Global Warming is over.

[marshallnoise]

Because we have detailed accurate data for the bulk of the globe since good/decent record keeping of precises weather activity began, about a century and a half ago. While that can show the most recent trends, it does not give a complete picture of whats been happening over several thousand years, or even the last few million years. Its akin predicting whos going to win a 24 hour endurance race by watching 8 laps at 3am with 9 hours to go and documenting everything in detail about those 8 laps, and only have a very basic summary of whats happened in the previous 16 hours...............

Nailed it.

[Hooffenstein HD]

three tropical storms/hurricanes through the caribbean/gulf of mexico in a row.

houston's underwater, florida's next. the storm after irma is still forming.

are we still skeptical? or did god just feel like hitting the southeast with a street fighter combo move?

Trump sent them because he's a racist, obviously.

[cale]

I think

I'm not convinced.

Because we have detailed accurate data for the bulk of the globe since good/decent record keeping of precises weather activity began, about a century and a half ago. While that can show the most recent trends, it does not give a complete picture of whats been happening over several thousand years, or even the last few million years. Its akin predicting whos going to win a 24 hour endurance race by watching 8 laps at 3am with 9 hours to go and documenting everything in detail about those 8 laps, and only have a very basic summary of whats happened in the previous 15 hours...............

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-a-climate-shift-step-function-caused-by-natural-cycles.htm

Take your pick, read up. The references are all cited, as well as convenient links direct to the vast majority of them.

You're making the same erroneous assumptions as marshall about how you can logic your way out of accepting AGW as a reality. You base your rejection of it off of ignorance, the ignorance that past natural changes over the course of thousands to millions of years cannot be compared to rapid changes over the course of decades to hundreds that correlate with the burning of fossil fuels.

Maybe it's the sun....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

[LowR3V'in]

it was really hot the other day.
GLOBAL WARMING.

[decay]

Climate Change cannot be confirmed folks, if it relies on computer modeling, then its not observed, its created. If you take the whole temperature history of the earth and throw it into excel, you can clearly see what a nonissue this thing is. The raw data simply does not support climate change being caused by human activity.

You guys live in a fucking 115 year bubble riding on a CPU that is run by a little group of men who have predetermined the outcome.

so your argument is that data is valid, but modeling based on known physics and climatology is not?

what the fuck do you think they feed the model with?

you're basically saying that since you don't understand any computer program more complicated than the ones on the android in your pocket, they can't be trusted.

[parkerbink]

so your argument is that data is valid, but modeling based on known physics and climatology is not?

what the fuck do you think they feed the model with?

you're basically saying that since you don't understand any computer program more complicated than the ones on the android in your pocket, they can't be trusted.

No he is saying he rejects your reality and substitutes his own.

[joshh]

Glad to see this is still going strong...lmfao.

[parkerbink]

Glad to see this is still going strong...lmfao.

Still going hotttt!

lol

[joshh]

Still going hotttt!

lol

Lol

It's the dry heat.

[BraveUlysses]

Because we have detailed accurate data for the bulk of the globe since good/decent record keeping of precises weather activity began, about a century and a half ago. While that can show the most recent trends, it does not give a complete picture of whats been happening over several thousand years, or even the last few million years. Its akin predicting whos going to win a 24 hour endurance race by watching 8 laps at 3am with 9 hours to go and documenting everything in detail about those 8 laps, and only have a very basic summary of whats happened in the previous 15 hours...............

lets try a thought exercise

what kind of recorded temperature change, year after year, would it take for you to believe that AGW is real?

this is an open ended question, no right or wrong answer.

[marshallnoise]

so your argument is that data is valid, but modeling based on known physics and climatology is not?

what the fuck do you think they feed the model with?

you're basically saying that since you don't understand any computer program more complicated than the ones on the android in your pocket, they can't be trusted.

They have been caught manipulating the data dude. NOAA was just the latest guilty party.

They don't even account for solar activity and that shit is wildly out of our control. But if man was capable of pulling the shade over the sun, the "scientists" would for sure skew the data and blame man.

Even with perfect, unmolested data a computer cannot predict what the climate is going to do. It's like roping the wind man. It's a fools errand.

Argue for treating the planet better and being responsible and you will get 95% support.

But forcing tax, regulatory and environmental changes on the whole human race based on the concept that we can change the climate on our own barring any outside factors, nahh, fuck that.

It takes massive amounts of hubris to think we have that much influence over this giant rock sitting in a vast solar system we have barely scratched the surface of.

What is amazing is that while I am asking for reason and agree we should be good to the planet, the religious zealots here demand I accept your god, Climate Change. It's not enough that I don't want to fuck the planet, I don't believe in your savior, the AGW scientists.

Therefore, burn me at the stake. Really, you guys are incredibly dangerous with this theology.



Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Schnitzer318is]

It takes massive amounts of hubris to think we have that much influence over this giant rock sitting in a vast solar system we have barely scratched the surface of.

The flip side to that coin is the naivety it takes to think that the most intelligent and most prolific parasite species in history can not change the world around it. That's like thinking a virus can not kill you because you are X order of magnitudes bigger than the virus.

Back to actual positions. I actually agree with you marshall about not jumping straight to huge change. It has to be gradual. But, the longer the deniers do their thing, the longer that start is delayed.

As for there being no data for the millions of years before recorded history. Isn't that what carbon dating and core samples are for? Serious question. It's always been my understanding we have reliable data to compare the last 115 years to... 9.5 out of 10 scientists seem to think so.

[cale]

They don't even account for solar activity and that shit is wildly out of our control. But if man was capable of pulling the shade over the sun, the "scientists" would for sure skew the data and blame man.

Post this in jest, you literally go there not but a few posts later.

Maybe it's the sun....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...g-advanced.htm

Who's they, who are the people not accounting for the sun, and why are you capable of determining that they do/do not account for solar influence? Based on your extensive study of what they do and do not cover? Once again you regurgitate nonsense that is the polar opposite of truth. This is why I said you don't think. You make comments without any merit to them, you're convinced of your opinion and your own ability to reason around sound science because it differs from your preconceptions despite routinely proving you're hands down the most lacking of knowledge on this subject to post in this thread. You don't think, you're like a child screaming for a cookie while his mom is telling him why he can't have one.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_le08200o.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf

http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/solar/LuminosityClimate2006Foukal.pdf

http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_2006.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560...19U

http://show.docjava.com/posterous/file/2009/04/228344-3559301.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560...19U

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

http://show.docjava.com/posterous/file/2009/04/228344-3559301.pdf

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JA009753/full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682698001138

http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309

http://ieg.or.kr/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-humans-not-sun-high-sensitivity.html

Tell me again how they don't account for the sun?

[z31maniac]

Why do you even bother to still engage him or george on this matter?

[BraveUlysses]

or any matter? lol