Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Genava]

Hmmm, the people contesting the c14 dating seem to all be AGW proponents.

I didn't have put any reference of someone contesting any radiocarbon (C14) dating. Furthermore, I asked you the reference because I don't know any radiocarbon dating confirming the hypothesis of Abbott et al.

I don't see either any reference to AGW from the critics' bibliography.

The papers you linked to, as I said, were done by AGW proponents...

Robert "Bob" Weaver, Galen Gisler, Dale Ranta and Michael L. Gittings are AGW proponents?

Joanne Bourgeois and Robert Weiss are AGW proponents?

What is the source of this claim?

...and they did claim that their computer models showed that extremely large waves would not carry sediment.

None of the publication from the two computer models are saying this.

Can you highlight the excerpt that supports your point?

Anyway, the c14 dates were from organic material taken from the chevrons.

Reference please.

There is the fact that the Sumerian civilization suffered a sudden catastrophic collapse around the time frame.

There is also evidence that a disruption occurred around that time frame between southern Egypt's and the Sumerian relationship. There is evidence that there was a strong cultural relationship between Upper Egypt (southern) and the Sumerians such as the use of serpopards on the Narmar Palette. After the time frame of the Narmar Palette there was a several hundred year pause in the Egyptian timeline after which close cultural connections began to be established between Upper and Lower Egypt instead of between Upper Egypt and Sumeria.

There is also the fact that this is the time frame that migratory groups from what is now the Turkish highlands moved into and supplanted the previous peoples of the Tigris Euphrates rivers.

There are also the flood myths from all around the Indian Ocean and they can be linguistically put into this time frame. And don't forget the Indian stories of incredible atmospheric goings on that also come from this time period.

I remember this talk started when you were opposing "clairvoyance", "science" and "very relevant fact"...

In the case of the Sphinx, the evidence for the 2500 BC date is based more on clairvoyance rather than science. The historical data is extremely fragmentary and there is absolutely no written evidence to support it.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Apparently a growing number of academics are thinking a global societal collapse triggered by environmental disasters is imminent.

At this rate, if we die, we die. We do what we can until then and acting in "game over" mode isn't going to do much.

I completely lack the investment of others in the topic, but for my belief, I don't see it happening in any human being currently living's lifetime. At least from this proposed cause.

[Genava]

At this rate, if we die, we die. We do what we can until then and acting in "game over" mode isn't going to do much.

I completely lack the investment of others in the topic, but for my belief, I don't see it happening in any human being currently living's lifetime. At least from this proposed cause.

I don't believe in climate apocalypse either. However, it is a threat to biodiversity and to specific societies vulnerable to climate change.

Furthermore, the coronavirus pandemic is currently demonstrating the vulnerability of our societies to systemic threat. Indirectly, climate change could do a lot of damage to the global economy.

[Daruwind]

Problem is, this discussion is nowdays more about politics than about actual science. B.W. and Stario using alternatives and vague sources and beliefs, distrusting actual organizations and proper science work. Discarting work of thousands with vague "manipulated data"...I could use argument that i´m invalidating all their sources as not trustworthy. But it would be at the same level with them...Trully wow that Geneva is still able and capable of dismantling their talks.

Anyway the real question is very actually not even about if global warming is real or even man made/driven. Real question is, if we can afford to not prepare for possible really high global warming. If it won´t happen, good. Money are just money. If it happens...and global warming is not actually problem, problems are combinations with other events....no drinking water, wars, problems with food, population migration and following geopolitical things happening.

Look at history. Bronze Age Collapse or Fall of Roman Empire were actualyl not isntant things, usually it took a few centuries of constant degradation in multiple aspects...

[Love Mountain]

The people who will suffer most will be in the global South. Developed countries will only be mildly inconvenienced, though some much more than others. Climate change is an excellent example of how externalities can undermine property rights. I doubt that North America or China will be paying reparations to Africa. Often times, dismissing climate change is simply an excuse for skeptics to not care about the people who will bear the brunt of the impact.

[Phier]

Paleontology used to be a hobby of mine, not as much anymore, but I still have a fondness for it and will read articles from time to time.

So I'm reading this rather fascinating article. At first I was like "eh how do they know" but its really quite impressive work.

https://news.agu.org/press-release/a...ion-years-ago/

They were able to get multiple data points during single days 70 million years ago. Thats fantastic.

One of those interesting points...

Chemical analysis of the shell indicates ocean temperatures were warmer in the Late Cretaceous than previously appreciated, reaching 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in summer and exceeding 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit) in winter. The summer high temperatures likely approached the physiological limits for mollusks, de Winter said.

Thats pretty darn hot.

Now does this prove anything about current climate claims? Of course not, but the claims of "hottest ever" always need to be tempered. The climate has changed even in recorded human history many times, long before we could take blame.

[Genava]

Now does this prove anything about current climate claims? Of course not, but the claims of "hottest ever" always need to be tempered.

Well, the hottest ever climate on Earth is definitely the Early Hadean and the coldest ever are the Snowball Earth events (Huronian, Sturtian and Marinoan glaciations). Is it appropriate to use them as references? I don't think so.

The climate has changed even in recorded human history many times, long before we could take blame.

In recorded human history (since 5000 BC approx.), not so much.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of those interesting points...
"Chemical analysis of the shell indicates ocean temperatures were warmer in the Late Cretaceous than previously appreciated, reaching 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in summer and exceeding 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit) in winter. The summer high temperatures likely approached the physiological limits for mollusks, de Winter said."

This particular point is not that much certain as they noted themselves in their publication:

Therefore, the δ18O profile through the shell likely recorded the full surface water temperature seasonality, showing that Campanian tropical surface ocean temperatures exceeded those of today (25–29 °C; World Sea Temperatures, 2019) by over 10 °C. Warm summer temperatures (up to 35 °C) are corroborated by independent Late Cretaceous tropical sea surface temperature reconstructions based on climate modeling and chemistry of foraminifera and rudist bivalves (Pearson et al., 2001; Steuber et al., 2005). The extreme summer temperatures reconstructed from T. sanchezi in this study (>40 °C) exceed these other marine summer temperature estimates and are only matched by terrestrial summer extremes, which are generally higher than marine temperatures (Amiot et al., 2004). Such high maximum temperatures cast some doubt on the assumption that the range in δ18O values can be fully attributed to temperature seasonality. Instead, even though paleogeographic reconstructions show a lack of big rivers and continents near the Samhan area (Platel et al., 1994), a decrease in the δ18O value of ambient sea water in the summer season (e.g., due to an increase in local precipitation) may partly explain the negative δ18O values of T. sanchezi calcite without the need for extreme summer temperatures. This hypothesis is corroborated by the observation that most modern bivalves are not able to extend their shell in water temperatures above ~32 °C due to metabolic limitations (Schöne, 2008). Future research could disentangle effects of temperature and water δ18O values by applying techniques that allow independent temperature reconstructions, such as clumped isotope analysis (Eiler, 2011).

It is warmer than today, very probably. But 40°C and more for ocean temperature, I doubt it.

[Phier]

The hockey stick is back I see.


I have to admit, I used to be a lot more into this back between 1990-2003. The reason being it was my field of study, if not focus in college and until I changed to a health related field I did some post grad work in it too. But then that took over and I, while not losing interest at a macro level lost interest in arguing the micro level. Playing paper to paper, showing how the tree ring data that was used to negate the Roman and medieval warming periods are not a thing also didn't show current warming trends either so perhaps the sensitivity wasn't as good as they thought that sort of thing. I just did a google to see if Steve McIntyre was still at it and shockingly he is. , though he seems to have slowed down.

I'm not going to really argue cherry picked data points but hey, if this keeps it up maybe we can see wine grown in England again as temperatures are now getting close to the Roman warming period, which didn't exist or something, or wasn't global etc. Its been interesting watching a sort of climate whitewashing of things I was taught before this became political.

[B. W.]

I didn't have put any reference of someone contesting any radiocarbon (C14) dating. Furthermore, I asked you the reference because I don't know any radiocarbon dating confirming the hypothesis of Abbott et al.

I don't see either any reference to AGW from the critics' bibliography.




Robert "Bob" Weaver, Galen Gisler, Dale Ranta and Michael L. Gittings are AGW proponents?

Joanne Bourgeois and Robert Weiss are AGW proponents?

What is the source of this claim?



None of the publication from the two computer models are saying this.

Can you highlight the excerpt that supports your point?



Reference please.



I remember this talk started when you were opposing "clairvoyance", "science" and "very relevant fact"...

There you go again. There is a long list of names attached to J.Hansen's fingerprints. Here's a few that challenge the burckle crater from your sources:

Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise And Superstorms: Evidence From Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, And Modern Observations That 2ºc Global Warming Is Highly Dangerous
J. Hansen; M. Sato; P. Hearty; R. Ruedy; M. Kelley; V. Masson-Delmotte; G. Russell; G. Tselioudis; J. Cao; E. Rignot; I. Velicogna; E. Kandiano; K. von Schuckmann; P. Kharecha; A. N. Legrande; M. Bauer; K.-W. Lo
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015

[Genava]

The hockey stick is back I see.


I have to admit, I used to be a lot more into this back between 1990-2003. The reason being it was my field of study, if not focus in college and until I changed to a health related field I did some post grad work in it too. But then that took over and I, while not losing interest at a macro level lost interest in arguing the micro level. Playing paper to paper, showing how the tree ring data that was used to negate the Roman and medieval warming periods are not a thing also didn't show current warming trends either so perhaps the sensitivity wasn't as good as they thought that sort of thing. I just did a google to see if Steve McIntyre was still at it and shockingly he is. , though he seems to have slowed down.

I'm not going to really argue cherry picked data points but hey, if this keeps it up maybe we can see wine grown in England again as temperatures are now getting close to the Roman warming period, which didn't exist or something, or wasn't global etc. Its been interesting watching a sort of climate whitewashing of things I was taught before this became political.

I can do an update for you.

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
https://www.nature.com/articles/4411032a

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...imate_evidence

Temperature trends over the five past centuries reconstructed from borehole temperature
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter...ure'00.pdf

Reconstructing hemispheric‐scale climates from multiple stalagmite records
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...agmite_records

Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/frae...05_science.pdf

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...st_11300_Years

Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change

[Genava]

There you go again. There is a long list of names attached to J.Hansen's fingerprints. Here's a few that challenge the burckle crater from your sources:

Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise And Superstorms: Evidence From Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, And Modern Observations That 2ºc Global Warming Is Highly Dangerous
J. Hansen; M. Sato; P. Hearty; R. Ruedy; M. Kelley; V. Masson-Delmotte; G. Russell; G. Tselioudis; J. Cao; E. Rignot; I. Velicogna; E. Kandiano; K. von Schuckmann; P. Kharecha; A. N. Legrande; M. Bauer; K.-W. Lo
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015

I don't see a single name from the references I linked before. You are making things up.

Edit: Btw, if you read the actual paper, Hansen et al. are giving examples of chevron-like structures produced by waves and other produced by wind (p. 22 and 23 in the pdf below). There is not a single reference to the impact event and not a single rebuttal adressed to Abbott et al.

So the paper DOESN'T challenge the Burckle event. It is neutral. They do not even quote Abbott et al. neither their direct critics.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3...-3761-2016.pdf

Paranoia and victimization, two things the right took from the left.

[B. W.]

I went through your original links and found several people associated directly with the AGW crowd. I didn't have time to post a link at that time and if I have a chance I'll go back through and bring them to light. One of them had actually written an article claiming that the Australian wildfires were a result of global warming; we had that discussion here on this thread and it was pretty clear the fires were a result of mismanagement.

I can tell without hesitation that the majority of astronomers and physicists are not adherents of impacts related to earth's environment. At one time it was close to 100%. They don't think it is a problem. You can find literally thousands of papers defending their position.

This all started to change with the Shoemaker-Levy comet impact on Jupiter. I remember seeing the eyes nearly popping out and jaws agape when the Hubble pictures came in. Even after that they said, "Well Jupiter is there so we have nothing to worry about."

It was after the Shoemaker Levy event that the Holocene Impact Group and the Comet Research Group were formed. The reason they had to form groups is because they knew they would be attacked (strength in numbers). That is the reason why this was put in the report:

Predictably, in this Age of Settled Science, the mainstream is busy trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube using the tried and tested Four Ms:

Modeling: Mathematical modelling of a preferred Virtual Reality World
Must: Mandating theories “must” be right.
Might: Peer-Review censorship and consensus corralling.
Money: De-funding, defaming and decommissioning.

In 2009 Bourgeois and Weiss employed “reason” and argued “by modeling”.

We reason that chevron-type bed forms are common and are present far enough from the coast to preclude tsunami genesis.
Moreover, we argue that “chevrons” are not mega-tsunami deposits by modeling tsunami behavior and evaluating sediment-transport conditions under which such features formed.
We model the southern Madagascar case, with an impact source in the Indian Ocean, and show that a modeled wave approach is inconsistent with “chevron” orientation.
“Chevrons” Are Not Mega-Tsunami Deposits – A Sedimentologic Assessment
Joanne Bourgeois, Robert Weiss – Geology. 37 (5): 403–406 – 2009
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbourg...s2009final.pdf

This is exactly what AGW "scientists" do to anyone pointing out problems with their theory.

[Genava]

I went through your original links and found several people associated directly with the AGW crowd. I didn't have time to post a link at that time and if I have a chance I'll go back through and bring them to light. One of them had actually written an article claiming that the Australian wildfires were a result of global warming; we had that discussion here on this thread and it was pretty clear the fires were a result of mismanagement.

I can tell without hesitation that the majority of astronomers and physicists are not adherents of impacts related to earth's environment. At one time it was close to 100%. They don't think it is a problem. You can find literally thousands of papers defending their position.

This all started to change with the Shoemaker-Levy comet impact on Jupiter. I remember seeing the eyes nearly popping out and jaws agape when the Hubble pictures came in. Even after that they said, "Well Jupiter is there so we have nothing to worry about."

It was after the Shoemaker Levy event that the Holocene Impact Group and the Comet Research Group were formed. The reason they had to form groups is because they knew they would be attacked (strength in numbers). That is the reason why this was put in the report:

Predictably, in this Age of Settled Science, the mainstream is busy trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube using the tried and tested Four Ms:

Modeling: Mathematical modelling of a preferred Virtual Reality World
Must: Mandating theories “must” be right.
Might: Peer-Review censorship and consensus corralling.
Money: De-funding, defaming and decommissioning.

In 2009 Bourgeois and Weiss employed “reason” and argued “by modeling”.

We reason that chevron-type bed forms are common and are present far enough from the coast to preclude tsunami genesis.
Moreover, we argue that “chevrons” are not mega-tsunami deposits by modeling tsunami behavior and evaluating sediment-transport conditions under which such features formed.
We model the southern Madagascar case, with an impact source in the Indian Ocean, and show that a modeled wave approach is inconsistent with “chevron” orientation.
“Chevrons” Are Not Mega-Tsunami Deposits – A Sedimentologic Assessment
Joanne Bourgeois, Robert Weiss – Geology. 37 (5): 403–406 – 2009
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbourg...s2009final.pdf

This is exactly what AGW "scientists" do to anyone pointing out problems with their theory.

So you made things up. Rhetorical pirouettes and deflections cannot hide it.

Btw, I am still waiting for your reference about radiocarbon dating of organic material in the chevrons supporting your position.

[B. W.]

So you made things up. Rhetorical pirouettes and deflections cannot hide it.

Btw, I am still waiting for your reference about radiocarbon dating of organic material in the chevrons supporting your position.

OMG! Now I find out that you don't even bother reading the articles from that wall of links you always post to support your position; after I've spent so much of MY TIME going through the morass of links you always post. If you want the reference for the c14 date you'll have to go through and read all the dribble you've been posting. Have fun reading!

And since you're asking, you still haven't said whether or not you think Happer falsified his information.

Least I forget, here is the bio on one of the authors whose article you cited. She is a fully blown AGW disciple:

https://www.sciencenews.org/author/carolyn-gramling

[Genava]

OMG! Now I find out that you don't even bother reading the articles from that wall of links you always post to support your position;

I took my time to contradict you with details. You ignored all my points. Feel free to quote the excerpt supporting your points.

Least I forget, here is the bio on one of the authors whose article you cited. She is a fully blown AGW disciple:

So instead of demonstrating a link between scientists contesting Abbott et al. hypothesis about the Burckle event and the AGW, you are relying on attacking the writer of the news article.

Your previous quotes were:
"The papers you linked to, as I said, were done by AGW proponents and they did claim that their computer models showed that extremely large waves would not carry sediment"
"Hmmm, the people contesting the c14 dating seem to all be AGW proponents."

So I took your empty message full of deflective arguments as a confession, you were lying.

[Aexodus]

At the very least, this discussion gives Genava an excuse to present the counter argument to shoddy climatology.

[B. W.]

Just a little reminder that this isn't over. The chart in the link is from 1997 before the climate alarmists played with it:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...y-and-Clow.png

[Daruwind]

Just a little reminder that this isn't over. The chart in the link is from 1997 before the climate alarmists played with it:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...y-and-Clow.png

Good! But not enough! We must go deeper, why use 1997 graph, it is probably faked as well. We need to go to 1950, 1900 or even deeper. Search medieval age manuscript for graphs from that period. Only then we can probably be sure they are still valid and according to latest knowledge! It is not like people can develop new and more precise methods, use better modelling software....

Nah, let´s go back more scientific arguments. No strong empty words and feelings...

So your picture is from the article:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....1029/96JC03981
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 102, NO. C12, PAGES 26,383-26,396, NOVEMBER 30, 1997
Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition


except i cannot find that graph there...



This is probably graph we are looking for

Plus it is just about Central Greenland.

Anyway there is much newer graph from NOAA

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-cli...ounger%20Dryas

The story in Antarctica is somewhat different, however. The ice core record at Dome C shows that climate changes in Antarctica were out-of-phase with those in the Northern Hemisphere (EPICA Community Members 2004). At Dome C, the amount of the hydrogen isotope called deuterium, expressed here as δD, is proportional to temperature. The deuterium record indicates that, contrary to the Northern Hemisphere records, temperatures were relatively low prior to the Younger Dryas (a period called the Antarctic Cold Reversal) and rose during the Younger Dryas. This pattern provides an important clue about what caused the Younger Dryas, as will be discussed next.

So once again you B.W. are trying to sell just part of the story. Just one place and one time window, ommiting facts countering it...But what is more concerning, your graph actually seems legit for central greenland and is in agreement with NOAA graph. So then NOAA graph is true as well? So NOAA no longer liars? Or your source is fake as is NOAA according to your words? So basically you checkmated yourself?

[Genava]

Just a little reminder that this isn't over. The chart in the link is from 1997 before the climate alarmists played with it:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...y-and-Clow.png

The answer to B.W.' babbling is actually much simpler. The figure is based on the data from GISP2 ice core, which only extends up to 1855.

This is something already explained here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change

So you are actually trying to lie and to manipulate here.

Edit: I remember this specific message, currently becoming a proof of hypocrisy now:

BTW, would it be possible for you to not use charts influenced by proxy data?

Simply because I put this figure

[Daruwind]

Now the right question is, who destroyed older data from GISP2...surely global conspiration with time travel!!!!! They surely used some laser drills to remove everything older to hide the truth..because ice remembers..or North rembembers? But surely Winter is coming!

EDIT: 5.4.2020 BUt guys, who is expecting B.W. to return once again with yet another "unrelated" link which is supposedly prooving another global conspiracy/that´s it is not yet done/world cooling? I´m expecting it every day...