There wasn't really a global warming "hiatus." Corrected analyses show no slowdown

[Nebor]

Who cares? At the slow rate that we're heating up the earth, most things will evolve in order to adapt. We're not making the Earth worse, just different.

 

[SlickSnake]

This is a common mistake. A better comparison would be that this settled science knows that we are in a situation where we know the earth is getting hotter, we just don't know exactly how much. That the earth is warming due to human activities is the settled part.

But yeah, it's probably all just another conspiracy by climate scientists. I'll add it to the list.

Ahh, so that explain Mars and Pluto's global warming too, then.

Except, no it doesn't.

And this was news way back before 2007, in case any of you missed it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Then, there is this attempt at a scientific refutement of the above article, a few months later.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...s-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html#.VXW4WPmIkmg

So is there any wonder then about why the average lay person who tries to research the global warming debate is left completely confused by the contradictory reports about global warming?

Here's a fun conundrum that politically motivated global warming hoodwinkers need to consider. We are traveling through space extremely fast while also traveling through completely new areas of space, literally forever. We will never be at the same point in space where we are at now, again. While we might have the illusion we are stuck on this planet, and virtually unmoving, the planet and solar system is certainly moving at high speed. What does this have to do with global warming, you might ask? While space is essentially a cold void, photons and particles occupying portions of it can conduct heat. So I believe that probably minor variations in the background temperature of outer space that our planet is traveling through could have profound effects on our planetary conditions and temperatures which could in turn effect global warming and cooling.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

 

[K1052]

Please quote and you'll find that he never said ocean warming was because of AGW...are you really that dishonest? Fact of the matter is that we don't know the exact cause of ocean warming in this area. There is a theory that perhaps 1/2 of the warming in this area is due to AGW, but this hasn't been proven. An active rift was recently discovered that extends from under the continent to the ocean. Research in progress. Evidence continues to mount that geothermal forces are significant factors. But, bottom line, we don't know whether this is AGW related or not.

Normally I try to be civil with you, but you're beginning to try my patience.

The rift valley you are talking about isn't an active geothermal feature. It just affects how warmer water is being distributed (and how that impacts local ice loss) not that it is itself warming the water.

Again, geothermal heat is not a major driver of ice loss as very clearly stated by the people who wrote the study.

 

[K1052]

So I believe that probably minor variations in the background temperature of outer space that our planet is traveling through could have profound effects on our planetary conditions and temperatures which could in turn effect global warming and cooling.

Proof to support such a statement?

 

[SlickSnake]

Proof to support such a statement?

Refute it then and prove me wrong, scientifically and using physics. And possibly go further and even attempt to explain it by using the unnatural physics models (that haven't even been written yet) that the recent Higgs experiments pointed to which infers we might be not an average or "natural" universe.

 

[brycejones]

Refute it then.

You made an assertion, do you have any evidence to support it?

 

[dank69]

Refute it then.

Refute what? That some object that we haven't discovered is emitting enough photons to heat up our solar system?

 

[First]

An interesting analysis confirming everything the well informed already know.

He said warmer oceans generally and not volcanic activity was the cause for the glacier melt. Unless you are claiming that the author believes the oceans are generally warming for reasons other than AGW. (please provide sources if so)







From the article referenced:





Hypocrite.

Oy, that is fucking bad.

 

[SlickSnake]

You made an assertion, do you have any evidence to support it?

I believe I gave some evidence to support it, if you bothered to look at the links. Unless you think we are secretly terraforming Mars and Pluto and raising their surface temperatures ourselves.

 

[DrPizza]

Refute it then and prove me wrong, scientifically and using physics. And possibly go further and even attempt to explain it by using the unnatural physics models (that haven't even been written yet) that the recent Higgs experiments pointed to which infers we might be not an average or "natural" universe.

It's pretty simple: conservation of energy and the density of space.
You're wrong.

 

[umbrella39]

Flat Earth fucktards continue to march off the edge..... SSDD

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The rift valley you are talking about isn't an active geothermal feature. It just affects how warmer water is being distributed (and how that impacts local ice loss) not that it is itself warming the water.

Again, geothermal heat is not a major driver of ice loss as very clearly stated by the people who wrote the study.

Proof to support such a statement?

 

[bshole]

It's hard to see how more evidence will change the position of the deniers. Even if you get them to accept that climate change is real and human caused, the next step on the denial ladder is "but it's too expensive and/or no other countries will agree, so we should still do nothing".

For me, you would FIRST have to prove the harm to humanity. You have zero scientific evidence that global warming has been anything other than a boon for life on earth. Every scientifically objective measure I am aware of indicates that life is improving on earth. You can't even scientifically prove that global warming is an inconvenience, much less a civilization ending catastrophe. I have brought this exact point up over and over and over and over on these threads and have not once, not a single time been responded to with a single shred of scientific evidence that global warming is harmful. Your lack of a response on this is NOTED and it speaks volumes to the utter weakness of your position.

 

[SlickSnake]

It's pretty simple: conservation of energy and the density of space.
You're wrong.

No, you just conveniently inferred what you wanted to out of my statement, based upon a limited understanding of dimensional physics. Our present understanding of dimensional physics is at its infancy, and can't even begin to explain how overlapping dimensions can possibly effect each other and particles, and especially so in an "unnatural" universe, as the Higgs experiments keep pointing to.

The multiverse turned into slightly more than justa hand-waving argument in 2000, when Bousso and Joe Polchinski, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, found a mechanism that could give rise to a panorama of parallel universes. String theory, a hypothetical “theory of everything” that regards particles as invisibly small vibrating lines, posits that space-time is 10-dimensional. At the human scale, we experience just three dimensions of space and one of time, but string theorists argue that six extra dimensions are tightly knotted at every point in the fabric of our 4-D reality. Bousso and Polchinski calculatedthat there are around 10500 different ways for those six dimensions to be knotted (all tying up varying amounts of energy), making an inconceivably vast and diverse array of universes possible. In other words, naturalness is not required. There isn’t a single, inevitable, perfect universe.


“It was definitely an aha-moment for me,” Bousso said. But the paper sparked outrage.


“Particle physicists, especially string theorists, had this dream of predicting uniquely all the constants of nature,” Bousso explained. “Everything would just come out of math and pi and twos. And we came in and said, ‘Look, it’s not going to happen, and there’s a reason it’s not going to happen. We’re thinking about this in totally the wrong way.’ ”

So, not so easily quantifiable after all, huh.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

 

[bshole]

For me, you would FIRST have to prove the harm to humanity. You have zero scientific evidence that global warming has been anything other than a boon for life on earth. Every scientifically objective measure I am aware of indicates that life is improving on earth. You can't even scientifically prove that global warming is an inconvenience, much less a civilization ending catastrophe. I have brought this exact point up over and over and over and over on these threads and have not once, not a single time been responded to with a single shred of scientific evidence that global warming is harmful. Your lack of a response on this is NOTED and it speaks volumes to the utter weakness of your position.

For example, here is the Wiki on the impacts of global warming. What a bunch of fucking mush. Not sure how any of it qualifies as science rather than idle speculation and fear mongering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_humans

 

[SlickSnake]

For me, you would FIRST have to prove the harm to humanity. You have zero scientific evidence that global warming has been anything other than a boon for life on earth. Every scientifically objective measure I am aware of indicates that life is improving on earth. You can't even scientifically prove that global warming is an inconvenience, much less a civilization ending catastrophe. I have brought this exact point up over and over and over and over on these threads and have not once, not a single time been responded to with a single shred of scientific evidence that global warming is harmful. Your lack of a response on this is NOTED and it speaks volumes to the utter weakness of your position.

And historically, it has been global cooling that has been the greatest threat to life on Earth and humanity, not global warming. So a little human induced global warming would probably be a good thing in the long run, if that was the case, and not a bad one.

 

[fskimospy]

For me, you would FIRST have to prove the harm to humanity. You have zero scientific evidence that global warming has been anything other than a boon for life on earth. Every scientifically objective measure I am aware of indicates that life is improving on earth. You can't even scientifically prove that global warming is an inconvenience, much less a civilization ending catastrophe. I have brought this exact point up over and over and over and over on these threads and have not once, not a single time been responded to with a single shred of scientific evidence that global warming is harmful. Your lack of a response on this is NOTED and it speaks volumes to the utter weakness of your position.

Look, you know as well as I do that there most certainly is scientific evidence showing how global warming would be harmful. Easiest one to say would be sea level rise. Done.

Regardless, you have previously admitted that your opposition to AGW stems from your belief that it would be bad for your personal finances. That is an obvious statement that you have no interest in examining the issue rationally.

 

[blankslate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yq-sfWSWLg&t=13m59s

^Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA climatologist.


Carbon in the atmosphere isn't the only concern there is frozen methane in the ocean floors and some of the permafrost in the arctic... some of which is melting. Methane is a much more effective green house gas than carbon.



....

 

[DrPizza]

For me, you would FIRST have to prove the harm to humanity. You have zero scientific evidence that global warming has been anything other than a boon for life on earth. Every scientifically objective measure I am aware of indicates that life is improving on earth. You can't even scientifically prove that global warming is an inconvenience, much less a civilization ending catastrophe. I have brought this exact point up over and over and over and over on these threads and have not once, not a single time been responded to with a single shred of scientific evidence that global warming is harmful. Your lack of a response on this is NOTED and it speaks volumes to the utter weakness of your position.

It's trivial to show this. Sea level rise for starters. You're aware that a not so insignificant percentage of our population lives near the ocean? A couple of years ago, 39% of the population lived in counties that bordered the ocean in the US. Saturday, I was on a roller coaster that is more than 6 stories taller than the highest point in Florida. (Highest point in Florida: Britton Hill, 345 feet.) The mean elevation of Florida is only 100 feet above sea level. A few feet of sea level rise is HUGE for Florida. Miami has 5.5 million living 6 feet above sea level. There seems to be a bit of short-sighted though about this - putting the issue off until the future. "Meh, it'll only be a meter rise by 2100." So, build a wall around it. Then over the next 100 years, it's suggested that it may rise another 2 meters. That puts Miami significantly below sea level, in an area frequently impacted by hurricanes. To put it another way, a reasonable course of action is to decide to simply gradually abandon Miami.

And that's not even considering other countries of the word where too, a near majority of populations live close to the coast.

 

[dphantom]

Look, you know as well as I do that there most certainly is scientific evidence showing how global warming would be harmful. Easiest one to say would be sea level rise. Done.

Relatively easily mitigated. 2mm/yr or ~200mm/century. Cooling on the other hand of even .5-1C would be very debilitating and nearly a return to the temps of around 1850. It was cold then as we were just emerging from the LIA.

 

[fskimospy]

Relatively easily mitigated. 2mm/yr or ~200mm/century. Cooling on the other hand of even .5-1C would be very debilitating and nearly a return to the temps of around 1850. It was cold then as we were just emerging from the LIA.

It's just one of many.

The argument that we should engage in certain catastrophic global warming as a protection against potential catastrophic global cooling is unconvincing.

 

[dphantom]

It's just one of many.

The argument that we should engage in certain catastrophic global warming as a protection against potential catastrophic global cooling is unconvincing.

Define catastrophic global warming. What level of warming would, based on peer reviewed literature, be catastrophic for the human race?

Sea level rise is out, we just agreed on that.
Drought, storms, hurricanes, rains, flooding all show no statistical change in frequency or severity from the past. So we can throw those out too.

 

[DrPizza]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yq-sfWSWLg&t=13m59s

^Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA climatologist.
Carbon in the atmosphere isn't the only concern there is frozen methane in the ocean floors and some of the permafrost in the arctic... some of which is melting. Methane is a much more effective green house gas than carbon.

....

From that clip, and in response to bshole,
"How much of this crisis is manmade?"
"All of it. We look for the fingerprints of change that are associate with the sun, or from volcanoes or from natural variability in the ocean. And, we look for each of those fingerprints and they don't match."

And, even the climatologist says one thing: with global warming, there will be some winners; there will be areas that wind up with a better climate. But sea level rise: no one wins.

 

[Nebor]

It's trivial to show this. Sea level rise for starters. You're aware that a not so insignificant percentage of our population lives near the ocean? A couple of years ago, 39% of the population lived in counties that bordered the ocean in the US. Saturday, I was on a roller coaster that is more than 6 stories taller than the highest point in Florida. (Highest point in Florida: Britton Hill, 345 feet.) The mean elevation of Florida is only 100 feet above sea level. A few feet of sea level rise is HUGE for Florida. Miami has 5.5 million living 6 feet above sea level. There seems to be a bit of short-sighted though about this - putting the issue off until the future. "Meh, it'll only be a meter rise by 2100." So, build a wall around it. Then over the next 100 years, it's suggested that it may rise another 2 meters. That puts Miami significantly below sea level, in an area frequently impacted by hurricanes. To put it another way, a reasonable course of action is to decide to simply gradually abandon Miami.

And that's not even considering other countries of the word where too, a near majority of populations live close to the coast.

So you're saying we might see housing costs in New York City and San Francisco fall in line with the rest of the country?

 

[Nebor]

From that clip, and in response to bshole,
"How much of this crisis is manmade?"
"All of it. We look for the fingerprints of change that are associate with the sun, or from volcanoes or from natural variability in the ocean. And, we look for each of those fingerprints and they don't match."

And, even the climatologist says one thing: with global warming, there will be some winners; there will be areas that wind up with a better climate. But sea level rise: no one wins.

What about fish? Naval defense contractors? Yamaha's Jetski division?