Global Warming Thread

[Hanley]

Youtube first, ask questions later.

Sounds like there's a Jesus-shaped hole in that man's heart.

[Skid]

More global warming!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... ter-record

[aurelius]

More global warming!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... ter-record

I feel like a couple of things needs to be said because you simply fail to grasp them:

1) Global warming refers to the average global heat increasing. Remember that heat is a measurement of energy. Global warming could be rebranded global climate energy increase. Seasons will still happen. Fluctuations in the temperature of regions over time will still happen. Remember my discussion that had a lot of words including quasi equilibrium? More energy in a the climate will lead to more extreme weather events. Including greater fluctuations in regional temperatures. We are and will experience colder winters and hotter summers. This has been predicted.

By continuing to make this point that places still experience winter you are simply highlighting your own ignorance. "Look, it's cold in somewhere in the world therefore global warming isn't happening!" Yikes. So much wrong with that statement. The only place I know to begin is elementary school education.

2) Tabloid articles are not a credible source on the subject matter. Posting tabloid articles that are just bad as proof simply highlights your own ignorance. Please learn how to discern from bad and good sources when researching on the internet. Hint: simply accepting the first thing that agrees with what you believe is going to lead you down the wrong path.

In short, you have simply demonstrated your scientific illiteracy and ignorance on climate change in this thread.

[oldguy]

More global warming!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... ter-record

I feel like a couple of things needs to be said because you simply fail to grasp them:

1) Global warming refers to the average global heat increasing. Remember that heat is a measurement of energy. Global warming could be rebranded global climate energy increase. Seasons will still happen. Fluctuations in the temperature of regions over time will still happen. Remember my discussion that had a lot of words including quasi equilibrium? More energy in a the climate will lead to more extreme weather events. Including greater fluctuations in regional temperatures. We are and will experience colder winters and hotter summers. This has been predicted.

By continuing to make this point that places still experience winter you are simply highlighting your own ignorance. "Look, it's cold in somewhere in the world therefore global warming isn't happening!" Yikes. So much wrong with that statement. The only place I know to begin is elementary school education.

2) Tabloid articles are not a credible source on the subject matter. Posting tabloid articles that are just bad as proof simply highlights your own ignorance. Please learn how to discern from bad and good sources when researching on the internet. Hint: simply accepting the first thing that agrees with what you believe is going to lead you down the wrong path.

In short, you have simply demonstrated your scientific illiteracy and ignorance on climate change in this thread.

And I bet you were missing "debating" with UDZ...Here you go.

[Skid]

More global warming!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... ter-record

I feel like a couple of things needs to be said because you simply fail to grasp them:

1) Global warming refers to the average global heat increasing. Remember that heat is a measurement of energy. Global warming could be rebranded global climate energy increase. Seasons will still happen. Fluctuations in the temperature of regions over time will still happen. Remember my discussion that had a lot of words including quasi equilibrium? More energy in a the climate will lead to more extreme weather events. Including greater fluctuations in regional temperatures. We are and will experience colder winters and hotter summers. This has been predicted.

By continuing to make this point that places still experience winter you are simply highlighting your own ignorance. "Look, it's cold in somewhere in the world therefore global warming isn't happening!" Yikes. So much wrong with that statement. The only place I know to begin is elementary school education.

2) Tabloid articles are not a credible source on the subject matter. Posting tabloid articles that are just bad as proof simply highlights your own ignorance. Please learn how to discern from bad and good sources when researching on the internet. Hint: simply accepting the first thing that agrees with what you believe is going to lead you down the wrong path.

In short, you have simply demonstrated your scientific illiteracy and ignorance on climate change in this thread.

I actually quite understand about regional weather not being a global proxy. However no one questioned Niki when she mentioned Germany being 35c -41c in May because it fit your agenda. Funny how that works.

Just because I and 3% (likely a lot more) of scientists don't agree with your religion doesn't mean we are ignorant. The "tabloid" reference is still an accurate description of the hysteria that "respected" climate scientists were pushing back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I say religion because you guys defend your religion so vigorously like the Taliban.

It's not even called global warming anymore because common people were noticing that the warming hysteria wasn't occurring. It's climate change now so any weather disturbance hot or cold can be blamed upon it.

I'm not even denying that changes in weather are occurring. It's been warming for 10000 years since the last ice age back when my great granpappy first fired up his model T

The ad hominem's are starting to come out so I am done here...

[cgeorg]

I actually quite understand about regional weather not being a global proxy. However no one questioned Niki when she mentioned Germany being 35c -41c in May because it fit your agenda. Funny how that works.

Just because I and 3% (likely a lot more) of scientists don't agree with your religion doesn't mean we are ignorant. The "tabloid" reference is still an accurate description of the hysteria that "respected" climate scientists were pushing back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I say religion because you guys defend your religion so vigorously like the Taliban.

It's not even called global warming anymore because common people were noticing that the warming hysteria wasn't occurring. It's climate change now so any weather disturbance hot or cold can be blamed upon it.

I'm not even denying that changes in weather are occurring. It's been warming for 10000 years since the last ice age back when my great granpappy first fired up his model T

She was being sarcastic (seemingly), and you are (seemingly) not.

If you think there was non-tabloid hysteria there should be archives of non-tabloid sources pushing hysteria. I don't particularly care about this point, just devil's advocating for aur.

This is because people will say "lol global warming, hows come it snowed yesterday then i should b waring shorts in winter lol". The globe is warming on aggregate. It's a fine term that had to be changed because of idiots.

I'm honestly not sure what your point is/beliefs are at this point. Weather is changing but climate isn't? Humans have nothing to do with the changes? So far you've said people in the past have been wrong (fine) and that things that are happening aren't (not fine).

[aurelius]

I actually quite understand about regional weather not being a global proxy. However no one questioned Niki when she mentioned Germany being 35c -41c in May because it fit your agenda. Funny how that works.

So you understand this yet keep posting antidotes about extreme cold weather in specific regions. That makes you disingenuous which is worse than ignorant.

I had not read Niki's post. I already explained that climate models predict more extreme weather which includes hotter summers and colder winters. You posting about historically cold winters and Niki posting about historically hot summers all support climate model predictions.

Just because I and 3% (likely a lot more) of scientists don't agree with your religion doesn't mean we are ignorant. The "tabloid" reference is still an accurate description of the hysteria that "respected" climate scientists were pushing back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I say religion because you guys defend your religion so vigorously like the Taliban.

You agree that you have not posted credible sources. Yet keep making the same spurious claims despite that. That again makes you disingenuous.

It's not even called global warming anymore because common people are uneducated and scientifically illiterate. They confuse the subject and make false statements like "It still snows in England therefore it is not getting warm." So they rebranded it climate change.

I'm not even denying that changes in weather are occurring. I'm just making disingenuous arguments that illustrate my ignorance on the subject matter.

Fixed

You accuse myself and others of defending climate change like it is a religion. Yet you are the one who has knowingly made false arguments and presented non-credible sources. Those are the tactics of true believers. I don't have time for someone that is disingenuous.

[aurelius]

And I bet you were missing "debating" with UDZ...Here you go.

Either get skin in the game or bow it. The subject matter is climate change.

[oldguy]

And I bet you were missing "debating" with UDZ...Here you go.

Either get skin in the game or bow it. This is just spineless.

sorry - missing your point. My point was that debating with Skid on this was like debating with UDZ on any subject and it must have felt like deja vu.

[aurelius]

sorry - missing your point. My point was that debating with Skid on this was like debating with UDZ on any subject and it must have felt like deja vu.

I missed your point by a country mile and I apologize.

I'd note that I removed the spineless part in an edit. That was uncalled for and unwarranted in this case. I type things haphazardly and catch my tone after I post. I know I'm not innocent in these exchanges!

And I don't miss arguing with Udz or any disingenuous arguer. I'll bow out with Skid on this one. I do miss a bit of the rough in tumble of exchanging ideas with people smarter than me but that stopped happening years ago in E&P.

[oldguy]

no worries - when you type as poorly as this old man, you keep messages brief and sometimes the meaning is unclear...

[tersh]

No. I just think you are mischaracterizing what was being criticized and what was considered an 'extreme' position at that time. The criticisms I recall and can find now are levied against "sky is falling" estimates like 2013 (revised to 2016 (revised to 2019)). And/or criticisms that revised estimates were still *too* conservative.

Can you provide an example of someone who's work was wrongfully outright rejected?

No thank you. There appears to be some communication barrier in place that I am unable to fix.

[Stenson]

@Skid do you trust the scientific consensus regarding vaccines?

[cgeorg]

She was being sarcastic (seemingly), and you are (seemingly) not.

No. It was hotter in, historically speaking, what is one of the coldest and windiest parts of Germany than it was in most parts of Greece at the time. Sweden and Finland also reported heat waves. To contrast this: In April 2008, there was a week long snowstorm here. And that November, it started snowing again. Earlier this November, I was comfortably out in a t-shirt at 2AM. Just anecdata, though.

I wasn't claiming sarcasm in the veracity of your claims, but that you would have been sarcastic in pointing to local weather as a proxy for global climate.

[EricK]

I actually quite understand about regional weather not being a global proxy.

Then why do you keep using it that way?

However no one questioned Niki when she mentioned Germany being 35c -41c in May because it fit your agenda. Funny how that works.

I believe Niki was mocking you. As you have mocked others, I don't regard it as an issue worth addressing.

Just because I and 3% (likely a lot more) of scientists don't agree with your religion doesn't mean we are ignorant. The "tabloid" reference is still an accurate description of the hysteria that "respected" climate scientists were pushing back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I say religion because you guys defend your religion so vigorously like the Taliban.

Like the Taliban? It's only getting harder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Who here is defending climatology "like a religion?" Can you quote an example that you regard as religious?

It's not even called global warming anymore because common people were noticing that the warming hysteria wasn't occurring. It's climate change now so any weather disturbance hot or cold can be blamed upon it.

The term climate change (or modification) pre-dates "global warming" in the scientific literature; going back at least as far as the 70's, probably further. Global warming became an interchangeable term and gained more popularity in the 80's. That's one reason that it's called the IPCC.

This, along with your false assertion that the consensus in the 70's was for global cooling await your acknowledgement and correction.

I'm not even denying that changes in weather are occurring. It's been warming for 10000 years since the last ice age back when my great granpappy first fired up his model T

The ad hominem's are starting to come out so I am done here...

In our conversation, you've implied that "environmentalists" are hypocrites, that "warmers" are religious zealots, and we're all just promoting hysteria. All of which is unsubstantiated or outright false. Can you make a straight-forward argument against the actual subject? Which of the (very basic) foundations of climate science do you object to? (e.g.: The existence of a greenhouse effect, the measured rise in CO2 levels, or the measured increase in global average temperatures.)

[Skid]

Lots of interesting stuff on this website! Not being a Phd. climatologist like many of you here I can't verify anything on the site.
Erik, I've got better things to do than dig up research papers for you. See below for some global cooling papers on this website. I haven't read them but whatever.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/29/high ... ropaganda/

Also, I find it interesting that other planets in our solar system have warmed a similar amount as earth in the same timeframe. You'd think the sun had something to do with heating the earth??

@Stenson - I know you are trying to bait me but: My wife and I were very careful in how and which vaccines were administered to our children. We certainly didn't follow the guidelines where young babies are given multiple vaccines right after birth. All 3 kids are very healthy and intelligent. My oldest is a Chem honours student at UBC in addition to being a National level powerlifter. For what its worth my wife holds multiple certifications (critical care/trauma, occupational health, etc.) and a degree in Nursing and was at one time a public health nurse who administered vaccines. She was on the code team for people who had severe reactions to the vaccines as well.

[aurelius]

The boards resident scientist provided a link to the very prestigious scientific website No Trick Zone. Which made several claims that global warming had been scientifically debunked. Let's check these claims out shall we?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scien ... ming-myth/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-p ... g-is-myth/

Using outright lies and misinformation to support existing beliefs in the face of contrary evidence!!! Some would say that is disingenuous and the act of a true believer in support of their Cause!

[Skid]

Snopes

[cgeorg]

Snopes

So you haven't read the papers, or the papers authors' statements that their representations in those articles are completely incorrect. Got it. Condescending Smug isn't a good look on you.

[Skid]

The boards resident scientist provided a link to the very prestigious scientific website No Trick Zone. Which made several claims that global warming had been scientifically debunked. Let's check these claims out shall we?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scien ... ming-myth/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-p ... g-is-myth/

Using outright lies and misinformation to support existing beliefs in the face of contrary evidence!!! Some would say that is disingenuous and the act of a true believer in support of their Cause!

You'd better lay off that CBD oil. I think you are getting the high (pun intended) THC version! Man don't you have a job or something? I'd fire your ass for playing around on the internet if I was your boss. At least I'm mostly retired