Climate Alarmism

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:While I'm waiting for Sub to respond to my question about his first graph


and you are still waiting.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Sub's next "best evidence" is an article from the New York Times headlined: "U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend" It reports on a 1989 study that showed no trend in US temperatures or precipitation in the period 1895 to 1987.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/u ... tml?src=pm

So, Sub thinks the best evidence is to only consider this part of the US temperature record:

Image

And to completely ignore this part:

Image

Although the 1989 study may have been the "best evidence" available at the time, it certainly is not the "best evidence" today.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Let's go on to Sub's next piece of "best evidence:"

In 1990, Tom Karl and the IPCC showed that Earth was much warmer 900 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period....in 1995 the Medieval Warming Period was dismissed and by 2001 it was removed from IPCC (3rd Assessment)


So, let's go look at the IPCC First Assessment Report (1990).

The Executive Summary of the section on observed climate states:

5-7°C. Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 BP, globally averaged surface temperatures have fluctuated over a range of up to 2°C on time scales of centuries or more. Such fluctuations include the Holocene Optimum around 5,000-6,000 years ago. the shorter Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century. Details are often poorly known because palaeo-climatic data are frequently sparse.


https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_ ... report.pdf (Page 199)

Emphasis added.

And the body of the report stated:

The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988) This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum. China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978). This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases


https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_ ... report.pdf (Page 202)

This summary of what little was known about "global" temperatures in 1990 certainly does not "show" a period of global temperature that was warmer than that in 1990. In fact, it doesn't draw a conclusion about global temperatures during that period at all.

The report did include a schematic diagram (not a graph based on actual global data) that illustrated the Medieval Climactic Optimum:

Image

Note that there are no units of temperature for the vertical axis. No source was listed for the graph, but it appears to have originated in a graphs of temperatures in Central England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descripti ... CC_reports

As scientists began to collect proxy data for temperatures from around the world, they began to discover that, indeed, the MWP was not a world-wide phenomenon. Each successive AR summarized the then-current data on the temperature trends. The above-linked wiki articles shows a history of the changes in each report. As of 2013, based on all the evidence to date, temperatures over the last two thousand years looked like this:

Image

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... _FINAL.pdf (Page 409)

Of course, instead of recognizing that the science had progressed, resulting in more and better data about temperatures during the MWP, deniers claimed that the changes over time were a conspiracy to erase the MWP. I don't see this argument much anymore, as the global temperature indices current show temperatures about half a degree in excess of the early graphs of Central England Temperatures during the MWP.

So, which is the "best evidence:" a near 30 year old graph and data that does not "show" a global MWP? Or the last 30 years of science that has shown the MWP to be a regional and not a global phenomenon?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

subgenius?
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _Chap »

DoubtingThomas wrote:subgenius?


Oh, why not just make up your own serving of word salad and move on to something more interesting than dialog with a climate-change-denier chatbot and time-waster?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Chap wrote:
DoubtingThomas wrote:subgenius?


Oh, why not just make up your own serving of word salad and move on to something more interesting than dialog with a climate-change-denier chatbot and time-waster?


chatbot LOL
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _Themis »

Chap wrote:
DoubtingThomas wrote:subgenius?


Oh, why not just make up your own serving of word salad and move on to something more interesting than dialog with a climate-change-denier chatbot and time-waster?


Subby is 100% troll and not worth engaging in. He wont be back in this thread to defend his usual BS.
42
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Themis wrote: Subby is 100% troll and not worth engaging in. He wont be back in this thread to defend his usual BS.


True!
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Climate Alarmism

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Sub's next "best evidence" is a paper from 1971. It attempted to examine the likelihood that the earth would experience runaway warming and become like Venus or runaway cooling and become like Mars, specifically examining the effects of adding CO2 and aerosols to the atmosphere. It concluded that adding extreme amounts of both would result in cooling, largely because the the effects of adding CO2 on temperature are logarithmic. It also warned that adding enough aerosols to reduce the temperature by 3.5C could result in another ice age.

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/k ... r_1971.pdf

This is one of the papers published before there was an organized effort to put together information from disparate lines of evidence to try and figure out whether the planet was warming or cooling and why. Four years later, the National Academy of Sciences stated that there was no reliable means of predicting future climate at that point and recommended doing more science to figure things out.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50277&start=21#p1152109

The paper estimated that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would warm the planet by .8K. it also noted that the only other published estimate at that time was three times higher. Today, even contrarians such as Richard Lindzen accept that the effect of radiative forcing alone is to warm the temperature 1C. The reset of the projected warming comes from two things: (1) the fact that a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor; and (2) water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. Judith Curry was the author on a published paper that proposes a lower bound of 1.5C. The rest of the current literature suggests a lower bound of at least 2C.

So, what is the "best evidence" ? A single estimate of climate sensitivity from almost 50 years ago, which was 1/3 of the only other estimate? Or the range of estimates based on almost 50 years of additional study?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Post Reply