Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another Theory on Global Warming

Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:22:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not really strong either way on Climate Change, but I thought this was an interesting article.

If I read it right, it basically says that Climate Change is a result of changes in the sun. These changes were actually responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer (not CFCs) and that the holes in the Ozone layer are responsible for the observations we see.

Since the Ozone isn't present/reduced more of the sun's energy reaches the ground which results in rises in surface temperature without rises in the stratosphere.

Seems interesting to me...

http://joannenova.com.au...
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 10:21:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:22:54 AM, Geogeer wrote:
I'm not really strong either way on Climate Change, but I thought this was an interesting article.

If I read it right, it basically says that Climate Change is a result of changes in the sun. These changes were actually responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer (not CFCs) and that the holes in the Ozone layer are responsible for the observations we see.

Since the Ozone isn't present/reduced more of the sun's energy reaches the ground which results in rises in surface temperature without rises in the stratosphere.

Seems interesting to me...

http://joannenova.com.au...

It is not possible to deny that natural causes are party responsible for climate change. It is evident today that climate is not an static process and that the Sun is obviously responsible for a lot of climate events, being the main ruler of climate. However, it is also impossible to deny that climate change has accelerated in a manner consistent with the acceleration/propagation of human industry and that natural events alone can not make for the observable climate changes in modern times. Also, that CFC's have impact on ozone has been tested multiple times: they have.

It is a pity that there's still people trying to disprove anthropogenic impact on the environment, mainly because this so-called experiments or research are clearly interested, ordered by lobbies that see this "climate change" issue as an enormous nuisance for their economic growth, and so they feel they have to use "science" as a way to silence the growing popular claim that asks for a reduction of emissions, and what's even worse (for lobbyists) the popular claim that asks for the abandon of oil usage once and for all.

All these scientific groups should cease to play with their credibility and put their intellect to more important issues, like the evident impact that livestock has on climate change, world hunger, insufficiency of water in a lot of countries, etc. and how to solve this immensely important problem affecting the powerful meat industry and the meat lovers.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:07:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because of the unpleasent consequences of acting on climate change there are many who would like to deny we have anything to do with it. You will find scientific consensus is very strong. The problem is politicans need to be popular in order to maintain.power so they dare not be too heavy handed in pushing for change.
We have two very serious problems : climate change and antibiotic resistence both will cost money and money is more popularly spend on building Hadron Colliders and all sorts of other endeavours. However circumstances may yet fragment our complacent societies and take us swiftly backwards. I suppose I'm just fond of irony but just imagine we unravelled the secret of dark matter as millions began to die. Already we have a crisis in Europe as thousands try to cross the boarder.
Many warning voices are sounding but it does not look as if we are incharge of our own destiny.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 12:10:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:22:54 AM, Geogeer wrote:
I'm not really strong either way on Climate Change, but I thought this was an interesting article.

If I read it right, it basically says that Climate Change is a result of changes in the sun. These changes were actually responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer (not CFCs) and that the holes in the Ozone layer are responsible for the observations we see.

Since the Ozone isn't present/reduced more of the sun's energy reaches the ground which results in rises in surface temperature without rises in the stratosphere.

Seems interesting to me...

http://joannenova.com.au...

Paid shills of the fossil fuels industry are always looking for ways to blame something else no matter how inane. Btw, the problem with the depletion of the ozone layer was also caused by man-made emissions (nothing to do with the Sun). Since action was taken a decade and a half ago (the Montreal protocol), the depletion has stabilized and the ozone layer is now on the mend.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:37:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 10:21:38 AM, Otokage wrote:

It is a pity that there's still people trying to disprove anthropogenic impact on the environment, mainly because this so-called experiments or research are clearly interested, ordered by lobbies that see this "climate change" issue as an enormous nuisance for their economic growth,

This is false. Can you name one of the skeptical scientists that argues that greenhouse gases have no impact on climate? I don't of any. It a strawman put up to avoid the real argument over climate sensitivity and what the effects of warming will be. There is near-universal agreement that if CO2 doubles and there were no feedback mechanisms aiding or inhibiting warming, there would be about a one degree temperature increase. Warming increases water vapor which is a powerful greenhouse gas, so it might be more than a degree. Water vapor also increases clouds, which is a strong inhibitor. All the warming seen to date is equivalent to about a 3% decrease in cloud cover.

The claim that warming is increasing at an unprecedented rate is from the strong warming in the period from 1983 to 1996. Since we've only has detailed climate records for a hundred and fifty years, there is no way to say if it is really unprecedented. It certainly is not true for the period of 1996 to the present, during which there has been no statistically significant global warming. CO2 has been increasing since the late 1800s, and the early increases are more significant than the recent increases. It's logarithmic. So the idea that CO2 suddenly kicked in 1983 is not consistent with any scientific theory.

There is a hundred times more money to be had by supporting global warming crisis than opposing it. Research grants and government jobs abound for crisis advocates. Fortunes are made in government funded, economically non-competitive, green energy schemes.

The IPCC and the EPA say that if nothing is done, temperatures will rise about 2.75 degrees in the next hundred years. Skeptics say it's probably more like a degree due to greenhouse gases. The IPCC claim is that oceans will rise about 9 to 11 inches. So will we all die if that happens? The temperature difference between Orlando and Washington is 10 degrees. A hurricane storm surge, for which coastal cities must prepare, is about 10 feet.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:22:54 AM, Geogeer wrote:
If I read it right, it basically says that Climate Change is a result of changes in the sun.

The article correctly states that the radiation output of the sun is nearly constant. The article points to a change in the spectral output that may account for changes in the ozone layer. There is also work that suggests that even the tiny variations in irradiance significantly affect climate. http://wattsupwiththat.com...

There is another theory that relates climate to the magnetic activity of the sun. Historically, cold climate is correlated to periods when there are few sunspots. During the Little Ice Age, c. 1800, there were very few sunspots. That was when the Thames froze over and they had a winter festival on the ice. There was snow in Virginia in every month.

One theory is that few sunspots relate to more cosmic rays striking earth, which in turn causes more clouds due to a cloud seeding effect. Experiments show that cosmic rays do cause water droplets to form, but crisis advocates say the droplets are too small to affect climate. Solar theories are described in the books, "The Chilling Stars" and "The Twilight of Abundance." The latter book forecasts solar cycles to have a dramatic cooling effect in the last half of the 21st century.

Since none of the math model predictions of the IPCC have been true, it must be that climate is an unsolved problem.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 5:58:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The above is a perfect example of the shills I was talking about. The same peurile misuse of evidence, distortion of facts, and abundance of strawmen which have been addressed a thousand times before. Yet they keep trotting them out as if there is a gigantic conspiracy by scientists for some unfathomable reason. A simple google search would refute any and every claim they make. It's just tiresome.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 6:31:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 5:58:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
The above is a perfect example of the shills I was talking about. The same peurile misuse of evidence, distortion of facts, and abundance of strawmen which have been addressed a thousand times before. Yet they keep trotting them out as if there is a gigantic conspiracy by scientists for some unfathomable reason. A simple google search would refute any and every claim they make. It's just tiresome.

I agree that warming is anthropogenic, but I think you're wrong. I have great respect for for many skeptical climate scientists. Roy Spencer, Chris Christie, Pat Michaels, and Henrik Svensmark are amazing individuals. I think that if AGW is somehow wrong--which I doubt, but it's possible--that Svensmark's cosmic ray theory is most likely.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 7:51:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 6:31:00 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/30/2015 5:58:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
The above is a perfect example of the shills I was talking about. The same peurile misuse of evidence, distortion of facts, and abundance of strawmen which have been addressed a thousand times before. Yet they keep trotting them out as if there is a gigantic conspiracy by scientists for some unfathomable reason. A simple google search would refute any and every claim they make. It's just tiresome.

I agree that warming is anthropogenic, but I think you're wrong. I have great respect for for many skeptical climate scientists. Roy Spencer, Chris Christie, Pat Michaels, and Henrik Svensmark are amazing individuals. I think that if AGW is somehow wrong--which I doubt, but it's possible--that Svensmark's cosmic ray theory is most likely.

The debate has long since moved on. The science is in. It's now about how to abate emissions and limit the damage. I don't bother engaging the AGW deniers anymore because it's entirely pointless. Sometimes you can be on the wrong end of an argument and not realize it is over.
Evidence
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 5:05:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:22:54 AM, Geogeer wrote:
I'm not really strong either way on Climate Change, but I thought this was an interesting article.

If I read it right, it basically says that Climate Change is a result of changes in the sun. These changes were actually responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer (not CFCs) and that the holes in the Ozone layer are responsible for the observations we see.

Since the Ozone isn't present/reduced more of the sun's energy reaches the ground which results in rises in surface temperature without rises in the stratosphere.

Seems interesting to me...

http://joannenova.com.au...

All I know for sure is what I can, and have observed with my own eyes, nose, and the overall health of the people around me. When I came to AZ in '77 from Detroit, I was struck with the beauty of the deep blue skies, the most beautiful sunsets especially over the mountains that my eyes have ever beheld. I would take pictures of it and send it back home, which caused most of my family, co workers, friends to move to Arizona. Then about 8 years ago (I wasn't aware of it before that) I woke up to something extremely strange; Chem-trails.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

To get to the point, when I look into the sun today (especially after heavy chem-trailing) it is obvious these white clouds persist, and block view of even the nearby mountains. At sunset the sun looked to be yellow, orange then red, and as I said it used to be spectacular. But now the sunset is like a huge constant flash like from a camera which leaves not only me, but other drivers blinded when driving into the sunset. I would see sunspots in my eyes for hours, and accidents galore. So yes, it's definitely man-made, by the warriors directed by Lucifer himself who are out to destroy the world and all life on it.

If you look at this 'going to Mars' distraction, it's exactly like Marshal Applewhite's "Kill yourselves and get off the Earth, it's being recycled!" delusion.

https://www.youtube.com...

This is real people, it is happening at an alarming rate and unless the Lord appears before all mankind is either murdered or commit suicide, "no soul shall be saved".
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:02:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 5:05:49 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:22:54 AM, Geogeer wrote:
I'm not really strong either way on Climate Change, but I thought this was an interesting article.

If I read it right, it basically says that Climate Change is a result of changes in the sun. These changes were actually responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer (not CFCs) and that the holes in the Ozone layer are responsible for the observations we see.

Since the Ozone isn't present/reduced more of the sun's energy reaches the ground which results in rises in surface temperature without rises in the stratosphere.

Seems interesting to me...

http://joannenova.com.au...

All I know for sure is what I can, and have observed with my own eyes, nose, and the overall health of the people around me. When I came to AZ in '77 from Detroit, I was struck with the beauty of the deep blue skies, the most beautiful sunsets especially over the mountains that my eyes have ever beheld. I would take pictures of it and send it back home, which caused most of my family, co workers, friends to move to Arizona. Then about 8 years ago (I wasn't aware of it before that) I woke up to something extremely strange; Chem-trails.

LOL. Chemtrails is a conspiracy theory created by some very stupid people, it's just condensation in the atmosphere.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

To get to the point, when I look into the sun today (especially after heavy chem-trailing) it is obvious these white clouds persist, and block view of even the nearby mountains. At sunset the sun looked to be yellow, orange then red, and as I said it used to be spectacular. But now the sunset is like a huge constant flash like from a camera which leaves not only me, but other drivers blinded when driving into the sunset. I would see sunspots in my eyes for hours, and accidents galore. So yes, it's definitely man-made, by the warriors directed by Lucifer himself who are out to destroy the world and all life on it.

If you look at this 'going to Mars' distraction, it's exactly like Marshal Applewhite's "Kill yourselves and get off the Earth, it's being recycled!" delusion.

https://www.youtube.com...

This is real people, it is happening at an alarming rate and unless the Lord appears before all mankind is either murdered or commit suicide, "no soul shall be saved".
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 11:55:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 5:58:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
The above is a perfect example of the shills I was talking about. The same peurile misuse of evidence, distortion of facts, and abundance of strawmen which have been addressed a thousand times before. Yet they keep trotting them out as if there is a gigantic conspiracy by scientists for some unfathomable reason. A simple google search would refute any and every claim they make. It's just tiresome.

If you are unable to debate, you should simply leave. If you has any arguments to make, you'd make them You have none. If you do a web search on any of the skeptical critiques, you'll find snappy answers posted in the early 2000's when the sharp warming from 1983 to 1996 might plausibly have continued. "Unprecedented warming only explained by CO2" is now an absurd out-of-date argument. There has been no significant rise in temperature since 1996. I don't know of any climate crisis scientist who claims that the IPCC models explain the lack of warming for nearly 20 years. there are speculations like "it must be smoke from Chinese coal burning" and "all the warming is going into the ocean," but nothing in useful predictive models.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 11:57:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 7:51:01 AM, dee-em wrote:

The debate has long since moved on. The science is in. It's now about how to abate emissions and limit the damage. I don't bother engaging the AGW deniers anymore because it's entirely pointless. Sometimes you can be on the wrong end of an argument and not realize it is over.

If you think the debate is moving on, you haven't read the papers since 2003. The reason you don't argue is that you have no idea what's been happening.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 1:39:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Keep yapping. No-one is listening to this denial cr*p now. Real scientists are getting on with the job of finding strategies to combat the problem. The deniers still have their heads in the sand.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 4:46:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 5:58:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
The above is a perfect example of the shills I was talking about. The same peurile misuse of evidence, distortion of facts, and abundance of strawmen which have been addressed a thousand times before. Yet they keep trotting them out as if there is a gigantic conspiracy by scientists for some unfathomable reason. A simple google search would refute any and every claim they make. It's just tiresome.

They don't think there's a conspiracy among scientists -- they think it's an error in the data. That's a huge straw-man in itself. Most climate scientists who agree with AGW use methods like climate modeling, which have immense limitations and can be unreliable [1. http://www.nipccreport.org...]. I agree that models are -- often -- reliable, but not always. Skeptical scientists critique such methods. The cosmic ray hypothesis is also a strong hypothesis. It's been documented that cosmic rays affect cloud cover [2. David Archibald, "Twilight of Abundance," p. 19]. If solar magnetic activity really changes cloud cover, the incident radiance on the earth should vary with the sun's magnetic activity. This has been observed [3. http://www.sciencedirect.com...].

While I tend to agree with AGW theory, it's a massive leap to say that the "debate is over," etc. All serious skeptical scientists agree that AGW *exists at some level,* and that we can actually do something to prevent its usually negative effects, but the debate over whether mankind is the predominant driving force behind global warming is still on.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 11:55:08 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/30/2015 5:58:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
The above is a perfect example of the shills I was talking about. The same peurile misuse of evidence, distortion of facts, and abundance of strawmen which have been addressed a thousand times before. Yet they keep trotting them out as if there is a gigantic conspiracy by scientists for some unfathomable reason. A simple google search would refute any and every claim they make. It's just tiresome.

If you are unable to debate, you should simply leave. If you has any arguments to make, you'd make them You have none. If you do a web search on any of the skeptical critiques, you'll find snappy answers posted in the early 2000's when the sharp warming from 1983 to 1996 might plausibly have continued. "Unprecedented warming only explained by CO2" is now an absurd out-of-date argument. There has been no significant rise in temperature since 1996. I don't know of any climate crisis scientist who claims that the IPCC models explain the lack of warming for nearly 20 years. there are speculations like "it must be smoke from Chinese coal burning" and "all the warming is going into the ocean," but nothing in useful predictive models.

While I strongly disagree with DM, the global warming hiatus isn't really occurring. NOAA research published in Science suggests that the pause is merely a "mirage" caused by survey methods [http://www.sciencemag.org...]. HADCRUT4 data presents a trend of 0.165 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1970 to 2015 [http://www.skepticalscience.com...]. HADCRUT4 also presents a trend of 0.110 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1900 to 1945, meaning the 1970 - 2015 trend represents a *rise* in temperature rise. The "pause" claims a lack of warming for 20 years, so let me use a model of 20 years from 1900 to 1920, and from 1995 to 2015. It shows a 0.015 degrees C rise per decade from 1900 to 1920, and 0.107 degrees C rise per decade from 1995 to 2015. Meaning there has been a *significant* rise, per HADCRUT4 data.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 10:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 5:37:53 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/26/2015 10:21:38 AM, Otokage wrote:

It is a pity that there's still people trying to disprove anthropogenic impact on the environment, mainly because this so-called experiments or research are clearly interested, ordered by lobbies that see this "climate change" issue as an enormous nuisance for their economic growth,

This is false. Can you name one of the skeptical scientists that argues that greenhouse gases have no impact on climate? I don't of any. It a strawman put up to avoid the real argument over climate sensitivity and what the effects of warming will be. There is near-universal agreement that if CO2 doubles and there were no feedback mechanisms aiding or inhibiting warming, there would be about a one degree temperature increase. Warming increases water vapor which is a powerful greenhouse gas, so it might be more than a degree. Water vapor also increases clouds, which is a strong inhibitor. All the warming seen to date is equivalent to about a 3% decrease in cloud cover.

The claim that warming is increasing at an unprecedented rate is from the strong warming in the period from 1983 to 1996. Since we've only has detailed climate records for a hundred and fifty years, there is no way to say if it is really unprecedented. It certainly is not true for the period of 1996 to the present, during which there has been no statistically significant global warming. CO2 has been increasing since the late 1800s, and the early increases are more significant than the recent increases. It's logarithmic. So the idea that CO2 suddenly kicked in 1983 is not consistent with any scientific theory.

There is a hundred times more money to be had by supporting global warming crisis than opposing it. Research grants and government jobs abound for crisis advocates. Fortunes are made in government funded, economically non-competitive, green energy schemes.

The IPCC and the EPA say that if nothing is done, temperatures will rise about 2.75 degrees in the next hundred years. Skeptics say it's probably more like a degree due to greenhouse gases. The IPCC claim is that oceans will rise about 9 to 11 inches. So will we all die if that happens? The temperature difference between Orlando and Washington is 10 degrees. A hurricane storm surge, for which coastal cities must prepare, is about 10 feet.

Sustained global warming of more than 2 "C (relative to pre-industrial levels) could lead to eventual sea level rise of around 1 to 4 m due to thermal expansion of sea water and the melting of glaciers and small ice caps.[156] Melting of the Greenland ice sheet could contribute an additional 4 to 7.5 m over many thousands of years.[156] It has been estimated that we are already committed to a sea-level rise of approximately 2.3 meters for each degree of temperature rise within the next 2,000 years. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Doesn't take a lot to realize how catastrophic will be a rise of just 1 aditional degree. Also, keep in mind that 1 degree is precisely what you need to turn ice into liquid water: from 0"C, to 1"C :)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:44:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 10:30:35 PM, Otokage wrote:
Sustained global warming of more than 2 "C (relative to pre-industrial levels) could lead to eventual sea level rise of around 1 to 4 m due to thermal expansion of sea water and the melting of glaciers and small ice caps.[156] Melting of the Greenland ice sheet could contribute an additional 4 to 7.5 m over many thousands of years.[156] It has been estimated that we are already committed to a sea-level rise of approximately 2.3 meters for each degree of temperature rise within the next 2,000 years. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Doesn't take a lot to realize how catastrophic will be a rise of just 1 aditional degree. Also, keep in mind that 1 degree is precisely what you need to turn ice into liquid water: from 0"C, to 1"C :)

The uniform rise in temperature presumes that CO2 rises exponentially in future years. That's not going to happen because we will run out of fossil fuels in at most a few hundred years. What melts is only the ice that is on the borderline between freezing and thawing. The average temperature is Antarctica is around -40 C, so a 2 degree rise or a 5 degree rise causes no melting whatsoever of the great proportion of the ice. There is a tiny peninsula that is far enough north to have some melting during the summer, but it's negligible. The major changes in ice are from the floating ice that varies with sea current patterns that change periodically. That floating ice is now at record high levels in the Antarctic. Changes in the amount of floating ice have no effect on sea level, of course. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation runs on something like a 70 year cycle causing the polar ice to thaw and refreeze, alternatively between the poles. The Arctic Ice cleared in the 30s and the 1880s.

The melting of ice in Greenland is on a time scale of about 9000 years at the present rate, long after we run out of fossil fuels and into the next ice age. The next ice age is now a bit overdue. The computer models we now have were unable to predict the warming hiatus of the past 20 years, and even when tuned retrospectively cannot reconstruct the past climate of the 20th century.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:47:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 5:05:49 PM, Evidence wrote:
This is real people, it is happening at an alarming rate and unless the Lord appears before all mankind is either murdered or commit suicide, "no soul shall be saved".

It's enough to make you pull your tinfoil hat down over your ears.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:06:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 5:01:41 PM, tejretics wrote:

While I strongly disagree with DM, the global warming hiatus isn't really occurring. NOAA research published in Science suggests that the pause is merely a "mirage" caused by survey methods [http://www.sciencemag.org...]. HADCRUT4 data presents a trend of 0.165 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1970 to 2015 [http://www.skepticalscience.com...]. HADCRUT4 also presents a trend of 0.110 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1900 to 1945, meaning the 1970 - 2015 trend represents a *rise* in temperature rise. The "pause" claims a lack of warming for 20 years, so let me use a model of 20 years from 1900 to 1920, and from 1995 to 2015. It shows a 0.015 degrees C rise per decade from 1900 to 1920, and 0.107 degrees C rise per decade from 1995 to 2015. Meaning there has been a *significant* rise, per HADCRUT4 data.

There are conflicts among the temperature data. There are two satellite sources of global temperature. The satellites monitor the entire earth continually and show no significant increase since 1996. The NASA ground station data has been fudged to show a modest increase, with raw data of some stations showing decreased temperatures being "corrected" to show an increase. HADCRU floated a theory that temperatures increased in areas where there are few ground stations, at the poles. That's contradicted by the satellite data.

Despite a 20 year hiatus, looking at records over more than a century there is net an increase of 0.15 C / decade. That's true. Everybody agrees the earth is warming. That says nothing about the causes or the potential effects. If we get 1.5 degrees of warming in the next hundred years, few scientist think that poses a problem. It means growing seasons are longer in temperate zones and there is slightly more rain. Global warming so far has been accompanied by about a 2% increase in precipitation. Global warming alarmists in the 1990s were talking about 12 degree temperature rises and devastation to occur by 2010. Death was at hand. Now the official alarmist prediction have been toned down to 2.75 degrees, and the actual measurements are well below those predictions. 1.5 degrees is probably as good an estimate as can be made right now.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:30:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 3:47:33 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/4/2015 5:05:49 PM, Evidence wrote:
This is real people, it is happening at an alarming rate and unless the Lord appears before all mankind is either murdered or commit suicide, "no soul shall be saved".

It's enough to make you pull your tinfoil hat down over your ears.

It's worse than that. This issue is all about human tears. The Earth has has plenty of average temperature shifts before man arrived. Plenty of animals died, yes, so sad, but human tears did not exist. Fast forward to the present. Again as in the past the earth's climate changes, but with a major difference, the presence of human tears. now the extinction of lower animals means something.

Okay so let us take this to the endgame. We somehow stop China from increasing its 850 GW coal capacity, we spend all of humanities science resources to cool the planet back down. At a great risk, because if we screw up, and make the earth cooler, it's a big deal.

We make the earth cooler, and we hurt the evolutionary weaker life exponentially more; and as a side note, human life too. Rabid clamoring to cool the earth down needs to be put in check. It's far safer for humans and the "tears challenged" lifeforms to accept the new norm instead of really screwing the pooch with global cooling.

Yah, it sucks that some life forms are gonna go extinct, but this is a man's world.

Man does better in a warm planet than a cold planet.
Evidence
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 7:17:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 3:47:33 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/4/2015 5:05:49 PM, Evidence wrote:
This is real people, it is happening at an alarming rate and unless the Lord appears before all mankind is either murdered or commit suicide, "no soul shall be saved".

It's enough to make you pull your tinfoil hat down over your ears. :

I also wrote this -

All I know for sure is what I can, and have observed with my own eyes, nose, and the overall health of the people around me. When I came to AZ in '77 from Detroit, I was struck with the beauty of the deep blue skies, the most beautiful sunsets especially over the mountains that my eyes have ever beheld. I would take pictures of it and send it back home, which caused most of my family, co workers, friends to move to Arizona. Then about 8 years ago (I wasn't aware of it before that) I woke up to something extremely strange; Chem-trails.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

To get to the point, when I look into the sun today (especially after heavy chem-trailing) it is obvious these white clouds persist, and block view of even the nearby mountains. At sunset the sun looked to be yellow, orange then red, and as I said it used to be spectacular. But now the sunset is like a huge constant flash like from a camera which leaves not only me, but other drivers blinded when driving into the sunset. I would see sunspots in my eyes for hours, and accidents galore. So yes, it's definitely man-made, by the warriors directed by Lucifer himself who are out to destroy the world and all life on it.

If you look at this 'going to Mars' distraction, it's exactly like Marshal Applewhite's "Kill yourselves and get off the Earth, it's being recycled!" delusion.

https://www.youtube.com...


Any comment on that?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 7:45:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 10:30:35 PM, Otokage wrote:

Doesn't take a lot to realize how catastrophic will be a rise of just 1 aditional degree. Also, keep in mind that 1 degree is precisely what you need to turn ice into liquid water: from 0"C, to 1"C :)

However catastrophic you believe a one degree rise is, be mindful that a one degree drop is exponentially catastrophic. Advocating for a cooler planet borders on lunacy.
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 4:13:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:39:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
Keep yapping. No-one is listening to this denial cr*p now. Real scientists are getting on with the job of finding strategies to combat the problem. The deniers still have their heads in the sand.

Lol this sounds like your views on the atheism vs theism debate too. Have you ever tried looking at things from a perspective other than your own?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 4:26:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 4:13:21 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/5/2015 1:39:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
Keep yapping. No-one is listening to this denial cr*p now. Real scientists are getting on with the job of finding strategies to combat the problem. The deniers still have their heads in the sand.

Lol this sounds like your views on the atheism vs theism debate too. Have you ever tried looking at things from a perspective other than your own?

Sure. On one side you have every major scientific institution in the world. On the other side you have random bloggers, paid shills of of the fossil fuel industry and head-in-the-sand crackpots. On one side you have extensive research, massive data collection and analysis, and detailed computer-based climate models, all with peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. On the other you have random blogs, self-appointed talking heads and self-published books by people usually out of their field of expertise. On the one side you have an esteemed scientific body with experts and the resources of the UN behind it. On the other you have ... nothing.

Gee, this is a difficult decision. Who should I have confidence in?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 4:31:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Earth has had 14 of the 15 hottest years on record since 2000 with 2014 being the hottest and 2015 being on the way to break that record. And yet there are nitwits here saying that global warming has stopped.

http://www.theguardian.com...

If that is not denial, I don't know what is.
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 4:34:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 4:26:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/9/2015 4:13:21 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/5/2015 1:39:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
Keep yapping. No-one is listening to this denial cr*p now. Real scientists are getting on with the job of finding strategies to combat the problem. The deniers still have their heads in the sand.

Lol this sounds like your views on the atheism vs theism debate too. Have you ever tried looking at things from a perspective other than your own?

Sure. On one side you have every major scientific institution in the world. On the other side you have random bloggers, paid shills of of the fossil fuel industry and head-in-the-sand crackpots. On one side you have extensive research, massive data collection and analysis, and detailed computer-based climate models, all with peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. On the other you have random blogs, self-appointed talking heads and self-published books by people usually out of their field of expertise. On the one side you have an esteemed scientific body with experts and the resources of the UN behind it. On the other you have ... nothing.

Gee, this is a difficult decision. Who should I have confidence in?

Wow, that was a very thorough consideration of your opposition's perspective. I love how you presented the evidence behind the other side in a completely impartial manner, with no rhetorical skew at all.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 5:17:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 4:34:10 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/9/2015 4:26:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/9/2015 4:13:21 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/5/2015 1:39:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
Keep yapping. No-one is listening to this denial cr*p now. Real scientists are getting on with the job of finding strategies to combat the problem. The deniers still have their heads in the sand.

Lol this sounds like your views on the atheism vs theism debate too. Have you ever tried looking at things from a perspective other than your own?

Sure. On one side you have every major scientific institution in the world. On the other side you have random bloggers, paid shills of of the fossil fuel industry and head-in-the-sand crackpots. On one side you have extensive research, massive data collection and analysis, and detailed computer-based climate models, all with peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. On the other you have random blogs, self-appointed talking heads and self-published books by people usually out of their field of expertise. On the one side you have an esteemed scientific body with experts and the resources of the UN behind it. On the other you have ... nothing.

Gee, this is a difficult decision. Who should I have confidence in?

Wow, that was a very thorough consideration of your opposition's perspective. I love how you presented the evidence behind the other side in a completely impartial manner, with no rhetorical skew at all.

If there was something inaccurate in what I said, please point it out. If not, do you have something to contribute or are you simply here to annoy?
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 5:20:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 5:17:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/9/2015 4:34:10 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/9/2015 4:26:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/9/2015 4:13:21 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/5/2015 1:39:23 AM, dee-em wrote:
Keep yapping. No-one is listening to this denial cr*p now. Real scientists are getting on with the job of finding strategies to combat the problem. The deniers still have their heads in the sand.

Lol this sounds like your views on the atheism vs theism debate too. Have you ever tried looking at things from a perspective other than your own?

Sure. On one side you have every major scientific institution in the world. On the other side you have random bloggers, paid shills of of the fossil fuel industry and head-in-the-sand crackpots. On one side you have extensive research, massive data collection and analysis, and detailed computer-based climate models, all with peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. On the other you have random blogs, self-appointed talking heads and self-published books by people usually out of their field of expertise. On the one side you have an esteemed scientific body with experts and the resources of the UN behind it. On the other you have ... nothing.

Gee, this is a difficult decision. Who should I have confidence in?

Wow, that was a very thorough consideration of your opposition's perspective. I love how you presented the evidence behind the other side in a completely impartial manner, with no rhetorical skew at all.

If there was something inaccurate in what I said, please point it out. If not, do you have something to contribute or are you simply here to annoy?

Yes. Every sentence you started with "On the other" would tend to fall into the category of "inaccurate".
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 6:07:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 4:31:49 AM, dee-em wrote:

Unnecessary insults, DM. Most data suggested there was a pause, but while many climatologists agree that the data is flawed because it was derived from devices that were impacted by external conditions, that isn't exactly a consensus either. NASA and Japanese climatologists have documented that there have been frequent drops in temperature during the rise in global warming as well -- it's not really a "straight line." While -- once more -- I agree with you, dismissal of expert climatologists such as Nir Shaviv as "nitwits" is not warranted, especially since they likely have more knowledge than you in the field.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass