2017 - 2nd warmest year recorded, Trump mocks AGW

[andnowweknow]

I'm not sure because I hear different thing from different experts.

I would say 50 to maybe 75 years could give you some idea.

We know a lot of things effect climate. The sun being the biggest factor.

The sun could send us into a ice age next week.

A rock from space impacting earth is actually the likeliest suspect by far for the movement from glacial to interglacial and back...

And weather trends of any real substance should be calculated on the decadenal scale and up (to centennial and then millennial)...but, the little ice age is still a mystery so...

I love how they throw in changes in human population...humans can't help but vastly overemphasize our impact and importance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

 

[HIMBOB]

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.

Only people I see talking about sample sizes of 1 are climate deniers.

Global Warming.... err... I mean Climate Change is real. We better accept every tax, regulation and green scheme the government and Eco-warriors tell us to.


We are fortunate to have such guardians, to direct us away from our senses, and beckon us back on the road to faith. Climate Change can cause cold temperatures, too, they intone. And wet weather. And dry. Hurricanes and cyclones. Droughts and floods. In fact, any variety of weather whatsoever can be traced, if you but model hard and often enough, keep the grants flowing and the contradictions unexamined, to the One Holy Underlying Theory of All Weather. Climate Change, everything proves it. It’s the scientific method at its best.
-Rex Murphy from http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex...-this-is-why-they-rebranded-it-climate-change

 

[Don Quixote]

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

From what I understand, in order to really make a change for the better to fight human climate change there must be a major push to reduce C02 emissions. Green technology and shutting down coal fired power plants just isnt going to do it.

The only way I can see change in the future is by returning to a 1850’s type of life style that will effect people’s standard of living sufficiently.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

It’s 7 degrees right now.

It's 117 F or 47 C in Marree Australia today

 

[waiguoren]

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.

Total, blatant strawman. Anyone can go back and see that I never wrote that.

Do you get a kick out of being dishonest, or is it that time of the month when your tribalism flows unrestrained?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

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.

You don't believe climate proxies are accurate? I admit I'm not an expert in the field, what in your opinion is the standard error of the mean for the various proxies?

 

[waiguoren]

You don't believe climate proxies are accurate? I admit I'm not an expert in the field, what in your opinion is the standard error of the mean for the various proxies?

I would love to have that conversation, but I first want to note that's not what we were discussing.

The first guy said that 2017 was the "2nd hottest year on record". That's only true if you are looking at the ~120 year old surface temperature data set (leaving aside the fact the data gets dicey pre-1970s).

My only point is that people lose sight of the fact that this modern surface temperature record is extremely young.

If the earth's history were condensed into 10 years, then the surface temperature data set began a few seconds ago.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I would love to have that conversation, but I first want to note that's not what we were discussing.

The first guy said that 2017 was the "2nd hottest year on record". That's only true if you are looking at the ~120 year old surface temperature data set (leaving aside the fact the data gets dicey pre-1970s).

My only point is that people lose sight of the fact that this modern surface temperature record is extremely young.

If the earth's history were condensed into 10 years, then the surface temperature data set began a few seconds ago.

I'm that first guy LOL and yes, it's the 2nd hottest year since we've been taking measurements, not in the entire 4.5 billion year history of the world.

 

[Throttlehead]

Global Warming.... err... I mean Climate Change is real. We better accept every tax, regulation and green scheme the government and Eco-warriors tell us to.


We are fortunate to have such guardians, to direct us away from our senses, and beckon us back on the road to faith. Climate Change can cause cold temperatures, too, they intone. And wet weather. And dry. Hurricanes and cyclones. Droughts and floods. In fact, any variety of weather whatsoever can be traced, if you but model hard and often enough, keep the grants flowing and the contradictions unexamined, to the One Holy Underlying Theory of All Weather. Climate Change, everything proves it. It’s the scientific method at its best.
-Rex Murphy from http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex...-this-is-why-they-rebranded-it-climate-change

That is one of the dumbest (opinion) articles I have ever seen on climate change. He should probably just retire and stay in Newfoundland, he has lost it. I'm sure you get all your climate change data and information from Rex Murphy.
Rex Murphy the climate scientist.

 

[Madmick]

God he's dumb.

The only people dumber are the ones who believe in him.

 

[Scheme]

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.

The real question is: is it even a bad thing? Haven't heard much on why it is so bad, other than a correlation with somewhat stronger hurricanes.

The real problem with burning fossil fuels is that we will run out of them, then we wont have enough energy for our consumption needs. Especially when the earth starts cooling and we enter the next ice age. No energy + ice age + overpopulation = actual mass human deaths.

Overpopulation is the root issue of basically every single global issue we face and so far only one country (China) has made policies to tackle that, and that policy was largely ineffective and abandoned. No one seems to care that the earth is overpopulated five times over though, and it is only going to get worse.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Didn't say it wasn't warming or that man doesn't have an effect. The question is how much is man's effect and how long will the warming cycle last.

And just for information pollution is bad and we should work toward reducing it .

This is a NASA graph posted by another user, do you notice the spike in the CO2 ppm at the end, that's occurred since the industrial revolution so this is almost certainly our mark. We've altered the natural Ocean-Land carbon cycle, we were supposed to be in a cooling cycle but we're getting warmer. Maybe the earth will correct the CO2 imbalance somehow or maybe it will just keep getting warmer. If the graphs do continue to mirror it doesn't look good.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

That is one of the dumbest (opinion) articles I have ever seen on climate change. He should probably just retire and stay in Newfoundland, he has lost it. I'm sure you get all your climate change data and information from Rex Murphy.
Rex Murphy the climate scientist.

Rex Murphy is criticizing the ridiculous taxes, policies, greens schemes and various scams that are pushed under the guise of climate change. Climate Change has become a dogmatic cult which many people follow with blind faith. They just accept whatever they are told to accept because climate change. If there was not a problem surrounding climate change, then why do so many people get hysterical whenever someone challenges the latest trendy dogma of the eco-idiots?

Murphy does not have an issue with caring for the environment. He has a problem with the politics and hysteria surrounding climate change.

 

[Falsedawn]

Rex Murphy is criticizing the ridiculous taxes, policies, greens schemes and various scams that are pushed under the guise of climate change. Climate Change has become a dogmatic cult in which many people follow with blind faith. They just accept whatever they are told to accept because climate change. If there was not a problem surrounding climate change, then why do so many people get hysterical whenever someone challenges the latest trendy dogma of the eco-idiots?

Because people have been challenging climate change for literally decades (and still haven't disproven it)? Because at some point you have to say "Fuck you, we keep providing evidence and you keep raising the bar the more we provide"? Because we see things getting worse while people listen to charlatans and put their thumbs in their asses so the wealthy can fuck up the planet and become even more wealthy?

Pick one, run with it.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Because people have been challenging climate change for literally decades (and still haven't disproven it)? Because at some point you have to say "Fuck you, we keep providing evidence and you keep raising the bar the more we provide"? Because we see things getting worse while people listen to charlatans and put their thumbs in their asses so the wealthy can fuck up the planet and become even more wealthy?

Pick one, run with it.

I will put this another way. The Canadian government has just put out another carbon tax because climate change. What evidence is there that another tax on an already over-taxed population is going to solve anything? If people challenge the effectiveness of more taxes because climate change, then they are called climate change deniers and shunned.

Most people support things that will protect the environment like conservation projects, reasonable regulation, laws against pollution, responsible hunting, cleaner energy research and so on. The problem a lot of people have with climate change is the politics, smugness and hysteria surrounding it.

Roger Scruton frames one of the political issues relating to climate change very well:

The problem arises because the agenda has been set by the globalisers. Global problems, we are told, require global solutions, and global solutions are trans-national solutions, involving the loss of sovereignty and the surrender to treaties that tie our hands. There may be reason to fear what is happening. But much more important for the activists is the political use to which that fear can be put – which is to destroy national sovereignty and to exert a top-down control by the self-appointed experts over the ordinary activities of mankind.

Moreover, by concentrating on climate change the activists have managed to distract attention from the many other environmental problems that could be, and often have been, solved by people acting in the conservative spirit...

The solution is not automatically to call on the state to intervene but first to look for the social mechanisms that cause people to bear the costs of what they do.

Source:
Conservatism and the Environment

 

[Throttlehead]

Rex Murphy is criticizing the ridiculous taxes, policies, greens schemes and various scams that are pushed under the guise of climate change. Climate Change has become a dogmatic cult which many people follow with blind faith. They just accept whatever they are told to accept because climate change. If there was not a problem surrounding climate change, then why do so many people get hysterical whenever someone challenges the latest trendy dogma of the eco-idiots?

Murphy does not have an issue with caring for the environment. He has a problem with the politics and hysteria surrounding climate change.

If you claim there is a dogmatic cult pushing climate change, what do you call people like yourself and Harper hard righters who banished climate science and scientists? That sounds pretty culty to me. You guys pull out this shit line all the time about scientists not getting grants etc if they dont lie or something, its the dumbest argument ever.

You can argue over policy, thats fine, but make sure you make an argument when big oil gets your money as well.

If you are calling climate change " trendy dogma" you're an idiot. I find it amusing the people who do not believe in it is the extreme right in USA and Canada, nowhere else on the planet are people this crazy or controlled by corporations .

 

[Witchhunt]

If you claim there is a dogmatic cult pushing climate change, what do you call people like yourself and Harper hard righters who banished climate science and scientists? That sounds pretty culty to me. You guys pull out this shit line all the time about scientists not getting grants etc if they dont lie or something, its the dumbest argument ever.

You can argue over policy, thats fine, but make sure you make an argument when big oil gets your money as well.

If you are calling climate change " trendy dogma" you're an idiot. I find it amusing the people who do not believe in it is the extreme right in USA and Canada, nowhere else on the planet are people this crazy or controlled by corporations .

In the seventies, it was the coming ice age, then acid rain, then fluorocarbons. People who have lived a while have seen this play out before..
It's always something.

 

[Bloodworth]

How did the world warm up during ice ages throughout history when mad made fossil fuel were not even around.???

 

[FacePunch]

ITT a bunch of idiots who don't understand how carbon dioxide works talk out of their asses like clowns.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

How did the world warm up during ice ages throughout history when mad made fossil fuel were not even around.???

CO2 levels did help cause previous warming periods. But those levels rose over thousands of years, as opposed to what we've caused in just a hundred years.