Global Warming

[IVCguy]

Last night on "60 Minutes" they did a piece on Venice. Venice has suffered thru several tide events this year, one epic one. The claim is that the flooding is unprecedented and due to man-caused climate change.

Venice is built on the mud of a lagoon. It has sunk 9 inches in the last century. It floods every year from Oct thru late winter. The Nov epic flooding was preceded by a similar level of water in 1966. The erosion of the lagoon floor was aided by decades of disruption of aquifers that feed the lagoon.

Per usual, this example of "climate crisis" distorts the total context, ignores more obvious direct causes, and jumps to climate change as the primary cause.

Achem's Razor applies here. If you build a city on the mud of a lagoon... or if you build a city on a lagoon... or if you build a.city where tidal surge can reach it...or....

 

[Yappi]

Per usual, this example of "climate crisis" distorts the total context, ignores more obvious direct causes, and jumps to climate change as the primary cause.

I think that is the problem. Every catastrophe is a climate crisis. Venice floods and Australian wildfires are both presented as clearly climate related.

Read another article about prescribed burns that were not taking place in Australia that the author believed was the major reason for the wildfires. So it technically was a man-made problem but not the way the media was presenting it. Humans changing the environment can be real but there are other variables that are not being presented.

 

[chs1971]

The reason that I started this thread is that I don't think the science is settled. Probably there is man-made climate change.

Or maybe not. The science is pretty sketchy on that.

I'm just not convinced that carbon-dioxide is the only variable that is causing climate change.

Good grief. Even a slightly educated person should know that the variability of the sun is the number one factor in climate change.

 

[chs1971]

That stands to reason. We're in the midst of an ongoing climate crisis that is causing these things to happen, or at the very least exacerbating them.

Says the guy who thinks communism is a good idea.

 

[irish_buffalo]

The reason that I started this thread is that I don't think the science is settled. Probably there is man-made climate change. But what if there are multiple reasons for that change that are simply related to human existence? What if 7 billion people is just too many people living on this planet? If that is the case, what is the solution? What if the problem is the densely populated areas like New York, LA, and other major metropolitan areas across the world, what do we do then? I'm just not convinced that carbon-dioxide is the only variable that is causing climate change.

In part, that is the problem. The demand to feed and provide energy for billions of people is a direct correlation. Look at any graph on population growth, one on fossil burn, climate change, and there is a direct correlation.

CO2 might not be the only thing but it is the biggest by far. The problem is you cannot even have a conversation on the issue before someone says it is all hogwash and an attempt to redistribute wealth. So when signs say 2020 and the glaciers have not disappeared people the deny crowd says look they were wrong but anyone with a brain knows that just because the glaciers did not disappear does not mean they are going to soon or are not under extreme stress. It is another opportunity for someone to muddy the waters and at this point I cannot even figure out why?

 

[irish_buffalo]

Last night on "60 Minutes" they did a piece on Venice. Venice has suffered thru several tide events this year, one epic one. The claim is that the flooding is unprecedented and due to man-caused climate change.

Venice is built on the mud of a lagoon. It has sunk 9 inches in the last century. It floods every year from Oct thru late winter. The Nov epic flooding was preceded by a similar level of water in 1966. The erosion of the lagoon floor was aided by decades of disruption of aquifers that feed the lagoon.

Per usual, this example of "climate crisis" distorts the total context, ignores more obvious direct causes, and jumps to climate change as the primary cause.

Achem's Razor applies here. If you build a city on the mud of a lagoon... or if you build a city on a lagoon... or if you build a.city where tidal surge can reach it...or....

More to the story but you chose to hear what you wanted to hear.

 

[Hammerdrill]

CO2 might not be the only thing but it is the biggest by far.

That is categorically false. Water vapor is way more important. Though even it pales in comparison to what the sun brings to the party.

 

[irish_buffalo]

This is true. But can you name even one prediction they've gotten right? It's been 30 years since climate scientists first began sounding the alarm that humans were dangerously changing the climate. Yet for all the predictions they've made I'm not aware of a single one that's come true.

Check out the embedded video in this link. It points out how climate data has been systematically altered to support the Global Warming theory.

Hide The Decline: How Climate Change Data Was Faked | MissLiberty.com

Historian Dr. John Robson takes a look at how the IPCC investigation into climate change was compromised by a desire to reach a certain conclusion.

missliberty.com

This is solid science and is not some BS from a right wing site.

lotr10, you are so distorted at this point that it is very difficult to have a serious conversation. No matter what evidence is presented you will continue to claim it is all BS. Dr. John Robson is not a scientist. He makes a lot of money being "that guy." In short, he is a joke. You and I have been down this road before, and I respect you as a poster but us debating this issue is the definition of insanity.

To actually ask what "they" have gotten right? That our Earth is warming at an extremely rapid pace due directly to CO2. Period. End of story.

 

[irish_buffalo]

CO2 might not be the only thing but it is the biggest by far.

That is categorically false. Water vapor is way more important. Though even it pales in comparison to what the sun brings to the party.
[/QUOTE]

Categorically false? I'll stay away from analogies this time since you struggle with them. Ok. You are right it is mans impact on water vapor? (Is that what you meant?).

 

[irish_buffalo]

Ocean temperatures hit record high as rate of heating accelerates

Oceans are clearest measure of climate crisis as they absorb 90% of heat trapped by greenhouse gases

www.theguardian.com

Ocean temps hit record high. This is not just cyclical.

 

[chs1971]

Ocean temperatures hit record high as rate of heating accelerates

Oceans are clearest measure of climate crisis as they absorb 90% of heat trapped by greenhouse gases

www.theguardian.com

Ocean temps hit record high. This is not just cyclical.

Of course records have only been kept for about 150 years, and we know the oceans have been warmer in the past 3,600,000,000 years.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Of course...

 

[eastisbest]

Last night on "60 Minutes" they did a piece on Venice. Venice has suffered thru several tide events this year, one epic one. The claim is that the flooding is unprecedented and due to man-caused climate change.

Venice is built on the mud of a lagoon. It has sunk 9 inches in the last century. It floods every year from Oct thru late winter. The Nov epic flooding was preceded by a similar level of water in 1966. The erosion of the lagoon floor was aided by decades of disruption of aquifers that feed the lagoon.

Per usual, this example of "climate crisis" distorts the total context, ignores more obvious direct causes, and jumps to climate change as the primary cause.

Achem's Razor applies here. If you build a city on the mud of a lagoon... or if you build a city on a lagoon... or if you build a.city where tidal surge can reach it...or....

Occam? Might be an alternative spelling. Anyhow, Occam's razor might blame people on the mainland doing cannonballs. Or maybe that's my theory.

Sea levels rising is not the controversial part of this debate. That's measurable. I've no doubt your other information is correct and appreciated and the land is lower but the water is higher.

 

[Indiandad]

That stands to reason. We're in the midst of an ongoing climate crisis that is causing these things to happen, or at the very least exacerbating them.

Wildfires, floods, droughts, storms have been happening since before humans walked this planet.

 

[Hammerdrill]

Ocean temperatures hit record high as rate of heating accelerates

Oceans are clearest measure of climate crisis as they absorb 90% of heat trapped by greenhouse gases

www.theguardian.com

Ocean temps hit record high. This is not just cyclical.

Wow, this is certainly not proof that it isn't cyclical, not even close.

 

[lotr10]

lotr10, you are so distorted at this point that it is very difficult to have a serious conversation. No matter what evidence is presented you will continue to claim it is all BS. Dr. John Robson is not a scientist. He makes a lot of money being "that guy." In short, he is a joke. You and I have been down this road before, and I respect you as a poster but us debating this issue is the definition of insanity.

To actually ask what "they" have gotten right? That our Earth is warming at an extremely rapid pace due directly to CO2. Period. End of story.

I know he's not a scientist and he doesn't pretend to be one. He's a reporter and he's letting you know that the Global Warming alarmists committed two sins in their presentation of the data they claim supports their theory:

Sin #1: They KNOWINGLY omitted the most recent tree ring data that showed a fall in temperatures. This is crucial beacuse it suggests that tree rings are not a predictive proxy for temperature reconstructions or equally bad that the methodology involved in tree ring assessments conatians very high variability.

Sin #2: They produced a graph that has been circulated widely in support of the theory that humans are causing a rapid rise in Global temperature using TWO VASTLY DIFFERENT measurement techniques: tree ring proxies & observed instrument readings. It is BAD science to show a graph and not clearly delineate where tree ring measurements stop and where thermometer based temperature measurements begin.

This is science 101 IB. They're lying to you.

 

[lotr10]

Wow, this is certainly not proof that it isn't cyclical, not even close.

The link IB provided proves the skeptics position. How can they state with any level of certainty that the oceans have reached a record high temperature? How do they know with any reliability what the temperature of the oceans was in 1000 AD or 1000 BC or 10,000 BC? They can't. So this headline is misleading and a lie.

 

[chs1971]

This is science 101 IB. They're lying to you.

a. Truth is racist.

b. It doesn't matter if they are lying as long as it is true.

 

[lotr10]

Occam? Might be an alternative spelling. Anyhow, Occam's razor might blame people on the mainland doing cannonballs. Or maybe that's my theory.

Sea levels rising is not the controversial part of this debate. That's measurable. I've no doubt your other information is correct and appreciated and the land is lower but the water is higher.

East, did sea levels rise since the last ice age when humans WALKED to North America from Asia? And this rise was entirely NATURAL driven by forces we don't understand. And the rise was fast and significant.

The onus is and has always been on the Global Warming scientists to demonstrate that their theorized human foced climate change is occurring outside of the natural variation. And they have NOT come close to doing this.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong

www.scientificamerican.com

Climategate is 10 years old. This fits for you lotr10.

“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” Nuccitelli concluded in a commentary published August 25, 2015, in the Guardian. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.” For example, one skeptical paper attributed climate change to lunar or solar cycles, but to make these models work for the 4,000-year period that the authors considered, they had to throw out 6,000 years' worth of earlier data.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

More required reading from these money grubbing lying racist wealth re-distributive evil scientists.

 

[boiler]

1300 years? Geez, where are these temperatures recorded from 700AD to 1800AD? Wait, they must be temperature models, right?

 

[Hammerdrill]

Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong

www.scientificamerican.com

Climategate is 10 years old. This fits for you lotr10.

Settled science? LOL

 

[Hammerdrill]

Here is a good one. We have been a lot warmer

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

 

[Hammerdrill]

Here is another one, pretty much ignored, but defines why more CO2 will not really change anything. You could double the current CO2 and not much will change.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

 

[Hammerdrill]

Because it's trash, fool.

No, it's pretty much fact.

 

[winbypin]

I'm glad you found some random blog that happens to coincide with your feelings... ...really, I am. I'm sure it's emotionally satisfying for you, in a very profound way.

Not sure if it's intentional or not but you have been pretty funny today with all of your ironic statements.

 

[Hammerdrill]

More information about cooling

 

[Hammerdrill]

I'm glad you found some random blog that happens to coincide with your feelings... ...really, I am. I'm sure it's emotionally satisfying for you, in a very profound way.

It's a prime example of why almost nobody is willing to waste their time "debating" the denial crowd though.

It is actual science, but it seems you want to deny it. How about you point out what is incorrect?

 

[Yappi]

Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong

www.scientificamerican.com

“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” Nuccitelli concluded in a commentary published August 25, 2015, in the Guardian. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.” For example, one skeptical paper attributed climate change to lunar or solar cycles, but to make these models work for the 4,000-year period that the authors considered, they had to throw out 6,000 years' worth of earlier data.

Climategate is 10 years old. This fits for you lotr10.

The 97% figure has been mostly debunked. It is one of those "facts" that gets repeated enough times that everyone starts to believe it.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com