Global Warming

[b_line]

Thanks for the link. The information on that page shows me that temperatures were going up as of ten years ago, but the data collected since that time (which is not available on that page) shows me that the trend has not continued. Here is a graph of the last 25 years showing what was projected v.s. what has occurred:

If you were to use that data to draw a trend line for the last ten years it looks like it would be flat (or very close to it). Yet Obama has told us that the problem is more urgent than ever, and that 2014 was the hottest ever. Why are so many people okay with this even though the data does not appear to support his claims?

The temperature trend is nowhere near what the GW alarmists told us it was going to be 25 years ago, but this good news not only seems to have no impact on the delivery of their message, they seem to be more adamant than ever that we are in imminent danger. Anyone who questions it is ridiculed. Why is this? It seems to me that the Al Gore crowd has hijacked this movement for political purposes. I wish the scientific community would divorce themselves from the alarmist hyperbole, but instead they seem to be embracing it. What is going on here?

You showed a graph that clearly indicates that temperatures are rising, yet you continue to question climate change?

There is a lot of merit to what the alarmists are saying. They could prpbably go about it in a better way, but what they are saying is real.

Sea levels are rising. Levees are super costly, and moving entire cities is even more costly. This stuff is already happening in places like new Orleans and new york. The cost of the storms we experience on a more regular basis than the past is crippling the economy in these places. New Orleans is shattered. New Jersey and new york had billions of damage and some loss of life from a storm more recently. The storm that hit Puerto vallarta recently was purportedly the largest storm on record. How is that not alarming?

Locally, our water supply is dwindling and affecting the growth of consumables like produce and cattle. If you don't believe it, ask literally anyone in Nevada and California. Utah is somewhat insulated as the population base does not rely solely on the water in the Colorado River basin. Look at flaming gorge, lake Powell and lake mead. They might not ever be full again. How will the west support a growing population with a decreased water supply? Likely at a much greater cost or a reduced quality of life.

I get that the alarmists sound like tomorrow the world is going to end, but the reality is that the changes that are occurring are extremely costly already, and the cost in monetary and human value will continue to rise. It will nit be tomorrow, but our grandkids will have a very different world to live in.

 

[b_line]

If you think about climate change only in a fiscally conservative sense, that alone should be enough to Institute changes. Fiscal conservatives are super worried about the national debt we are leaving our children, but climate change will likely end up being far more costly than anything we have seen if we don't prolong the change and give ourselves time to adapt.

 

[One Brow]

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/

A link that references US temperatures (not global temperatures) over and over again, saying both that they are not rising as measured and that the people who measure the US temperatures as not rising say that US temperatures as rising. This is just sad, really.

My explanation is that neither you nor the author of the paper care to discuss the actual science of global warming, and have to resort to a denialist side-show.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You showed a graph that clearly indicates that temperatures are rising, yet you continue to question climate change?

There is a lot of merit to what the alarmists are saying. They could prpbably go about it in a better way, but what they are saying is real.

Sea levels are rising. Levees are super costly, and moving entire cities is even more costly. This stuff is already happening in places like new Orleans and new york. The cost of the storms we experience on a more regular basis than the past is crippling the economy in these places. New Orleans is shattered. New Jersey and new york had billions of damage and some loss of life from a storm more recently. The storm that hit Puerto vallarta recently was purportedly the largest storm on record. How is that not alarming?

Locally, our water supply is dwindling and affecting the growth of consumables like produce and cattle. If you don't believe it, ask literally anyone in Nevada and California. Utah is somewhat insulated as the population base does not rely solely on the water in the Colorado River basin. Look at flaming gorge, lake Powell and lake mead. They might not ever be full again. How will the west support a growing population with a decreased water supply? Likely at a much greater cost or a reduced quality of life.

I get that the alarmists sound like tomorrow the world is going to end, but the reality is that the changes that are occurring are extremely costly already, and the cost in monetary and human value will continue to rise. It will nit be tomorrow, but our grandkids will have a very different world to live in.

My understanding is that New Orleans is below sea level primarily because the land is sinking, not because the sea is rising. I was not aware that either Puerto Vallarta or New York are being overwhelmed by rising seas. There has always been a consequence to being on the coast when a hurricane hits, though.

The graph I showed indicates a rise in temperature followed by temperature stability (although a decade is not long enough to know where we are headed long term). No matter what the situation is, though, it is my contention that we are better served by being told the truth, not by hyperbole. I might be a voice in the wilderness on this right now, but in the long run I'm confident that many people will realize it is counterproductive not to tell the truth. Lies always have negative repercussions.

2014 was not the hottest year on record. Saying that was in order to advance a political agenda is wrong.

 

[One Brow]

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.

Google search for 2014
Google search for 2015

I don't recall saying anything about 13 inches in 10 years. It's been close to 13 in the last 100 years. Perhaps another poster had a typo on that, or a bad memory.

I agree you said nothing about Arctic ice; that was my point. Saying that if Antarctic ice is growing, than it does not matter that Arctic ice has shrunk by three times the volume, is a proto-typical example of cherry-picking from bias.

You are obviously looking to confirm what you clearly want to be the truth. You will find all the confirmation you need to comfort yourself.

 

[One Brow]

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

Ignorance on display. I never made a claim to be presenting data to begin, but perhaps you are not smart enough to understand the difference between an example and data.

 

[One Brow]

I'm pretty sure that OneBrow literally made the data up, ...

Again, I clearly labeled it an example, not data. I suppose truth is foreign to you.

 

[One Brow]

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".

No, a lie of that nature would be a bad lie.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

A link that references US temperatures (not global temperatures) over and over again, saying both that they are not rising as measured and that the people who measure the US temperatures as not rising say that US temperatures as rising. This is just sad, really.

My explanation is that neither you nor the author of the paper care to discuss the actual science of global warming, and have to resort to a denialist side-show.

I've read your post several times and cannot figure out what you're saying. The article showed that data was altered. Are you saying that's not what happened? You seem to be suggesting that since the data was only US data (I'm not sure if this is completely true or not) it doesn't matter that it was changed. Makes no sense.

You're the guy who keeps making up data and injecting it into this conversation, though, so I'm not sure what I should make of your contributions. You live in a world where the sea rose 13 inches in the last decade, right? What planet was that?

 

[One Brow]

If the world was consistently warming it seems like I would look back to my childhood and recall rinks that were significantly better than what we've had recently.

There is huge difference between a global effect and a local effect. Not every part of the earth has been warming, but some have been warming rapidly.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ignorance on display. I never made a claim to be presenting data to begin, but perhaps you are not smart enough to understand the difference between an example and data.

Didn't realize that you meant it was an example of fake data. I'm not the only reader who did not understand that, though. I'm not sure why you believed that posting fake data would help advance the conversation.

On another point, I looked back and it was Kicky who said the seas had risen 13 inches in the last decade, so my apologies for twice attributing that misinformation to you.

 

[Siro]

No, a lie of that nature would be a bad lie.

There is huge difference between a global effect and a local effect. Not every part of the earth has been warming, but some have been warming rapidly.

Argh. I don't like these one-liners when I've already addressed this **** with much more detail.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There is huge difference between a global effect and a local effect. Not every part of the earth has been warming, but some have been warming rapidly.

That was not the point at all. The point was that the data was altered in order to make the warming trend appear greater. I don't know how you missed that.

 

[One Brow]

I've read your post several times and cannot figure out what you're saying. The article showed that data was altered.

No, it doesn't. The article misrepresents what GISS says. Your article claims that the data is being altered to say that US tempertures are rising. It links to another article, that links to a GISS website. Here is a direct quote from the GISS web site:

Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2). We caution that linear trends, as in Figure 2, can mask temporal detail. Indeed, Figure 1(b) indicates that the last 20 years have seen a slight warming in the U.S. Nevertheless, our analysis (Hansen et al., 1999a), summarized in Figures 1 and 2, makes clear that climate trends have been fundamentally different in the U.S. than in the world as a whole.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Are you saying that's not what happened?

Yes. The sources you rely on are lying to you, or at the very least, misleading you deliberately. The data was not altered, and there was no claim that US temperatures have been increasing. Does that change your view in any way?

You live in a world where the sea rose 13 inches in the last decade, right?

Again, not I. Does truth matter to you at all?

 

[One Brow]

Didn't realize that you meant it was an example of fake data. I'm not the only reader who did not understand that, though. I'm not sure why you believed that posting fake data would help advance the conversation.

The actual data is hugely complex, coming from multiple sources and capable of being averaged in multiple ways. I was merely trying to point out how we can see a change in relative size even when we can't find a unique number that represents a real size.

On another point, I looked back and it was Kicky who said the seas had risen 13 inches in the last decade, so my apologies for twice attributing that misinformation to you.

Accepted. I apologize for suggesting your error was from dishonesty.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No, it doesn't. The article misrepresents what GISS says. Your article claims that the data is being altered to say that US tempertures are rising. It links to another article, that links to a GISS website.

The article also links to this: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...rature-data-showed-cooling-from-1930-to-1999/

(and others like it like this: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/why-hansen-had-to-corrupt-the-temperature-record/) which claim that Hansen altered the data. There are flash comparisons between the original data set and the altered data sets. Since I was never trying to make whatever point you're hammering on I would like to again ask, why was the data was altered. Don't you find this strange?

 

[franklin]

Okay, so we're not talking about whether life will ultimately prevail or not. Of course it will. What I care about are the effects of climate change on the lives of actual humans, and on the rest of the biosphere after that. Consequently, anthropocentric concerns are pivotal to the discussion. Who gives a **** about what life was like 4 billion years ago? I would think that if the atmosphere was to revert back to its original oxygen-free state, we'd be in deep trouble, regardless of the bright side. Anaerobic bacteria be damned!

Fair enough if steeped in that cup.

Consequently, 12000 years is a more significant number than 4 billion, despite the fact that the latter is bigger. That is because humans built their civilization during this period, around current conditions. A large percentage of the human population inhabit coastal areas and will have to contend with a rising sea level. Many of the systems, man-made and natural, that we depend on are based around specific climates and will have to be adjusted/moved at a great economic cost.

That's a whole lot of speculation. Who are you to claim there won't be economic benefit?

If there is a problem, we try to understand it, and figure out paths to a better outcome. End of story.

Those are excellent key words. I couldn't agree more.

 

[babe]

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)?



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.



Certainly.

I sorta hate multiquotes, I lose track of what I'm talking about. . . .

1 I'm thinking you're not clear on the issues of accuracy and precision. Sure we can measure temp to .001C. That's precision. Accuracy is another issue. When the variance is greater in the phenomena, you have to consider accuracy no matter how precise a thermometer may be. How representative is that precise value of the situation? Daily temps, even if recorded faithfully at specific times. . . . or even if fully integrated as a linear curve throughout the day, are not as accurate as our measurements of the earth physics precisely because earth temps fluctuate so rapidly, on every time scale.

That is why the Nobel laureate is more accurate in his statement than the usual crusader for mass panic over say an looming death star, which is what I figure some folks think global warming is.

2) You responded to my rant about the distinctions of science and politics and religion with unfair insinuations I took, perhaps mistakenly, as a charge that I didn't recognize that we have some data that is pretty reasonably interpreted as showing a rise of 0.8 C or 1.4 F over 150 years, or that it may be associated with a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. I was just saying that using that data to justify a shoddy global governance power grab is a gross misapplication of the data. Science doesn't justify any human governance. In fact, we should have a constitutional amendment forbidding government from establishing any belief set for mankind, or any compliance requirements associated with those beliefs.

I argue that the best response to a crisis is to let people act for themselves. I know you can argue otherwise. Say a theatre catches fire, and the manager uses the intercom to cry out "Fire". Or not. Scene one has people trampling one another, scene two not so much. You say send in the ushers to open all the doors and encourage a calm orderly exit. That would be good.

So if we have AGW why can't we be building nuclear power plants already, why not invest in cold fusion research? lots of people choosing to put solar panels up on their roofs now, riding bikes and stuff. If people see a problem, and are free to try their own solutions, chances are we'll find one that really works best, and people will rapidly turn to it on their own good observation. I really think governments are dedicated to dinosaur solutions and ages behind the learning curve in nature. At least I don't think we should do the global carbon tax.

 

[babe]

Okay, so we're not talking about whether life will ultimately prevail or not. Of course it will. What I care about are the effects of climate change on the lives of actual humans, and on the rest of the biosphere after that. Consequently, anthropocentric concerns are pivotal to the discussion. Who gives a **** about what life was like 4 billion years ago? I would think that if the atmosphere was to revert back to its original oxygen-free state, we'd be in deep trouble, regardless of the bright side. Anaerobic bacteria be damned!

Consequently, 12000 years is a more significant number than 4 billion, despite the fact that the latter is bigger. That is because humans built their civilization during this period, around current conditions. A large percentage of the human population inhabit coastal areas and will have to contend with a rising sea level. Many of the systems, man-made and natural, that we depend on are based around specific climates and will have to be adjusted/moved at a great economic cost.

And there is also the issue that non-human animals are very vulnerable to climate conditions, and require a long time to adjust. Unlike humans, they can't just shape their environment to their liking. They depend on the painfully slow processes of natural selection. And the Anthropocene waits for nobody!

Yes, the alarmist side is absurd. But your "don't worry about it, I'm sure things will be fine" mentality isn't very helpful. If there is a problem, we try to understand it, and figure out paths to a better outcome. End of story.

Well, OK.

Except cherry-picking the last 12000 years. Did you notice that for 800 million years there's been some kind of natural driver on earth climate with a result that carbon dioxide goes down from 300 to 200, pretty much for 90 thousand years, then somehow goes back up to 300 for around 10K years. That's been going on independent of human carbon combustion practices.

"unprecedented" events in the last 150 years, perhaps if you argue cause, but not if you just look at the data. WE have been warmer before, both with the carbon dioxide levels up and without. I am not sure what powers interglacial warms, or the intraglacial cycle variations either. I just think the previous few cycles do show us some things about the situation.

If we "take off" and go into a steep rise another 8C, the earth has still been that warm, and with that much carbon dioxide. The oceans have risen before, and even without massive central planning, I bet we will be better off without the carbon tax.

 

[Siro]

Well, OK.

Except cherry-picking the last 12000 years. Did you notice that for 800 million years there's been some kind of natural driver on earth climate with a result that carbon dioxide goes down from 300 to 200, pretty much for 90 thousand years, then somehow goes back up to 300 for around 10K years. That's been going on independent of human carbon combustion practices.

"unprecedented" events in the last 150 years, perhaps if you argue cause, but not if you just look at the data. WE have been warmer before, both with the carbon dioxide levels up and without. I am not sure what powers interglacial warms, or the intraglacial cycle variations either. I just think the previous few cycles do show us some things about the situation.

If we "take off" and go into a steep rise another 8C, the earth has still been that warm, and with that much carbon dioxide. The oceans have risen before, and even without massive central planning, I bet we will be better off without the carbon tax.

I already responded to that.

Okay, so we're not talking about whether life will ultimately prevail or not. Of course it will. What I care about are the effects of climate change on the lives of actual humans, and on the rest of the biosphere after that. Consequently, anthropocentric concerns are pivotal to the discussion. Who gives a **** about what life was like 4 billion years ago? I would think that if the atmosphere was to revert back to its original oxygen-free state, we'd be in deep trouble, regardless of the bright side. Anaerobic bacteria be damned!

Consequently, 12000 years is a more significant number than 4 billion, despite the fact that the latter is bigger. That is because humans built their civilization during this period, around current conditions. A large percentage of the human population inhabit coastal areas and will have to contend with a rising sea level. Many of the systems, man-made and natural, that we depend on are based around specific climates and will have to be adjusted/moved at a great economic cost.

And there is also the issue that non-human animals are very vulnerable to climate conditions, and require a long time to adjust. Unlike humans, they can't just shape their environment to their liking. They depend on the painfully slow processes of natural selection. And the Anthropocene waits for nobody!

Yes, the alarmist side is absurd. But your "don't worry about it, I'm sure things will be fine" mentality isn't very helpful. If there is a problem, we try to understand it, and figure out paths to a better outcome. End of story.