Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

yea, i understand that you're not being honest

you pose irrelevant questions to mislead

your comment #533 has four questions/marks

it's obvious you're trying to confuse the issue, here

and avoid the relevant facts of this argument about agw:

* average global temperature is rising faster

* co2 concentrations are increasing faster

*ocean temperatures are rising faster

* arctic ice-melt is happening faster

* sea-level is going up faster

 

"We use this technique to analyse the recently measured global mean surface air temperature anomalies (GMTA)36 and various reconstructed external forcings covering the period from 1850 to 2005 (156 years)37. To introduce the method we calculate the information flow (IF) in nat (natural unit of information) per unit time [nat/ut] from the 156 years annual time series of global CO2 concentration to GMTA as 0.348 ± 0.112 nat/ut and −0.006 ± 0.003 nat/ut in the reverse direction. Obviously, the former is significantly different from zero, while the latter, in comparison to the former, is negligible. This result unambiguously shows a one-way causality in the sense that the recent CO2 increase is causing the temperature increase, but not the other way around."


Shown is the time dependence of the information flow between CO2 forcing and GMTA when calculating segments with increasing lengths beginning from 1850 to the actual displayed year. Statistically significant values are indicated by the dark squares in the lower part of the figure and the dashed horizontal line at 0.1 [nat/ut] indicates the threshold for relevant flows.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

 

Your comment is so obtusely ignorant of science that you really should not be using the word as if you have some clue about what science is.

The earth is a relatively closed system. This means that there is a limit to the amount of pollution we can put into air without changing global air quality.
Same with the oceans. There is a limit to the capacity of the oceans to deal with pollutants.

Do you know what those limits are ? If not then you have no business making defacto claims that mans activities are not approaching the limit of the environment to deal with the pollutants being fed by "man" into the environment.

 

Not one tide gauge across the world shows any acceleration. Why do you figure that is?

 

Yikes. It's like an accusation or something. The fun part is that my personal views are irrelevant to the conversation because, as stated, I am not relying on or not on religious faith to make my observations. And yes, they are observations.

Which is in direct contrast to the continued use of speculation and outright fabrication used to backstop your assertions. So, help me understand something, from your perspective. If modern ice core data today doesn't reflect the actual PPM distribution of CO2, why would we rely on core data at all? I mean, seriously. If we can measure ppm air samples today, and it says, something like ~400 ppm, and the current ice layer says that it's 250 ppm what does that say about your disassociation of the data to make a point not made by the observations? Try answering this question.

 

Which is countered by:

"“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen."

Meaning that, well, CO2 follows temps. As in, not a forcing agent, as in, is a result of warming, not necessarily it's cause. Mate.

 

The ice in Greenland has not "exponentially" increased. You are reading nonsense sources

 

Three things.

One, I know exactly what science is: it is the process by which we explain how and why things are the way they are. It involves stating a hypothesis, then testing that hypothesis to determine whether it reflects the reality of what we observe.

Two, your statement about the earth being a closed system and about the problem of pollution that humans have introduced? All well and good. But here's the thing: humans are a part of the system. If humans do things which set things off kilter, the system will work to get things back in balance. Not a happy outcome for we humans, but the planet has gone through far bigger disruptions and will continue to do so. (Extinction level events come to mind). You realize that if solar activities increase a bit (as they've done in the not-too-distant past), our electrical grid and communications systems will likely cease to function? You want to worry about something, chew on that for a while. Stating that there's a limit to the amount of pollution that can be dumped into the system merely begs the question: why are you obsessing over pollution? Myopic, short sighted, and not particularly helpful.

Three, I do not make the claim that man's activities are not having an impact on his environment. That would be ludicrous. No, what I am objecting to is those like yourself who wish to make the claim that they know exactly what the climate issue is, exactly what is causing that issue, and exactly what we need to do to solve it. That is the height of hubris, and really doesn't prove to be helpful in the least. In addition, before throwing gobs of money at something, we should go through an appropriate cost / benefit analysis to see if it's a smart move. Some who have done that analysis have concluded that we don't know enough, and I find myself in their camp.

Then again, I'm not the gifted one, so your mileage may vary.

 

i'm thinking it's because you aren't honest

sea-level is rising and on-average, it's rising faster

"The rate of sea level rise is faster now than at any time in the past 2000 years and that rate has doubled in the past two decades." *

"The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend." **


* https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201508_risingseas/

** https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

 

climate scientists have shown that they know it's caused by co2 from fossil fuels

"There are human fingerprints on carbon overload. When humans burn coal, oil and gas (fossil fuels) to generate electricity or drive our cars, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, where it traps heat. A carbon molecule that comes from fossil fuels and deforestation is “lighter” than the combined signal of those from other sources. As scientists measure the “weight” of carbon in the atmosphere over time they see a clear increase in the lighter molecules from fossil fuel and deforestation sources that correspond closely to the known trend in emissions."



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WXeGLlPyv5Y

 

Greenland Ice pack growing.



Ooopsies....

 

NASA confirms, Antarctic ice extent still growing more than declining....

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Sea state rise leveling off:

 

See, when we're dealing with geologic time, when you say things like "The rate of sea level rise is faster now than at any time in the past 2000 years and that rate has doubled in the past two decades", you might as well have said "The sea levels have risen in the last second. Everyone, run for your lives!"

Yes, that is how silly the statement is...

 

1) Stating one thing about science does not a general knowledge convey. Regardless - my point that if you had a clue about science you would not make defacto claims such as "man is not affecting climate" stands.

2) "Not a happy outcome for we humans, but the planet has gone through far bigger disruptions and will continue to do so. (Extinction level events come to mind)"

So you are arguing that because there were events (asteroid hitting the earth for example) that caused mass extinction ... we should not care about human activities that might do similar damage.

Then after making this patently nonsensical and fallacious argument - you go on to talk about a cost benefit analysis without giving any figures.

A whole lot o nothing.

3) Your third paragraph starts by contradicting your previous claim (good to correct yourself but then do not complain about me correcting your previously flawed claim). You then go on to build a big strawman by accusing me of things I did not say. Nowhere did I claim to know exactly what issue with climate was. My post simply pointed out how nonsensical your post was for doing essentially the same thing of what you are falsely accusing me of doing.

 

the link you posted is dated from 2015

here's a graph which includes the data from 2017:

"On Feb. 13, the combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice numbers were at their lowest point since satellites began to continuously measure sea ice in 1979."



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

of course you're being silly

 

The link I gave you (the one you did not bother to listen to because you do not really care about the facts) refutes the nonsense you are trying to promote as fact. Your chart does not even give the entire year ??

Obviously snow accumulates in the winter and melts in summer so it is important to show at least the entire year and for trending a couple of decades.

Your "exponential" claim shows your abject ignorance of science in general but, the fact of the matter - as per the link that you did not bother to view - is that the study your link is citing actually states that the ice melt in the summer was greater than the increase in the winter (2016).

Further, since warm air carries more moisture we expect the amount of snow/ice to increase during the winter months in areas like Greenland.
This then constitutes evidence for Global warming and not the reverse. The amount of ice then decreases during warmer months.

The fact of the matter is that the ice melt in warm months in Greenland has been greater than the ice increase in cold months. This has resulted in ice in Greenland decreasing at a rate of 200 gigatons per year ... as opposed an "exponential increase".

 

1) You made the claim that I don't know what science is. I do.
2) I am arguing that what we humans do has more of an impact on humans than it does on the earth, and that there are larger factors involved than just what we humans do.
3) Wrong.

Since I'm about a whole lot 'o nothing, let's just agree to disagree...

 

Yet not one tide gauge across the world shows any acceleration. Go figure.

 

Actually your religiosity is central to the argument at hand. As the OP pointed out, you and your comrades are a rather small portion of the population. As to global warming, scientifically, that train has long ago left the station, leaving you and yours standing on the platform yelling into nothingness.

The scientifically interesting part is how people like you think you have any kind of rational argument going in your favor. Turns out, when looking at the demographics, that deniers are rather easy to identify as they, being conservatives/conformist and all, march in the same parade. Thus, only those who primarily get their information right-wing sources. Conservative Christians, and especially evangelicals are the ones who deny global warming most stringently. But then they base their lives on a myth.

This is why you keep insisting global warming is somehow a religious idea. Apparently you, and your comrades can't think outside of your own mentality. This is why evangelicals, like yourself, are never innovators.

 

So you think your 140 or so years of data with it's corresponding 1.4 F increase in temp is equivalent to my chart showing vast disparity in CO2 and global temps over the last 11,000 years huh?

 

the past 140 years is more relevant, because it's more recent

anthropogenic carbon pollution wasn't really a thing 10,000 years ago

of course you won't address the facts and evidence i posted

 

1) Then show some knowledge of science by not making such nonsensical defacto claims.
2) Quantify the above claim.... and second what is your point in relation to how human activities are affecting the earth ?
3) What was I wrong about ? You falsely accused me of something I did not say.

 

Now now, we're only supposed to look at data from the last 5 years and stuff.

You know, cause events that occur in geological time can be accurately measured that way.