Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

The science is stronger than merely claiming that CO2 has contributed. Take a look at this graph that tracks multiple known sources for altering the climate and their relative measurements as compared to the warming seen during that same time period.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

You are going on ignore because any suggestion to another poster that they kill themselves is offensive and clearly an effort to troll.

 

Well, that is probably because you have not read any of the reports

 

My guess is you won't.

Not really, no.

 

I was being kind. The IPPCC DID NOT use the Arrhenius model

 

so tell me, what model did they use"..............




This should be interesting lols!,!

 

The greenhouse gas effect is caused by molecular vibration.

 

Most people that deny a link between CO2 and climate change also deny a link between CFCs and ozone depletion. There's a lot of overlap in the science.

 

Nice study. Well presented.
Let's take a moment to tighten up your description of it.
This isn't science.

This is a graph.
A mathematical model used to explain an interpretation of the science. To present a theory.

Apart from being highly persuasive, I found something else interesting in the footnotes.
NASA's degree of accuracy is counted at 5%.
Their data is upto 5% out in their expectation. (So results showing a 5% change or under, can be ignored). This is a very important number to know in any statistic.

 

Well, actually do they. They use a lot of models. Some are simple and some are complex. Some are statistical. Others are heuristic. And the one people love to hate are the dynamical models requiring computers to solve the partial differential equations. Anyway, the IPCC still uses Arrhenius' model today because it's simple, effective, and can be used in less than 30 seconds to make for an order of magnitude estimation of the warming potential by different CO2 concentrations.

 

Statistics.






Here are two identical graphs displaying the same information.
In graph one the scale of the X axis is half the scale of the X axis in graph two.

So the rise in temperature looks bigger. But it is the same. Just presented differently.

The grey part of the graph marked "uncertainty" = + or -1 0.1 degree in 1890
Going down to + or -1 0.05 degrees today. Because today we use double the amount of test samples to form our data pool. We are doing double the science we did in 1900.


So from this graph, you may read a rise in temperature of 0.05 degree from the year 2000 to 2011.

And if you do, you are incorrect.

This graph shows no rise in temperature after 2000.
Because the accuracy of the graph, is + or - 0.05

This graph in fact shows no rise in global temperature at all since 1998.


The joys of statistics.

And this is why we no longer discuss man made global warming. Because to the best of our knowledge, there hasn't been any since the term was coined.

(Caveat: this graph only goes up to 2011).



Now, I am seeing a trend of warming from that graph. I do look at at it and predict temperatures to go up. But there is no science to prove this yet.
It is a prediction and I am making it on nothing more than an a apparent direction of a line drawn on a piece of paper.
Nor do I have any comprehension at all of what kind of a difference a change in temperature of 0.05 degrees is going to make to anything. Let alone, everything.

And if you say you do, I will brand you fool.


I'm going to make a wild prediction for you.
What we are discussing is very small changes in temperature indeed. And I expect them to make no noticeable difference to anything.
Don't ask me for any money. I am hungry, I need food.
I don't care about climate change. It is utterly and completely not an issue.

My grandchildren are going to be 0.2 degrees hotter than me?
Lucky them. Talk about storm in a teacup.

If I chose to gradiate my y axis in whole degree's instead of 0.1 degrees. You would not even see any global warming. It would be a flat straight line.
Which perspective is truer?

 

Not exactly. What you found was the confidence level. What that means is that the model envelop (dotted red area) represents the range of possibilities in which 95% of the ensemble members lie within. The important thing to note is that if you expand the confidence interval from 2σ (95%) to 3σ (99.7%) or even 4σ (99.99%) the envelop expands a bit, but not by much. It still takes the same shape and still definitively links the net sum of all physical processes to the global mean surface temperature trend. Another way to think about this is the R^2 correlation between model envelope and observed temperature might said to be very strong for a 2σ envelope, strong for a 3σ window, and moderate for a 4σ window. In other words, if we increase our confidence from 2σ (95%) to 4σ (99.99%) we can still convincingly link CO2 with climate change. That 95% figure you saw is NOT an accuracy. For example, the accuracy on the observed temperature trend has an RMS error of 0.05C. In absolute terms this would be an accuracy of 1 - (0.05/291) = 99.98% based on the Kelvin scale.

 

So, you know how I feel about it when you simply assume, right? Also why so much of the "Science" is problematic. Lots of assumptions.

 

In your dreams. The problem as you describe it will require a solution, something you just don't want to face. The only way to fix it is to cut the world population in half IMMEDIATELY! Nothing else will work. Who is going to make the decision to do this dirty work against humanity, this genocide. There is no other alternative.

And you are putting me on ignore because I checkmated your position.

 

That is correct. The atmosphere did not warm from 1998 to 2011. There are 3 points I should make here.

1. This graph only goes to 2011. The picture is far different you consider the latest data up to 2017.

2. 1998 and 2011 are special. Specifically 1998 is was strong El Nino and 2011 was the start of a strong La Nina. El Nino's transfer heat from the ocean to the air while La Nina transfers heat from the air to the ocean.

3. During this period the ocean heat uptake increased dramatically. The ocean accounts for about 90% of the total heat uptake of the biosphere. So while the atmosphere did not warm during this period the rest of the biosphere continued its unmitigated upward march. This is why we saw a dramatic rise in temperatures after 2012. The ocean was like a loaded spring waiting to be unloaded.

Huh? The term was coined in during the turn of the century around 1900. Your graph clearly shows a lot of warming. And for the period after 1960 (the approximate year in which the anthroprogenic influence really ramped up) the Earth warmed by 0.5C up to 2011 and a whopping 0.9C as of 2017. The warming is accelerating.

0.9C of warming since 1960 is a huge change. And it's even more dramatic when you consider the ocean which has accumulated about 20*10^19 kj of energy.

 

No, I don't. That's why I asked. The topic came up because Baff thinks people should go to prison for regulating CFCs and repairing the ozone hole. And Brexx apparently agrees because he liked post #478. I just wanted to check and see if you were on the same page. Like I said denial of the link between CO2 and warming usually goes hand in hand with the denial of CFCs and ozone depletion because there's a lot of overlap in the science. Did you know that CFCs are also greenhouse gases?

 

Why can't we expedite the transition to other fuel sources? I mean, it has to be done regardless of your viewpoint on climate change so what's the big deal?

 

Um... well.... CFCs were regulated because they were destroying the Ozone layer, right? GHG aside. It's like why we stopped using DDT. You know what the two most destructive things on the planet are? Water and Oxygen. And yet, I don't see you calling either one of those pollution today. But hey, it's early.......

 

You can.
No one is stopping you.

The reason you are not doing so, is simple because you don't want to.
Your lips say "yes", but your wallet says "no".

 

Incorrect.
Baff thinks people should go to prison for mistakenly regulating CFC's and failing to repair the ozone hole.
As you well know.

Lying doesn't win you any prizes.
It just lets people know how far you are willing to go.

 

Didn't your mother teach you to leave things no worse off than how you found them? It's like that. Water and oxygen are abundant in the biosphere and have been ever since humans were around. And we aren't significantly altering the water or oxygen cycles. But, we are significantly altering the carbon and CFC cycles. Fortunately we (or at least most of us) have accepted responsibility for ozone depletion and are in the process of cleaning up after ourselves. We should do the same with CO2. In other words, we should leave the planet no worse off than how we found it.

 

Yeah, I get it. If you deny that CFCs were the cause of ozone depletion then you can rationalize your way out of taking responsibility.

Despite what deniers think the abundance evidence definitively links CFCs with ozone depletion. And now that we've largely stopped releasing CFCs the ozone hole has at least stopped growing in size and may even be starting to show signs of shrinking. But, you're going to have to be patient. The physical process by which CFCs break down can take decades or even a century or more to complete. That is expected.

 

I'm saying that trying to use "it can't be permafrost if it's thawing" as some kind of riposte is retarded. Hope that helps.

 

According to Mr legits, NASA link....https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

CFC's are the exact opposite of greenhouse gases. They cause cooling in the atmosphere.

 

Yeah why come up any evidence when your rectum contains every supporting statement you could possibly need?

inb4 "it's not pulled from my rectum; it's common sense!" (those two are the same thing)