I'm just trying to put myself in your shoes to better understand your line of thinking.
Lets say there rampant lying about temperatures. I don't understand how that changes the big picture unless you throw out all of the basic concepts like
-combustion produces carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere
-the amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be estimated based on fuel burned
-carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it traps infrared radiation)
-deforestation decreases carbon dioxide consumption
In theory, doing all of those things should warm the planet, melt ice, acidify the oceans, and change climate. Without any data on temperature, one should still be able to acknowledge the effects these activities cause. Humans lying can't change the processes or the qualitative evidence we have that they are occurring.
The temperature thing is really complicated though, because the warming sets off a series of events that compensate for warming. When you melt ice, heat is absorbed but temperature does not rise because all of the energy goes into phase change. Also, water has a very high heat capacity.
When ocean currents change due to changing ocean salinity, some places that rely on warm water currents become much colder. This is why we say climate change and not just warming but also negates some of the warming once you factor it into global averages.
Its as if you think the totality of climate change evidence is based on temperature data.
Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 8. (Read 22215 times)
I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented. Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures? We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn.
In the presentation of temperature data, and in the near term likely effects of global warming, there has been massive lying. That's the only way to put it.
There has been some reasonable statements and cautions about possible dangers, that is mostly seen from scientists and engineers. From lay people and environmentalists, there has been massive exaggerations and outright lying.
Including on this forum. Who is "caught up in how temperature data is presented" is those doing the lying, not I. For example, people that try to cry hysterically that Greenland and Antarctica will melt, blah-blah-blah.
I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented. Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures? We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn.
Yeah why get caught up in the science part right? None of your points provide any evidence of anthropogenic climate change, even if they were fact.
I dont understand getting caught up on how temperature data has been presented. Do you disagree that higher concentration of CO2 leads to increased temperatures? We know pretty precisely how much CO2 we are releasing because its basic chemistry from the mass of carbon fuel we burn.
Scientists predict 'mini ice age' could hit UK by 2030
Looks like we should prepare for an ice age.
Quote from: https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-could-hit-uk-by-2030-11186098
A mini ice age that would freeze major rivers could hit Britain in less than two decades, according to research from universities in the UK and Russia.
A mathematical model of the Sun's magnetic activity suggests temperatures could start dropping here from 2021, with the potential for winter skating on the River Thames by 2030.
A team led by maths professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University built on work from Moscow to predict the movements of two magnetic waves produced by the Sun.
It predicts rapidly decreasing magnetic waves for three solar cycles beginning in 2021 and lasting 33 years.
A mathematical model of the Sun's magnetic activity suggests temperatures could start dropping here from 2021, with the potential for winter skating on the River Thames by 2030.
A team led by maths professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University built on work from Moscow to predict the movements of two magnetic waves produced by the Sun.
It predicts rapidly decreasing magnetic waves for three solar cycles beginning in 2021 and lasting 33 years.
Sept. 27, 2018: The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
Looks like we should prepare for an ice age.
All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.
...
So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.
The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?
So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.
The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?
All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob
No, of course it does not work. Neither is my argument trash. You want to support the "ALL", how many more examples of nut job radical environmentalists do you want?
The Atlantic isn't exactly a trash publication.
....Hillary Clinton in 2009, when as Secretary of State she acknowledged the overpopulation issue during a discussion with Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Clinton praised another panelist for noting "that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."
"And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways," Clinton added.
Right-wing critics pounced, with the Alex Jones-run Info Wars calling her comments "Malthusian."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/
Your problem, not mine. Obviously you need to correct the position or concede your position was wrong. "Most" is also ridiculous. Think about it, that implies this, directly:
"Most proposed solutions to global warming should be implemented as public policy."
That's what you really want to say?
It's ridiculous. First you start by praising science, and I remind you of the scientific methods. Then you praise "ALL SOLUTIONS," many of which were totally idiotic. Then you go to "Most solutions," which shows zero critical thinking.
You don't think that perhaps careful engineering studies would be useful, would you? Again, the need for critical thinking and skeptical viewpoints is required.
So you don't think getting rid of CO2 is good? The original point was: ''Lets say climate change didn't exist. The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems'' I didn't say that but I understood it, you obviously did not.
The point was that the steps taken to solve climate change are beneficial nonetheless, so why would the ''fake it''?
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob
No, of course it does not work. Neither is my argument trash. You want to support the "ALL", how many more examples of nut job radical environmentalists do you want?
The Atlantic isn't exactly a trash publication.
....Hillary Clinton in 2009, when as Secretary of State she acknowledged the overpopulation issue during a discussion with Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Clinton praised another panelist for noting "that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning."
"And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways," Clinton added.
Right-wing critics pounced, with the Alex Jones-run Info Wars calling her comments "Malthusian."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/
Your problem, not mine. Obviously you need to correct the position or concede your position was wrong. "Most" is also ridiculous. Think about it, that implies this, directly:
"Most proposed solutions to global warming should be implemented as public policy."
That's what you really want to say?
It's ridiculous. First you start by praising science, and I remind you of the scientific methods. Then you praise "ALL SOLUTIONS," many of which were totally idiotic. Then you go to "Most solutions," which shows zero critical thinking.
You don't think that perhaps careful engineering studies would be useful, would you? Again, the need for critical thinking and skeptical viewpoints is required.
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
I'm not the one who said that btw. Your argument is trash, change the all to most then? Does it work now? Nutjob
....
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
You are now ridiculing the answer? It's YOUR ANSWER. You wanted proof that your use of "ALL" was ridiculous, you got it. Ridicule the wackos who propose such things, not me.''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
"ALL" is inclusive of all answers, dumbass. I invited you to change your assertion, didn't I?
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
Let's start off by reducing the population that denies climate change.
Ahahaha, then the rest of us can actually take care of the problem without morons like him holding the rest of society back.
....
Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. ....
Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. ....
No, that's ridiculous.
First of all, your mistake is this claim. Note the bolded word.
All of the CO2 ....
It should be obvious there have been some really, really bad ideas floated.
You want examples or would you like to revise your claim?
Forced population reduction.
Storing CO2 in underground caverns under huge pressures.
Painting roads and rooftops white.
''Forced population reduction.'' The fuck? Come one bro, just admit most CO2 reduction solutions are good, you sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
....
Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. ....
Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. ....
No, that's ridiculous.
First of all, your mistake is this claim. Note the bolded word.
All of the CO2 ....
It should be obvious there have been some really, really bad ideas floated.
You want examples or would you like to revise your claim?
Forced population reduction.
Storing CO2 in underground caverns under huge pressures.
Painting roads and rooftops white.
...
What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry.What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly?
What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said:
However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
What about it? This article simply discusses the issues in moving from temperature measurements by ship engine cooling water to the bouys.
''These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.''
''Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content, an important topic in the debate over global warming.''
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/
Next.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.505aaa5aeac9
Next.
They admitted to the errors and: ''is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors.''
Even if it's not more than what they previously thought, it still shows, along all the other studies, that oceans are still absorving more and more heat.
Even if that were true, which is under dispute, this does nothing to support the theory HUMANS are the cause.
....
Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. ....
Its actually quite the opposite. All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place. ....
No, that's ridiculous.
First of all, your mistake is this claim. Note the bolded word.
All of the CO2 ....
It should be obvious there have been some really, really bad ideas floated.
You want examples or would you like to revise your claim?
...
What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry.What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly?
What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said:
However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
What about it? This article simply discusses the issues in moving from temperature measurements by ship engine cooling water to the bouys.
''These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.''
''Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content, an important topic in the debate over global warming.''
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/
Next.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.505aaa5aeac9
Next.
They admitted to the errors and: ''is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors.''
Even if it's not more than what they previously thought, it still shows, along all the other studies, that oceans are still absorving more and more heat.
...
What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry.What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly?
What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said:
However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
What about it? This article simply discusses the issues in moving from temperature measurements by ship engine cooling water to the bouys.
''These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.''
''Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content, an important topic in the debate over global warming.''
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/
Next.
...
What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry.What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly?
What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said:
However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
What about it? This article simply discusses the issues in moving from temperature measurements by ship engine cooling water to the bouys.
''These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.''
''Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content, an important topic in the debate over global warming.''
Jump to: