Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Do you see that STEEP assent at the end of the graph? That is a high derivative, what AGW claims are based on. Temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate (of change).

a reply to: CoBaZ

We live in a thoroughly post-modern age, and believe -- for the most part -- that everything is relative, even if we deny it to ourselves. Everyone feels entitled to their own opinions, and their own facts. Worse -- all opinions are seen as relatively "right," in and of themselves.

This is why there will never be any meaningful disclosure regarding anything, going forward. Assertions repeated become evidence in a world where facts and truth have no authority over opinion.

For example: Total volcanic C02 emissions range somewhere between 90-325 million tons / year. Total world emissions of C02 from fossil fuel use is close to 30 BILLION tons / year.

Yet -- in this very thread, we can see an actual example of scientific relativism wherein a poster has asserted that human activity is a fart or blip with regard to C02, compared to volcanic eruptions. The data actually exists. It can be found by anyone who looks beyond the self-selecting bias of the blogosphere, and can be interpreted by anyone with a passing familiarity with basic mathematics. Yet the argument that volcanoes spew FAR MORE C02 persists, because our culture rewards the notion that facts and data are like Football or politics, and that all interpretations of them are equally valid. There is no version of math where 325 million is greater than or equal to 30 billion, by any stretch of logic or imagination. Yet, here we are, having the same old argument, because people feel entitled to their own version of reality.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry i see no rise. What part do you mean?

a reply to: Sargeras

You do know all of that has been going on for billions of years longer than man has existed right?

No, I'm a Young Earther, me...

Yes, of course I do. But I am not sure what the relevance is here. You couldn't have lived in the Jurassic, you know. Much too hot in most places but it would be the atmospheric pressure and the oxygen content that killed you. Or maybe a T. Rex.

a reply to: Astyanax

I'm not aware of ANYONE that denies the climate changes.

a reply to: TheBulk

Really? There are at least two posters in this very thread who assert that volcanoes spew more C02 into the atmosphere every year than we do.

That one assertion, coupled with a total and absolute failure to grok the carbon cycle -- is denial central.

If I told you that I honestly believed the air we breath is actually made up of 99% Mountain Dew, you'd rightly think I was crazy, or stupid.

That's how the rest of us feel when people who have political "opinions" reinterpret 8th grade science based on their political value system.

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: Astyanax

I'm not aware of ANYONE that denies the climate changes.

That's about right, you can go on with this stuff ad nauseum. The forest fires for instance, are to be expected, and sure enough you have a big fire in Canada as they did in 1998, 1989 El Nino/AKA strong heat years, and probably other years during the spring firewatch because of all the dead bracken and debris on the forest floor. the older forest fires accumulated millions of acres forest, this one is potentionally deadly because it is in and near urban areas.
As for climate change, we just know is is an ongoing thing, always has been. AGW, on the other hand, is not climate change per se, it's just that the AGW'ers in past years busted their asses insisting that it's all about AGW, and clearly it's not so easliy defineable as some would make you believe, remember, we are supposed to be near toast at this stage. When the expected didn't happen, and some were shivering, while others were having a dip...a mad scramble for alternative scenarios and guess what? Oh yes, some of us will be toasty, and some of us will be wearing mufflers.
What do you expect from these chancers? they full of crap, playing with their Lego bricks to see what happens...then it doesn't!

originally posted by: Astyanax
This has never happened before.

I wonder how certain we can be when something like that is said.

surely, back in the 1930's someone said the same thing.

While the AGW debate continues, you cannot deny that strange weather patterns have happened in the past, and will happen in the future. And none of that proves anything other than strange weather happens.

But regardless, until everyone decides to stop driving cars, buses, planes, and trucks, it seems like shooting the moon would be time better spent than arguing over who is right in the man made warming debate. If it's 100% man's fault, then without change, the end is near, and we aren't changing fast enough. If man's influence is more like .2%, then the Earth will find a way to adapt to the changes as it has for 4.5 billion years. Either way, bathrooms are a much more important topic.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

You're talking AGW theory. Nobody denies climate change. You guys are getting caught up in your own word games.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Do you see that STEEP assent at the end of the graph? That is a high derivative, what AGW claims are based on. Temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate (of change).

That steep rise was caused by ...el niño. Just like we had in 1998 if you check the graph. So what happened next? It dropped down to 'normal' again.
Yes feb 2016 was the hottest month since the beginning of the satellite records(1979) The second warmest was april 1998.
I believe we will see the same trend as in 1998 and at the end of the year everything will be back to normal.
I also believe the satellite data to be a lot more accurate than the ground stations data, it is far to complex to calculate a global temperature. There are too many variables playing here that it's just impossible to take them all into account to calculate a temperature.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Satellite derived temperatures are problematic.
But that data you show seems to indicate a change of more than 0.2º.

1979: -0.2º
2015: 0.4º

Isn't that 0.6º?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then you would have no problems if I pointed to local regional weather anomalies to "prove" that AGW is NOT happening?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks



The key here is in the "Global" portion of your acronym.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

your video link doesn't work

If local regional weather patterns (its hot in India in the spring, its flooding in Texas and there is a fire in Canada) can be used to support the AGW theory, then we can use local regional weather patters (its a cooler spring in southern Ontario) to disprove AGW.

For years, whenever it was pointed out that weather was colder in an area, we were told that this was an example of weather, not proof against AGW.

Then AGW supporters use weather to "prove" AGW.

Its hotter in India and and wetter in Texas and drier in Canada DIRECTLY because of EL NINO, not AGW.

www.pmel.noaa.gov...

All of these regional weather effects are predicted and expected and have nothing to do with AGW and everything to do with El Nino.

Tired of Control Freaks

It's funny or not funny, because we have actual United States Congressmen that are on Science committees bringing snowballs into congress to show that there is no global warming. He wasn't even at the stage yet to be talking about mans contribution, he's still in the denying it's even been warming! Then you have the Florida Government that mandated that state employees couldn't even use terms like global warming or see level rise. There's a lot more of this type of rubbish, including congress stopping the pentagon from researching or denying some of their requests about Climate change.

The problem with all of this is that it stops us from doing anything smart. Even if we stopped talking about "man made global warming" and just called it climate change, we should still be studying it because...

If temperatures continue to rise, and they are and will...here is what we should be discussing.

there will be Some sea level rise, in fact we know it's going to happen but we dont' know how much, we know which cities and infrastructure is below sea level though, like New Orleans, and we should be taking precautions, like building sea walls and changing building and zoning ordinances.

Rising middle east temps....this could cause mass migrations. There are over 500 million people in the hot zones there. Will they migrate? We should be planning contingencies just in case.

There will be drought...which causes local wars, small migrations and food shortages and foot price increases. We should be planning for it and making contingencies.

We should be decreasing our dependence on Oil foreign or domestic. We should stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies and making it easier for Solar companies like Solar City to do business instead of making it harder. We should make it easy for Tesla to sell their cars instead of making it harder. The market should dictate which companies survive, fail and profit, not the governemnt as their doing now.

The pentagon, had a plan of what they condsidered important to make sure they can defend the country if temps continue to rise...Shouldn't we listen to the pentagon instead of congressmen who get millions of dollars every year from fossil fuel companies.

And I'll end with this, I'll still take the word of most scientists int he world over you guys on ATS and other internet forums and our republican congressmen. Yes?

a reply to: threeeyesopen

One dry winter is not a "trend."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Satellite derived temperatures are problematic.
But that data you show seems to indicate a change of more than 0.2º.

1979: -0.2º
2015: 0.4º

Isn't that 0.6º?

If those are problematic than the land based stationdata are a humongous disaster. At least the satellites are giving consistent data.

0.6? No.
The trend for the first 20 years is stable and averages around -0.1. The trend for the last 16 years is also stable and averages around 0.1 / 0.2 so no 0.6 difference, 0.3 at the most.

You can clearly see there is some sort of pattern going on, warming and cooling, why isn't this mentioned?
Did you notice there are more sudden drops than there are sudden rises?

originally posted by: smurfy
When the expected didn't happen, and some were shivering, while others were having a dip...a mad scramble for alternative scenarios and guess what? Oh yes, some of us will be toasty, and some of us will be wearing mufflers.

It's called weather. In fact here's an old proverb :

It's the exception that proves the rule.

What this means is that if something was 100% then it's more than likely false. Nothing is 100%. If something is very high, like 96% (climate change due to humans as investigated by climate scientists) then the missing 4% is proof of a lack of cover up NOT proof that the 96% are wrong.

1. The world is warming as is evident not by thermometers or satellite measurements but by the natural world, hence why geologists, biologists, botanists etc also agree that warming is occuring.

2. The heat must be coming from somewhere but since the sun is orders of magnitude larger than any other source then the sun must be the source of the heat but why warmer?

3. If the sun was getting warmer then , given the rate of change, we would be black charcoal cinders in a couple of decades. This has not happened, the measurements of the sun show this is not happening. So where has the extra solar heat come from? There is only one conclusion : the earth is not radiating away the heat that it used to. Hmm interesting can we confirm this?

4. The stratosphere is cooling. Now this is where the deniers lose the ability to understand. The stratosphere maintains a thermal profile due to heat passing through it IN TWO DIRECTIONS The amount of heat coming inwards (from the sun) is the same. The amount radiating outwards back into space is falling. Hmm why is this ?

5. Quite simply it must be trapped and thus the amount of heat absorbed by the earth increasing. But why is it being trapped ? Something must have changed. Let's look at history, ice cores are good.

6. The ice cores show a relationship between the amount of CO2 and temperature so I wonder is the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing? So it is why ?

7. Let's find out the source of the CO2. Now this is actually easy although the math is tricky. We know that Carbon has isotopes and living matter absorbs carbon in a known ratio. It's the cycle of Nitrogen (yes Nitrogen NOT carbon) into the upper atmosphere being irradiated by the sun creating Carbon isotopes. Once an organism dies the radioactive isotopes decay and by comparing the ratio we can tell how old something is. Oil was once organic but is so old that there is no radioactive isotopes left. So by looking at the ratio of radioactive isotopes in the CO2 we can determine how much came from burning fossil fuels, BINGO - the increased CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. But hang on back to step 6 the chart shows CO2 leading temperature whereas we currently have a lag.

8. Past CO2 correlations are due to CO2 being a feedback. The trigger was "something", the CO2 changed and then the temperature increase followed. A lead effect occurs when CO2 IS the trigger AND the feedback. So yet again we humans have triggered the increase.......god help us when the CO2 feedback kicks in.....or even worse a bigger feedback like methane....

a reply to: yorkshirelad

one problem with your "step" explanation

Step 4 The stratosphere is cooling

The amount of heat coming from the sun is NOT the same.

astronomynow.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

living in the northeast USA I have to say I am very blessed as the biggest impact I am seeing is less rain storms, but more rain when it does. I try not to complain about the rain because I know it means life

I can't imagine how horrifying it must be to know people in your area dying form the heat and lack of food