Any doubts about Climate Change?

**bsnub** · 10-08-2015, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by bsnub

The sea ice is melt ice you dumb shit.

How come there's been no global warming in >18 years?

You obviously are not living on Earth.

**AntRobertson** · 10-08-2015, 08:59 AM

This whole climate change thing, I'm becoming less interested in the actual denials than I am the reasons for them. I think that there's an element of willful blindness in not wanting to accept the reality because it's all just a little bit too scary to countenance.

It's like consulting with 100 doctors, 97 of whom say you have some disease that left untreated will lead to death compared to three who say you're doing just fine so you believe the three because, quite simply, you don't want to deal with the fact that you're sick.

Only, in the interim, it transpires that two of the three dissenting doctors aren't actually qualified - one is a vet, the other a marine biologist, and both are funded by someone with a vested interest in you believing you're going to be fine - but even as your health sharply declines you keep Googling their blogs and comforting yourself that everything's going to be OK.

And I imagine if there is ever any actual 11th hour acceptance, when it's all too late, those same people will probably turn around and lash out at the 97 doctors for failing them.

Denial and cognitive bias, they're powerful things.

**harrybarracuda** · 10-08-2015, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

This whole climate change thing, I'm becoming less interested in the actual denials than I am the reasons for them. I think that there's an element of willful blindness in not wanting to accept the reality because it's all just a little bit too scary to countenance.

I don't think so, I think it's all about the money and the mistaken belief that if you have enough, you can always escape the consequences of your actions.

**Neo** · 11-08-2015, 03:41 AM

the clock is definitely running out though

A Warm Ocean "Blob" In the Pacific Is Feeding a Toxic Algae Bloom | Gizmodo UK

**Boon Mee** · 11-08-2015, 05:06 AM

Now here's some clever/original thinking!

Obama Regime Fighting Climate Change With Taxpayer-Funded Solar Panels On Chicken Coops…

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is spending millions on green energy projects for farms, including putting solar panels on the tops of chicken coops.

The federal agency announced Friday that its Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) will spend $63 million on solar panels and wind turbines for the farming industry.

One project, totaling $16,094, was awarded to Blue Sky Poultry, Inc., of Bainbridge, Ga., to “install a solar array on the roof of poultry houses.”

Other projects announced by the USDA included $18,000 for solar panels for a fruit farm in Ohio, and $19,750 for a wind turbine for a farm in Minnesota."

USDA Putting Solar Panels on Chicken Coops | Washington Free Beacon

We're sure that'll lower the avg. mean temp by 0.01 C as that's the global warming number we're given these days.

**CaptainNemo** · 11-08-2015, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

This whole climate change thing, I'm becoming less interested in the actual denials than I am the reasons for them. I think that there's an element of willful blindness in not wanting to accept the reality because it's all just a little bit too scary to countenance.

I don't think so, I think it's all about the money and the mistaken belief that if you have enough, you can always escape the consequences of your actions.

I think most people are too busy trying to survive to care; and feel utterly powerless to do anything... never mind have the energy or means to do anything about it. Environmentalism is a hobby for the middle classes, students, and the unemployed.

**CaptainNemo** · 11-08-2015, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

There's a massive dearth of evidence, and lots more to find out, and (despite constraints on funding) lots of initiatives to develop technology to collect data over larger temporal and spatial scales, rather than simply dunking stuff at a few favourite sites that are easy to get to - how do you know how true your true is without collecting more extensive datasets and cross-referencing them?

Hardy dear boy. you see the case for global warming has been made using mesurments, mathematics and physics. the same process that allows us to make silicone chips, building, airplanes and space ships that work first time. its why we know the earth is much older than 6000 years and that life is created by DNA though a process of evolution. These are not ideologies, dogma's they are evidence based facts.... rather like gravity.

It's so tempting to ask you what your expertise is in this area, but given that you can't even spell "measurements"; or "silicon chips"; or "dogmas", I'm going to bet that you don't have any in this field.

The bit you quoted of what I said, is not supposition, it's based on direct knowledge I have based on what I do. There is a massive dearth of evidence, and that gives people like me plenty to do to show what is actually happening.

The term "global warming" is the incorrect one; the correct term, is "anthropogenic climate change", because there's lot more going on than just "warming", and it really does depend on what what you're looking at, where, when, how, and over what timescale.

**hazz** · 13-08-2015, 03:41 AM

five years a go you would have had a tenable argument, but since richard miller et al derived a new dataset and client model whilst making a point of ensuring that all of the sceptics concerns were felt with... one has to say the the dearth of evidence belongs to those who deny that there is human driven climate change. Not wishing to repeat myself i will quote what i said at the time.

Originally Posted by hazz

to describe the met as being beyond reproach is hyperbole, but they have a lot of people working for them who demonstrably have a good understanding of what they are doing, certainly better than most of us. The same applies to the other groups producing climate models, and one cannot just dismiss what they are doing, glibly, one needs to make a reasoned argument as to how they have got it wrong.

And until last year there were quite a few very legitimate concerns that their predictions could be off because of the quality of the temperature data that they were all using. That was until global warming sceptic, Richard Muller did what differentiates the denier from the sceptic. he went out and did research to find out if these issues that the sceptics saw with the existing models compromised their results. He group did their number crunching with their own datasets and, somewhat to their surprise got very similar results to everyone else.

At some point in all scientific discoveries where sceptics with legitimate concerns morph into denialists that simply do not want to believe the evidence. for global warming, the publication of muller's results was that moment. The climate models all produce very similar results, those results predict the past and present well and as far as the future has become the present, it is found to fall within the range of futures predicted by these models.

And if you do look at whats left dening global warming, is a mix shills and the wilfully blind nd its going to go the way of Aids denailism, smokers lung cancer and asbestosis denalism, evolution, even pion denialism.

As someone who is actively involved in client modelling you certainly are in a small minority with your stance. but then as you believe that good quality english is a necessity to be good at anything.... one has to suspect that your critical faculties are, well, rather shallow and lacking

**S Landreth** · 14-08-2015, 07:17 PM

Some news and the trend continues,..........

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in July 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.38°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.72°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015 (+0.38°C), 2nd. 1998 (+0.30°C), 3rd. 2014 (+0.28°C), 4th. 2010, 2005 (+0.24°C)

The trend also suggests, 2015 will be the hottest year ever recorded.

The seasonal anomaly of the global average surface temperature in Spring (March to May) 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.33°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.73°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015 (+0.33°C), 2nd. 2014 (+0.28°C), 3rd. 2010 (+0.26°C), 4th. 1998 (+0.25°C), 5th. 2002 (+0.18°C)

_____________

Without reducing emissions, carbon removal schemes will not undo the damage climate change is doing to the oceans by increasing their acidity.

Waiting to tackle ocean acidification caused by climate change through yet-to-be developed geoengineering schemes will be too little too late to prevent mass extinction of ocean life, a new study concludes.

Cutting carbon emissions is the only way for oceans to recover from the devastating effects of climate change, according to the new research published in Nature Climate Change. While using deliberate, large-scale manipulation of earth processes to combat global warming has its proponents, intervening in the climate through potentially dangerous geoengineering technologies is unproven. And even if carbon dioxide could be removed from the atmosphere, ocean acidification already spurred by CO2 will persist for centuries. This could cause mass extinctions of marine species, researchers concluded.

"Once the ocean is severely affected by high carbon dioxide, it is virtually impossible to undo these alterations on a human-generation timescale," said Sabine Mathesius of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany.

Oceans face massive and irreversible impacts without carbon cuts | The Guardian

____________

August 2015 El Niño update

As of August, NOAA and IRI forecasters are predicting this El Niño will peak in the late fall/early winter with 3-month-average sea surface temperatures in the Niño3.4 region near or exceeding 2.0°C (3.6°F) above normal. If this forecast comes true, it will place the 2015 event among the strongest El Niños in the (admittedly short) 1950-2015 historical record.

Average SST Anomalies

_____________

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

This whole climate change thing, I'm becoming less interested in the actual denials than I am the reasons for them. I think that there's an element of willful blindness in not wanting to accept the reality because it's all just a little bit too scary to countenance.

It's like consulting with 100 doctors, 97 of whom say you have some disease that left untreated will lead to death compared to three who say you're doing just fine so you believe the three because, quite simply, you don't want to deal with the fact that you're sick.

Only, in the interim, it transpires that two of the three dissenting doctors aren't actually qualified - one is a vet, the other a marine biologist, and both are funded by someone with a vested interest in you believing you're going to be fine - but even as your health sharply declines you keep Googling their blogs and comforting yourself that everything's going to be OK.

And I imagine if there is ever any actual 11th hour acceptance, when it's all too late, those same people will probably turn around and lash out at the 97 doctors for failing them.

Denial and cognitive bias, they're powerful things.

I believe a lot of so called deniers know and understand; with the overwhelming evidence that is out there, they are wrong and don’t want to admit they are or were wrong. And some of these merchants of doubt are just writing/posting (but not publishing any peer reviewed studies on climate science) to keep their pockets full and to keep a (fake) controversy alive so that their employers can keep the money flowing.

It’s only the hard core stoopid that don’t understand that humans are the (main) cause of today.

Conspiracy theorists on the other-hand are or can be amusing. Pity we don’t have any good ones posting here.

**Boon Mee** · 16-08-2015, 06:56 AM

SUPER COLD, SLEW OF SNOW IN OLD FARMER'S ALMANAC FORECAST

News from The Associated Press

Whatever happened to that Globull Warming thing? Is that why Al Gore is considering throwing his hat in the Dem ring - needs a new job?

**bsnub** · 16-08-2015, 11:31 AM

^ Yet another spam post by the boontard.

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by bsnub

The sea ice is melt ice you dumb shit.

How come there's been no global warming in >18 years?

What's this shit about 18 years? In the records of history 18 years is less than the blink of an eye.

These people are obviously talking about "science" as in something that can be duplicated with experiments which they can't. They talk about 1970 or 1990 as if that made any difference. Why don't they tell me about 1,000 or 5,000 years ago where they got their baseline figures? I'll agree there can be fluctuations from decade to decade which proves nothing.

I have just one question for the sheeple who tell me that they know what global temperatures were like 1,000 or 2,000 years ago as compared to today.

Wait for it - drum roll - "Were you there"?

**bsnub** · 16-08-2015, 01:08 PM

^Are you a creationist?

**bsnub** · 16-08-2015, 01:14 PM

March 2015 marked the first time that carbon dioxide levels hit 400 parts per million in Earth’s atmosphere—and stayed there all month. We’d seen 400 ppm registered, albeit briefly, in previous periods. But now, it really is a 400 ppm world. And to begin to grasp what that means for life in the near-future, we might look to the past.
“CO2 concentrations haven't been this high in millions of years,” NASA’s Erika Podest, a carbon and water research scientist, said—a common refrain among the scientists who researched or observed the event.
“This event is a milestone on a road to unprecedented climate change for the human race, Dr. Ed Hawkins, a climatologist at the University of Reading, told the Guardian. “The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than a million years ago, when modern humans hadn’t even evolved yet.” The environmentalist Bill McKibben echoed the sentiment, too: "We're in new territory for human beings—it's been millions of years since there's been this much carbon in the atmosphere.”
Yep: it’s been millions of years since there’s been this much carbon in the atmosphere. That, inevitably, brings on the question: What was the climate like back then, a few million years ago?
According to the world’s leading authority on climate science, the last time carbon levels reached 400 ppm, and “mean global temperatures were substantially warmer for a sustained period,” was probably 2-3 million years ago, in the Mid-Pliocene era. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose job is to synthesize the latest and most accurate climate science in order to make recommendations to policymakers, devotes a section of its annual report to the era, because “Understanding the climate distribution and forcing for the Pliocene period may help improve predictions of the likely response to increased CO2 in the future.” During that time, carbon levels registered from 360 to 400 ppm.
It’s not a perfect analog, of course, and much of the information we have about the climate comes from so-called proxy data derived from samples taken from ice cores and ancient tree rings. But still! It’s worth taking a look at what the climate was like then to get an idea of what a more carbon-saturated world might look like now.
Here are a few of the characteristics of the Pliocene’s climate, which I also noted back when atmospheric carbon levels first crept past 400 ppm:
-Sea levels were, on average, between 50 and 82 feet higher.
-Temperatures were 2-3 ˚C higher—about 4-6 ˚F—above pre-industrial levels.
-Arctic temperatures were between 10-20 ˚C hotter.
-Many species of both plants and animals existed several hundred kilometers north of where their nearest relatives exist today.

Mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature anomaly. USGS
It’s also worth noting that the tropics weren’t much hotter, and were perhaps even a bit cooler—it’s the regions near the poles that were cooked. Arctic ice, for instance, was “ephemeral”, as in, not permanent, and melted in the warm season. North Atlantic regions warmed considerably.
Again, this period in the Pliocene is surely not a perfect corollary, but the best science indicates we’re heading towards a climate not unlike that warmer one, if not even hotter. We’ve already seen global temperatures increase 1˚ F since preindustrial times, which has changed the face of the planet. Glaciologists predict an ice-free Arctic in coming decades—and temperatures around the poles are climbing fast.
But passing the 400 ppm mark may be more symbolic than anything, as a number of researchers have noted. In fact, we’re on track to blow right past it—towards a world that might make those marginally higher temps and raised sea levels of the Pliocene look quaint in comparison.

There Hasn?t Been This Much Carbon in the Atmosphere for Millions of Years | Motherboard

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^Are you a creationist?

^^ No, I'm a fisherman and golfer. Creating isn't one of my talents. I wanted to be a pugilist. Oh, you mean do I believe the world is only 5,000 years old? No, I think it's very old.

You seem to know a lot about those times. Were you there?

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

March 2015 marked the first time that carbon dioxide levels hit 400 parts per million in Earth’s atmosphere—and stayed there all month. We’d seen 400 ppm registered, albeit briefly, in previous periods. But now, it really is a 400 ppm world. And to begin to grasp what that means for life in the near-future, we might look to the past.
“CO2 concentrations haven't been this high in millions of years,” NASA’s Erika Podest, a carbon and water research scientist,

“CO2 concentrations haven't been this high in millions of years,”

LOL. Were they there?

**harrybarracuda** · 16-08-2015, 02:05 PM

I'll guarantee that the sandpit is going to have it's hottest July and August on record.

But it's a great way to lose weight.

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 02:10 PM

Before the white man learned how to fight fires in the USA and Canada lightning would start fires in the summer. Those fires would burn until the rains came. This was nature's way of cleaning and renewing the forests and the grass lands of the Great Plains, etc. That renewal is particularly witnessed in Yellowstone National Park where a fire was allowed to burn to mimic nature and many thought much damage was done. Not so, it's better than ever and a lesson was learned.

The smoke from that encircled the globe. The valley I grew up in, in the USA was called "Valley of the Smoke" by the Native American Indians.

How do these "experts" know what the CO2 or particulate matter was in the air say 300 years ago much less a million years ago as a result of that thing alone, globally?

A million years ago? Real scientists get empirical evidence by repeating tests to prove their theories.

About these experts: Were they there?

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

...the sandpit is going to have it's hottest July and August on record.

Who's record? Who keeps these records?

Were they there?

**Takeovers** · 16-08-2015, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by JBaker

How do these "experts" know what the CO2 or particulate matter was in the air say 300 years ago much less a million years ago as a result of that thing alone, globally?

A million years ago? Real scientists get empirical evidence by repeating tests to prove their theories.

About these experts: Were they there?

They are everywhere. How do they know the atmosphere a million years ago? Google Ice Core.

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 02:23 PM

Mr. Bsnub, In court you can't be a witness unless you have what the law calls "personal knowledge" of an event. Otherwise your testimony is hearsay or some other nonsense.

These guys "testifying" about what happened a million years ago are full of shit in the regard that they could actually prove anything. They don't have Personal Knowledge and need to zip it.

Until you answer my question we aren't going to know whether you or anyone else has Personal Knowledge of this subject so please answer me...

We You There?

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 02:26 PM

Oh BTW, the best evidence that I can see they have is they are quoting each other just as members here are doing. Quote an expert and you look pretty smart yourself I suppose?

The problem is that no one actually proves it with scientific evidence. It's just an endless circle of supposition passed off as science.

BTW, Were They There?

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

They are everywhere. How do they know the atmosphere a million years ago? Google Ice Core.

I don't Google shit for Shinola. You got proof, post it please. I post my own references, thank you.

BTW, concerning ice cores, how do they know or prove that temperature and gas measurements are correlated? How do they measure The Temperature(TM) aka Global Warming(TM) from an ice core? Answer: They Can't(TM).

Were They There?

**bsnub** · 16-08-2015, 02:36 PM

^ Maybe you should polish up on some basic scientific knowledge because you clearly have none. You are asking questions that could be easily answered by most college freshmen. I will not waste the time to school you on such simple things. You really should push off from this thread because you are displaying a lack of not only knowledge but intellect as well.

**JBaker** · 16-08-2015, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Maybe you should polish up on some basic scientific knowledge because you clearly have none. You are asking questions that could be easily answered by most college freshmen. I will not waste the time to school you on such simple things. You really should push off from this thread because you are displaying a lack of not only knowledge but intellect as well.

And what voluminous amounts of scientific knowledge have you shared in this thread?

Answer: None. None.

It's just claims that "scientists have proven" and yet no one has proven it at all. You are guilty of quoting people as if they had proof when they don't. Just because they say so doesn't mean anything and it sure doesn't make it science.

Question your intellect when you are a sheeple who can't prove anything but think you do by quoting others who can't prove anything.

BTW, Were You There?

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

There Hasn’t Been This Much Carbon in the Atmosphere for Millions of Years

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions