Random Politics & Religion #00

couldn't find a higher quality :(

The graph you linked, that claims a trend of 0.0C, has an actual trend line at +0.24C.

I mean, thanks and all, but I get the feeling you just read the overlying text rather than the actual graph.

Wow, ask a simple question and receive an overly dramatic response.

Really? Please show me stating or suporting someone making blanket statements about overspending Republicans. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported climate change research, fyi.

Your opinion is based on your belief that large amounts of money has been spent on climate change research/cleantech and that little to nothing has come from that expenditure. Yet, you are stating your opinion like a fact. Something you've researched. Something I've read from you over and over again the last few days.

You've been unimpressed with what you've seen but you can't cite anything? Sure, I'll accept your belief as fact. Not.

What are you doing in here!? I want my sammich!!!

You and Flavin....killing me >.>

And I made beef stew.

Where in the world do you get that idea? The only local trend I have given (that I recall) is for Denmark, as a direct refutation of your argument that because you have had record low daily temperatures, other places aren't record warm.

The argument isn"t that the climate is getting warmer because we had record highs in XXX location, the argument is that it is getting warmer because the average taken across the globe is consistently higher than the year before.

When did I ask for a sandwich..wait..

You mean the world isn't just America?!

Also, you can see a bit more on subsidies by looking at table ES2 here.
Renewables went from being roughly on parity with fossil fuels, to being three to four times as much. Which, frankly, makes a hell of a lot more sense.

The hell you say!

Are you trying to say the RSS satellite data is faulty or just that the graph doesn't represent it very well?

Because CLEARLY when even the IPCC chief as well as many others acknowledge the decline/pause in warming over the recent years, you cannot be questioning the validity of the data.

The graph provided does not match the narrative. Look at where 0.0 is on the graph. It isn't the blue line.

Also, regarding the linked item:
First, it is an opinion piece, not a Forbes article.
Second, there is no actual quote from the IPCC chair regarding a 17 year hiatus. There is this:
Which is quoting a reporter's article, not the IPCC chief. I wasn't able to actually find a straight quote after a cursory search, but that is quite possibly due to the sheer number of blogs and opinion pieces that were highlighted.

This is particularly telling, when you look at the actual quote from the IPCC lead author in your link:

Now, we also encounter a discrepancy between the quote, and the graph you provided.

But it was also across a different interval (15 years), starting and ending at different time points.

I stopped playing PS4 for this ? If you are going to make me waste time at least entertain me...

Time for my favorite graph!

How I view global warming:

Global climate change has been the preferred term for a pretty long time now- however, "warming" is often used because that is the force behind most of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. Global Dimming is another force that had a subtle, but notable, effect on global climate due to its effect on primary production. As aerosols have become the subject of stronger regulations, this phenomena has diminished.

You are correct in saying that the climate is always changing. The problem is the speed at which it is occurring. In the geologic past, changes have typically been over millions of years- whereas we have evidence of it occurring over less than a century. Given that a disproportionate quantity of humans live close to the coast, a relatively sudden decrease in coastal land area is a pretty important concern. Human-caused reductions in global biodiversity are of course another source of concern, for a variety of reasons.


It's also notable that many of the anthropogenic contributors to climate change have their own, more localized environmental impacts. Even outside of climate change concerns, addressing these sources of pollution is still pertinent.

I think he is referring to the hysteria surrounding the ozone hole back in the 80's which culminated in the banning of CFC's

Ozone_depletion.

First thanks for at least acknowledging that there has not been warming over the last 18 years.

Secondly, you've posted this before. It usually comes with the a statement involving "cherry picking the last 18 years" or something else that attempts to discredit the pause or decline because 18 years simply isn't long enough to mean anything. Amirite?

43 years though, now THAT's long enough. Classic Pleebo.

I never said there wasn't. This has been a topic in other GW threads. There's other graphs posted earlier that show the same thing going further back. And, yes, a 40-year trend is more significant than an 18-year one.

CLASSIC ME

How many pages does it take to screw in that global climate change results in temperature fluctuations that cause greater extremes? I dunno, lets talk to our panel of lobotomized patients and find out!

*glurgle glurgle glurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr* *drools* *patient falls out of chair*

Hotter summers, colder winters. More intense hurricanes. Droughts. Seas boiling. Liberal cities underwater. More Rick Perry praying for rain.

In the big picture, it really isn't. The whole fulcrum of the alarmist's attitude is more CO2 = more warming. The last 18 years have seen the HIGHEST concentrations of CO2 since the industrial revolution. Yet there has been is NO warming.

Clearly CO2 (human existence) isn't driving the climate car.

no, that's not a lot of money at all, especially since we get returns on some of that money spent, unlike most of our areas of budget.

Hey, my friend Defense McContractor enjoys that military spending. We make bullets, guns and endless scenarios of war engagements.

We're keeping you slugs safe from conflicts we incite terrorists in order to further enrich ourselves.

I mean we'll never have our own iron-man without those defense contractors, will we?

Right, global warming doesn't just warm the planet, it cools it too!

Everything's global warming, except of course the increases in droughts and hurricanes, cause you know there haven't been any of those.

Nevermind! The lack of increase in droughts and hurricanes is global warming too.

The planet is still gaining heat.


http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

Natural patterns like ocean cycles still influence decadal climate trends all while us on the surface are experiencing record high temperatures around the world. I don't know why you think that means cooling. It doesn't. If it's 115 outside (just an example, don't take this literally) and it drops to 114.5, guess what? It cooled, but it's still *** hotter than normal outside.

And before you accuse climate science of changing the narrative once again, consider that the warming trend has been punctuated with "pauses" before and researchers do take this into account, but certain climate patterns are, as of yet, unpredictable. Bottom line though, a 15-year flat line does not impact the greater long-term trend in any significant way.

Wow, seriously, do you just not know how to read graphs?
What does the legend on the left axis say? Specifically, what is the last word before the unit designation?

Do you understand what that word means? Good.
So, what does a flat line on a graph with that word mean? Well, it means that unless it is at 0.0, you have some of that word, either positive or negative, depending on if it is above or below 0.0.

There do not appear to be any points from 1996 onwards which are at 0.0, or below 0.0.
What does that mean? Well, that means that you have some of that word, in the positive direction, each year.

Which is the exact opposite of what you are saying it says.

*Edit* And that's what I get for being righteous. The graph is showing change with respect to a reference temperature, rather than the previous year.
The above is how you would treat cumulative change, rather than change with respect to reference.
With respect to change with regards to reference, you still have a positive change, in the change, in the period from 1996 to 2014.

By all measurements, the general warming that had occurred during the 20th century was measured at about 1 degree centigrade. I don't think anyone here will readily dispute this, nor does it look like anyone disputes that we haven't warmed at all since the 21st century began. If anything we've cooled.

What you're arguing is that the earth has never warmed so fast as in the last century. I'd ask you how you know this because we simply don't have detailed enough records to know. Every record that is available before today's modern measurements has to be constructed from other data. That result regardless of it's accuracy (to which there are plenty of questions regarding) simply isn't detailed enough to support the statement "never has the earth warmed so much so fast".

We've had a "year without a summer" before (probably due to massive volcanic activity), clearly the temperature has swung to more severe oscillation than than 1 degree over a century.

so for like 42 years the climate only shifted less than 1 degree C?

$77 billion and all I got was this shirt: