Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Cherry pick and press to fit. Got it.

It is instructive that Alley's own graph shows long term warming.



Figure out why I referenced Jo Nova?

You didn't "reference" Jo Nova; you wrongly accused her of creating a fake graph.

Alley's chart is the same data that just like "Jo Nova's", is simply the same data presented in such a way as to support the author's viewpoint.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal..._alley2000.txt

GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
and
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: PLEASE CITE ORIGINAL REFERENCE WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!


NAME OF DATA SET: GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data
LAST UPDATE: 3/2004 (Original Receipt by WDC Paleo)


CONTRIBUTOR: Richard Alley, Pennsylvania State University.
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2004-013


SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Alley, R.B.. 2004.
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2004-013.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.


ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Alley, R.B. 2000.
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.
Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.

Edit: You do realise on close examination ever single version of the charted data shows an overall cooling trend from a peak of around 10000 years (i.e. end of the last glacial period) ago?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Med looks warmer than the mean.

And the sea levels nearby are rising

Excellent!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It's absolutely, positively true... because I found it on the Internet.

That's where Jack finds his clippings

And you get yours from one of your lower torso extremities.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You didn't "reference" Jo Nova; you wrongly accused her of creating a fake graph.





Edit: You do realise on close examination ever single version of the charted data shows an overall cooling trend from a peak of around 10000 years (i.e. end of the last glacial period) ago?

You referenced Jo Nova without knowing so.

You do realize that the first data point in the file is at 95 years BP, i.e. 1905. A lot has happened since then. Don Easterbrook got it wrong as well, do not feel too bad.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Alley's chart is the same data that just like "Jo Nova's", is simply the same data presented in such a way as to support the author's viewpoint.

No, Alley's data covers a much longer time frame. Nova cherry picked a time frame that suited her agenda and bias.

cher·ry-pick
verb
1.
selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.

[jackdale]

BTW - Nova has a whole web site devoted to debunking her nonsense.

https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/

[Reefmagnet]

You're just beating around the bush now, aren't you? Tell me, is there a clearer way i can demonstrate that it's all the same data? Because you just can't seem to get your head around it.

And blame Mr Alley for 1905. Not sure if that's because of limitations with the core samples or if he was just embarrassed that the current warming would be seen by many as just another one of the previous spikes within his data set.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're just beating around the bush now, aren't you? Tell me, is there a clearer way i can demonstrate that it's all the same data? Because you just can't seem to get your head around it.

And blame Mr Alley for 1905. Not sure if that's because of limitations with the core samples or if he was just embarrassed that the current warming would be seen by many as just another one of the previous spikes within his data set.

The bush beater is you.

It is not hard to figure out that data set. Do the math yourself.

[Reefmagnet]

I did. The answer is the same in all cases. You think an alarmist's is correct but a heretic's is fake for the same data???

M'kay.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No, Alley's data covers a much longer time frame. Nova cherry picked a time frame that suited her agenda and bias.

cher·ry-pick
verb
1.
selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.

But it's all fake, remember?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW - Nova has a whole web site devoted to debunking her nonsense.

https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/

That yours or John Cooks blog? Bit hard to tell when the author won't fess up who they are.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No, Alley's data covers a much longer time frame. Nova cherry picked a time frame that suited her agenda and bias.

cher·ry-pick
verb
1.
selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.

So showing the full temperature change during the current 10,000 year inter-glacial is cherry picking.

But starting in the middle of the previous glacial to claim that temperatures now, 10,000 years into the interglacial, are higher and temperatures are therefore increasing isn't cherrypicking?

You've excelled yourself this time. What was that definition a few posts back of "alarmist" again?
Alarmists. They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical.

[TurninTurtle]

If you believe in man made global warming and use the internet you are a hypocrite.

You are needlessly causing fossil fuels and byproducts to be used.

You want a carbon footprint reduced?

START WITH YOURS.

Cease all use of anything that has any association with petroleum products.

Have fun living in a cave picking berries.

[SailOar]

The Paris Climate Deal at a Glance | New York Times

Four months after negotiating a global climate agreement in Paris, government officials are coming to New York on Friday [22 April 2016] to sign the pact in a ceremony at the United Nations.

Here are some of the key elements of the Paris deal, which is the first agreement requiring all countries to join the fight against global warming.

TEMPERATURE GOAL: The objective of the agreement is to keep the global temperature rise "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with pre-industrial times. [...] The agreement also includes an aspirational goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). [...]

INDIVIDUAL TARGETS: Countries are required to set national targets for reducing or reining in their greenhouse gas emissions. Those targets aren't legally binding, but countries must report on their progress and update their targets every five years. [...]

TRANSPARENCY: There is no penalty if countries miss their emissions targets. Instead, the agreement relies on transparency rules to motivate countries to fulfill their pledges. [...]

MONEY: The agreement says wealthy countries should continue to offer financial support to help poor countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change. [...]

LOSS AND DAMAGE: In a victory for small island nations threatened by rising seas, the agreement includes a section recognizing "loss and damage" associated with climate-related disasters. [...]

WITHDRAWAL: The agreement will enter into force 30 days after 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions have completed the ratification process. [...]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Key Players in Climate Change | New York Times

China
China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has pledged to have its emissions of carbon dioxide reach a plateau or decline “around 2030,” and many experts believe it is on track to meet that target. And by that year, 20 percent of energy in China would come from nonfossil fuel sources, the government said.[...]

There are no vocal climate change denialists among top Chinese officials, and President Xi Jinping has been consistent in saying China must help global efforts to limit climate change.

United States
The United States pledged that it will cut greenhouse gas pollution between 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. But its ability to meet that goal was thrown into question in February, when the Supreme Court unexpectedly put a hold on implementing a major environmental regulation aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Now it remains in limbo until all legal challenges have been resolved, which is likely to take at least another year.[...]

In general, the Democratic candidates more closely reflect the views of Americans on the issue, according to several polls. A Gallup poll from March found that 64 percent of Americans worry a great deal or a fair amount about global warming.

European Union
The European Union’s pledge to cut emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030 appears ambitious compared with other parts of the world. The 28-nation bloc also gives the largest amount of money to poorer countries to prepare for and deal with climate change.

But the region’s goals use 1990 as the baseline, giving it a running start (the bloc is on track to easily beat a target of cutting emissions by 20 percent by the end of this decade).[...]

India
Perhaps the most significant pledge by India has been to increase solar power generation to 100 gigawatts by 2022, up from about three gigawatts generated in India last year. “That’s an earthshaking commitment,” said Jairam Ramesh, former environment minister and a member of the opposition Congress party.[...]

And since the Paris agreement, the government has toughened emissions standards for existing and new coal-based power plants. Together, these two new policies could make solar energy as competitive as coal.[...]

Russia
Russia has yet to make any binding pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A preliminary plan, announced by Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, during the Paris conference, implies lowering emissions to 70 percent from a baseline set in 1990. But the country likely will hit this target simply by maintaining current levels of emissions, so this plan “is very close to business as usual,” said Alexey Kokorin, head of the Climate and Energy program at WWF Russia.[...]

Brazil
In Brazil, President Dilma Rousseff committed to an ambitious plan to reduce her country’s emissions 43 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 — making Brazil the only major developing economy to commit to absolute emissions reductions, rather than simply a slowing of the rate of emissions.

The climate plan has been a signature of Ms. Rousseff’s administration, but she now faces possible impeachment, which could throw the Brazilian plan into question. [...]

Indonesia
Indonesia, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluters due to mass deforestation, pledged under the Paris Agreement to cut its emissions 29 percent from a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, or by 41 percent if it receives substantial assistance from the developed world. But even with those pledged reductions, Indonesia’s emissions would still soar, nearly doubling from 2010 levels.[...]

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The Paris Climate Deal at a Glance | New York Times


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Key Players in Climate Change | New York Times

Barely worth the paper it's written on...an unbinding agreement between transitory power brokers. Ranks right up there with the Iran Nuclear Agreement...another unbinding agreement. How's that working out?

Makes the alarmists feel a bit better and underwrites a few more years of grants for the big thinkers. Makes the colonial reparations/white privilege crowd feel better because The 0 has agreed to transfer big cash to the despots in "developing nations" (without Congressional authority) who "suffered" through colonialism.

Check back with us in 2030 with an update.