Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

Foremost climatologist of my day speaks here:


www.youtube.com...

Wikipedia list of dissenting scientist that Wiki will admit:

en.wikipedia.org...

A taste of what you will find if you dig even a little:

www.canada.com...


www.spiegel.de...

a reply to: Justoneman

So a movie and a youtube link??

Yeah that is totally going to change my opinion.
Why post that stuff when you can post something peer reviewed to try and 'discern the truth'?
royalsociety.org...

Like here is what the royal society said about the rays.

However, observations of clouds and galactic cosmic rays show that, at
most, the possible link between cosmic rays and clouds only produces a
small effect. Even if cosmic rays were shown to have a more substantial
impact, the level of solar activity has changed so little over the last few
decades the process could not explain the recent rises in temperature that
we have seen.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Justoneman

So a movie and a youtube link??

Yeah that is totally going to change my opinion.
Why post that stuff when you can post something peer reviewed to try and 'discern the truth'?

So not going to check them out are you? That is what I expect out of you, i suspect you know that I do expect that? Wasting time if you don't want to understand the truth. AND so far you don't.

a reply to: Justoneman

I did, the first one was about a hydrogen car and I am not going to watch that movie. Call me closed minded if you want but that is like me believing in AGW just because of Gore's movie.

Did you check out what the royal society actually said about the cosmic rays and not what your source was saying?
What I am asking for is sources outside of youtube, not sure what is so hard about that.

a reply to: Sremmos80


Totally checked out the Royal Society...... And of course their unimpeachable in your estimation.. I guess you can be a part of the problem for humanity instead of the solution. The car is proof we don't need oil and the carbon footprint argument will not be an issue. I am done for now, you keep yourself well. I hope your children and grandchildren don't suffer from the lies being perpetrated in the name of "science".

a reply to: Justoneman

I hope your children and grandchildren don't suffer from the lies being perpetrated in the name of "science".

I hope they continue to call out people who want to say they are using science to dispute it but refuse to do the basics of it.
Like show something that is peer reviewed.
I don't think the Society is unimpeachable, but it is a hell of a lot better than youtube or the ottawa sun that twists what the society is saying. But I guess you don't care about that for some reason.

The car is proof we don't need oil and the carbon footprint argument will not be an issue.

The car is proof that alternative energy is possible, don't see how it fits into what you are trying to say in anyway tho.
That car only proves something when it becomes the norm, and yes at that point a big part of co2 issue will be addressed, our reliance on oil and burning it.
If anything it goes against your ranting about how that type of thing is going to put people out of work and take food off their table.
Kinda ironic actually.

a reply to: Justoneman
Look, if water vapor and CO2 weren't greenhouse gases, there would be no weather.

Without carbon dioxide and water vapor, or without physics working the way they do, Earth would be just another cold lifeless planet. Yet, you have denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

You no nothing about the climate or physics. Even if you were an "Environmental Scientist" you would be an embarrassment. Let's look at how credible Dr. Gray is on climate change:

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

That was 2006. 2006 was +0.54°C above average. This past year, 2015, it was 0.90°C above average. Seems like his belief was incorrect. May not be the best person to listen to on such things, hmm?

Oh good, dissent, how quaint. What about research contrary to research that supports climate change? Where is it, Mr. "Environmental Scientist?" If you look at those lists, please note the category these fall under. Questioning the projections of the IPCC is different than questioning whether the Earth is warming. Judith Curry, one of the very few climatologists on any of those lists, questions IPCC projections, not whether the Earth is warming.

Cosmic rays... really? Why isn't Mars as warm as the Earth, then? He doesn't all that confident:

"Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said in an interview. "But I'm saying, at least let's look at this and discuss it.

Then there's Bengtsson, who appears to have moved to Judith Curry's camp on projections. He ain't denying warming, either:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why do you think the GWPF is particularly suitable for that goal?

Bengtsson: Most of the members of GWPF are economists and this is an opportunity for me to learn from some of these highly qualified members who are active in areas outside my own expertise. At the same time, it will allow me to contribute by my own meteorological knowledge, to broaden the debate.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The people at GWPF don't exactly have a reputation for reconsidering their opinions. Have you become a so-called climate skeptic?

Bengtsson: I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But weren't you one of the alarmists 20 years ago? Do you think your position at that time was wrong?

Bengtsson: I have not changed my view on a fundamental level. I have never seen myself as an alarmist but rather as a scientist with a critical viewpoint, and in that sense I have always been a skeptic. I have devoted most of my career to developing models for predicting the weather, and in doing so I have learned the importance of validating forecasts against observed weather. As a result, that's an approach I strongly favor for "climate predictions." It's essential to validate model results, especially when dealing with complex systems such as the climate. It's essential do so properly if such predictions are to be considered credible.

This is some limp wrist stuff, man.

a reply to: Greven

If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”....

So, where is that chunk of sea level rise coming from?

Contributors to IPCC have already stated that sea level rise reported by IPCC is a lie.

The Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change has admitted the entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm because the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend". Link. In fact if the earth is cooling we should see a sea level drop and funny enough scientist are trying to explain away the one-and-a-half-year 7-mm drop in sea height in 2010/11 with the flooding of Lake Eyre in South Australia which is very shallow salt basin.

So no sea rise, no temperature increase, no global warming, just a drive to purse taxes by altering data to create a situation that doesn't exists. Banks will profit from selling carbon trading derivatives, big oil profits from selling larger amounts of methane to power cities, and governments will profit from higher taxes. So instead of saving the earth, the drive for so called cleaner energy has allowed Big oil to frack the earth for methane. Fracking by pouring trillions of gallons of water into the earth to recover methane locked underground is arguably the most stupid thing the human race has done.

So those siding with IPCC are siding with banks. big oil, and governments that pursue greed and nothing else.

a reply to: glend

The Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change has admitted the entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm because the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

You choose an odd source. One who does a really good job of distorting data and lying, as well as just making stuff up.

Mörner maintains that places such as the Maldives, Bangladesh and Tuvalu "need not fear rising sea levels." There is, he says, "no ongoing sea-level rise" and no link between sea levels and climate change. He makes the false claim that the rate of sea-level rise accepted by most climate scientists "has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong" (does he have a thing about Hong Kong?).

These claims have already been comprehensively debunked. To sustain them, Mörner relies on misinterpretations of scientific data so grave that even an arts graduate such as Fraser Nelson should have been able to spot them.

It was comprehensively debunked within a year in the same journal by Philip Woodworth, an oceanographer based in the UK, who wrote acidly that 'reef woman' "is hardly definitive as a sea level marker" and that Mörner's convoluted arguments – which also relied on anecdotal accounts by fishermen sailing over shallow rocks – were "hard to understand" and ultimately "implausible". A follow-up critical comment by the Australian oceanographer Paul Kench and colleagues notes that Mörner's paper "contains a number of unqualified and unreferenced assertions" which fail to stand up to scrutiny, does not follow carbon-dating conventions, and that "standard information is missing".

www.theguardian.com...

So no sea rise, no temperature increase, no global warming,

False, false, false.

a reply to: glend

You link an article that repeatedly says the levels are increasing and that a phenomenon is causing a drop. Did you read what they said was causing it btw?

So you have one scientist saying it is a lie but then you link the peer reviewed journal that isn't saying they are dropping, just that they needed to explain one drop but still at the end tall about how it is rising.

In the last two years, he added, researchers have noticed a sharper-than-normal increase in sea-level rise, from the 3 mm yearly to 10 mm.

Oh and you saying that the global warming crowd is what lead to fracking is laughable.

You can read a direct interview here if it makes you feel any better (it won't). In that interview he states ....

There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases as a result of sea level rise, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when skaters rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they
stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and you see the same thing: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics. So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.

Clearly Phage there is NO trend in sea level rise due to IPCC global warming . Why you pursue IPCC non science amazes me. Wake up to yourself.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Read the link I gave phage, you might be able to digest it a bit better.

a reply to: glend

Why do you only want to take his word for it?

Your own source about the drop goes against what he says, so do you only want to agree with the part in that article about the drop and ignore the rest?

Well Phage beat me to it, but was going to say that analogy seems a bit over simplified.

a reply to: glend

(it won't)

You're right, it won't.
His argument about Earth's rotation is specious. Tell me, did he provide his calculations on how much the length of a day should increase if the IPCC is correct? Is it a measurable change or is he just making baseless claims?

Clearly Phage there is trend in sea level rise due to IPCC global warming

Yes, there is a rising trend in sea levels but global warming is not due to the IPCC.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Why do you only want to take his word for it?

Because he is renowned sea level expert that worked for IPCC

Please try reading whole documents and not weighting paragraphs that just support your belief system. He says ocean levels rise and fall, IPCC states sea levels are only rising from global warming. If IPCC announces sea levels have fallen they are in fact telling the world the earth has cooled.

a reply to: glend

Because he is renowned sea level expert that worked for IPCC

I guess all the other people that worked there must not be renowned...
That interview is pretty much just him saying "It's my way or the highway because I'm the best!".
Still didn't answer why you wanted to source that article about the drop when it clearly says multiple times that the drop is not an indication that the rising levels are wrong.
But I am the one that needs to try and avoid weighted paragraphs...

a reply to: Phage

You're right, it won't.
His argument about Earth's rotation is specious. Tell me, did he provide his calculations on how much the length of a day should increase if the IPCC is correct? Is it a measurable change or is he just making baseless claims?

Not baseless at all Phage, its simple science, spin yourself on your chair then extend your arms out. A paper looking at the speed of earths rotation and ocean rise is here. Earth's rotation has been speeding up for last three decades. Earth is cooling and all the hot air from IPCC, can't make it rise. Perhaps they should try to sell a new theory that CO2 causes cooling.

a reply to: glend

Earth's rotation has been speeding up for last three decades.

Citation?
That is not what your link says, btw. Even though it only has data through 1990, it shows days getting longer. That means the rotation slows down, not speeds up.

Earth is cooling

False.

a reply to: Phage

here.

a reply to: glend
Ah. I see. You're trying to cherry pick. Why use just three decades when you have data for 5?
See that Cumulative deviation line? Looks like days have been getting longer.