@Raver those charts are interesting, but what is the source? I don't think you cited it, and I'd be curious to know.
@Raver those charts are interesting, but what is the source? I don't think you cited it, and I'd be curious to know.
Sure, here you go:Originally Posted by Avebury
@Raver those charts are interesting, but what is the source? I don't think you cited it, and I'd be curious to know.
www.climate.gov
https://upload.wikimedia.org
http://hot-topic.co.nz https://cdn.zmescience.com
http://geotallis.weebly.com http://humanorigins.si.edu http://www.lakepowell.net http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com http://www.oism.org/ http://www.co2science.org http://worldview3.50webs.com
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I don't see the graphs you posted in the links you give. Also, the last site seems like a born again Christain thing?
Lol, in any case the reason I ask is because those graphs do look legit but I am always curious for the source anyone can just make a graph like that doesn't correspond with scientific data.
Not trying to be asshole or anything, lol, just trying to be objective.
They're most likely legit. Paleoclimatology is a bane to anyone wanting to show extraordinary climate change caused by humans. The geologic time scale coupled with temperature records tends to blow that claim apart completely. That's why they always limit graphs to the past 10kyr or so. Maybe a hundred thousand if they want to seem fancy. But they don't place things in the larger context, because that is basically death to their argument.
I posted a lot of graphs for that reason, since some are bound to be duds. To be honest, I just went on google images and looked up temperature graphs for the past thousand or million years and picked the best ones. There are tons of them out there.
They're more valid than the traditional hockey stick graph that is so popular anyways, which exaggerates global warming by presumptively predicting the next 100 years to skyrocket. Or they completely falsify data in the past.
Regardless, what is certain is that temperatures have fluctuated substantially in the past by being moderately colder or hotter than it is now in the past thousands of years and by being extremely colder or hotter in the past millions of years, no scientist will disagree with that.
They usually limit graphs to the past several hundred years because it shows a steady incline. This is like using a very narrow magnifying glass to understand Earth's temperature lol.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Interesting.
Yeah, I suspect they are legit too, I just like to check external sources, my Te is like that.
This is a topic some people who believe in anthropogenic climate change get really heated (no pun) about, which causes me to be suspicious towards their objectivity. There are some people who can argue from the both sides with calm, but I often find the calm ones are more nuanced in how they view this stuff, not to mention they don't attack their oppponents. When people get so upset over views it screams bias to me and I'm much less likely to consider their views as a result.
I'll have to look more into the evolution of the earth's temperature and the climate over long periods, such as hundreds of millions of years, rather than just since the last ice age, thanks to you and Raver for drawing my attention to it.
Alright, no worries, I'm googling this stuff right now.
I'm finding some of your graphs on there, seems like legit sources (wikipedia etc).
Last edited by WVBRY; 02-13-2018 at 03:29 PM.
If people wanted to prove to me that climate change was real and caused by man, I'd need to see a ∆T chart for the last few ten/hundred million years or so. What you have to show is that the rate of climate change is abnormal, not the amount, because that's clearly within the normal range by itself. No one I've talked to thus far has been able to produce anything like that. I've also done some reading in the past that indicated that the Earth has been through some rapid natural climate swings in the past like several degrees in a decade or a hundred years. So I suspect they that the reason why they don't supply that chart is that it wouldn't help them.Interesting.
Yeah, I suspect they are legit too, I just like to check external sources, my Te is like that.
This is a topic some people who believe in anthropogenic climate change get really heated (no pun) about, which causes me to be suspicious towards their objectvity. There are some people who can argue from the both sides with calm, but I often find the calm ones are more nuanced in how they view this stuff, not to mention they don't attack their oppponents. When people get so upset over views it screams bias to me and I'm much less likely to consider their views as a result.
I'll have to look more into the evolution of the earth's temperature and the climate over long periods, such as hundreds of millions of years, rather than just since the last ice age, thanks to you and Raver for drawing my attention to it.
It would help your case to provide peer reviewed articles, or articles that reference them. Also, your references aren't linking to the graphs to place them within any context.
www.climate.gov (this source defends the theory of AWG https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...sked-questions)
https://upload.wikimedia.org (nothing there? )
http://hot-topic.co.nz https://cdn.zmescience.com (articles in zmescience seems in line with the consensus just by entering global warming into the search, other not sure stance)
http://geotallis.weebly.com http://humanorigins.si.edu http://www.lakepowell.net http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com http://www.oism.org/ http://www.co2science.org http://worldview3.50webs.com
I'm not seeing any hard data that demonstrates that a natural cycle is the cause of the current warming cycle. Many of these links provide undermine your own opinion. They recognize that the earth has been warmer and cooler in the past, but they also accept current warming by greenhouse gas emissions. The cycles have their own scientific explanations, and there is no pattern over the larger geological timescale(hundreds of millions of years) that can explain the current warming AND the high warming rate. Yes, the rate is very significant, because there isn't anything "natural" that is known to be driving the rapid change. We are clearly entering the age of Industrial global warming, created by ours truly.
You mind showing me something that demonstrates abnormal warming on a geologic time scale? Or are you just going to make an empty assertion?
I didn't think I was making an empty assertion. I didn't say "abnormal warming". What do you mean? Just google geological earth temperature history and see for yourself. There are some other periods of rapid temperature changes, from Large Igneous Provinces(LIPs) which caused massive extinctions.
The only assertion I am making is the one in line with the evidence and scientific consensus, that current global warming trend is caused by the release of greenhouse gases. The assertion that the warming is caused by a "natural cycle" is the once being made with no evidence of a natural warming cycle. Could there be a contribution by some unknown warming mechanism? Sure, but it is not likely give what the physical sciences understand about the relationship between CO2 and average earth temperature.
Every change in the Earth's temperature has a cause. If it is not man-made, it can be from any number of different reasons. There isn't one explanation for all of the warming and cooling periods we have evidence for in the history of the earth's temperature record.
It does not logically follow that because it has been warmer or colder in the past, or that rapid changes in temperature have occurred before, that C02 is not causing global warming. The current evidence for warming is due to CO2 release and the rate is much more rapid than what is typically seen in the more slow geological time frames.
It would be much eaisier if we had a identical twin of the earth and watch the development of the climate without human interaction, and compare the results. Unfortunally this is not a real option.
I've already provided plenty of graphs and specific links regarding natural climate cycles. You just say "the evidence" without giving any specific references lol. That's why your assertions are empty. And when I tell you to provide something concrete and specific, you just tell me to Google.
It also doesn't follow logically that just because rapid changes in temperature have occurred before, naturally, that the current ones are caused by CO2. Your objection here is irrelevant.
There are lots of natural explanations for temperature differences. Ever heard of the year eighteen hundred and froze to death? That was a big one. It changed climate drastically for a short period of time without causing a mass extinction.
Two arguments from me to this topic:
1. Regardless if the climate change is caused by human behaviour or not, we have to deal with the effects and conseqences of it.
2. Sometimes I'm under the impression that a lot of people deny that there is a relation between human behaviour and climat change do this for a specific reason. The don't won't to change anything about their comfortable, resource-intensive lifestyle. Because there is a link between emission of greenhouse gas and consumption of resources of a society.
The cheapest source of energy is... burning fossil fuel. The supply of the people with cheap energy causes a rise of green house gas in the atmosphere.
I can also argue the reverse to be true: many people want climate change to be man-caused because they want to change a society (industrialized society) which they don't like. That, or they simply idealize the image of a less industrialized society because its "closer to nature". But most of these people aeren't really willing to give up their comforts, and you are right I don't want to give up my comforts either. Industrial capitalism, with all its supposed excesses is the society I was brought up in, I don't want to give it up any more than the Apache in Arizona wants to give up the attchement he has to his traditonal native American lifetsyle, and in both cases, thats fine - not every lifetsyle is suited to everyone. But why is one always presented as bad while the other good? Why is the nature loving native American "good" while I am "bad" for living in the "excesses of capitalism"? They are both lifestyles, and in either case noone is forcing anyone to go with it.
Besides, I personally do support alternatives to fossil fuels, so long as it the consumer who decides this is what they want and not the government that gives subsidies to certain sectors of the economy that produce alternatives to fossil fuels.
"As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades."
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full
I didn't make that claim, nor would I.
The crux of your argument is: The earth has warmed before, therefore, it is not caused by CO2! This is the face of the evidence that demonstrates the high correlation of CO2 increases and temperature increases. This is not just arbitrary either, but based on the physical properties of CO2, which is available in any physics textbook.
Are you referring to the little ice age? Those were regional anomalies, not global.There are lots of natural explanations for temperature differences. Ever heard of the year eighteen hundred and froze to death? That was a big one. It changed climate drastically for a short period of time without causing a mass extinction.
Greenland is not the whole planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 described the areas affected:
Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[10]
Your graphs don't mean anything useful. They certainly don't explain the current warming period as well as AGW. Yes, you need evidence that the warming is currently being caused by a natural cycle. That is how science works.
Here are a few from our own government, which collaborates with governments collecting data from all over the globe:
http://ipcc.ch/
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Well, those people suck. I certainly don't want to return to a pre-industrial age.
? No one said it was lol.
My stance: it is not matter of votes or likes/dislikes. It clearly doesn't operate in that realm. Which again brings in another anecdotal evidence regarding how our minds are very human centric and prone to evaluate it from that point of view instead of being objective.
However:
#1 I'm actually supporting new discoveries so I'm biased. This situation at hand surely should accelerate it.
#2 Just in case...
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
There's so much pollution apart from CO2... global warming might or might not be the direct consequence of it, but it's definitely not the only thing to get preoccupied about. Industrial age, but capitalism as well, and all the big pharmaceutical and food corporations, in a word: globalization, have poisoned the soil from which we eat and that keeps us alive, in the last 50 years or so, more than humanity has ever done in its whole history.
It's silly to look back at 2000 years ago, because even if they had the same climate, they didn't have the same overall amount of pollution, their food wasn't full of illegal antibiotics (that killed the soil in the long run, but the fauna as well, with humans getting cancers from it as the last result), their air/water/soil wasn't as contaminated by all the chemicals we now produce.
This is not to say "let's go back to live on trees like Tarzan!!1!!2", it's just to say... people, wake up please, everything you do/buy/say/etc has a consequence, and it's time to make the right decisions if we want to give something healthy to the next generations. The problem is political in the very first stance, but politics is you and me and what we choose to do, as a collective.
Last edited by ooo; 02-13-2018 at 10:10 PM.
I guess nearly everybody tries to influence or change the enviroment motivated by own desires. Everybody has a different attitude towards society, I guess.
I don't want to roll back the wheel of time. Ancient societies consumed less resources, that true, but the vast majority of people had a way lower standard of living.
The are measures with high priority like change to alternative energy sources. There a lot of roofs holding space for photovoltaics.
And there is no "clean coal", such statements are usually made by people who never held a piece of coal in their hands.
Because natural coal contains also a lot of really toxic chemical compounds besides of carbon.
The difference is not the ideology itself it is the difference how much resources any person use.
Do you know that 3(!) whole planets earth would be necessary if every person on this planet would live the livestyle of an average US citizen?
A consumer buys things to get the best or most bang for the buck. Effiency and saving resources is not rewarded enough by economy.
That the flaw in captitalism. The scarcity of natural resources is not in the price of the products.
There is still a debate whether there is a climate change at all or not? Really?
There are a lot of facts that backup the existence of climate change – e.g. rising temperatures at places all over the world over the last century, melting ice at Greenland, North Pole & South Pole, in the European Alps. Rising temperatures of the ocean water + rising level of oceans.
It has been already disproved that it is caused by sun activity solely.
The question – at least for me – is to what extend that change is human caused and what extend by natural causes.
Last edited by WinnieW; 02-14-2018 at 12:27 PM.
I just posted graphs showing how temperature has changed in the past thousand or million years to give you a visual idea of how temperatures have been volatile in the past and this current increase is nothing special. Whether the source supports AWG or not is irrelevant, that was not my goal with those graphs.
I did not post anything in terms of articles because my goal was a visual representation, not a verbal analysis. The question is do you agree with the assertion that temperatures have been moderately higher in the past thousand years and significantly higher in the past million years?
If you do then I don't need to show more proof that temperatures have been higher in the past because if it is true that temperatures have been higher in the past, it may not prove that global warming is natural now, but rather that global warming may possibly be natural now. Since a major argument for anthropogenic global warming is that temperatures have never been this high before, which is fallacious.
Last edited by Raver; 02-14-2018 at 04:34 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
90% made made, which is kind of significant
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tradicts-trump
http://https://science2017.globalchange.gov
@Nebula
I wish u can become the next Emily Calandrelli
The second link is pretty solid at least in terms of giving an argument that global warming is man made, I'll give you that. At least by saying it is 90% man made, it acknowledges that other causes are at least possible even if the conclusion is made that they are minimal causes. I'll be sure to take an extensive look at it when I have the time.
I guess it's only fair in return that I provide the alternative cause for global warming other than man made reasons and also since you have been requesting for it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...limate-change/ (This article doesn't really take a side on this issue, but looks at both points of view and it doesn't draw a conclusion)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html (Another article that has a neutral stance, but has plenty of graphs illustrating the correlation between temperature and sun spots)
https://oneminuteastronomer.com/1054...lobal-warming/ (Another neutral article that comes with one graph and looks at several perspectives)
https://principia-scientific.org/dro...lobal-cooling/ (This article is more extreme than the others, leans heavily toward global warming being natural and even predicts global cooling)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...entific-method (Neutral article from the journal you posted looking at both sides of the issue)
Here are some graphs from a few of the above articles:
Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html
Source: https://oneminuteastronomer.com/1054...lobal-warming/
Here are several graphs correlating the similarity of sun spot cycle length and temperature change, they are just there for visual purposes though and the above articles are to be used for an actual reference for my argument instead and the source of these graphs should be ignored:
Last edited by Raver; 02-14-2018 at 11:55 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
the average climate scientist has at least one more PHD than the average septic blogger.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
lol come on thats funny
I think that the only solution that will satisfy both the right and the left, both who say that climate change is man-made, and climate change is NOT man-made, is to come up with a solution on how to mitigate the climate change. How can we come up with a solution on how to cool the planet, so that it doesn't get out of control?
The climate "skeptics" should be utilizing all their time and money on researches and innovations on how to cool the planet.
The problem is that potential solutions proffered by people in the global warming camp are economically infeasible. Trying to implement them would ruin the global economy. So, it's not acceptable to the anti global warming people to find a way to cool the planet.
Every solution to a problem has a benefit (in the form of solving the problem, and occasionally other benefits) and a cost.
Societies grow when the cost of a solution is less than the benefits it yields. They collapse when the benefits from the solution are less than the cost of implementing the solution.
The cost of securing energy has been as low as 1% of the energy yield. It is presently closer to 25%, so our civilization is not energy-limited yet. Instead, we are seeing that certain interests will suffer if pollution controls are in place. These people are fucking you to stay rich. The assertion that pollution controls are too costly is a lie, but politicians and news outlets are very affordable.
in that case, there are lots of non-authorities who also believe in human-caused climate change
Last edited by xerx; 05-07-2018 at 07:08 PM.
Of course, I am not going to deny that. Anyways, I never really denied the possibility of human based climate change being the predominant cause. I just haven't been convinced one way or the other yet.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Of course. Big businesses support environmental and other regulations so that they can stay rich, because big businesses are the ones that can afford the cost of regulatory compliance. Small businesses, startups, and future competitors have a hard time getting off the ground, because regulatory compliance is often one of the biggest costs in starting a business. Increasing regulation increases the hold of big businesses over the economy, reduces freedom for the average individual, and ensures that all the glass ceilings that keep the structure of society static remain in place.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
