Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Deleted member 67555]

Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.

 

[Caring1]

Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.

Sometimes an outside perspective brings clarity to what can be an issue clouded with preconceived concepts and incorrect teachings.

 

[qubit]

Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.

I'm sorry, but how can you possibly say that facts and the scientific method Trump delusions, bias and truther conspiracy theories?

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Sometimes an outside perspective brings clarity to what can be an issue clouded with preconceived concepts and incorrect teachings.

That's a great point...
It's not the case here but a great point none the less...or is it... touche

 

[Boosnie]

Oh, The Irony

https://arstechnica.com/business/20...useum-is-installing-solar-panels-on-its-roof/

 

[qubit]

Oh, The Irony

View attachment 89209



https://arstechnica.com/business/20...useum-is-installing-solar-panels-on-its-roof/

Oh fuck that's funny.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Cost a lot more than $8k to install.

 

[Derek12]

And we didn't went to the moon
And vaccines cause autism
And the cure of cancer was discovered but Big Pharma is hiding it.
And the earth is flat.
Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere.
I won't buy them.

 

[Papahyooie]

They usually involved something catastrophic like an asteroid colliding with the Earth or a super-volcano erupting. There's been nothing of the sort in the past 100 years. Imagine if Yellowstone decided to erupt tomorrow. That's a recipe for a mass extinction event.

That simply isn't true. There wasn't such an event at every up and down swing of the global temperature. It has happened on schedule for millions of years. If such an event were responsible for every swing to the top and bottom limit, life would have never evolved to the point it has.

Why people argue about something they have little knowledge of against people who spend their lives following evidence will forever dumbfound me.

Once again, that's the mentality I'm talking about. The "evidence" can be seen to be manipulations just by looking at my first post in this thread (post number #1337, which I believe to be appropriate). Anybody can take any slice of the historical temperature data and make it look like the sky is falling. Sure, I'm mostly a layman. I understand that there are definitely people smarter than me, and more knowledgeable on the subject. But I don't find it unwise to look at the data for oneself. What I posted is raw data points (gathered through proxy, sure) with no adjustments. It doesn't vibe with the "official" story. So it is not foolish to question, instead of blindly following the "smart people" because they said so.

The official story says that the earth is warming at an alarming and anomalous rate. The data shows that it is not anomalous at all (as long as you take in enough data points over a long enough time period instead of taking a single slice.) So who is foolish? The man who questions it? Or the man who follows the line "Trust me because you're not smart enough to understand" ?

 

[Steevo]

I'm all for improvements, but lets not mistake action for production, if we took all the coal power offline today society would fall apart by tomorrow.

There is no "renewable" today that can replace coal directly or as efficiently except nuclear, and people are scared of that boogeyman because they are stupid. I'm not going to say that we are the most enlightened board on the internet, but as a whole we sure are a bit above the curve, but lets just stop for a few minutes and think of someone we all know who is average, and realize that half of humanity is dumber than they are. They vote, they breed (usually more than intellectuals) and generally fuck up the planet and their trailer.

Irregardless of what we do today, we are tied to carbon and only where we are due to mastering it like our ancestors mastered fire as a condensed energy source. There is simply no way that we are going to change in time, so our next efforts shouldn't be on "the sky is falling" but on what do we do about a hundred years of carbon emissions? Where do we want to be in the next 100 years as far as space travel, technology? Who cares.... all that requires more energy and realistically solar isn't going to get a plane from LA to NYC in a few hours, the energy is just not there. We need a energy breakthrough and solar, wind, and other green and feel good BS isn't it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That simply isn't true. There wasn't such an event at every up and down swing of the global temperature. It has happened on schedule for millions of years. If such an event were responsible for every swing to the top and bottom limit, life would have never evolved to the point it has.

Temperature is not something one can measure back more than a few hundred years, only guesstimate based on life that was living in the area at the time as well as influencers like CO2, CH4, solar cycles, and so on. On top of that, temperature is usually latent. For example, a super volcano erupts, the Earth cools for years because of ash blocking out the sun then the temperature rises as the ash falls but the ejected greenhouse gases remain raising aggregate temperature.

The only temperature data that can be solidly relied on didn't start coming until after WWII. Decent data was recorded starting around the American Civil War.


EPICA was an ice-core project which had a primary objective of building a record of CO2 data as well as using deuterium decay to guesstimate temperature. The EPICA data suggests we should be in an ice age right now. The opposite is true.

 

[Papahyooie]

And there we have it folks. Confirmation bias at its finest. The scientists are all smarter than you, and their word is law and if you disagree you are an ignorant luddite.

... Except when the science (such as paleoclimatology) contradicts what you believe. Then it's not good enough and only a "guesstimate", even though pretty much the entire scientific community regards the proxy measurements used by paleoclimatologists as valid and reliable. But when you contradict the global warming conclusion, you're ridiculed because "pretty much the entire scientific community accepts it."

I shouldn't have bothered...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The observed average global temperatures rising along with observed rises in greenhouse gas have been taken by satellites over the past 30 years. What happened before that tells us the trends we're seeing now is unnatural.

 

[Papahyooie]

And the CO2 samples taken from ice and geological cores along with temperature data taken from tree ring and other samples have been recorded for millennia. And they say it's not unnatural. But if we're being honest, no matter how many times I say that, no matter what the data says, you'll dismiss it. So I'm wasting my time.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Show me a source that claims as you do that isn't paid for by the oil/coal industry.

 

[Steevo]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwj5pJOk68rUAhUT7GMKHVWZCbAQFghEMAM&url=http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFtA4bTgD7EDLqZcQCDnAibKHMdew&sig2=ZOHo9EyvqToWgm7Npbi05A

The danger of CO2 is the infrared absorption. However H2O is the primary greenhouse gas.

Still stands to reason, that until we get on nuclear base load all this squabbling means, and does exactly nothing. Solar is still a joke, sure it can help in some areas, but how about we tap the exhaust pipes from every step of the manufacturing process for solar and count that cost?

Aluminum frames, copper wiring, petro rubber insulation, silicon panel, tin, lead for solder, steel screws and racks to hold batteries, lithium, carbon, more petro plastics to hold the batteries, all the exhaust to bring them from all around the world.

Musk is a genius for milking carbon credits to the tune of billions in profit from taxes and then able to sell them like get out of jail free cards to VW and others.

 

[Papahyooie]

Show me a source that claims as you do that isn't paid for by the oil/coal industry.

Show me one that I've posted here that was.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You've been posting graphs without understanding the significance of them. That's why I'm asking you to provide a source that backs up your perspective.


Case in point. Your post:

\

You claimed that second picture was meaningful, right? That's from ice cores. @magibeg retorted with this:

Well the problem here is that you're using very localized data with your graphs as opposed to much more global temperature composites. Your 400~ year ago jump in temperature disappears for example once you equalize with more data points.

Note the scales: 2000 years versus 600. As he said, localized data isn't reliable for calculating global averages. The ice core temps are in flux because temperatures are naturally in flux. It's the average that matters in terms of climate.

 

[Papahyooie]

We're just gonna go around and around in a circle aren't we?

Yes, I absolutely note the scales. And that's my point. Considering ice cores are one of the few sources we DO have for long term temperature and CO2 content, I'd say they're pretty relevant.
I can take a small slice of data and ignore the rest to make it look like the sky is falling too (which magibeg and the world in general has done.)



That doesn't mean it tells the whole picture. And yes, I realize that it's localized data... mostly because there aren't any ice cores in the middle of africa.... But those composited from ice cores and tree ring data show the same thing.
Of course, we don't have tree ring data as far back as we have ice core data, so at a far back enough time period, ice core data is the ONLY thing we have, after even geologic evidence fails us.

What you're essentially saying is that ice core data is not an acceptable proxy measure. The data obtained was calibrated to zero using modern global temperature. So as the global temperature rose and fell, it is to be expected that the ice data would show corresponding rise and fall (within reason, as locality is also a big factor, I agree. That's why smaller movement isn't taken as a significant factor.) So you're basically saying the usage of ice core data as a proxy is not scientific. Which is fine I suppose. But as I predicted, you're using selective reasoning to call me ignorant. I'm not "posting graphs without understanding the significance of them." I do understand their significance. If your qualm is with the fact that I didn't provide source citation, if you think it is false data, then google search ice core temp data and you will find the exact same graphs and where they came from. They are raw data points, not filtered through any normalization or modeling like the hockey stick graphs are. No predictions, no formulations. Raw data.

Either way, I've already addressed every single one of these points several times. But by all means... continue to call my intelligence into question. That's how you win an argument after all, right?

 

[magibeg]

We're just gonna go around and around in a circle aren't we?

Yes, I absolutely note the scales. And that's my point. Considering ice cores are one of the few sources we DO have for long term temperature and CO2 content, I'd say they're pretty relevant.
I can take a small slice of data and ignore the rest to make it look like the sky is falling too (which magibeg and the world in general has done.)

View attachment 89225

That doesn't mean it tells the whole picture. And yes, I realize that it's localized data... mostly because there aren't any ice cores in the middle of africa.... But those composited from ice cores and tree ring data show the same thing.
Of course, we don't have tree ring data as far back as we have ice core data, so at a far back enough time period, ice core data is the ONLY thing we have, after even geologic evidence fails us.

What you're essentially saying is that ice core data is not an acceptable proxy measure. The data obtained was calibrated to zero using modern global temperature. So as the global temperature rose and fell, it is to be expected that the ice data would show corresponding rise and fall (within reason, as locality is also a big factor, I agree. That's why smaller movement isn't taken as a significant factor.) So you're basically saying the usage of ice core data as a proxy is not scientific. Which is fine I suppose. But as I predicted, you're using selective reasoning to call me ignorant. I'm not "posting graphs without understanding the significance of them." I do understand their significance. If your qualm is with the fact that I didn't provide source citation, if you think it is false data, then google search ice core temp data and you will find the exact same graphs and where they came from. They are raw data points, not filtered through any normalization or modeling like the hockey stick graphs are. No predictions, no formulations. Raw data.

Either way, I've already addressed every single one of these points several times. But by all means... continue to call my intelligence into question. That's how you win an argument after all, right?

Alright I'm going to try to hold out an olive branch here and try to apply some perspective, I won't use graphs or fancy terminology.

In my view of the world everything can be quantified if you have knowledge and measurements of enough variables and many scientists also share that view, in many cases that is what drives them to become scientists in the first place. When looking at climate or weather what you really have is a really big puzzle with a lot of moving parts. So when you have data that swings up a certain number of degrees you have to remember that there needs to be a definitive reason why it happened because of conservation of energy.

A couple years ago we had a cool summer in north america and at least in my area, we had a bone chilling winter. Now the interesting thing about that is when you measured the temperature of the entire globe the earth had still warmed that year, but an entire continent was colder than usual! That's because the heat didn't disappear, it was located in Asia, the Arctic, Australia, numerous other places were scorching hot that offset the cooler than usual temperatures in north america due to a persistent high pressure system in the arctic that pushed cool air downward.

The Atlantic has been calmer than usual the past couple of years on the hurricane front, and many have speculated that it flies in the face of climate change where the belief is that more energy in the atmosphere means more powerful storms. As it turns out warmer water in the pacific affects trade winds that cause wind sheering to slice the top off of tropical depressions which prevents them from becoming more severe.

In the Antarctic there are many locations where despite warming temperatures there is an increase of snow fall and thickening of ice shelves. Dry air isn't very effective at holding moisture so warming the air (as long as it still stays below freezing) actually causes an increase in snow fall.

You might be wondering where I'm going with these statements. The point I am trying to make is that all changes occur for a reason, sometimes in unexpected ways. As ford touched on to some extent when you have a wild temperature swing there has to be a reason why such a swing exists. Given that we seem to have trouble agreeing on anything, I'd like you to at least get into a mindset of explanation. There is no international conspiracy collaborating for global warming, though i'm certain there are people looking to take advantage and misrepresent it, as there is on the other side where oil companies (though not anymore) claim it doesn't exist. The scientists are just looking for explanations which match their observations, and that explanation is global warming.

So when you show me changes in raw data, remember that each change needs to have a reason for why.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What you're essentially saying is that ice core data is not an acceptable proxy measure.

Temperature is derived from deuterium proxy, not observed. One reference point of data in a literal world of variables. Climate is an average over time, over a large area. EPICA is one sample at one location, performed over almost a decade analyzing about 700,000 years worth of ice.

They are raw data points, not filtered through any normalization or modeling like the hockey stick graphs are. No predictions, no formulations. Raw data.

In just the last century, atmospheric CO2 has increased approximately 51%.

Atmospheric CH4 has increased by approximately 157%.

 

[qubit]

Global warming is a "myth" lol.

33.9C in the UK today, hottest for 40 years. Nothing cold about that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40353118

 

[Nuckles56]

Or never mind that last year was the hottest on record and the number of broken temperature records world wide was crazy, including a large number which had stood for a very long time.

 

[Papahyooie]

Global warming is a "myth" lol.

33.9C in the UK today, hottest for 40 years. Nothing cold about that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40353118

Or never mind that last year was the hottest on record and the number of broken temperature records world wide was crazy, including a large number which had stood for a very long time.

I told myself I was going to let this go, but I'd just like to ask one last question... If a person comes in here and says "It snowed this winter in my town, and it hasn't done so in decades. Global warming is a lie" then the response will be "You don't understand climate science. Climate change can actually cause it to get colder in some places due to the extreme complexity of climate and weather patterns, you're just ignorant."

But the above two statements, which are just as unscientific, get a pass. Wonder why that is.

I'd also like to mention that both statements would also be true if the earth were on a natural warming cycle (it is) and there were no man-made warming.

 

[Nuckles56]

When you have had the two hottest years on record back to back, you do have to wonder why that is, surely? I would expect if it was a natural process, most likely you would have 2015 as the hottest year on record and then 2016 as a cooler year, but lo and behold we have 2016 as an even hotter year.