While you're correct about CO2-levels, the Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than now* so the added effects of methane then should be comparable to now.
*) Marcott et. al:
"Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.)."
No, as far as I understand the science the methane got there thanks to the glacial stage, i.e, it was already there when our interglacial began. Thus it's strange it would be released now and not during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Your link does not support your claim. My original question: Why we would see methane release now when it wasn't (apparently, due to lack of runaway warming) 8000 years ago still stands, supported by peer-reviewed science.
Since it was up to 9 degrees warmer in Siberia (and other tundra-rich locations) earlier during our interglacial, ~8000 years ago, why would the methane suddenly be released now when it (apparently) wasn't then?
I write apparently since there was no runaway warming caused by methane.
(Yes, the "up to 9 degrees warmer" is according to peer reviewed climate science)
I'd say it's pretty close - and considering it's a steady upwards evolution over its 7 years in existence I think you have a completely different agenda than to report facts when you wrote "air going out of the balloon"
Except you know the world wasn't cooling. Apart from that saying it was cooling was correct.
I'm quite sure you believe your viewpoint to be true. I'd say your conviction borders on the religious kind, where no matter how much facts you're presented with you keep shouting your conviction louder and louder in the hope that it will drown out everything contrary to it.
I'll just repeat the previous post. They were not incorrect, they were not fringe, the findings they reported have not been "debunked".
Now please go read some climate science. Less posts, more study.
Here you go again, spouting off words in the hope that you'll eventually get something right.
The topic was the scientists as quoted in the article in Time. They were not incorrect, they were not fringe, the findings they reported have not been "debunked".
(Why don't you read more of the actual science instead of just shouting off random things?)
But not many because as it turned out the data didn't support it.
Again, I'd urge you to read some actual climate science before spouting off your beliefs.
The following is a quote from IPCC TAR, Working Group 1:
Twentieth century temperature trends show a broad pattern of tropical warming, while extra-tropical trends have been more variable. Warming from 1910 to 1945 was initially concentrated in the North Atlantic and nearby regions. The Northern Hemisphere shows cooling during the period 1946 to 1975 while the Southern Hemisphere shows warming. The recent 1976 to 2000 warming was largely globally synchronous, but emphasised in the Northern Hemisphere continents during winter and spring, with year-round cooling in parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and Antarctica. North Atlantic cooling between about 1960 and 1985 has recently reversed. Overall, warming over the Southern Hemisphere has been more uniform during the instrumental record than that over the Northern Hemisphere.... but I'm quite sure I could quote IPCC reports all day long and you'd still spout of random words about "debunking", "minority opinions" and other things you pick up at strange places (none of them even coming close to reporting actual science)
Sure, but that requires a *reasoning* individual. The people here going against the consensus have political, financial or borderline religious reasons for doing so.
No, we were talking about the respected scientists having published peer reviewed papers with regards to global cooling in the 70s, as referenced and counted by Skeptical Science.
... as I said. With each new post you continue to prove my original point. Cooling was happening. We had hypotheses as to why. You should really study some climate science before posting.
Which each new post you continue to prove my original point. I suggest you call it a day.
consensus in practice is part of the scientific method. It's not the super simplified schoolboy version that non scientists like to spout, but in real science it's there.
vs
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei... and no one "cherry picked" anything (let me guess - you spout random words in debates hoping that eventually you'll get something right?). The grandparent talked about the 70s. I quoted from one of the well known articles about it. Nothing in it has been "debunked" (again, random spouting of words) - the statements by the scientists in that article are as correct today as when they were written. Nothing was wrong with their observations.
I don't think you've ever read a scientific article actually.
In all your posts here you've managed to validate exactly what I described from the start. Those who scream most loudly (and use foul language to describe others) are the ones who know the least science.
That's you confirming that you don't seem to be able to separate actual facts from your viewpoint of what you think they should be. I'm a regular reader of Skeptical Science, the IPCC reports, various journals etc. I even linked the very page that documents what scientific support there was for cooling vs warming in the 1970s.
With that said, the grandparent _was_ correct in that scientists claimed we might be heading back into glacial conditions ("ice age"), and that it would be catastrophic for human survival.
Your comment to the grandparent was to call him "fucking knobhead". I posted the relevant supporting facts.
That quote is in the Time article as linked from the page I gave you. As to why you felt you needed to repeat the information in the page I linked to back to me I don't know. Obviously I knew it quite well.
"Another ice age?" - published in Time magazine 1974, with lots of quotes from scientists.
"the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since"
"Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in the summer; now they're covered all year round."
One thing that has me perplexed reading these threads is that the "warmistas" don't really seem to base their opinion on actual science, or published facts. It seems they (you) have a belief that they're so sure is correct that any indication to the contrary must be a lie.
Now, it is true that the majority of published science predicted warming even in the 1970s, but it's also correct that there were some studies that predicted cooling. Luckily we're warmer now than then - or to quote the scientists in the Time article again:
"I don't believe the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
(He's also factually wrong on the "millions of years" since there was no ice cap during summer in the beginning of the Holocene, or during the last interglacial)
Luckily the Swedish PP platform says 5 years, renewable three times 5 years each if you register your works in a database. (This to avoid orphaned works).
Your theory requires a constant level of habitable terrain that humans merely need to move fast enough to exploit. It totally ignores the more likely scenario -- The Sahara will remain an uninhabitable dessert, and North America, South America, Australasia and Eurasia will join it.
Why do you believe that your scenario is more likely, when it's not a scenario with any support in the climate science as documented by the IPCC?
We have no scientific reason to believe consciousness is anything special. It's likely an emergent phenomena arising in complex enough systems.
(One of today's other news is that apes have been shown to experience theory of mind, something we usually attribute to happening in humans at the age of ~4-5 or so)
You forget the statistics. Either humans _cannot_ reach posthuman state, or it's more likely we're living in a simulation. I have no reason to believe it's impossible for humans to become advanced posthumans - Occam's razor does not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
While you're correct about CO2-levels, the Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than now* so the added effects of methane then should be comparable to now.
*) Marcott et. al:
"Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.)."
No, as far as I understand the science the methane got there thanks to the glacial stage, i.e, it was already there when our interglacial began. Thus it's strange it would be released now and not during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/f...
Thus the conclusion is that methane emissions will not cause runaway warming.
Your link does not support your claim. My original question: Why we would see methane release now when it wasn't (apparently, due to lack of runaway warming) 8000 years ago still stands, supported by peer-reviewed science.
"I" am not using, I'm citing the scientific work.
https://www.researchgate.net/p...
(C, thus K, not F)
Since it was up to 9 degrees warmer in Siberia (and other tundra-rich locations) earlier during our interglacial, ~8000 years ago, why would the methane suddenly be released now when it (apparently) wasn't then?
I write apparently since there was no runaway warming caused by methane.
(Yes, the "up to 9 degrees warmer" is according to peer reviewed climate science)
I'd say it's pretty close - and considering it's a steady upwards evolution over its 7 years in existence I think you have a completely different agenda than to report facts when you wrote "air going out of the balloon"
I like facts. Thus the chart.
air is going out of the baloon
Really?
https://bitcoincharts.com/char...
(Note: Log scale)
Except you know the world wasn't cooling. Apart from that saying it was cooling was correct.
I'm quite sure you believe your viewpoint to be true. I'd say your conviction borders on the religious kind, where no matter how much facts you're presented with you keep shouting your conviction louder and louder in the hope that it will drown out everything contrary to it.
I'll just repeat the previous post. They were not incorrect, they were not fringe, the findings they reported have not been "debunked".
Now please go read some climate science. Less posts, more study.
Here you go again, spouting off words in the hope that you'll eventually get something right.
The topic was the scientists as quoted in the article in Time. They were not incorrect, they were not fringe, the findings they reported have not been "debunked".
(Why don't you read more of the actual science instead of just shouting off random things?)
But not many because as it turned out the data didn't support it.
Again, I'd urge you to read some actual climate science before spouting off your beliefs.
The following is a quote from IPCC TAR, Working Group 1:
Twentieth century temperature trends show a broad pattern of tropical warming, while extra-tropical trends have been more variable. Warming from 1910 to 1945 was initially concentrated in the North Atlantic and nearby regions. The Northern Hemisphere shows cooling during the period 1946 to 1975 while the Southern Hemisphere shows warming. The recent 1976 to 2000 warming was largely globally synchronous, but emphasised in the Northern Hemisphere continents during winter and spring, with year-round cooling in parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and Antarctica. North Atlantic cooling between about 1960 and 1985 has recently reversed. Overall, warming over the Southern Hemisphere has been more uniform during the instrumental record than that over the Northern Hemisphere. ... but I'm quite sure I could quote IPCC reports all day long and you'd still spout of random words about "debunking", "minority opinions" and other things you pick up at strange places (none of them even coming close to reporting actual science)
Sure, but that requires a *reasoning* individual. The people here going against the consensus have political, financial or borderline religious reasons for doing so.
No, we were talking about the respected scientists having published peer reviewed papers with regards to global cooling in the 70s, as referenced and counted by Skeptical Science.
Which each new post you continue to prove my original point. I suggest you call it a day.
consensus in practice is part of the scientific method. It's not the super simplified schoolboy version that non scientists like to spout, but in real science it's there.
vs
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ... and no one "cherry picked" anything (let me guess - you spout random words in debates hoping that eventually you'll get something right?). The grandparent talked about the 70s. I quoted from one of the well known articles about it. Nothing in it has been "debunked" (again, random spouting of words) - the statements by the scientists in that article are as correct today as when they were written. Nothing was wrong with their observations.
Galileo Galilei
I don't think you've ever read a scientific article actually.
http://www.goodreads.com/quote...
"Consensus" is not part of the scientific method.
In all your posts here you've managed to validate exactly what I described from the start. Those who scream most loudly (and use foul language to describe others) are the ones who know the least science.
That's you confirming that you don't seem to be able to separate actual facts from your viewpoint of what you think they should be. I'm a regular reader of Skeptical Science, the IPCC reports, various journals etc. I even linked the very page that documents what scientific support there was for cooling vs warming in the 1970s.
With that said, the grandparent _was_ correct in that scientists claimed we might be heading back into glacial conditions ("ice age"), and that it would be catastrophic for human survival.
Your comment to the grandparent was to call him "fucking knobhead". I posted the relevant supporting facts.
Maybe you should try the latter instead?
That quote is in the Time article as linked from the page I gave you. As to why you felt you needed to repeat the information in the page I linked to back to me I don't know. Obviously I knew it quite well.
"Another ice age?" - published in Time magazine 1974, with lots of quotes from scientists.
"the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since"
"Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in the summer; now they're covered all year round."
One thing that has me perplexed reading these threads is that the "warmistas" don't really seem to base their opinion on actual science, or published facts. It seems they (you) have a belief that they're so sure is correct that any indication to the contrary must be a lie.
Now, it is true that the majority of published science predicted warming even in the 1970s, but it's also correct that there were some studies that predicted cooling. Luckily we're warmer now than then - or to quote the scientists in the Time article again:
"I don't believe the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
source: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
To be fair, I'm not sure the actual quote is better.
"North Polar Ice cap....75-80% chance that during summer months it will be completely and totally gone in five years..."
If you want to check the authenticity, here's the video. I was in the audience at Web 2.0 Summit when he said this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
(He's also factually wrong on the "millions of years" since there was no ice cap during summer in the beginning of the Holocene, or during the last interglacial)
Luckily the Swedish PP platform says 5 years, renewable three times 5 years each if you register your works in a database. (This to avoid orphaned works).
20 years should be enough even for you.
2) He is providing records only of one side.
This is a very common criticism against Wikileaks. And a very strange one.
Wikileaks can only release material that someone leaks to them. Feel free to send insider stuff on Trump to them and see what happens.
Your theory requires a constant level of habitable terrain that humans merely need to move fast enough to exploit. It totally ignores the more likely scenario -- The Sahara will remain an uninhabitable dessert, and North America, South America, Australasia and Eurasia will join it.
Why do you believe that your scenario is more likely, when it's not a scenario with any support in the climate science as documented by the IPCC?
popular file-sharing sites make tens of millions of dollars a year in advertising revenue. he can probably pay with cash :p
Do you want to buy a bridge?
We are already hitting the limits of technology scaling
We are?
We have no scientific reason to believe consciousness is anything special. It's likely an emergent phenomena arising in complex enough systems.
(One of today's other news is that apes have been shown to experience theory of mind, something we usually attribute to happening in humans at the age of ~4-5 or so)
You forget the statistics. Either humans _cannot_ reach posthuman state, or it's more likely we're living in a simulation. I have no reason to believe it's impossible for humans to become advanced posthumans - Occam's razor does not apply.