A four step guide to Global Warming

[SP33Demon]

I need more evidence, IF you believe the body of evidence isn't faked, then yes it's possible. However, there have been too many allegations of data tampering by NOAA, especially during the last admin to conclusively say YES. I think in another 10 years we'll know for sure. However, there are far far far more pressing issues like the economy and illegal immigration than climate change. Is climate change going to put food on my table? Nope. Is climate change going to help people on opiods? Nope. Don't give a shit, and neither do Rust Belt Swing State voters who are more worried about money than a 1st world problem of whether the world heated up by 0.01% of a degree celsius. Ya dig?

 

[Phenzyn]

Messages:
26,935
Likes Received:
52

I need more evidence, IF you believe the body of evidence isn't faked, then yes it's possible. However, there have been too many allegations of data tampering by NOAA, especially during the last admin to conclusively say YES. I think in another 10 years we'll know for sure. However, there are far far far more pressing issues like the economy and illegal immigration than climate change. Is climate change going to put food on my table? Nope. Is climate change going to help people on opiods? Nope. Don't give a shit, and neither do Rust Belt Swing State voters who are more worried about money than a 1st world problem of whether the world heated up by 0.01% of a degree celsius. Ya dig?

I guess you are a likable person with such stats on your resume.

 

[SP33Demon]

Messages:
26,935
Likes Received:
52




I guess you are a likable person with such stats on your resume.

For those good at math, I had 25,000 posts before the Like system was instituted. I'm also not an MSM-programmed sheep so many here aren't going to agree with my views.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Conclusion, after each step increase, our global temperature never returns to the highs, lows, or averages of the previous step in the cycle. Every super El Nino event makes the Global Warming trend that much more obvious.

If we look back hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago, we find far higher temperatures and far higher CO2 levels. Not even close to today. What is different about today's CO2/temp increases compared with these even higher numbers many times in our planet's past? I want to understand why our observations today lead to words like "irreversible, catastrophic, point of no return", when I am unaware of how even higher levels of CO2/temps have led to none of these. Like yourself, I'm open to being wrong and open to new data/viewpoints.

 

[Phenzyn]

For those good at math, I had 25,000 posts before the Like system was instituted. I'm also not an MSM-programmed sheep so many here aren't going to agree with my views.

Apparently we're all MSM sheaple based on that wisdom.

Only some of us (me) are programmed by the left wing media (aka me)

And some of us are programmed by the right wing media (aka you)

Thus, a tech forum, filled with well educated intelligent people are predominantly "programmed" left wing and agree with say, me. And only a handful are programmed like an orangutan (you).

And so the results are the same. In a well educated and intelligent society we're going to lean left, hence our likes, hence our society. And hence you will soon be rendered obsolete, regardless of the means to which that happens

 

[Tirthankar Bose]

just check out this graph

 

[SP33Demon]

Apparently we're all MSM sheaple based on that wisdom.

Only some of us (me) are programmed by the left wing media (aka me)

And some of us are programmed by the right wing media (aka you)

Thus, a tech forum, filled with well educated intelligent people are predominantly "programmed" left wing and agree with say, me. And only a handful are programmed like an orangutan (you).

And so the results are the same. In a well educated and intelligent society we're going to lean left, hence our likes, hence our society. And hence you will soon be rendered obsolete, regardless of the means to which that happens

Bwahaha, the recent MAGASCOTUS rulings must be part of that "obsolete" theory of yours. Keep reaching bro, I'd suggest that once you can hit a 515lb squat like I can, you've actually achieved something in life. Or even had children. Until then, you're just a hot air balloon waiting to be popped by Trumpism.

 

[SP33Demon]

just check out this graph

And what does that have to do with temperature, present and historical dating back to 400,000 years? And if CO2 is the catalyst, why aren't we seeing the same temperature spikes as from 400,000 yrs ago?

 

[dank69]

Actually he came around awhile back. Turned out he was open to further evidence once he saw how it fit with his previous thoughts on the matter.

Now your Doc Savages and Imported Tajs.... that’s another matter.

I strongly disagree. Jaskalas is clearly a fundamentally conservative person but he shows an openness to new ideas that everyone here - everyone should admire.

Yeah great, so he is better than the other 63M conservatives and only took 18 years to concede. I'd love to have the luxury of patting him on the back and welcoming him to the fold but it's too fucking late for that bullshit. Even if we ceased all extraneous CO2 output today our planet will still be fucked for hundreds of years. Maybe if they got on fucking board 18 years ago when anyone without a diseased rotting brain knew we had a problem we could have done something and we'd be cruising on 100% green energy by now. But nooooo. The warnings were coming from filthy liberals so it just HAD to be a scam. It has to be a scam and I'll cling to every retarded theory I can find on the internet before I admit a fucking filthy liberal is right. Especially the worst demon-spawn liberal to ever walk the earth Al Gore (before the new worst of the worst Obama and the now even worse than the worst Hildabeast).

 

[Paratus]

If we look back hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago, we find far higher temperatures and far higher CO2 levels. Not even close to today. What is different about today's CO2/temp increases compared with these even higher numbers many times in our planet's past? I want to understand why our observations today lead to words like "irreversible, catastrophic, point of no return", when I am unaware of how even higher levels of CO2/temps have led to none of these. Like yourself, I'm open to being wrong and open to new data/viewpoints.

Let me see if I can help you figure that out. There a two things you may not be thinking about.

First is it’s not the total change in temperature that’s really the problem right now, it’s the rate of change.

You are right that in the past it was significantly hotter.

Many of the cyclic changes in temperature start with orbital changes, movement of the continents, and changes in Earths albedo which cause secondary effects like melting permafrost releasing greenhouse gases when warming or more snow when cooling.

This PBS video explains the cycles very well

The difference is (and it’s hard to spot on that graph) is those higher temperatures took 1,000s of years to change. This gave life a while to adapt.

NASA puts our current temperature changes at somewhere between 10-20 times faster than those historical changes.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Incidentally the faster historical changes caused by massive volcanism dumping huge amounts of gasses into the air correlate to extinction events.

There is currently another extinction event underway, if you weren’t aware.

The second issue is what’s changed since this last time the Earth hit these temperatures. The two costliest hurricanes in history were Katrina and Harvey costing a combined $250 billion in damages. They were stronger than normal in part due to increased water temperatures in the gulf due to global warming.

What would the cost of those hurricanes have been if they occurred the last time gulf waters were so warm, 100,000s of years ago?

If you said $0 because no humans lived there you’d be correct. The last time the world was this warm there weren’t:

• 700Million people living within 10 meters of altitude of the rising oceans
• 7.5Billion mouths to feed from farms located in places that worked well when the climate was cooler

So TLDR: the climate is changing faster than life with have time to adapt and the last time it was this warm there weren’t 7B people to feed.

 

[Vic]

Any post linked to SpaceTime gets a like from me. Love that show.

 

[Vic]

And what does that have to do with temperature, present and historical dating back to 400,000 years? And if CO2 is the catalyst, why aren't we seeing the same temperature spikes as from 400,000 yrs ago?

For the same reason that the hot summer weather always occurs in July (in the Northern Hemisphere), after the Summer Solstice.

 

[Thebobo]

Bwahaha, the recent MAGASCOTUS rulings must be part of that "obsolete" theory of yours. Keep reaching bro, I'd suggest that once you can hit a 515lb squat like I can, you've actually achieved something in life. Or even had children. Until then, you're just a hot air balloon waiting to be popped by Trumpism.

seriously bragging about lifting weights? that's what you judge people by?

 

[Thebobo]

And what does that have to do with temperature, present and historical dating back to 400,000 years? And if CO2 is the catalyst, why aren't we seeing the same temperature spikes as from 400,000 yrs ago?

We are

 

[Jaskalas]

We are

That chart suggests previous inter-glaciers naturally rise 2.2 - 3.6 degrees Celsius above the 1960-1990 baseline. Previous ocean levels would confirm such findings.

It does, however, attempt to explain the correlation between CO2 and Temperature, though I am particularly fond of our direct measurement of Watts per square meter. More energy is measured as reaching the surface, and it also matches changes in CO2 levels. Regardless of previously natural cycles, we're really starting to cook.

 

[glenn1]

global warming has it's own 4 step solution.

melt enough ice cap, dump it into the north atlantic, stop the atlantic conveyor, get your parka out (at least in the northern hemisphere)

After New York City floods the people who learned how to swim will be fine; there will be plenty of space in Greenland them to move to after it melts. Plus there will be plenty of oceanfront views to go around in the underlying archipelago of land below the ice sheet.

 

[zinfamous]

I need more evidence, IF you believe the body of evidence isn't faked, then yes it's possible. However, there have been too many allegations of data tampering by NOAA, especially during the last admin to conclusively say YES. I think in another 10 years we'll know for sure. However, there are far far far more pressing issues like the economy and illegal immigration than climate change. Is climate change going to put food on my table? Nope. Is climate change going to help people on opiods? Nope. Don't give a shit, and neither do Rust Belt Swing State voters who are more worried about money than a 1st world problem of whether the world heated up by 0.01% of a degree celsius. Ya dig?

allegations from imbeciles. There has been no data tampering, sheep.

 

[Thebobo]

That chart suggests previous inter-glaciers naturally rise 2.2 - 3.6 degrees Celsius above the 1960-1990 baseline. Previous ocean levels would confirm such findings.

It does, however, attempt to explain the correlation between CO2 and Temperature, though I am particularly fond of our direct measurement of Watts per square meter. More energy is measured as reaching the surface, and it also matches changes in CO2 levels. Regardless of previously natural cycles, we're really starting to cook.

Can't help you if dont understand whats right in your face.

 

[Zorba]

If we look back hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago, we find far higher temperatures and far higher CO2 levels. Not even close to today. What is different about today's CO2/temp increases compared with these even higher numbers many times in our planet's past? I want to understand why our observations today lead to words like "irreversible, catastrophic, point of no return", when I am unaware of how even higher levels of CO2/temps have led to none of these. Like yourself, I'm open to being wrong and open to new data/viewpoints.

I'll give you a hint, Miami and NYC didn't exist a few millions years ago, and may not in 100 years. That is why it is "catastrophic." Not to mention there will be roughly 10B people to feed and house as land becomes less suitable. I don't think any one thinks we are going to go the way of Venus.

 

[mect]

I need more evidence, IF you believe the body of evidence isn't faked, then yes it's possible. However, there have been too many allegations of data tampering by NOAA, especially during the last admin to conclusively say YES. I think in another 10 years we'll know for sure. However, there are far far far more pressing issues like the economy and illegal immigration than climate change. Is climate change going to put food on my table? Nope. Is climate change going to help people on opiods? Nope. Don't give a shit, and neither do Rust Belt Swing State voters who are more worried about money than a 1st world problem of whether the world heated up by 0.01% of a degree celsius. Ya dig?

You don't think climate change affects the economy?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-what-we-know-about-wildfires-and-climate-change/

 

[Drako]

It can be called either, imbecile.

Lighten up Francis.

 

[hal2kilo]

Let me see if I can help you figure that out. There a two things you may not be thinking about.

First is it’s not the total change in temperature that’s really the problem right now, it’s the rate of change.

You are right that in the past it was significantly hotter.

Many of the cyclic changes in temperature start with orbital changes, movement of the continents, and changes in Earths albedo which cause secondary effects like melting permafrost releasing greenhouse gases when warming or more snow when cooling.

This PBS video explains the cycles very well

The difference is (and it’s hard to spot on that graph) is those higher temperatures took 1,000s of years to change. This gave life a while to adapt.

NASA puts our current temperature changes at somewhere between 10-20 times faster than those historical changes.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Incidentally the faster historical changes caused by massive volcanism dumping huge amounts of gasses into the air correlate to extinction events.

There is currently another extinction event underway, if you weren’t aware.

The second issue is what’s changed since this last time the Earth hit these temperatures. The two costliest hurricanes in history were Katrina and Harvey costing a combined $250 billion in damages. They were stronger than normal in part due to increased water temperatures in the gulf due to global warming.

What would the cost of those hurricanes have been if they occurred the last time gulf waters were so warm, 100,000s of years ago?

If you said $0 because no humans lived there you’d be correct. The last time the world was this warm there weren’t:

• 700Million people living within 10 meters of altitude of the rising oceans
• 7.5Billion mouths to feed from farms located in places that worked well when the climate was cooler

So TLDR: the climate is changing faster than life with have time to adapt and the last time it was this warm there weren’t 7B people to feed.

To me the simplest evidence that exists that this is caused by man is the isotopic ratio of the carbon in the CO2 in the air that's measured currently. It tells us that the over whelming majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to burning ancient carbon which was either dug up, or pumped out of the ground by man.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is no doubt "global warming" is real as we've been warming since the Little Ice Age....well before any appreciable carbon dioxide emissions from the Industrial Revolution. The $64 question is "How much of this warming is natural vs. anthropogenic?".

 

[fskimospy]

There is no doubt "global warming" is real as we've been warming since the Little Ice Age....well before any appreciable carbon dioxide emissions from the Industrial Revolution. The $64 question is "How much of this warming is natural vs. anthropogenic?".

$64 answer: basically all of it is caused by man.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...-nearly-all-of-it-is-man-made-new-report-says

It’s “extremely likely” — meaning with 95 to 100 percent certainty — that global warming is man-made, mostly from the spewing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, scientists concluded.

“Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations,” the report said.

Scientists calculated that human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92 percent and 123 percent. It’s more than 100 percent on one end, because some natural forces — such as volcanoes and orbital cycle — are working to cool Earth, but are being overwhelmed by the effects of greenhouse gases, said study co-author Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6

Consistent with the last IPCC assessment report, we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ± 0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (−0.01±0.02 K).

 

[Paratus]

There is no doubt "global warming" is real as we've been warming since the Little Ice Age....well before any appreciable carbon dioxide emissions from the Industrial Revolution. The $64 question is "How much of this warming is natural vs. anthropogenic?".

I could throw a bunch of data, graphs and peer reviewed study’s at you that more than adequately show the answer to your $64 question is ‘all of it’ but I know how presenting evidence to you goes. You’ll think I’m trying to snow you.

Instead what if you provided a hypothesis that might explain how the warming observed was natural. Your hypothesis would need to be slightly better fleshed out than “the earth warms after an ice age.” That’s like saying, “ my food is warm because it’s dinner time”. We want to know what caused the food to be warm, the stove, the oven, etc.

It would need a causal mechanism such that you could say “hypothetically X natural phenomenon is what is causing the earth to warm”

What do you say?