Global Warming Underestimated by up to 50%

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Bruce:
Here is the thing, that article was based on figures from people who actually do climate research. His source is the ESA.

You don't care about the source or you would have linked directly to the source. Instead you posted an obviously biased article that launches into hysterics every other paragraph. And now that the cherry picking is finished you'll move onto ad hominems....

Now I am going to trust people who actually do climate research when they reach a consensus. Why? Because they have looked at the evidence involved.

I am not going to trust you, because frankly you're on a level with anti-vaxxers, repeating discredited bullshit and misquoting research specifically to boost your case.

You need there to be a conspiracy among climate scientists. You actually have to form a conspiracy of over 90% of world scientists in relevant fields to have your ideas make the slightest bit of sense.

Of course, anyone who is skeptical of shaky science propped up by political agendas is a "denier" like anti-vaxxers or holocaust deniers or JFK conspiracy theorists. Good, insult and belittle those that disagree with you. Silly name calling is the most important part of the scientific method.

You should look up the concept of "group think" and then reconsider whether a conspiracy is required. You've got people with a feeling of moral superiority who think they're saving the world combined with financial motivation to come to specific conclusions in an environment where alternative ideas are quickly vilified or ignored entirely. Like you have. That's not a recipe for good science.

And I see you brought up the ridiculous 90% consensus (Don't you mean 97%) which has been debunked probably a million times by now. That Cook et al. paper has had so many holes punched in it that you could use it to strain noodles. Don't talk about discredited research while bringing up absolute junk like that. Science is not determined by "consensus" and you'd think you'd be careful about using such a logical fallacy considering the word is a running gag at this point in regards to global warming.

And that is just not going to happen, because climate change does not serve the economic interests of anybody.

This one must be a joke. I assume the 100+ billion dollars has just dissipated into the atmosphere without serving anyone at all. And that's the US alone.

You want to say rising sea levels aren't a problem, that is very easy for you to say because you don't live on the Kiribati islands.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963

This is not something that is happening in the future, this is happening right now. It is affecting people right now.

You're right, I don't live there. Instead of clicking on that silly article that I'm sure is just full of people complaining about how their island is going to be underwater in a matter of weeks, let's instead check the sea level....

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1371.php

lol.

To you it is all politics and if we all agree hard enough, well reality will be bent to our will. Unfortunately reality doesn't actually work that way.

Reality? No, here's the reality...

First you have to prove the Earth is significantly warming

Then you have to prove the primary cause is anthropogenic, and not natural variation

Then you have to prove it will have a negative effect on the planet overall

Then you have to prove the negative effect is capable of being reversed (particularly with China outputting more CO2 than the US and EU combined).

Then you have to prove reversing it is worth the massive economic cost that will be required.

Two decades and we're still struggling on the first one.

So am I going to burst into flames tomorrow or not? The anticipation is killing me, ironically enough!

You guys can discuss till you're blue in the face about what is causing climate change. But that is actually overlooking the overall theme here, which is undisputable, humans are ruining the planet. Species are becoming extinct because of us overhunting and/or taking over their natural habitat (you can throw global warming into the mix there as well if you will). Entire ecosystems are being destroyed because of our interference (rain forest, great barrier reaf etc etc). I for one do not feel very comfortable trying to explain to my grandkids in the future how our own arrogance and self indulgance kept up this sort of ridiculous behaviour. If any other race behaved like this we would view them as parasites.

nodlimax:
We got another warning about climate change. You may start to panic now:
image

On a serious side, can someone remember when we stopped calling "IT" climate warming and started using the words climate change? In addition how is climate change always bad? And why is bad when the climate overall on the planet is warmer? There have been periods on this planet when the average temperature on this planet has been higher and that wasn't to long ago (500 years). Oh and please show me real prove that the current climate change is caused by humanity. Please keep in mind that the climate is always changing....

Also why again was greenland called greenland? Because it was full of ice when it was named, right?

So many questions and yet so many possible answers. Let me direct one advice at the people working at the escapist. Please stay away from these kinds of news topics. It'll only heat up your forums.

"On a serious side, can someone remember when we stopped calling "IT" climate warming and started using the words climate change?" No. When did this happen. Was it in 1992 when we had the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (I was only 2 years old so I don't remember it. Or maybe it was 1988 (before I was born) when we had the founding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Maybe it was in 1975 when the term Global Warming was first used by Wallace Broecker in his paper "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming" (funny that this was in the 70s when apparently the scientific consensus was that we were going to have global cooling. Huh).

Actually, the terms climate change and global warming Have been used interchangeably for several decades

I'm just going to leave this here to let you know some of the negatives. They include species going extinct, farm land becoming unworkable, severe droughts, severe floods and more.

"Also why again was greenland called greenland? Because it was full of ice when it was named, right?" According to Wikipedia it was "supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers."

And here's Skeptical Science again with a discussion of this point and also the Medieval Warm Period

Plunkies:

I dunno. Some stupid blog called "nasa" or something.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

Seriously, whenever I see one of these clickbait articles posted on global warming there's always something easily found that contradicts it. It's just alarmism.

Did you...Ummm...Did you read the article?

It doesn't say there's been no warming in two decades. It says that there is warming. It says there hasn't been when you get below a mile into the ocean. It says the ocean is still rising, warming is still occurring, etc.

Why do you claims always seem to come back to a source that doesn't back up your claims?

Zachary Amaranth:

Plunkies:

I dunno. Some stupid blog called "nasa" or something.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

Seriously, whenever I see one of these clickbait articles posted on global warming there's always something easily found that contradicts it. It's just alarmism.

Did you...Ummm...Did you read the article?

It doesn't say there's been no warming in two decades. It says that there is warming. It says there hasn't been when you get below a mile into the ocean. It says the ocean is still rising, warming is still occurring, etc.

Why do you claims always seem to come back to a source that doesn't back up your claims?

Did you?

It clearly says they're looking for "missing" heat that they cant find in the atmosphere or the deep ocean. As a result, they've re-analyzed existing satellite data using a model to conclude that the upper ocean absorbed more heat than expected. For whatever that's worth.

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up sea level rise. The ocean has been rising since coming out of the little ice age. There has been no accelerated sea level increase. Our oldest measurements show a slow and even increase for the last 150 years, with no recent acceleration.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

You can look that up yourself. San Fransisco, for example, has a 150 year record and you see the same rate of increase through its entirety.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.