Changes in Atlantic currents

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Are you really suggesting that we’re in danger of a die off...?

There is a significant chance that unchecked warming will have serious economic and human impacts - eg famines, flooding, conflict over dwindling resources, etc. There will be many deaths, and much hardship.

And for many other species and ecological regions, yes, extinction. Take just insects: they are fundamental to every land ecology, yet insect species loss is perhaps 10x that of other animals. Insects are at the base of the food chain, so that loss will be reflected upwards. One big example - the decline of bee numbers means that in many agricultural areas, we have to truck cultured bees around to pollenate crops, because the natural populations are no longer sufficient.

The good news? Most of us on CF will be dead before the worst effects bite hard.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have no idea what you're driving at with those graphs. Other than baiting JD with juvenile non-points. The graphs all indicate significant recent warming and a very, very clear trend.

Made even clearer thanks to homogenisation

Given different teams applying different methodologies, and even different graphing styles, is it surprising that the presented absolute values might differ slightly? Yet the trend is crystal clear in all of them.

And, any simplified presentation of air temperature change is incomplete and misleading when it comes to quantifying how much warming has recently occurred; the amount of heat energy that's been absorbed by the oceans and gone into melting ice is staggering.

Quaint answer. Thar still cookin' the books though to make that crystal shine like a new penny.

End the mystery. What do you believe? Human-caused warming, or not? Problem to be addressed, or not?

It's no mystery. Maybe and Yes eventually. It's pretty obvious that "climate change", "climate crisis", "climate emergency" or whatever this month's name is, has slowly devolved into a MacGuffin for misguided environmentalists, socialists and others in it simply for the quick buck.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Why? Because he has a differing perspective to you?

Judith Curry has called Heller's analysis bogus and problematic.
She has a three part series on her blog explaining the need and process for temperature adjustments.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/u...ervation-bias/

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/b...perature-data/

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/u...perature-data/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Are you really suggesting that we’re in danger of a die off or even becoming extinct?!

That possibility exists if we continue down tis current path.

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) is a global greenhouse warming event that happened 56 million years ago, causing extinction in the world's oceans and accelerated evolution on the continents. It was caused by release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. When we compare the rate of release of greenhouse gases today to the rate of accumulation during the PETM, we must compare the rates on a common time scale. Projection of modern rates to a PETM time scale is tightly constrained and shows that we are now emitting carbon some 9–10 times faster than during the PETM. If the present trend of increasing carbon emissions continues, we may see PETM-magnitude extinction and accelerated evolution in as few as 140 years or about five human generations.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2018PA003379

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Your lower graph seems to have originated on Wikipedia but it is a compilation of several published data sets. Looking at the part of the data that corresponds to your upper graph, it comes from Royer et al 2004 (GSA Today). This paper expands on the previous paper by using ocean pH to apply a correction to the Veizer et al graph, which gives a better correlation to other geological evidence of ancient glaciations.

I cited the source of the lower graph. The original is from:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-319-46939-3_1

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Does the Geological Society of America do it for you? Or are they on the Desmog list?

Yes the GSA does do for it for me.

Position Summary
Human-induced increases in greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are the main drivers of recent global warming. Sound public policy and successful climate change mitigation and adaptation require scientifically validated assessment of current and future climate impacts.

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the consensus among earth scientists that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate change reach projected levels; (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies that are designed to address the current and future impacts of human-induced climate change; and (4) recommends opportunities for GSA members to advance understanding of climate change.

And you?

https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/posit...osition10.aspx

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So who's right and who's wrong?

So let us start applying the CRAAP Test:

Step one - Currency

Currency can be more important in some fields, like science and medicine, than in some other fields, like those in the humanities, but having current information is usually recommended. Considering currency is important, though, so you are not using information that has been supplanted with new, better ideas and research.

You graph is from 2003, mine is from 2017.

Which is more current?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Made even clearer thanks to homogenisation

Quaint answer. Thar still cookin' the books though to make that crystal shine like a new penny.

"I've cut this board three times, and it's still too short!"

There's nothing subtle about the temperature rise, no matter whose graph you post. The warming isn't fiction. The science is pretty solid. Whether or not you can find minor differences in different graphs.

It's no mystery. Maybe and Yes eventually. It's pretty obvious that "climate change", "climate crisis", "climate emergency" or whatever this month's name is, has slowly devolved into a MacGuffin for misguided environmentalists, socialists and others in it simply for the quick buck.

Evasive, noncommittal BS.

Climate change, like COVID, is a pain in the ass for just about everyone: governments, most businesses, and eventually, most people. Where is this quick buck? I'd love to get in on the action.

To help you stay au courant, here's a list of what the more fashionable deniers are saying this year.

[GordMay]

For 8000 years, the Atlantic Ocean's "conveyor belt” [Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation - AMOC] has held steady, nourishing Western Europe with tropical warmth.

But a study [1] of the current's strength, over the past half-million years, suggests global warming may not shut down the current any time soon, as some scientists fear. Instead, it could trigger a replay of ancient events, when multiple bouts of warming caused rapid, centurylong swings in the current's strength, sowing climate chaos, that may have, alternately, chilled and warmed Europe.

The strength of the Atlantic circulation dropped sharply, before rebounding, during periods of peak warming, in three recent interglacials. Those fluctuations, which occurred about 423,000, 335,000, and 245,000 years ago, sometimes lasted only 100 years.

In some ways, it might seem like good news that the circulation can decline and rebound, rather than simply declining, or worse, shutting down completely.
But, human systems of agriculture, trade, and settlement were not designed to cope with such fluctuations.
We have built everything we have, in this relatively stable climate period [of the past 10,000 years], but the geologic record shows us this may be an exception, rather than the rule.

[1] “Interglacial instability of North Atlantic Deep Water ventilation” ~ by Eirik Vinje Galaasen et al
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/full/10....cience.aay6381
Full ➥ https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00663/77524/79329.pdf

Reporting about ➥ https://www.rutgers.edu/news/how-sta...warmer-climate

[donradcliffe]

I can recommend the Genius series on Einstein for a good example of what happens to a scientist who buck's the establishment.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I can recommend the Genius series on Einstein for a good example of what happens to a scientist who buck's the establishment.

The climate science equivalent is Guy Callendar.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...5.031414/full/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So who's right and who's wrong?

Your graph is based on Shaviv and Viezer, https://www.atmos.washington.edu/aca...tialDriver.pdf

It has been refuted in a GSA publication.
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/...173-14-3-4.pdf

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"I've cut this board three times, and it's still too short!"

There's nothing subtle about the temperature rise, no matter whose graph you post. The warming isn't fiction. The science is pretty solid. Whether or not you can find minor differences in different graphs.
Evasive, noncommittal BS.

Climate change, like COVID, is a pain in the ass for just about everyone: governments, most businesses, and eventually, most people. Where is this quick buck? I'd love to get in on the action.

To help you stay au courant, here's a list of what the more fashionable deniers are saying this year.

The warning might not be fiction, but the data is.

If the science is so solid, why the deceit?
If the science is so solid, why 400 planes and 20000 attendees to attend a climate junket?

if it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Judith Curry has called Heller's analysis bogus and problematic.
She has a three part series on her blog explaining the need and process for temperature adjustments.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/u...ervation-bias/

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/b...perature-data/

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/u...perature-data/

Originally Posted by jackdale

I cited the source of the lower graph. The original is from:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-319-46939-3_1

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes the GSA does do for it for me.



And you?

https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/posit...osition10.aspx

Originally Posted by jackdale

So let us start applying the CRAAP Test:

Step one - Currency



You graph is from 2003, mine is from 2017.

Which is more current?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your graph is based on Shaviv and Viezer, https://www.atmos.washington.edu/aca...tialDriver.pdf

It has been refuted in a GSA publication.
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/...173-14-3-4.pdf

You're certainly hung up on this paper and graph thing,

I am surprised you haven't pounced on the celestial origins theory. Is that in preparation?

In any event, perhaps you should contact Stanford.eu and advise them of the error of their ways. You could also advise them on which authouritive sources to limit themselves to in future based upon your self assessed lists.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

In any event, perhaps you should contact Stanford.eu and advise them of the error of their ways. You could also advise them on which authouritive sources to limit themselves to in future based upon your self assessed lists.

From the Stanford Solar Center

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

Global Warming -- Research Issues

What error?