you’re denying that human activity is causing climate change. good luck with that. keep shitting where you eat then.
Keep shitposting, then. You’re wrong and will always be wrong. Get fucking wrecked.
Here’s the short version:
1) Demonstrate “climate change” is real.
No problem there! There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth has been much warmer for most of its existence. The Jurassic period, for example, was quite a bit warmer than today. In fact, there have only been a few colder times in Earth’s history compared to today. And ‘climate’, in the strictest sense, changes daily.
2) Demonstrate that “climate change” is manmade.
This is tougher, since we already know for a fact that the Earth has been through far warmer periods before man ever showed up. Indeed, evidence is mounting that an increase in CO2 is causing less extreme weather, not more.
3) Demonstrate that any changes, regardless of origin, happening now are man-reversible.
Good luck with that.
4) Demonstrate that they can be reversed, primarily, by crippling the American economy in particular, while nations like China and India continue polluting the planet at record rates.
And that’s where you lose your audience.
Long version:
Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.
There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes.
The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.
The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.
We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.
If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere.
Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).
The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather.
Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H20 feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H20 feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H20 feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.
Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.
nice copy/pasta but you're wrong. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, there is also water vapor and methane (among others)
ozone depletion is self evident. deforestation is self evident. dead zones in the ocean are self evident. depleted fish stocks is self evident. mass pollution of ecosystems is self evident. the heat and light given off by civilizations is self evident.
if you deny that shitting where you eat causes the environment to change, then you must live in another world.
"Popular Technology.net is an impartial, not-for-profit website that covers popular trends and technology. This site receives no funding of any kind, has no affiliations and is completely independent."
And ‘climate’, in the strictest sense, changes daily.
cli-mate
[klahy-mit]
noun
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
(Emphasis mine.)
If you can't even get basic definitions right, how are you going to convince anyone that you understand the complex underlying concepts surrounding it?
There is no evidence that would make me change my mind because there is no evidence of it in the first place. Hypotheticals about fake evidence are meaningless.
It isn’t happening. Every single temperature record ever taken proves it wrong. Every single glacial measurement ever taken proves it wrong. Every single weather event ever recorded proves it wrong. All science disagrees. There wasn’t even ever a “consensus.” It’s a scam, it has always been a scam, they’re even openly telling people it’s a fucking scam and they’re still too fucking retarded to comprehend this.
Learn how to fucking count, for fuck’s sake. Read the goddamn temperature record. That’s all you need.
maybe you misunderstood. I don't argue about this now. But, when people talk about in the future, I would like to pick a side then. But, I won't draw conclusions without enough scientific information. But, It's a lot of information for me to go through. That's why I posted this assuming most people in this subreddit are against climate change contrary to what I hear from mainstream media which would help me hear the arguments of both sides. I am not smart when it comes to this, maybe when it comes lot of other things, but, I am NOT a liberal.
Tell your grandchildren that you didn't learn anything useful to society at boot camp and so you were forced to work at hbgary upon returning from poppyland to harass users on social media
what's wrong with you??I don't argue about Climate Change with anyone. If someone ask me I would say I don't know. I wasn't born with that knowledge. So, I asked some people on where I can learn it from!! what's wrong with that?
You don't have to argue scientifically. Applying the "mountain of evidence" technique is used continuously by most Junior Climateers here. You simply exude disgust at deniers and reference the gigantic consensus looming in your face which seamlessly proves, without a shadow of a doubt, Climate Change (or whatever they're calling it today).
The best thing you can do on a regular basis to become an amateur scientist is to find the records of your local areas climatology archives, record your own on-going observations and compare them to previous years; in my area I've discovered that the news was actually lying about our drought by recording the rainfall over the course of several years; even caught the news pushing a drought the same day they reported thundershowers & also amidst the second wettest February in California records. You'd be surprised how much misinformation there is out there once you start taking science into your own hands.
Global warming is bull. Climate change is real, but not in the way that they are presenting it to the public; climate change is a natural cycle and has been happening since for hundreds of thousands of years; the pole shifts and the climate moves relative to the pole shift. They are using sensationalist yellow journalism to make people think the world is doomed to push products, laws, fines, etc...it's a for-profit business campaign against the ignorant masses.
Why don't they just tell you openly about the pole shift and where will be ideal climate and where will suffer adaptation period? Simply because they who have this information are utilizing it for their own gain. If they are at the new location before it is seen as 'ideal' then they get a headstart on development (housing, agriculture, infrastructure, etc...) at low cost (low demand) which later will pay off when others start trickling in. These are "gold rush" type situations where you have to be at the right place at the right time BEFORE the rush of people. That is going on & that is why we see so much military activity around ports and what are currently deserts (such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, & the entire on-going war in Africa that is never talked about) because those deserts will get water again; meanwhile lush areas like the Amazon are drying up.
Global warming is a mountain sized house of cards built on a very flimsy foundation. You start on the foundation.
Trees and vegetation breath CO2 and need it to survive.
How much has the mean temp risen since 1998? How much in the last hundred years? How accurate are the measuring techniques? Was the past numbers adjusted to fit a narrative?
What is the largest percentage green house gas? How does it compare to CO2's percentage? Why CO2?
Have any computer models ever proven to be accurate?
What are the solutions being presented and what power/money/control incentive is behind them?
These are the questions you need to know the answers to.
38 comments
28 JTRIG_trainee 2016-07-18
you want help with denying overwhelming scientific evidence and the consensus?
-20 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-18
You’ve been blown the fuck out on this topic before, I believe. Knock it off.
15 JTRIG_trainee 2016-07-18
you're wrong.
-18 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-18
Oh, okay. You’re wrong, then. Don’t push it or you’ll just be blown the fuck out.
17 JTRIG_trainee 2016-07-18
you're denying that human activity is causing climate change. good luck with that. keep shitting where you eat then.
-19 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-18
Keep shitposting, then. You’re wrong and will always be wrong. Get fucking wrecked.
Here’s the short version:
1) Demonstrate “climate change” is real.
No problem there! There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth has been much warmer for most of its existence. The Jurassic period, for example, was quite a bit warmer than today. In fact, there have only been a few colder times in Earth’s history compared to today. And ‘climate’, in the strictest sense, changes daily.
2) Demonstrate that “climate change” is manmade.
This is tougher, since we already know for a fact that the Earth has been through far warmer periods before man ever showed up. Indeed, evidence is mounting that an increase in CO2 is causing less extreme weather, not more.
3) Demonstrate that any changes, regardless of origin, happening now are man-reversible.
Good luck with that.
4) Demonstrate that they can be reversed, primarily, by crippling the American economy in particular, while nations like China and India continue polluting the planet at record rates.
And that’s where you lose your audience.
Long version:
Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.
There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes.
The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.
The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.
We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.
If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere.
Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).
The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather.
Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H20 feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H20 feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H20 feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.
Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.
WEW!
21 JTRIG_trainee 2016-07-18
nice copy/pasta but you're wrong. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, there is also water vapor and methane (among others)
ozone depletion is self evident. deforestation is self evident. dead zones in the ocean are self evident. depleted fish stocks is self evident. mass pollution of ecosystems is self evident. the heat and light given off by civilizations is self evident.
if you deny that shitting where you eat causes the environment to change, then you must live in another world.
-1 [deleted] 2016-07-18
[removed]
1 SovereignMan 2016-07-18
Rule 10. Removed.
-2 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-18
Look at all those sources.
Whoop de shit.
And it’s still not warming.
It’s also not happening.
It’s also not happening.
It’s also not happening.
It’s also not happening.
Environmentalism has fuck all to do with AGW. Try again.
And yet it’s still not warming.
10 RastaSauce 2016-07-18
Your source says the hole is mending decades after banning damaging chemicals, what do you think caused it?
You picked one example where deforestation isn't happening. Look at the bigger picture.
3 [deleted] 2016-07-18
[deleted]
0 Poptech 2016-07-18
Please do not spread misinformation about our website.
http://www.populartechnology.net/p/about.html
"Popular Technology.net is an impartial, not-for-profit website that covers popular trends and technology. This site receives no funding of any kind, has no affiliations and is completely independent."
5 erath_droid 2016-07-18
cli-mate
[klahy-mit]
noun
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
(Emphasis mine.)
If you can't even get basic definitions right, how are you going to convince anyone that you understand the complex underlying concepts surrounding it?
2 material_methods 2016-07-18
What evidence would make you change your mind about human caused climate change?
-8 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-18
There is no evidence that would make me change my mind because there is no evidence of it in the first place. Hypotheticals about fake evidence are meaningless.
It isn’t happening. Every single temperature record ever taken proves it wrong. Every single glacial measurement ever taken proves it wrong. Every single weather event ever recorded proves it wrong. All science disagrees. There wasn’t even ever a “consensus.” It’s a scam, it has always been a scam, they’re even openly telling people it’s a fucking scam and they’re still too fucking retarded to comprehend this.
Learn how to fucking count, for fuck’s sake. Read the goddamn temperature record. That’s all you need.
12 material_methods 2016-07-18
This is the difference between skepticism and ignorance; you should always be open to changing your mind in light of new evidence
11 krom_bom 2016-07-18
Why don't you take your own advice?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html
8 noworthyicon 2016-07-18
If you "aren't that smart" it might be best to not debate people on a complicated topic.
-7 gdfsadfgngfew 2016-07-18
but, everybody is talking about it and I have to pick a side.
6 911bodysnatchers322 2016-07-18
No you don't. You can stay out of it and go fishing and enjoy your life
-1 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-18
Congratulations; you’ve fallen for the liberal dialectic hook line and sinker!
-2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-07-18
Well said
-5 gdfsadfgngfew 2016-07-18
maybe you misunderstood. I don't argue about this now. But, when people talk about in the future, I would like to pick a side then. But, I won't draw conclusions without enough scientific information. But, It's a lot of information for me to go through. That's why I posted this assuming most people in this subreddit are against climate change contrary to what I hear from mainstream media which would help me hear the arguments of both sides. I am not smart when it comes to this, maybe when it comes lot of other things, but, I am NOT a liberal.
6 sadate 2016-07-18
We know you're not liberal, you already said you weren't smart.
1 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-18
Did you get my PM? It was a long one, I know.
-3 gdfsadfgngfew 2016-07-18
yes! thank you
-1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-07-18
Tell your grandchildren that you didn't learn anything useful to society at boot camp and so you were forced to work at hbgary upon returning from poppyland to harass users on social media
-1 gdfsadfgngfew 2016-07-18
what's wrong with you??I don't argue about Climate Change with anyone. If someone ask me I would say I don't know. I wasn't born with that knowledge. So, I asked some people on where I can learn it from!! what's wrong with that?
3 KendleC 2016-07-18
You don't have to argue scientifically. Applying the "mountain of evidence" technique is used continuously by most Junior Climateers here. You simply exude disgust at deniers and reference the gigantic consensus looming in your face which seamlessly proves, without a shadow of a doubt, Climate Change (or whatever they're calling it today).
2 SokarRostau 2016-07-18
ITT: The whooshes are deafening.
1 gr8ful4 2016-07-18
climate changes all the time.
what do you want to debate?
1 giantfrogfish 2016-07-18
Randall Carlson is your huckleberry
1 TheDiddler69710 2016-07-18
Impossible.
-2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-07-18
You guys at the NSA are really lazy expecting us to do all the work for you.
-2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-07-18
You guys at the NSA are really lazy expecting us to do all the work for you.
-2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-07-18
You guys at the NSA are really lazy expecting us to do all the work for you.
-3 beardsareawesome 2016-07-18
The best thing you can do on a regular basis to become an amateur scientist is to find the records of your local areas climatology archives, record your own on-going observations and compare them to previous years; in my area I've discovered that the news was actually lying about our drought by recording the rainfall over the course of several years; even caught the news pushing a drought the same day they reported thundershowers & also amidst the second wettest February in California records. You'd be surprised how much misinformation there is out there once you start taking science into your own hands.
Global warming is bull. Climate change is real, but not in the way that they are presenting it to the public; climate change is a natural cycle and has been happening since for hundreds of thousands of years; the pole shifts and the climate moves relative to the pole shift. They are using sensationalist yellow journalism to make people think the world is doomed to push products, laws, fines, etc...it's a for-profit business campaign against the ignorant masses.
Why don't they just tell you openly about the pole shift and where will be ideal climate and where will suffer adaptation period? Simply because they who have this information are utilizing it for their own gain. If they are at the new location before it is seen as 'ideal' then they get a headstart on development (housing, agriculture, infrastructure, etc...) at low cost (low demand) which later will pay off when others start trickling in. These are "gold rush" type situations where you have to be at the right place at the right time BEFORE the rush of people. That is going on & that is why we see so much military activity around ports and what are currently deserts (such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, & the entire on-going war in Africa that is never talked about) because those deserts will get water again; meanwhile lush areas like the Amazon are drying up.
-7 yellowsnow2 2016-07-18
Global warming is a mountain sized house of cards built on a very flimsy foundation. You start on the foundation.
Trees and vegetation breath CO2 and need it to survive.
How much has the mean temp risen since 1998? How much in the last hundred years? How accurate are the measuring techniques? Was the past numbers adjusted to fit a narrative?
What is the largest percentage green house gas? How does it compare to CO2's percentage? Why CO2?
Have any computer models ever proven to be accurate?
What are the solutions being presented and what power/money/control incentive is behind them?
These are the questions you need to know the answers to.