Jump to content

Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns


homersapien

Recommended Posts

Global warming is much like the theory of thinking progressives. It's just not plausible.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Not much evidence to corroborate this claim. As in, little to none. Not that I'm expecting any from you outside of some easily debunked denialist rag.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/new-geologic-evidence-of-past-periods-of-oscillating-abrupt-warming-and-cooling/

This evidence alone destroys the man made global warming myth.

Do you even physics, bro?

Using ebonics to prove your point? Do you even English, bro?

1.4 degrees difference over an area the size of our planet is a metric ****ton of added energy.

The main problem was that there wasn't a nationally agreed upon temperature standard & scale until the first ITS was published until 1927. So while the precision of the various thermometers may have been high, their absolute accuracies would be in question. In other words, the data for the measured change in temperature for a given thermometer would have likely been valid, but you would you would not have high confidence in the results when comparing data from two different thermometers (unless they were "calibrated" by the same lab & person), and you would have even less confidence from the results of performing a direct comparison between temperature data generated in 1880 and a thermometer calibrated after 1927.

I'm sure all these facts don't fit in with your argument, so in normal lib fashion you will claim they are either wrong or not relevant instead of admitting the giant holes in your theory. Glad you could educate me on your one sided blind to the entire picture view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wattsupwitht...ng_climate2.png

Lets add this....1880-1915 was considered a cool period as was 1945-1977. It is very easy to see that measuring a warm period against cool perioids would obviously show warmer temps. Most global warming claims are based on the last 30 years (back to the last cool period) or back to the late 1800s or early 1900s (another cool period). 30 years from now you will be claiming that aerosals are the reason for the current global cooling....

Let us also not forget that around the 16th century through the 19th century was considered the "little ice age". No evidence what so ever of natural earth temperature cycles. This is quite an amusing subject (the absolute denial of the earth's constantly changing climate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who defend this politically driven hoax all seem to sing from the same choir book. if you dont believe it, it has to be because you're an ignorant dolt and are incapable of understanding the "science". It really seems progressives are not happy w/o a secular apocalypse to use for fear mongering. Personally, I believe its a issue that has been tainted by politics. Climate changes...what a freakin shock that leftist progressives would glom onto it using the issue to have more justification for raising taxes. When 3rd world nations around the globe express their anger that the wealthy nations are not giving enough money to the poorer nations to fight climate change, I am immediately put off by that rhetoric because it hat suspicously sounds like just another redistribution of wealth scheme the left is so consumed with.

Even if the the computer models could be trusted, increasing the regulatory burden on businesses and/or raising taxes WILL NOT "fix" the problem but on the contrary only worsen an already dismal economic recovery. Its interesting how their language has changed from AGW to climate change. This way even if we have record high snowfall they can use that too. They now blame climate change for crime and just about every other conceivable wrong in the world all the way up to terrorism on it and the all they've got is some computer models as their "smoking gun" evidence of the hoax they've committed themselves to pushing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who am I kidding? You'll be back. They all come crawling back. :bananadance:

At work and I have a massive headache. Replies will be slow.

http://wattsupwithth...ng-and-cooling/

This evidence alone destroys the man made global warming myth.

So it begins. We're going to run down the list of denialist sites like I predicted.

Actually, it does not. Easterbrook is spotlighting one area with the lasers. The southern part of the Fraser Lowland in WA. His paper is taking two locaations, Washington and Greenland, and applying them to the entire planet. What part of "global" warming is he missing? There are other flaws. We'll discuss them if you'd like. Or we could continue in this vein and you could pull up some other denialist rag.

Using ebonics to prove your point? Do you even English, bro?

57591563.jpg

The main problem was that there wasn't a nationally agreed upon temperature standard & scale until the first ITS was published until 1927. So while the precision of the various thermometers may have been high, their absolute accuracies would be in question. In other words, the data for the measured change in temperature for a given thermometer would have likely been valid, but you would you would not have high confidence in the results when comparing data from two different thermometers (unless they were "calibrated" by the same lab & person), and you would have even less confidence from the results of performing a direct comparison between temperature data generated in 1880 and a thermometer calibrated after 1927.

Climatologist account for that discrepancy. Ever noticed the uncertainty marks on many charts? Example:

ljungq4.png

And there are other proxies that indicate the rise.

I'm sure all these facts don't fit in with your argument, so in normal lib fashion you will claim they are either wrong or not relevant instead of admitting the giant holes in your theory. Glad you could educate me on your one sided blind to the entire picture view.

Glad to be of service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same source:

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/

The Collapsing AGW Paradigm...

What is the current paradigm?

  • Human activities, primarily carbon dioxide emissions, have been the primary cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 to 150 years.
  • The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had stabilized between 270 and 280 ppmv early in the Holocene and had remained in that range prior to the mid-19th century when fossil fuels became the primary energy source of the Industrial Revolution.
  • Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing the atmospheric concentration to rise at a dangerously rapid pace to levels not seen in 100’s of thousands to millions of years.
  • The climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration “is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C,” possibly even much higher than 4.5°C.
  • Immediate, deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are necessary in order to stave off catastrophic climate change.
  • The scientific consensus regarding this paradigm is overwhelming (~97%).

Why is the paradigm collapsing?

  • There has been no increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature since the late 20th century.
  • Every measure of pre-industrial carbon dioxide, not derived from Antarctic ice cores, indicates a higher and more variable atmospheric concentration.
  • The total lack of predictive skill in AGW climate models.
  • An ever-growing body of observation-based studies indicating that theclimate sensitivity is in the range of 0.5 to 2.5°C with a best estimate of 1.5 to 2°C, and is very unlikely to be more than 2°C.
  • Clear evidence that the dogmatic insistence of scientific unanimity is at best highly contrived and at worst fraudulent.

The paradigm is collapsing primarily due to the fact that the climate appears to be far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than the so-called scientific consensus had assumed.

APEGA01_zpsnsjxk6fi.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you don't mind, but I slapped an img tag on your graph so everyone could see it.

oscillating_climate2.png

Lets add this....1880-1915 was considered a cool period as was 1945-1977. It is very easy to see that measuring a warm period against cool perioids would obviously show warmer temps. Most global warming claims are based on the last 30 years (back to the last cool period) or back to the late 1800s or early 1900s (another cool period). 30 years from now you will be claiming that aerosals are the reason for the current global cooling....

Actually, I agree in part with you here. One must be careful not to cherry pick data. It warps the graphs. Part of the reason you'll see so much from the 1800s is because of the beginning of the Industrial Age and the genesis of the instrumental temperature record.

But take, for instance, the Ljundqvist graph in my prior post. It goes back to year 0 AD. When climatologists say "it's the warmest it's been in 1000 years, that what they're referring to.

I can't speak for you seeing mostly graphs that only show the most recent 30 years, except that may have something to do with the satellite measurements.

But insofar as cooling, not even many denialists take that stance. There hasn't been any. Earth is still warming. Easterman is in rare company there.

Let us also not forget that around the 16th century through the 19th century was considered the "little ice age". No evidence what so ever of natural earth temperature cycles. This is quite an amusing subject (the absolute denial of the earth's constantly changing climate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when it goes from global warming....to global cooling....to just climate change.... Clearly there are alterior motives. The climate is always changing. Sometimes it's warmer, sometimes it's colder....oooohhhhhh...I just made a scientific breakthrough!!! It's global warm-cooling!!!

:rolleyes:/>

Good thing there aren't any ulterior motives. Cause that would be bad.

*sigh*

Who wants to educate this one? My absolutely awful pun has drained me.

Yes, please edumacate me

...sigh....

http://www.forbes.co...ference-agenda/

Pretty clear that, despite your ignorance of the matter, as displayed by your stupidity filled rant two posts ago, you have already got your mind made up. Want to go over why that two year old blog post you shared is fractallly wrong, or continue to insult our intelligence with your ignorance?

Let's rather talk about how the earth is 1.4 degrees warmer than it was in 1880. Yikes. A whole 1.4 degrees!!!!!! Take your pathetic disgusting holier than thou arrogance and shove it. Your obviously a fan of taking tiny things and overblowing the hell out of them. No sense in arguing with arrogant jack wagons.

Perhaps you should take it up with these guys:

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

I haven't said that. Solar activity is significant to the climate. The issue is that solar activity has remained relatively constant (falling by some measurements) during the current warming. It's not one of the forcings in play here for the current warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same source:

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/

The Collapsing AGW Paradigm...

What is the current paradigm?

  • Human activities, primarily carbon dioxide emissions, have been the primary cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 to 150 years.
  • The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had stabilized between 270 and 280 ppmv early in the Holocene and had remained in that range prior to the mid-19th century when fossil fuels became the primary energy source of the Industrial Revolution.
  • Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing the atmospheric concentration to rise at a dangerously rapid pace to levels not seen in 100’s of thousands to millions of years.
  • The climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration “is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C,” possibly even much higher than 4.5°C.
  • Immediate, deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are necessary in order to stave off catastrophic climate change.
  • The scientific consensus regarding this paradigm is overwhelming (~97%).

Why is the paradigm collapsing?

  • There has been no increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature since the late 20th century.
  • Every measure of pre-industrial carbon dioxide, not derived from Antarctic ice cores, indicates a higher and more variable atmospheric concentration.
  • The total lack of predictive skill in AGW climate models.
  • An ever-growing body of observation-based studies indicating that theclimate sensitivity is in the range of 0.5 to 2.5°C with a best estimate of 1.5 to 2°C, and is very unlikely to be more than 2°C.
  • Clear evidence that the dogmatic insistence of scientific unanimity is at best highly contrived and at worst fraudulent.

The paradigm is collapsing primarily due to the fact that the climate appears to be far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than the so-called scientific consensus had assumed.

APEGA01_zpsnsjxk6fi.png

I'm taking pains to avoid sourcing skeptical science, given the venom it's generally met with. If you insist, though, here's the reconstruction overlaid with several others courtesy of skepsci:

compare_recons_with_crutem_1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wattsupwitht...ng_climate2.png

Lets add this....1880-1915 was considered a cool period as was 1945-1977. It is very easy to see that measuring a warm period against cool perioids would obviously show warmer temps. Most global warming claims are based on the last 30 years (back to the last cool period) or back to the late 1800s or early 1900s (another cool period). 30 years from now you will be claiming that aerosals are the reason for the current global cooling....

Let us also not forget that around the 16th century through the 19th century was considered the "little ice age". No evidence what so ever of natural earth temperature cycles. This is quite an amusing subject (the absolute denial of the earth's constantly changing climate)

http://en.wikipedia..../Little_Ice_Age

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. But of course...

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

Another Heartland paid lackey.

Please tell us where that piece you referenced is published in a peer-reviewed journal instead of his own blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

That's not true. It's no wonder you are confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wattsupwitht...ng_climate2.png

Lets add this....1880-1915 was considered a cool period as was 1945-1977. It is very easy to see that measuring a warm period against cool perioids would obviously show warmer temps. Most global warming claims are based on the last 30 years (back to the last cool period) or back to the late 1800s or early 1900s (another cool period). 30 years from now you will be claiming that aerosals are the reason for the current global cooling....

Let us also not forget that around the 16th century through the 19th century was considered the "little ice age". No evidence what so ever of natural earth temperature cycles. This is quite an amusing subject (the absolute denial of the earth's constantly changing climate)

http://en.wikipedia..../Little_Ice_Age

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. But of course...

http://www.desmogblo...m/anthony-watts

Another Heartland paid lackey.

Please tell us where that piece you referenced is published in a peer-reviewed journal instead of his own blog.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123859563100014

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_paper_on_SPPI.pdf

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_past-century.pdf

http://donpettygrove.blogspot.com/2014/02/cause-of-pause-in-global-warming.html

http://www.climatecorruption.org/pdf/Geologist%20on%20threat%20of%20global%20cooling.pdf

http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/basic_info.htm

Yep, just on that one site. Put down the site owner since you cant argue the science. Typical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the "cure" stops being giving more power to the federal government to regulate our lives and further limit our freedom, then I'll believe this crap, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ObamaCare hits Americans in their wallet, it's heraled as a good thing.

A FEW Americans endure common , perpetual changes in weather, and it's THE END OF THE WORLD !!!!

Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That anyone would go to the trouble to make up an ASININE cartoon about the myth of global warming, only goes to show just how warped and infantile are the Warm-Mongers.

Dan Rather made up a story about W to try to throw the election.

Brian Williams lied about being shot at in Iraq.

Rolling Stone printed a fictional story about a rape which didn't happen.

' Hands up/ Don't shoot ! ' was a complete lie.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That anyone would go to the trouble to make up an ASININE cartoon about the myth of global warming, only goes to show just how warped and infantile are the Warm-Mongers.

Dan Rather made up a story about W to try to throw the election.

Brian Williams lied about being shot at in Iraq.

Rolling Stone printed a fictional story about a rape which didn't happen.

' Hands up/ Don't shoot ! ' was a complete lie.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

not to get way off topic but Brian Williams was saying something about maybe having a brain tumor or something. That was what caused him to keep on telling that lie. I think maybe CNN wants him to take Larry Kings' spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

That's not true. It's no wonder you are confused.

Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO.

From your favorite nutjob site they conclude the solar activity is negligible at best. : http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
sunspots
, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests
solar activity
is influencing the global
climate
causing the world to get warmer."
(
)

It's often considered "common sense" that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we'll go through the calculations for ourselves.

...

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008)performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. Similarly, Schurer et al. (2013) uses multiple linear regression and finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CCBEqEEWgAAHJH5.jpg

wow, you really have no argument other than lame jokes, do you? All the better.

Heres the long term climate change graph. Enjoy

Not really. I'm pretty stupid when it comes to this. I just thought the cartoon was kind of cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CCBEqEEWgAAHJH5.jpg

wow, you really have no argument other than lame jokes, do you? All the better.

Heres the long term climate change graph. Enjoy

2r27p8i.jpg

Yeah, uh, about that graph. It wasn't made with a scientifically credible reconstruction. I'm going to start sourcing sks.

Composer99 at 13:37 PM on 22 November, 2012

...In addition I note two rather glaring errors in the Harris & Mann drawing:

- "Nomanic Time"?

- "Grecian Empire"?

Are there any sources justifying this terminology?

In addition, the Harris & Mann drawing lists its sources as:

Global temperature chart was complied by Climatologist Cliff Harris that combined the following resources:

"Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.

"Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak

Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.

[bold & italics original.]...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=127&&n=1095

And regarding Cliff Harris:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cliff-harris-one-of-americas-top-climatologists.617/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best guess for the cause of the LIA is variable sun activity. The difference is that we're aware of the forcings in play this time around.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

That's not true. It's no wonder you are confused.

Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO.

From your favorite nutjob site they conclude the solar activity is negligible at best. : http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
sunspots
, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests
solar activity
is influencing the global
climate
causing the world to get warmer."
(
BBC
)

It's often considered "common sense" that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we'll go through the calculations for ourselves.

...

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008)performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. Similarly, Schurer et al. (2013) uses multiple linear regression and finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years.

Your copy paste from sks does not support this statement, DKW.

But we have been re-assured ad nauseum that solar activity has no effect whatsoever on climatology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...