Anger erupts at U.N. climate summit as major economies resist bold action

[brokenbone]

going back in geological time scales with proxies

as measuring devices, we find no correlation with carbon dioxide either, but we do find orders of magnitudes higher

temperature and co2 levels, that clearly promoted life i might add.

imo, there would not have been any specie such as the corals today or past without those very high co2 levels,

they would have found another way to evolve,

they wouldnt have been using co2 as building block for their protective shells if co2 had been as low as it is today

[brokenbone]

finally we have the very last 1 million year

of ice age, and here,  for once we can see a correlation

between co2 and temperature as climate cycles between

glacial and inter glacial periods,

but its not the way you wanted, the data show the co2 follows temperature,

meaning its the temperature that causes co2 changes,

not the other way around.

these glacial periods correlate so strongly with eccentricity

in milankovitch cycles that its unavoidable to draw the conclusion that milankovitch cycles that causes the glacial periods, causes the temperature to dip into the glacial periods.

and the trend here is that we are at the peak of warmth, its going downhill from this point, into yet another glacial period with northern hemisphere covered under kilometers of ice yet again.

my interpretation of that eccentricity manage to pull us into glacial periods

is that earth now has become so freezing cold that eccentricity alone is enough to plummet us into a glacial period,

and that the margin is so thin there isnt even a guarantee we can get outa it,

northern hemisphere may well freeze over for good

 

[bristolboy]

 

38 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

1[ what absurdity ?

2] what trend ? that it its slowly increasing temperature

since the peak of the minor ice age ?

in a steady straight line i may add, there is no change

in rate since the recording started hundreds of years ago,

the only anomaly in that recovery from the minor ice age

is in the 1690-1740 interval

3] you are not going to find measured data anywhere on the planet going back 2000 years, england is your best bet and its less then 400 years,

other places with long term record of quality stations

is rest of west europe, usa, south west australia

 

First off, there was no "minor ice age" if you mean by an "ice age" a global phenomenon. That was the point of that Nature report.

Secondly, if you start at a point during which Central was unusually frigid, then it might look like everything afterwards is a recovery from that. But as the trendline shows, even by the inadequate evidence of the Central England graph, this isn't the case. Up until the early 20th century there's a lot of fluctuation but no overall increase. 

Yours is the same kind of convenient tactic that denialists used to deny global warming by starting their graphs with the years 1997-98 when a very powerful el nino drastically raised the average global surface temperatures. Since several years subsequent to that had average lower temperatures, they claimed it was proof that there was no global warming. Once 2019 is finished, it's expected that the 1997-98 El Nino year won't even be among the 10 hottest years. And most of those years didn't have an El Nino to raise their temperature. In your case, since thermometer measurements conveniently begin at around the time of a prolonged cold spell in England, therefore all other forms of measurement are to be discounted.

 

But if you go back 2000 years for the Northern Hemisphere, you'll find that actually, the temperature has been on a overall cooling trend.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Two new studies support conclusions related to a graph prepared by a prominent climatologist

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/

 

In fact, global reconstructions of temperature show that the average surface temperature has been gradually cooling  for the last 6000 years.

Global temperature anomalies over the past 11,300 years compared to historic average (1961-1990). The purple line shows the annual anomaly, and the light blue band shows the statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation). The gray line shows temperature from a separate analysis spanning the past 1,500 years. Image adapted from Figure 1(b) in Marcott et al.

 

[rabas]

22 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between "change" and "rate of change".

Ah, someone who doesn't understand Le Chatelier's principle of equilibrium. The faster the change the faster nature will adapt.

 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, rabas said:

Ah, someone who doesn't understand Le Chatelier's principle of equilibrium. The faster the change the faster nature will adapt.

 

Ah, someone who's trying to overawe us with a piece of misinformation. Le Chatelier's principle is about chemical reactions. Not about "Nature" as a whole. I can't say whether you are deliberately posting misinformation or just don't understand Le Chatelier's principle. Certainly it doesn't apply at all to the sciences of evolution and ecology. 

"Le Chatelier's principle is an observation about chemical equilibria of reactions. It states that changes in the temperature, pressure, volume, or concentration of a system will result in predictable and opposing changes in the system in order to achieve a new equilibrium state."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/le-chateliers-principle/

[brokenbone]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, there was no "minor ice age"

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Two new studies support conclusions related to a graph prepared by a prominent climatologist

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/

 

 

 

oh yeah, manns hockey stick graph, latest ipcc narrative,

now with no medieval warm period and no minor ice age.

IPCC v2.0 BUY NOW

 

ill let you in on a secret, history was my hobby since i learned to read, you are getting nowhere in your propaganda, the swedes waltzed straight over the belts of denmark 1658 on the ice, dragging the cannons with them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts

 

here is ipcc v1.0 btw, still not cunning enough to falsify history

 

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

oh yeah, manns hockey stick graph, latest ipcc narrative,

now with no medieval warm period and no minor ice age.

IPCC v2.0 BUY NOW

 

ill let you in on a secret, history was my hobby since i learned to read, you are getting nowhere in your propaganda, the swedes waltzed straight over the belts of denmark 1658 on the ice, dragging the cannons with them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts

 

here is ipcc v1.0 btw, still not cunning enough to falsify history

 

Ice ages are a global phenomenon. Unless those Swedes dragged those cannons around the globe to get to Denmark your point is entirely irrelevant.

Even if it were just Mann's version, you wouldn't have much of a point. But in fact numerous reconstructions of the climate have been using different proxies and they all agree substantially with Mann.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between "change" and "rate of change".

Irrelevant when governments are doing virtually zero about it but giving loads of lip service. Up to me, first thing to go is petrol cars in cities. People can take the bus to "save the planet". Second would be cheap air fares. No one needs to fly overseas for a holiday. Airplanes should be reducing not increasing in numbers.

So, what's your plan to "save the planet"?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What you and I both really disapprove of in those climate activists is how they impute motives even when based on no evidence. For instance they might claim that people are only attending conferences if it's held in a choice locale. They offer absolutely no evidence for such an assertion. Those activists have no respect for facts at all.

Another annoying trait of activists is to make assertions about public opinion without offering a trace of evidence to back it up. For instance, they will claim that public opinion about such and such a person overwhelmingly matches their own. Do they really expect rational people who base their opinions on evidence to believe such self-serving statements? You and I could certainly share a good laugh over that kind of absurdity.

 

 

They certainly claim that sea level is rising at a dangerous pace when clearly it's not rising significantly.

[brokenbone]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ice ages are a global phenomenon. Unless those Swedes dragged those cannons around the globe to get to Denmark your point is entirely irrelevant.

Even if it were just Mann's version, you wouldn't have much of a point. But in fact numerous reconstructions of the climate have been using different proxies and they all agree substantially with Mann.

err, no, the glacials covers the northern hemisphere.

and the swedes could only pull this stunt at the peak of the minor ice age, the reason its labeled 'minor ice age'

instead of just 'ice age' is that northern hemisphere wasnt covered by glacials, it was just extremely cold due to the solar activity.

 

its well known that it isnt just ipcc & mann conspiring to

alter our past climate history to push the global warming agenda, it has been subject to hearings both in europe & usa, and mann hockey stick graph is but one example of the activists follow up talk with action to mislead public of our past history, we already covered ipcc & mann tampering over time in previous posts

[rabas]

38 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ah, someone who's trying to overawe us with a piece of misinformation. Le Chatelier's principle is about chemical reactions. Not about "Nature" as a whole. I can't say whether you are deliberately posting misinformation or just don't understand Le Chatelier's principle. Certainly it doesn't apply at all to the sciences of evolution and ecology. 

"Le Chatelier's principle is an observation about chemical equilibria of reactions. It states that changes in the temperature, pressure, volume, or concentration of a system will result in predictable and opposing changes in the system in order to achieve a new equilibrium state."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/le-chateliers-principle/

Sorry cut and paste does not tell you how it all works.  Le Chatelier's principle is intimately related to rates, it's the rates that determine all equilibrium. That is what an equilibrium is.

 

Anyway, the fundamental point is that the faster CO2 goes up the faster nature will adapt to those changes.

 

Do you wish to state otherwise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rabas]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Le Chatelier's principle is about chemical reactions. Not about "Nature" as a whole. I can't say whether you are deliberately posting misinformation or just don't understand Le Chatelier's principle. Certainly it doesn't apply at all to the sciences of evolution and ecology. 

Just so it's clear for everyone, yes, Le Chatelier's principle also applies in evolution (genetics), ecology, and anything based on chemical and physical processes. That's just about everything.  Since cut and paste is popular:

 

Ecology theory.  https://www.ecologycenter.us/ecosystem-theory/le-chateliers-principle.html

 

Here's a scientific paper on replicator dynamics (evolution) Le Chatelier's principle in replicator dynamics

 

In summary, temperature, pressure, and concentrations are fundamental properties in nature and Le Chatelier's principle is widely applicable.

[bristolboy]

On 12/20/2019 at 1:37 PM, rabas said:

Sorry cut and paste does not tell you how it all works.  Le Chatelier's principle is intimately related to rates, it's the rates that determine all equilibrium. That is what an equilibrium is.

 

Anyway, the fundamental point is that the faster CO2 goes up the faster nature will adapt to those changes.

 

Do you wish to state otherwise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is "fast" your idea of scientific terminology? Certainly if large numbers of species get wiped out, there will be much more scope for species to evolve and eventually fill whatever ecological niches there are. But maybe you're immortal? So a question thousands and tens of thousands of years it will take to create such replacements is irrelevant? But to most of us living here and planet earth. the issue is a little more pressing.

And I'm still calling BS on your invocation of Le Chatelier. As anyone who enjoys even  a cursory acquaintance with evolution and the history of life on earth knows there is no equilibrium state. The fossil record testifies to that. But once again it comes down to rate of change. So what might be "fast" for some chemical reacting in a flask and what "fast" means for speciation are 2 very different things.

[bristolboy]

On 12/20/2019 at 1:35 PM, brokenbone said:

err, no, the glacials covers the northern hemisphere.

and the swedes could only pull this stunt at the peak of the minor ice age, the reason its labeled 'minor ice age'

instead of just 'ice age' is that northern hemisphere wasnt covered by glacials, it was just extremely cold due to the solar activity.

 

its well known that it isnt just ipcc & mann conspiring to

alter our past climate history to push the global warming agenda, it has been subject to hearings both in europe & usa, and mann hockey stick graph is but one example of the activists follow up talk with action to mislead public of our past history, we already covered ipcc & mann tampering over time in previous posts

So much nonsense here it's hard to know where to begin.

Why not start with the apparent incapacity of most denialists to include links to what they post? Is it really so difficult? Or are you ashamed of your sources?

 

Lets go on to the final item in your post next.. This was one of the emails hacked in what became known as Climategate. They were published by The Times of London. Ultimately the Times had to retract the article because they had purposely mislead the nature of the emails by selectively editing them. 

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

As for that post from the US Senate, I don't believe that the Senate is composed of scientists. And that testimony given there undergoes peer review before being released. Perhaps I've been laboring under a misapprehension in that regard?

As for this "err, no, the glacials covers the northern hemisphere." I'd call you on that if there were such a thing as the Andes and Antarctica. But since they don't exist, I guess you have a point.

But what I do find fascinating is your assertion that the so called "little Ice Age was due to solar activity. The theory runs that periods of low solar activity creates a colder climate on planet earth. Well, I've got some news for you, the Solar system is now enjoying a period of extremely low solar activity.

Why has the Sun gone quiet?

So by your lights planet Earth should be experiencing falling global temperatures. But the reverse is the case. Global temperatures are rising. Hmmm. 

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2019/08/why-has-the-sun-gone-quiet

 

[RideJocky]

On 12/20/2019 at 12:46 PM, bristolboy said:

Ah, someone who's trying to overawe us with a piece of misinformation. Le Chatelier's principle is about chemical reactions. Not about "Nature" as a whole. I can't say whether you are deliberately posting misinformation or just don't understand Le Chatelier's principle. Certainly it doesn't apply at all to the sciences of evolution and ecology. 

"Le Chatelier's principle is an observation about chemical equilibria of reactions. It states that changes in the temperature, pressure, volume, or concentration of a system will result in predictable and opposing changes in the system in order to achieve a new equilibrium state."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/le-chateliers-principle/

I know dick-all about “Le Chatelier’s Principle”, but I do know that nature is one big, complex and ongoing chemical reaction. 
 

I also know using big words to explain things only impresses people not worth impressing. I think saying the faster “A” is going the faster “B” goes it pretty clear,

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I know dick-all about “Le Chatelier’s Principle”, but I do know that nature is one big, complex and ongoing chemical reaction. 
 

I also know using big words to explain things only impresses people not worth impressing. I think saying the faster “A” is going the faster “B” goes it pretty clear,

 

Clearly you don't understand that "fast" is not a scientific term. And that what is "fast" for biological evolution" would be exceedingly slow for virtually all chemical reactions."

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Clearly you don't understand that "fast" is not a scientific term. And that what is "fast" for biological evolution" would be exceedingly slow for virtually all chemical reactions."

Clearly I don’t. So what constitutes a “scientific” term? 
 

If a “scientist” wanted it explain that monkeys evolved faster than snails, what term would he use? 
 

What species has been “biologically evolving” longer than the Sun has been in a chemical reaction?

[Scott]

Post with trolling meme has been removed.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So much nonsense here it's hard to know where to begin.

Why not start with the apparent incapacity of most denialists to include links to what they post? Is it really so difficult? Or are you ashamed of your sources?

 

Lets go on to the final item in your post next.. This was one of the emails hacked in what became known as Climategate. They were published by The Times of London. Ultimately the Times had to retract the article because they had purposely mislead the nature of the emails by selectively editing them. 

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

As for that post from the US Senate, I don't believe that the Senate is composed of scientists. And that testimony given there undergoes peer review before being released. Perhaps I've been laboring under a misapprehension in that regard?

As for this "err, no, the glacials covers the northern hemisphere." I'd call you on that if there were such a thing as the Andes and Antarctica. But since they don't exist, I guess you have a point.

But what I do find fascinating is your assertion that the so called "little Ice Age was due to solar activity. The theory runs that periods of low solar activity creates a colder climate on planet earth. Well, I've got some news for you, the Solar system is now enjoying a period of extremely low solar activity.

Why has the Sun gone quiet?

So by your lights planet Earth should be experiencing falling global temperatures. But the reverse is the case. Global temperatures are rising. Hmmm. 

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2019/08/why-has-the-sun-gone-quiet

 

If the world's temperatures are rising, why have I had to turn the heater on past 2 days?

It's summer in NZ and still cold at times. Oh, it's hotter in other places- well aren't they lucky?

[brokenbone]

18 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So much nonsense here it's hard to know where to begin.

Why not start with the apparent incapacity of most denialists to include links to what they post? Is it really so difficult? Or are you ashamed of your sources?

 

Lets go on to the final item in your post next.. This was one of the emails hacked in what became known as Climategate. They were published by The Times of London. Ultimately the Times had to retract the article because they had purposely mislead the nature of the emails by selectively editing them. 

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

As for that post from the US Senate, I don't believe that the Senate is composed of scientists. And that testimony given there undergoes peer review before being released. Perhaps I've been laboring under a misapprehension in that regard?

As for this "err, no, the glacials covers the northern hemisphere." I'd call you on that if there were such a thing as the Andes and Antarctica. But since they don't exist, I guess you have a point.

But what I do find fascinating is your assertion that the so called "little Ice Age was due to solar activity. The theory runs that periods of low solar activity creates a colder climate on planet earth. Well, I've got some news for you, the Solar system is now enjoying a period of extremely low solar activity.

Why has the Sun gone quiet?

So by your lights planet Earth should be experiencing falling global temperatures. But the reverse is the case. Global temperatures are rising. Hmmm. 

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2019/08/why-has-the-sun-gone-quiet

 

https://notrickszone.com/2016/08/20/austrian-solar-charts-expose-small-sensation-fractures-co2-warming-theory/

[rabas]

Brokenbone thank you. I was going to add another graph of total insolation or solar irradiance as it is so important to the discussion. This is often ignored by those trying to correlate temperature with sunspots, which is the wrong way.

 

 

Complete reference information on the data.

A paper by Soon et al 2015 finds a strong correlation between Northern Hemisphere (NH) exo-tropic temperatures and total solar irradiance (TSI). The NH temperatures were determined by using mostly rural stations to remove the effects of urban development that contaminates government datasets. The authors used the solar variability dataset by Scafetta & Willson, 2014 to represent TSI. The graph below shows a correlation of R2= 0.48, implying that solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881.

 

https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=707

 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the world's temperatures are rising, why have I had to turn the heater on past 2 days?

It's summer in NZ and still cold at times. Oh, it's hotter in other places- well aren't they lucky?

Wow, today is going to be another scorcher here in Bangkok, 35 yesterday in the dead of winter!

 

So? These anomalies must just be weather. Weather is not climate change, as they say.

 

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the world's temperatures are rising, why have I had to turn the heater on past 2 days?

It's summer in NZ and still cold at times. Oh, it's hotter in other places- well aren't they lucky?

I had three days in a row where I had to turn down the hot water in the shower...