Global Warming - Right & Wrong

JohnInCarolina

A chart not many people have seen, much less appreciate:



The take home message is that, were humans not pumping lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, mean temperatures wouldn’t have really changed relative to pre-industrial times.  

lousubcap

Here I thought that natural drivers where naturally aspirated means of transport; donkeys, horses cars etc.  Then upon further review...

dmchicago

I defer to the folk lift operator. 

JohnInCarolina

dmchicago said:

I defer to the folk lift operator. 

“What about the sun?” said the toilet paper maker to the climate PhD.  

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

You are showing a graph based on one location (Greenland) as opposed to the entire planet, so maybe try again?

nolaegghead

(Whoops!)

nolaegghead

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

You are showing a graph based on one location (Greenland) as opposed to the entire planet, so maybe try again?

Yeah, it tough to get ice core samples in Florida. I'm sure the weather for 11thousand years was only isolated to Greenland though.

Because I still think you don’t get it:

http://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/past-climate

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

You are showing a graph based on one location (Greenland) as opposed to the entire planet, so maybe try again?

Yeah, it tough to get ice core samples in Florida. I'm sure the weather for 11thousand years was only isolated to Greenland though.

Well, the Earth does have two poles, and ice core samples are only one proxy for temperatures.  There are others and so one can reconstruct what the average global temperature looked like going back tens of thousands of years.  And when you do that, those little warm blips on your chart, like the Medieval Warming Period, pretty much disappear.  

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

You are showing a graph based on one location (Greenland) as opposed to the entire planet, so maybe try again?

Yeah, it tough to get ice core samples in Florida. I'm sure the weather for 11thousand years was only isolated to Greenland though.

Well, the Earth does have two poles, and ice core samples are only one proxy for temperatures.  There are others and so one can reconstruct what the average global temperature looked like going back tens of thousands of years.  And when you do that, those little warm blips on your chart, like the Medieval Warming Period, pretty much disappear.  

LOL...so we are to just take out data that you don't like so you can keep on with the scam? You people are a hoot. But lets use the tree rings to show growth in one spot and you are ready to say its proof. Or one bad hurricane and that's proof. Funny how you call it global warming but tell me its not really global but in spots.

It’s a global mean, a spatial average.  Obviously you haven’t given much thought to how averages work.  Have you ever heard the saying, better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt?  You should consider it.  

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

You are showing a graph based on one location (Greenland) as opposed to the entire planet, so maybe try again?

Yeah, it tough to get ice core samples in Florida. I'm sure the weather for 11thousand years was only isolated to Greenland though.

Well, the Earth does have two poles, and ice core samples are only one proxy for temperatures.  There are others and so one can reconstruct what the average global temperature looked like going back tens of thousands of years.  And when you do that, those little warm blips on your chart, like the Medieval Warming Period, pretty much disappear.  

LOL...so we are to just take out data that you don't like so you can keep on with the scam? You people are a hoot. But lets use the tree rings to show growth in one spot and you are ready to say its proof. Or one bad hurricane and that's proof. Funny how you call it global warming but tell me its not really global but in spots.

It’s a global mean, a spatial average.  Obviously you haven’t given much thought to how averages work.  Have you ever heard the saying, better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt?  You should consider it.  

Considering all you sheep are doing is following computer models and fear mongering, its easy to see how crazy you people are. When the past predictions have been 100% wrong and you continue to believe everything they say well....You alarmist always talk out of both sides of your mouth to try and make the narrative work for you. 

Man you quite clearly don’t understand even how simple averages work, so you might want to back off your absolute confidence in your assertions just a little bit.  

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

You are showing a graph based on one location (Greenland) as opposed to the entire planet, so maybe try again?

Yeah, it tough to get ice core samples in Florida. I'm sure the weather for 11thousand years was only isolated to Greenland though.

Well, the Earth does have two poles, and ice core samples are only one proxy for temperatures.  There are others and so one can reconstruct what the average global temperature looked like going back tens of thousands of years.  And when you do that, those little warm blips on your chart, like the Medieval Warming Period, pretty much disappear.  

LOL...so we are to just take out data that you don't like so you can keep on with the scam? You people are a hoot. But lets use the tree rings to show growth in one spot and you are ready to say its proof. Or one bad hurricane and that's proof. Funny how you call it global warming but tell me its not really global but in spots.

It’s a global mean, a spatial average.  Obviously you haven’t given much thought to how averages work.  Have you ever heard the saying, better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt?  You should consider it.  

Considering all you sheep are doing is following computer models and fear mongering, its easy to see how crazy you people are. When the past predictions have been 100% wrong and you continue to believe everything they say well....You alarmist always talk out of both sides of your mouth to try and make the narrative work for you. 

Man you quite clearly don’t understand even how simple averages work, so you might want to back off your absolute confidence in your assertions just a little bit.  

I understand that all of this is a scam to allow the government total control. Its computer models that say whatever the data entered tells it to say.

 I will repeat what I said above: better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.  You have close to zero idea what computer models do and don't do, never mind how they incorporate data.  

paqman

ChatGPT’s opinion on global climate warming:

Yes, global climate warming is real. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the Earth's climate is warming, and this warming trend is largely attributed to human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a leading international body for assessing climate change, has stated that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land.

Multiple lines of evidence support the reality of global climate warming. These include increases in global average surface temperature, rising sea levels, shrinking ice caps and glaciers, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and changes in ecosystems and wildlife behavior.

The primary cause of global climate warming is the release of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere from activities like burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), deforestation, and industrial processes. These greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun and lead to a gradual increase in global temperatures.

Addressing global climate warming is a pressing challenge for humanity. Efforts are being made at the international, national, and local levels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transition to renewable energy sources, increase energy efficiency, and adapt to the changing climate. The aim is to mitigate the impacts of climate change and ensure a sustainable future for our planet.

paqman

While the scientific consensus strongly supports the reality of global climate warming and its human-induced causes, it is true that there are different opinions on this issue. It is important to distinguish between the consensus within the scientific community and the range of perspectives found in public discourse, which can include a wide array of viewpoints.

In public discussions, there are individuals and groups who challenge or deny the scientific consensus on climate change. Their arguments may be based on various factors, including political ideologies, economic interests, or skepticism towards the scientific process. It is worth noting that some dissenting views are influenced by misinformation or misinterpretation of scientific research.

However, it is crucial to recognize that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations support the consensus position that human activities are the primary driver of global climate warming. The consensus is based on a robust body of scientific evidence, including observations, computer modeling, and the understanding of fundamental physical principles.

Scientific consensus does not mean that all details are settled, and there is ongoing research and debate within the scientific community about specific aspects of climate change, such as the extent of future temperature increases or the precise regional impacts. However, these discussions occur within the framework of accepting the reality of climate change and its human causes.

It is essential to critically evaluate the sources of information and consider the expertise and credibility of those presenting different viewpoints. Relying on reputable scientific sources and organizations can help in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the consensus position and the current state of climate science.

paqman

WildmanWilson thinks that this is a hoax, is there a chance that he can be right?

While individuals like "WildmanWilson" may hold the belief that climate change is a hoax, it is important to recognize that their opinion contradicts the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists and the scientific community at large. The consensus position is based on extensive research, data analysis, and the evaluation of multiple lines of evidence.

Scientific consensus is not based on personal beliefs or individual opinions but on the collective knowledge and expertise of experts in the field. The consensus is formed through rigorous peer-reviewed research, open scientific discourse, and the evaluation of empirical evidence.

It is worth noting that skepticism and differing opinions are inherent to the scientific process and can contribute to the advancement of knowledge. However, in the case of climate change, the weight of scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human activities are causing global climate warming.

To assess the validity of any claim, it is crucial to evaluate the credibility and expertise of the sources and the quality of the evidence they provide. In the case of climate change, reputable scientific organizations, such as the IPCC and national academies of sciences, provide comprehensive assessments based on extensive scientific research and analysis.

It is always advisable to rely on scientifically sound information from credible sources when forming opinions or making decisions about complex scientific issues like climate change.

JohnInCarolina

On a very simple level, much of this boils down to whether or not you accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.   It is (this is high school level science), we have ways to measure its concentration in the atmosphere, and we have sufficiently good enough estimates of just how much of it is due to human activity.  But some people wouldn't believe a meteor was about to strike the planet even if they could see it looking out their window at night, and that is why we are where we are.  

JohnInCarolina

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

paqman said:

WildmanWilson thinks that this is a hoax, is there a chance that he can be right?

While individuals like "WildmanWilson" may hold the belief that climate change is a hoax, it is important to recognize that their opinion contradicts the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists and the scientific community at large. The consensus position is based on extensive research, data analysis, and the evaluation of multiple lines of evidence.

Scientific consensus is not based on personal beliefs or individual opinions but on the collective knowledge and expertise of experts in the field. The consensus is formed through rigorous peer-reviewed research, open scientific discourse, and the evaluation of empirical evidence.

It is worth noting that skepticism and differing opinions are inherent to the scientific process and can contribute to the advancement of knowledge. However, in the case of climate change, the weight of scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human activities are causing global climate warming.

To assess the validity of any claim, it is crucial to evaluate the credibility and expertise of the sources and the quality of the evidence they provide. In the case of climate change, reputable scientific organizations, such as the IPCC and national academies of sciences, provide comprehensive assessments based on extensive scientific research and analysis.

It is always advisable to rely on scientifically sound information from credible sources when forming opinions or making decisions about complex scientific issues like climate change.

No matter what your opinion is, consensus is not proof and its not how we decide what it or is not real. You can have consensus that a man can think he is a woman but the undeniable fact is science can prove he is a male. 

I've already posted charts of warming and cooling periods. I've posted issues with the temperature data that has been corrected over the years. Its pointless to show anything because you want to believe the "consensus". And computer models are the only thing that they use to predict any of this. Like I've stated, its always been wrong. Grossly wrong. Why do you still blindly follow them with that record?

The IPCC is not a scientific organization, they are a political one.

You must also look at the transfer of power the government gains with this scam. Its total control over every man, woman, and child and business. The changes are extensive and life altering. Its a scam to believe this green energy is better. Its not. The impact to just make these batteries is horrible for the slaves working and the environment. All the green energy will do is greatly reduce the lifestyles of everyone. Its a redistribution of wealth scheme. 

Just a question...have you seen a computer model of a hurricane tracker? There are lines all over the place because the data is guessing what will happen. This is usually days out, maybe a week, and yet you believe the models for the planet, as complex as it is, will somehow be right a decade or more out.

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

On a very simple level, much of this boils down to whether or not you accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.   It is (this is high school level science), we have ways to measure its concentration in the atmosphere, and we have sufficiently good enough estimates of just how much of it is due to human activity.  But some people wouldn't believe a meteor was about to strike the planet even if they could see it looking out their window at night, and that is why we are where we are.  

And we were told of the coming ice age not long ago...

Maybe if anything they told us would happen actually did people would trust it. I still see Al Gore with his beach homes and the elites using 50 times the energy the rest of use do. I just worry about those poor polar bears dying off. 

All you’re doing here is regurgitating the same old, tired, BS talking points on climate change that any monkey can find at right-wing websites. Nobody should be surprised given your level of expertise on this topic is at the kumquat level. 

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

Read this. Its what I've been talking bout and why this all is a scam. 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

FlyOverCountry

HeavyG

WildmanWilson said:

Read this. Its what I've been talking bout and why this all is a scam. 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

I'm sure you know that there are sites that will provide information about why NOAA adjusts some of their data.

So, I'm a bit confused - is it your belief that the climate is not warming or it is warming but it has nothing to do with the activities of the 8 billion humans (and soon to be nearly 10 billion in just a few more decades) currently alive?

paqman

Nothing happening here:

Researchers combined global satellite measurements with climate and hydrologic models to detect trends in lake water storage for nearly 2,000 of the world’s largest lakes and reservoirs from 1992 to 2020.

The findings revealed "widespread decline," according to the study. About 53% of the water bodies studied were found to have experienced significant water losses over the last 28 years at a rate of roughly 22 gigatonnes, or 1 billion metric tons, per year, according to the study.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/climate-change-impacting-lakes-reservoirs-world/story?id=99396021

JohnInCarolina

I think the assertion that makes me laugh the most is this idea that thousands of top scientists from around the world are in cahoots with each other on this big conspiracy to fool the public over the reality of global warming.  Why?  Because they all want governments to control people’s lives, apparently.

There are just so many aspects to this idea that are ridiculous, it’s hard to know where to start.  

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

I think the assertion that makes me laugh the most is this idea that thousands of top scientists from around the world are in cahoots with each other on this big conspiracy to fool the public over the reality of global warming.  Why?  Because they all want governments to control people’s lives, apparently.

There are just so many aspects to this idea that are ridiculous, it’s hard to know where to start.  

You may not know this but money and power and a radical ideology goes a long way towards changing humanity. These "scientist" are keeping the grant money rolling in to keep the narrative alive.

Dude, you are truly clueless.  There is only one person in this entire thread who has received an NSF research grant, and it ain’t you.  

lousubcap

Wading into this thread at this point is fraught with danger but...

Here are a few paragraphs that explain the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

"As a society, we therefore miss learning from the best of the best, because their confidence keeps them behind closed doors. At centre stage, all too often, can be people of below-average capabilities.

Unfortunately, those who are the most ignorant—in the bottom 25% of any skill—also overestimate themselves the most. In the context of our democracy, this means our most uninformed citizens are also our most confident ones. Not only are these ignorant people extremely resistant to being taught—since they believe they know the most—they are also guilty of sharing the most information (read: misinformation).

At its core, the Dunning-Kruger effect preys on just that: not a lack of information, but rather an abundance of misinformation. We know when we know nothing, but it is information that is wrong that causes us to think we know everything, and absentmindedly press “share.”"

The complete article linked here:

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/dunning-kruger-effect

Worth a read. 

ThermanMurch

I'm a repeat WEF research grant winner.

JohnInCarolina

Who is being manipulated?

JohnInCarolina

This is a joint report from our own National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society:

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25733/climate-change-evidence-and-causes-update-2020

These are the elite of the elite in the scientific world.  The members of the national academy of science and engineering are the very best that can be found, on a whole range of issues.  Here is the summary of the report:



Sounds quite dispositive, doesn’t it?

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

So, what do we know for sure? We know other major countries are not doing what we are to reduce their carbon footprint. We know we will be at a much greater economic disadvantage over them because they can still manufacture cheaper and produce very cheap energy.

 We know the net zero is a pipe dream but the harder they push towards it the more drastic the changes must be.

We know we will be largely dependent on other countries to supply us the components and minerals.

 We know it will be expensive. (I just saw a battery powered zero turn mower priced at 50K.... )

We know slave labor is used to mine the cobalt and horrible environmental issues that's not talked about. Also other things like copper will be in short supply.

We know many will not have access to EV charging because of where they live.

We know poor folks will take a hard hit because they can not afford an EV or used one that has a 20K battery that must be replaced.

We know if they continue to go after farmers it will end in food shortages.

 We know there will be greater restrictions and blackouts on our electricity.

 We know the standard of living will go down. We also know this is a stupid idea to believe we can replace all fossil fuels, The only way is to become Amish and never leave your home. We will be pushed more to live in big cities and public transpiration will be about the only options. 

Its actually hard to believe some think they can create the utopia they promise. They somehow think energy can just pop up in a battery and the world is saved. That energy comes from somewhere. You do not create energy. You can only transfer it. Solar and wind can never supply it all at the rate we need. Building wind mills and solar is not a green process. 

They sell you the idea to not farm but instead we eat bugs and meat made in a lab. Yum ! Lets fire up the Egg !!

Yes, you are right.

Legume

Likes to be statically prepared for things that can't be prevented, like earthquakes but isn't willing to lift a finger to prevent anything.

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1660614637921132546?s=20