Is Global Warming Real?

[styca]

The relevant phrase here is 'geological timescales'.

No, Greenland hasn't always been covered in ice, and no it hasn't always been an island. Even Antarctica was once covered in lush tropical forests. Continents move due to tectonic plate activity, over billions of years. Here's a video of just the last 200m years: https://youtu.be/WaUk94AdXPA

Continents move and climates change. The world of the dinosaurs was much hotter and more humid than today. The point is that these changes occur over geological timescales, which are difficult for the human mind to comprehend. It's why people have trouble believing that things like the human eye evolved - they can't consider the time it took to happen.

Natural climate change takes a long time. Human-driven climate change is happening right now, visible from year to year. It's completely different to the natural process.

[franky1]

climate change is happening right now, visible from year to year.

2 degree's in 150 years

.. in the 1980s i remember people saying how the average was a few degree's average less than the norm where by the UK had many snow storms

in the 1920's people were saying how temperatures were hotter, blaming the london smog

climate change is just that. CHANGE.. up, down, up down
its not an apocalyptic event.

yes we are causing an impact. and so were dinosaurs when they stampede through forests and grassland eating it all until the tree's were left to die.

the point is though
no matter if we went completely offgrid, carbon neutral, no concreting the ground. no draining the water. we will never ever ever have a planet where the temperature becomes a fixed number

[tvbcof]

The relevant phrase here is 'geological timescales'.

No, Greenland hasn't always been covered in ice, and no it hasn't always been an island. Even Antarctica was once covered in lush tropical forests. Continents move due to tectonic plate activity, over billions of years. Here's a video of just the last 200m years: https://youtu.be/WaUk94AdXPA

Continents move and climates change. The world of the dinosaurs was much hotter and more humid than today. The point is that these changes occur over geological timescales, which are difficult for the human mind to comprehend. It's why people have trouble believing that things like the human eye evolved - they can't consider the time it took to happen.

Natural climate change takes a long time. Human-driven climate change is happening right now, visible from year to year. It's completely different to the natural process.

It is quite clear that noticeable changes can and have occurred in relatively short periods of time.  The 'little ice age', and 'medieval warming period' are two such instances documented in history.

You may have heard of 'climategate'.  That was a leak of e-mails from an academic department that was central to the promotion of the idea that recent climate change is a significant threat.  They recieved significant funding in their efforts toward this goal, and their material fed in to the United Nations program which was obligated by it's charter to find global climate to be a problem and to take specific actions to 'solve' the problem.  One of the techniques the academics used to achieve their goals involved fairly gross manipulation of historical data and one of the tasks was to 'get rid of' the medieval warming period because it conflicted with the story they were trying to engineer.

In another e-mail one of the scientists counciled his peers that while data falsification was something which borders on a crime in science, the goal is to socially engineer a 'better world' and each person was responsible for their own decisions about how to balance these factors.

[styca]

It is quite clear that noticeable changes can and have occurred in relatively short periods of time.  The 'little ice age', and 'medieval warming period' are two such instances documented in history.

Yes, but these were fractions of a degree over a couple of hundred years, not measurable difference from decade to decade as we have now.

You may have heard of 'climategate'.

A while ago, but yes, I'm pretty sure it was totally debunked, and there was no evidence of data manipulation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies

I still maintain that timescale is key. The climate is changing so rapidly, and in perfect concert with increasing industrialisation and emissions. The evidence is overwhelming now.
Think about CFCs and the Ozone Layer back in the 1980s, another climate change caused by man, and thankfully one that we have taken steps to rectify. I don't think anyone denies that humans caused the hole in the Ozeone Layer any more.

[Spendulus]

It is quite clear that noticeable changes can and have occurred in relatively short periods of time.  The 'little ice age', and 'medieval warming period' are two such instances documented in history.

Yes, but these were fractions of a degree over a couple of hundred years, not measurable difference from decade to decade as we have now.

You may have heard of 'climategate'.

A while ago, but yes, I'm pretty sure it was totally debunked, and there was no evidence of data manipulation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies

I still maintain that timescale is key. The climate is changing so rapidly, and in perfect concert with increasing industrialisation and emissions. The evidence is overwhelming now.
Think about CFCs and the Ozone Layer back in the 1980s, another climate change caused by man, and thankfully one that we have taken steps to rectify. I don't think anyone denies that humans caused the hole in the Ozeone Layer any more.

The fact that you've bought into some of the convenient lies, such as CLimategate does not exist or can be shrugged off, the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age were nominal changes that can be shrugged off, and the recent hockey stick spike is real in spite of Mann's deletion of the recent tree ring data, indicates that you may be more of a BELIEVER than a student of facts.

If so, just say so. You like the belief more than the facts. Facts can be difficult to plough through and accurately make conclusions from.

[styca]

My facts are lies to you, and your facts are lies to me. I think we've reached a bit of an impasse.

Perhaps we'll agree that it is always important to question everything and ensure that you reach your own conclusions, whatever those conclusions may be.

I may disagree with your conclusions, but I am always happy to have the debate. It's far better to disagree with people from time to time than to live your life in an echo chamber of confirmation that just reinforces existing prejudices.

[Spendulus]

My facts are lies to you, and your facts are lies to me. I think we've reached a bit of an impasse.

Perhaps we'll agree that it is always important to question everything and ensure that you reach your own conclusions, whatever those conclusions may be.

I may disagree with your conclusions, but I am always happy to have the debate. It's far better to disagree with people from time to time than to live your life in an echo chamber of confirmation that just reinforces existing prejudices.

I said you have BELIEFS. "Buying into convenient lies" does not imply the presence of facts, but the interpretation and opinion about certain facts.

This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts."

Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS.

[franky1]

This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts."

Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS.

as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960..
isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960

[Spendulus]

This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts."

Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS.

as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960..
isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960

I've never heard anything like that said except by you. But you are welcome to illustrate "the MANY (who) state..."

In that multi-variate statistical analysis, what matters is the effect of including data sets inane then seeing the result of the statistics. It's not a game where you cut off one or another data set to get the desired result.

[tsaroz]

Climate change is real. It's mostly due to the natural events and only a small fraction due to human activities. Yet we should all move to renewables or cleaner nuclear energy and go electric. Fossil fuel not only assist climate change, they are harsh to health.
Looking at just the last two thousand years might not give us the whole picture. Our earth has naturally cooled and heated many times. No human melted the ice in Ice age.

[franky1]

This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts."

Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS.

as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960..
isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960

I've never heard anything like that said except by you. But you are welcome to illustrate "the MANY (who) state..."

In that multi-variate statistical analysis, what matters is the effect of including data sets inane then seeing the result of the statistics. It's not a game where you cut off one or another data set to get the desired result.

i am in agreement with you.
as said isnt it revealing how its only the black line thats out of sync post 1960. but how so many others who apocalyptic preach only want people to notice the black line and ignore the other stats that would indicate something else
if taken together and seen 6 lines where 5 are of -0.2<>0 and one line then de-syncs to +0.6 and then someone added on * with annotation of '2016' at +0.8
anyone with a sane mind would question the black line and prefer to know more of the other 5 lines results

[BADecker]

Climate change is real. It's mostly due to the natural events and only a small fraction due to human activities. Yet we should all move to renewables or cleaner nuclear energy and go electric. Fossil fuel not only assist climate change, they are harsh to health.
Looking at just the last two thousand years might not give us the whole picture. Our earth has naturally cooled and heated many times. No human melted the ice in Ice age.

Climate change is real if we mean changes in the climate. But if we mean any significant amount of global warming, then climate change is not real.

[tvbcof]

as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960..
isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960

The black line is Mann's 'innovative' method of 'extending' one data set using a different one.  The different one being some of Briffa's tree ring work which involved questionable sample selection from forests in the Russian arctic.

Mann's technique is so shameful and corrupt that even his scientpriest scammer friends distance themselves from him.  For Mann, who cares?  His 'good work' got him a chairmanship at Penn State before he even got a PhD or something like that.  Scientific fraud is the fast track to academic achievement in today's fucked up world.

Mann recently lost a court case because he steadfastly refused to release the data and algorithms he used to generate that black line.  Something that he should have done as a function of releasing his paper in the first place...if he were not a fraudulent piece of shit.

[franky1]

as noted by the black line ..... then mysteriously veers

The black line

i know exactly what it represents. my comments were more of sarcasm not a sign of no knowledge.

[tvbcof]

as noted by the black line ..... then mysteriously veers

The black line

i know exactly what it represents. my comments were more of sarcasm not a sign of no knowledge.

Most people have no clue.  My explanation was for the benefit of those who do not.  I would have PM'd you if my message were for your eyes only.

Unfortunately most people, and especially most people who are freaked out that we are all going to die from global climate catastrophe, simply don't have the ability to understand these concepts even if they do bother to read the few sentences.

Just like Bertrand Russell predicted/specified: "...criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

[BADecker]

as noted by the black line ..... then mysteriously veers

The black line

i know exactly what it represents. my comments were more of sarcasm not a sign of no knowledge.

Most people have no clue.  My explanation was for the benefit of those who do not.  I would have PM'd you if my message were for your eyes only.

Unfortunately most people, and especially most people who are freaked out that we are all going to die from global climate catastrophe, simply don't have the ability to understand these concepts even if they do bother to read the few sentences.

Just like Bertrand Russell predicted/specified: "...criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

Yeah. People will die in car accidents, or from old age, long before climate change will affect them.

[Drai]

I usually do not take everything I see on face value, I tend to make my own research before jumping into any conclusions and where the issue of global warming is concerned, u think it is real because where I live, every year the weather seems to be changing from what it used to be, the summers especially seems to be getting warmer and longer than it used to be in the previous year, please plant a tree, it's very important.

[tvbcof]

I usually do not take everything I see on face value, I tend to make my own research before jumping into any conclusions and where the issue of global warming is concerned, u think it is real because where I live, every year the weather seems to be changing from what it used to be, the summers especially seems to be getting warmer and longer than it used to be in the previous year, please plant a tree, it's very important.

The changes I see are that on many days there are linear clouds that form 'horetails' then fan out to cover the sky in a 'whiteout'.

In my area which is part way into a completely uninhabited state forest I started noticing this about 5 years ago.  Then it stopped being a common occurrence for a year or so.  Then it started again.

From research I knew about scientific 'ideas' about solar radiation management.  The 'whiteout' conditions I was observing were a direct match for methods talked about for lowering the portion of solar energy reaching the surface of the earth.

Now the idea is being released in the mainstream press.  e.g., https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bill-gates-funded-solar-geoengineering-could-help-stop-global-warming.html

I don't think that it is a crazy conspiracy theory to suppose that these intensely studied ideas have been undergoing some testing (or more) over the last half decade, and what I was seeing in my little corner of the earth was some of that 'testing'.

I also think it perfectly rational for people who have 'felt' the climate change to ask themselves whether various kinds of geoengineering could be associated.  Or even completely responsible.

One hypothesis which I've held and remains pretty strong about the 'global climate change' campaign is that one of it's primary goals is to justify giving power to control the climate over to a small group of powerful people.  If methods of controlling the climate are possible then methods of controlling the weather are even more possible.  And control of the weather is a VERY powerful thing.

People can call me crazy all they want (and they often do.)  That's fine.  I've layed out some perfectly rational questions.  If people reject them in a reflexive manner under the trigger of 'conspiricy theory', I would suggest that they look into their own psyche and question if they themselves  may have been conditioned in a certain way.

[styca]

"Buying into convenient lies" does not imply the presence of facts

This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart

I've presented (and linked to) a few facts - just in that post, we have: a) the debunking of climategate, b) the CFC / Ozone Layer issue (an allusion to something that is I think accepted as fact - let me know if not and I'll go get some evidence), c) the fact that 'little ice age' and 'medieval warm period' were fractions of a degree over a couple of hundred years.

I'm happy to present some facts. Also happy to consider any facts that counteract my own argument. I'm not being sarcastic - it is important to consider conflicting viewpoints.

Not sure if your position is that global warming isn't happening at all, or that it is happening but isn't caused by human activity... but here are a few facts...

Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. But how do we know that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels?

The type of carbon we see accumulating in the atmosphere is what comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

... as corroborated by measurements of oxygen levels. Oxygen is falling in tandem with CO2 rising, exactly as you'd see from fossil fuel burning taking oxygen out of the air -> Carbon + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide.

What about historic levels? Well, we can measure coral records over a few hundred years. The evidence is that there is a sharp increase in the fossil fuels type of carbon.

So, human activity is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. This causes the greenhouse effect of global warming.

So heat is getting trapped in the atmosphere, due to human activity. The heat goes back into the surface of the Earth. This is conclusive proof that increased greenhouse gases lead directly to global warming.


I'll write your next post for you: These aren't your facts, you are taking other people's evidence at face value. This is BELIEF not FACT.

Okay, this is because I'm not an expert. I do have a background in science, but I'm not a climate scientist. Fortunately plenty of people are.

[tsaroz]

Climate change is real. It's mostly due to the natural events and only a small fraction due to human activities. Yet we should all move to renewables or cleaner nuclear energy and go electric. Fossil fuel not only assist climate change, they are harsh to health.
Looking at just the last two thousand years might not give us the whole picture. Our earth has naturally cooled and heated many times. No human melted the ice in Ice age.

Climate change is real if we mean changes in the climate. But if we mean any significant amount of global warming, then climate change is not real.

Global warming is real. The temperature measurement of last few decades shows a gradual increase in temperature around the world. You can't deny it.
I live in a place where I can see mountains. They used to be covered with snow the whole year when I was a kid. They are getting naked each year. Now there's snow only in the winter. And the snow line is getting higher. The snowfall are getting unpredictable. Sometimes we have huge snowfalls and they melt real quick.