Topic: Is Global Warming Real? - page 2. (Read 2831 times)

My point was: there are people who think global cooling exist AND they lack strong evidence to think that, instead opting to use the (in blunt words) stupidity of "We're in an ice age".

I presented evidence for both claims.

You retorted claiming I was wrong, pointing an article which DOES NOT BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID. Therefore, you came with a claim you did not have evidence for.

The point in the above paragraph is essentially what I said in my last post, plus a bit of a clickbaity question to see how you'd answer.

You responded again, implying my evidence isn't trustworthy because climate science is biased and providing essentially false information. You did not provide any evidence of that. Your example was Al Gore, which we can both agree is an alarmist and a doofus.

Are we on the same page here?

Besides, to elaborate on what I said, a sustainable society would be one that relies less on fossile fuels for well, fuel and energy, opting instead for renewable sources that cause the least environmental impact; governmental agencies to incentivize sustainable measures by companies & heavily monitor and punish activities that are detrimental to the environment; more robust measures to increase natural vegetation & other type of measures considered by studies to be beneficial for achieving a human-ecosystem relationship; immediate measures to mitigate climate change impacts in society (for instance, more robust catastrophe systems, overhaul in cities to be prepared for droughts, incentive for walking/biking/public transportation over personal vehicles); companies gradually changing to less wasteful products & bottles, etc. This type of stuff are the measures usually proposed to mitigate climate change, and I think regardless whether or not you think it doesn't exist you'd be willing to back them up.

Honestly, whether or not you believe or not in modern science is disregardable, as long as you support such a more "eco friendly" lifestyle

So we just toss out your initial argument as based on a poor choice of an example? No problem. In logic, you would be said to have set up a straw man argument, easily defeated. But the article doesn't support even your straw man argument, so I thought to bring that to your attention.

Obviously the primary mover of climate is the Sun. Astrophysicists vary in their work, but many certainly can and do talk about the Sun as it affects planetary atmospheres. Others may be concerned only with internal solar dynamics, etc. Still others focus on cosmic rays, solar wind, space weather, many things. Primary evidence of sun affecting climate is night and day, winter and summer, and the periodic ice ages and such.

There was a semi-political attempt starting maybe in the 1990s to minimize the effects of the sun on earth's climate, so that the effect of man's emissions could be brought into the forefront and seem more "alarming." For example, Al Gore's initial movies and presentation of the "hockey stick" did not show the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm period. This was an attempt to box in "natural climate variability" as fairly insignificant. That's pretty much debunked today. Although this is best expressed with phrases like "high or low uncertainty," rather than absolute certainty.

You can't go wrong being skeptical when someone is absolutely certain of something, particularly in a mathematically chaotic environment like climate.

Bolded above, isn't that a sort of rhetorical statement that assumes a stereotyped "enemy?" You don't know anything of what I oppose or not. But to respond, ambiguous, feel good phrases like "Sustainable society" really obscure the platform rather than explain it. Same with "environmental friendliness." Recycling is fine when it's not totally ridiculous, which isn't infrequent. Is Recycling an unqualified good? No, of course not. We're on the same page on the need for increases in productive nuclear energy.

I think I now get your point here.

The article I originally linked I used to prove my point that there are people who think the world is cooling. My goal using it was not to discuss the validity of that claim. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I guess I left it a bit ambiguous.

Now, you're saying that both that "page post" (so to speak) & the article you linked debunk the idea the world isn't cooling. They don't. Sighn & Bhargawa do not, at any moment, link the decrease of sun activity with climate repercussions. Sure, YOU can interpret that, but to do so you would need more scientific evidence that backs up that correlation.

That's sort of what the page post does. It reports on decreasing sun activity & then reports of weather events of places getting colder. From all the articles I mentioned (have you checked them out?) sun activity has negligible influence in Earth's climate, and weather events are absolutely meaningless when we're talking about climate (and confusing these two things just point that the person is ineducated in that subject), so neither of them back up scientifically the claim that the Earth is cooling. So no, as far as evidence has been brought, I am not wrong.


Yeah, so do I. Geology is my field of study. And I trust Quaternary geologists, glaciologists, sedimentologists & geochemists when their articles and hypothesis are backed up by evidence, and I think their claims are inheherently more valid than say those of climatologists, astrophysicists, geographers and oceanographers... when they're discussing about their field of work. When a Quaternary geologist is talking about Earth's conditions a few hundred thousand years ago, I trust him profoundly. When a glaciologist writes an article that points of evidences for a NW-headed ice sheet, I trust him. When a sedimentologist claims this is silt and not sand, I trust him. When a geochemist says carbon dating isotope isn't the best way to measure this sediment's age, I trust him. But when any of them talk about modern climate.... I trust them as much as I trust a geographer talking about geology. Sure, they know what they're talking about, but by no means they're as knowledgeable and trustworthy as those operating in their respective fields.

(Sorry, I get a bit too excited when I talk about Geology.)


That's the equivalent of saying that I should trust a nose-specialized allergologist to do a rhynoplastia surgery. "They're all doctors, and they work on the field nose!".

Um, no. Geologists analyze paleoclimates, not modern climate - they know how to measure Earth's past climatic events and to interpret the paleoenvironments from that, but that's about it. The methods used are COMPLETELY different from that of a climatologist (geologists use fossiles, sediments & isotopic equilibria to do these stuff whereas climatologists as far as I know use mathematic models of prediction). Same goes for guys who correct satellite sensors.


When they're talking about astrophysics, by every means I do tust them.


Would you trust a climatologist's analysis of the sun's activity, despite knowing he doesn't work in that field & neither has expertise on it?


They can tell a lot of stuff, most importantly what you said: more watts in, less watts in. That's about it. Can he explain to me the impact that an increase or decrease in watts will have related to Earth's absorption capacity? Can he explain how much does increased sun activity measure compared to plants' and humans' production of energy? Can he explain the effects of an increased or decreased solar output in Earth considering N different endogen factors?

Besides, how exactly can you show me evidence the sun activity IS directly responsible for long-trend climactic changes, and that those changes aren't really of increased temperatures?

And lastly, even if climate change isn't real and whatnot, why would you still oppose climate change's utmost goals - the change for a more sustainable society? Because, regardless of "political/financial gains" a "hoax climate change campaign" might have, it is undeniable that its defining aspect is a call for sustainability & environmental friendliness. And I'm not talking about what you might perceive as "shiite environmentalism", I'm talking about structural changes for the better that are honestly long required, such as less usage of fossil fuels, more usage of nuclear energy, recycling, increase in green areas, stuff like that.

What I did was simply correct your mistake, using your link. Actually the scientific link in the popular article. I assume that's okay right? You said this...

This is the (incorrect) hypothesis called global cooling, the concept the globe's actually cooling (I assume you believe the Earth is a globe at the very least, right?). Essentially, people misusing the geological time scale and large-period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscilation.

And you were wrong. The article and the article it linked to didn't say that.

I really actually laughed at this...

Lastly, I have serious doubts whether these guys are climatologists given they're analysing sun activity pattern, so it's not like their prediction of climatic impacts have the same validity as those operating in that field.

Last I heard there were people who specialized in glaciers, some on historical glaciers, some on sedimentary deposits on the ocean floors. There are people who use boreholes to read climate from thousands of years ago. Others that look at isotope fractions in the air, and on the ground, and in rocks. Plus the guys that wonder about correcting satellite sensors' data streams. And a hundred other areas of science related to climate. This idea that there is a single species, no doubt created by global warming, a sort of human creature who is a climatologist, is a new one.

So you don't trust astrophysics? Or those that work in the field? I assume then you don't want your climatologists messing around with astrophysics? But that makes no sense. Seems to me like an astrophysicist certainly could tell you something about the direct and indirect effects of the Sun on Earth's climate. More watts in, less watts in. Watts out. Effect on clouds, high or low. Who do you want to trust? The climatologist that just knows bugs?

You're right, solar activity is dwindling. But that has happened for over 35 years already, and for over 35 years temperature's been rising, therefore, the highs we experienced are not directly caused by the sun.

Here's an image that pictures that: Picture.
(Sources are NASA GISS, Krivova et al. (2007) and PMOD).

Maybe in the past the sun was more significant, but studies have pointed out this has changed. Here's another picture: Picture. The sources for this study are: Meehl et al. (2004), Stone et al. (2007), Lean & Rind (2008) and Huber & Knutti (2011).

There are, at the very least, 19 studies that point how the sun's influence in global warming is minimal. You can check them here.

Also, what's your scientific and falseable source that global cooling is a thing? Because quite a lot of studies converge into the idea there is none.


What I said above PLUS

That article points for dwindling solar activity but it does not mention at all the implications it have for global warming. You're sort of forcing a correlation the author did not explicit. If he did, however, I'd like you to point it out to me - word-searching for "global warming/climate change/climate/temperature" didn't wield me any results. Lastly, I have serious doubts whether these guys are climatologists given they're analysing sun activity pattern, so it's not like their prediction of climatic impacts have the same validity as those operating in that field.



----------//////////\\\\\\\\\\----------



Lastly I would just like to point something that is extremely necessary for people to understand: the issue with climate change isn't that mankind will destroy the world or life on this planet. It won't.

The issue is that the biosphere & our human worldwide system are extremely fragile and susceptible to changes and even the most minute alteration will cause massive damage. And that's climate change - a measly, minimal alteration to the equilibrium. That, for Mother Earth and for life on Earth, isn't but a tickle (life always finds a way), but for our society & for the current ecosystems, it is massively destructive. And the exacerbated climatic catastrophes, the rising sea level that threatens to engulf several islands, the underwater animal migrations... they're all minute changes. But look at the impact they cause.

And besides, even if global warming isn't in fact caused by man, so what? The proposals for fighting climate change is essentially building a sustainable society decreasing consumption of renewable sources. How exactly is that going to be detrimental? Because, essentially, that's what serious proposals for mitigating climate change talks about.

They are not. If you read the linked paper...

 Singh, A.K., Bhargawa, A. Prediction of declining solar activity trends during solar cycles 25 and 26 and indication of other solar minimum. Astrophys Space Sci 364, 12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-019-3500-9

Their assertions are not based on the Milankovick cycles, but on periodic sunspot activity and what climate has seemed to correlate with that in the past.

This of course cannot be an incorrect hypothesis. But one may argue whether the sum of cooling and warming effects leads to a net of cooling or warming, or whatever.

It's a bit prepotent to desmerit my knowledge on this topic assuming Idon't know about the other side's beliefs... when in fact you don't either.

Not only I have seen it anectodally (the father of my friend, who is a physics doctor, claims he made calculations proving Greenhouse Effect isn't real - the arrogance!) but there are actual a few high-profile (midiatic) examples. Not to mention the low-profile ones, i.e. personal blogs and Facebook groups.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#4a9fc5564dcf

https://cornwallalliance.org/2019/03/global-cooling-the-real-climate-threat/

This is the (incorrect) hypothesis called global cooling, the concept the globe's actually cooling (I assume you believe the Earth is a globe at the very least, right?). Essentially, people misusing the geological time scale and large-period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscilation.

what about all the calamities happens this just past month/together on what you've mentioned there are several calamities also that happens,there are couple of Volcano's erupted ,earthquakes around the globe,the wildfire in australia and others that i cannot mention all.

Yeah Global Warming is legit and getting more deadlier .

First snow in the Iraqi city of Kerbala in more than 40 years.
Snowing in Kerbala Iraq

Iraq: Snow Falls in Baghdad for First Time Since 2008, only the second time the last hundred years
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/02/11/iraq-snow-falls-in-baghdad-for-first-time-since-2008/

Nobody is arguing these things.

You may be the victim of a rather simple form of mind control.  Basically, on 'the reservation' what you know about the beliefs of other side is what those running the reservation tell you those beliefs are.  And they mis-inform you about the beliefs.  Deliberately.

You should get 'off the reservation' and go out for some fresh air from time to time.  You might ultimately find life off of the reservation to be preferable.

It seems that global warming has been slowing down for at least the last 20 years. In other words, the rate of warming is less.

In addition, there are signs that the reason for the reduced GW rate is because global cooling is happening. "As we move further into 2020, solar activity dwindles.  This year, solar activity will be marked as the lowest in over 200 years. The low in the sun's 11-year cycle will also have at least some repercussions for the climate here on Earth," - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/275139-2020-01-17-2020-will-have-lowest-solar-activity-in-200-years-severe.htm. In addition, many volcanoes that are spewing sun-blocking dust into the air like the cooling done by Krakatoa in the 1800s.

Yes, it is. And I find amusing people who use the scientifically foolish argument "we're in an Ice Age, so no global warming" without realising that mean temperatures should decrease or maintain stable and glaciers should increase rather than melt. It backfires.

Honestly, arguing whether global warming exists is like arguing whether the ocean has a bottom. It's a fact. What some people may question, whether genuinely curious or out of stubborn ignorance, is whether the anthropic influence is significant.

I think global cooling and coming ice-age is real because weather in Canada and parts of US and Siberia is really cold these last few years.

Yeah, global warming is real thanks to heating we will protect our surroundings and control the temperature. Generally, thanks to the impact of global warming in industrially developed countries the environment is becoming more polluted as more and more industries are being created Therefore global warming plays a key role in how we will easily control the consequences of global climate change.

The earth is always either warming or cooling.  As a trend it happens to be warming since the last ice age.  So yes, you are right.  That is a 'factual fact', or quite close to it.


Seems far more likely that geo-engineering will cause these sorts of issues.  In fact, for 50 plus years that was the goal or geo-engineering and most of the work on it was justified as 'defense'.

What the 'man made global warming' hoax did was allowed geo-engineering to be rolled out and got the same simpletons who would normally have been against it to be instead begging for it and happy to pay the bill.

So yes, 'increased temperatures' allowed the fraud which allowed geo-engineering to really be kicked into high gear and do all the nasty things which were so appealing to the designers.  Some of them you've enumerated.

Global Warming  is a recognized, factual fact today. Temperatures are rising, warming the planet called Earth. Increased temperatures will increase the rate of floods, cyclones, droughts and other natural disasters, fearing food crisis may occur.

I really think it is, and the problem is how can it be stopped and what will happen in 10 years.

In climate-change-land a few names of people who I have confidence in:

  Richard Lindzen
  Judith Curry
  Freeman Dyson
  Murray Salby

Fair enough.

When it comes to science, what sources do you trust?