2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by TCassa89, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you present several studies that refutes this?

    Yes and no. It's not quite that simple. It is usually the Cook study from which this 97% figure is derived. What he did was sample all of the available literature in climate related publications and classify them as either no-position, for-position, and against-position. Other studies used methodologies. Some even actually surveyed climate scientists themselves. While we can't really say that exactly 97% agree with the consensus the overwhelming abundance of evidence suggests the figure is very likely to be > 90%.

    You could level the same charge against those participating physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and pretty much every scientific discipline.

    The difference between religion and science is that religion is based on faith while science is based on fact. If 3% of religious leaders rejected God then you would probably say they lacked faith. If 3% of scientists rejected the consensus then you would say that they lacked confidence in the facts that were used to form the consensus. One striking distinction here is that you can't adjudicate faith, but you can adjudicate facts. Scientific theories can be tested against reality to see how well they match. There is no such adjudication avenue with faith. By the way, I'm not dogging on religion here. In fact, I consider myself a religious person.
     
  2. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They should do some studies on scientific bias.

    You get a star for truthfulness. :sun:

    Mail in surveys are not "scientific surveys". But just surveying "Climatologists" would also be misleading. It should include scientists from other fields, math, physics, geologists, glaciologists, oceanographers ect.

    And in fact I do. The Big Bang Theory for instance. The universe came from nothing expanded faster than the speed of light, slowed down, and is now speeding up. All based on faith in mathematical formulas and unprovable theories.
    Well in the above example, you must take the science behind the Big Bang on faith, which by the way was first thought of by an astronomer who was also a Catholic Priest. By coincidence, the Big Bang theory sounds a lot like the theory of creation in Genesis.

    :angel::worship::please:
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
    vman12 likes this.
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientific consensus, ironically, has never been what breakthrough understanding of science was made of.
     
    PatriotNews likes this.
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, there is a worldwide consensus among scientists that the natural factors that caused about a million previous episodes of global warming have suddenly ceased to have their customary effects...?

    Sorry, I do not believe such absurd claims.
     
  5. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Just this time, since the massive burning of fossil fuel isn't natural.
     
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course not.

    There is a consensus, however, that none of those factors are in play now in any significant way.

    You're waving your hands around wildly, invoking magic, and demanding that everyone disprove your magic. That's not how science works. Natural cycles have causes. If you want your "It's a natural cycle!" theory to be taken seriously, you have to specify what's causing this supposed current natural warming cycle, and back it up with hard data.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So we can point to anything that isn't natural, like the manufacture of thermometers, and conclude that it has taken the place of all the natural climate influences???
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which, given our ignorance of the subject, is self-evidently absurd.
    You are aware that I have done no such thing.
    Climategate 2 has shown us -- again -- how climate "science" works.
    I have. The "current" warming cycle ended about 10 years ago, when the solar cycle dramatically weakened, and it was mainly caused by the sustained, multi-millennium high in solar activity that has apparently now ended (Usoskin et al, 2010).
     
  9. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about you go read up about what causes climate change.
     
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your abject ignorance of this topic extends to being ignorant of how most others aren't as ignorant as yourself.

    Yep. You and your fellow deniers were busted for fraud there, again. Such fraud is all you've ever had, and all you ever will have.

    That's clearly a display of delusion on your part, given how the past 10 years has seen steady strong warming, and given how solar activity peaked around 1970. Reality flatly contradicts nearly everything you claim, so you solve that problem by inventing your own alternate reality.
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about you go read up on the basic principles of logical reasoning?
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very few understand it better.
    Nope. Didn't happen. Only CLAIMS of fraud, from the actual climate fraudsters.
    Cooking the data is fraud. Not exposing the cooking.
    Only in the fraudulent post-adjustment data. In fact, arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012 (at a level similar to the 1930s), and has been rebounding ever since. Want to bet it will decrease to less than the 2012 record? I'm betting it won't, and will instead continue to increase.
    It peaked in the early 1960s, but remained at historically high levels until Cycle 23 started about 20ya.
    Nope. Only cooked data contradict me. Look around you. Ask someone in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s.
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Amusing. You actually believe that reading a few weepy conspiracy blogs has made you an expert in the field. But then, overwhelming narcissism is common in deniers. The denier cult appeals to the narcissism of its members, constantly telling them that they're thew world's most special snowflakes, who possess secret knowledge that every else fails to understand.

    Boring. You know, your delusional paranoia.

    So, you don't understand what a "trend" with "noise" is. You're much worse at this than an average middle-schooler.

    Bets with conservatives are pointless, being it's a given that they will refuse to honor the bet after they lose. But I'll still bet you, as it's still a sure thing for me, and it will be fun to watch you run.

    And?

    Your bizarre theory still fails to explain the observed world, hence it is wrong. The heat that suddenly popped now (according to your theory) out had to be somewhere. The oceans are the only candidate, but we know the heat was not hiding there, because we've been taking the temperature of the oceans.

    It's warmer in the USA now, and the USA is only a tiny fraction of the world, and you're using a "weather is climate" fallacy. You're just not very good at this.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a difference between a trend and part of a cycle, son.
    OK, how much, and until when?
    So it matched the late 20th century warming.
    No, it does not.
    No heat has suddenly popped out now. It's no warmer now than in the 1990s, maybe the 1930s -- and maybe the 1130s.
    And fiddling the data.
    It's not a fallacy. Climate is nothing but the sum of weather. And warmer than when? The 1930s? The 1130s? How do you know? The rings of one tree??
     
  15. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    These are all random meaningless numbers. It is impossible to accurately measure absolute global temperature. We do not have near enough thermometers to do so...
     
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Precisely!

    Also, it's bogus data (ie, random numbers as an input will yield random numbers as an output, thus the data is meaningless).

    There is no way to accurately measure global temperature. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.
     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow, liberals really DO have no sense of humor, it seems... It was a joke, dude...
     

Share This Page