11,000 scientists can't be wrong - Page 5

11,000 scientists can't be wrong

This is a discussion on 11,000 scientists can't be wrong within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Nix So your conclusion after looking at that chart is that the remaining ice caps won't melt as temperatures continue to rise? ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 92
Like Tree309Likes

Thread: 11,000 scientists can't be wrong

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Nix View Post
    So your conclusion after looking at that chart is that the remaining ice caps won't melt as temperatures continue to rise?

    (And are you aware that sea level rise is now accelerating?)
    Is that really what’s happening?

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses
    MMinSC likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  2. #62
    Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    ...Take what you read with at least 10E6 grains of salt.
    "10E6 grains of salt"?
    That's more than my wife puts on her morning egg!

    Can't I just put my tongue into my cheek-pouch, and leave it there all day?
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum."

  3. #63
    Nix
    Nix is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Nix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post

    Is that really what’s happening?

    Dude, your article is stale (2015).

    Yes, ice mass at the poles can increase or decrease from year to year. But the trend is net loss:






    (And sorry about those Astros. I was pulling for them. )

  4. #64
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    489

    420,000 years of rock-hard evidence can't be wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Nix View Post
    So your conclusion after looking at that chart is that the remaining ice caps won't melt as temperatures continue to rise?
    Of course increasing temperatures will result in increasing melts. What kind of a question is that?

    The wrong one, apparently, as the question you should be asking is "Has this ever happened before?" to which you'll soon find that we're in our FIFTH such warming period following glaciation in the last 420,000 years.

    Both melting and sea level rise are normal during this period in our current glaciation cycle. In fact, the current sea level is about 130 metres (~427 feet) higher than it was at peak glaciation the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), about 21,000 years ago. The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian, about 130,000 years ago.
    Source: Murray-Wallace, C. V., & Woodroffe, C. D. (n.d.). Pleistocene sea-level changes. Quaternary Sea-Level Changes, 256–319. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139024440.007

    My conclusion is that sea level rise occurs as a normal and natural component of climate change associated with the cycling between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Says so right there in that chart, not to mention thousands of peer-reviewed and scholarly scientific articles published throughout the scientific community, including full mention in the five IPCC reports since 1990. Moreover, it's happened five times in the last 420,000 years, too, precisely the same as it's happening right now.

    You're not arguing that mankind created the other four inter-glacial periods and associated sea level rises, are you? If not, then how in the world could you possibly come to that conclusion now when the data from the ends of the last four inter-glacial warming periods matches our own?

    And are you aware that sea level rise is now accelerating?
    As compared to what, exactly? Were you aware that sea level rise has both risen and fallen, accelerated and slowed, and in both directions, over the last 8,000 years?

    Did you mean to say since 25 years ago? Sure, at about 3.3 mm/yr.

    Since the rise between 7,500 and 7,000 years ago? Not even close, as that short-coupled fluctuation of 6.2 mm/yr is roughly the same rate 6.19 mm/yr rate since the last glacial maximum and nearly double the current rate of change.

    If one is only looking at the last 20,000 years, they're myopic. If they're only looking at the last 70 years, they're severely myopic.

    When dealing with climatological scales such as the glaciation and glacial warming periods, myopia of even half a century is not scientific. It's irresponsible.

    Like all good scientists should, when I read the first IPCC report I said, "Hmm... This is interesting..." followed shortly by, "Has this ever happened before?"

    Of course it has. Same sea level rise. Same long-term deposit of dust preceding temperature rise. Same short-couple temperature rise preceding CO2 rise. Same plateau, same peak in temps at the end.

    11,000 scientists can't be wrong-sea-level-rise-last-25-years-vs-holocene-vs-glacial-maximum.jpg
    MMinSC, Bikenut, ETXhiker and 2 others like this.
    Would you enjoy spending significant amounts of conducting research and conveying carefully worded discourse when others trample it under their feet, even to the point of deleting entire threads? Of course not. Me either. Matthew 7:6

  5. #65
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    I think a more appropriate time scale would be 5000-10,000 years, not 70. And a logarithmic scale for the Y axis would also make more sense and put things into perspective.
    Agreed. But let's expand that to 420,000 years, so we can observe historical glaciation and inter-glacial periods. And let's add both dust and temperature to the CO2 chart, so we can see which ones preceded the others. Finally, let's add some absolutely vertical lines to ensure we can spot which peaks first, CO2 or Temperature. No log y necessary, at least not at this point:

    11,000 scientists can't be wrong-what-came-first-temperature-dust-co2.jpg

    And what do we find? Well, several things:

    1. Long periods of dust precede the increases in temperature.

    2. Temperature rises precede rises in CO2 (just as you said)

    3. The heaviest deposits of dust have preceded the current inter-glacial period, providing meritorious argument for higher than normal temperatures as well as higher than normal corresponding levels of CO2.

    I've been described as a "scientist" over the years although "engineer" is a better description. Yet among my fellow scientists I can easily see them agreeing to a notion that "commercial air travel is unsafe" while simultaneously agreeing that pedestrian street crossings are far less safe in comparison.
    I don't have the stats on fatalities per mile while crossing the street, but I can say that commercial air travel is approximately 104 times safer per passenger mile than traveling by car...
    MMinSC, msgt/ret and M1911A1 like this.
    Would you enjoy spending significant amounts of conducting research and conveying carefully worded discourse when others trample it under their feet, even to the point of deleting entire threads? Of course not. Me either. Matthew 7:6

  6. #66
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    489
    Graphic for previous comment:

    11,000 scientists can't be wrong-fatalities-per-1-million-passenger-miles.jpg
    M1911A1 likes this.
    Would you enjoy spending significant amounts of conducting research and conveying carefully worded discourse when others trample it under their feet, even to the point of deleting entire threads? Of course not. Me either. Matthew 7:6

  7. #67
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    489
    The Fallacy in the NOAA's animated depiction of CO2 levels.

    Clearly, we know precisely what CO2 levels have been over the last 40 years.

    However, their animation goes back 800,000 years, which is 20,000 times longer than the last 40 years.

    I don't know about your screen, but my Full HD screen is 1920x1080. It's 1,920 pixels wide. Yet the NOAA's animation clearly displays the horrid orange and red spike at the end just fine, yet somehow misses what may very well be similar spikes towards the ends of the last several inter-glacial warming periods.

    Even if my monitor wee 20,000 pixels wide, the last 40 years would only be 1 pixel wide. Similarly, with their Full HD animation, you could fit 400 years worth of data into a single pixel. If the spike were less than 200 years, though, it wouldn't even register, and you'd see nothing.

    We're only 40 years into it, less than 1/5th of the way to the point where historic spikes "might" register.

    Let's see if I can put this into perspective...

    There are roughly 16 straws of hay per oz (I pulled some from the park next to my home and weighed 'em).

    That's 256 straws per pound.

    Hay bales range between 40 and 75 lbs.

    Taking the larger one, 75 lb of hay requires 19,200 straws. Call it nearly 20,000 straws.

    The 40 years of our current CO2 spike would be represented by just 1 straw. The 800,000 years the NOAA's animation would be represented by the entire 75 lb bale of nearly 20,000 straws.

    But the last peak, if one did occur, would have occurred around 130,000 years ago! Thus, we're not looking for a straw in a single bale of hay, but rather, six and a half bales of hay, or 487 lbs.

    500 pounds of hay.

    "a small round bale that is 4 feet in width and 4 feet in height will weigh around 400 – 600" - source

    That seems to correspond with a table I found:

    Name:  Hay Bale Weights.jpg
Views: 15
Size:  42.3 KB

    Put simply, spotting a spike like the modern 40-year CO2 spike in ice core samples from 130,000 years ago may be less proverbial than looking for a needle in a haystack, but not by much. Furthermore, the fact that we have to average data from multiple sources significantly reduces the likelihood that we would spot any sort of spike at all.

    What we DO see in the data, however, are temperature and CO2 profiles nearly identical to those of the last 20,000 years, including the plateau of the last 7,000 years, and a number of minima and maxima following the peaks before things head back to the colder Earth that's far more common than the inter-glacial warm periods we're enjoying today.
    M1911A1 likes this.
    Would you enjoy spending significant amounts of conducting research and conveying carefully worded discourse when others trample it under their feet, even to the point of deleting entire threads? Of course not. Me either. Matthew 7:6

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    7,093
    Here's the way I see it....

    11,000 scientists can't be wrong-polar-bear.jpg
    Bikenut, ETXhiker, MMinSC and 4 others like this.
    "If you look like food, you will be eaten."
    Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

    Learning occurs only after repetitive, demoralizing failures.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array CDW4ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Guncentric
    Posts
    4,076



    I'm not responsible for world climate change, destruction of rainforest, killing elephants, or actions those that lived before me (others).
    Bikenut, MMinSC, ETXhiker and 3 others like this.
    I'm not inclined to disarm for a concert, game, (entertainment) and I ain't going on a plane or cruise.
    "Wouldn't want to or Nobody volunteer to" get shot by _____ is not indicative of quickly incapacitating.

  10. #70
    Distinguished Member Array Rabbit212's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,696
    Skipped 5 pages of comments to say......... l dont really care. Nothing is going to be done about the way we or any other country lives their lives so who cares?? Bogus treaties and lots of "outrage" on the media wont change anything and God knows I haven't changed how I do anything in my life to "save" the planet so take that planet!!! Been hearing New York will be under water for decades now if the oceans rise 3 inches here's a plan build a 6 inch wall and save yourselves cause my behavior in Texas ain't changing for your butt. How much "damage" are all the California fires causing the planet because folks want to build where they shouldn't because of the nice scenic views?? Hey India/China stop having so many kids!!!! Keep it in your pants!!!
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them.....well, I have others.

  11. #71
    Nix
    Nix is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Nix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    You're not arguing that mankind created the other four inter-glacial periods and associated sea level rises, are you? If not, then how in the world could you possibly come to that conclusion now when the data from the ends of the last four inter-glacial warming periods matches our own?

    No, I'm not arguing that mankind created temperature and sea-level changes before mankind evolved. I'm arguing that the science is quite clear that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". I'm arguing that since the industrial revolution, mankind's activities have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is beyond any reasonable dispute at this point.

    I'm also pointing out that since CO2 levels have increased, the planet's average temperature has increased, as predicted. As temperatures have increased, land ice around the world has melted and the sea has expanded. There is solid, directly measured data that corroborates this.

    The science of global heating is so simple that even I can understand it. This allows me to predict that as CO2 (and methane) continues to be released into the atmosphere, the planet will continue to warm. Above and beyond any natural cycles.

    As you've pointed out, the planet appears to have undergone several quite dramatic climate changes in the past. And clearly at times when humans could not have influenced the climate to nay significant degree. This does not reassure me that the climate is not going to change again. Just the opposite.

    But what happened 7000 years ago is not entirely relevant to us or our immediate concerns, now.

    I think we understand fairly well that a large number of variables can and do affect the Earth's climate. However, none of those 'natural' variables appear to be causing warming at this time. Solar radiation and heating has been fairly constant or lower than average over the past 50 years. The planet's orbital dynamics and Milankovitch cycles were expected to result in global cooling (hence the abundant mocking of 70's and early 80's predictions of another ice age...). So there has been no natural cause of our current warming trend identified. Moreover, the pattern of the warming is also consistent with 'greenhouse warming' (so I'm told). Barring some new discovery, it looks like CO2 and Methane is causing our current warming.

    Of some concern is the rapid rise in sea level you point out that occurred from 8K to 7K years ago. That suggests that the planet can potentially undergo radical climate change under the right conditions. The current rate of change is alarming. I don't know that the current rate of change is unprecedented, but looking at the charts of measured data, the slope of change in CO2, temp, and sea level rise strikes me as being fairly dramatic.

    However, I live a good kilometer above sea-level, am currently watching snow flurries, and live in a relatively low population density area. I can reasonably expect to be dead in 20 to 25 years. I don't have any children. So.....climate change, human induced or not, isn't actually a big problem for me. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that I'll be inconvenienced, and I agree with the thousands of scientists, researches, and others that our use of fossil fuels will result in significant changes to our ecosystems.

    The scientific study of greenhouse gasses and the prediction of global warming was first made in the 1890's, but the phenomena of greenhouse gas warming was observed even earlier. I first read a review paper on global warming back in the mid-1980's. I thought the arguments then were fairly straightforward and comprehensible, but shocking. At the time, the author (sorry, forget who), made the simple prediction that if we continue to add CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, we could expect to see an increase in Earth's temperature. And that has come to pass. The science was right, back in the 1980's. I don't see it being wrong 30, 40, or 50 years later.

    So that's my view. A rather more expanded view than I had intended to share, but there it is. Sorry for being so darned long-winded.

    Now, I don't really care if you agree or disagree with me and my perspective. The data is out there, decide for yourself (and if you don't trust 11,000 self-proclaimed scientists, you'll have to rely on your own judgment). It's not my job to convince you one way or another. If you are genuinely interested, there are plenty of good books, journal articles, and college courses you could avail yourself of.

    If you were born after 1980, sorry. We knew what was going on but just didn't care. I get it if you are resentful and angry. What can I say? It was a good party and it's too bad you'll have to clean up.
    Doghandler likes this.

  12. #72
    Distinguished Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by zonker1986 View Post
    More evidence that it IS climate change. Remember, we have to do this for the children.
    zonker1986 and M1911A1 like this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  13. #73
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Nix View Post
    Dude, your article is stale (2015).

    Yes, ice mass at the poles can increase or decrease from year to year. But the trend is net loss:






    (And sorry about those Astros. I was pulling for them. )
    The article is from 2015, but that doesn’t mean they were wrong. We were led to believe the ice caps were melting when they were in fact not. If there is anything wrong with the age of my article, why is it ok for you to use a graph showing data from that same time?

    We appreciate you support for the Astros! Maybe next year.
    MMinSC and M1911A1 like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  14. #74
    Nix
    Nix is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Nix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    If there is anything wrong with the age of my article, why is it ok for you to use a graph showing data from that same time?

    We appreciate you support for the Astros! Maybe next year.

    I think your article was accurate for the time, the data I posted was more current, I think. Here is some data that was updated recently:





    2015 (purple line) was an interesting year for Antarctica ice and did see increases in ice extent. However the trend continues to be one of loss. The blue line is 2019 data and shows where we are now. I don't think we'll see many years like 2015 again. But, I suppose year to year variability could replicate 2015.

    And next year.......? Go SOX!

    Havok likes this.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,025
    Charts and graphs, You can make them say anything you want if you pay for the study.
    Climate change is normal.
    Will the human species survive on this planet forever?
    I do not know.
    I do not want to go back to living in caves.
    I do practical things in my life to reduce my pollution.
    I try not to waste natural resources.
    I am a good steward when I am out hiking and camping to reduce my footprint.(leave no trace)
    Common sense works.
    All this climate change crap is just about wealth redistribution and globalism.
    The greens are just camouflaged commies.
    msgt/ret, MMinSC, Arejay and 1 others like this.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •