massive uptick in the 20th century, when humans began to dump large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It's among the most compelling bits of proof out there that human beings are behind global warming, and as such has become a target on Mann's back for climate denialists looking to draw a bead on scientists.

Today, it's getting a makeover: A study published in Science reconstructs global temperatures further back than ever before—a full 11,300 years. The new analysis finds that the only problem with Mann's hockey stick was that its handle was about 9,000 years too short. The rate of warming over the last 100 years hasn't been seen for as far back as the advent of agriculture.


Marcott's team used ocean records to reconstruct global climate further back in time than ever before. Courtesy Science/AAAS

To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today. But the key, said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University, is that temperatures are shooting through the roof faster than we've ever seen.

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

Previous historic climate reconstructions typically extended no further back than 2,000 years, roughly as far back as you can go by examining climate indicators from tree rings, as Mann did. To dig even deeper, Marcott's team looked at objects collected from more than 70 sites worldwide, primarily fossilized ocean shells that have been unearthed by oceanographers. Existing research has shown that certain chemical tracers in the shells link directly to temperature at the time they were created; by studying oxygen isotopes in the fossilized plankton shown below, for example, scientists can deduce that it formed its shell at a time when Greenland was fully without ice. Marcott's task was to compile enough such samples to represent the whole planet over his chosen timeframe.

"There's been a lot of work that's gone into the calibrations, so we can be dead certain [the shells] are recording the temperature we think they're recording," he said.

Today's study should help debunk the common climate change denial argument that recent warming is simply part of a long-term natural trend. Indeed, Marcott says, the Earth should be nearing the bottom of a several-thousand year cool-off (the end-point of the rainbow arc in (B) above), if natural factors like solar variability were the sole driving factors. Instead, temperatures are rising rapidly.

Mann himself, who literally wrote the book on attacks on climate scientists, said in an email to Climate Desk that he was "certain that professional climate change deniers will attack the study and the authors, in an effort to discredit this important work," especially given the close ties between the two scientists' research. "It will therefore be looked at as a threat to vested interests who continue to deny that human-changed climate change is a reality."

Marcott admitted he was apprehensive about charging into the fully mobilized troll army, but said he was grateful scientists like Mann had "gone through hell" before him to build a support network for harassed climate scientists.

"When Michael came along there was a lot more skepticism about global warming, but the public has come a long way," he said. "I'm curious to see how the skeptics are going to take this paper."

I hope that answers your question. I mean, I hope you truly have an open mind and are not just asking rhetorically to confirm a preconceived bias. If so, my apologies for being rude.

[DrEvil]

OK Doc, Now Im scared.

But what about those tempearature graphs and trends over a significant "timescale".

Do you have any?

What part of "You're on the fucking internet!" Didn't you understand?
I'm not going to do your work for you just because you can't be arsed yourself, and anyway - stillrobertpaulsen is a much nicer person than me and already did it for me.

[Sounder]

I listened to that whole Mr. Whitehouse vid. Hey, if you guys like that sort of thing maybe you will like this also.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... orecasters

Yes our pres is SERIOUS about this crisis. The same fella that has stacked his administration with ex-Monsanto execs. When he campaigned he assured folk that food should be labeled, and of course he knew he was lying because he was already a Monsanto man. His State dept. functions as a front line sales force for Monsanto yet he is taken as being on the righteous side of this ‘crisis’. Get a reality check.

Sorry, AGW is nothing more than a money spicket and social engineering project, same as war on Cancer, terror, drugs, 911, and now a pending panopticon.

Now, being how an all, you folk are so well trained, I’m a thinkin it’s about the right time for you to do some barking.

[Ben D]

Hi stillrobertpaulsen, you're new to this aren't you...papers like the Marcott one with the scary hockey stick graph aren't to be taken as actual scientific fact...in fact there is little consensus that it is if you have followed that story.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

You're a fucking joke.

What do you want me to debate now, ad hominems? Are you new to the rules of debate?

What part of "I have nothing more to say to you" do you have trouble understanding?

This is the last time I'm going to ask before writing you off as a goddamn troll:

FUCK OFF!

[brainpanhandler]

I listened to that whole Mr. Whitehouse vid. Hey, if you guys like that sort of thing maybe you will like this also.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... orecasters

Yes our pres is SERIOUS about this crisis. The same fella that has stacked his administration with ex-Monsanto execs. When he campaigned he assured folk that food should be labeled, and of course he knew he was lying because he was already a Monsanto man. His State dept. functions as a front line sales force for Monsanto yet he is taken as being on the righteous side of this ‘crisis’. Get a reality check.

Who needs to get a reality check? Are you referring to anyone posting in this thread?

From the Guardian article you posted a link to:

TV weather forecasters remain among the most trusted sources, according to opinion polls.

Some 89% of Americans rely on local television for their weather news, according to a 2012 report from the Pew research centre.

The same report said 62% of Americans trust television weather reporters on climate change far more than they do climate scientists.

The problem is, however, that there is a strong current of climate scepticism among weather forecasters. Some of the most prominent television meteorologists deny a human cause in climate change – or insist there is no evidence of climate change.

A 2010 study by George Mason University's centre for climate change communications found that only 19% of TV weather forecasters accepted that human activity was the main driver of climate change.

“Many TV meteorologists remain climate change sceptics, in part because they are skilled at forecasting weather over short time periods, which can make them doubt long-range projections from climate science computer models,” wrote Andrew Freedman, who covers climate change for Mashable. "Many TV meteorologists also lack specific training in climate science."

That is fascinating. 81% of TV weather forecasters refuse to accept or are too stupid to accept that human activity is the main driver of climate change or are compelled to act as though they don't. That's a stunning degree of control.

Sorry,

No worries.

AGW is nothing more than a money spicket and social engineering project

I know, right. Get em all scared so you can pick their pockets. Those fucking Rockefellers again!

same as war on Cancer

Cancer is real.

terror

Terror is real. We're just the greatest practitioners and purveyors of it.

drugs

Ya, ain't that one a fucker. They get ya coming and going.

911

Unless you think that was a project blue beam hologram then that was real too.

and now a pending panopticon.

Not pending. Quite real. You're soaking in it.

Now, being how an all, you folk are so well trained, I’m a thinkin it’s about the right time for you to do some barking.

And now being as you are all uneducated and everything, you'll have nothing sensible to say.

Yer ol' buddy Chomsky:



What a greedy, lying fuck. Eh?

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Sorry, AGW is nothing more than a money spicket and social engineering project, same as war on Cancer, terror, drugs, 911, and now a pending panopticon.

I'm not sure where you're coming from saying "AGW is nothing more" than the list above. Does that make it not real? Are you joining BenDumbass in the Denial Zone?

I mean, if you want to call out the Democratic Party as a bastion of hypocrisy, there's room for debate there. If you want to call out various environmentalists for their narrow self interest, there's room for debate there too. I might even agree with you to some extent. But there is no rational debate to be had on whether human industrial activity is responsible for Global Climate Change or not. It may very well be, as you say, a "social engineering project" the Elites are engaged in. But that doesn't make it any less real. More important, and even scarier, it doesn't mean they have any control over just how bad it may get.

[Sounder]

AGW is nothing more than a money spicket and social engineering project

I know, right. Get em all scared so you can pick their pockets. Those fucking Rockefellers again!

same as war on Cancer

Cancer is real.

Yes it is, and like climate, needs to be studied. Now remember the context of the Cancer War; tobacco was vilified and scapegoated with such loud voices that most folk forgot to consider the impact of the myriad other complex chemicals that are inherent to this wasteful age. Everybody quickly learned to shape their grant applications to get precious Cancer money while other promising pure science was ignored.
And what do we get for all this largess and altruistic sentiment? We get the same old, cut, burn, and poison routine.

terror

Terror is real. We're just the greatest practitioners and purveyors of it.

This rhetorical devise is lame though because I never said it wasn’t ‘real’. The temp has risen whatever you say it has in the last hundred years or so. I accept that carbon may account for about one third of that. The analogy with terror is in the inflating and repurposing naïve players intentions so as to serve the objectives of better connected players.
(These folk want to harmonize corporate rules of engagement at an international level so they can rape and pillage without restraint.)

drugs

Ya, ain't that one a fucker. They get ya coming and going.

Does it really call for being defined as a war from the get go? We so love our criminals, hell they may even get paid .12 or .20 cents an hour.

911

Unless you think that was a project blue beam hologram then that was real too.

‘real’---‘not real’, yeah boy, ya got me there. (This is another laughably pathetic dodge, lets see; either i think 911was a blue beam hologram or it was real? Please tell me you are joking BPH, otherwise some may be inclined to see script marks in your text.)

and now a pending panopticon.

Not pending. Quite real. You're soaking in it.

But wait---AD says that the US is not a fascist state, shit who can I trust now?

Now, being how an all, you folk are so well trained, I’m a thinkin it’s about the right time for you to do some barking.

And now being as you are all uneducated and everything, you'll have nothing sensible to say.

Yeah, maybe if you can’t deal with humor you should shut up and not show yourself as some elitist that (has no choice) but to associate an accent with being uneducated.

Dweeb

What a greedy, lying fuck. Eh?

No, and if you please, do not try to speak for me. Mr. Chomsky is a brilliant person that is wrong on certain issues, it happens all the time. (But your appeal to authority gambit is as trusty as ever so, -never stop till you get enough, I say

[brainpanhandler]

Yah, yah. blah, blah, blah.

This rhetorical devise is lame though because I never said it wasn’t ‘real’.

‘Dipshit’.

When you write:

AGW is nothing more than a money spicket and social engineering project

It makes it seem as though you think AGW is not real. Right? right. Nitwit. If you don't want to be misconstrued then write clearly.

And where did you get the 1/3 number from? An appeal to the authority of your arse?

[Ben D]

AGW has not been proven by any science...it is not the scientific method to say something is real because some climate scientists say the 0.7C warming is caused by human derived CO2, it has to be proven.

Now I am happy to see what the RI AGW alarmists have to offer in the way of proof they perceive in the temperature record versus human CO2 emissions.

C'mon, show us your expert understanding of the science....

[DrEvil]

I listened to that whole Mr. Whitehouse vid. Hey, if you guys like that sort of thing maybe you will like this also.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... orecasters

Yes our pres is SERIOUS about this crisis. The same fella that has stacked his administration with ex-Monsanto execs. When he campaigned he assured folk that food should be labeled, and of course he knew he was lying because he was already a Monsanto man. His State dept. functions as a front line sales force for Monsanto yet he is taken as being on the righteous side of this ‘crisis’. Get a reality check.

Sorry, AGW is nothing more than a money spicket and social engineering project, same as war on Cancer, terror, drugs, 911, and now a pending panopticon.

Now, being how an all, you folk are so well trained, I’m a thinkin it’s about the right time for you to do some barking.

Soo.. because Obama is friendly with Monsanto, everything he says must be a lie? Is that what you're saying? Can you spell logical fallacy?

PS! Can someone please ban BenD already? He's been trolling, obfuscating, lying and twisting the facts in this thread for years now. I think it's abundantly clear that he has no interest in an actual debate.

[Ben D]

Can someone please ban BenD already? He's been trolling, obfuscating, lying and twisting the facts in this thread for years now. I think it's abundantly clear that he has no interest in an actual debate.

Wow..the irony...I just offered to debate AGW science with you AGW alarmists and you want me banned...wait for it....because you think that I have no interest in an actual debate.

C'mon....I say to you that there is no proof that AGW is real...if you think otherwise...show me the correlation between the increase in human derived CO2 emissions and global temperature increase.

[DrEvil]

Can someone please ban BenD already? He's been trolling, obfuscating, lying and twisting the facts in this thread for years now. I think it's abundantly clear that he has no interest in an actual debate.

Wow..the irony...I just offered to debate AGW science with you AGW alarmists and you want me banned...wait for it....because you think that I have no interest in an actual debate.

C'mon....I say to you that there is no proof that AGW is real...if you think otherwise...show me the correlation between the increase in human derived CO2 emissions and global temperature increase.

Ben, the thread is 71 pages long. Take out roughly 30 pages of your trolling and there's your proof.
And no, I don't think you have no interest in a real debate, I know it. This thread is pretty much all the proof I need. Now fuck off you lying piece of shit.

[Ben D]

Can someone please ban BenD already? He's been trolling, obfuscating, lying and twisting the facts in this thread for years now. I think it's abundantly clear that he has no interest in an actual debate.

Wow..the irony...I just offered to debate AGW science with you AGW alarmists and you want me banned...wait for it....because you think that I have no interest in an actual debate.

C'mon....I say to you that there is no proof that AGW is real...if you think otherwise...show me the correlation between the increase in human derived CO2 emissions and global temperature increase.

Ben, the thread is 71 pages long. Take out roughly 30 pages of your trolling and there's your proof.
And no, I don't think you have no interest in a real debate, I know it. This thread is pretty much all the proof I need. Now fuck off you lying piece of shit.

For God's sake be honest for once....you don't want to debate because you know you lack the prerequisite understanding to be able to sensibly debate me.