Global Warming

This is what natural climate variation looks like. It is often massive and happens very quickly.

www.upi.com

Ancient warming fueled massive marine dead zones in North Pacific

Over the past 1.2 million years, marine life repeatedly disappeared from large swaths of the North Pacific.
www.upi.com www.upi.com

These global warming induced ocean die offs repeatably happened long before SUV's graced the Earth.

For the science inclined here's the actual paper:

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org advances.sciencemag.org
 
lotr10 said:
This is what natural climate variation looks like. It is often massive and happens very quickly.

www.upi.com

Ancient warming fueled massive marine dead zones in North Pacific

Over the past 1.2 million years, marine life repeatedly disappeared from large swaths of the North Pacific.
www.upi.com www.upi.com

These global warming induced ocean die offs repeatably happened long before SUV's graced the Earth.

For the science inclined here's the actual paper:

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org advances.sciencemag.org
Click to expand...
Does this mean McDonalds won’t have filet o fish?
 
May the Keystone Pipeline RIP. Another casualty of the anti-science, left wing power grab of Global Warming:

www.foxbusiness.com

Keystone Pipeline officially terminated after 13-year bid

The Canadian firm behind the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline officially revoked their bid Wednesday, ending a 13-year political battle between environmentalists and conservatives.
www.foxbusiness.com www.foxbusiness.com

"President Biden killed the Keystone XL Pipeline in the name of ‘clean energy’ but waived sanctions in order to allow the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline. His decisions killed American jobs and put the security of our European allies at risk," Cotton said in a statement. "Our bill will hold President Biden accountable for his blatant disregard for hard-working Americans."
 
lotr10 said:
This is bad science, terrible history and even worse current affairs:

thepostmillennial.com

BREAKING: Biden tells troops ‘global warming’ is the ‘greatest threat to America’

“This is not a joke. Y’know what the Joint Chiefs told us the greatest threat facing America was? Global warming,” the president told the troops at Suffolk Air Force Base.
thepostmillennial.com thepostmillennial.com
Click to expand...
This idea was trotted out long ago, during Obama I'm thinking. Joe is likely confused that he is no longer the VP.
 
irish_buffalo said:
Horrible thought process.
Click to expand...
Is it? So you're fine with the USA crippling its economy to reduce CO2 emissions while China and other nations drastically increase theirs? How is that supposed to solve the "problem" of Global Warming?

Adaptation is the tried and true method that the human race has been using for hundreds of thousands of years to deal with things like climate change. Why would you be against that?

Rich countries ADAPTING to global warming will work a lot better then poor countries trying to stop global warming. And if we walk away from our huge fossil fuel reserves we will be a poor country.
 
Here's an article with summaries and links to several new peer reviewed studies showing that any climate change we're are undergoing will not result in increased drought. Recall that increasing drought was one of the scare tactics employed by the Global Warming alarmists:

wattsupwiththat.com

Several More New Studies Show Drought Is Now Less Common And Severe Than Centuries, Millennia Ago

Scientists continue to publish new drought reconstructions indicating there were far more frequent and severe drought periods in the past several thousand years than anything observed in the modern…
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com
 
Lotr10 for Climate Czar!!!!

Then we could have someone who actually tells the truth about the real science. Lol.
 
^ Lol

lotr10 posted a blog post based on a study by McColl and Berg. Disengeniously, the blog makes it seem as if there is nothing to see here and everyone has been wrong about expansion of desert and dry areas and therefore, of course, global warming is a myth. Lol.

Here is an article explaining the McColl and Berg study with more truth. They never deny the world is not warming, in fact they acknowledge it.

Climate change may not expand drylands

New analysis highlights uncertainty about the future state of drylands
www.seas.harvard.edu www.seas.harvard.edu
 
irish_buffalo said:
^ Lol

lotr10 posted a blog post based on a study by McColl and Berg. Disengeniously, the blog makes it seem as if there is nothing to see here and everyone has been wrong about expansion of desert and dry areas and therefore, of course, global warming is a myth. Lol.

Here is an article explaining the McColl and Berg study with more truth. They never deny the world is not warming, in fact they acknowledge it.

Climate change may not expand drylands

New analysis highlights uncertainty about the future state of drylands
www.seas.harvard.edu www.seas.harvard.edu
Click to expand...
Did you read and understand the article you posted IB?

Here's the key statement from the article which contradicts the doom saying of Global Warming alarmists:

“Our research shows that while some drylands may expand, climate models don’t project that there will be a dramatic and rapid global expansion of drylands,” said McColl.

Pretty clear that these scientists are saying they aren't seeing evidence of expanding deserts as a result of climate change. What is your interpretation of their work?

And there was nothing disingenuous about how the WUWT blog talked about the McColl & Berg paper. In fact they linked to the paper so that everyone could easily read what the authors had published. Here's the Abstract from their publication:

Drylands, comprising land regions characterized by water-limited, sparse vegetation, have commonly been projected to expand globally under climate warming. Such projections, however, rely on an atmospheric proxy for drylands, the aridity index, which has recently been shown to yield qualitatively incorrect projections of various components of the terrestrial water cycle. Here, we use an alternative index of drylands, based directly on relevant ecohydrological variables, and compare projections of both indices in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 climate models as well as Dynamic Global Vegetation Models. The aridity index overestimates simulated ecohydrological index changes. This divergence reflects different index sensitivities to hydroclimate change and opposite responses to the physiological effect on vegetation of increasing atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric aridity is thus not an accurate proxy of the future extent of drylands. Despite greater uncertainties than in atmospheric projections, climate model ecohydrological projections indicate no global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming, contrary to previous claims based on atmospheric aridity.

So how exactly was the WUWT blog being disingenuous?

And for the record a lot of us skeptics are willing to agree that the climate is warming. The difference is that we believe the evidence supports the idea that this warming is natural. It's a result of the Earth coming out of the last Ice Age. And the climate will continue to warm naturally until we start back into another Ice Age.
 
lotr10 said:
Did you read and understand the article you posted IB?

Here's the key statement from the article which contradicts the doom saying of Global Warming alarmists:

“Our research shows that while some drylands may expand, climate models don’t project that there will be a dramatic and rapid global expansion of drylands,” said McColl.

Pretty clear that these scientists are saying they aren't seeing evidence of expanding deserts as a result of climate change. What is your interpretation of their work?

And there was nothing disingenuous about how the WUWT blog talked about the McColl & Berg paper. In fact they linked to the paper so that everyone could easily read what the authors had published. Here's the Abstract from their publication:

Drylands, comprising land regions characterized by water-limited, sparse vegetation, have commonly been projected to expand globally under climate warming. Such projections, however, rely on an atmospheric proxy for drylands, the aridity index, which has recently been shown to yield qualitatively incorrect projections of various components of the terrestrial water cycle. Here, we use an alternative index of drylands, based directly on relevant ecohydrological variables, and compare projections of both indices in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 climate models as well as Dynamic Global Vegetation Models. The aridity index overestimates simulated ecohydrological index changes. This divergence reflects different index sensitivities to hydroclimate change and opposite responses to the physiological effect on vegetation of increasing atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric aridity is thus not an accurate proxy of the future extent of drylands. Despite greater uncertainties than in atmospheric projections, climate model ecohydrological projections indicate no global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming, contrary to previous claims based on atmospheric aridity.

So how exactly was the WUWT blog being disingenuous?

And for the record a lot of us skeptics are willing to agree that the climate is warming. The difference is that we believe the evidence supports the idea that this warming is natural. It's a result of the Earth coming out of the last Ice Age. And the climate will continue to warm naturally until we start back into another Ice Age.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? Lol

“As the climate is warming, there is a divergence between atmospheric and land surface behavior,” said Berg.

To account for that divergence, McColl and Berg developed a new metric of drylands, based on land surface properties, including biological responses to higher atmospheric CO2, and compared drylands projections to those derived solely from atmospheric metrics.

“Our research shows that while some drylands may expand, climate models don’t project that there will be a dramatic and rapid global expansion of drylands,” said McColl.

However, simulating complex land processes remains challenging in global models.

“There is still a lot of uncertainty about how vegetation and the water cycle will change in a warming world,” said McColl.

AGAIN, your blogger and more so you, disingenuously point to the idea that drylands not expanding as evidence that Global Warming is not real. Of course wattsupwiththat picked up the BLOG and all of its BS.
 
irish_buffalo said:
Did you read the article? Lol

“As the climate is warming, there is a divergence between atmospheric and land surface behavior,” said Berg.

To account for that divergence, McColl and Berg developed a new metric of drylands, based on land surface properties, including biological responses to higher atmospheric CO2, and compared drylands projections to those derived solely from atmospheric metrics.

“Our research shows that while some drylands may expand, climate models don’t project that there will be a dramatic and rapid global expansion of drylands,” said McColl.

However, simulating complex land processes remains challenging in global models.

“There is still a lot of uncertainty about how vegetation and the water cycle will change in a warming world,” said McColl.

AGAIN, your blogger and more so you, disingenuously point to the idea that drylands not expanding as evidence that Global Warming is not real. Of course wattsupwiththat picked up the BLOG and all of its BS.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. You are misrepresenting what my point was here:

* Global Warming alarmists for decades have been claiming that a disastrous side effect of our CO2 release would be increased drought and the expansion of deserts. This paper presents evidence that directly contradicts that claim. In spite of a warming climate they do not expect to see an increase in desertification.

* As far as the "divergence between atmospheric and land surface behavior" maybe the climate alarmists should have considered this before they assured us that one of the terrible outcomes of global warming would be a significant expansion in the Earths deserts.

* As for the warming of the climate it's my belief that the evidence supports a natural cause not a human cause.

* Would you at least acknowledge that this paper adds to the mountain of evidence that the SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED here?

* To be clear I'm not pointing to this article as evidence that Global Warming is not real. I am pointing to this article as evidence that a warming climate may not be all bad and that one of the worst side effects of Global Warming is unlikely to happen. The available scientific evidence leads me to believe that a naturally warming Earth is a net plus for humanity and life in general.
 
irish_buffalo said:
AGAIN, your blogger and more so you, disingenuously point to the idea that drylands not expanding as evidence that Global Warming is not real. Of course wattsupwiththat picked up the BLOG and all of its BS.
Click to expand...
One of the common fallacies I see in the arguments of those that support the theory that humans are causing catastrophic Global Warming is the notion that Skeptics are all in one group claiming Global Warming doesn't exist. This is BS and I suspect a deflection from having to actually engage over the science.

The truth is that the Global Warming Skeptic community is incredibly diverse with positions covering a wide range of scientific possibilities. The only thing we Skeptics all agree on is that the science of Global Warming is NOT settled.

If I were to generalize and try to list Skeptic positions I would come up with:

* Global Warming isn't happening - either by natural or human causes.

* Modest Global Warming is probably happening and it's almost entirely due to natural processes. The effect of this warming is overall positive on life & human civilization. This is where I currently sit on this debate.

* Humans are contributing to natural Global Warming but we have little idea as to how much. This camp estimates that human contribution to Global Warming is less then half the warming that's occurring. This means that even if humanity disappeared from the Earth the warming would still occur. They also share the belief that warming is generally good for the world.

* Humans are causing a lot of the warming but we don't know how much. Is it 50% or 100%. This group though does not believe that Global Warming will accelerate and cause catastrophic climate change. They believe that a warming Earth is better able to support human civilization and life in general. The real existential threat to humanity is a return to an Ice Age.

* Then there are those Skeptics that fully accept the Global Warming theory including the potential for catastrophe,. Their skepticism lies in the proposed solutions. They are ultra realists who see the accelerating carbon emissions by China, India and much of the developing world and believe that there is NOTHING short of war that we can do to stop it. So we best try to ride it out from a position of strength - which means using fossil fuels if they are the best source of energy available.

It's fair to say that in all of these positions the use of fossil fuels is favored as long as those fuels are the best in class for producing energy. Should alternative energy sources be identified Skeptics have no problem seeing them replace fossil fuels.

The other commonality among the Skeptics is that we're open to changing our minds if the evidence supports changing our minds. Give us new, quality data and we might agree with you. Sling BS at us and we get our backs up.
 
lotr10 said:
This is why Global Warming has been hopelessly politicized. BTW there is ZERO evidence that climate change has hurt Central American farmers.

thepostmillennial.com

WATCH: AOC blames US climate policy for illegal immigration

“And the reason this is a problem, and this is not just US supporting regime change, this is also climate policy that is impacting the global south disproportionately,” she said.
thepostmillennial.com thepostmillennial.com
Click to expand...
Climate change has made Central Americans illiterate, and wanting to seek new digs with free sht
 
lotr10 said:
Did you read and understand the article you posted IB?
Click to expand...

and this examples how LOTR supports his delusions.

Why the f would anyone think you're credible when you make a statement like that? You define tone deaf. Did YOU read and understand the article he posted?

I'll answer for you. "No."

See how easy that was to do?
 
eastisbest said:
and this examples how LOTR supports his delusions.

Why the f would anyone think you're credible when you make a statement like that? You define tone deaf. Did YOU read and understand the article he posted?

I'll answer for you. "No."

See how easy that was to do?
Click to expand...
Did you understand the article that was posted East? And I'm talking about the Scientific Article that these authors published and was linked to at WUWT. It's really not that hard. These scientists looked at whether global warming would increase desertification. They concluded that their model indicated that deserts would not grow as a result of the warming. What was your take?

As an aside increasing global desertification is one of the most devastating potential outcomes of global warming. A study like this, if replicated & confirmed, is important to understanding the real risks, and lack thereof, that Global Warming represents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top