Slashdot Mirror
Deep Pacific Waters Are Cooling Down Due To Centuries-Ago Little Ice Age, New Study Suggests (inquisitr.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from The Inquisitr: Most of the world's waters may be warming as a result of climate change, but a new study shows that the deepest parts of the Pacific Ocean still appear to be cooling down hundreds of years after the period in history known as the "Little Ice Age." According to a report from Science Daily, a team of researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) and Harvard University discovered that there has been a "lag" of a few centuries in terms of temperature change in the deep Pacific. This part of the ocean, the report stressed, is still seemingly cooling and adjusting to the temperature drops of the Little Ice Age while the rest of the Pacific gets warmer as a result of modern factors.
"These waters are so old and haven't been near the surface in so long, they still 'remember' what was going on hundreds of years ago when Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in history," commented WHOI physical oceanographer Jake Gebbie, lead author of the new study. As documented in a paper that was published Friday in the journal Science, the researchers created a model simulating how the deep Pacific's temperature might react to changes in climate on the surface, then compared the data from the model against two historical sources. These sources included ocean temperature data taken in the 1870s by scientists aboard the HMS Challenger and temperatures gathered over a century later, through the World Ocean Circulation Experiment in the 1990s. Based on how these comparisons aligned, the researchers found that warming was present in most parts of the world's oceans and consistent with the current trend of climate change. The only exception was the deep Pacific, where temperatures were cooling at around 1.25 miles (two kilometers) deep. This suggested that long-ago changes in surface climate, such as those that took place during the Little Ice Age, could still have an influence on the effect of climate change in modern times.
"These waters are so old and haven't been near the surface in so long, they still 'remember' what was going on hundreds of years ago when Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in history," commented WHOI physical oceanographer Jake Gebbie, lead author of the new study. As documented in a paper that was published Friday in the journal Science, the researchers created a model simulating how the deep Pacific's temperature might react to changes in climate on the surface, then compared the data from the model against two historical sources. These sources included ocean temperature data taken in the 1870s by scientists aboard the HMS Challenger and temperatures gathered over a century later, through the World Ocean Circulation Experiment in the 1990s. Based on how these comparisons aligned, the researchers found that warming was present in most parts of the world's oceans and consistent with the current trend of climate change. The only exception was the deep Pacific, where temperatures were cooling at around 1.25 miles (two kilometers) deep. This suggested that long-ago changes in surface climate, such as those that took place during the Little Ice Age, could still have an influence on the effect of climate change in modern times.
Wow, yes, when I unplug my freezer it gets colder
Sure, this part isn't warming because it "remembers" it was cold 200 years ago because the water is "so old", but everything else is warming because of modern climate change.
This is all republican trumptard billshit!
We all know the ice age was limited to just a piece of Europe and was not world wide so these guys are just stupid or trolling for trump (they are from Harvard, good old boys!) or taking money from the oil industry.
The world is warming at an historically unprecedented rate and these shills can not publish this stuff that trump will use to say it isnt. They should have their degrees removed and get fired immediately for being right wing propagandists and white supremacist nazi supporters.
There is no cooling! There never was!
During the Little Ice Age, surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere dropped by about 2C, and sea ice expanded while snowfall decreased. The coldest and densest water in the ocean is Antarctic bottom water, which forms as ice freezes on the surface. The ice is nearly salt free, which means the seawater left behind is extra salty, and thus dense, so it sinks. When it reaches the bottom, it can't just immediately flow toward the deepest part of the sea, because there is no monotonic slope. Instead it fills basins close to the ice shelf, and only flows to deeper water when those are full. Yes, this can take centuries. Reason: The ocean is big. Really big.
Here is an excellent description of the topology of the ocean bottom. Especially look at the last map, showing the deep basins around Antarctica.
This is the worst pseudo-science since Trump shut down the EPA for generating most of it.
Just that. If the water is cooling then it seems that it must be that energy (heat) is being removed from that water and so I'm wondering where that energy (heat) is going........
Excellent propaganda, I guess the global warming hoax is exposed because of Schwtwat's efforts. Golf clap.
As a nazi faggot and constant fraud apologist (Republican) myself, I can't get enough of this propaganda. Excellent, why let facts rule us? My gut says I'm king baby, order another round of treason shots off our imported whore wives!
I thought they'd disproved that there ever was a Little Ice Age or a Medieval Warm Period. Wasn't it supposed to be all clear, steady and no changes until we buggered up the system?
" If a study doesn't support your ridged views on climate change " And yet, does this refute climate change? No. But the reason it was posted on slashdot by the known poster, that WAS an attempt to pseudo-that.
Realize you're surrounded by dishonest republican propaganda faggots, not actually science-minded individuals trying to set a nuanced scientific record straight... or just.. don't realize that? I guess that's your choice/IQ test.
Someone agrees with you and you misinterpret it and accuse them of being being the enemy - is this what modern liberalism has been reduced to?
Realize you're surrounded by dishonest republican propaganda faggots, not actually science-minded individuals trying to set a nuanced scientific record straight... or just.. don't realize that? I guess that's your choice/IQ test.
So basically, you're saying you're both mentally handicapped?
Realize you're surrounded by dishonest republican propaganda faggots, not actually science-minded individuals trying to set a nuanced scientific record straight... or just.. don't realize that? That's your choice/IQ test.
We see that alarmist millennials are pretty much just stupid. Enough, already, and go to adulting school.
You're also surrounded by disingenuous liberal faggots too. Fuck climate science. Both of them want nothing more than to control you. Burn the motherfucking state to the ground.
Actually that was the "point" of the "climate warrior" crowd, in response to the republican (nazi) troll spamming their bullshit pseudo-spiel, that this study doesn't touch global warming - but Schwitt posted it for that reason.
You republican propaganda faggots are nothing if not dickless. (You thought I was going to say predictable lol, you dumb faggots lose again.)
I missed you at the fact checking after Trump's little bullshit crybaby whine tonight, lol. Maybe you weren't feeling up to it.
Is that how the water remembers?
This is the moronic credo of the climate science denier that until every possible variable is accounted for that there's doubt and therefore no cause to act. Of course in an infinitely complex analogue system this is impossible, if the same criteria were applied to every other endeavour humanity has undertaken we would still be in the stone age and if we listen to these morons that's exactly where we'll return.
There is no type of proof that cannot be warped into the Global Warming Armageddon myth.
"Proof" is a mathematical concept. In science, there is only evidence.
The evidence is that the very deepest ocean water, in the Marianas, Philippine, and Bougainville trenches, is getting colder. A plausible hypothesis is the one made in TFA: A lag of Antarctic bottom water from the Little Ice Age, because of the deep basins in the Southern Ocean.
This is supported by models, and (most importantly) is falsifiable: If the hypothesis is correct, the water in the southern basins should be getting warmer. Surface waters should also be warming. Only the extreme depths should be getting colder.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, then please tell us, and explain how it can be falsified.
Other "contradictory" evidence, such as expanding sea ice around Antarctica, is also best explained within the context of global warming: As air temperatures rise, they hold more moisture, which means more snowfall onto the ice pack. So the ice pack is expanding even as measured air temperatures rise. Notably, this is NOT happening in the Arctic, since temperatures there are already higher. The northern ice pack has shrunk by over a million square miles. Feel free to post an alternative falsifiable hypothesis.
fuck yeah, let's burn some more coal and further pollute the food chain with mercury. /snark
I tried to post this a few days ago but it never appeared and I'm not a known poster and I'm a democrat.
-Geekpoet
Get this garbage off Slashdot
Evidence? Facts? Falsifiability?
That is for real science! We are talking about AGW!
Keep your white trumptard nazi faggot science away from here! We dont need none of your white science! We got the truth handed down to us by Al Gore and NPR and Maxine Waters!
Fuck you and your fake news and your wall and your little dog Toto, too!
Translation: we still have NO IDEA wtf we are talking about but if you point that out we will call you names and ruin your career so stfu and go along with the taxes so we can all get rich off the stupid bastards who actually have to work for a living.
I am happy to have helped clarify your statement. Your version was a bit too opaque. Now it is very clear who you are and what you mean and your end goals.
Real science is falsifiable, uses facts, questions evidence, never stops asking questions and does not go ape shit crazy when someone points out an error or questions a premise. AGW is not science. It is politics. Just another in for the socialists to exert control over our freedom and finances.
The correct credo for Science is to always be open to having an hypothesis disproved. To do otherwise is to be an unscientific ostrich. That is not a "moronic credo" but the credo of a true scientist who is not prejudiced by politics. Anytime I hear someone preface their personal conclusion with the justification of "proven science" I know two things (1) that whatever follows is simply their prejudiced opinion and (2) the science is definitely not proven.
That does not, however, mean that we should not act with prudence.
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
There's a lot of things that could have gone wrong with this study, their corrections and adjustments to the historical deep sea temperature data could be incorrect, the model could have bad assumptions, their assumptions about the relationship between the deep sea and other waters could be incorrect, etc, etc.
This is a cool study, and it may be right, but it's better to think of it as starting the process for understanding the role of the deep sea rather than providing a solid answer.
I stole this Sig
You're also surrounded by disingenuous liberal faggots too. Fuck climate science. Both of them want nothing more than to control you. Burn the motherfucking state to the ground.
This would release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and accelerate global warming.
Amazingly bad science.
"still seemingly cooling and adjusting to the temperature drops of the Little Ice Age"
So is it still cold, or is it still cooling? Because if it's cooling, then it's being driven by something.
"These waters are so old and haven't been near the surface in so long, they still 'remember' what was going on hundreds of years ago when Europe experienced some of its coldest winters in history,"
Are you fucking kidding me?
Heteronormative? That is a big word for such a small boy.
All I am saying is this gay republican enjoyed fucking your ass. Why are you fighting it? You know you are cumming back for my cock.
I regularly visit your site and find a lot of interesting information. Not only good posts but also great comments. Thank you and look forward to your page growing stronger run 3
Global warming happens. It's happened many times in the Earth's life. Extinction also happens. It too has happened many times in the Earth's life and we would not even exist if the mass extinction events didn't happen.
Most people are just fucking self-centred and too stupid to understand that life and the state of everything is temporary. Trying to fight against nature and the multiverse is both futile and a waste of time. I prefer to spend my time grateful for being lucky enough to have existence and having as much fun as possible while I have it. One day, nothing will exist in our universe and possibly the entire multiverse/xenoverse.
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.
The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
Specifically, the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming is well-supported by experiment.
The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.
That we've had climate change already is incontrovertible.
That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.
We're already in the middle of a mass extinction, that is just a fact.
To risk even more climate change in the middle of a mass extinction is lunacy. Sure the scientists might be wrong, and we might find some cool technological solution, but we also might be underestimating the severity of the situation we're about to encounter.
I stole this Sig
That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.
What blog did you read that on?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That climate change will accelerate due to feedbacks is controversial to the public, but not among the only people who seriously investigate it.
What blog did you read that on?
Every serious news organization and magazine for the past 2 decades.
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus. If you want into any sciences department at a University and start declaring that AGW isn't happening people are going look at you like you're a fruitcake.
I stole this Sig
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be.
Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
More ad hominem attacks without substance. You lose sucker.
We're still in ice age - poles are still covered in ice. This ice age is about to be over. A few degrees up or down within a few decades isn't very unusual. It happens with or without humans. We will need to be able to adapt either way.
Where it gets religious is the belief in a precise sub-percent-error CO2-temperature correlation. Measurements we have come with error bars the size of the signal, and the models for the complex and not fully understood reality contain more parameters to tune them to reality than data exists to feed into the models. Improving is very tedious because we can't get more than one year of data per year, and not do much experiments.
Of course there are scientifically valuable papers analyzing individual effects, with appropriately carefully worded limited conclusions. Putting things together isn't easy, and from there, before it reaches media for the masses, it quickly loses all error bars and the model boils down to CO2 correlates directly to temperature, showing a chart of a couple of years of temperature data as proof. Somewhere along that process it becomes religon.
"There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be." Wrong, really. How large is kind of unbounded but other than that we know insulating gasses insulate and that mankind's activities add a lot.
The people who want to pretend the tailpipe just pumps out clean potable atmosphere are the people we're talking about being disingenuous about this. Not people whose models of warming are 4% off, or 15% off. That's a hard long-term prediction.
Stop being an agent of FUD.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So if it takes centuries or so for the effects to reach the bottom... Enough methane hydrates exists down there, IF it warms up from todays supposed excessive heat(sorry I don't see it in Canada, and I do buy the Nobel prize winning physicist argument about accuracy of past temperatures readings(ie: we donno wtf is going on really)); Then a century or so from now that methane might pop to the surface causing a chain reaction that'll end any possibility of stopping; an end of the world warming event.
Better still, it might be already to late to stop it, since the 'heat' might be making it's way down and even if we did 0 emissions, that heat would still get there to release the gas.. fun fun.
Somehow your logic is quite off.
It's a completely different story if you put up a What-if-hypothesis and gather data and build models and investigate which consequences this What-if would have. And if this What-if harmonizes with what we see, then you have a valid ground for further scientific investigation.
Albert Einstein was famous for not believing into Quantum Mechanic. But he didn't deny quantum mechanics, he put up a series of very interesting what-if-hypotheses like the Bose-Einstein-condensate, quantum entanglement etc.pp. which would be true if quantum mechanics were true, and which were the base of further scientific work. Today, we know they are real, and Quantum Mechanic is still ruling supreme. Albert Einstein was wrong in this case, and still he managed to greatly further the science of Quantum Mechanics. He even got his Nobel Prize in Quantum Mechanics (and not for Special or General Relativity). That's how doubt works in Science. Not by just declaring "I don't believe it" or "There might be future results contradicting this", but by actually thinking through your alternative hypotheses and publishing possible results.
Yes, it's possible that there are unknown effects lurking somewhere, and we should be open if we get evidence of it. But for instance, we are able to calculate the absorption spectrum of Carbon dioxide down to 10 digits, and the results of experiments fit the calculation. There is not much wiggle room for Carbon dioxide not being a Greenhouse gas. The planetary greenhouse effect was wellknown already in the 1970ies, when the first probes landed on Venus and Mars and actually measured the effect of a 95% Carbon dioxide atmosphere on both planets. Why for some reason the effect clearly measured on two other planets would not exist on Earth is somehow not clear.
Frankly, if you're frying me I don't give a shit whether it's at 200 or at 220 degrees. It doesn't matter whether you drown in two or two hundred meters of water. There are certain levels at which it doesn't really matter whether it's "more" or "less", there is such a thing as "enough". One bullet is enough to kill a person. Of course you can use 100, but one is sufficient.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sounds like homeopathy. I guess pseudosciences converge over time.
As a Democrat unhinged lunatic, this straight-laced "ad hominem" ploy really appeals to my deep rooted father abandonment issues.
Fight the power! Neo-facism is counting on you.
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be. Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever? You talk like the earth gives a shit if we're on it or not and will always balance for us. Spoiler alert, it won't. Regardless of the causes we can see the average global temperature is going up and that's bad for us so were trying to do something about it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Yes, but it would also keep a lot of hot air from being produced in DC.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
One day, nothing will exist in our universe and possibly the entire multiverse/xenoverse.
And if we one day find ourselves in a position to stop or delay that should we take it or just say hey ho it's the natural run of things and it was fun while it lasted?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Real science is falsifiable, uses facts, questions evidence, never stops asking questions and does not go ape shit crazy when someone points out an error or questions a premise. AGW is not science. It is politics. Just another in for the socialists to exert control over our freedom and finances.
Where is the science that says everything will be just rosy?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Separate question: How the hell did they measure the temperature of water 1.2 miles down in 1870? Now THAT is clever!
People get angry when you challenge their religion.
Pretty sure antifa isn't on the conservative side of any issue.
...from the 'global warming' alarmists. It's hilarious. Endless lies and more lies, all to get those huge research grants, while pissing away tens of billions of dollars a year on a lie.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
These morons know that the Pacific Ocean is nowhere near Europe right? So why would Europe's "little ice age" (which was caused by global warming, by the way) be "remembered" by non-sentient liquid water at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean?
Exactly what experiments are you referring to? Has someone setup a very large and tall, closed environment location with simulated sun light and the exact composition of the atmosphere, then measured the surface temperatures then changed only the concentration of CO2 in the enclosure from 400ppm to 450 or 500ppm and then measured it?
Or are the experiments you are referring to computer simulation models?
Well then you're in luck because not even the most absurd radical predictions show temperatures anywhere near 200. The argument is over a potential paltry 1-2 degrees at most, if that even occurs.
How do you know that you interfering wouldn't cause worse catastrophic problems? When did you become so omnipotent that you know better than nature or the universe what should and shouldn't be, who made you arbiter of what the exact temperature the Earth should be?
You are such a speciest, you don't give a crap about any species but your own. CO2 is plant food and it is absolutely proven that increased CO2 increases plant coverage. Increased temperatures, if they are really caused by CO2, opens up whole new areas of previously hostile territory for animal, bird and insects to occupy.
But all you care about is the fact your beach front property might get closer to the water and that you might get a little uncomfortable where you live.
Typical human.
So if these cold water basins have been there for hundreds of years, clearly they have zero effect on current overall climate. I envisage random spots of somewhat cooler water on the bottom of the ocean, piled up and organised by topography
Someone agrees with you and you misinterpret it and accuse them of being being the enemy - is this what modern liberalism has been reduced to?
It always has been. In all of human history there's been a faction on the left that believes with their emotions at the expense of rational facts and then acts on those emotions. My 3 year old son does the same thing, which is why he throws temper tantrums over utterly minor things. Apparently some people never grow out of the toddler stage, they just focus on bigger topics and give the left a bad reputation.
This seems to be an example of the thermohaline circulation, the circulation of ocean waters caused by temperature and salinity gradients, which has transit times of around 1000 years.
Or not, as the case may be...
the depths contain less water than the shallower parts... if this is about the deep water then think for a moment about the vast majority of the water already feeling the heat of climate change that is human driven.
Migrating species? there is less space available the closer you get to the poles - so this too is a very very bad thing.
Noise in the channel.
It's colder than usual in the Marianas trench... global warming LOL
Increased CO2 does improve plant growth, but also lowers nutritional value, which is a bit of a problem for anything that eats it.
And the biggest problem with global warming is not so much that it's happening, but that our best understanding is that if we continue on as we are we're going to make it happen FAST - and every time that happens in the geologic record we see mass extinction events - typically upwards of 90% of all species go extinct, and it takes thousands of years for the ecology to recover. That's not a good time for anyone.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You said multiverse like you understand something. Any citation that is not to some nutjob blog misinterpreting physics research?
Little bit of physics for you - warm fluids are less dense than cold ones, so they rise, not sink. The lowest reaches of the ocean will contain the coldest water that's managed to reach it. And while water flows very rapidly on ground, where it displaces air that's 800x less dense, it flows *much* slower while displacing water that's only a bit warmer, and minuscule less dense (even a 20C temperature difference amounts to less than 0.5% density difference, salinity probably makes a bigger difference.)
On the plus side, that means if we stop heating the upper surface of the oceans the surface heat won't "settle" into the deepest parts, we'd have to inputenough heat that conduction between adjacent water bodies could warm the water all the way down. Unfortunately, the methane hydrates (that we know of) are in relatively shallow ocean where the response time to surface changes is much faster.
But yeah, we *really* don't want those hydrates to melt - like permafrost, they're part of the "tipping point" that researchers talk about not wanting to cross - once something else warms the Earth enough to thaw them, the massive release of greenhouse gasses will very likley catapult the Earth out of the ice age it's been in for the last 2.6 million years, and into it's alternative hot-house state. Which will probably be great once life recovers, but the transition is pretty much always a "world-ending" extinction event that takes many thousands of years to recover from.
And yeah, it might already be too late to stop it (without very expensive and risky geoengineering at least), so why bother trying. Lets throw up our hands and party instead, we'll fiddle while Rome burns, and our descendants can get bent.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If water is cooling way down deep that means we could in a controlled manner pump trillions of gallons of water to the surface and buy us some climate change time, how much time I am not sure but it could easily be controlled and it would cause CO2 absorption to occur at hire rates. It might buy us five or ten years while we WORK on the emissions problem which isn't going any where near fast enough for my taste and the health of the planet!
Logic is useless without evidence to give it foundation, just like your post.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?
The obvious solution, to any scientist, is to do more research and figure out what is happening. Fearmongering and hysteria (which you are promoting) helps nothing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Frankly, if you're frying me I don't give a shit whether it's at 200 or at 220 degrees.
What are you talking about? The earth is going up to 200 degrees? Do you think that's science? Do you think?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever?
I remember way back in my youth hearing about this thing called "erring on the the side of caution", especially when consequences rise to the level of 'catastrophic'.
This issue qualifies, and the vast majority of the experts and empirical evidence point in one direction, catastrophe. However, in this case 'erring on the the side of caution' doesn't do this choice justice. This is more about the difference between wishing something were true and informed expert opinions, intelligence and wisdom
The result of any temperature measure is greatly modified by where is was recorded. 1 or 2 degrees over much of Europe and America, 3 to 4 over the tropics. However in the last decade alone, temperatures have shot up by 10 to 15 degrees over much of the arctics. The only way to achieve this all encompassing mantra of 1 to 2 degrees rise is by completely ignoring the fact that the poles are utterly fucked already, thus making your science worth exactly as much as the weight of your statement. Nil
Logic is useless, full stop. Something might make sense for most of us yet there always will be individuals who will go completely against it, for whatever reason, be it making business out of war and destruction. Logic is always relative
That was rather good.
How do you know that you interfering wouldn't cause worse catastrophic problems? When did you become so omnipotent that you know better than nature or the universe what should and shouldn't be, who made you arbiter of what the exact temperature the Earth should be?
You are such a speciest, you don't give a crap about any species but your own. CO2 is plant food and it is absolutely proven that increased CO2 increases plant coverage. Increased temperatures, if they are really caused by CO2, opens up whole new areas of previously hostile territory for animal, bird and insects to occupy.
But all you care about is the fact your beach front property might get closer to the water and that you might get a little uncomfortable where you live.
Typical human.
More catastrophic than the end of the universe? And of course I care only about humans, it's other species jobs to look out for themselves and we're not in the business of creating ideal climates for hypothetical species yet to exist.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
No, we usually call this an analogy. Look it up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So we have reached level 4 already?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not hyperbole? Point is the scientific consensus is that we won't be frying because of AGW, and if you think we will, then you are full of shit.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The point is that it's moot to calculate the exact amount of degrees that it gets hotter if even the lowest estimate is enough to ensure we're fucked. That's what the analogy of frying with 200 or 220 was pointing to, in the end you don't care about 20 degrees more if the lower one is already plenty to achieve the result.
How dense can a person be that this needs to be explained?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The predictions of disaster are not well-supported at all.
Absolutely right - the claims of certain economic doom if we dare even try to think about the slightest actions to avoid Global Warming are complete hog-wash. So stop claiming that.
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be. Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
Just because 0.001% of scientists (not Climate Scientists, but all scientists) claim some absurd number different to anybody else doesn't mean there's a consensus.
And yes, we are thankful that you at least don't switch to "this isn't science, because science doesn't have a consensus" after complaining that there's no consensus for years