Global Warming

[franklin]

The climate change hysterics remind me of the bunker builders of old and of preppers like Dutch (rip). It's hillarious how political ends drive people from as opposite of sides as you can get to chase the same meaningless means.

2 degrees won't be the end of the world any faster than ever impending Armageddon will, you crazy old cooks.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This isn't a debate for which both sides have equal weight of authority. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. I don't really see the need to pretend that this guy is saying anything particularly new or that hasn't been addressed before.

Scientific consensus is exactly that: consensus. It does not mean unanimity.

We're at the point where climate denial is bizarre cherry-picking contrarianism.

Ridiculous. If the case is closed then it makes no sense that there isn't a resource where we can see the proof. The argument this guy laid out made sense to me. What is the counter-argument?

 

[babe]

Do you realize that your position is tantamount to saying that the a scientist saying the earth rotates around an axis, or is an oblate spheroid, or revolves around the sun, is 'not speaking as a scientist but as a personal advocate of an interpretation of data, or of a belief somehow derived from some "Science"'? If you can make a conclusion, within science, that the earth is round, then you can conclude that global warming is real.

Considering the rotation, shape, and revolution of the planet earth is relatively constant and can be measured with much greater precision and accuracy, perhaps you do not understand how irrelevant your comparison is. And considering that I did not say global warming is not real, perhaps you should check yourself on some details of objective matters.

But I realize your larger point is that there are some values in taking "Science" as a matter of an operational set of laws or determined facts we should apply to immediate decisions. The question, really, is how to balance the necessary questions with the necessary understanding.

 

[franklin]

Do you realize that your position is tantamount to saying that the a scientist saying the earth rotates around an axis, or is an oblate spheroid, or revolves around the sun, is 'not speaking as a scientist but as a personal advocate of an interpretation of data, or of a belief somehow derived from some "Science"'? If you can make a conclusion, within science, that the earth is round, then you can conclude that global warming is real.

Do you realize that your position is tantamount to invoking Godwin's law?

 

[babe]

It's obvious that humans are having a wide variety of impacts on the environment, but I'm not seeing compelling evidence (and definitely not "incontrovertible evidence") that we are causing the planet to hurtle toward the sort of catastrophic destination that we are being told. Based in the info I've been able to find, it seems more likely that this issue is being used as a political tool to collect huge taxes and exert massive control on a global scale. I'm very interested in the counter-argument that shows me why this is not the case.

I'd like to present a concise argument about why the alarmist position is not justified, and should not be respected as "established science". So here goes. . . . I take as my information base the Wike link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

I quote the following without dispute:

the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180–210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 ppm during warmer interglacials

I note that interglacial warms are relatively short epochs compared to the glacial epochs, a recurring pattern, which is demonstrated on another link, https://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/project2/moana.htm, to say an average 10Kyr warm/90Kyr cold for total 100K periodicity. temps are estimated to drop to 8 or 9 C colder extreme than the present warm extreme, and the switch from warm to cold and from cold to warm appears to be pretty steep generally. Within the present warm, over the past 10Kyr, our temps have actually declined about 1.5 C. See the link, folks. Now back to Wiki. . . .

Today's contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth by the four major gases are:[41][42]
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%

The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[43] Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's temperature would be about −18 °C (-0.4 °F) .[44][45] The surface temperature would be 33 °C (57.6 °F) below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C (57.2 °F).[46]

Our current interglacial warm is not even the warmest we've had in these cycles, and since about 11000 years ago, we have actually cooled about 1.0 C notwithstanding all of our combustion.

I calculate from the above figures that a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 300 to 400 ppm should correlate theoretically with the empirical measurement of 0.8 C increase oh within the scope of 0.3C to 2.1C anyway, but look at the general relation of 200 ppm vs -8 C and 300ppm and 0.0 C through nine cycles. which is it. . . . cold periods following unexplained drops in CO2 and warm periods coming from combustion release of carbon dioxide, or is it cold ocean/surface sequestration of CO2 and warm surface outgassing of CO2?

How can anyone control for that natural cycle, on that natural trend of carbon dioxide and temps, and claim anything significant is happening with our combustion?

The established science of 800,000 years of data vs. the political agenda of UN global fascism and some dependent scientists seeking available funding in reward for gilding the lily of climate change?

 

[sirkickyass]

Ridiculous. If the case is closed then it makes no sense that there isn't a resource where we can see the proof. The argument this guy laid out made sense to me. What is the counter-argument?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The proof that climate is changing as a result of human activities is overwhelming.

1. Measured CO2 levels as measured from ice cores. (I guess this assumes you believe in a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but if your'e not willing to spot that then we're really just playing a game of flat earth society).
2. Rate of sea level rise (Approx. 13 inches in the last 10 years vs. 6ish inches in 100 years prior)
3. Surface temperature increases contrasted with solar minimums.
4. Ocean temperature increases
5. Shrinking Ice sheets, glacial coverage and polar coverage
6. Increased ocean acidity

This isn't something that is, at this point, controversial. The evidence that warming is occurring is overwhelming. That's why it's the "consensus opinion."

We can disagree about what the ultimate impact of warming will be (that's where Franklin is going), but it's ludicrous to assert that the evidence of warming isn't public.

 

[babe]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The proof that climate is changing as a result of human activities is overwhelming.

1. Measured CO2 levels as measured from ice cores. (I guess this assumes you believe in a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but if your'e not willing to spot that then we're really just playing a game of flat earth society).
2. Rate of sea level rise (Approx. 13 inches in the last 10 years vs. 6ish inches in 100 years prior)
3. Surface temperature increases contrasted with solar minimums.
4. Ocean temperature increases
5. Shrinking Ice sheets, glacial coverage and polar coverage
6. Increased ocean acidity

This isn't something that is, at this point, controversial. The evidence that warming is occurring is overwhelming. That's why it's the "consensus opinion."

We can disagree about what the ultimate impact of warming will be (that's where Franklin is going), but it's ludicrous to assert that the evidence of warming isn't public.

An honest admission of incomprehension of a simple one-sentence statement. Amazing, considering Kicky is a lawyer who presumably can thumb through reams of documents and divine the one relevant fact in the case.

Obviously, Kicky still has me on ignore, and still hasn't listened to the physicist who got the 1973 Nobel Prize for research on superconductivity, which came from some supreme care in matters involving thermometers and cooling materials to near 3 degrees Kelvin.

And then he pastes in a series of conclusions without any evidence in support, and demonstrates that he unquestioningly absorbs whatever claims have been made on the AGW political crusade.

I honestly can see why he is just ignorant on this subject.

 

[babe]

I'm very interested in the response to this video. This speaker seems extremely compelling to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

For those political agenda deniers, there's a simple statement of experience reported in this video by a Nobel-prize laureate Physicist with a firm grasp of the accuracy and precision of temperature measurements.

First he was told he had to attend the conference and participate in the discussion. Then he was told he was not permitted to disagree with the agenda.

Yep, that's political science alright.

35 other Nobel scientists just went along with the show, either for sincere belief or for whatever other reason they could see in the situation. Given the kind of pressure applied to this scientist, and the suppression of other dissent that is evidently going on, you should reject this agenda as "Science" and speak out against it. It is intolerable and stuff like this destroys the very foundation of science. The right to dissent, or disagree, or to publish research with implication contrary to the agenda.

It is worse that having a "State Religion", and this scientist makes the point that the global warming alarmist crusade is in its character a "religion", albeit a godless religion. It is still a state-sanctioned belief, and people who dissent are being characterized as criminal and insane and disreputable.

In Great Britain, the "Supreme Court" there has target AGW deniers as a class needing imprisonment.

And I bet Kicky, with his blinders and his ignore function on, will not be willing to defend this class of "criminal" either.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The proof that climate is changing as a result of human activities is overwhelming.

1. Measured CO2 levels as measured from ice cores. (I guess this assumes you believe in a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but if your'e not willing to spot that then we're really just playing a game of flat earth society).
2. Rate of sea level rise (Approx. 13 inches in the last 10 years vs. 6ish inches in 100 years prior)
3. Surface temperature increases contrasted with solar minimums.
4. Ocean temperature increases
5. Shrinking Ice sheets, glacial coverage and polar coverage
6. Increased ocean acidity

This isn't something that is, at this point, controversial. The evidence that warming is occurring is overwhelming. That's why it's the "consensus opinion."

We can disagree about what the ultimate impact of warming will be (that's where Franklin is going), but it's ludicrous to assert that the evidence of warming isn't public.

So the data that the guy shows in his video is made up? It doesn't match what you are saying.

*He displays NASA graphs that show that global temperatures are not increasing (though they are fluctuating, they are actually down in recent years).
*He displays sea level data which shows that the ocean has risen 20 cm in the last 100 years (not 13 inches in 10 years as you say) and that this pattern has been consistent for over 300 years).
* He presents graphs that show that sever weather (hurricanes and tornados) are not at unusual levels.
* He claims that Antartic ice is at record levels but he doesn't back that up with data. This NASA article seems to back up his claims, though (https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum).

He also makes some excellent points about change, about costs, about the state of the world, about the actual impacts of warming if it were to happen, and much more. He does not come off as a kook at all, at least to me. It seems like his speech is worthy of a direct response from those who claim he is wrong.

I find his argument far more compelling than yours at this point.

 

[Qman]

Any discussion on Climate Change/Global Warming that does not include an Analysis of the changes in Energy Output of the Sun is missing the key factor in my opinion. The source of almost all energy on Earth is still the Sun. Even relatively small changes in its Energy output would greatly affect the Earth's climate.

Of course we would be required to predict the behavior of the Sun. To my knowledge it is beyond our ability to do so.

In other words correlation if not causation. People are correctly correlating CO2 levels to temperature changes. That does not show the cause of the temperature changes.

Also I want to dissuade anyone from thinking about the 'natural balance' of anything. There isn't some temperature that Earth is suppose to be at. It also means we are idiots for rebuilding New Orleans over and over again.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I hope you find time to watch more. I think that he ultimately does a good job of showing why the current amount of variation is insignificant.

The stuff about the number of thermometers in Antartica is part of a wider point that determining the average temperature of the earth is virtually impossible. I'm interested in how they do that as well because in the data he later shows they are giving the average temperature of the earth at any given time to a fraction of a degree. How can a calculation like that be made?

That said, he uses their data, but then shows that their conclusions do not appear to be incontrovertible at all. I am honestly interested in how anybody could look at the data he is presenting (or in learning what he is leaving out) and saying that we have incontrovertible proof that the world is undergoing human caused global warming.

It's obvious that humans are having a wide variety of impacts on the environment, but I'm not seeing compelling evidence (and definitely not "incontrovertible evidence") that we are causing the planet to hurtle toward the sort of catastrophic destination that we are being told. Based in the info I've been able to find, it seems more likely that this issue is being used as a political tool to collect huge taxes and exert massive control on a global scale. I'm very interested in the counter-argument that shows me why this is not the case.

I'm sure the ghost of Steve Jobs will fix it with the iClimateChanger.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I have read a lot of papers on the subject, and read a lot of articles how data gets skewed. I think the Earth is warming, and I think we are contributing to it, but I am not sure I agree on the amount. The Sun obviously has the biggest impact in temperature trends, and based on cyclical predictions, there is a good chance we are heading into a mini ice age. This has happened a few times, including the dark ages. Historically, man has prospered during times of warming and suffered during times of cooling.

That said, I am more concerned with the massive amounts of pollutants we are tossing into the ocean. As the ocean becomes more acidic, it threatens to kill sea life. Mix that in with overfishing and it could be a major disaster to the entire world, much more than a temperature shift of a degree or two.

Just my 2 pennies. Now I'm off to Red Lobster in my SUV to take advantage of the all you can eat shrimp offer while it is still available.

 

[One Brow]

The stuff about the number of thermometers in Antartica is part of a wider point that determining the average temperature of the earth is virtually impossible. I'm interested in how they do that as well because in the data he later shows they are giving the average temperature of the earth at any given time to a fraction of a degree. How can a calculation like that be made?

I agree that, as some sort of incontrovertible number, there is not and never will be any such thing as a single value that represents the average temperature of the earth. For one thing, there are dozens of ways to take averages.

However, this is irrelevant to the fact that, regardless of which averaging method being used, the average temperature is rising when you use that method.

Example numbers:

Method	1950 average	2010 average
A	21	23.1
B	22	23.9
C	22.5	24.5

Would any reasonable person deny the temperature had risen 2 degrees?

 

[One Brow]

The climate change hysterics remind me of the bunker builders of old and of preppers like Dutch (rip). It's hillarious how political ends drive people from as opposite of sides as you can get to chase the same meaningless means.

2 degrees won't be the end of the world any faster than ever impending Armageddon will, you crazy old cooks.

If only it was stopping there.

 

[Siro]

I agree that, as some sort of incontrovertible number, there is not and never will be any such thing as a single value that represents the average temperature of the earth. For one thing, there are dozens of ways to take averages.

However, this is irrelevant to the fact that, regardless of which averaging method being used, the average temperature is rising when you use that method.

Example numbers:

Method	1950 average	2010 average
21	21.5	22.5
23.1	23.5	24.4

Would any reasonable person deny the temperature had risen 2 degrees?

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it looks like average had risen 1 degree.

 

[One Brow]

Considering the rotation, shape, and revolution of the planet earth is relatively constant and can be measured with much greater precision and accuracy, perhaps you do not understand how irrelevant your comparison is.

Relative temperature change can be measured with great precision. Is it your claim that only constant phenomena can be considered scientific conclusions, or only those that can be measured with accuracy toward some ideal (one that, in the case of an average global temperature, can't possibly exist)?

And considering that I did not say global warming is not real,

I refuse to believe that you are so incapable of reading in context that you did not automatically add the words "in science" at the end of that post.

But I realize your larger point is that there are some values in taking "Science" as a matter of an operational set of laws or determined facts we should apply to immediate decisions. The question, really, is how to balance the necessary questions with the necessary understanding.

Certainly.

 

[One Brow]

Do you realize that your position is tantamount to invoking Godwin's law?

Saying that you can't form a conclusion within the bounds of science is an extreme position.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I agree that, as some sort of incontrovertible number, there is not and never will be any such thing as a single value that represents the average temperature of the earth. For one thing, there are dozens of ways to take averages.

However, this is irrelevant to the fact that, regardless of which averaging method being used, the average temperature is rising when you use that method.

Example numbers:

Method	1950 average	2010 average
21	21.5	22.5
23.1	23.5	24.4

Would any reasonable person deny the temperature had risen 2 degrees?

uhh... yeah. If you subtract 2 from the number you have under your 2010 average the result is lower than the number you began with. I agree with what you're saying about computing averages, though, but the data that is presented in that video does not show the two degree rise that you're talking about. Can you show me where to see the source data you're using?

 

[Siro]

uhh... yeah. If you subtract 2 from the number you have under your 2010 average the result is lower than the number you began with. I agree with what you're saying about computing averages, though, but the data that is presented in that video does not show the two degree rise that you're talking about. Can you show me where to see the source data you're using?

Why would you compare numbers from same year to determine rise in temp. I have no idea how to interpret that table.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Why would you compare numbers from same year to determine rise in temp. I have no idea how to interpret that table.

I wasn't comparing the same year, but I think OneBrow might have been. Either way, the data doesn't seem to say what he says it does.