What Finally Convinced Me About Global Warming Lies

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bluesjr

It also includes current data which invalidates Phage's trend line.

But the fact remains, the dataset is not large enough to produce a meaningful trend.

True, but for those who think the world will end in 10-12 years it may be comforting to see that in the past 14 years there has been no noticeable temperature increase in the US.

a reply to: bluesjr

No warming since 2005 the article claims but 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 we're the hottest years on record.

Your source is making false claims.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

If scientists tell you smoking is bad. Most peeps would agree. Scientists worldwide agree (aprt from a very small minority mostly paid from the petrochemical industry) and peeps don’t agree.

You are being peddled doubt. The same tool the tobacco industry used when first proven it was bad for you. Global warming is no different.

a reply to: jrod

It is a false claim. The data does show a warming trend over the period but it is very slight, and has been pointed out the USCRN dataset is too small to be relied upon for showing a trend anyway. The claim also relies upon a sliding 12 month average rather than using any specific period (monthly average, annual average). But there is a good deal of other data out there. The nCLIMDIV dataset, for example. Which matches USCRN but extends further back.



But cherry picking is a favorite game that deniers like to play. Cherry picking time spans. Cherry picking locations. The US is not the world. It's not even a very big part of it.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bluesjr

No warming since 2005 the article claims but 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 we're the hottest years on record.

Your source is making false claims.

Says who? The insane MSM, the UN scammers? I don't believe a word they say, nobody should.

You mentioned earlier something about people who don't understand science. While NOAA is guilty of having people fake data in the past to try and show warming trends, they (as a whole) are pretty scientific and have a decent reputation around the world as a top science agency. You're saying NOAA, my source, is making false claims. Perhaps, but claims that go against the warming narrative this time (a complete 180 from what they faked earlier). They are either moving away from the climate scammers or are now scamming for a different master.

Here's the thing I don't understand, 90%+ of humans want clean air, water, and soil. Why can't we all focus on that direction instead of the money grab and wealth redistribution scam of AGW?

a reply to: bluesjr

While NOAA is guilty of having people fake data in the past to try and show warming trends,

Source?

You're saying NOAA, my source, is making false claims.

Your source is not NOAA. Your source is "realclearenergy" and they are cherry picking data.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you trying to say that CO2 levels are not inceasing?

They are, and it is directly related to our fossil fuel dependence.

Show me where I said anything about CO2 levels? Where? See, I didn't. I am talking about temperature....period. The natural temperature cycles that have been in place on this planet for literally hundreds of thousands of years. Much much longer than humans have been any sort of factor at all. And long before humans were seen as tax revenue generators.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I know of no one who denies there are natural climate changes. That doesn't mean the current warming trend is natural. There are many who deny that CO2 has anything to do with it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bluesjr
Your source is not NOAA. Your source is "realclearenergy" and they are cherry picking data.

They are presenting the complete USCRN data set, not cherry picking. I've already agreed that the time span is too small to predict trends. It's very similar to claims such as "the hottest year on record" which is also much to small of a time span compared to ice core data which has already been presented earlier in the thread. That's the cherry picking I see.

originally posted by: jrod
So the 45% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a direct result of anthropogenic activity, mostly burning fossil fuels will not have consequences?

The rate is also increasing, in my lifetime that value maybe 100%+. Only those ignorant of science will argue this is not significant.

First off the data shows it has had very little impact - far far less than predicted. Why - because the climate is incredibly complex and cannot be modeled. The carbon sink side of the equation is not even factored in.

Second - and this is what REALLY pisses me off - if we completely and totally agree CO2 is a problem - in the US our emissions are dropping. China and India are responsible for like 70% of the CO2 emmissions - yet in the paris accord they are not expected to do ANYTHING about it for it till 2030.

IF this is such a damn crisis you attack the real problem - if theoretically we could eliminate all US CO2 emmisions we would still be F'd according to the precious models. Never the less the Left wants us to obliterate our economy - literally destroy it, make us a god damn 3rd world nation to fix our emissions which are already decreasing and ignore the Chinese and Indians.

Third - the problem is already being addressed. There are already companies working on carbon scrubbing, there are many companies working on next gen nuclear, battery tech is being advanced as fast as possible.

Fourth - it is often pitched as if you know there is a chance of us all being wiped out by climate change any amount of money is worth spending to stop that. That is IDIOTIC. There is just as big a chance a metor will hit earth and wipe us out, or an engineered virus gets out and wipe us out, or AI get out of control and kill us off. Yet no politician ever says anything about those risks. It is just another indicator it is all BS.

Planting a ton of trees would do FAR far more than the green new deal and would be 1/10,000 of the cost.

These politicians promoting climate change do not care about the problem, they care about destroying the US economy and gaining more government power to promote globalism - there is no other logical conclusion.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

What Finally Convinced Me ?

When a sub-normal foreign child with learning difficulties and emotional issues is used as a media manipulation tool. Of course children can verbally spank world leaders on prime time media. Well, only of if those leaders are complicit. Utter bogus crap.

Of course, our own Phlage[lation] will be on ATS defending this crap for no good reason other than s/he's got nothing better to do. Yeah, there s/he is, bickering about scientific data about which s/he knows nothing about. Hell, either s/he's (1) got nothing better to do; (2) an elbow-licking retarded; (3) a rabid contrarian.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

It seems to be a natural cycle, and if we try to mess with it there's a good chance it will bite us in the ass in some way.

If one were to go by that cycle, things should be cooling down. Look closely at it that chart.

The Milankovich cycles would seem to say the same thing, if they have anything to do with it.
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

Looking at that chart, I see where it looks like we are just at the beginning of a 500,000 year cycle and with that comparison, temps will continue to rise and hold before dropping. Maybe you should look at that chart again too.

Edit: Adding chart for easier reference:

a reply to: bluesjr

They are presenting the complete USCRN data set, not cherry picking

They don't show the historical dataset which covers a much greater time period. They don't show that that dataset matches the USCRN data.

They imply that because the US has seen a period of slight warming (yes, you can produce your own trendline, it's true), it means that the planet is not warming.

They are cherry picking.

Ice core data is also cherry picking. It shows temperatures in a single location on the planet. Nor is it particularly relevant to the current warming trend since CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for a very long time.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

I do not normally post in threads such as this but felt it might be worth mentioning as I do not see it being mentioned anywhere these days or debated etc.

Ever heard of global dimming?

Global Dimming Wiki

Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially counteracted the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Global dimming is the exact opposite. Fine particles such as aerosols, also produced as the by-product of fossil fuels burning, reflect away sunlight. This decreases the amount of solar radiation entering our planet. It produces a cooling effect.

Though both are opposite phenomena with contrasting effects but both are destructive for the planet. It is due to both global warming and global dimming that earth’s temperature has increased less than what it should have been. Without global dimming, this planet would have turned to be too hot for all of us to survive. Both of them are dangerous and can prove fatal for our environment and need to be solved together. Solving each problem at a time could create conditions that may be harmful and may prove fatal for all of us.

Causes and effects of Global Dimming

In short, we need to balance emissions with regards to reductions or we will end up with cooling as opposed to warming. If this theory is correct and the planet continues to cut emissions too far. Will lead to a drastic global cooling.

There is also a documentary from back in 2005, a starter intro for anyone interested in this...



Worth a watch.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Maybe you should look at that chart again too.

Ok.


Looks like we're on the downside of that curve to me.

a reply to: proximo

First off the data shows it has had very little impact - far far less than predicted.

Incorrect.

www.realclimate.org...

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bluesjr

They are presenting the complete USCRN data set, not cherry picking

They don't show the historical dataset which covers a much greater time period. They don't show that that dataset matches the USCRN data.

They imply that because the US has seen a period of slight warming, it means that the planet is not warming.

They are cherry picking.

Ice core data is also cherry picking. It shows temperatures in a single location on the planet. Nor is it particularly relevant to the current warming trend since CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for a very long time.

But using only human recorded data over a few hundred years (with questionable accuracy for most of it) isn't cherry picking? I'll roll with the ice core data from 450,000 years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proximo

First off the data shows it has had very little impact - far far less than predicted.

Incorrect.

www.realclimate.org...

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...

Beyond your verbosity and frequency of posting, do you have any specialist skills in interpreting this data? Or are you just giving it a cursory glance and sounding off because you're arrogant and truculent?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CynConcepts

Maybe you should look at that chart again too.

Ok.

Looks like we're on the downside of that curve to me.

Comparing all pass data...it actually looks like mankind may have had a beneficial effect. Previous data shows it getting hot and staying hot and the most recent data climb is pretty erratic and no where near what it has been in the past.

I have to thank you for making me look again too. It may still go up again...but goodness, the data may actually show that we are having an effect on the normal climate cycle and amazingly a beneficial one!

a reply to: CynConcepts

the data may actually show that we are having an effect on the normal climate cycle and amazingly a beneficial one!

Beneficial for whom?