First Five Months of 2015 Hottest on Record

[metis]

Yes...it is a serious question... fyi...CO2 is not a pollutant...it is colourless, odorless, and essential to life on earth...it is plant food....the earth is getting greener due to the increase in CO2 levels... Records show that CO2 levels actually lag temperature increase, not precede it...

False on multiple counts. First of all, CO2 is considered a "pollutant" if the numbers are considered too high, much like a plant in an undesirable location is often called a "weed". Higher levels of CO2 do indeed lead to the greenhouse effect, and this has been well known since the 1800's. However, there is a latent effect due to the fact that Earth's overall temperature often lags because of residual energy.

A close fried of mine works in Antarctica for 6 months per year and has done so for about 15 years straight now, and he has names for deniers that I can't post here without being banned for several lives. Also, one of my sons-in-law and my oldest daughter own a cabin near Glacier National Park, and the glaciers there are melting noticeably rapidly.

It seems that some are so much more content to blindly follow right-wing politicians and their media groupies than actually follow what the scientific research is rather clearly indicating.

 

[metis]

Oh yeah...than how about 8 or 9 degrees F...cos that's the range variation of Earth temperature....and it has nothing to do with humans...fortunately we are now in an interglacial period...lol...

Yes, there has been warmer episodes in Earth's history-- so? The importance is not that Earth will disappear or that all life go extinct, but that there can be monumental consequences that can have major effects on current populations.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok...for those who don't like the anomaly graphs,,,,or satellite data source....here is one of absolute temperature from 1881 to 2013....using ground based thermometer....scary yeah? ...lol

If we made a graph between 0 and 10,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit. And then we used the data for heating up water from 0 to 212º F. It wouldn't show. It would look like it was constant on zero, all the way through. A straight line. But I'm quite sure that neither you or I would like to stick our hands in boiling water.

If you look closely on the graph, the temperature has changed. It is higher on the right side. It doesn't look big because of the scale, but a couple of degrees difference on this planet will (and is) change things.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, there has been warmer episodes in Earth's history-- so? The importance is not that Earth will disappear or that all life go extinct, but that there can be monumental consequences that can have major effects on current populations.

Yup.

The problem with the climate change isn't if Earth will still be around or life will continue in some way, but that we, the modern human, do not have the infrastructure or living conditions to handle it. The last time we had warmer weather (600,000 y.a.?), we lived in caves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

False on multiple counts. First of all, CO2 is considered a "pollutant" if the numbers are considered too high, much like a plant in an undesirable location is often called a "weed". Higher levels of CO2 do indeed lead to the greenhouse effect, and this has been well known since the 1800's. However, there is a latent effect due to the fact that Earth's overall temperature often lags because of residual energy.

A close fried of mine works in Antarctica for 6 months per year and has done so for about 15 years straight now, and he has names for deniers that I can't post here without being banned for several lives. Also, one of my sons-in-law and my oldest daughter own a cabin near Glacier National Park, and the glaciers there are melting noticeably rapidly.

It seems that some are so much more content to blindly follow right-wing politicians and their media groupies than actually follow what the scientific research is rather clearly indicating.

Show me the scientific evidence that proves CO2 is a pollutant...not just rhetoric?

Of course the glaciers around the world in general are melting....look at that graph I just posted...they formed in the ice age glacial period and started to met when the earth came out of it about 11,000 years ago...and fyi,,,,personal rhetorical anecdotes about your daughter's cabin and your friend who works in Antarctica don't count here so don't bother...science rocks!

And don't blame right wing politicians for the cessation of increase in global temperature....that's just so lame...stick to the science...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If we made a graph between 0 and 10,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit. And then we used the data for heating up water from 0 to 212º F. It wouldn't show. It would look like it was constant on zero, all the way through. A straight line. But I'm quite sure that neither you or I would like to stick our hands in boiling water.

If you look closely on the graph, the temperature has changed. It is higher on the right side. It doesn't look big because of the scale, but a couple of degrees difference on this planet will (and is) change things.

So.....of course the graph line is higher on the right hand side...the average global temperature has increased 0.07C over the period...no one is disputing that there hasn't been global warming, just that for the last decade plus...the warming had paused...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yup.

The problem with the climate change isn't if Earth will still be around or life will continue in some way, but that we, the modern human, do not have the infrastructure or living conditions to handle it. The last time we had warmer weather (600,000 y.a.?), we lived in caves.

But the science is not settled about cagw...the models predictive value has not been proved..,,but the average interglacial is about 15,000 years so the 8 F drop in temperature is unavoidable in the next ice age a few thousand years from now..

 

[Guitar's Cry]

They forgot to average NJ in for January and February. We had the longest cold period since the Great Depression.

Yeah, us in the Northeast US were the only land area in the world with below average temps. High five!

 

[Ouroboros]

So.....of course the graph line is higher on the right hand side...the average global temperature has increased 0.07C over the period...no one is disputing that there hasn't been global warming, just that for the last decade plus...the warming had paused...

You mean 0.7º C, which is 1.5º F, or thereabout.

And also, you did present the graph with the text "here is one of absolute temperature from 1881 to 2013....using ground based thermometer....scary yeah? ...lol", which to me suggests that you're trying to be a little sarcastic about it. That you're trying to say that it's not something to worry about. I could be wrong, but based on your previous posts in this thread and that comment, I assumed that you're trying to downplay the seriousness of the issue.

If I remember right, 600,000 years ago there was a huge mega-drought, world wide. A lot of animals couldn't survive, and humans managed to pull through it because of ingenuity. We will do it again, however, a lot of people will suffer before we do. We won't start acting and do something to help us survive until we've had huge losses. We could avoid that scenario by taking the threat seriously now, before it hits us all hard, but it takes a little bit of cooperation from everyone. Personally, I don't believe we're at the stage yet, as a society at large, to grasp how much this will affect the generations to come. Our kids, grand-kids, and their kids, will suffer, and we could help finding solutions now, but we won't.

Also, the other times in history when it was extremely hot, with droughts, and crazy weather and such, it created bottlenecks in evolution. We will see evolution in process through this, and perhaps it won't be humans pulling through on the other end.

 

[Ouroboros]

But the science is not settled about cagw...the models predictive value has not been proved..,,but the average interglacial is about 15,000 years so the 8 F drop in temperature is unavoidable in the next ice age a few thousand years from now..

Sure.

I'm not sure I will be around a few thousand years from now though. It'll be great for my grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-... kids, but it's too late for me or my kids. I rather think that we need to start working on solutions for society where we can survive until the next ice age, just in case. If we're wrong and we didn't have to reduce pollution, I still think we improved things by reducing pollution. I don't want to increase pollution just because we can't be sure if it's part of what's happening or not. If we invent better living, heating/cooling, energy, food supply, etc to take us through a potential hot future, and then it doesn't happen, we haven't lost the technology but still improved science and our chances of survival. Put it this way, I rather be on the global warming side and do something about it and be wrong (because of the overall improvements we would get anyway), then to deny global warming, do nothing, and be right (and have changed nothing).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You mean 0.7º C, which is 1.5º F, or thereabout.

And also, you did present the graph with the text "here is one of absolute temperature from 1881 to 2013....using ground based thermometer....scary yeah? ...lol", which to me suggests that you're trying to be a little sarcastic about it. That you're trying to say that it's not something to worry about. I could be wrong, but based on your previous posts in this thread and that comment, I assumed that you're trying to downplay the seriousness of the issue.

If I remember right, 600,000 years ago there was a huge mega-drought, world wide. A lot of animals couldn't survive, and humans managed to pull through it because of ingenuity. We will do it again, however, a lot of people will suffer before we do. We won't start acting and do something to help us survive until we've had huge losses. We could avoid that scenario by taking the threat seriously now, before it hits us all hard, but it takes a little bit of cooperation from everyone. Personally, I don't believe we're at the stage yet, as a society at large, to grasp how much this will affect the generations to come. Our kids, grand-kids, and their kids, will suffer, and we could help finding solutions now, but we won't.

Also, the other times in history when it was extremely hot, with droughts, and crazy weather and such, it created bottlenecks in evolution. We will see evolution in process through this, and perhaps it won't be humans pulling through on the other end.

I don't disagree generally with what you said...but you aren't blaming the human race for these droughts in the past history of the planet...it a the A in AGW that I was being sarcastic about....

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't disagree generally with what you said...but you aren't blaming the human race for these droughts in the past history of the planet...it a the A in AGW that I was being sarcastic about....

According to NASA it's "only" a 90% probability that the current warming is anthropomorphic. I don't know, but I strongly suspect (to 90%) that it's true. Even if it isn't, global climate change is happening.

The thing is, it wasn't humans fault last times it happened, but the last times it happened we didn't have a society that depended on a world that wasn't going global warming. We lived in caves, pretty much, and I'm quite sure that this is not what the global-warming deniers are looking forward to as the solution in case it's all true.

Honestly, I don't care if it's caused by humans or not. What I do care about is that we change infrastructure to be able to take what's coming.

Some reports now suggest that we are too late anyway. That we are heading towards +2º C and 5 m sea level regardless if we stopped all pollution in the whole world this instant.

To me, the issue is not so much about what we've done, but what we can do. GW deniers insist on doing nothing. I think that's like betting one's life on a Lotto ticket. If we do nothing and GW is true, we're screwed completely. If we do nothing and GW is false, then we gained nothing. If we do something and GW is true, then we hopefully manage to save humanity. If we do something and GW is false, then we at least gained knowledge. All this, regardless if it's anthropomorphic or not.

The same goes for all the plastic in the oceans. And many other issues. We have to change how we do things. We're not even a Kardashev Type I society yet. To get there, we have to change our attitude towards nature (myself included, first step is to recognize the problem).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to NASA it's "only" a 90% probability that the current warming is anthropomorphic. I don't know, but I strongly suspect (to 90%) that it's true. Even if it isn't, global climate change is happening.

The thing is, it wasn't humans fault last times it happened, but the last times it happened we didn't have a society that depended on a world that wasn't going global warming. We lived in caves, pretty much, and I'm quite sure that this is not what the global-warming deniers are looking forward to as the solution in case it's all true.

Honestly, I don't care if it's caused by humans or not. What I do care about is that we change infrastructure to be able to take what's coming.

Some reports now suggest that we are too late anyway. That we are heading towards +2º C and 5 m sea level regardless if we stopped all pollution in the whole world this instant.

To me, the issue is not so much about what we've done, but what we can do. GW deniers insist on doing nothing. I think that's like betting one's life on a Lotto ticket. If we do nothing and GW is true, we're screwed completely. If we do nothing and GW is false, then we gained nothing. If we do something and GW is true, then we hopefully manage to save humanity. If we do something and GW is false, then we at least gained knowledge. All this, regardless if it's anthropomorphic or not.

The same goes for all the plastic in the oceans. And many other issues. We have to change how we do things. We're not even a Kardashev Type I society yet. To get there, we have to change our attitude towards nature (myself included, first step is to recognize the problem).

That's what most of the skeptics (those who do not believe that humans are predominately responsible for all the warming), many of the luke warmers (those who believe that humans maybe partly responsible), and even some of the true agw believers, believe....that regardless of the cause of the warming....the money planned to be spent on mitigation would not likely prevent the event, and it would be far wiser to spend it on adaption.....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok...for those who don't like the anomaly graphs,,,,or satellite data source....here is one of absolute temperature from 1881 to 2013....using ground based thermometer....scary yeah? ...lol

Pretty scary. Wonder what the change in ocean height is. Maybe that chart is actually a better indicator than air temperature. I also wonder if the climate scientists know about this....

 

[metis]

Show me the scientific evidence that proves CO2 is a pollutant...not just rhetoric?

Of course the glaciers around the world in general are melting....look at that graph I just posted...they formed in the ice age glacial period and started to met when the earth came out of it about 11,000 years ago...and fyi,,,,personal rhetorical anecdotes about your daughter's cabin and your friend who works in Antarctica don't count here so don't bother...science rocks!

And don't blame right wing politicians for the cessation of increase in global temperature....that's just so lame...stick to the science...

I am a scientist who has "stuck to the science" for over 50 years now, so you simply do not know what you are talking about, nor do you seem to really care.

So, here's from Scientific American, which I doubt very much you have any familiarity with: The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide - Scientific American

I already linked you to a National Geographic article, which seems to not have any impact on you whatsoever. And common sense should tell you that observations can be valid, especially when we're dealing with the melting of glaciers, which you seem also totally unfamiliar with as well.

Also, you pooh-pooh what 98% of the climate scientists have determined, implying that they're either ignorant and/or dishonest, and then you have the supreme arrogance to portray yourself as being superior to them.

You have no real interest in science, it appears, because science involves having an open mind and paying attention to what the objectively-derived research is telling us. When you decide to leave your fairy tale fantasies and want to actually discuss science, maybe then we can have a serious discussion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Pretty scary. Wonder what the change in ocean height is. Maybe that chart is actually a better indicator than air temperature. I also wonder if the climate scientists know about this....

The graph is accurate my friend...it puts the relative warming in perspective...and what about sea level rise..current rate will mean a rise of about 8 inches this century...scary yeah...lol...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am a scientist who has "stuck to the science" for over 50 years now, so you simply do not know what you are talking about, nor do you seem to really care.

So, here's from Scientific American, which I doubt very much you have any familiarity with: The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide - Scientific American

I already linked you to a National Geographic article, which seems to not have any impact on you whatsoever. And common sense should tell you that observations can be valid, especially when we're dealing with the melting of glaciers, which you seem also totally unfamiliar with as well.

Also, you pooh-pooh what 98% of the climate scientists have determined, implying that they're either ignorant and/or dishonest, and then you have the supreme arrogance to portray yourself as being superior to them.

You have no real interest in science, it appears, because science involves having an open mind and paying attention to what the objectively-derived research is telling us. When you decide to leave your fairy tale fantasies and want to actually discuss science, maybe then we can have a serious discussion.

Metis...we have been over all this stuff before...National Geographic is a looney green hack magazine for lefties.... Science is not supposed to be political, but that's what the cagw crowd are making it.....a fear campaign to persuade the chicken littles to pay for a carbon tax and save the planet...lol....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The graph is accurate my friend...it puts the relative warming in perspective...and what about sea level rise..current rate will mean a rise of about 8 inches this century...scary yeah...lol...

You are a hell of a troll. I give you that. Nothing else. But you do get that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Metis...we have been over all this stuff before...National Geographic is a looney green hack magazine for lefties.... Science is not supposed to be political, but that's what the cagw crowd are making it.....a fear campaign to persuade the chicken littles to pay for a carbon tax and save the planet...lol....

Science isn't supposed to be political. Perhaps the politics should stay out and we should just look at the science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are a hell of a troll. I give you that. Nothing else. But you do get that.

I beg your pardon.....now into ad hom remarks....