Why 'Climate Change' Alarmists Will NEVER Debate Skeptics

Your links have little to do with my question. The sea level rise skewed links have nothing to do with temperature data. The globally skewed article fails to point out that heat maps of global data with both hemispheres shows obvious warming overall. The little ice age is outside of the 150 year time range I am talking about.

 

No, temperature data is not estimated using models and is compiled using land, sea, air, and satellite temperature data. Temperature models are clearly labeled as such and cannot be confused with actual temperature data.

 

What restating do you think is inaccurate specifically?

 

And we have this thread as an example of why "debating" with dishonest Deniers is futile.

Taking cherry picked factoids and out right falsehoods is what they do

 

I also like how no one bats an eye when LIGO measures the warping of spacetime from gravitational waves emitted by colliding black holes millions of light years away with a precision better than 1/1000th the width of a proton while also having to cancel out the noise of the instruments own self induced spacetime rippling. But measuring the global mean temperature of Earth to 2 decimal places somehow defies credulity. As I've said before measuring the global mean temperature isn't remarkable or interesting in the slightest compared to what's being done in other disciplines of science.

 

Funny. I'd guess the flavor of your koolaid today was orange...

 

Already noted. And cited.

 

Post # please.

 

I know right. Its all koolaid. Those pictures of the earth from space and the moon landings are all fake data because scientists made the data. Earth is flat people!

 

So funny. Who knew you were a flat earther and a climate denier? Good to know.

 

Doesn't get sarcasm. Then emperor doesn't have any clothes here and you obviously don't have a shred of evidence for your climate fraud conspiracy theory.

 

And you obviously are oblivious to how frightfully you are missing the point. Your ad hominem wasn't sarcasm. It was reflexive. I understand that some folks do have legitimate limits to what they are able to process and understand. Clearly , we have found yours.

And frankly, it is tiring to have to continuously compile the information already provided. This site, actually provides you all of the data mining you need to look through the citations, the studies, the graphs, etc that I have produced here. I am simply unwilling to entertain doing the additional work to satisfy your demand. Do the work yourself for a change. But you don't get to assert some conclusive BS because I am unwilling to dance for you.

 

Searching post for evidence...
1% complete
.....
15%
.....
56%
......
89%
.....
96%
......
100% complete.

No evidence found. Please try a different search.

 

Yet while the dips in solar activity correlate well with the LIA, there are other factors that, in combination, may have contributed to the climate change:

• Volcanic activity was high during this period of history, and we know from modern studies of volcanism that eruptions can have strong cooling effects on the climate for several years after an eruption.
• The ‘ocean conveyor belt’ – thermohaline circulation – might have been slowed down by the introduction of large amounts of fresh water e.g. from the Greenland ice cap, the melting by the previous warm period (the Medieval Warm Period).
• Sudden population decreased caused by the Black Death may have resulted in a decrease of agriculture and reforestation of agricultural land.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

THE ‘LITTLE ICE AGE’: RE-EVALUATION OF AN EVOLVING CONCEPT
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Matthews_05.pdf
1900 'Little Ice Age' type events occurred earlier in ... 1650 and 1850 were remarkably similar.... ‘Little Ice Age’ climate is defined as a shorter time interval of about 330 years (c. AD 1570–1900) when Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures (land areas north of 20°N) fell significantly below the AD 1961–1990 mean.

 

The cause of climate change is irrelevant to the question of whether we warmed in the last 150 years. The little ice age 500 years ago is irrelevant to whether we are warming today.

 

~~~~
How so? Isn't this all part of the historical cyclic temperature changes of Earth? Aren't you worried about the depleted Ozone layer too? Why haven't you complained about the excesses of environmental pollution of the atmosphere by China, India and other emerging countries? As a retired Environmental Regulatory Specialist, factually the U.S. gov't and corporations based in America have made big strides in containing environmental pollution both ground, water, and air while competing countries mentioned have failed to do so.

 

So, the obvious question is... was it not supposed to ever warm after a mini ice age? And, if the cause is irrelevant, as you suggest that it is, what is your point then? NOAA suggests that since the 1860s the average global mean temp is up .8C. Should we have mass public panic yet?

 

No.

The net effect of all natural climate forcing mechanisms are putting a downward pressure on the global mean temperature. Yet, the planet warms. Remember, humans did not have the capacity to influence the climate or just weren't even around yet in the past. That's what's different today.

 

~~~~
Hmm...., Whatever happened to the 19th Century Industrial revolution?

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate more on this point?

 

Do you believe that .8 C number you quoted or not?

 

The cause of warming is irrelevant to the question of whether we have warmed. The ozone layer, emissions by other countries, and environmental pollution are also not relevant to that question either.

 

Interesting deflection. I cited the source of the observation. NOAA says this. You seemingly agree with it. The question is, given the observation, should we all start panicking?? Does the .8C rise in average temp justify your hyperventilating about it?

 

Having a debate with climate deniers as akin to playing chess with a pigeon. Even after you win, they will strut around the board knocking your pieces all over and sh1tting on everything, and claim victory.

 

Personally, I acknowledge that the vast majority of data collected by institution doing scientific research is legit. This includes the global mean temperature data from NOAA. No, I don't think it justifies hyperventilating about.

What we're trying to figure out is why we are even discussing this. You don't believe any data from NOAA or from any institution for that matter. So what's the point? The discussion isn't going to go anywhere. You are going to wholesale deny anything coming from reputable body and blindly believe everything from a blogger who doesn't even understand the physics of the atmosphere at it's must basic level. Am I right?