U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2019, 12:40 PM
 
13,641 posts, read 4,721,084 times
Reputation: 6685

Advertisements

Yeah and? Your graph shows .8 degrees in 140 years just like the post you're responding to said. What's your point here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2019, 12:42 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
5,027 posts, read 4,544,136 times
Reputation: 10799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
..and we had ice cores in 1896
Irrelevant, never mind just flat out wrong.

The first systematic study of snow and firn layers was by Ernst Sorge, who was part of the Alfred Wegener Expedition to central Greenland in 19301931.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 01:00 PM
 
3,625 posts, read 1,069,884 times
Reputation: 2229
...they dug a hole 15 ft deep.....are you really trying to claim that's an ice core?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 02:08 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
5,027 posts, read 4,544,136 times
Reputation: 10799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You're a science denier.

Prove beyond any reasonable doubt that what you say will prevent this:

Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 914.5 C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 C in contrast to today's 2.8 C.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al%202008.pdf

Just to make sure we're clear on the concept, 12.5C is 22.5F warmer than present temperatures.

From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Arctic_Canada

Again, to make sure we're clear on the concept, 4.0C - 5.0C is 7.2F - 9.0F.

Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 613 m above that of today.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008


Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period, says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/


Go ahead...we'll wait.
No one is interested in reading your random sampling of scientific papers concerning biocenosis and plant communities in the Siberian Arctic during the Eemian Interglacial (or any other interglacial for that matter). It's not exactly a news flash that the planet has experienced periods of warming in the past.

You are attempting to back up the assertion that CO2 levels do not influence the warming (or cooling) of the planet by flooding us with research that has nothing to do with the subject, and you can feel reasonably certain that the people in the CD poc forum will click on your links with no inclination to study what is for them obscure scientific arcana. So, lets cut to the chase.

Comparing the influences on the Last Interglacial climate with those assumed in future climate projections is problematic owing to fundamental differences, especially orbital forcing, seasonal warming, and greenhouse gas concentrations.

Palaeoclimate studies show that differences in the manner in which the Earth orbited the Sun during the Last Interglacial are sufficient to explain the higher temperatures over most parts of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly due to greater axial tilt and eccentricity compared with the present day orbital configuration.

This greater axial tilt provided stronger insolation (solar heating) at high latitudes and weaker insolation at low latitudes. Perihelion, when the Earth is nearest the Sun, occurred during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which amplified seasonal insolation, while perihelion occurs in winter during the present day. Peak insolation from orbital forcing will be significantly lower over the next century than what the Earth received during the peak warm period around 126,000 years ago.


- Skeptical Science

In other words the earth's climate is influenced by a number of factors including greenhouse gas fluctuations. Currently we are not experiencing the same degree of orbital forcing as in Earth's Interglacial periods. What we ARE experiencing is a dramatic increase in CO2 - a rapid rise that has never occurred before in the planet's history.

Maybe you should tell the folks on your favorite denier site that every now and then a person who is trained in the sciences will read their bunk which you distribute at third hand and have a good laugh.

I cannot think of a better way to waste my time then to attempt to discuss the science of climate change with a group of people who don't even believe in education and especially don't believe in anything to do with actual science.

I'd rather go pull weeds in my garden.

Last edited by Colorado Rambler; 08-30-2019 at 03:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 02:42 PM
 
5,351 posts, read 2,138,810 times
Reputation: 2527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
No one is interested in reading your random sampling of scientific papers concerning biocenosis and plant communities in the Siberian Arctic during the Eemian Interglacial (or any other interglacial for that matter). It's not exactly a news flash that the planet has experienced periods of warming in the past.

You are attempting to back up the assertion that CO2 levels do not influence the warming (or cooling) of the planet by flooding us with research that has nothing to do with the subject, and you can feel reasonably certain that the people in the CD poc forum will click on your links with no inclination to study what is for them obscure scientific arcana. So, lets cut to the chase.

Comparing the influences on the Last Interglacial climate with those assumed in future climate projections is problematic owing to fundamental differences, especially orbital forcing, seasonal warming, and greenhouse gas concentrations.

Palaeoclimate studies show that differences in the manner in which the Earth orbited the Sun during the Last Interglacial are sufficient to explain the higher temperatures over most parts of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly due to greater axial tilt and eccentricity compared with the present day orbital configuration.

This greater axial tilt provided stronger insolation (solar heating) at high latitudes and weaker insolation at low latitudes. Perihelion, when the Earth is nearest the Sun, occurred during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which amplified seasonal insolation, while perihelion occurs in winter during the present day. Peak insolation from orbital forcing will be significantly lower over the next century than what the Earth received during the peak warm period around 126,000 years ago.

In other words the earth's climate is influenced by a number of factors including greenhouse gas fluctuations. Currently we are not experiencing the same degree of orbital forcing as in Earth's Interglacial periods. What we ARE experiencing is a dramatic increase in CO2 - a rapid rise that has never occurred before in the planet's history.

Maybe you should tell the folks on your favorite denier site that every now and then a person who is trained in the sciences will read their bunk which you distribute at third hand and have a good laugh.

I cannot think of a better way to waste my time then to attempt to discuss the science of climate change with a group of people who don't even believe in education and especially don't believe in anything to do with actual science.

I'd rather go pull weeds in my garden.
I know it's embarrassing for you to provide links to SkepticalScience; but, cutting and pasting this much from their site without attribution is plaigarism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 03:09 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
5,027 posts, read 4,544,136 times
Reputation: 10799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
I know it's embarrassing for you to provide links to SkepticalScience; but, cutting and pasting this much from their site without attribution is plaigarism.
Fixed that for you (The part in bold is the part from Skeptical Science):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
No one is interested in reading your random sampling of scientific papers concerning biocenosis and plant communities in the Siberian Arctic during the Eemian Interglacial (or any other interglacial for that matter). It's not exactly a news flash that the planet has experienced periods of warming in the past.

You are attempting to back up the assertion that CO2 levels do not influence the warming (or cooling) of the planet by flooding us with research that has nothing to do with the subject, and you can feel reasonably certain that the people in the CD poc forum will click on your links with no inclination to study what is for them obscure scientific arcana. So, lets cut to the chase.

Comparing the influences on the Last Interglacial climate with those assumed in future climate projections is problematic owing to fundamental differences, especially orbital forcing, seasonal warming, and greenhouse gas concentrations.

Palaeoclimate studies show that differences in the manner in which the Earth orbited the Sun during the Last Interglacial are sufficient to explain the higher temperatures over most parts of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly due to greater axial tilt and eccentricity compared with the present day orbital configuration.

This greater axial tilt provided stronger insolation (solar heating) at high latitudes and weaker insolation at low latitudes. Perihelion, when the Earth is nearest the Sun, occurred during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which amplified seasonal insolation, while perihelion occurs in winter during the present day. Peak insolation from orbital forcing will be significantly lower over the next century than what the Earth received during the peak warm period around 126,000 years ago.


- Skeptical Science

In other words the earth's climate is influenced by a number of factors including greenhouse gas fluctuations. Currently we are not experiencing the same degree of orbital forcing as in Earth's Interglacial periods. What we ARE experiencing is a dramatic increase in CO2 - a rapid rise that has never occurred before in the planet's history.

Maybe you should tell the folks on your favorite denier site that every now and then a person who is trained in the sciences will read their bunk which you distribute at third hand and have a good laugh.

I cannot think of a better way to waste my time then to attempt to discuss the science of climate change with a group of people who don't even believe in education and especially don't believe in anything to do with actual science.

I'd rather go pull weeds in my garden.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 04:36 PM
 
64 posts, read 18,153 times
Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
actually that term goes way back to ancient Greece... and is still valid today
Umm, you missed the point. It was a poke in the eye of the current obsession with gender and how we must properly address one's chosen gender. Maybe I should have included a smiling emoji.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top