Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice - Page 5
Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Likes Likes:  0
Save
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 61 to 72 of 72
  1. #61
    Hang 'Em High
    JUNGLE DRUMMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.20.07
    Age
    46
    Posts
    16,638
    Posts Per Day
    3.44
    Favorite VH Album

    WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    EVERYBODY WANTS SOME!!
    Last Online

    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Likes (Given)
    836
    Likes (Received)
    242
    Thanks (Given)
    48590
    Thanks (Received)
    14288

    Achievements:
    Master PraiserSupremely-LikedElite Daily PosterVHLinks Proud!150,000 VHL Life PointsOld Guard
    Awards:
    The VHLinks Forum MAP (Most Active Poster)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harpospoke View Post
    I've always believed that a tendency to believe in "doom" was wired into our brains. This article puts forth a good reason for it. It was a necessary thing for our species to survive:


    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/w...-a-golden-age/

    So it does make sense why so many people can just ignore reality to believe in some imagined scary doom waiting to grab them from under their beds. The problem is that we don't need that trait any longer. It's the mental equivalent to an appendix. Now it only serves to create and instill religious belief in people. "The world is doomed because of man's sins".

    Naturally it's our fault. It's always our fault, right? Because we are sooo important. Along with intelligence is an ego and a realization that we are going to die. So rather than believe our temporary existence in this planet means nothing, we have to imagine that we matter. Not just a little bit....we are WAY more important than any other species. Our various religions take care of that. Either God thinks we are special or the planet is somehow groaning under the weight of the mighty human race.

    I wonder if we will evolve past that stuff or if we will keep saying things like this: "We have fallen upon evil times, politics is corrupt and the social fabric is fraying"

    That's from 3800 BC Constantinople and we are still saying the same crap today.


    Sea level has been rising since the last ice age and we of course have always adapted to it just fine. As a matter of fact we live in several places that are below sea level today. Note that the pace of sea level rise has actually slowed. Doesn't really fit the "doom" narrative, I know....




    That's actually true. They were calling it "climate change" in the 1970s when they were claiming global COOLING was going to doom us.


    http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-cont...09/12/1974.pdf

    As usual of course...it's bad no matter what happens. Heaven forbid we believe a change is good. lol...


    It's pretty damning of those making the claim when you look at what they are doing to get that number. They actually count skeptics when they want the "97% consensus" and then attack those same people as "deniers" when they talk about what they really say. 79 out of 10,257 scientists isn't really "97%". Nor is it saying "We are doomed if we don't act now!" when a scientist says, "Yes the earth has warmed over the past 200 years and mankind may have played some role in that". Most skeptics believe that too and thus are counted in the "97% consensus".

    But doomsayers take that and turn into "97% of scientists agree that we must stop emitting CO2 or face catastrophe!". That's just dishonesty.

    Read it yourself...this is where it comes from:
    http://www.readbag.com/tigger-uic-pd...09-doran-final

    Also note that they only sent the survey to 5% climate scientists. It's funny to hear alarmists attack any scientist outside that field who disagrees with them now.


    If you've got some time, this is an excellent read:

    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...saving-science

    The idea that scientists are some sort of infallible group of people who must be trusted to lead us is fairly ridiculous. I found this part telling of what the problem is today:

    The last I heard, there was 1 billion a day being spent on various climate change activities (and that was seen as "not enough"). So the chase for dollars is strong on this one.


    This sort of thing is what first made me start to question the climate change mantra.

    We are talking about CO2 here. You changed that to "every chemical in the world" and "toxic chemical". That's not honest. It sounds like a Straw Man where you change what someone said and attack that new position from a morally superior position.

    No one is supporting "toxic chemicals".


    Did you know that CO2 is at historic low levels? The "planet" (whatever that means) can handle 400ppm just fine. You'll get 5 times that amount of CO2 if you walk through a forest or go to a movie theater. There was an ice age where the CO2 level was above 4000ppm and at other times it's been well above 10,000ppm. 400ppm is nothing. It is literally 400 molecules of CO2 for every MILLION molecules in the atmosphere. That's called a "trace gas".

    Did you know that we came very close to starvation level for plants? It's not a coincidence that the planet has been getting greener over the past few decades as CO2 has risen. I've always found it ironic that those who call themselves "green" won't/can't acknowledge the benefit to plant life that higher CO2 represents.



    And there it is. You don't know either way, but you see something happening and assume it must be bad. The idea that it could be positive does not seem possible in your mind.


    There is a portion of the alarmist community who think like that. And they wonder why there are skeptics. When you point out that there has never been a better time for humans, that does not move them because they don't like humans.

    So if you point out that:

    They'll just keep on believing everything is getting worse because they actually seem to think humans doing well must equal "everything else doing worse". That's if you can even get them to acknowledge the facts about human prosperity in the first place.


    Even if meat was so bad it killed you in a year, that would not justify a tax to force people to eat the way a certain group of people believe they should. That's elitism. Elitism + religious beliefs = bad
    Excellent post. It will be fascinating to see which leftist fruitcakes come on and deny everything in your post.

  2. Harpospoke, Get The Show On The Road thanked for this post.
  3. #62
    Sinner's Swing!

    Join Date
    07.07.15
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    985
    Posts Per Day
    0.54
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm The One
    Last Online

    12.26.18 @ 07:56 PM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    964
    Thanks (Received)
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harpospoke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cfimages
    Among scientists, both have been used interchangeably since at least the 70's, possibly longer. And still are today.

    Among the political side, it comes from Frank Luntz, a consultant who advised the Bush administration in 2003.
    That's actually true. They were calling it "climate change" in the 1970s when they were claiming global COOLING was going to doom us.

    Yes and no.

    The media certainly were talking about global cooling. Time and Newsweek both ran major scare issues dedicated to it.
    The scientists didn't put a lot of credibility in it though. There were some who suggested it and stated that it was going to happen but they were in the minority. Most scientists in that era didn't support the notion.

    Ultimately today, unless you have a background in climate science or some other physical science that allows you to understand the research papers (the actual papers, not the media reports on them), you're going to have to rely mostly on the media, and to a lesser extent politicians, to decide which situation is most likely. If you favor progressive / liberal / left sources, then you'll likely be a warmist. If you favor conservative / right sources, you'll be more likely an alarmist. (Obviously there are examples of the opposite too).

    The idea that NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, Japanese Met Agency, CSIRO and Bureau of Met in Australia, German Met Office, major universities around the world, etc could all independently come to similar conclusions and all be wrong, or could all be working together in some massive conspiracy, despite the widely varying political and social systems in different countries seems to be quite ridiculous, IMHO.

  4. cdnangel thanked for this post.
  5. #63
    Master Bluesman
    Elwood P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    01.11.02
    Location
    1060 W. Addison, Chicago
    Posts
    7,292
    Posts Per Day
    1.08
    Favorite VH Album

    ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Soul Kitchen
    Last Online

    Yesterday @ 08:13 PM
    Likes (Given)
    77
    Likes (Received)
    28
    Thanks (Given)
    2750
    Thanks (Received)
    1581


    Premium Member
    Achievements:
    Master PraiserWell-LikedVHLinks Proud!50,000 VHL Life PointsKnight Of Da Roundtable

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VanZeppelin667 View Post
    My granddad worked for Southern Bell back in those days as a line man. Nothing relevant to the thread, just thought the connection was a little neat.

    Carry on.
    "I'm the opposite of Bill Cosby. Diamond Dave always gets your approval." (DLR)

    "Rawhide in "A"

    Tom Brady hates tomatoes

  6. VanZeppelin667 thanked for this post.
  7. #64
    Take Your Whiskey Home
    Harpospoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.12.12
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    5,982
    Posts Per Day
    1.96
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen II
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    05.08.19 @ 10:10 AM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    13408
    Thanks (Received)
    3725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cfimages View Post
    Yes and no.

    The media certainly were talking about global cooling. Time and Newsweek both ran major scare issues dedicated to it.
    The scientists didn't put a lot of credibility in it though. There were some who suggested it and stated that it was going to happen but they were in the minority. Most scientists in that era didn't support the notion.
    I didn't quote Time, Newsweek, or the other media sources for a reason. I quoted the CIA. They were saying what politicians are saying now...that: "“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change."

    So if you want to make the case that the government and politicians were ignoring the majority opinion of science in the 70s, then you can't turn around and claim they are suddenly doing the opposite today. If the government was clueless in the 70s...then they are still clueless today.

    Same with the media. They were all onboard with the minority opinion in the 70s but now they are suddenly with the majority? Which is it?

    Here is another 70s gem:

    Quote Originally Posted by cf
    Ultimately today, unless you have a background in climate science or some other physical science that allows you to understand the research papers (the actual papers, not the media reports on them), you're going to have to rely mostly on the media, and to a lesser extent politicians, to decide which situation is most likely. If you favor progressive / liberal / left sources, then you'll likely be a warmist. If you favor conservative / right sources, you'll be more likely an alarmist. (Obviously there are examples of the opposite too).
    I challenge the notion that the public can't educate themselves on this issue and make up their own minds. That idea is the province of elitism. "The masses aren't smart enough to run their own lives".

    Anyone can read and understand this subject. It's not some magical field that only a select few can fathom. I can talk about it at length and point out the MANY flaws in the claims made by alarmists. Not the least of which is lying about what scientists say.
    Quote Originally Posted by cf
    The idea that NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, Japanese Met Agency, CSIRO and Bureau of Met in Australia, German Met Office, major universities around the world, etc could all independently come to similar conclusions and all be wrong, or could all be working together in some massive conspiracy, despite the widely varying political and social systems in different countries seems to be quite ridiculous, IMHO.
    This is where the lying comes in. Almost everyone agrees on the basic particulars. We all accept the idea that the earth started to warm at the end of the Little Ice Age. Most accept that human CO2 can play a part in warming.

    That's where the "consensus" ends. And that's where the lying enters the room. Alarmists take those two things and turn it into "All these scientists are agreeing with us that the world is doomed!"

    That is not true. That is called lying. And when I see people lying about something like that, I wonder why they are lying. There is a reason for lying.

    You did the same thing that original survey did. They asked these two questions:

    1-When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    2-Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    See anything there about "doom"? See anything to indicate that warming is bad at all?

    That's first lie. Taking one thing a scientist says and turning it into something else to support an ideological agenda. That is how scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Watts, Salby, Curry, Christy, etc are included in the "97% consensus" when it's politically convenient and then attacked as "deniers" when they explain their full position. Even Roger Pielke, Jr was attacked as a "denier" when he dared to point out that the claim that "storms are getting worse" was not supported by facts. (yet another lie) Pielke is one of the strong "consensus" guys. That's an example of how the politics is working here.

    The second lie is manipulating the numbers. They started with the number "10,257"....that got lowered to "3,146"...and finally ended up being only "79". Which is 0.7% of the scientists polled. That is your "scientific consensus"

    And like I said before...the idea that "only climate scientists can have a valid opinion on this subject" is another trick. Only 5% of the 10,257 scientists polled worked in the field of climate so obviously any scientist can have an opinion here.

    Why shouldn't a person notice that the current warming period began 100 years before our CO2 could be a factor? Notice the IPCC only talks about "post 1950"?...that's because our emissions were too small to be a factor before that. Yet....the world was warming at least 100 years before that point. In fact...the world actually cooled for 20 years post 1950 when our CO2 was supposed to make it warmer. That of course led to the global cooling scare of the 1970s.

    Why shouldn't a person notice that the official numbers keep changing? The temps of the past keep getting cooled and the more recent numbers keep getting warmer. That's "adjustments" according to alarmists. By a amazing coincidence, the past temps that used to not look so compelling tended to get cooler and the more recent ones tended to get warmer. The previous data did not disappear...we aren't going to just forget. The latest "adjustments" helped get rid of that nasty "pause" that was making the theory look deeply flawed. The time line on the reaction from alarmists is telling there. At first, there was a "denial" that there was a pause. Then a few years ago, alarmists admitted it was happening but NAMED it "the pause" (that's right...skeptics did not name it) while insisting it was only temporary. But as the "pause" stretched to 20 years...suddenly the "adjustments" happened and there was no longer a pause! Now alarmists insist it never existed and they never even acknowledged it.

    People are just supposed to ignore that?

    Here are examples of climate scientists talking about "the pause" before the adjustments:

    SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

    Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.


    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-906721.html

    Notice how logical and level-headed he is? No "alarm" over any "doom" from him.

    And here is Phil Jones himself admitting the pause existed in 2010. (He's one of the big alarmist scientists)

    B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
    C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    Since everyone references those same numbers, it's not a "vast conspiracy" when they all agree on the data. A small number of people are doing those "adjustments". So a cooling trend from 2002 suddenly went away. Organizations in Japan just use the numbers, they aren't going to ask why they changed.

    Am I not supposed to remember that alarmists used to claim winters would get warmer ("Snow will be a thing of the past!"), but did a 180 when we got several cold winters and started claiming that was caused by human CO2? No...I remember this:



    Maybe I'm supposed to not notice how the media reports things like when ships get trapped in ice?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mike...global-warming

    This is what it looks like when climate scientists talk about the subject. They don't agree on everything (normal for any two scientists despite the claims of "consensus") but they agree on the main points and are cordial to each other. Both are part of the "97% consensus" but one is also labeled a "denier":




    So the public can and should make up their own minds. The information is not hard to understand at all. And we can certainly notice when there are lies being told and when people who claim to support "science facts" get really quiet when Obama makes a speech where he claims that extreme weather is increasing. Very convenient time to get quiet.

  8. JUNGLE DRUMMER, Get The Show On The Road thanked for this post.
  9. #65
    Take Your Whiskey Home
    Harpospoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.12.12
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    5,982
    Posts Per Day
    1.96
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen II
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    05.08.19 @ 10:10 AM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    13408
    Thanks (Received)
    3725

    Default

    Here are two more scientists discussing the subject. Notice how often they agree on the basic points. Challenge Lindzen at your peril because he knows what he is talking about. He is also getting more grumpy about being called a "denier" in recent years.


  10. JUNGLE DRUMMER thanked for this post.
  11. #66
    Sinner's Swing!

    Join Date
    07.07.15
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    985
    Posts Per Day
    0.54
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm The One
    Last Online

    12.26.18 @ 07:56 PM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    964
    Thanks (Received)
    640

    Default

    Harpo, you've given me a long response but because I'm on work deadlines this week, I'm only going to give a very brief response to a couple of points for now.

    The pause - this was originally meant to reflect an apparent pause in the rate of increase of surface temps. At the beginning scientists didn't know what was going on, so they set out to learn it and largely found out the answers. By the time the media got hold of it, they'd (the media) simplified it to a pause in temps, which is where all the problems came in.

    The consensus - this stretches back long before a poll in 2009. When I was at university back in the mid 90's, there was talk among scientists of a consensus then. IIRC, the media first picked it up in the early 2000's after a meta-study of published papers in peer-review literature. The polls you mention may or may not be flawed (I honestly don't know), but the idea of a consensus predates that.

    Japanese - the 4 major sources of numbers are NASA, NOAA, UK Met Office and Japanese Met Agency. They generate data themselves, they don't just use numbers they're given.

    Can a regular person understand it? - yes, but it's very complex, and it would take a serious effort of ongoing study. It's not something that can be done with a basic reading of media and popular science blogs, if you want to make an informed decision. You'd have to be able to understand the actual research papers. There have been numerous occasions where a paper is released, and the media and blogs instantly report on it yet come up with opposite conclusions depending on what their biases are.

    This is mostly an agree to disagree topic, I think. At this point in time, very few peoples minds will be changed.

  12. #67
    Take Your Whiskey Home
    Harpospoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.12.12
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    5,982
    Posts Per Day
    1.96
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen II
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    05.08.19 @ 10:10 AM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    13408
    Thanks (Received)
    3725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cfimages View Post
    The pause - this was originally meant to reflect an apparent pause in the rate of increase of surface temps. At the beginning scientists didn't know what was going on, so they set out to learn it and largely found out the answers. By the time the media got hold of it, they'd (the media) simplified it to a pause in temps, which is where all the problems came in.
    As you can see from the quotes I posted, the pause was not supposed to happen at all...according to the "science is settled" claim in 1991. As you point out:
    Quote Originally Posted by cf
    The consensus - this stretches back long before a poll in 2009. When I was at university back in the mid 90's, there was talk among scientists of a consensus then. IIRC, the media first picked it up in the early 2000's after a meta-study of published papers in peer-review literature. The polls you mention may or may not be flawed (I honestly don't know), but the idea of a consensus predates that.
    The first problem is citing a "consensus" as proof of anything in the first place. That's not how science works.

    As we know, all that "consensus" did not help anyone predict the pause. The "answers" you claim they found? That was accomplished by just changing the data. Or "adjustments" as some scientists at NASA call it. Instead of questioning the theory which did not predict what the climate would do if human CO2 emissions increased as rapidly as they did (much more than predicted...so the warming should have been LARGER than Hansen's original scenario A)

    So claiming that "the science is settled" and then later having to scramble for answers when your predictions fail is not very compelling proof that this theory is sound. It keeps happening....alarmists claim the final word is in and scientists understand everything...then years later alarmists have to explain why their previous predictions did not come to pass while insisting their brand new doom predictions are sound "We definitely know now!"

    The main points of contention were and continue to be climate sensitivity. That is a simple idea (how much will each molecule of CO2 warm the climate) which climate scientists obviously do not understand. The models are built upon a high sensitivity to get the higher warming predictions. (doom) But since those predictions failed, that clearly indicates a low climate sensitivity. That's something many scientists like Lindzen and Curry were attacked for saying out loud...but they were right.
    This increase in confidence in the main conclusions in the AR5 SPM seems unwarranted based on the text, figures and analyses in the main WG1 Report, and also in comparison with the conclusions from the AR4. Several key elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human influences:
    •Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
    •Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
    •Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
    •Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
    •Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming
    https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/i...-case-for-agw/

    Just the fact that so many scientists were attacked for speaking their minds on a theory demonstrates how it's not really science..it's religion or politics. That should never happen in real science. But you can see from that original article I posted that it happens in cancer research too. Money is also a big player in that field.

    Japanese - the 4 major sources of numbers are NASA, NOAA, UK Met Office and Japanese Met Agency. They generate data themselves, they don't just use numbers they're given.
    When NOAA "adjusts" US temp data upward or downward other offices have no option to not use that data. It's becomes the "official US record" at that point.
    Quote Originally Posted by cf
    Can a regular person understand it? - yes, but it's very complex, and it would take a serious effort of ongoing study. It's not something that can be done with a basic reading of media and popular science blogs, if you want to make an informed decision. You'd have to be able to understand the actual research papers. There have been numerous occasions where a paper is released, and the media and blogs instantly report on it yet come up with opposite conclusions depending on what their biases are.
    I don't think it's that complicated at all. And it's especially easy to see the difference in what scientists say and what alarmists claim scientists say. There are many scientists explaining their views with basic facts...no need to rely on any "blogs". Much better to see first hand that most scientists are not spouting the "doom" that alarmists claim.

    How hard is it to understand that the temperature record is flawed? We have a group of people trying to come up with a single number to define "global climate" from a very small coverage area. (that's just absurd) There is typically 15% or less of the globe being measured in these "global temperature records". Start with the fact that through most of the record, the oceans were almost completely left out...only 71% of the earth's surface! And then there is decent (not great) coverage of the northern hemisphere but very sparse coverage of the southern hemisphere. That's not difficult at all to understand. There is no such thing as a "global temperature record". No serious scientist would claim there is from such a limited data set.

    And when a scientist references the satellite data...the most comprehensively global data set we have....it's very suspicious how alarmists try to shut that scientist down and tell us to ignore the satellite data (which has not been "adjusted" and doesn't repair the "pause" like the surface adjustments did). You don't need a degree in science to notice things like that.

    So when you see all these lies and flaws....and then you see the various predictions and claims failing over the years, the logical thing to do is accept the theory is deeply flawed.

    As you pointed out, there were claims of "consensus" and "settled science" in the early 1990s. Yet....no prediction has come true. What is the logical conclusion?
    Quote Originally Posted by cf
    This is mostly an agree to disagree topic, I think. At this point in time, very few peoples minds will be changed.
    That's true. It's pretty much 100% political with lies, half-truths, and spin on both sides. I'm a libertarian so I don't have to listen to the garbage from either side.

    But I can see which side is more honest among scientists at least. This debate was telling. One side talks facts, the other side uses personal attacks and logical fallacies. The funniest part is when one of the alarmists starts bemoaning the use of personal attacks...after his side had been doing it throughout the debate!

    Not hard to see why the audience decided the skeptics made the better case at the end. I notice no alarmists are willing to debate again after that happened.


  13. #68
    Somebody Get Me A Doctor

    Join Date
    10.28.12
    Location
    Mean Street
    Posts
    8,432
    Posts Per Day
    3.00
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Bottoms Up!
    Last Online

    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Likes (Given)
    401
    Likes (Received)
    126
    Thanks (Given)
    6541
    Thanks (Received)
    4055

    Achievements:
    VeteranMaster PraiserSupremely-Liked50,000 VHL Life Points

    Default

    About the C02 levels. You left out the part where it had been the same for thousands of years. Then after the industrial revolution it's gone from 280 to 400. And rising. Clearly something is making that happen. Hmmm.... I wonder what it could be.

    CO2 is the main culprit but we're burning tons of other toxic chemicals everywhere. Kodak alone is probably burning 1,000 different toxic chemicals. So many companies are polluting the air.

    LOL. Obviously all this pollution is bad. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

  14. #69
    Sinner's Swing!

    Join Date
    07.07.15
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    985
    Posts Per Day
    0.54
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm The One
    Last Online

    12.26.18 @ 07:56 PM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    964
    Thanks (Received)
    640

    Default

    What's the betting that 2015 or 2016 (depending on how this year shakes out) will become the new 1998? Massive el Nino + agw leading to temperature records and a new spike in the graph, just like 1998. With el Nino now over, the next few years probably won't see such extremes. Will this be a new "pause"?

  15. #70
    Somebody Get Me A Doctor

    Join Date
    10.28.12
    Location
    Mean Street
    Posts
    8,432
    Posts Per Day
    3.00
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Bottoms Up!
    Last Online

    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Likes (Given)
    401
    Likes (Received)
    126
    Thanks (Given)
    6541
    Thanks (Received)
    4055

    Achievements:
    VeteranMaster PraiserSupremely-Liked50,000 VHL Life Points

    Default

    I honestly don't see any "pausing". With the planet warming and the ice melting I think it continues.

  16. #71
    Take Your Whiskey Home
    Harpospoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.12.12
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    5,982
    Posts Per Day
    1.96
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen II
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    05.08.19 @ 10:10 AM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    13408
    Thanks (Received)
    3725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrideofPasadena View Post
    About the C02 levels. You left out the part where it had been the same for thousands of years. Then after the industrial revolution it's gone from 280 to 400. And rising. Clearly something is making that happen. Hmmm.... I wonder what it could be.
    And as always, CO2 rose AFTER temps rose. That's the part Al Gore left out in his movie when he showed the big chart. An "inconvenient truth" indeed.

    So sometime does make that happen...a warmer climate makes CO2 levels rise. The end of the Little Ice Age happened before our CO2 so you probably shouldn't bring that up.

    And you left out that we only guess at what CO2 levels were from ice cores. (It's true...there weren't people measuring it in Hawaii thousands of years ago) Pressure tends to have an effect on gases trapped in ice so it's a weak claim to say that CO2 did not change for thousands of years. Since we believe CO2 has varied widely over time that would fly in the face of logic.

    If you want to put so much faith in proxies, you'll enjoy this one. Greenland ice core proxies that show our current temp is some of the coolest in human history:




    And that's not even getting into the lack of correlation between human CO2 emissions and temps. Over the past 160 years, there has been about 20 years of correlation between those two things. From about 1980-2000. That's it. Not a very strong case. Plenty of excuses from alarmist on why CO2 didn't case temp increases from 1950-1980 and from 2000-2016 of course. Everything before 1950 could not have been due to human CO2.



    Lack of correlation between temps and CO2 is pretty common historically though. Note the time when there was an ice age during 4000ppm:



    Here is what the temps should have done if climate sensitivity were as high as alarmists claim. Scenario A was supposed to happen if our CO2 emissions increased by 1.5% per year. But instead we increased our CO2 emissions by 2.5% per year! So if the theory were correct, we should have warmed MORE than scenario A. As you can see, the real temps followed closer to scenario C, which was supposed to happen if we had ZERO increases in emissions. That was from "settled science":

  17. JUNGLE DRUMMER thanked for this post.
  18. #72
    Take Your Whiskey Home
    Harpospoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.12.12
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    5,982
    Posts Per Day
    1.96
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen II
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    05.08.19 @ 10:10 AM
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    13408
    Thanks (Received)
    3725

    Default

    Then there are the number of erroneous claims by alarmists about weather events. When you tell lies, that doesn't make you sound trustworthy.
    Here is a chart from NOAA showing the number of strong tornadoes since 1950. Those are supposed to go up over time if the CAGW theory were correct. Obama cites that claim in his speeches but it is not true obviously.



    No trend in tropical cyclones. They are supposed to rise too:



    Droughts are supposed to get worse too but that didn't happen either:



    Here is the best guess they have of the global temp rise since the Little Ice Age ended (big shock...temps rose when that ended). Note that the "rate of increase" in the late 1800s was the same as the "rate of increase" in the late 1900s. Except our CO2 could not have been the cause of the late 1800s increase. That's another hole in the theory:



    Here's how they get the "global temperature record". It's what you might term "sparse":




    Quote Originally Posted by PoP
    CO2 is the main culprit but we're burning tons of other toxic chemicals everywhere. Kodak alone is probably burning 1,000 different toxic chemicals. So many companies are polluting the air.

    LOL. Obviously all this pollution is bad. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.
    That's a different subject if you want to talk about that instead.

    And do you know that the air has gotten cleaner over time or do you believe it's gotten more polluted?

    Little reported fact: Societies clean up their environment more as they become more affluent. It's called the Kuznets curve. Another interesting fact, environmentalism can only exist in affluent societies. People stop caring about the environment really fast when they are poor. So ironically, environmentalists resent the very thing which allows them to exist at all.
    Last edited by Harpospoke; 08.23.16 at 11:13 PM.

  19. Elwood P., JUNGLE DRUMMER thanked for this post.
 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming? More like Global Cooling.
    By rocknblues81 in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 708
    Last Post: 06.26.20, 07:57 AM
  2. Global Warming
    By TheresOnlyOneWay in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 10.05.10, 02:41 PM
  3. White House: Global Warming Out, 'Global Climate Disruption' In
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09.22.10, 12:22 PM
  4. Global Warming??? Hmmm...
    By fast98dodge in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 08.18.07, 02:05 PM
  5. Threatened by warming, Arctic people file suit against US
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12.08.05, 05:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •