Global Warming

[babe]

I disagree with the premise that warming has slowed. There used to be 60-years cycles of temperature increasing and decreasing, now the cycle is one of flattening and increasing quickly. We just finished a flat period.

I also disagree with the general notion that simply because there was a lull, we shouldn't deal with the problem urgently.

welcome home, OB

So here's something: https://qz.com/351797/scientists-no...has-slowed-down-and-its-not-good-news-for-us/

I've been following the data on Pacific Ocean temps, and the reports at depth as well as surface. Oh, we have some "diving buoys" that are recording temps at 10, 25, 50 100, ft or so. A lot of interesting data.

But this year, with practically minimal solar spot activity, it looks to me like the "hot sea" theory is disappearing. Somehow, all this "Science" doesn't get the big picture. . . .

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/?index=2

click on the "anomaly" pic in the lower right there.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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?

Joe, with all due respect, if you watched a video by big foot enthusiasts, loch ness monster believers, 911 truths, without at the same time understanding or knowing the contrary evidence, you'd find their videos and grasps of the 'facts' compelling too.

I just find it to be so interesting that there are so many people who have not studied and do not understand a scientific field feel so qualified to comment authoritatively on said science, to the point of pooh poohing existing scientific consensus.

Granted, this is not the case here, but Siro's point (I think it was him) is well taken. Consensus does not mean unanimity. When a very substantial majority of scientists in a field agree on something, is not the better course for us who do not understand the science, to defer to their conclusions?

I mean, when Boeing engineers are designing planes, do the same people who feel qualified to speak authoritatively on climate science feel equally so qualified to tell the Boeing engineers they don't know what their doing?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't need another explanation. There are still two different graphs, created at different times, using different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. They are indeed of the same land mass. There is still no evidence that the data was doctored nor that the temperature record was corrupted. It is still a lie.

Here's something to ask yourself: when there were so many points in my post to look at, and one of which is sufficient to cast doubt on the claims of the OP, you chose one error on my part and declared the entire post invalid. Are you really so desperate to win this argument that you will take any excuse? What do you have to gain from falsifying global warming? What does it say about you that you are allowing tribalism to override the evidence in your position here?

How long ago did I make the post you're responding to? I don't even recall what it was about. I'm not going to dig back through this thread to figure out what the hell you're talking about, but I will say that I don't see anything tribal about being on the opposite side of the GW argument as you.

My position, succinctly stated, is that I believe human activity has impact on the environment, but I do not believe the evidence is clear regarding the results of this impact In the 70's the same sorts of people who are now touting GW were talking about the coming human induced ice age, and more recently they've changed the name to Climate Change. I believe the leaders of this movement are ultimately more motivated by political power than any belief that we really can impact the climate with whatever changes we are able to make despite the massive increase in 3rd world polluters and other factors (environmental etc.)that are far outside of our control. When I see the people driving the GW movement burning up fossil fuels at volumes far beyond the average citizen it makes me even more suspicious of their real goals.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Joe, with all due respect, if you watched a video by big foot enthusiasts, loch ness monster believers, 911 truths, without at the same time understanding or knowing the contrary evidence, you'd find their videos and grasps of the 'facts' compelling too.

I just find it to be so interesting that there are so many people who have not studied and do not understand a scientific field feel so qualified to comment authoritatively on said science, to the point of pooh poohing existing scientific consensus.

Granted, this is not the case here, but Siro's point (I think it was him) is well taken. Consensus does not mean unanimity. When a very substantial majority of scientists in a field agree on something, is not the better course for us who do not understand the science, to defer to their conclusions?

I mean, when Boeing engineers are designing planes, do the same people who feel qualified to speak authoritatively on climate science feel equally so qualified to tell the Boeing engineers they don't know what their doing?

Jimmy, with all due respect when the anti-fossil fuel crowd burns massive amounts of fossil fuel in order to hold yet another GW conference I tend to look at what the real results of this effort are. (Check out Al Gore's supposedly environmentally friendly houseboat for another example. Shouldn't guys like him be leaving as small a footprint from their leisure activities as they possibly can if they really believe what they are telling others to do.)

When you add to this the fact that the most aggressive carbon reduction program proposed for first world nations doesn't come anywhere near making up for the increasing carbon emissions of the emerging nations I can't help wondering why we are inflicting so much economic hardship on ourselves.

But I'm not going to continue beating my head against the wall in this conversation because it's become clear to me that these sorts of points don't even matter to the pro GW crowd.

 

[One Brow]

welcome home, OB

So here's something: https://qz.com/351797/scientists-no...has-slowed-down-and-its-not-good-news-for-us/

I've been following the data on Pacific Ocean temps, and the reports at depth as well as surface. Oh, we have some "diving buoys" that are recording temps at 10, 25, 50 100, ft or so. A lot of interesting data.

But this year, with practically minimal solar spot activity, it looks to me like the "hot sea" theory is disappearing. Somehow, all this "Science" doesn't get the big picture. . . .

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/?index=2

click on the "anomaly" pic in the lower right there.

I did not follow the point you were trying to make, if any, from the second link. The first confirms global warming is real. What big picture do you think science is missing?

 

[One Brow]

How long ago did I make the post you're responding to? I don't even recall what it was about. I'm not going to dig back through this thread to figure out what the hell you're talking about, but I will say that I don't see anything tribal about being on the opposite side of the GW argument as you.

My position, succinctly stated, is that I believe human activity has impact on the environment, but I do not believe the evidence is clear regarding the results of this impact In the 70's the same sorts of people who are now touting GW were talking about the coming human induced ice age, and more recently they've changed the name to Climate Change. I believe the leaders of this movement are ultimately more motivated by political power than any belief that we really can impact the climate with whatever changes we are able to make despite the massive increase in 3rd world polluters and other factors (environmental etc.)that are far outside of our control. When I see the people driving the GW movement burning up fossil fuels at volumes far beyond the average citizen it makes me even more suspicious of their real goals.

You don't see anything tribal, yet your second paragraph is rife with markers of tribal thinking. Who are "the same sorts of people" (obviously not people you approve of)? It should not be scientists, because there no scientific consensus on global warming or cooling in the 1970s. Who are "the leaders of this movement" that are motivated ultimately by political power (obviously not the people you trust), and what would this political power gain them personally? We (the USA) exhibit all kinds of control over the industrial behavior of many third-world countries; why is this facet immune from our influence? Who are "the people driving the GW movement", and why are you comparing them only to the average citizen, as opposed to the other leaders of industry or people of comparable wealth? These phrases are strong indicators that you are, in no small part, being driven by a sense of "us" vs. "them", aka tribalism, rather than the facts.

The change of the description to climate change seems to be a response to global warming deniers were using local temperature stabilizations/declines to claim the entire globe was not warming, even though the globe was warming on average. whether you call it global warming or climate change, the data is the same. Average temperatures are rising. 2014 was the hottest year ever, until 2015. 2016 is trending to be hotter still.

 

[One Brow]

Jimmy, with all due respect when the anti-fossil fuel crowd burns massive amounts of fossil fuel in order to hold yet another GW conference I tend to look at what the real results of this effort are. (Check out Al Gore's supposedly environmentally friendly houseboat for another example. Shouldn't guys like him be leaving as small a footprint from their leisure activities as they possibly can if they really believe what they are telling others to do.)

When you add to this the fact that the most aggressive carbon reduction program proposed for first world nations doesn't come anywhere near making up for the increasing carbon emissions of the emerging nations I can't help wondering why we are inflicting so much economic hardship on ourselves.

But I'm not going to continue beating my head against the wall in this conversation because it's become clear to me that these sorts of points don't even matter to the pro GW crowd.

How should people travel to conferences on global warming, in your opinion? More importantly, why does this method of travel change you opinion of the data?

Why do you think it is reasonable to expect a wealthy man to live like a poor one? Do you expect your pastor to give up his house and live on the street, like a homeless person, or do you only expect this from people publically trying to fight global warming?

If we make solar energy cheaper than oil/gas and start mass-producing it, do think third-world nations will ignore that opportunity?

Again, why do "these sorts of points" change your opinion on the data?

 

[Gameface]

It's good to have you back OB

 

[Scat]

I think it is great that the world is warming. Cold kills many more people than heat so let's crank up the coal power plants, heat the world and party on. A win for the human race!

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You don't see anything tribal, yet your second paragraph is rife with markers of tribal thinking. Who are "the same sorts of people" (obviously not people you approve of)? It should not be scientists, because there no scientific consensus on global warming or cooling in the 1970s. Who are "the leaders of this movement" that are motivated ultimately by political power (obviously not the people you trust), and what would this political power gain them personally? We (the USA) exhibit all kinds of control over the industrial behavior of many third-world countries; why is this facet immune from our influence? Who are "the people driving the GW movement", and why are you comparing them only to the average citizen, as opposed to the other leaders of industry or people of comparable wealth? These phrases are strong indicators that you are, in no small part, being driven by a sense of "us" vs. "them", aka tribalism, rather than the facts.

The change of the description to climate change seems to be a response to global warming deniers were using local temperature stabilizations/declines to claim the entire globe was not warming, even though the globe was warming on average. whether you call it global warming or climate change, the data is the same. Average temperatures are rising. 2014 was the hottest year ever, until 2015. 2016 is trending to be hotter still.

In 30 more years these will be the headlines again, and everyone will buy into the panic. Whether you know it or not, these headlines were the result of scientific studies. People were freaking out about it. One of the big differences is that the politicians hadn't yet figured out a way to cash in on it, though.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

How should people travel to conferences on global warming, in your opinion? More importantly, why does this method of travel change you opinion of the data?

Why do you think it is reasonable to expect a wealthy man to live like a poor one? Do you expect your pastor to give up his house and live on the street, like a homeless person, or do you only expect this from people publically trying to fight global warming?

If we make solar energy cheaper than oil/gas and start mass-producing it, do think third-world nations will ignore that opportunity?

Again, why do "these sorts of points" change your opinion on the data?

We have the technology to hold conferences virtually. If it really is so urgent that everyone cut their emissions wouldn't it make sense for the leaders of the movement to take a leadership role? Wouldn't it make sense for the people who are telling us that we must make all these changes to make the changes themselves? Instead they take large entourages and get together in exotic locations to throw extravagant parties every year. They want us to do as they say, not as they do.

 

[babe]

I did not follow the point you were trying to make, if any, from the second link. The first confirms global warming is real. What big picture do you think science is missing?

You didn't follow the point, and there was one.

The first map shows current surface temps. . . with a selection of colors that emphases "heat" by using red a lot. The second map showed the anomalies. . . . the places where the surface was either higher or lower than is deemed "normal". The first pic is possibly deliberately biased. You need to focus on the second and think a little.

 

[babe]

Here's one presentation of the data:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global_small.fc.gif

Here's the same data cast not as absolute temps but as anomalous temps:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomg.7.14.2016.gif

The material presented on the wunderground site was the same, with a different scale for presentation, and different colors, but what seems remarkable to me is that for the ocean surface, there is very little area that is more than one degree different from normal, and almost equal minus from normal as plus from normal.

This is sure to signal a moderation in the putative rising global temps. . . .

 

[babe]

We have the technology to hold conferences virtually. If it really is so urgent that everyone cut their emissions wouldn't it make sense for the leaders of the movement to take a leadership role? Wouldn't it make sense for the people who are telling us that we must make all these changes to make the changes themselves? Instead they take large entourages and get together in exotic locations to throw extravagant parties every year. They want us to do as they say, not as they do.

Your idealism reflects American Tribalism. . . . which since the Revolution contains some notions about leaders selected by the common man to represent the interests of the citizen, and which sorta indicates that politicians should be of the common man in their behavior.

This, of course, is archaic nonsense in the better world we have achieved with political progressivism. Now, even America has the kind of leaders the world has always known particularly in the more austere historical periods.

"Arrogance of Power", the little tutorial King George sought to illustrate with punitive insults to colonial Americans, has returned. Leaders are now demonstrating that they are a special class beyond accountability to the common man, tyrants and such.

 

[One Brow]

In 30 more years these will be the headlines again, and everyone will buy into the panic. Whether you know it or not, these headlines were the result of scientific studies. People were freaking out about it. One of the big differences is that the politicians hadn't yet figured out a way to cash in on it, though.

Do you personally remember these headlines, or did you get them from sources in your tribe? Because these sources are in your tribe, you believed they were telling the truth about some sort of panic? I remember 1977; there was no panic (although I'm sure a few people freaked out, just like people freak out today about rising crime rates, even though the crime rate has fallen steadily for 20 years).

Do you understand the difference between the media (mis)representation of a couple of scientific studies, and a scientific consensus? Or, because your sources are from your tribe, you believe they are representing this fairly?

 

[One Brow]

We have the technology to hold conferences virtually. If it really is so urgent that everyone cut their emissions wouldn't it make sense for the leaders of the movement to take a leadership role? Wouldn't it make sense for the people who are telling us that we must make all these changes to make the changes themselves? Instead they take large entourages and get together in exotic locations to throw extravagant parties every year. They want us to do as they say, not as they do.

I don't recall anyone telling us to not take vacations, but to stay at home instead. Who do you mean? Who are "they" (certainly not your group)? You don't think Al Gore has made changes to his home?

 

[One Brow]

The material presented on the wunderground site was the same, with a different scale for presentation, and different colors, but what seems remarkable to me is that for the ocean surface, there is very little area that is more than one degree different from normal, and almost equal minus from normal as plus from normal.

This is sure to signal a moderation in the putative rising global temps. . . .

A degree Celsius signal definite warming. Again, so far 2016 > 2015 > 2014 > any prior year. Where's the moderation?

 

[One Brow]

Your idealism reflects American Tribalism. . . . which since the Revolution contains some notions about leaders selected by the common man to represent the interests of the citizen, and which sorta indicates that politicians should be of the common man in their behavior.

This shows remarkable ignorance about what the politicians of the time believed about the common man. They never thought of themselves have having to behave as the common man. To them, common men were fools and slaves to fads and passions, unlike the well-reasoned elites who wrote the Constitution.

 

[♪alt13]

The price of solar is supposed to be cut in half again within 5 years. Smile. We got this