Climate record

[Drumcollie]

Nope. I prefer sane policies that would mitigate climate change. Instead, all we get from the GOP is abject ignorance. It's tragic.

Wow, more ridicule how scientific.

 

[Drumcollie]

So why are you raising it? I've certainly never heard anyone here make that claim before. Weather and climate, obviously, are different but related things. Weather is a part of climate.

And climate is faked.

 

[Drumcollie]

When anomalies start to pile up, as predicted, it suggests there's more to it than natural variability.


Conservative plan for the future: fiddle while Earth burns.

If you only knew what you were talking about.

 

[Drumcollie]

Climate includes things like deep sea temps, which aren't generally talked about as weather.

It is talked about constantly...by the fish.

 

[Arkady]

There has been extremely rapid climate change before but those that want to push the "it's mankind's fault - let's tax and control folks" crowd tend to gloss over that little factoid.

When have we ever seen global warming at the current rate? Over the past 20 years, the global temperature anomaly has been growing at a pace of 0.0176 degrees Celsius per year -- 1.76 degrees Celsius per century. And that's been part of a longer trend of accelerating warming (e.g., the trend over the last thirty years is 1.70 degrees Celsius per century, and over the last 50 years it's 1.69 degrees Celsius per century). So, be specific, please. At what other point was global temperature rising at a rate of 1.76 degrees Celsius per century?

If it helps, here's what the last 12,000 years look like, graphed:

What you're looking for is which other period had a slope like the one at the extreme right end of the graph.

Here's a much longer timeline:
'

As you can see, the most rapid warming in the record, prior to the current one, was from about 138,000 years ago to about 127,000 years ago. Temperatures rose from about -8 to about +2.5, relative to the modern levels. That's a net change of 10.5 degrees Celsius in about 11,000 years, or about 0.095 degrees per century. Again, that compares to a rate of 1.76 degrees per century that we've been on for the last two decades, or 1.69 degrees per century that we've been averaging over the last 50 years. In other word, recent change is happening at a pace around nineteen times as fast as even the most rapid change we'd seen over the last 150,000 years.

So, again, please be specific. When have we seen change anywhere near as rapid as currently?

 

[Arkady]

LOL. Simple answer...there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels. None. None as portable. None as cheap. None as reliable. None as efficient.

Until that magically appears, oil will continue to be king.

For something to be a viable alternative it doesn't need to be at least as good in every way. It just needs to be good enough to make adoption realistic. For example, unleaded gas wasn't as good in every way as leaded gas. There's a reason industry fought tooth and nail against the deleading regulations. But it was good enough to make adoption realistic.

There are lots of viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Solar and wind plus battery technology is a viable alternative for most applications. It'll be a bit more expensive than the cheapest fossil fuels, but not hugely so. Right now the levelized system cost for the cheapest fossil fuel generation is 5.8 cents per Kwh, for combined cycle natural gas. That compares to 6.5 for land-based wind and 8.47 for solar PV. So, you pay about 12% to 46% more than for the cheapest of the fossil fuels. But you actually pay less than for coal. And costs for the greener options have been falling fast. We can move towards those alternatives fairly quickly without any serious fallout for our economy.

 

[Arkady]

You are relying on data that does not exist or otherwise tell us what was the daily paleo temperature starting from January 12 97,218 b.c. to November 12 97,218 bc

Here is the data required

Temperature gauge used

Morning temperature,

High of the day.

Evening temperature.

Wind speed

Wind direction

Air pressure

Humidity

Signature of climate scientist for day in question.


Do you have records for this? or is it made up?

See the prior comments about paleoclimate reconstructions. If you're genuinely interested in bringing yourself up to speed on the topic, pick up a copy of the latest IPCC report. It has a whole section on paleoclimate with which you can educate yourself.

 

[Arkady]

Yes but lefty was claiming global warming before 2007. See Al "I just make money off da sh#t" Gore

There was warming before 2007. And the mainstream scientists correctly predicted it would continue (when the default hypothesis, if you didn't believe in the mechanics of AGW, would have been regression to the mean). Turns out they were right. Again.

 

[EatTheRich]

That's an interesting way to look at it. I prefer to focus on the fact that production leads to jobs which lead to widespread wealth and prosperity. The alternative is, well, Venezuela.

So why do you want to tax production while ng wealth in the hands of non-producers?

 

[EatTheRich]

Carbon emissions won't be cut drastically and quickly, so we are doomed.

If you have your way, yes.

 

[EatTheRich]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!! Yeah, the people who routinely steal from old people, can't balance a checkbook, pay half a billion for an airplane can solve this problem if we just trust them with yet even more power and control.

Hilarious!

As I always say, when I see the hacks concerned enough that they're not flying around in large private jets, then perhaps they'll have some credibility.

The more wealth of the bourgeoisie is expropriated, the more the class nature of the government is transformed from the bourgeois government we have now to a proletarian one. At any rate, many technical advances have required government coordination to make possible ... from rural electrification to splitting the atom to the Internet.

 

[EatTheRich]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!! Yeah, the people who routinely steal from old people, can't balance a checkbook, pay half a billion for an airplane can solve this problem if we just trust them with yet even more power and control.

Hilarious!

As I always say, when I see the hacks concerned enough that they're not flying around in large private jets, then perhaps they'll have some credibility.

Very few of the scientists are flying around in private jets or can afford to. If you're talking about opportunist politicians like Obama, they may be relatively unconcerned (even if they understand the depth of the problem they're counting on their wealth and influence to insulate them and theirs) but they are trailing scientific and public opinion, not shaping it, and they are therefore acting more responsibly as public figures than as private individuals.

 

[EatTheRich]

What are you doing to help?

Mostly advocating political change ... the only really effective thing an individual can do. But I also don't drive a car, rarely consume meat, put on a sweater rather than turning the heat up, etc.

 

[EatTheRich]

If a tree falls in the forrest and there's no one there. Who will a liberal blame for causing a sudden shift to a new equilibrium and who can be taxed?

Climate change is evolution. Libs need to quit trying to claim its a man-made revolution.

Climate reconstructions prove a sharp break between the variations typical of the last several thousand years and the very sudden (and predicted in advance) shift to a new climate regime in the last few decades.

 

[EatTheRich]

I see why you limited your claim to the last 100,000 years, which of course is just 2% of Earth's timeline.

1) you seem to be indicating that the Earth is 5 million years old
2) that graph is too long in the abscissa for it to be visible, but the slope on the vertical spike of the last 50 years is many, many times steeper than any of the other vertical spikes shown. What you can see at the end of the graph is the recent interglacial period, but what you can't see is the sharp turn it takes toward nearly truly vertical in the very small section on the far right.

 

[EatTheRich]

There has been extremely rapid climate change before but those that want to push the "it's mankind's fault - let's tax and control folks" crowd tend to gloss over that little factoid.

Extremely rapid climate change associated with catastrophic, era-defining extinction events.

 

[EatTheRich]

Humanist? Why? Are we special? Immune to the forces of extinction? No. We are not.

Conservative plan: let humans go extinct rather than cut into bankers' and industrialists' wealth to save us because "it's natural, man."

 

[EatTheRich]

LOL. Simple answer...there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels. None. None as portable. None as cheap. None as reliable. None as efficient.

Until that magically appears, oil will continue to be king.

Geothermal, wind, and hydro are cheaper and nuclear is nearly as cheap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Solar can be pursued anywhere, and wind and nuclear in many places.

Nuclear is less vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Solar is the most efficient in that it is a direct use of the sun which is the ultimate source of fossil fuel resources anyway.

 

[EatTheRich]

Not until we actually have a replacement for Fossil Fuels. Even if we spent the time and money to put solar panels on every building, we'd still be burning oil when it rains....snows....gets dark, etc.

And let's say that America does decide to cripple it's economy by eschewing oil. Who's the say the other nations will? A treaty that's not worth the paper it's written on? That's the problem with Socialists, they dream of a world filled with humans, with no human nature.

China is already well ahead of the U.S. in replacing fossil fuels with other sources. So is Germany. Not insignificant countries, those.

Nuclear power can provide for a rapid shift away from fossil fuels with very minimal economic disruption (much less than will be caused in the next several years by the climate change to which we've already committed, much less the accelerated climate change we'd be setting off by not addressing the problem).

 

[EatTheRich]

No lefty just assumes...and forgets mini ice ages or sunspot activity or anything that would affect there outcomes scientifically.

Climate reconstructions and models include natural causes of variability. And the unambiguous conclusion is that the rapid warming of the last few decades is anomalous and can only be explained by including greenhouse gas emissions as a major contributing factor.