You have to look outside like your country dude. Example. It is snowing here...but...have you looked at the equator? Its dryer. Or the south east...its wetter. The average temp of the planet is raising...not some localized piece of land.
You have to look outside like your country dude. Example. It is snowing here...but...have you looked at the equator? Its dryer. Or the south east...its wetter. The average temp of the planet is raising...not some localized piece of land.
Conundrum wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
Or (5) just make a joke of it.
Or, (6) just ignore it.
Let me repeat, the last 5 years have been the hottest for the earth on record.
It's always one of these 6
Wait, I thought it was one of the first four and now you add two more. How many more will you add? Moving goalposts, anyone?
weatherman wrote:
You have to look outside like your country dude. Example. It is snowing here...but...have you looked at the equator? Its dryer. Or the south east...its wetter. The average temp of the planet is raising...not some localized piece of land.
Publish a scientific article using such quantitative values as "dryer" and "wetter".
Lol, k
Conundrum wrote:
Line at the Bottom wrote:
There is no scientist who "understands" the climate. Scientists feed the data into computer models and relay their findings to us. How accurate are the computer models? Even if they are only 3-5% off per year, the error factor will compound quickly over time, leaving us to constantly adjust the model to reflect the reality that we are seeing. Kind of like this 2020 prediction of the disappearance of the glaciers. They should leave the signs up.
My local forecast is worthless past 5 days, so there are obvious limits to what scientists can tell us about the weather. You may believe that global warming occurs on a broader scale than local weather, and that we can see still see the overall trend, but the reality is that the climate of the earth is far more complex than any human can comprehend. The question is whether or not you believe the mathematical models that scientists have created are accurate and whether or not they have captured all of the relevant variables. There is almost certainly a generous margin of error and factors that the scientists have not considered.
The climate has always been changing, with or without human intervention, and the climate always will change with or without human intervention. Cities have been destroyed by natural disasters, people have had to move, and people have had to adapt to these changes. The bottom line is that if we cannot adapt to changes in our environment, we die. It's that simple.
Number 6
That's when you cherry pick some fact which may or may not be true, you in clear Dunning Kruger mode spend time explaining it as though that explains the whole issue of climate change and in doing so you don't realize the limits of your knowledge.
Explain the last 5 years being the hottest on record.
Key words: on record
climatelol wrote:
Weird Al wrote:
Weird that "climatelol" asked "hottest since when?" The article cited makes it pretty clear that it was the hottest ever recorded. So, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that it was the hottest since such recordings began.
(article clearly states that "those records go back to 1910."
---
Oh wait, were you going with one of those "The Earth is really, really old therefore humans cannot be significantly altering the climate" arguments?
Nah, you are asserting that humans are to blame, with your comment. We don't have enough historical data to make an argument about global warming/cooling/change, whatever your name for it is this month.
100 yrs of temp data is statistically insignificant.
The Earth is really, really old. Therefore humans cannot be significantly altering the climate.
Also, the only reason to consider that humans may be altering the climate in a significant way is temperature data. Nobody has provided any evidence whatsoever that certain emissions change the overall gas mixture of the atmosphere and nobody has developed any understanding whatsoever of how different gasses trap heat at different rates.
Right?
What happens if you have a limited space... say 100'x100'... you add a female & male rabbit... and give them unlimited amounts of food and water? What would happen to their environment? Would their presence have any sort of a long term impact?
To say that humans have no impact on the earth seems a bit short sighted, yes?
I may have to give up the moral high ground... My wife is working hard to convince me that we should buy a used car. I work from a home office and she commutes usually by running back and forth to work, but currently walking as she's laid up with an overuse injury. It's a nice run commute (~ 40-45 minutes), a bit more tedious as a walk (1:15-20ish). I'm resisting as hard as I can, but maybe unlike the rest of you fellas, my wife often gets her way in the end. :-)
Sadly, climate science has been hijacked by climate religion and climate politics. We're told (or shamed) that we should avoid gas-guzzling cars, buy electric cars, avoid plastic straws, and so on, but I wonder how many believers know futile their efforts are... even when expanded to their city, state, or the entire United States.
In 2016, the Paris Agreement was lauded as a success because China agreed to cap its CO2 production... in 2030. I was stunned because I knew China was building coal-fired power plants like there was no tomorrow.
By 2030, China is on course to build over 500GW of coal-fired power plants in China and in other countries. Those plants will produce an additional 3.1GT of CO2 emissions every year. For comparison, the entire US produces only 5.1GT and our annual rate is slowly going down.
Does that mean we should do nothing?
No, but it does mean that our efforts should have an entirely different focus. Today's wind and solar power plants are inefficient and not competitively priced to build without government subsidies. We should NOT be funding more current generation wind and solar plants. We should be funding research to find the next generation of wind, power, and other alternative fuels. Until wind and solar are competitive to coal, gas, wood, and cow dung, they're not going to be built in developing nations that desperately need more energy.
As far as climate change is concerned, even if you believe in the AGW theory, about half of climate change is going to occur anyway due to natural factors. The IPCC AR5 states that "more than half of [climate change] is due to anthropogenic factors." More than half is a purposely vague term. After all, 51% is more than half.
My suggestion would be to stop ethanol production and divert those funds into food crops and alternative energy research. Ethanol production is an astoundingly wasteful boondoggle that should be ended as soon as possible.
It seems to me that we can kill two birds with one stone here. We take the water supposedly melting from fake ice sheets that is supposedly going to flood over all the low-lying islands of the world and pump it over to these people who would desperately appreciate the water since they pumped their ground reservoirs dry:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/india/chennai-water-crisis-intl-hnk/index.html
Problem solved. Thank me later.
It snowed at my dads house today. Al Gore is full of crap.
You cant say that wrote:
moran reaches level 12 wrote:
Right, so because we don't happen to have a spare Earth around to use as a control group then climate change must not be happening. Think of how stupid your reasoning is.
Here's the thing that gives credence to the scientists predicting a warmer earth. They were right. The predictions they were making back in the 80s-90s have been remarkably accurate. Your choice is to ignore that because there isn't a second Earth around to use as test group.
in the 90's most of the deniers weren't saying that man wasn't responsible. For the most part they were saying it wasn't happening. Now it's been shown to be happening, they have conviently shifted their opposition to "Well, it's happening.....just like they said. But they can't PROVE 100% the reason why. At least not to me. Therefore I am going to ignore all evidence."
I don't think you have any desire to discover scientific truth, you just want your life to go on as normal, your current beliefs to remain unchallenged and will shout down anyone who dares suggest you change your thinking a little bit.
Nobody ever thought the climate did not change. It has been changing for billions of years.
You're acting as if pro-"climate change" nutjobs haven't changed their position, which, of course, is verifiably wrong. It seems as if every decade there is another looming climate crisis diametrically opposed to their previous stance. THAT is the real problem here. If you twats were right about something maybe people would believe you. But you're not right because your models and wrong and stupid and you fudge data to fit your hypothesis because you're more concerned with being right that being correct.
The fact that I agree that climate is changing has nothing to do with pro-climate change nutjobs being right. The Earth has been molten, it has been through repetitive ice ages. The climate changes; everyone knows that. Whether this is abnormal is up for debate and there is no way to fully know that without a control group.
+1
fisky wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
The last 5 years have been the earth warmest 5 years on record.
Do deniers agree with this or do they think this is fabricated science too.
I don't think scientists have the ability to measure global temperature to this degree of accuracy. Thus, these hottest years are within the margin of error of the measurements... but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the past 5 years have in fact been the hottest 5 years on record.
Still, that would not be proof of AGW. It has been warming since about 1700. Most modern temperature charts only go back to 1890, but even in this relatively short period of 129 years, you can see two clear patterns in this chart: an oscillating sine wave of 60 years and an underlying gradual linear upward slope of a much longer trend. Climate scientists refer to this 60-year sine wave as natural variability (a euphemism for unknown causes).
Since the general very long term trend (since 1700) is up, superimposing the upward portion of the sine wave over it would logically create several years in a row that would be the hottest on record since 1890.
+1
comedyrelief wrote:
It snowed at my dads house today. Al Gore is full of crap.
Without Al Gore you could not have posted this BS.
So thank Al for the invention of the internet.
Question for the libs wrote:
I have a question for the people who strongly believe in global warming (specifically the kind caused by CO2 that we will never recover from). What would need to happen in the next 10 years for you to say you were wrong about it?
Sorry, that is never going to happen. They have their heads held high, saying, "the sky is falling", and that is not going to change.
https://www.businessinsider.com/europe-heatwave-france-germany-spain-dangerous-temperature-2019-6Racehorse wrote:
Sorry, that is never going to happen. They have their heads held high, saying, "the sky is falling", and that is not going to change.
Weird Al wrote:
Racehorse wrote:
Exactly! They don't have data from the continental US before 1500, and the time span of data from Australia is not much different. They are crazy to think only what has happened in the past century is relevant.
Weird that "climatelol" asked "hottest since when?" The article cited makes it pretty clear that it was the hottest ever recorded. So, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that it was the hottest since such recordings began.
(article clearly states that "those records go back to 1910."
---
Oh wait, were you going with one of those "The Earth is really, really old therefore humans cannot be significantly altering the climate" arguments?
Nope. The earth is not as old as you would like to think.
Where is the cold hard evidence wrote:
Paying attention` wrote:
Global warming is indeed a part of climate change.
The climate has obviously been changing due to human intervention and this has now become a very serious crises.
My problem with climate change is that we have no baseline to compare it to where climate was not changing. You can say warming has accelerated recently, whatever that means, but you can't say what the climate would be like without humans at the same time under the same conditions (minus humans).
My other problem is that the atmosphere has mass in a finite space. If there is more co2 in the air than ever, it means one of two things: 1) co2 is replacing some other gas and you're claiming co2 is more "greenhouse gassier" than whatever greenhouse gas it is replacing, for no apparent reason, or 2) if you aren't of the mind that co2 is replacing some other gas, then by releasing more co2, we are putting more mass in the same finite space, effectively compressing the atmosphere. We should not be talking about the greenhouse gas effect raising temperature; we should be battling atmospheric compression. That probably doesn't sell as many carbon credits though.
You've really looked into this.
You've got an in depth knowledge of nonsense I'll give you that
Climate change is like illegal immigration. It is a problem that the left does not really want to fix because they use it for gaining power and profits.
The only real solution is nuclear power but they will demonize that. See above.
the real truth wrote:
Climate change is like illegal immigration. It is a problem that the left does not really want to fix because they use it for gaining power and profits.
The only real solution is nuclear power but they will demonize that. See above.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/bill-gates-nuclear-energy
Just as a heads up, your article cites an advanced nuclear technology demonstration that was authorized in 2015 during the Obama administration and which was killed in 2018 by the current administration's export policies.