Ocean acidifcation .

[ImaginaryNumber]

Oceanic and radiative forcing of medieval megadroughts in the American Southwest

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaax0087

Abstract

Multidecadal “megadroughts” were a notable feature of the climate of the American Southwest over the Common era, yet we still lack a comprehensive theory for what caused these megadroughts and why they curiously only occurred before about 1600 CE. Here, we use the Paleo Hydrodynamics Data Assimilation product, in conjunction with radiative forcing estimates, to demonstrate that megadroughts in the American Southwest were driven by unusually frequent and cold central tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) excursions in conjunction with anomalously warm Atlantic SSTs and a locally positive radiative forcing. This assessment of past megadroughts provides the first comprehensive theory for the causes of megadroughts and their clustering particularly during the Medieval era. This work also provides the first paleoclimatic support for the prediction that the risk of American Southwest megadroughts will markedly increase with global warming.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
see also:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ge/1826353001/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why not, indeed.

Fine by me, either way. But if others wish to continue . . . .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Oceanic and radiative forcing of medieval megadroughts in the American Southwest

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaax0087



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
see also:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ge/1826353001/

the exact same thing happens with extra cooling below the pre industrial median.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

If the USA cut 100% of their CO2 Emissions today...and took them to ZERO.
What would happen?

Once you understand the answer to this question, you realize the what this is all about.
It ain't about CO2 folks, just like the Green New Deal has Social Justice and Non-Environmental issues in it...it's about the Progressive Push for Control. It's also why they get SO MAD and label us Deniers when we don't buy into their Religious Beliefs. Like China with the Hong Kong Freedom Protesters...we must be silenced. We must be quashed....WE are a THREAT to their world view of Total Governmental Control over our own Lives. They Fear Freedom...they Fear the Deniers of their Control.

Yep...Rich is back Baby!

here is an explanation that most should understand

https://youtu.be/O68m2OtIMyQ

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="Navy"]That Spencer was included or would have been included? I see the deceptions continue.

Spencer WAS NOT included in the 97%. Quit playing stupid games.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I haven't failed to provide evidence that the Cook study was flawed because I never claimed that it was. ]

To what survey do you refer?

Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Or by continuing to rely on a flawed survey that completely distorts the extent of the consensus in support of AGW?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

...Why are you continually pushing this latest little sideshow of your own making? What is it about this group of skeptics that you feel I'm misrepresenting? How many times do I need to acknowledge that they represent minority views, that the majority view is as represented by the IPCC, and as found on the NASA & NOAA websites among others. What is it about contrary scientific...

Consider an idea that is easy to understand, but perhaps not easy to accept as possible reality (or easy to accept, but hard to hold on to). The idea is that some people simply cannot process the information you are presenting from the perspective that you are projecting it. No matter how hard you try to provide some people your cognitive lens (i.e. the manner in which you see things), they will not ever be able to see things as you do. They literally do not have the neural-wiring to do so. People assume pure logic is universal while it's actually relative. So appealing to "pure logic" only gets you so far...

This has nothing to do with either party being right or wrong. Rather, that...by analogy...some people are wired as a PC, others as a Mac. Emulation can only get you so far. To my knowledge Jung was the first to write much on this idea...though Gary Larson's representation of the phenomenon is easier to understand, but maybe not to accept. Sometimes we're the man, sometimes we're Ginger...if you find yourself barking/instructing the same thing 3-4 times in a row without any appreciable effect, you might consider that 5-6+ times isn't likely to yield a better result:

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

To what survey do you refer?

I do believe he was referring to the cook et al study of 2013.


In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Oceanic and radiative forcing of medieval megadroughts in the American Southwest

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaax0087



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
see also:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ge/1826353001/

I might also suggest that The Great Warming by Brian Fagan be added to your references.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-gr...9781596913929/

https://www.amazon.ca/Great-Warming-.../dp/159691601X

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Spencer WAS NOT included in the 97%. Quit playing stupid games.

Spencer claimed he would have been included, not that he was. No games, just a bit of cognitive dissonance apparently.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

To what survey do you refer?

The only one I've been referring to this entire time. Which one are you referring to?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't have my "own" views.

That is is pure unadulterated BS.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I only try and learn the views of "the" science,

Go here: https://scholar.google.com/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The only one I've been referring to this entire time. Which one are you referring to?

I listed about a half a dozen. I guess you missed that.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Spencer claimed he would have been included, not that he was. No games, just a bit of cognitive dissonance apparently.

The cognitive dissonance is entirely your own. HE WAS NOT INCLUDED.

Look at his claim at 3:34. https://youtu.be/Aou-mBhoeuE