Global Warming

[One Brow]

*He displays NASA graphs that show that global temperatures are not increasing (though they are fluctuating, they are actually down in recent years).

2014 was the warmest year ever. 2015 is on track to be even warmer.

*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).

20 cm in the previous century, only 6 in the century before.

* He presents graphs that show that sever weather (hurricanes and tornados) are not at unusual levels.

In frequency, correct. In intensity, incorrect. The same number of storms, but today they are much more violent.

* 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).

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Don't even pretend to be unbiased after this little quote mine. If you were searching for honest answers, you would have noticed the invalidity of this point.

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

Which says more about you that the arguments.

 

[One Brow]

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

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?

Sorry, I messed that table up badly. I fixed it to what I meant to say. The non-existence of a true average temperature does not prevent us from seeing a relative increase.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

If you are committed to believing that temperatures are rising then don't click on this link:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/

Especially don't click on the links within the article that lead to graphs showing what they have done with the raw data. If you are certain that this debate is over and not worth discussing you are not going to like what you see. If any of you do click on it, though, I look forward to your explanations.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

2014 was the warmest year ever. 2015 is on track to be even warmer.



20 cm in the previous century, only 6 in the century before.



In frequency, correct. In intensity, incorrect. The same number of storms, but today they are much more violent.





Don't even pretend to be unbiased after this little quote mine. If you were searching for honest answers, you would have noticed the invalidity of this point.



Which says more about you that the arguments.

Where does your data come from for the warmest year ever claim? Can you provide a link?

Earlier you said the ocean had risen 13 inches in ten years. Now you're saying 30 cm (agreeing with the claim on the video) in 100 years. Which is it, because those two pieces of info don't match at all. Your facts are seeming very suspect.

As for your comment about being unbiased, I made no claim about arctic sea ice. My point was 100% about antarctic ice. Nice try, though.

I am looking for the truth and it is revealing itself not to match what the global warming crowd is claiming.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Sorry, I messed that table up badly. I fixed it to what I meant to say. The non-existence of a true average temperature does not prevent us from seeing a relative increase.

No worries. Tinkering with data seems to be a specialty of the global warming scientists so it looks like you'll fit right in.

 

[b_line]

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

Is the data in Celsius, and they are claiming 2 degrees F?

 

[Douchebag K]

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.

13 inches in 10 years ?? lol This is a perfect example of the "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story" mantra that the climate change extremists like to utilize. The massive jumps from pieces of data "proving" their theories or that every single weather event being conclusive proof of climate change etc etc makes it hard to take some of them seriously

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Is the data in Celsius, and they are claiming 2 degrees F?

I'm pretty sure that OneBrow literally made the data up, then when he realized that the his made up data didn't match what he was saying it said he simply changed it. If you go back to his post you will notice that the math mysteriously works now, even though it doesn't in the posts where his original table was quoted. He also made up the stuff about the oceans rising 13 inches in ten years, and who knows how much of the other stuff he has been purporting as facts is just convenient information he generates between his ears.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Even if Global Warming is a lie, isn't it a good lie? We should kind of be concerned about environmental health now and not have the attitude of "we will fix it later when it's beyond ****ed".

 

[JAZZGASM]

Even if Global Warming is a lie, isn't it a good lie? We should kind of be concerned about environmental health now and not have the attitude of "we will fix it later when it's beyond ****ed".

Yes and no. If false and environmentalists keep calling out wolf then people will starting ignoring them for the many other issues hurting our planet.

Again, if false, how many billions of dollars have we wasted that could have been used for other efforts?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Even if Global Warming is a lie, isn't it a good lie? We should kind of be concerned about environmental health now and not have the attitude of "we will fix it later when it's beyond ****ed".

Lies aren't good. I agree that we should be concerned about environmental health. Our actions should be based on the truth.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Even if Global Warming is a lie, isn't it a good lie? We should kind of be concerned about environmental health now and not have the attitude of "we will fix it later when it's beyond ****ed".

BTW, I've heard religious people make similar arguments. Are you okay with throwing the basis for science out the window in order to lead to the conclusions you want?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

BTW, I've heard religious people make similar arguments. Are you okay with throwing the basis for science out the window in order to lead to the conclusions you want?

If it means improving the state of our environment? Sure.

 

[Siro]

If it means improving the state of our environment? Sure.

That's a stupid way to look at things. Acting on misinformation will never produce better solutions than the opposite in the long run.

Not that I'm saying global warming is misinformation.

 

[fishonjazz]

I with cy. I think caring about the environment is a good thing no matter what. Even if global warming isn't real (though I think it is real)

I mean I like to keep my house clean even if I don't have mice.

 

[Siro]

I with cy. I think caring about the environment is a good thing no matter what. Even if global warming isn't real (though I think it is real)

I mean I like to keep my house clean even if I don't have mice.

Think about this for just a couple of minutes. If global warming is NOT real, but the world moves forward as if it is, what would be done? Think about this seriously, not with the mentality that all will happen is holding hands and singing Kumbaya while the world switches to clean renewables and live happily ever after.

Think of people attempting geoengineering projects to cool down a non-warming Earth. Think of hundreds of billions in unnecessary taxation to build walls to stop the non-existent rise in ocean level. Think of the effect of imposing measures that stunt growth of developing countries. Think about the state of the environment now, compared to the 1950s for example. Why is our air and water cleaner than ever? Is the developing world walking down a similar path?

Why would acting on a falsehood produce real results? Why would it produce better results than acting on real information?

Just spend a few minutes thinking about it at a deeper level than "pollution is bad, so if we lie about the extent of the threat we'll get less pollution and live better".

 

[fishonjazz]

Think about this for just a couple of minutes. If global warming is NOT real, but the world moves forward as if it is, what would be done? Think about this seriously, not with the mentality that all will happen is holding hands and singing Kumbaya while the world switches to clean renewables and live happily ever after.

Think of people attempting geoengineering projects to cool down a non-warming Earth. Think of hundreds of billions in unnecessary taxation to build walls to stop the non-existent rise in ocean level. Think of the effect of imposing measures that stunt growth of developing countries. Think about the state of the environment now, compared to the 1950s for example. Why is our air and water cleaner than ever? Is the developing world walking down a similar path?

Why would acting on a falsehood produce real results? Why would it produce better results than acting on real information?

Just spend a few minutes thinking about it at a deeper level than "pollution is bad, so if we lie about the extent of the threat we'll get less pollution and live better".

I have not heard about allot of the stuff you are speaking of. I think that we care about the environment and worry about global warming means that we rely less on oil and try to use clean renewable energy, recycle more and stuff like that.

I have not heard about governments doing things to cool the earth or building barriers to stop rising water levels (that might be a good idea anyways since tsunamis and hurricanes do occur regardless of global warming)

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Think about this for just a couple of minutes. If global warming is NOT real, but the world moves forward as if it is, what would be done? Think about this seriously, not with the mentality that all will happen is holding hands and singing Kumbaya while the world switches to clean renewables and live happily ever after.

Think of people attempting geoengineering projects to cool down a non-warming Earth. Think of hundreds of billions in unnecessary taxation to build walls to stop the non-existent rise in ocean level. Think of the effect of imposing measures that stunt growth of developing countries. Think about the state of the environment now, compared to the 1950s for example. Why is our air and water cleaner than ever? Is the developing world walking down a similar path?

Why would acting on a falsehood produce real results? Why would it produce better results than acting on real information?

Just spend a few minutes thinking about it at a deeper level than "pollution is bad, so if we lie about the extent of the threat we'll get less pollution and live better".

This is a very intelligent response as usual. Your scientific approach has consistently impressed me. For these reasons I would be extremely interested in hearing your reaction to the video in the OP.

 

[Siro]

I have not heard about allot of the stuff you are speaking of. I think that we care about the environment and worry about global warming means that we rely less on oil and try to use clean renewable energy, recycle more and stuff like that.

I have not heard about governments doing things to cool the earth or building barriers to stop rising water levels (that might be a good idea anyways since tsunamis and hurricanes do occur regardless of global warming)

Recycling, renewable energy, and reducing pollution are good things regardless of whether the world is warming. If the earth is warming tho, tougher measures are needed. Didn't you read the first posts in this thread? They say it is a threat comparable to global nuclear war. A real existential threat! This isn't something that you tackle by introducing fuel efficiency regulation as if you're simply interested in a clean environment, you tackle it by doing things like:

https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2030804,00.html

or this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Also, for your comment about walls being a good idea because of hurricanes, I'd really LOVE to see public reaction to the economic measures required to counter GW if those scientists are correct. It'll be entertaining given how the public reacts now to $4/gallon at the pump.

 

[Siro]

This is a very intelligent response as usual. Your scientific approach has consistently impressed me. For these reasons I would be extremely interested in hearing your reaction to the video in the OP.

I'm with family now, but will probably be free this evening. If so, I'll give it a go.