A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

Even more informative:



Notice the all land temp line being 0.

 

Silly ass chart sorry but 1980 is not preindustrial

 

Saw an excellent special last night on the oceans warming and the coral dying. We lost something like 29 percent of the world's surviving coral in the year 2016 alone. Lots of time-lapse photography of coral bleaching as the water temps warm up. Core samples show nothing like this in hundreds of years. Computer models show all coral dying within 25 years. All. Not that Trumpies care.

 

try to focus and stop being so looney

it clearly says, "since pre-industrial"

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/chasing-coral-netflix-documentary.510055/

 

That's the whole point. It says to Pre industrial, but only goes as far back as 1980. 1980 is NOT even close to being pre industrial, hence your chart is mislabeled. It shouldn't say "since pre industrial", it should say "since 1980".

 

Still doesn't explain the breakpoints which are still unknown. Doesn't explain the Younger Dryas period either.

 

There aren't very many people who dispute that the earth has had periods of both cooling and warming. The dispute is rather or not it is caused by human behavior. The question that I have not found a single person who could answer it for me in the last 30 years, is how did man cause climate change before the industrial era? If you want to take a stab at answering this question, then be my guest.

 

it appears that you aren't able to stop being looney and think logically

 

This reply from you doesn't make any sense. You obviously are confused. I suggest you very slowly read what I wrote and hopefully at some point it will hit you exactly where you are glaringly incorrect. Is English your second language ? Thats about the only logical thing that would explain your obvious confusion.

 

'pre-industrial' means before the industrial revolution, over 200 years ago

'since' means afterward; 1980 was after 1750 and it's a relevant timeframe

you're playing a semantics game instead of addressing my relevant point

global temperature changes from multiple datasets match very closely

that means that the data is accurate



https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/defining-pre-industrial/

 

since
sins/
preposition, conjunction, & adverb
preposition: since; conjunction: since; adverb: since

1. 1.
   in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present.

The intervening time period BETWEEN the time mentioned. If somebody were to say that they quit smoking in 2001 and have not had a cigarette SINCE. That means that in the intervening time period between 2001 and today, they have not had a cigarette. If that person were to say they haven't had a cigarette since 2001, and they were really only talking about a random time period like 2010 which does in fact happen to occur after 2001, that statement would be a lie. If you were to create a graph of their cigarette smoking SINCE they quit, that would require a graph that runs from 2001 to present day. Since Pre industrial means the time between pre industrial and present day. It does not mean any random time period in the interim.The fact that you seem to think that since means "after" is shocking, UNLESS of course English is your second language, in which case that would be a logical explanation for your lack of understanding of this very simple concept.

-I am not playing a "game", in fact I don't even have any interest in the actual topic of the graph. I merely saw you arguing with somebody else on this "since" graph, and wanted to weigh in to make you aware that you are 100% incontrovertibly wrong in your belief that it constitutes a proper heading for that graph.

 

Ok, you win. I'm putting a houseboat here in the Smokies.

 

Good luck with that exercise in futility. You show me how to get 325 million people to agree on a single issue and I will put you up for a Nobel Prize!

At best they have a 10% success rate which means that they have a 90% failure rate. Not a good example.

The first step in terms of climate change is not reaching a universal agreement on the issue as that is impossible. We need intelligent objective scientists to educate others at every opportunity possible while sticking to the demonstrable facts while keeping hyperbole and anecdotes to a minimum.

 

Ocean temperature variance is far more critical than land - a 2.2 degree rise in ocean temps start the coral bleaching process.
The VISIBLE and CURRENT rates of bleaching over the world's oceans are proof positive of change. This is not up for debate. It's not something that might happen in the future. It's not the ranting of environmentalists. It's measurable and current.

 

yes you are

and of course you can't refute the data/evidence i posted:

"global temperature changes from multiple datasets match very closely"

 

Then I suggest you read the ipcc AR5
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml

The assessment reports are bloody dry reading but they are based on science

 

Yes it says since preindustrial I hate to break it to you but we've had steel mills in this country from before the civil war. If that isn't industrial tell me what is?

Computer models are not reality. Most loss of Coral has to do with agricultural run off not warming.

 

The point being that the heading of "Since Pre Industrial" is incontrovertibly INCORRECT. That's the single topic that you and I have been discussing and you have been 100% incorrect this entire time.

 

it's not incorrect, you are and the point is that global temperature changes from multiple datasets match very closely

of course you can't refute that fact

 

of course you can't fact the fact that global temperature changes from multiple datasets match very closely

 

You seem to have difficulty understanding the written word. I don't care about your datasets. I never did. I don't even know what your argument happens to be surrounding those datasets, because I simply do not care. I have probably had hundreds of different global warming discussions over the years. I am bored with them, and for the most part avoid them altogether. Nothing new comes out, just the same thing recycled over and over and over and over. Everybody becomes a cut and paste intellectual, and it invariably devolves into a dueling experts debate which is colossally boring. If you cant acknowledge the unambiguous meaning of "since", why would it be productive to get into a debate as complex as global warming with you? I prefer debate that requires independent thought, and debaters that are willing to apply that independent thought to the data that they reference. It would have been nothing for you to simply say " [Since Pre Industrial] is a misleading labeI, but the data since 1980 is still very important" and then proceeded to carry on with your argument. That would constitute exercising independent thought, and being intellectually honest. A person that will dig in their heels on such a mundane topic when CLEARLY wrong, is not worth the time to engage on a broad ranging long winded debate such as global warming.

I happened to see your discussion, saw you incorrectly asserting that "Since Pre Industrial" was a proper label for a chart starting in 1980, and I very briefly but correctly pointed out how you were wrong in that assertion. Nothing more. Nothing less. I accomplished my goal. There is nothing else to see here.

 

you seem to be stuck on minutiae

the point of the graph is to show how data corresponds

 

I've more than adequately explained my position in this discussion.

 

The sad thing is that if not for deforestation, there would be much less CO2 in the atmosphere. The rainforests actually got rid of a lot of C02, and we have have less than half of what we have now if we hadn't all but destroyed them.