Climate Change is here and man made

[blueinsa]

So now we have voted to limit the temperature rise lol.

Obviously it will cost us all money to do this and of course, the human species is so fucking arrogant it thinks it can achieve a specified temperature increase against all that mother nature and millions of years of the Earths climate doing nothing more than what comes naturally.

 

[kas_tippler]

Next we'll be trying to turn a bit of night into day.

 

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

I haven't seen any data that goes against what would be expected as we move out of a mini ice age. I think I'd be more alarmed if global temperatures were not SLOWLY rising at a steady rate. Can you imagine the hysterical scenes from the climate alarmists about how man made global cooling is tipping us back into a catastrophic ice age.

History tells us that the climate changes and only human arrogance thinks it's got anything whatsoever to do with us.

 

[Damocles]

Is it not also true that no one knows whether it could be reversed, whether it would have sent beneficial or adverse affect and also, that taxing 4x4s in the UK will do the sum total of fuck all for 'saving the planet' given the industrialisation of the third world?

Yes, this is mostly all true. The beneficial or adverse effect is the point of contention there. Just on the low estimate the amount of refugees that would be created would create a global issue, as would the rising heat levels will change where the arable land in the world is. Climate change isn't an extinction level event by any stretch, but it's something that has the potential to rapidly change the way everybody on the planet lives in terms of consumption of resources.

The tax incentives that have been raised in the UK in regards to carbon emissions are like taking a bucket out of the sea in order to stop flooding, but the fact that the science is being exploited doesn't make it any less accurate at its roots.

 

[The perfect fumble]

History tells us that the climate changes and only human arrogance thinks it's got anything whatsoever to do with us.

Biology tells us that we'll all die eventually and it's only human arrogance that thinks that a speeding bullet might hasten it's arrival.

 

[lazza]

I haven't seen any data that goes against what would be expected as we move out of a mini ice age. I think I'd be more alarmed if global temperatures were not SLOWLY rising at a steady rate. Can you imagine the hysterical scenes from the climate alarmists about how man made global cooling is tipping us back into a catastrophic ice age.

History tells us that the climate changes and only human arrogance thinks it's got anything whatsoever to do with us.

I'm surely will have seen the data, but you presumably chose to ignore it or misinterpret it. The current temperature trend is anything but natural and looks nothing like any recent trend. And your last argument is rather strange; it's hardly something to be arrogant about.

 

[lazza]

Let's look at your quote:



If you look at the graphs contained in the article you're refering to -http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/06/hiatus-controversy-show-me-the-data/ - they contain data for NASA GISS data, which is derived from surface stations combined with satellite data for SSTs.

So, yes, you're comment "that the data only shows surface temperature" was wrong.



Wrong again. I did no such thing. My actual quote:





Oh, dear. "nice graph"? I suppose it's "nice" if you like bogus bullshit.

The funny thing about that graph is that a graph showing the exact opposite can be constructed, depending on the time frame. Just as ‘figures don’t lie, but liars figure’, bogus charts like that can be contructed. What is amazing is the number of credulous, unthinking people that bogus chart has fooled.

Each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly. SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.

Actual Linear Trends During Fourth Step of Escalator

How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880!

What “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step:

If you are going to use gifs in order to belittle 'skeptics', at least use ones that are not based on false, innacurate data.

Sorry, but your first point is still wrong. you start off by saying: "you're comment "that the data only shows surface temperature" was wrong." But it's not; the data does only show surface temperatures. What data are the satellites measuring? Sea Surface Temperatures. It may be measured from space but it's still measuring a surface temperature.

Then the argument about the Skeptical Science graph is definitely "clutching at straws". Firstly, the SS graph is simply Showing how a clear upwards trend can be misrepresented as a flat trend by selecting a particular Interval. the actual short-term trends and best-fit lines are (for the sake of the point this argument is making) completely irrelevant. And please show me a "graph showing the exact opposite can be constructed, depending on the time frame" using a longer time frame.

Then you go on to say that a small portion of this graph shows a 0.06°C per decade trend which is the same as the average over the last 135 years, seemingly not seeing the irony in taking a small part of a graph (that is designed to show that using a small part of a graph isn't scientific) to make a point.

Then you finish with a graph which is supposedly debunking something, but I'm not sure what. It certainly doesn't negate the stepped graph I showed, but simply illustrates exactly the same point: that skeptics currently point to a data set which appears to show a "hiatus" and use this to conclude that global warming has stopped, but in actual fact, looking at any other "flat" dataset shows that Each one was simply part of an on-going upwards trend.

One final comment, I'm not trying to belittle anyone, and I'm sorry if it comes across like that. I feel pretty damn strongly about this subject. As a scientist, im disturbed by the politicising of the debate on climate change, and saddened by the fact that something that is absolutely compelling, scientifically, can be so misunderstood by the General public.

 

[Yates]

So now we have voted to limit the temperature rise lol.

Obviously it will cost us all money to do this and of course, the human species is so fucking arrogant it thinks it can achieve a specified temperature increase against all that mother nature and millions of years of the Earths climate doing nothing more than what comes naturally.

The real danger to life on earth, man's ego.

 

[blueinsa]

The real danger to life on earth, man's ego.

I respectfully disagree. We have no divine right to live forever as a species and like the vast majority that have gone before, we will go the same route. Interestingly they went before man was even around but of course, it's all our fault yet again.

Government control tool, nothing more with an excuse to tax everyone to death whilst a select few get incredibly rich off the back of it and in the mean time, mother nature will carry on doing what it wants too and what it does naturally.

Nb. Looking again I think Yates is in agreement so apologies, my bad.

 

[Bill Walker]

Just watched a programme about India, 350 new coal fired power stations have been given the go ahead

All Indians have been promised electricity

apparently 350 million people still don't have it

just sayin..