Be Afraid, be very afraid

[metis]

Read the entire article! Especially about the gains in Antarctic sew ice. You've been had.

Again, you fail to understand the dynamics of global warming, which does not affect all places equally. Some areas can get substantially more precipitation in the form of snow because of higher levels of evaporation plus shifts in wind direction and sometimes wind speed. IOW, the effect is not uniform. The importance is to look at the overall picture, and that has been and continues to be done by the world's climate scientists who specialize in this area.

 

[Nurion]

Yes, the entire theory relies 100% on hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops involving water vapor NOT CO2, not even climastrologers claim that our adding 1.25 molecules extra CO2 to 10000 of air can possibly have any significant direct effect- even though this is strongly suggested in pop science

Yes we have found a causal relationship - the only causal correlation ever observed between CO2 and temps, and CO2 levels unambiguously lag temp fluctuations by about 900 years.
This fact alone is strong evidence that the opposite causation does not occur to any significant degree, or we have a runaway feedback loop without a single SUV

The infamous hockey stick chart- isn't it curious that GISS- the Goddard Institute for SPACE STUDIES invariably ignores the satellite record- by far the most accurate measurement we have of global temps- and prefers to stitch together surface data from 1880 to present! Drive from a field in rural Illinois to the weather station at O'Hare airport and you will physically feel the several degree rise of urban heat effect. If long standing land stations were not showing vastly increased temps from 100 years ago, that would be a very scary thing indeed!

And for oceans.. cmon serp... do you seriously think we have reliable data for an average global ocean temperature- accurate to within a fraction of a degree as relevant here- from 1880?!

Do a little research on Hanson- head of GISS, he is a pretty extreme environmental activist, hardly an impartial scientist.

Surface data can literally be used to come up with anything you like. Again the only thing remotely close to an accurate scientific measurement is the sat. data from '79 on. In which 1998 remains the warmest year- and no statistically significant warming has occurred since. no way around this. Even within the IPCC, the debate is about the cause of the 'hiatus' in the temp rise.

Actually, we have accurate and reliable data for the average global ocean temperature. Not by temperature itself, but by things that change depending on the temperature of the ocean, such as oceanic sediments formed by plancton. We can also infer other data, such as snowfall in antarctica to track back to the last ice age and beyond.

What would be the point of an institute like that to create a panic over climate change? There is virtually no use for inventing a climate change. There is however a lot of sense in denying it, since a lot of industries depend on procedures that contribute to global warming.

Well to be honest I don't really care whether it is all a hoax or not. I've seen fewer and fewer white Christmasses and every other summer is the warmest summer since the start of recording temperature in the 1880's. Those two facts alone let me believe that the climate change is happening. And as far as it not being true is concerned: What would happen if there were no climate change and we still used more resources to create a cleaner lifestyle, reduce our carbon footprint and create a more sustainable environment for us?
Well I guess that would be a horrible thing to do indeed...

 

[amorphous_constellation]

"In intrinsic crystalline silicon, there are approximately 5×10^22 atoms/cm³. Doping concentration for silicon semiconductors may range anywhere from 10^13 cm−3 to 10^18 cm−3. "

Yeah, sometimes it doesn't take much of something to make change in something, that is admittable. 1 drop of hot sauce with enough scoville units will be like dropping a nuclear bomb on the square inches of terrain of that pizza. Changes the whole thing, or least what it's like to eat the whole thing.

There is however a lot of sense in denying it, since a lot of industries depend on procedures that contribute to global warming.

And also to tie it back to my initial conspiracy theory (I suppose it would be), if there is plant god that wants tropical conditions back with no ice ages anymore.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, we have accurate and reliable data for the average global ocean temperature. Not by temperature itself, but by things that change depending on the temperature of the ocean, such as oceanic sediments formed by plancton. We can also infer other data, such as snowfall in antarctica to track back to the last ice age and beyond.

What would be the point of an institute like that to create a panic over climate change? There is virtually no use for inventing a climate change. There is however a lot of sense in denying it, since a lot of industries depend on procedures that contribute to global warming.

Well to be honest I don't really care whether it is all a hoax or not. I've seen fewer and fewer white Christmasses and every other summer is the warmest summer since the start of recording temperature in the 1880's. Those two facts alone let me believe that the climate change is happening. And as far as it not being true is concerned: What would happen if there were no climate change and we still used more resources to create a cleaner lifestyle, reduce our carbon footprint and create a more sustainable environment for us?
Well I guess that would be a horrible thing to do indeed...

So the record extent of Antarctic ice is evidence for global warming? as is a smaller Arctic ice extent? as is any flood/ drought/ rain/snow/wind or exceptionally boring run of weather anywhere at any time?

Can you name or even imagine a single observation that would refute 'climate change'? being at least hypothetically falsifiable is a core element of the scientific method.


carbon dioxide is not dirty, honestly! you are exhaling 40000 ppm right now, plants thrive on this 'dirt' this 'dirt' is what makes Earth green, we are all 'dirt' based lifeforms...

but referencing science makes no difference because;

What would happen if there were no climate change and we still used more resources to create a cleaner lifestyle, reduce our carbon footprint and create a more sustainable environment for us?

There we have it: why question the 'problem' if you like the 'solutions' regardless

 

[Nurion]

So the record extent of Antarctic ice is evidence for global warming? as is a smaller Arctic ice extent? as is any flood/ drought/ rain/snow/wind or exceptionally boring run of weather anywhere at any time?

Can you name or even imagine a single observation that would refute 'climate change'? being at least hypothetically falsifiable is a core element of the scientific method.
carbon dioxide is not dirty, honestly! you are exhaling 40000 ppm right now, plants thrive on this 'dirt' this 'dirt' is what makes Earth green, we are all 'dirt' based lifeforms...
but referencing science makes no difference because;

Of course, there's plenty of evidence that can refute climate change.
The global sea temperature can be dated back for hundreds of millions of years. As can the sea level. Both have changed dramatically over this large period of time, and therefore we know, that it has been warmer on earth before, where the poles have been almost free of ice. And the sea level has been higher than today.

And you are right, plants filter carbon dioxide out of the are around us to grow, they only take minerals and water out of the soil to grow. Most of the substance that makes trees is filtered and repurposed carbon dioxide. Flora and fauna therefore are in a giant circle of life, where one supports the other.

BUT:
The issue is not the change itself. It is the RATE at which the change occurs. The global temperature usually changed over large periods of time, i.e. 10'000 years or more. The changes we see now occured in less than 50. Less than 0.5% of the time for a change on that scale? Please tell me how this could happen according to your worldview.

If you look at events by themselves, floods, droughts, Arctic ice, of course they seem boring and unimportant. Incidence, however begs to differ. If you look at the picture of all these weather phenomena combined, you will see that there is a change happening in most eco-systems. A change that occurs at a rate that is dangerous for many plants and animals within these eco-systems.

And I did not see you referencing science, I've seen you attacking existing science without providing scientific evidence of your own. You actually asked me provide your evidence for you instead.

There we have it: why question the 'problem' if you like the 'solutions' regardless

I do like the solution regardless, sure. But I would not encourage the government to force it on anyone if it weren't important.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course, there's plenty of evidence that can refute climate change.
The global sea temperature can be dated back for hundreds of millions of years. As can the sea level. Both have changed dramatically over this large period of time, and therefore we know, that it has been warmer on earth before, where the poles have been almost free of ice. And the sea level has been higher than today.

including the Ordovician Ice age. when CO2 'pollution' was 1000% today's levels..

And you are right, plants filter carbon dioxide out of the are around us to grow, they only take minerals and water out of the soil to grow. Most of the substance that makes trees is filtered and repurposed carbon dioxide. Flora and fauna therefore are in a giant circle of life, where one supports the other.

We have some common ground here then, compared with many people, esp. fresh out of high school, who believe anything with the word 'carbon' = inherently deleterious dirty pollutant.

But this natural 'circle' was not balanced/ eternally sustainable before the industrial revolution- plants consumed atmospheric CO2 from levels>7000 ppm to a near starvation level of 275 ppm, opening up vast deserts, shrinking the biosphere. We are recycling a tiny portion of this spent fuel. Fuel which forms the basis of not only plants, but the animal kingdom also. We are carbon (pollution) based life forms ourselves also, are we not?

BUT:
The issue is not the change itself. It is the RATE at which the change occurs. The global temperature usually changed over large periods of time, i.e. 10000 years or more. The changes we see now occured in less than 50. Less than 0.5% of the time for a change on that scale? Please tell me how this could happen according to your worldview.

If you look at events by themselves, floods, droughts, Arctic ice, of course they seem boring and unimportant. Incidence, however begs to differ. If you look at the picture of all these weather phenomena combined, you will see that there is a change happening in most eco-systems. A change that occurs at a rate that is dangerous for many plants and animals within these eco-systems.

Which phenomena? the continual records set for increasing Antarctic sea ice? The record length of time without a hurricane making landfall in the US? or the record lull in tornadic activity? The warmest year occurring right in the middle of the 35 year satellite record? The 'no significant acceleration observed in the rate of sea level rise' according to IPCC?

Ironically, this notable unusual stability of the climate is one of the few pieces of evidence FOR an enhanced greenhouse effect.. which would warm the poles disproportionately, thus reducing global temp contrasts, and energy available to weather systems in turn. This is not a hypothetical prediction of any politically funded computer simulation, it's unambiguous, directly observable, measurable, repeatable cause and effect. AKA science- as it used to be understood- just like photosynthesis. Precisely the reason why Venus, with >97% CO2, closer to the sun, 700 degree temps... has barely a breath of wind at the surface, because the intense greenhouse effect leaves practically no contrast in temps between the poles and equator = no engine for weather.

And I did not see you referencing science, I've seen you attacking existing science without providing scientific evidence of your own. You actually asked me provide your evidence for you instead.

I'm not attacking science, I'm defending it. Science is a method, not a consensus- Galileo, Einstein, Planck, Lemaitre would tell you the same!
"It doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact" Einstein

I do like the solution regardless.

I have literally yet to meet one single believer who does not.

I do not think you are dishonest, I know and love many intelligent well meaning people who think global warming is a real problem, but they have no interest in looking into the 'problem' when the 'solutions' are so agreeable to them.

There is simply no scientific, direct, observable, repeatable, cause-effect where an extra couple of CO2 molecules in 10000 of air- somehow transforms Earth's climate. No way around this.

But there is a history, since the dawn of civilization, of people blaming other people for bad weather and demanding payment for it. It was called 'global cooling' when I was in school. The climate will always change, and people will always blame each other for it

 

[metis]

including the Ordovician Ice age. when CO2 'pollution' was 1000% today's levels..



We have some common ground here then, compared with many people, esp. fresh out of high school, who believe anything with the word 'carbon' = inherently deleterious dirty pollutant.

But this natural 'circle' was not balanced/ eternally sustainable before the industrial revolution- plants consumed atmospheric CO2 from levels>7000 ppm to a near starvation level of 275 ppm, opening up vast deserts, shrinking the biosphere. We are recycling a tiny portion of this spent fuel. Fuel which forms the basis of not only plants, but the animal kingdom also. We are carbon (pollution) based life forms ourselves also, are we not?



Which phenomena? the continual records set for increasing Antarctic sea ice? The record length of time without a hurricane making landfall in the US? or the record lull in tornadic activity? The warmest year occurring right in the middle of the 35 year satellite record? The 'no significant acceleration observed in the rate of sea level rise' according to IPCC?

Ironically, this notable unusual stability of the climate is one of the few pieces of evidence FOR an enhanced greenhouse effect.. which would warm the poles disproportionately, thus reducing global temp contrasts, and energy available to weather systems in turn. This is not a hypothetical prediction of any politically funded computer simulation, it's unambiguous, directly observable, measurable, repeatable cause and effect. AKA science- as it used to be understood- just like photosynthesis. Precisely the reason why Venus, with >97% CO2, closer to the sun, 700 degree temps... has barely a breath of wind at the surface, because the intense greenhouse effect leaves practically no contrast in temps between the poles and equator = no engine for weather.



I'm not attacking science, I'm defending it. Science is a method, not a consensus- Galileo, Einstein, Planck, Lemaitre would tell you the same!
"It doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact" Einstein



I have literally yet to meet one single believer who does not.

I do not think you are dishonest, I know and love many intelligent well meaning people who think global warming is a real problem, but they have no interest in looking into the 'problem' when the 'solutions' are so agreeable to them.

There is simply no scientific, direct, observable, repeatable, cause-effect where an extra couple of CO2 molecules in 10000 of air- somehow transforms Earth's climate. No way around this.

But there is a history, since the dawn of civilization, of people blaming other people for bad weather and demanding payment for it. It was called 'global cooling' when I was in school. The climate will always change, and people will always blame each other for it

So, the essence of what you are really saying here is that close to 100% of the climate scientists worldwide are ignorant about their subject, dishonest, or both.

 

[Nietzsche]

I never saw that movie. Should I?

It's the funniest movie I've ever seen.

The acting can be a bit off and some moments are corny, but it's okay. They kind of give it away, as to what is happening, towards the beginning but, of course, the characters don't really grasp it until further on. It's basically a Mother Nature strikes back kind of thing.

You're being waaaaaay too generous.

 

[Nurion]

So, the essence of what you are really saying here is that close to 100% of the climate scientists worldwide are ignorant about their subject, dishonest, or both.

Nah, they probably just want to get some more research grants to be able to keep on surviving off their faulty research.
Or maybe they are secretly in cahoots with greenpeace!

It's the funniest movie I've ever seen.
You're being waaaaaay too generous.

Well the beginning is quite strong. But yeah, the acting becomes increasingly unbearable as the story continues to deteriorate. Especially when the trees start "targetting" the larger groups of people. just wow.

 

[Nietzsche]

Well the beginning is quite strong. But yeah, the acting becomes increasingly unbearable as the story continues to deteriorate. Especially when the trees start "targetting" the larger groups of people. just wow.

The premise is laughable to begin with. Watching all those people commit suicide in unison is just comical. And then you've got the guy on the giant lawnmower or harvester thing. It's great. I mean, the movie is horrible, but watching Marky Mark try and act like a scientist is amazing. It's almost as laughable as 'Devil', but even The Happening doesn't try to present a piece of toast falling jelly-side down as proof of Satanic or other-worldly influence.

 

[rgrayberg]

Actually, the climate scientists, who have been intently studying the data for decades now, have overwhelmingly concluded that CO2 is indeed the main culprit.

I think that's part of the problem. It's been studied for DECADES. The time of weather records is very brief in relation to the history of the planet and the universe. It seems that the planet moves through phases, warming and cooling with no one at fault. Yes, humans have affected the environment but I've got to wonder how much effect we've had in the scheme of the history of the planet.

 

[JustWondering]

Just who do you consider the " dominant religious members " that will be killing all the atheists, gays and minority religious members?

I should be safe then, the dominant religion here is Christianity. Christians turn the other cheek, love their neighbors, and do unto others as they wish done unto them.

Is there a font for sarcasm?

 

[JustWondering]

I think that's part of the problem. It's been studied for DECADES. The time of weather records is very brief in relation to the history of the planet and the universe. It seems that the planet moves through phases, warming and cooling with no one at fault. Yes, humans have affected the environment but I've got to wonder how much effect we've had in the scheme of the history of the planet.

 

[rgrayberg]

Thanks for the video. It's exciting to see the research being done on our historic climate and the changes that have occurred. It just bothers me when people get excited because we're having the warmest winter "on record." "On record" really is a very short time compared to the time the planet has been in existence. We only started recording weather history in the past, what, 200 years?

 

[JustWondering]

Thanks for the video. It's exciting to see the research being done on our historic climate and the changes that have occurred. It just bothers me when people get excited because we're having the warmest winter "on record." "On record" really is a very short time compared to the time the planet has been in existence. We only started recording weather history in the past, what, 200 years?

I heard on a program (can't remember what it was) that if current trends continue the average global temperature could increase by 1 or 2 degrees within the next hundred years or so. Climate Change doesn't happen quickly, by human standards.

 

[rgrayberg]

I heard on a program (can't remember what it was) that if current trends continue the average global temperature could increase by 1 or 2 degrees within the next hundred years or so. Climate Change doesn't happen quickly, by human standards.

1 or 2 degrees can have significant repercussions.

 

[JustWondering]

1 or 2 degrees can have significant repercussions.

Yea, in coastal areas, where I don't live and long after I'm dead.

 

[rgrayberg]

I supposed my great or great great grandchildren will be affected. Hopefully it's not too late. Weather patterns have been erratic but so far winter is still winter and summer is still summer.

 

[BSM1]

Of course, there's plenty of evidence that can refute climate change.
The global sea temperature can be dated back for hundreds of millions of years. As can the sea level. Both have changed dramatically over this large period of time, and therefore we know, that it has been warmer on earth before, where the poles have been almost free of ice. And the sea level has been higher than today.

And you are right, plants filter carbon dioxide out of the are around us to grow, they only take minerals and water out of the soil to grow. Most of the substance that makes trees is filtered and repurposed carbon dioxide. Flora and fauna therefore are in a giant circle of life, where one supports the other.

BUT:
The issue is not the change itself. It is the RATE at which the change occurs. The global temperature usually changed over large periods of time, i.e. 10'000 years or more. The changes we see now occured in less than 50. Less than 0.5% of the time for a change on that scale? Please tell me how this could happen according to your worldview.

If you look at events by themselves, floods, droughts, Arctic ice, of course they seem boring and unimportant. Incidence, however begs to differ. If you look at the picture of all these weather phenomena combined, you will see that there is a change happening in most eco-systems. A change that occurs at a rate that is dangerous for many plants and animals within these eco-systems.

And I did not see you referencing science, I've seen you attacking existing science without providing scientific evidence of your own. You actually asked me provide your evidence for you instead.


I do like the solution regardless, sure. But I would not encourage the government to force it on anyone if it weren't important.

So how much has the globe warmed up over, say, the last ten years? Last fifty? Last hundred?

 

[metis]

I think that's part of the problem. It's been studied for DECADES. The time of weather records is very brief in relation to the history of the planet and the universe. It seems that the planet moves through phases, warming and cooling with no one at fault. Yes, humans have affected the environment but I've got to wonder how much effect we've had in the scheme of the history of the planet.

Yes, Earth has been through warmer time periods, but such changes can typically present serious problems-- just ask the dinosaurs about that.

Our Defense Department, which is hardly a liberal organization, considers this climate change we're experiencing to be very destabilizing and very serious, and for good reasons. It is starting to cause more coastal flooding, which is where the highest proportion of people live, plus it has the effect of intensifying storms, and we're already seeing some results of that. And these changes have been confirmed by NOAA, NASA, the NAS, and other agencies here and elsewhere.

The greatest concern is if this rise hits more than 2 degrees celsius, whereas the tundra begins to thaw deeper thus releasing large amounts of methane gas, and methane has roughly 20 times the heat-absorption capacity than CO2. Some calculations have it that this would put us into "the point of no return" situation whereas the heat would build decade after decade to the point whereas massive losses of human, animal, and plant life would occur.