Outlandish ‘tipping point’ rhetoric is about to be regurgitated once again during the promotion of the latest IPCC report, due today. Tipping points are those theoretical climate thresholds that, when breached, cause widespread catastrophe; they are mathematical model outputs that depend on many assumptions that may not be plausible or even possible.
Polar bears often get caught up in motivational tales of sea ice tipping points.
Tipping points are not facts: they are scary stories made to sound like science.
This is why Sir David Attenborough has totally embraced the tipping points narrative. He even made a movie fully devoted to them, called, Breaking Boundaries – The Science of Our Planet. Tipping points are the animal tragedy porn of mathematical models and Attenborough has adopted them both.
Attenborough and his cronies want you to be afraid of climate change instead of thinking about what they actually mean by ‘action’, ‘climate-neutral’ and ‘net zero’. They want free reign to rid the world of fossil fuels and the more frightened you are by their implausible narratives, the more likely they are to succeed.
Remember the original scary polar bear story: the ice is melting faster than we thought and 2/3 of the bears are going to die!
But contrary to those predictions, polar bears survived a loss of summer sea ice of more than 40% since 1979 without any decline in global population size (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017, 2019, 2021).
We’ve had 14 years of sea ice coverage in summer that polar bear specialists insisted would devastate the species and yet studies on the bears in Arctic areas most drastically affected by ice loss (Barents Sea and Chukchi Sea) show they are thriving, not struggling to survive (Aars 2018; Crockford 2021; Regehr et al. 2016, 2018; Rode et al. 2014, 2018).
The newest polar bear model (Molnár et al. 2020) is no more believable than the first one and no more likely to present an accurate picture of the future for polar bears.
Mathematical models are not facts (Curry 2017; Hausfather and Peters 2020).
Future climate is not any more likely to be accurately predicted by models than future polar bear survival.
Think, don’t feel. Don’t allow Attenboroughesque narratives of doom prevent you from recognizing the difference between facts and rhetoric when it comes to climate change.https://www.youtube.com/embed/jQRle6pgBCY?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent
Aars, J. 2018. Population changes in polar bears: protected, but quickly losing habitat. Fram Forum Newsletter 2018. Fram Centre, Tromso. Download pdf here (32 mb).
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here
Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. 2021. The State of the Polar Bear Report 2020. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 48, London. pdf here.
Curry, J. 2017. Climate Models for the Layman. Global Warming Policy Foundation Briefing #24. London. pdf here.
Hausfather, Z. and Peters, G.P. 2020. Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading [“Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy”]. Nature 577: 618-620
Molnár, P.K., Bitz, C.M., Holland, M.M., Kay, J.E., Penk, S.R. and Amstrup, S.C. 2020. Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0818-9
Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556 Supplementary data here.
Regehr, E.V., Hostetter, N.J., Wilson, R.R., Rode, K.D., St. Martin, M., Converse, S.J. 2018. Integrated population modeling provides the first empirical estimates of vital rates and abundance for polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Scientific Reports 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34824-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7
Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D., Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., and Budge, S. 2014. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology 20(1):76-88. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12339/abstract
Rode, K. D., R. R. Wilson, D. C. Douglas, V. Muhlenbruch, T.C. Atwood, E. V. Regehr, E.S. Richardson, N.W. Pilfold, A.E. Derocher, G.M Durner, I. Stirling, S.C. Amstrup, M. S. Martin, A.M. Pagano, and K. Simac. 2018. Spring fasting behavior in a marine apex predator provides an index of ecosystem productivity. Global Change Biology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13933/full
This story picked up by WattsUpWithThat and a few other blogs will not be picked up by The New York Times, Washington Post, National Geographic, Scientific American, ABC, NBC, CBS etc. and that’s the issue.
Nor should it, what a load of codswallop. Tipping points aren’t “theoretical climate thresholds that, when breeched, cause widespread catastrophe; they are mathematical model outputs that depend on many assumptions that may not be plausible or even possible.” They are elemental to complex systems and dumping a trillion tons of CO2 into the air is going to trigger cascading tipping points leading to feedbacks that trigger more. In 5000 years things may have settled down.
Tipping points triggered by minute variations in Milankovitch cycles for example.
Dude – give it up. You are merely asserting that the asserted models correctly assert the future, when the models have never correctly asserted any asserted point in the past, thus completely disqualifying them from being as used to correctly asset an asserted theoretical outcome.
Did I assert myself here sufficiently?
Your conclusions of “tipping points” is not substantiated by your graph. The time resolution does not allow you to ascertain whether the change was due to a “tipping point” or if the change was a simple ongoing response to a long term change.
Here we see a man who has never modelled a chaotic system in his life.
Those are not tipping points. They are transitions between attractors.
And in the last millon year or so they have all been not to a warmer climate, but to ice ages.
So all your graph tells us is that we are in great danger of moving into a new ice age
By definition, a chaotic system cannot have tipping points because it cannot have been in an initial state of equilibrium. Climate and weather are chaotic – they are in a constant state of flux, shifting all over the place all of the time – it would be like trying to balance a crate full of monkeys, all on adrenaline and nitrous oxide, on the head of a pin!
or just a bunch of Libertarians…
Transitions between attractors, tipping points, is there more than a semantic difference?
Have you ever thought about taking a science course Loydo? If you ever do, your simple mind will find out that science isn’t so simple.
….. but thanks for continuing to allow commenters to destroy everything you post for the new visitors to this site.
Go on then smart arse, whats the difference?
My question to you was “Have you ever thought about taking a science course Loydo?”.
That’s what I thought; know-nothing trolls unable or unwilling to answer my question because there is no difference.
So no then.
The fact that you don’t know just goes to highlight your lack of knowledge regarding science.
Transitions allow for movement both ways; tipping points are, by definition, irreversible.
There is nothing in the present cllmate that has not occurred in the past. Temperatures have been higher and lower. CO2 concentrations have been higher and lower. Ice cover has been greater and less. Glaciers have been larger and smaller.
Within broad parameters the climate has been self-regulatory. Nothing that is currently happening is capable of passing any sort of “tipping point”
griffy is going to be quite cross with you for stealing his lies, liedo.
In other words they are completely dependent upon the assumptions of those who write the models.
The problem is that there is no science behind them, but those who wish to believe will never allow something as reality to get in the way of their dreams.
And as demonstrated by Frank et al, the models boil down to simple linear extrapolations of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, with temperature uncertainties that increase after each iteration. There is no way they can convey any useful information.
The models are not intended to convey any useful information. They are there merely to provide a sciencey veneer to a Marxist money-grab.
You’re so skeptical.
BTW, if these tipping points really do exist, why were they not hit during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan or Egyptian warm periods when temperatures were 1 to 3 degrees warmer than today, or the Holocene optimum when temperatures were 3 to 5 degrees warmer than today?
When was the last tipping point?
When was the last tipping point caused by CO2?
I bet ole Loydo can’t name any.
Loydo’s CO2 tipping point is attributed to 3 cheap beers.
“…3 cheap beers.”
Nah, he’s what we used to call a “one pot screamer”.
Tipping points are only caused by human-emitted CO2, doncha know? That’s why you can’t find them in the historical record! QED
“1 to 3 degrees warmer than today…the Holocene optimum when temperatures were 3 to 5 degrees warmer than today”
This bs gets a free pass but you shamelessly describe yourselves as skeptical. Blinded idealogues cuddling up to each other in an echo-chamber.
That’s because when it comes to data vs. voices in head science, the data wins Loydo. You don’t have to like it.
Data is data, it has many sources. The fact that it refutes your religion does not make it false.
Huh, you forgot the Soviet and Mongol warm periods. Not to mention the Belgian one and the bit controversial warm period in the 7. district of Warsaw.
Again, if you believe these reconstructions, why don’t you like one of the most important reconstructions, that of Mann’s? And no, his has not been “debunked” (except in the nightmares of denierland). Quite to contrary, each and every scientific reconstruction confirmed his results.
You append modern high resolution temperatures with very low resolution proxy measurements.
Rather evident by how your portray alleged modern temperatures as occurring over many thousands of years.
A fact that constitutes intentional fraud.
He’s had this explained to him multiple times.
It can no longer be put down to ignorance.
What data is “Holocene optimum when temperatures were 3 to 5 degrees warmer than today”
relying on? A spliced graph?
What a fake.
How about treelines? Good enough for you?
Now push off.
Loydo, you really show yourself up. You never provide any evidence other than to say other people are ignorant. Your problem appears to be you don’t realise that you’ve been fooled by a bunch of, quite frankly, nasty agenda driven activists masquerading as compassionate, caring people who just want to save us all. In reality these activists don’t care a jot that the implementation of their policies would kill people. Especially those of the poorest countries in the world. Some would argue that makes them racist cultural imperialists as well. Enjoy your bedfellows while you can. I actually feel sorry for you.
behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions”
Since there is no question that climate and weather are chaotic (which is why Lorenz used weather to describe his chaos theory), there is no valid way to model them. Trying to is simply hubris.
Hey Loydo –
What makes the temperature STOP rising with your false CO2 crap?
You will notice that in your graph there are no flat areas of constant temperature. The temperature is always changing, so it is irresponsible to attribute current temperature changes to human causes.
Lordy, Loydo, when are you going to come back to Earth?
Frankly, the ONLY tipping points you need to worry about – the ONLY ones in the Real World – are how long it takes for you to butter a spider into your toast (and will you apologize to the spider afterwards?) because the slice of butter you cut from the quarter-pound couldn’t hold up under the pressure you put on it; AND – just how far tack you can TIP your chair before you end up on the floor, wondering what happened, because you miscalculated your ability to balance a simple standard kitchen chair on two legs. Two legs ONLY, Loydo.
The stock markets everywhere have had more tipping points than any climate change occurrences, and frankly, your chart looks like a bad reproduction of any stock market chart on the books. Look at all those “tipping points” and ask yourself what you should dabble in today.
Oh, and just so you know, if that “chart” were stretched out a bit, those sharp “downward trends” would flatten out drastically.
Despite your dearest wishes, this planet does not have a roller coaster climate.
Enjoy your weekend…. if you can.
“It is hard to make predictions. Especially about the future.” Yogi Berra
“I didn’t say most of the things I said.” Yogi Berra
The only UK figure in science that I can think of who said global warming was ‘poppycock’ was David Bellamy and he lost everything as a result; cancelled.
Attenburghee is a complete misanthrope.
“That someone of Attenborough’s stature (he has been knighted, among other official honors, and is so popular in the U.K. that he was named one the One-Hundred Greatest Britons in a 2002 BBC poll) would compare us to cholera evidences how mainstream anti-humanism has become within the environmental movement.”
He and fellow human haters like the BBCs Chris Packham* and Jane Goodall – all members of ‘Population Matters’ – will be beavering away at the CoP in November.
* Eco-Loon Chris Packham Cashing In On Carbon Belching Luxury Wildlife Tours
Environmental activist and BBC presenter Chris Packham has been busy of late, whether it’s causing chaos for farmers, joining disruptive Extinction Rebellion protests, writing articles warning about the “catastrophic impact” of climate change, ranting about “extreme capitalism” or generally lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives. The petition to have him sacked from the BBC has already racked up a whopping 135,000 signatures in just two weeks…
Funnily enough, Chris’s concerns with climate change and capitalism mysteriously vanish when it comes to his own “Travel with Chris Packham” business. It turns out Chris is quite happy to take punters thousands of miles round the world on luxury wildlife tours, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide to fly there. Provided they’re paying several thousand pounds each:
This August you’ve got a “a rare opportunity to spend time in the company of Chris whilst surrounded by the spectacular wilderness of Alaska” on a Wildlife Photography Cruise – for a cool £7,195 per person excluding flights.
Over 11,000 miles return from London via Seattle. With 22 passengers on board that’ll be 75 tonnes of CO2 pumped into the fresh Arctic air…
Packham doesn’t like people much, but he does like their money.
Packham’s an opportunistic moron. David Bellamy and Johnny Ball were early casualties of the climate scare cancel culture. Johnny Ball once declared spider farts to be more damaging to the environment which provoked a vitriolic campaign in his personal and professional life. This current trend of climate enthusiasm is a toxic culture of the blind leading the blind over a precipice, taking the rest of us with them. Well done to Susan Crockford and all of the people that dare to challenge the false narrative.
And let’s not forget Population Matters only transitioned from The Optimum Trust when the TOT spreadsheet was accidentally shown on their website.
The spreadsheet revealed where the global human population will be culled (mostly in Asian countries).
Good reporting by Dr. Susan. The polar bear is an apex predator and will move into whatever environment it needs to survive. Let’s hope the Arctic loses enough ice that they move into New York City.
Why do white bears get so much attention? Some brown bears even work at night.
Why do white bears get so much attention?
I’m sure critical race theory can answer that question.
CRT would separate the White bears from the Black and Brown bears.
It was reported on tv this morning that a school district is being sued for discrimination because a principal at an elementary school thought it was a good idea to separate all the white students from all the black students and put them in separate rooms.
The school district says they have since corrected the situation.
Critical Race Theory is American Marxism (get the book), and its aim is to divide Americans into groups and classes and then pit those groups against each other as a method of destroying American society and replacing it with a totalitarian society.
The radical Left is on the attack, and CRT is part of it.
When I try to explain that to some friends of mine, they just look at me oddly or tell me I read too much. “Everything is just fine, Rory. There’s no conspiracy …”. We’re now being told, regardless whether you’re vaccinated or not … gotta wear the mask.People don’t seem to understand what they’re giving up or how hard people fought to get it. Nor do they realize there’s no intention of returning it to them.
Appreciate the sentiment, but let’s hope the Arctic gains enough ice that they will walk there.
Oh, hold on a second, if griff gets out of the emergency room, he can give us a report on the latest sea ice news.
It won’t perturb me much if I have to leave N. California where, incidentally it was a whole lot warmer than yesterday, and disgusting humans were apparently enjoying it.
Attenborough was originally spelt as Aten-borough, but David discovered to his dismay that Aten was ancient Egypt pharaoh and sun god, i.e. meaning the sun is omnipotent and hence in charge of global warming and the climate change, and that wouldn’t do, since according to warmista the man is stronger than any god, a mortal sacrilege if you ask me.
He had no alternative than to add one more t and became Atten-borough as in ‘now you listen and pay atten-tion’, since sceptics were not taking much notice of his catastrophic global warming doom-saying /sarc
I always thought his name was an anglicisation of the German ‘Battenburg’ similar to the way the ‘Mountbattens’ changed their name. It would be ironic if his family had changed their name so as to distance themselves from a corrupt, authoritarian regime!
Just one B is in it. /sc
Any relation to Battsindebelfry?
The climate crisis is so discredited the advocates turn to crazies with no scientific training to act as their spokespeople.
Consider the list of prime climate alarmists all given maximum air time..
Al Gore, no science accreditation at all, a low grade politician who couldn’t even make President, something even Joe what’s my name again Biden managed
Attenborough a voice over professional no scientific accreditation but someone who thinks walruses jumping of cliffs is due to their concern for global warming and had nothing to do with the hunting Polar Bears encircling them.
Prince Charles or, Il Tampone as the Italians like to call him. A man who talks to trees and has no scientific accreditation and very little education of any significance to his name.
Leo DiCaprio, the less said the better.
AOC no education worth talking about no political policies worth considering sane and someone who believes she will be gifted the roll of NY State Senator at the first time of asking.
Greta Thunberg. a school drop out, uneducated and unstable, someone with anger issues.
The list goes on and on
Kerry, Pelosi Every Clinton and their dog etc.
If you put that lot in a room and presented them with the simplest of puzzles to solve you would come back very disappointed.
Yet these are the same guys who demand that everyone else listen to their science.
Don’t forget David “carbon in the glass causes the greenhouse effect” Suzuki. He had me fooled until he wrote that article.
Wrong. “Tipping point” is a general notion meaning a small change results in something “irreversible”, something you can’t undo without extensive work. Explosion is a tipping point, you are virtually unable to make the explosive out of the results of explosion.
Tipping points with respect to climate science are theoretical at the moment (fortunately none has been observed yet), and they mean things you can’t reverse except in geological timescales.
They are intensively researched for precisely being irreversible and resulting in a quite different world potentially in a few years time. They may be not very very probable at the moment but the problem is that in the future, when temperatures are higher, they may get triggered by extreme (w/r/t future conditions) weather.
That piece you have just written there – did you read it through to make sure it made sense and wasn’t utter garbage before you submitted it? Because I don’t think you did. In one sentence you say that tipping points can be reversed with extensive work whilst also saying that they are irreversible – ie they can’t be reversed. You make no sense whatsoever, it’s just complete garbage. Why don’t you go away and actually look up what a ‘tipping point’ actually is, then you’ll realise it doesn’t apply, indeed the term can’t be applied to weather or climate.
Yes, and it makes sense.
A nice illustration how illiterate you are 🙂 reversible = “reversible in human timescales”, irreversible = “reversible in geological timescales”. If you push a column of a building, it deforms for a while, and then breaks, and the building collapses (a very simplified but relatable analogy for dummies). So before the tipping point, the change is reversible (ie. the column gets back in its original shape). After the tipping point the change can only be reversed with extreme work, ie. rebuilding. I have the feeling that even you can understand now the difference between the two.
Consequently, slowly increasing the temperature may result in a change you can’t reverse with decreasing the temperature.
Why would you want to decrease temperature?
I really don’t think a person that thinks an explosion is a good example of a tipping point should call other people ‘illiterate’ – really not a good look for you. Changing the definitions of words to suit your argument is also not a great idea – I get the point that you only have a very limited vocabulary so it may be difficult for you but that is what the online dictionary and thesaurus are their for. Now having got the irrelevancies out of the way, I can’t help but notice you have completely ignored the other point I made that ‘tipping points’ cannot be applied to a chaotic system such as weather or climate – the very last point you made in your refutation simply underscores the failures of your argument. You do not understand what a ‘tipping point’ really is, nor do you understand that the climate is a chaotic system – but don’t worry; all of your ‘Climate science’ is built on the same fallacy or flawed premise.
Now – if you have any problems with big words in this post, do avail yourself of the online dictionaries – they will be a big help to you.
Is this supposed to be an argument? 🙂
Huh, you’re again parading your ignorance. Jesus Christ… These are kinda orthogonal to each other, you genius.
An explosion is a single event – to say it is an example of a tipping point would be the work of an ignorant moron. Speaking of parading your ignorance – when I suggested you look at online dictionaries I didn’t mean for you to just pluck words out of it at random. A tipping point requires the start point to be a state of equilibrium or harmony where small changes can effect other small changes and push the system off balance, resulting in complete destruction or catastrophe. This cannot apply to a chaotic weather system because it can never be in a state of balance or equilibrium at the start. It is always out of equilibrium, always changing from one state to another, always unpredictable and, well erm, chaotic. Now where in that is an indication that one could be at right angles to the other, as your random word use would imply?
Crossing a tipping point is a single event too, you genius. Okay, how about that. You heat gunpowder. Slowly. And then you cool it. You’re at the point where you started it. You do it again. You exceed a certain temperature, a threshold, a tipping point, and the gunpowder explodes (conflagration actually). Now you may try to cool it again but you won’t get to the state where you started. Very likely your dick is 20 meters away anyway together with most of your house. But you may rebuild your house, get another 100kg of gunpowder, the doctors reattach your dick, etc. and you are at the starting state again (“extensive work”). And you start heating it ‘cos you’re a genius.
Where did you get this garbage? The “small changes result in small changes” part is okay, but you don’t need equilibrium for that. See the example above, that’s not in equilibrium at all, and you may or may not reach the threshold. Small additional heat means a small additional temperature change in the system (a heap of gunpowder). And suddenly, a small additional heat input results in a huge conflagration and you jettison your dick. Again.
You’re parading you ignorance, see above.
The quintessential tipping point is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Which, by the way, is only a thought experiment — an idealized situation.
There are tipping points in nature of course. Phase transition points.
In the idealized case (non-chaotic) we can model tipping points. Just stick in exponential growth. Any hockey stick.
Every natural system we know of has a governor. Otherwise the prior extremes of high and low CO2 and temperature could not have reversed. The governor — the negative feedback which stopped inherently exponential growth or shrinkage — existed. Still exists even if no one knows the exact mechanism.
We had in the past as well an iceball earth as well as an hothouse earth.
What did the tipping points as humans didn’t interact ?
How the hell did you get the idea that humans would be needed for this? Read the linked article, they write about quite a few tipping point crossings long before the human era.
Name one of these tipping points….
8.2 ky event
“8.2kyr event?” You are kidding, right? This is a joke, isn’t it? How exactly is it a tipping point? What actually happened that made you think it could be a tipping point?
Also, since fretslider actually asked you to name a hypothetical tipping point before the rise of humans, how do you justify replying with an event that happened during the human era?
This wasn’t caused by humans, you genius. Furthermore, this is just an example.
An example of something that wasn’t a tipping point is an example of something that was a tipping point ??
Correction: “was” instead of “wasn’t”.
Given that the earth’s climate has reversed itself many dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of times since our planet was formed, and yet, here we are … obviously means that climate is not only always reversible, but it actually always reverses, and yet .. here we are.
No one ever said that tipping points don’t exist. That’s your strawman.
The issue is that the claimed tipping points in climate do not exist.
It’s been much warmer than the present many times in the last 10,000 years, yet none of these mythical tipping points were hit.
The odds are they won’t be hit this time either, even if the temperature does go up a few more tenths of a degree.
I was neutral w/r/t your mental state regarding the existence tipping points. I only pointed out that you (this whole deniers’ clown show) don’t understand what they were.
No, it hasn’t been much warmer than the present (this tiring bs has been debunked 101010 times). Regardless, there were tipping points, eg. the 8.2 kyear event, caused by final collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet of northeastern North America.
It must have been much warmer during those times when there was no ice at all around both poles, which are geologically well-attested.
This is not only factually inaccurate, to believe this requires an act of self-delusion normally reserved for those suffering from mental affliction. The evidence of the earth being warmer is so easily found you almost have to close your eyes not to see it.
Besides, the CAGW crowd doesn’t even try to argue against a warmer past, they argue that the CO2 forcing is the new unique threat.
To quote Seinfeld, “It’s almost as if you have no
businessscientific training at all.”
This whole section smacks of the projection of his mental health and cognition problems onto others rather than deal with them himself.
The giveaway is the opening ad-hom….
I was neutral w/r/t your mental state
This is what we doctors call projection
He’s neutral with his own mental state, and therein lies the problem.
I see that a lot with leftists.
Nyolci is a proven liar, and has been caught out several times.
Yeah, scientists, right? 😉
it hasn’t been much warmer than the present
Er, yes it has and you know it has; or at least you should. Civilizations flourished during previous warmer warm periods, and collapsed when they ended.
This aversion to a decent warm climate makes sense given the misanthropy of environmentalism.
A polite question: how do you know about these warmer periods? Hint: the so called climate reconstructions, most famous is that of Mann’s. In other words, you cheer something when you (erroneously) think it supports you but hate it otherwise. Very likely you have no idea about these at all.
First off, Mann’s reconstruction has been so thoroughly shredded that only someone paid to make a fool of themselves will still bring it up.
There are thousands of proxies from all over the world that attest to it being warmer during many periods over the last 10,000 years.
You deniers are so breathtakingly out of touch with reality… You’re really living in an imagined world.
Guilty as charged. I am so out of touch with CNN, BBC and Guardian libtard reality, I run away and hide from it, even though I live in the Oakland/Berkeley Hills – libtard central. What people like you will find out soon, and will continue to deny, is that it’s easy for me to do so, as they’re all faking it from their $3 – 10 Million houses, which are actual reality and you can Google map it and hit the satellite button.
Can’t get a real job nyolci?
Why do you think I’m liberal? ‘Cos I’m not.
Says the guy who bases all his beliefs on disproven graphs.
Keep going, you’re really making a huge fool of yourself. It’s not your fault that you’ve been duped by a bunch of hateful activists. They’re the ones to blame. Perhaps in 20 years time when CO2 concentrations are much higher and the planet and its inhabitants are still in rude health, you’ll realise you’ve been fooled.
“ final collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet “
That was land-ice and it melted.
Maybe the word “collapse” does not mean what I think it means; sort of like those condos in Florida.
Yep, in a very rapid way, according to our current understanding. Huge glacial lakes overcame their last barriers and suddenly discharged into the Atlantic, washing away a lot (including land ice), so “collapse” may be a good word after all.
It melted, it was also not a tipping point.
Well, I guess if you had been there around, you would’ve felt differently 🙂
Feelings don’t matter science does.
Perhaps if you could internalize that fact, it would make you look less like a fool.
Exactly. That’s why you should listen to the people who are well versed in it, ie. scientists. Not idiots and crooks like Eric or Willis or Watts.
All you have managed to point out is that you are willing to lie in order to defend global warming. Either that, or you really don’t understand the concept of tipping points.
The fact that it’s been much warmer in the not to distant past has never been debunked, not even once. Just because you can’t model it, isn’t evidence that it never happened.
Among other evidence.
The fact that tree lines were much closer to the poles at multiple times in the last few thousand years.
The fact that tree lines were much higher up at multiple times in the last few thousand years.
The fact that Roman era mines have recently melted out of glaciers in the Alps.
The fact that sea levels were 2 to 3 meters higher during most of the Holocene Optimum.
??? I may be rude, I may be impolite, I may call you a Mother Tucker, but I don’t lie, you mother tucker.
The most accurate current reconstructions show otherwise, full stop. This is science, our best knowledge about these things. Regarding tree lines at poles and in the mountains, certain places were warmer (sometimes much warmer) than today but other places were colder at the same time, and the balance is still overall colder than today. But this was pointed out to you 234324324 times already, you’re really slow learners.
Another recurring denier trope, a good display again of your cluelessness. Reconstruction is not usually done with climate modelling. Specifically Mann’s famous reconstructions didn’t involve any modelling at all.
You don’t lie, you just post things you know to be untrue over and over again.
I just love how this guy tries to pretend to be superior to everyone who disagrees with him.
His mother would be so proud.
Hey, your feeling of inferiority is based on facts. At last you have something that is based on facts. A little bit of self reflection. Congratulations! FYI you can’t overcome objectively existing inferiority with childish exclamations like the above.
Nyolci: You just can’t stop lying, can you? The MWP was certainly global.
Arctic sea ice extent is greater now than is was at this time in 2019 and 2020 when it ended up higher than 2012. No net loss in a decade.
What happened to the “runaway melting”, the ” death spiral” , ice free Arctic ?
Everyone is still spouting that the albedo feedback will lead to a tipping point and uncontrollable melting but this has clearly been shown to be a totally naive simplification. It is disproved by the facts.
There are other factors which outweigh the supposed albedo feedback.
They are now desperately trying to redefine what tipping point means. Rather than an irrecoverable positive feedback, it now seems to mean nothing more than a serious change.
Sorry, that’s not a tipping point.
“They are now desperately trying to redefine what tipping point means. Rather than an irrecoverable positive feedback, it now seems to mean nothing more than a serious change.”
Irrecoverable. Now that’s a tipping point!
I don’t recall any irrecoverable events in history connected to CO2 concentrations.
History is not kind to the alarmists. It does not support their hysteria about CO2.
If there had been any irrecoverable events connected to CO2, we wouldn’t be around now.
Here is an irrecoverable event connected to CO2:
the point in time when a majority come to understand that man-made global warming is pseudo-science.
That’s what leftists do. When the previous propaganda fails, they just redefine the words and redeploy.
From Google, the origin of tipping point:
“Where did the term tipping point come from?
The phrase was first used in sociology by Morton Grodzins when he adopted the phrase from physics where it referred to the adding a small amount of weight to a balanced object until the additional weight caused the object to suddenly and completely topple, or tip.”
I like this.
Exactly – in order to have a tipping point, you must have an initial state of equilibrium or balance. Which is why tipping points can never be applied to a chaotic system – they are never in balance or at equilibrium in the first place.
I always come back to the following point:
Polar bear fossils have been found in northern Canada as old as 2.9 MYA, stretching across the entirety of the Pleistocene and Holocene, with 26 completed cycles of glaciation and interglacials. If their survival was so tied in to keeping constantly cool, the actual fossil record could not possibly be so.
The warmunista position is that somehow the current climate is the “Goldy Locks” climate, and any change thereto is necessarily very bad for the entire planet. But of course the fact that all the species of the world that exist now have existed for a minimum of tens of thousands of years, and most have existed for millions of years.
We also know, by the fossil record, that biodiversity – which most environmentalists claim is an unalloyed good for the planet – always increases during warm periods and always decreases during cold periods.
But of course, facts and logic and science don’t matter in a debate where political science is dressed up and presented as if it were actual science.
Of course, we also know that hominids – humans and our biologic predecessors – have also lived on the planet for millions of years, again surviving all 26 of the glaciations and interglacials, including the most recent cycle where our species homo sapiens emerged.
And at what point in that most recent cycle of cooling and warming did our species attain its highest biological performance (i.e., population, life span, and standard of living)?
In the very warmest point in that last cycle – that’s when. Now, in other words.
Yep, Arctic is still covered with ice and the Polar Bears are doing just fine.
Tipping points, LMFAO.
Ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere 450 million years ago couldn’t cause such a “tipping point,” and further could not prevent the Earth from plummeting into a full blown glaciation that lasted millions of years. But now 400-something parts per million is going to cause some climate “tipping point?! If ten times as much couldn’t prevent an ice age, the only thing making anyone “believe” in a “tipping point” today is sheer ignorance.
Observations trump theory.
That’s right. Observations trump theory.
CO2 does not correlate with temperature changes in history, despite the claims of the alarmists.
The latest example would be the temperature decline from 1940 to 1980, while CO2 was rapidly increasing in the atmosphere. That’s 30 years of cooling and CO2 could not prevent it from happening. Observations trump theory.
In 1999, I was corresponding with a NOAA “scientist.” He said it was aerosols what done it. They’ll blame aerosol emissions from China, India, Africa & etc. for any future plateau or cooling. UN IPCC CliSciFi liars just got to lie. There’s power and money involved, you know.
“In 1999, I was corresponding with a NOAA “scientist.” He said it was aerosols what done it.”
That’s what they always say, without ever producing any evidence to back up the claims.
Just like the way they do with CO2 and warming.
On the ‘hatred of humans’ theme, remember ‘Splattergate’.
it’s everywhere, look at this article
according to the UAH satellite readings, Earth’s temperature in early 2021 was at or below the warmest month in 1980, yet suddenly Guatemalans are fleeing lol
it’s all eco-Marxism, they know it’s BS but they no longer care because it justifies all their power grabs
The rig count in Oklahoma is up.
What does this have to do with polar bears going extinct?
Why is it that we can all see the invisible question mark at the end there. Like a schoolboy trying to answer a question to prove he was really paying attention, honest!
But contrary to those predictions, polar bears survived a loss of summer sea ice of more than 40% since 1979 without any decline in global population size
you have no idea if the total population declined or not, because most populations aren’t surveyed.
Why the lie Griff?
It is currently between 25,000-31,000 the highest in decades.
The Griff persona is a Trolling Device. It jus spews the latest UN IPCC CliSciFi memes, assisted with some crazy algorithms keyed by fellow travelers.
Is that what your handlers told you to say?
“you have no idea if the total population declined or not, because most populations aren’t surveyed.”
…. and neither do you, but it doesn’t stop you from spouting shite about it.
How’s that Arctic sea ice extent going? Still gonna be third lowest? Might want to revise your estimate to 12th lowest. You’ll be closer.
So if no one knows the numbers, why are you and your ilk, always claiming the bears are about to die off?
Griffy – if, as you say, “most populations aren’t surveyed” then why were the polar bears put on a conservation list in the ’70’s because their numbers were below 5-7,000? If what you say is correct then that shouldn’t have happened because no-one could have estimated their population size. We all need to acknowledge that the Polar Bear is an example of a hugely successful conservation effort done right – their numbers are estimated to be well over 30,000 now and there are numerous examples of twin cubs surviving into adulthood, something that only happens in healthy, thriving populations with plenty of food for both the mother and cubs. None of the various subpopulations are in decline, despite some of the vested interests in trying to prove it, all appear to be healthy and thriving.
Sounds scary……….but why nothing in their discussion about the negative feed backs?
Why do some people think that more sea ice is good for polar bears, and less sea ice is bad for them?
In areas where polar bears live, sea ice reaches the shore every winter and lasts into early spring, so that as long as the sea is completely frozen, there is no source of food for polar bears. Most of their diet is seals, which come ashore to breed in late spring when there is open water near the shore. Unless the sea ice melts away from the shore, the seals won’t come to breed, and polar bears will starve.
Polar bears will sometimes ride ice floes near open water and use them as a base to catch fish without having to tread water, but when the edge of the sea ice is many miles from shore in summer, there are fewer fish near the ice, so the polar bears come ashore to hunt on land, which is less tiring for them than swimming.
Without the yearly melting of sea ice in late spring and summer, and the greater availability of food on land when it is snow-free, polar bears could not survive.
Global warming alarmists aren’t deep thinkers.
If they were, they wouldn’t be global warming alarmists.
Oh puhlease. Let’s give Attenborough a break, he is in his 10th decade and slowed down. He doesn’t know the alarmists have moved on from the polar bear as their face for climate change (obvious reason)
Now their poster animal is the penguin.
That’s gonna hurt them. Never trust a penguin:
Polar Bears are Majestic.
We respect Polar Bears.
Polar Bears are being looked after by Mankind as never before.
Weather? Those bears are made for it.