2017 - 2nd warmest year recorded, Trump mocks AGW

[Voodoo_Child906]

I would say these. The real question is how much we are accelerating the natural cycle.

Comparatively speaking, human emissions are extremely small compared to earth's ocean - land carbon cycle. It does however add up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394

A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

The whole concept of climate change is climate getting hotter as a long-term pattern, over a large sample size of data. You're undermining your own point by bringing up that one year was hotter.

Why? Last year had El Nino and those years are generally warmer. We're talking about trends here and not single years.

 

[luckyshot]

I'm blanking here. What does the "A" stand for?

Asian ass annihilation... oh, sorry, that’s probably just what “a” stands for in my search bars.

 

[MeatheadMike]

I'll just leave this here if anyone cares:

Why climate change may be to blame for dangerous cold blanketing eastern U.S.

 

[superpunch]

How the fuk can people pretend to know what's going ot happen in 75 YEARS? Absolute bull shit. Global warming is the biggest hoax of hte decade

 

[ShadowRun]

How many years has the planet existsed ? 4.6 bill I think and how long have we been recording the data? I’d like to know the percentage scale of measurement

 

[Yellowking]

So odd and irresponsible that people just choose to bury their heads in the sand about this.

 

[wonderbread]

I haven't verified the numbers myself but it's being reported that 2017 was the 2nd warmest year on record by the Copernicus Climate Change Service

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...cord-after-sizzling-2016-report-idUSKBN1ET1JF

and NASA

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming

As per usual, Trump sardonically mocks AGW because he doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather



So what is going on with this temperature trend:

1) Fake news?
2) Globalist conspiracy with cooked data from crooked scientists?
3) Not enough data?
4) Just a natural cycle?
5) Ya ok it's happening but it's still America first... MAGA Damn it!!

2018 will most likely be a little cooler because of La Nina but for deniers is the trend clear now?

Have you not noticed that anything that doesn't make him money or has lips for his cocktail wiener is of no use to him?

 

[peytonlucy]

I remember in 1982, when I was in high school being a finalist in my little state's state science fair (finalist meant a hundred or more.) One other student from my area had spent months researching "acid rain" which was the trendy environmental issue of the day. She spent some time at a local universities Arctic climate research center
(she didn't travel to the Arctic) where she reported back, confidently, that only a fool looks at periods less than a century when discussing the planet's climate. My area was under 10,000 feet of ice 11,000 +/- years ago. Maybe they were completely wrong, but I bet that most of the people that we rely on for AGW weren't studying climate in 1982.

 

[peytonlucy]

So odd and irresponsible that people just choose to bury their heads in the sand about this.

A verifiable measure of accuracy might be the sea level at a specific date in the future. Crank up the models, print the specific projections for a specific spot, down to the foot, for a specific day in the future then we can evaluate. The NYT's will probably print the information for free.

Don't you find it to be odd that we are decades into this and we don't have such verified predictions?

 

[KILL KILL]

Anthropogenic.



Not nearly as precise or comprehensive. Modern data is measured in many different places, not just at the poles.


I believe in global warming, but I hate these articles by the way. They show some hot dry place as some kind of proof, that's like republicans showing a snowball to claim it's not true. Data points(one hot day in the sahara ffs) are meaningless in this discussion by themselves, you need to see the whole set to draw conclusions.

Ice core samples are actually very precise as researchers analyze the materials trapped in the ice, including oxygen bubbles. Read this NASA article if you're unsure of what kind of information can be derived.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Thanks, Obama

 

[Terry Noonan]

It’s 7 degrees right now.

 

[Bob Charlie]

If you don’t understand something, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Your ability to reason has no impact on the reality of global climate change that is the result of human activity. Continuous increase in carbon emissions combined with massive destruction of carbon fixing organisms is not compatible with ecological stability. You’ve been shown the Vostok data in this thread that temperatures and sea levels have followed carbon emissions since time immemorial and that global atmospheric carbon levels are exponentially increasing since the industrial revolution. Rationalizing doesn’t impact the reality of the situation (try reading some David Hume for perspective on this). sO shUt tHe fUq uP, you sound retarded.

 

[Teppodama]

If humans are the problem maybe the solution isn't miracle green initiatives but less people...

 

[waiguoren]

That's simply not true. There are numerous methods to track temp records dating back millions of years. Ice core samples are one such method.

Come on pal, please be honest.

1 The guy said that 2017 was the "2nd hottest year on record"

2 I pointed out that the "record" he refers to goes back only 120 years or so while the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

3 You jump in by bringing up ancient proxy data that are not part of the record TS was referring to.

 

[KILL KILL]

Come on pal, please be honest.

1 The guy said that 2017 was the "2nd hottest year on record"

2 I pointed out that the "record" he refers to goes back only 120 years or so while the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

3 You jump in by bringing up ancient proxy data that are not part of the record TS was referring to.

What I'm debating is your assertion that we don't have climate data going back literally millions of years. You even said it was inaccurate, which was not true.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

A verifiable measure of accuracy might be the sea level at a specific date in the future. Crank up the models, print the specific projections for a specific spot, down to the foot, for a specific day in the future then we can evaluate. The NYT's will probably print the information for free.

Don't you find it to be odd that we are decades into this and we don't have such verified predictions?

They've only been using satellite data since the 80s so they don't have a large enough sample size to make that kind of prediction but they see the trend. Ground data goes back 150 years or so but it would be almost impossible to make a prediction on a level for a specific year. They would have to do a range or average in a 10 year period.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

If humans are the problem maybe the solution isn't miracle green initiatives but less people...

Population increase is directly and indirectly responsible for our greater need for energy and our deforestation of the planet. It really is the root cause of a lot of mankind's problems, I don't know how we stop it though.

 

[MMAViewer]

The question is not " if humans are causing some climate change" it is how much, and how much is too much?.... You goofs who claim humans aren't having any affect are just fucking retarded!
The answer is not ignoring it, nor is the answer to act as if the world is about to end.
The solution is more research and a reasonable world plan to minimize the damage.