Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A bunch of rubbish (imho) conjured up by left wing nut jobs. The climate has been changing up and down for a zillion years.
This post reflects a total ignorance of the science behind climate change. At no point in recorded history has the climate ever changed at this rate. The rate is what is disturbing -- along with the correlation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate scientists can drill holes in glaciers and analyze the trapped air bubbles in the ice. The further down, the older it is. This allows them to literally analyse pockets of air from points far back in history. CO2 levels and temperature correlate extremely well:
As you'll notice, we are quickly approaching CO2 levels not seen in the last 450,000 years, and we are getting a corresponding increase in temperatures never seen before. So yes, the climate has been changing for billions of years....but not like this.
It is a pity that this issue has become political in the US. There are no reputable climate scientists who deny the reality of man-made climate change. None. Yet somehow if a person agrees with every single expert on the issue, they are suddenly a "left wing nut job."
What is particularly baffling to me on this issue is that ordinary folks such as yourself don't seem to see a problem with dismissing an entire field of scientists despite having very little knowledge on the topic yourself. If you were in fact an actual scientist and had legitimate knowledge in the field yet disputed the consensus due to some scientific insight, that would be one thing. However, millions of people in this country are dismissing a strong consensus among climate scientists simply because the issue is perceived to be a liberal thing. Not because of scientific insight. Not because of a deep knowledge of the issue. Simply because they don't want to believe anything liberals believe.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 12-19-2015 at 11:36 PM..
This post reflects a total ignorance of the science behind climate change. At no point in recorded history has the climate ever changed at this rate. The rate is what is disturbing -- along with the correlation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate scientists can drill holes in glaciers and analyze the trapped air bubbles in the ice. The further down, the older it is. This allows them to literally analyse pockets of air from points far back in history. CO2 levels and temperature correlate extremely well:
As you'll notice, we are quickly approaching CO2 levels not seen in the last 450,000 years, and we are getting a corresponding increase in temperatures never seen before. So yes, the climate has been changing for billions of years....but not like this.
It is a pity that this issue has become political in the US. There are no reputable climate scientists who deny the reality of man-made climate change. None. Yet somehow if a person agrees with every single expert on the issue, they are suddenly a "left wing nut job."
What is particularly baffling to me on this issue is that ordinary folks such as yourself don't seem to see a problem with dismissing an entire field of scientists despite having very little knowledge on the topic yourself. If you were in fact an actual scientist and had legitimate knowledge in the field yet disputed the consensus due to some scientific insight, that would be one thing. However, millions of people in this country are dismissing a strong consensus among climate scientists simply because the issue is perceived to be a liberal thing. Not because of scientific insight. Not because of a deep knowledge of the issue. Simply because they don't want to believe anything liberals believe.
+1,000,000. You nailed not only this issue, but many others.
This post reflects a total ignorance of the science behind climate change. At no point in recorded history has the climate ever changed at this rate. The rate is what is disturbing -- along with the correlation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate scientists can drill holes in glaciers and analyze the trapped air bubbles in the ice. The further down, the older it is. This allows them to literally analyse pockets of air from points far back in history. CO2 levels and temperature correlate extremely well:
As you'll notice, we are quickly approaching CO2 levels not seen in the last 450,000 years, and we are getting a corresponding increase in temperatures never seen before. So yes, the climate has been changing for billions of years....but not like this.
.
Yet as you can see it's cyclical and despite the fact that the graph shows the spike in CO2.....the temperature spike is still lower then the other spikes. In the natural cycle we are actually cooler than we should be, not warmer. With the increased in CO2 we are much much cooler than we should be. The scientists were all very wrong when they modeled what our current temperature should be. They made the classic mistake....correlation is not causation. Never has been, never will be despite how tempting it is. You cannot prove causation with something with so many variables.
Again, it's not relevant and getting hung up on it for politics (either side) gains only hurts long term progress.
Last edited by oneluckymug; 12-20-2015 at 07:17 AM..
Yet as you can see it's cyclical and despite the fact that the graph shows the spike in CO2.....the temperature spike is still lower then the other spikes. In the natural cycle we are actually cooler than we should be, not warmer. With the increased in CO2 we are much much cooler than we should be. The scientists were all very wrong when they modeled what our current temperature should be. They made the classic mistake....correlation is not causation. Never has been, never will be despite how tempting it is. You cannot prove causation with something with so many variables.
Again, it's not relevant and getting hung up on it for politics (either side) gains only hurts long term progress.
While correlation is not synonymous with causation, it is often a good place to start looking for causation. Considering that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, this is not merely a "rooster crowing and sun rising are correlated, so the rooster must be causing the sun to rise" sort of issue. Atmospheric CO2 does in fact cause temperature increases.
Regarding the temperatures being lower than expected:
1. 13 of the 14 hottest years on record are the last 13 years.
2. There is disagreement among climate scientists about how much of a temperature increase we should expect. This is a relatively small disagreement, and the important point is that every single one of them believes that man-made climate change is real. Disagreement about particular details of a theory is not a good reason to dismiss the theory.
While correlation is not synonymous with causation, it is often a good place to start looking for causation. Considering that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, this is not merely a "rooster crowing and sun rising are correlated, so the rooster must be causing the sun to rise" sort of issue. Atmospheric CO2 does in fact cause temperature increases.
Regarding the temperatures being lower than expected:
1. 13 of the 14 hottest years on record are the last 13 years.
2. There is disagreement among climate scientists about how much of a temperature increase we should expect. This is a relatively small disagreement, and the important point is that every single one of them believes that man-made climate change is real. Disagreement about particular details of a theory is not a good reason to dismiss the theory.
The hottest years on record....a record going by less than 2 centuries.....a record that by the very graph used to support global warming shows temperatures should be increasing over where it was 150 years ago even if humans were extinct. Not to take into account things like intentional or ignorant tampering of the science....like placing one of the sensors for measuring said temperature in the middle of the asphalt in university parking lot or over an asphalt parking lot. That even with over 10,000 of these measuring devices in the world....most in populated areas (will be increased temperature), that leaves 99.999999% of the earths surface not recorded for temperatures.
Like I said, we know CO2 causes temperature increases in a lab. We estimate what it does in a world with infinite variables. Wasting political points on a theory which can neither be proven nor disproven is wasteful in both time and resources. You change the argument to something practical like......Hey, we are running out of resources. If you don't want your grandkids to be back in the 1500's, let's figure this out. The only reason to keep beating the man-made global warming drum instead of changing the conversation to something realistic, provable, and practical is to keep money flowing in through private and public grants to the scientists who's livelihoods depend on it and for politicians to make political points while pandering to their voters.
Last edited by oneluckymug; 12-20-2015 at 09:40 AM..
The hottest years on record....a record going by less than 2 centuries.....a record that by the very graph used to support global warming shows temperatures should be increasing over where it was 150 years ago even if humans were extinct.
If humans were extinct, CO2 levels wouldn't be where they are today. It is impossible to surmise where temperatures would be without humans. I just want to make it clear to others who might read this that there is zero disagreement in the scientific community around the issue of the earth warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneluckymug
Not to take into account things like intentional or ignorant tampering of the science....like placing one of the sensors for measuring said temperature in the middle of the asphalt in university parking lot or over an asphalt parking lot. That even with over 10,000 of these measuring devices in the world....most in populated areas (will be increased temperature), that leaves 99.999999% of the earths surface not recorded for temperatures.
Ah, now we're getting into conspiracy theories. This is starting to sound like a debate about evolution. How do you explain the massively shrinking ice caps? How do you explain the work by James Balog that has depicted the massive shrinking of glaciers in just a few years? The winter size of some significant glaciers is smaller than their summer size was a decade ago. That isn't in a university parking lot. This post makes it clear that you simply do not understand the science here. There are scientists across the world, many of whom live in countries in which global warming is NOT a political issue, who agree on this. The idea that they are all juking the stats is preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneluckymug
Like I said, we know CO2 causes temperature increases in a lab. We estimate what it does in a world with infinite variables. Wasting political points on a theory which can neither be proven nor disproven is wasteful in both time and resources.
It can be proven, and it has been proven. All of the scientists agree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneluckymug
You change the argument to something practical like......Hey, we are running out of resources. If you don't want your grandkids to be back in the 1500's, let's figure this out. The only reason to keep beating the man-made global warming drum instead of changing the conversation to something realistic, provable, and practical is to keep money flowing in through private and public grants to the scientists who's livelihoods depend on it and for politicians to make political points while pandering to their voters.
Whether you think the implications of global warming are realistic or not has nothing to do with whether global warming is real. The science is overwhelming. If there was supposed to be an historic ice storm tomorrow, and you were planning on going on a state-wide motorcycle tour, you wouldn't respond by saying "An historic ice storm isn't realistic, so let's change the conversation to something practical like how I can modify my motorcycle to still go on the trip. These meteorologists all have careers that depend on there being big weather events, so I don't trust them." If every meteorologist on earth is predicting an ice storm, there's probably going to be some sort of winter weather event. If every climate scientist on earth is screaming that global warming is real and it could have devastating consequences, it makes sense to listen to them.
If humans were extinct, CO2 levels wouldn't be where they are today. It is impossible to surmise where temperatures would be without humans. I just want to make it clear to others who might read this that there is zero disagreement in the scientific community around the issue of the earth warming.
Ah, now we're getting into conspiracy theories. This is starting to sound like a debate about evolution. How do you explain the massively shrinking ice caps? How do you explain the work by James Balog that has depicted the massive shrinking of glaciers in just a few years? The winter size of some significant glaciers is smaller than their summer size was a decade ago. That isn't in a university parking lot. This post makes it clear that you simply do not understand the science here. There are scientists across the world, many of whom live in countries in which global warming is NOT a political issue, who agree on this. The idea that they are all juking the stats is preposterous.
It can be proven, and it has been proven. All of the scientists agree on that.
Whether you think the implications of global warming are realistic or not has nothing to do with whether global warming is real. The science is overwhelming. If there was supposed to be an historic ice storm tomorrow, and you were planning on going on a state-wide motorcycle tour, you wouldn't respond by saying "An historic ice storm isn't realistic, so let's change the conversation to something practical like how I can modify my motorcycle to still go on the trip. These meteorologists all have careers that depend on there being big weather events, so I don't trust them." If every meteorologist on earth is predicting an ice storm, there's probably going to be some sort of winter weather event. If every climate scientist on earth is screaming that global warming is real and it could have devastating consequences, it makes sense to listen to them.
Your lack of understanding of the basics is confusing. Your willingness to trust people writing there own checks only when they find for man-made global warming is confusing. There is a reason the scientific community starting calling it climate change. It's because man-made global warming didn't quite pan out the way they proposed. The sky was supposed to be falling already. Not happening. Name calling doesn't do anyone any good, but if it makes you feel better.....hey go for it. It's a natural response. The science also isn't overwhelming. In fact, the models for the science have been completely wrong and going against the theories that proposed them. At best they were overly simplistic of the problem. At worst they are rigged.
And meteorologists get paid in good and bad weather. A better comparison would be the drug industry. Companies running experiments where it is beneficial to them to get a specific result. The people conducting those experiments are scientists. The results of those experiments are a lot more quantifiable and repeatable than ones involving mans impact on the temperature of the earth. Yet the same people saying never question the science behind man-made global warming are the ones who say never trust the science behind big pharma (which should also be questioned). See the problem. Your bias isn't being removed. You're easy to pander to so you have lost track of the larger picture. It's healthy to question everything. The scientists of global warming have already told themselves and the world it hasn't panned out how they thought..........that they were wrong on how serious the problem is/was. They moved the goal posts on when the sky will fall. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. To not question is to not think. I've no patience for lazy thinking.
And I'll repeat......the argument on the impact of man with regards to increased global temperatures is for the $$ and political pandering only. The more important part is we are running out of resources for energy, food, shelter, medicine, water, etc........Solve those issues, you start solving man using fossil fuels.
Your willingness to trust people writing there own checks only when they find for man-made global warming is confusing.
This is the heart of your conspiracy argument, and it simply doesn't reflect the actual process. Many scientists who have done work in the field are tenured -- they are getting paid no matter what. Further, many of these scientists are employed as climate scientists or glaciologists or in one of many other relevant occupations. These are viable fields of study even if there is no global warming. The level of cooperation needed in order for the scientific case for global warming to be a conspiracy makes it entirely untenable.
Are you skeptical about all scientific findings? A biologist has some incentive to make a name for himself, so how can you trust anything biologists say? I am being facetious, as there are ample checks and balances in the scientific world to prevent such simple and blatant self-servitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneluckymug
There is a reason the scientific community starting calling it climate change. It's because man-made global warming didn't quite pan out the way they proposed.
No, the reason the phrase "climate change" is more appropriate is that the environmental effect goes beyond mere warming. Climate change models predict a far greater volatility in weather patterns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneluckymug
The sky was supposed to be falling already. Not happening. Name calling doesn't do anyone any good, but if it makes you feel better.....hey go for it. It's a natural response. The science also isn't overwhelming. In fact, the models for the science have been completely wrong and going against the theories that proposed them. At best they were overly simplistic of the problem. At worst they are rigged.
Can you give me one example of "the models for the science have been completely wrong and going against the theories that proposed them?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneluckymug
And I'll repeat......the argument on the impact of man with regards to increased global temperatures is for the $$ and political pandering only. The more important part is we are running out of resources for energy, food, shelter, medicine, water, etc........Solve those issues, you start solving man using fossil fuels.
But we aren't running out of energy, food, shelter, medicine, etc. These are probably in greater supply than at any point in recent history. There are distribution issues regarding who has access to these, but there is no macro scarcity. There is, however, a pressing issue presented by global warming. When the earth is 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is now, we're going to see real issues with everything you just mentioned. How is it that you don't see the connection here?
You have yet to actually present a single argument against the science. Why is that?
Do you also deny evolution? I'm just curious, because your argument here is very similar to the arguments people give against evolution. Scientists are all in cahoots because it is in their best interests to promote their theories, the change isn't actually observable, etc. None of those arguments hold water, just as the arguments you're putting forth here don't hold water, but they are similar.
Another chart shows that tax cuts and changes since 2013 have saved those in the top 1 percent of income an average of $14,977, those in the middle 20 percent saved an average of $6 and those in the lowest 20 percent paid, on average, $30 more.
The governor and legislative leaders say they are spending more on schools, but the report shows that spending per student has fallen 14.5 percent since fiscal year 2008.
[LEFT]
Read more here: ‘Altered State’ report measures the toll of NC’s shift to right | News & Observer[/LEFT]
Your lack of understanding of the basics is confusing. Your willingness to trust people writing there own checks only when they find for man-made global warming is confusing. There is a reason the scientific community starting calling it climate change. It's because man-made global warming didn't quite pan out the way they proposed. The sky was supposed to be falling already. Not happening. Name calling doesn't do anyone any good, but if it makes you feel better.....hey go for it. It's a natural response. The science also isn't overwhelming. In fact, the models for the science have been completely wrong and going against the theories that proposed them. At best they were overly simplistic of the problem. At worst they are rigged.
And meteorologists get paid in good and bad weather. A better comparison would be the drug industry. Companies running experiments where it is beneficial to them to get a specific result. The people conducting those experiments are scientists. The results of those experiments are a lot more quantifiable and repeatable than ones involving mans impact on the temperature of the earth. Yet the same people saying never question the science behind man-made global warming are the ones who say never trust the science behind big pharma (which should also be questioned). See the problem. Your bias isn't being removed. You're easy to pander to so you have lost track of the larger picture. It's healthy to question everything. The scientists of global warming have already told themselves and the world it hasn't panned out how they thought..........that they were wrong on how serious the problem is/was. They moved the goal posts on when the sky will fall. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. To not question is to not think. I've no patience for lazy thinking.
And I'll repeat......the argument on the impact of man with regards to increased global temperatures is for the $$ and political pandering only. The more important part is we are running out of resources for energy, food, shelter, medicine, water, etc........Solve those issues, you start solving man using fossil fuels.
We aren't running out of anything. And if we do, technology will provide substitutes, or we will do without. Thats been proven over and over again throughout history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The climate has been changing up and down for a zillion years.
