Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 133 Posts

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,082 Posts
Surely 'unprecedented in 2,000 years' also means 'not unprecedented'? Otherwise, why not say 'unprecedented'?

We are 2 million years into an ice age. 30,000 years since the last glacial maximum, 1000 years since the last minor de-glaciation, 200 years since the last minor glaciation. The Earth is destined to get a lot hotter than this.

I am one of the people that believe humans are contributing to global warming. But if that 99% believe that ALL global warming is man made then that means at least 99% of those contributing to the scientific consensus are idiots. So I presume they don't believe that.

What's your point, and what is the Guardian's point?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
What's your point, and what is the Guardian's point?
‘The Guardian said:
This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London
Seems clear enough to me?

I think you should be clear whether your objection is political, or factual?

If the latter, what makes you more qualified to assert your view than the majority of climate change experts?

I know that in post Trump/Brexit times, it’s fashionable to ignore experts, but I genuinely don’t see any evidence to support a contrary view.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,082 Posts
Give me a link to the paper. I can only go off the headline, which is not logical as written.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
I am one of the people that believe humans are contributing to global warming. But if that 99% believe that ALL global warming is man made then that means at least 99% of those contributing to the scientific consensus are idiots. So I presume they don't believe that.
Indeed. So it's a matter of "what proportion of the recently observed warming is anthropogenic".
Where "recently" is roughly the last 150 years.
And the answer to that appears to be "almost all of it". Especially so if you mainly look at the last 100 years.

No one doubts that if you ask "how much of the warming in the last 12,000 years is anthropogenic" then the answer you get will be quite different. The problem is the rate of change, which is becoming "unprecedented". Most large coastal cities either didn't exist or (more likely) were substantially smaller 150 years ago - and they're one of the major things we need to worry about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,922 Posts
Discussion Starter #6

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,082 Posts
Indeed. So it's a matter of "what proportion of the recently observed warming is anthropogenic".
Where "recently" is roughly the last 150 years.
And the answer to that appears to be "almost all of it". Especially so if you mainly look at the last 100 years.
So, basically, the situation has changed from the first few IPCC reports, in which the underlying arithmetic was showing it to be ~25%?

If I can't see an academic paper that amends those earlier IPCC reports, then I guess I'll have to wait for the next one?

The fact that we are only a couple of hundred years up-and-out of a glacial minimum has absolutely nothing to do with changes of global temperature? Sigh!

Pray tell, what caused the minor glaciation in the 17th century and what reversed it? Was it all the extra horses we were feeding on hay?

Also, let me know how many years glacial recession takes? If it began in the mid 1700's, would you say it took just a few years for the whole of the planet's [no-longer-present] glaciers to melt away, or a bit longer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,086 Posts
Pray tell, what caused the minor glaciation in the 17th century and what reversed it? Was it all the extra horses we were feeding on hay?
Volcanoes. We need to pray for more eruptions.

 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,082 Posts
Volcanoes. We need to pray for more eruptions.

Good explanation for what caused it, I am sure.

What is the explanation for its reversal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
and suggested that the Sun might be the main contributory factor.
The paper makes no such claim. They hypothesise that galactic cosmic rays may have an important role in climate change, but make no assertions about the relative importance of this compared to other forcing factors.

"The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”

A sort of 'peer review' from Kobe. Leading to a doubt about the no doubt claim.

No it's not....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
Two studies that say its the Sun wot did it. So some 'doubt' introduced into the blanket claim that its all my fault.
1 Study that hypothesises that galactic cosmic rays during geomagnetic reversal may have a role to play during winter monsoons.

The other is not a study, it's complete nonsense...I've failed students with better reports than that...just look at the reference list! Of only 6 (6!) references, 4 of them are the authors own work, 1 of which isn't peer-reviewed and another isn't even written! There isn't even a methods section.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,596 Posts
I find it to be quite strange that when any research disputes the 'consensus' they are immediately labelled as heretics and must be shunned by all humanity. Very little energy is spent in explaining why the research is flawed - and in what way. It must be ignored.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
I find it to be quite strange that when any research disputes the 'consensus' they are immediately labelled as heretics and must be shunned by all humanity. Very little energy is spent in explaining why the research is flawed - and in what way. It must be ignored.
The Kobe paper isn't shunned, it just doesn't say what you think it says.

The second one is deeply flawed. Here are a range of climate scientists explaining why:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,086 Posts
I find it to be quite strange that when any research disputes the 'consensus' they are immediately labelled as heretics and must be shunned by all humanity. Very little energy is spent in explaining why the research is flawed - and in what way. It must be ignored.
If the author made any effort to submit it for peer review, I think he'd find lots of feedback forthcoming.
 
1 - 20 of 133 Posts
Top