In Support of the A in AGW

[Crick]

I'm sorry Ms Emily, but your points are all incorrect.

Dear SSDD
What I'm hearing from both left and right
is acknowledgement that
1. most global warming is coming from natural sources beyond the control of man

No you are not. That opinion is voiced only by a very small portion of deniers, themselves a very small minority and with a very strong tendency towards political conservatism. The conclusion of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and over 97% of the world's climate scientists is that MOST of the warming is caused by human activities: emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and deforestation.

2. the human activities causing most of the effect can't be halted, for example at any moment the activities used to till soil to grow food, collectively worldwide,
are necessary and produce more of the effects than the issues being targeted politically

The human activities causing most of the effect are burning fossil fuel to generate electicity and to power our motor vehicles. Those can be replaced by alternate energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic (PV), hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and, someday, fusion. As you know, electric and hybrid cars are replacing gasoline powered vehicles at a pretty good clip..

What one group of progressive older school liberals came up with:
80% was from natural forces and causes including volcanic activity etc
20% at most was from human activity, and of that 20%
even if ALL the regulations proposed were followed and billions were spent
to make the changes, this would only reduce the 20% by 2%

You most certainly did NOT hear that from "progressive older school liberals" like any I've ever met. That is a very outdated denier meme that is demonstrably, factually incorrect.

so it is questioned if that is even worth fighting over

It is not questioned - it IS worth fighting for.

What I argue is to focus on not poisoning the air, water or earth with any hazardous materials, but work on cleaner energy regardless how this impacts climate; do it for the environmental restorations and sustainability

You also need to work towards burning less fossil fuels no matter how "cleanly" it might be done.

And you need some education on the real state of affairs both in climate science and in the arguments taking place.

 

[Muhammed]

Well lets put some context to your post SSDD.. And a few facts..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Just some facts for the record...

Silly ass, how does last years point fit? How about Feb, 2016?

NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February

Update, March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*

That's not anywhere near "long term". Also, NASA has been caught blatantly lying.

Most of all, we simply do not know how much energy the sun is going to give us 50 years from now.

Global warming nutjobs are a bunch of illogical fools.

 

[Crick]

Well lets put some context to your post SSDD.. And a few facts..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Just some facts for the record...

Silly ass, how does last years point fit? How about Feb, 2016?

NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February

Update, March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*

That's not anywhere near "long term". Also, NASA has been caught blatantly lying.

Most of all, we simply do not know how much energy the sun is going to give us 50 years from now.

Global warming nutjobs are a bunch of illogical fools.

That's not exactly a defense of Billy Bob's original premise.

 

[Crick]

Let's try that with more recent data. I know you will say this data is simply manufactured by lying government agencies who want to get rich and gain power. You will say that, but I've become convinced that beside the really stupid and paranoid individuals out there. almost all of you KNOW that temperatures are rising and that no one is manipulating the data to present false results. So let's look at something recent.

If you want to cherry pick with that peak and drop in the 1940s - like your source did - you can probably come up with something. But I think just a simple eyeball observation will inform you that the slope of that trend is increasing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sorry Ms Emily, but your points are all incorrect.

Dear SSDD
What I'm hearing from both left and right
is acknowledgement that
1. most global warming is coming from natural sources beyond the control of man

No you are not. That opinion is voiced only by a very small portion of deniers, themselves a very small minority and with a very strong tendency towards political conservatism. The conclusion of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and over 97% of the world's climate scientists is that MOST of the warming is caused by human activities: emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and deforestation.

2. the human activities causing most of the effect can't be halted, for example at any moment the activities used to till soil to grow food, collectively worldwide,
are necessary and produce more of the effects than the issues being targeted politically

The human activities causing most of the effect are burning fossil fuel to generate electicity and to power our motor vehicles. Those can be replaced by alternate energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic (PV), hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and, someday, fusion. As you know, electric and hybrid cars are replacing gasoline powered vehicles at a pretty good clip..

What one group of progressive older school liberals came up with:
80% was from natural forces and causes including volcanic activity etc
20% at most was from human activity, and of that 20%
even if ALL the regulations proposed were followed and billions were spent
to make the changes, this would only reduce the 20% by 2%

You most certainly did NOT hear that from "progressive older school liberals" like any I've ever met. That is a very outdated denier meme that is demonstrably, factually incorrect.

so it is questioned if that is even worth fighting over

It is not questioned - it IS worth fighting for.

What I argue is to focus on not poisoning the air, water or earth with any hazardous materials, but work on cleaner energy regardless how this impacts climate; do it for the environmental restorations and sustainability

You also need to work towards burning less fossil fuels no matter how "cleanly" it might be done.

And you need some education on the real state of affairs both in climate science and in the arguments taking place.

As you know, electric and hybrid cars are replacing gasoline powered vehicles at a pretty good clip..

Really? You have any numbers to back up this claim?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm sorry Ms Emily, but your points are all incorrect.

Dear SSDD
What I'm hearing from both left and right
is acknowledgement that
1. most global warming is coming from natural sources beyond the control of man

No you are not. That opinion is voiced only by a very small portion of deniers, themselves a very small minority and with a very strong tendency towards political conservatism. The conclusion of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and over 97% of the world's climate scientists is that MOST of the warming is caused by human activities: emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and deforestation.

2. the human activities causing most of the effect can't be halted, for example at any moment the activities used to till soil to grow food, collectively worldwide,
are necessary and produce more of the effects than the issues being targeted politically

The human activities causing most of the effect are burning fossil fuel to generate electicity and to power our motor vehicles. Those can be replaced by alternate energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic (PV), hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and, someday, fusion. As you know, electric and hybrid cars are replacing gasoline powered vehicles at a pretty good clip..

What one group of progressive older school liberals came up with:
80% was from natural forces and causes including volcanic activity etc
20% at most was from human activity, and of that 20%
even if ALL the regulations proposed were followed and billions were spent
to make the changes, this would only reduce the 20% by 2%

You most certainly did NOT hear that from "progressive older school liberals" like any I've ever met. That is a very outdated denier meme that is demonstrably, factually incorrect.

so it is questioned if that is even worth fighting over

It is not questioned - it IS worth fighting for.

What I argue is to focus on not poisoning the air, water or earth with any hazardous materials, but work on cleaner energy regardless how this impacts climate; do it for the environmental restorations and sustainability

You also need to work towards burning less fossil fuels no matter how "cleanly" it might be done.

And you need some education on the real state of affairs both in climate science and in the arguments taking place.

Dear Crick YES and the work it takes to till soil and produce food DOES use up fossil fuels for machinery.

I don't disagree with what you are saying.

The group I refer to is also saying the focus should be on cleaner energy. But not just for climate issues but sustainability and health in general.

One retired professor told me after all the research he looked at, it would take everyone agreeing to limit activities to when the sun comes up and turn everything off and go to sleep at night when the sun goes down. Or the energy consumption is NOT sustainable.

So I told this to a friend who is researching piping water to desert areas to desalinate and use dams to generate hydroelectric power that is clean. But better technology is needed so this doesn't burn more energy than it generates. And he agreed that energy needed to be saved by running during the day to capture solar power. Then cutting or shutting down things at night.

The common agreement is the consumption also has to be reduced.
If we want our conveniences we need to invest in the most cost effective energy efficient means.

We don't need to argue about climate change to come to the same conclusions about clean energy, saving resources, and protecting the environment.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well lets put some context to your post SSDD.. And a few facts..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Just some facts for the record...

Silly ass, how does last years point fit? How about Feb, 2016?

NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February

Update, March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*

That's not anywhere near "long term". Also, NASA has been caught blatantly lying.

Most of all, we simply do not know how much energy the sun is going to give us 50 years from now.

Global warming nutjobs are a bunch of illogical fools.

So here we have another numbskull claiming that the vast majority of scientists around the world have no idea what they are talking about, or that they are all frauds. A bit easier to believe that Muhammed is a willfully ignorant fool.

 

[Muhammed]

Well lets put some context to your post SSDD.. And a few facts..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Just some facts for the record...

Silly ass, how does last years point fit? How about Feb, 2016?

NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February

Update, March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*

That's not anywhere near "long term". Also, NASA has been caught blatantly lying.

Most of all, we simply do not know how much energy the sun is going to give us 50 years from now.

Global warming nutjobs are a bunch of illogical fools.

So here we have another numbskull claiming that the vast majority of scientists around the world have no idea what they are talking about, or that they are all frauds. A bit easier to believe that Muhammed is a willfully ignorant fool.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Bandwagon fallacy.

It seems like nearly every one of your arguments is riddled with logical fallacies.

 

[Crick]

Argument from authority is completely valid if the authority is actually expert on the topic and if their opinion(s) are correctly represented. Since there have been NO examples of expert climate scientists complaining about these adjustments and NO examples of expert climate scientists disagreeing with the many recent declarations of record high global temperatures and multiple examples of known experts MAKING precisely these observations (of record high temperatures), the appeal to authority in this case is perfectly valid.

 

[jc456]

Argument from authority is completely valid if the authority is actually expert on the topic and if their opinion(s) are correctly represented. Since there have been NO examples of expert climate scientists complaining about these adjustments and NO examples of expert climate scientists disagreeing with the many recent declarations of record high global temperatures and multiple examples of known experts MAKING precisely these observations (of record high temperatures), the appeal to authority in this case is perfectly valid.

There are no experts, that's what you fail to recognize. Otherwise, it would actually have consensus don't you think?

 

[LaDexter]

Any "skeptic" who says "the Earth is warming but"

should be ignored. The Earth is not warming. The surface of growing urban areas is warming. That's it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year

Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

How much spring temperatures differed from average during the spring in Alaska.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: NOAA

 

[LaDexter]

Why not cut, paste, and parrot the above in every topic??

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Why not cut, paste, and parrot the above in every topic??

why not post something to do with AGW instead of lame attempts at snark ...

 

[Old Rocks]

Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year

Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

How much spring temperatures differed from average during the spring in Alaska.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: NOAA

See all them thar huge cities in Alaska? Yessirrrreeeeeeeeee Bob, that's what is making Alaska so hot.

 

[jc456]

Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year

Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

How much spring temperatures differed from average during the spring in Alaska.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: NOAA

unalakleet, ak

So, this is the city in the middle of what you're claiming is 10 degrees F increase. prove it. I have them normal today.

Unalakleet Weather - AccuWeather Forecast for AK 99684


Temp (°F)
Now 52°
Yesterday 52°
RealFeel® 50°
RealFeel® Shade 49°
Wind Chill 52°
Dew Point 48°

 

[Crick]

Tyrone's graphic is for Spring. Your is for a single day. Try again.

 

[jc456]

Tyrone's graphic is for Spring. Your is for a single day. Try again.

I put up a link genius. open it up it's for thirty days. I knew you never opened up links. Why do you ask for them if you don't feel obligated to read them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tyrone's graphic is for Spring. Your is for a single day. Try again.

So you're saying the climate of Alaska is now radically different and we can expect spring to be the same 10 degrees warmer next year

 

[Crick]

The odds are good. What do you think's going to happen?