Is Global Warming Real?

[tvbcof]

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.

That is what one might expect to see under geoengineering schemes such as the 'solar radiation management' methods which are finally being more openly discussed in mainstream media.

The idea that the tiny human contribution to an already tiny element in 'greenhouse gases' is making the climate change is very very far-fetched.

The idea that deliberately blocking out the sun in large geographic areas might be having an impact on climate and temperature is much more believable.

[BADecker]

^^^ And on top of that, one medium sized volcano would greatly, if not completely, disrupt anything we might think we are doing to control the climate.

[Spendulus]

"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.
......

No, exactly with those statements you did not present facts. You presented things hoping they would get believed as facts, and I called you on that.

So here you are. Let's just consider (A) and (C) of your alleged facts. (B) is technically a very different matter, and quite irrelevant.

Now here is a very simple question. Do you seriously believe that your just saying something means people should believe it is a FACT? That seems to be what is implied in your posts.

Here are some interesting historical details about the Little Ice Age. By no means should such phenomena be trivialized, there are indications the planet may be entering another such phase. Wait ... the planet might be entering another Cold Spell? Weren't you arguing we were going into Hot Times?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/04/the-little-ice-age-back-to-the-future/

[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.

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

Rather than stare at a spaghetti chart, one should simply look at the results of the deleted or omitted data on the statistical result. The result is that there never was a "hockey stick temperature chart."

Mann took this issue to court, charging libel against a Canadian who published a criticism of his work. Others had reverse engineered Mann's found essentially that the results were faked results.

Court was a serious error on his Mann's part, because the court required him to present his methods and algorithms. He refused, so he lost his case. The spectacle of a "scientist" refusing to show, refusing to prove his results is quite curious.

[franky1]

^^^ And on top of that, one medium sized volcano would greatly, if not completely, disrupt anything we might think we are doing to control the climate.

carbon is not even 1 thousandth of a percent of the atmosphere..
what you need to look into is the water vapour

the reason carbon became an important factor is not about climate but about human lung health.
rain/lack of rain.. whether rains soaks into soil or is running down guttering and concrete drainage systems. affects how much clouds and rain a place gets, far more than carbon

come on think about it. the deserts of the equator where no cars drive are getting hotter due to the invisible cars that can drive on sand... or less water=less water= less cooling effect in the area

[BADecker]

^^^ And on top of that, one medium sized volcano would greatly, if not completely, disrupt anything we might think we are doing to control the climate.

carbon is not even 1 thousandth of a percent of the atmosphere..
what you need to look into is the water vapour

the reason carbon became an important factor is not about climate but about human lung health.
rain/lack of rain.. whether rains soaks into soil or is running down guttering and concrete drainage systems. affects how much clouds and rain a place gets, far more than carbon

come on think about it. the deserts of the equator where no cars drive are getting hotter due to the invisible cars that can drive on sand... or less water=less water= less cooling effect in the area

Right. So we need all the CO2 we can get, just to help the plants grow. Also, more moisture in the atmosphere means more of it will convert to H2O2, naturally. This will kill off more microbes naturally. Places like Africa might be able to reclaim marshes into good drinking water naturally.

[iamsheikhadil]

They accept that global warming doesn't exist and they are the same breed off the branch who believed(s) once that Earth was flat and jailed Galileo for it. They also believed that outer space is filled with oxygen and there is a big snake at the end of the flat earth. Since they find it cold in their home because of AC, they disregard global warming.

Actually, back in the day people were told by 'authorities' that the earth was flat and almost every 'sane' person believed it fully for that reason.

Now people are told by 'authorities' that the earth is about to melt and kill us all unless we 'believe' in them and their priests and do whatever they say we need to do.

The Warmunistas of today are a combination of the flat-earthers who loved big brother prior to (and during) Galileo and the idiots who fell for Marxism in the pre-Soviet period.

Lmfao. So you are telling me I believe that the Earth is not flat because the authority tells me that Earth is not flat? And I believe that global warming (the only possible conclusion to all those cutting down of tress for industries etc and with so many vehicles releases those gases) is I believe only because the authorities tell me?

I believe Earth is round because it makes sense. It makes sense for the reason of its orbit around the sun for its shape. And I can see a ship sinking when it passes through sea after a long distance (not that it sinks). I also believe that Earth moves around the sun, and not because the authorities tell me for it. Also I believe that all those gases ejaculated by the vehicles and pollution and so much stuffs should lead to a disastrous conclusion. They simply can't leave no effect. It's common sense.

[senne]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

I never thought from the angle that you are talking about but I am sure that global warming is real and a very serious issue. We do come across soo much news talking about the out of time floods, droughts and other natural calamities. Also, SOLAR alliance formed between nations between tropic of Cancer & tropic of Capricorn to facilitate use of renewable energy, the PARIS accord and similar amendments do point at the fact that global warming is indeed real.

[BADecker]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

I never thought from the angle that you are talking about but I am sure that global warming is real and a very serious issue. We do come across soo much news talking about the out of time floods, droughts and other natural calamities. Also, SOLAR alliance formed between nations between tropic of Cancer & tropic of Capricorn to facilitate use of renewable energy, the PARIS accord and similar amendments do point at the fact that global warming is indeed real.

Global warming is absolutely real. And so is global cooling. What you think has to do with what you look at and read.

People who live in places around the world, where the differences between daytime and nighttime temperatures is more than 50 degrees, absolutely know that both, GW and GC, are real.

[tvbcof]

They accept that global warming doesn't exist and they are the same breed off the branch who believed(s) once that Earth was flat and jailed Galileo for it. They also believed that outer space is filled with oxygen and there is a big snake at the end of the flat earth. Since they find it cold in their home because of AC, they disregard global warming.

Actually, back in the day people were told by 'authorities' that the earth was flat and almost every 'sane' person believed it fully for that reason.

Now people are told by 'authorities' that the earth is about to melt and kill us all unless we 'believe' in them and their priests and do whatever they say we need to do.

The Warmunistas of today are a combination of the flat-earthers who loved big brother prior to (and during) Galileo and the idiots who fell for Marxism in the pre-Soviet period.

Lmfao. So you are telling me I believe that the Earth is not flat because the authority tells me that Earth is not flat?

No, that's not what I said although I suspect it is largely the case anyway.

And I believe that global warming (the only possible conclusion to all those cutting down of tress for industries etc and with so many vehicles releases those gases) is I believe only because the authorities tell me?

You can be told something by the authorities that is true and accurate you know.  Take a few hours to ponder that concept.

I suspect that you believe the earth to be spherical in shape more because you've been instructed that way than that you have performed your own analysis and experiments or thought that much about it.  Again, it doesn't mean that it is untrue.

It is also illogical to extrapolate from a true assertion by authorities that ever other assertion will be true.  The reverse is also illogical.  To spell it out, just because an authority has made a false assertion doesn't mean that all assertions they make are false.

I believe Earth is round because it makes sense. It makes sense for the reason of its orbit around the sun for its shape. And I can see a ship sinking when it passes through sea after a long distance (not that it sinks). I also believe that Earth moves around the sun, and not because the authorities tell me for it. Also I believe that all those gases ejaculated by the vehicles and pollution and so much stuffs should lead to a disastrous conclusion. They simply can't leave no effect. It's common sense.

Technically that's true.  In a more practical sense, the difference between 0.000001% and 0.000000% is minimal.

Even if it is a problem, expecting a very small group of people assigned by those who currently control the global money supply is not likely to solve it.  That's the 'solution to the 'problem', and all your recycling and what-not is fluff inserted to make your conditioning more effective.  Little brownie point psychological virtue rewards which you never grew out of from childhood is part of the program.  At least you can be happy sorting cans for hour after hour.

It was the power inherent in controlling money supplies that funded your conditioning into a state of clueless stupidity with no interest in analysis and probably no abilities here either even if you did have an interest in trying.  They had 'the solution' before they invented the 'problem'.

[styca]

Now here is a very simple question. Do you seriously believe that your just saying something means people should believe it is a FACT? That seems to be what is implied in your posts.

No, not because I said it - I am not an expert, none us of here are. You should consider the evidence (i.e. the facts) and then decided for yourself whether you believe it.
Yes, I know you won't accept any evidence from me unless I've actually been out in the field and conducted the research myself, that's why I put this:

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.

[BADecker]

Now here is a very simple question. Do you seriously believe that your just saying something means people should believe it is a FACT? That seems to be what is implied in your posts.

No, not because I said it - I am not an expert, none us of here are. You should consider the evidence (i.e. the facts) and then decided for yourself whether you believe it.
Yes, I know you won't accept any evidence from me unless I've actually been out in the field and conducted the research myself, that's why I put this:

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.

Fallen Angels is a 1991 book written by Larry Niven and a couple of other guys. It's all about the coming ice-age.

Get a first-printing, hard-cover copy, and check out the bibliography. There are loads of scientists recorded in there who show that the temporary, slight warmth increase is simply the prelude to the coming ice-age.

In addition, our nearsighted science groups that are promoting a stoppage of this slight warming period by chemtrail spraying, are setting us up for nature to fight back naturally, that will make the coming ice-age twice as cold.

[Mometaskers]

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

[Spendulus]

Now here is a very simple question. Do you seriously believe that your just saying something means people should believe it is a FACT? That seems to be what is implied in your posts.

No, not because I said it - I am not an expert, none us of here are. You should consider the evidence (i.e. the facts) and then decided for yourself whether you believe it.
Yes, I know you won't accept any evidence from me unless I've actually been out in the field and conducted the research myself, that's why I put this:

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.

So far what you've posted looks like mid 1990s to mid 2000s "Global Warming" propaganda.

Things have changed a lot since then. I'm sure you are aware of the argument that "the sun could not cause the recent warming, because total solar output does not change sufficiently to cause it".

But do you understand the relation of the CERN CLOUD experiments on that hypothesis?

You and I are perfectly capable of discussing how that affects state of understanding of solar influence on the earth. It is not necessary that either of us are in atomic physics or solar astrophysics.

[Spendulus]

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

I am meriting this post.

[styca]

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

A couple of years ago, the big disagreement was whether it was warming. Now it is 'yes it is warming, but is it caused by man?'. In a couple of years' time it will be: 'yes it is partly caused by man, but partly not.' I guess this is progress of sorts.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking

Yes, it's bad. Plus the climate chaos that is now even affecting the rich parts of the world such as California.

but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

I live in the UK. We're at the same latitude as Siberia, but we are kept warm by the gulf stream. There is a chance that the current human-caused climate change might cause the gulf stream to shut down... then temperatures in the UK and western Europe will plummet. A couple of centuries is the wrong timescale to think about the effects of human-caused change.

[styca]

Things have changed a lot since then. I'm sure you are aware of the argument that "the sun could not cause the recent warming, because total solar output does not change sufficiently to cause it".
But do you understand the relation of the CERN CLOUD experiments on that hypothesis?

I'm aware of it. I understand how cosmic rays can potentially have some very minor effect on cloud formation. However research on other periods of high solar output and cosmic rays show no link to global warming.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027737910500048X?via%3Dihub
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

You and I are perfectly capable of discussing how that affects state of understanding of solar influence on the earth.

Thank you! Your opinion of me has improved since my wall-of-evidence post, even if you disagree with the evidence. I understand now that whatever side of the debate you sit on, it is always more productive to back up your posts with evidence. It raises the quality of the debate. Thanks for reminding me of this.

[Memminger]

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

Though “according to the studies,” the increase in the emission of greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere due to industrialization although the first world countries had been signing treaties to minimize emission of greenhouse gasses the third world countries who are still developing had been given a leeway in order to boost their economy since it is fundamental for them at this point then switch nuclear energy.

[Spendulus]

Things have changed a lot since then. I'm sure you are aware of the argument that "the sun could not cause the recent warming, because total solar output does not change sufficiently to cause it".
But do you understand the relation of the CERN CLOUD experiments on that hypothesis?

I'm aware of it. I understand how cosmic rays can potentially have some very minor effect on cloud formation. ...

The effect is not minor. Not in the least.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/cerns-cloud-experiment-results-suggests-industrial-revolution-reduced-cloud-cover-cosmic-rays-have-an-impact-too/

And this has a real effect on any attempt to estimate the percent of "current warming" due to man. Further, it has an effect on the nature of the causative agents. What if CO2 were not such a problem, but something else was? What if CO2 was irrelevant, and some other factors were literally being overlooked?

....There is a chance that the current human-caused climate change might cause the gulf stream to shut down... then temperatures in the UK and western Europe will plummet. A couple of centuries is the wrong timescale to think about the effects of human-caused change.

This is literally the production of one of those "scary stories" to influence peoples' behavior. And that's all it is.

However, NATURAL changes in ocean currents do exist and always have, because the only constant is change.

Propaganda is never a friend of science.

[Mometaskers]

but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

I live in the UK. We're at the same latitude as Siberia, but we are kept warm by the gulf stream. There is a chance that the current human-caused climate change might cause the gulf stream to shut down... then temperatures in the UK and western Europe will plummet. A couple of centuries is the wrong timescale to think about the effects of human-caused change.

I remember that was the premise of The Day After Tomorrow though it'll probably not be as dramatic. Personally I think we are at least exacerbating a current warm trend but as a non-expert like most people, it can easily got confusing with all the various "theories" out there.

For myself, I just chose to reduce the pollution I create and my energy consumption. Climate change or not, I can't see any negative effect for myself.

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

Though “according to the studies,” the increase in the emission of greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere due to industrialization although the first world countries had been signing treaties to minimize emission of greenhouse gasses the third world countries who are still developing had been given a leeway in order to boost their economy since it is fundamental for them at this point then switch nuclear energy.

Glad you mentioned this. There are people actually complaining about the industrialized nations' rather, "stern" insistence on measures when they've been polluting the planet for like a century or so ahead of everyone and that the poorer countries have to suffer the consequences. That "how dare they" criticize developing countries for using chopping down forests and using fossil fuel which they've been doing for longer.

Can't expect developing countries to just halt their progress. I'm pro-renewable energy (it's better than nothing) but I've accepted that nuclear might be necessary to transition since currently renewables can fully replace the energy we get from fossil fuels.