2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Media_Truth, Oct 23, 2017.

  1. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can't stand links to videos and I wonder why you stand for links to words?
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure they have.
     
  3. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They must have had billions of tiny little SUV's.
    I think we know humans didn't have SUV's 11,700 years ago.
     
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No and if you read anything about this the warming of the Holocene started before with changes in the orbit

    However burning of forests and grasslands did have an impact on climate
     
  5. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Must be nice to hide your head in the sand, relying on speculative data from hundreds of thousands of years ago. If you really look at the degree of uncertainty in your data; it is very high. Times can be off by tens of thousands of years, and since nobody knows the external factors, there could be plenty of them, that could influence the data itself.

    The studies that climatologists have put forth are here and now, and are unprecedented. 97% of Climatologists agree that elevated atmospheric CO2 is insulating the earth. You're living in the past - no pun intended.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
    The Bear and Bowerbird like this.
  6. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So are you saying the data (graphs) I just presented is uncertain? If so I will look up the source (I got them from Wikipedia) and check who produced them.

    The studies that climatologists have put forth that are here and now are computer models which are highly speculative, constantly inaccurate and based on inputs of people that believe in AGW theories.

    The "97% of Climatologists agree" lie I have put to rest many times. I'd love to do it again, but for entertainment value, I'd like to ask you to present me where you get the 97% figure. Let me tell you about the 97% lie before you go look for the source, it's not based on any scientific survey of climatologists.
     
    Hoosier8 likes this.
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They aren't perfect, but general circulation models that incorporate all known forcing mechanisms (your "computer models") produce the best forecasts of the global mean temperature. Any other model that that excludes aerosols, greenhouse gases, and land use changes cannot hindcast and forecast the climate with the same accuracy as a general circulation model that incorporates everything. Some models that focus solely one forcing mechanism (like solar) are so bad at their predictions that they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct since the industrial revolution. So, if your assertion is that they are highly speculative and inaccurate then what words would you use to describe than other models that don't include anthroprogenic effects? I mean, they're even worse.

    Also, I agree that Milankovitch cycles like solar, volcanism, biological activity are forcing mechanisms for climate change. The problem with Milankovitch cycles is that they cannot explain the 1.5C/century increase in the global mean temperature. The rate is much higher than what a 10,000-100,000 year cycle can account for.
     
    The Bear likes this.
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If all those unknowns are known then the models can hindcast by plugging in the values that make the model fit the data. The problem with the models is that the future unknowns are not known. And models do not account for them - all the models show steadily increasing temperatures vs. time.

    And the great majority of people (technical as well as lay) believe that human CO2 emissions do indeed increase global warming (possibly half of it). But there is no politically possible energy policy that can make a significant impact on the rate of temperature increase.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a diverging message at all. I think you might be confused about the terminology here. Climate is generally used to refer to conditions averaged over large spartial and temporal domains (global scale over decades and longer). Weather is generally used to refer to conditions over smaller spatial and temporal domains. Your observation of a cooler than average summer in your specific region is weather. The steady upward trend of the temperature for the entire planet over decades is climate.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you left out the fact that they are the only thing forecasting future temperature and if even one were accurate only one would be needed.

    Right now it is the atmosphere that is supposed to be warming first, not the surface yet the most accurate measurements with the most coverage for the lower troposphere are the two satellite records and only one model is even close and that is the Russian model on the lowest end.
     
  11. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please explain the rate of increase in temperatures 11,700 years ago which cause the glaciers which covered most of North America to melt so rapidly. If you can't don't worry, scientists can't either.
     
  12. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, you don't have to talk down to me because I'm well aware. However, climate is weather. It's snowing in Dallas, South East Louisiana, and Florida. There is no global warming crisis for God's sake.
     
  13. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Climate models have been very accurate. This Scientific American article actually states that the climate models have been consistently too conservative. There are many discussions on this topic. The US National Climate Assessment also mentions the high accuracy of models; and the fact that they are overly conservative, especially regarding Ice Melt and Sea Level Rise.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

    Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic.

    The following is a good video which discusses the 97%. Climatologists is the key word. Geologists aren't as unanimous. Of course, your study that you inputted, with worldwide historical records, with high margins of error, is a Geological study. The wording that the 97% of Climatologists agreed to, regarding AGW, was "a significant threat".

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/sear...3983a003f41f3af91de2214674343b6a&action=click
     
  14. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My apologies...I'm not intentionally trying to talk down to you. If that's how you took my post then I'm sorry.

    At any rate there's something you're still missing here. Climate is not the same thing as weather. The fact that it is snowing in Dallas says nothing about what the global mean temperature is doing. Likewise, the fact that the Arctic is baking like a potato right now doesn't necessarily mean the Earth is warming. Climate is about taking a big picture view over the entire globe and averaging the conditions out over decades. Individual snowstorms, heatwaves, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. are nothing more than weather. The Earth can be warming (which it is) and yet we'll continue to see record lows and big snowstorms (like what Atlanta just got). Again, I'm not explaining this as a way of lording myself over you. There's actually a high percentage of the population that doesn't realize there's a huge difference between the two concepts.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
  15. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The man made global warming conspiracy theory is just a ruse to control the population via taxes and more government. We don't have the power to change the climate, for if we did, it would be easy for us to reverse it, no? Besides, even if the globe were warming, that would be a good thing. The dinosaurs lived for millions of years, thrived in climates that were much warmer with no polar caps. The truth is, we are in an ice age that is 2.6 million years old. We are in an interglacial period (global warming period) that is 11,700 years old. In the coming centuries, the ice will return, and the glaciers will once again cover the land masses with ice sheets miles thick.

    Climate is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles, not by computer models.
     
  16. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One thing the global warming conspiracy nutbags have never given me is proof that 97% of climatologists agree on global warming.

    It's a bogus number. There is no 97% consensus, there has never once been a survey of climatologists.

    I hate that people like you and the makers of the video, take people's comments out of context to make it seem like skeptics don't believe in climate change. Climate change is real. Everyone knows this. It's been real for millions of years. Which is a good indication that man has nothing to do with it since it's been happening long before we came along.

     
  17. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which Milankovitch cycle explains 0.15C/decade rate of warming?
     
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So because nature can do it we must accept that humans can't? What kind of logic is this? Am I also supposed to believe that humans can't build dams because beavers can too? Do you see how ridiculous that argument is?
     
    The Bear likes this.
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is it impossible that it could be the same things that caused all the previous ones? Why do CO2 alarmists claim that all other possible causes have been ruled out, when they indisputably haven't?
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am going to stop you right there and point out that dismissing the effects of self-interest as "conspiracy theory" is not responsive.
    How would I know, any more than I know how many banksters are making dodgy loans because it is profitable for them personally?
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, because nature ALWAYS HAS, humans PROBABLY AREN'T.
    Not the logic that was proposed, anyway.
    Which might be why it isn't the argument.
     
  22. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not impossible. It's just that no one can identify a natural cause. However, it is indisputable that CO2, CH4, etc are greenhouse gases and that humans are pumping huge amounts into the atmosphere.
     
  23. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do know that your video's spokesperson, Richard Lindzen, has been on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry?

    You seem to be confused. The National Academy of Science, IPCC, NOAA, NASA and many reputable worldwide scientific organizations support AGW theories. Can you name one reputable scientific organization that denies AGW? Not some rogue sell-out like Lindzen.

    As such, the conspiracy theory belongs in your court. You are the one butting heads with the most reputable scientific organizations in the world.
     
  24. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the so called reputable scientific organizations you mentioned have been found guilty of manufacturing and or manipulation of data
     
  25. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Guilty as in a Court of Law, or guilty as in the fossil fuel industry told you so? Why not supply a reputable link for your "Conspiracy" assertions? And while you're at it, perhaps you can answer the question I posed - "Name one major scientific organization that doesn't ascribe to AGW, and the future threats".
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017

Share This Page