papymandarin
Shohin
the critical thing being that those past changes happened over vastly longer periods of time compared to the rate of change we are seeing now, which doesn't allow for adaptation of the biosphere.
Climate change
- Thread starter Cypress187
- Start date
papymandarin
Shohin
How to mislead people :
conveniently choose a graph with the x axis in the middle of the figure what gives a false impression of stability, and use on the right a single value ( note that this value is a difference with the average temps between 81-2001 not a absoute value of increase since the start of industrial period, giving again a false impression of stability)
and of course conveniently forget to draw the upward going trend line resulting from all this (added quickly by me obviously)
who is dishonest?
conveniently choose a graph with the x axis in the middle of the figure what gives a false impression of stability, and use on the right a single value ( note that this value is a difference with the average temps between 81-2001 not a absoute value of increase since the start of industrial period, giving again a false impression of stability)
and of course conveniently forget to draw the upward going trend line resulting from all this (added quickly by me obviously)
who is dishonest?
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
Seems to me last winter in Michigan was a killer. Started in late October and stayed around until April, before it started to thaw. Snow was the only saving grace due to the fact I became ill last winter and did not get the chance to put my trees away, they stayed outdoors on the shelves the entire year. All I did was shovel snow on them every chance I got and they did fine.
papymandarin
Shohin
what just shows again that weather and climate are different things, and that a local personal experience is hardly a reliable evidence of a global trend
https://www.noaa.gov/news/noaa-2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-record-for-globe
https://www.noaa.gov/news/noaa-2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-record-for-globe
leatherback
The Treedeemer
Brought from the liars at NOOA:
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/2017-Global-Significant-Events-Map.png
![2017-Global-Significant-Events-Map[1].png](https://www.bonsainut.com/data/attachments/204/204005-0045393d517ea8891b3afb842c389e28.jpg?hash=AEU5PVF-qI "2017-Global-Significant-Events-Map[1].png")
I am so sorry. But you already crossed that station a while back.
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/2017-Global-Significant-Events-Map.png
I am so sorry. But you already crossed that station a while back.
Cypress187
Masterpiece
A new iPhone is a hype, anthropogenic climate change is reality.
Great, good to see that people actually pay for what they use / contribute to.
Bananaman
Chumono
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 1,575
Thanks I contribute when I can. Tonight I will contribute by burning a fire in my wood fired fireplace. I think I'll throw in a chunk of old railroad tie. Wear your mask, it's coming your way!!!
papymandarin, Then land plants appeared and increased the change the composition of atmosphere again by releasing more 02 what allows animal life to conquer earth. SO life flourished on earth only after the atmosphere was depleted of most of its initial CO2 levels
Oh dear, back for more?
So ''land plants change the composition of the atmosphere by RELEASING co2''? You have that backwards. Back school for you!
Life flourished ONLY after it was depleted of most of it's initial co2 levels? Wow. I'm speechless. Where did you go to school exactly?
I'll try to make it simple for you...
The co2 was between 1000 and 2000 ppm 130 million years ago. Today it's 400.
As you can see (I hope) during the Cambrian, the co2 levels where probably more than 10 times what they are today. We know that the co2 did not lead to massive heat then because.....
And you worry about a couple of hundred ppm? You think it's going to lead to catastrophe?
We are coming out of a period of near co2 starvation. We inadvertently did this by putting co2 back into the atmosphere where it came from.
What are the consequences of this to life on this planet?
Well how about a 14% increase in photosynthetic surface area? Yes more and bigger plants.
Yes we are living in dangerous times with all this carbon dioxide aren't we?
Oh dear, back for more?
So ''land plants change the composition of the atmosphere by RELEASING co2''? You have that backwards. Back school for you!
Life flourished ONLY after it was depleted of most of it's initial co2 levels? Wow. I'm speechless. Where did you go to school exactly?
I'll try to make it simple for you...
The co2 was between 1000 and 2000 ppm 130 million years ago. Today it's 400.
As you can see (I hope) during the Cambrian, the co2 levels where probably more than 10 times what they are today. We know that the co2 did not lead to massive heat then because.....
And you worry about a couple of hundred ppm? You think it's going to lead to catastrophe?
We are coming out of a period of near co2 starvation. We inadvertently did this by putting co2 back into the atmosphere where it came from.
What are the consequences of this to life on this planet?
Well how about a 14% increase in photosynthetic surface area? Yes more and bigger plants.
Yes we are living in dangerous times with all this carbon dioxide aren't we?
Complete garbage again. The rate of change in temperatures at the moment is just about zero. All you are seeing is weather fluctuations.
It's not a matter of ''choosing'' this graph. This the official UAH satellite temperature data which everyone (except possibly you) agrees is the best record we have since 1979.
Who is dishonest? You are....Why? Read on....
This is the other good record of temps we have. Balloon data. As you can see (hopefully) that from 1979 it matches perfectly with the satellite data.
Radiosonde and satellite temp data is universally accepted as the most accurate we have and also independently show the same results. The big spike towards the end of the graph shows the el nino event of 98 which is in the middle of the satellite graph. Unless you dispute that as well?
Let's see you put your ridiculous meaningless line through this one.
leatherback
The Treedeemer
papymandarin
Shohin
the answers you made just show again that you are the one not understanding anything
1) where did i said plants released co2? i stated the reverse, so you don't even read well
2) what is the statement about flowering plant supposed to mean? do you think there was no plants or photosynthesis before? the very big drop in co2 levels in the first eras of your own graph was due to photosynthtic microorganisms and early plants, the coal you are so fond of was formed long before flowering plants appeared during devonian and carboniferous (guess why it is named like this). So again just an irrelevant argument just showing you don't even know life history while pretending to lecture a biologist about it....
3) again the cambrian explosion was indeed an explosion of life BUT it all happened UNDER water, and life indeed started flourishing ON LAND after the CO2 had dropped and O2 had increased. O2 level on atmosphere is the critical thing for aerial life, the CO2 less so. You are mixing up climate determinants with what allows life to thrive, another logical fallacy.
4)stating that something is "complete garbage" is hardly a scientific refutation. I affirmed (and still do) that you can only draw conclusions on how climate is determined/changes if you take into account all factors determining it, not only CO2 levels, that's basic science to study any phenomenom to take into account all factors influencing it, that's hardly garbage. The other factors determining climate (particularly solar input and the various periods of strong volcanism) where not the same in the prehistoric times than today, so only comparing the co2 levels is again a logical fallacy.
Again a mountain of studies have shown that the natural determinants of climate nowadays cannot account for the strong and fast changes we see now (but you even deny that these changes are happening, which is again ridiculous given the amount of data about that. Which is again refusing the conclusions of most of the scientific community and scientific institutions all over the world. But sure you are the one being right (again this is again coming down that a large part of science and millions of people are dumb or dishonest which is just ridiculous and irrealistic.
5) i did not need your "greening graph" to know that a higher co2 level lead to increase productivity on plants (all biology students do that experiment in their first years of study). However, this has limits, like any other factor influencing plant growth there are optimal values and performances are DEcreasing once you have passed this point, and it's hardly the only factor that will infuence plant growth. Given the deforestation, the increase of average temperatures, in heat waves, droughts or erratic rains, the increase of growth rates due to higher co2 levels is unlikely to make any difference. Again an argument which has hardly any significance when taken out of context and other determinants of plant growth.
6) you can continue on throwing graphs after graphs (the format of which in most case showing they are not from original articles but from deniers sites), does not change the fact your reasoning if flawed with innumerable logical fallacies and wrong assumptions, you are unable to come with reasoned refutations apart from "complete garbage claims" or ad hominem unfounded attacks, you are unable to recognize when you are wrong ( the EPA report?) which is hardly again a scientific attitude, you are refusing (rather than refuting given you only provide irrelevant, misintrerpreted) the findings of a whole part of science that even oil companies researchers have acknowledged by now, implying that most scientists are either dumb or dishonest, both of which are just a denial of reality.......i'm sorry but you are the one showing all "symptoms" of science denial. However loud you shout the reverse.
1) where did i said plants released co2? i stated the reverse, so you don't even read well
2) what is the statement about flowering plant supposed to mean? do you think there was no plants or photosynthesis before? the very big drop in co2 levels in the first eras of your own graph was due to photosynthtic microorganisms and early plants, the coal you are so fond of was formed long before flowering plants appeared during devonian and carboniferous (guess why it is named like this). So again just an irrelevant argument just showing you don't even know life history while pretending to lecture a biologist about it....
3) again the cambrian explosion was indeed an explosion of life BUT it all happened UNDER water, and life indeed started flourishing ON LAND after the CO2 had dropped and O2 had increased. O2 level on atmosphere is the critical thing for aerial life, the CO2 less so. You are mixing up climate determinants with what allows life to thrive, another logical fallacy.
4)stating that something is "complete garbage" is hardly a scientific refutation. I affirmed (and still do) that you can only draw conclusions on how climate is determined/changes if you take into account all factors determining it, not only CO2 levels, that's basic science to study any phenomenom to take into account all factors influencing it, that's hardly garbage. The other factors determining climate (particularly solar input and the various periods of strong volcanism) where not the same in the prehistoric times than today, so only comparing the co2 levels is again a logical fallacy.
Again a mountain of studies have shown that the natural determinants of climate nowadays cannot account for the strong and fast changes we see now (but you even deny that these changes are happening, which is again ridiculous given the amount of data about that. Which is again refusing the conclusions of most of the scientific community and scientific institutions all over the world. But sure you are the one being right (again this is again coming down that a large part of science and millions of people are dumb or dishonest which is just ridiculous and irrealistic.
5) i did not need your "greening graph" to know that a higher co2 level lead to increase productivity on plants (all biology students do that experiment in their first years of study). However, this has limits, like any other factor influencing plant growth there are optimal values and performances are DEcreasing once you have passed this point, and it's hardly the only factor that will infuence plant growth. Given the deforestation, the increase of average temperatures, in heat waves, droughts or erratic rains, the increase of growth rates due to higher co2 levels is unlikely to make any difference. Again an argument which has hardly any significance when taken out of context and other determinants of plant growth.
6) you can continue on throwing graphs after graphs (the format of which in most case showing they are not from original articles but from deniers sites), does not change the fact your reasoning if flawed with innumerable logical fallacies and wrong assumptions, you are unable to come with reasoned refutations apart from "complete garbage claims" or ad hominem unfounded attacks, you are unable to recognize when you are wrong ( the EPA report?) which is hardly again a scientific attitude, you are refusing (rather than refuting given you only provide irrelevant, misintrerpreted) the findings of a whole part of science that even oil companies researchers have acknowledged by now, implying that most scientists are either dumb or dishonest, both of which are just a denial of reality.......i'm sorry but you are the one showing all "symptoms" of science denial. However loud you shout the reverse.
papymandarin
Shohin
and your graph about radiosondes temperatures is just another (no actually 2) of cherry picking , i'm not saying the method itself is bad
1) why no data after 2002 and before 1958? as far as i know we are in 2018 and industrial revolution started during the 19th century, so you don't show the whole story
2) One type of measurement limited to lower atmosphere hardly gives a complete picture, land temperature, ice core temps, upper and deeper sea temp are irrelevant? no they are ned not to have a biased picture.
the story look quite different when you combine various ways of temps measurement and/or the whole story:
(the "stupid line", actually something used by any scientist, is not from me in this case)
1) why no data after 2002 and before 1958? as far as i know we are in 2018 and industrial revolution started during the 19th century, so you don't show the whole story
2) One type of measurement limited to lower atmosphere hardly gives a complete picture, land temperature, ice core temps, upper and deeper sea temp are irrelevant? no they are ned not to have a biased picture.
the story look quite different when you combine various ways of temps measurement and/or the whole story:
(the "stupid line", actually something used by any scientist, is not from me in this case)
Last edited:
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
The sad thing is that there are some people who think that there is something we can do about it, as in eliminating any human activity, and in some's eyes eliminating humans all together. To put it crudely we are trying to piss out the sun. If there is a climate change/global warming it is due to major factors that we cannot change and is not our fault. The wobble of our orbit and the activities of the sun are responsible. Climate change has been a constant feature of our planet for millions of years. We have had an Ice Ball Earth, we have had very hot tropical climates, we have had constant ice age cycles, and droughts. All of these events preceded the possible factor of human activity.
papymandarin
Shohin
Well again this claim is not supported by science findings, sun variations cannot account for the current changes, scientists checked this. The fact that climate has changed in the past does not refute the fact that humans are causing the changes observed now, because the natural drivers of climate that were responsible for past changes cannot expain by themsleves alone the observed changes (for one thing current changes are far too strong and fast to be explained by natural causes)
papymandarin
Shohin
I woud add that it is quite strange/illogical to think that the very science/scientists who determined and quantified the role of these natural drivers of climate to explain past changes would not take into account or analyse those factors to determine what causes the changes now. Actually they did, and ruled out those factors as being able to explain the current changes.
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
Well, of course there is something we can do about it, and if we don't, it will mean eliminating humans altogether. Cockroaches will probably survive. God must be a cockroach. Let's worship the Great Cockroach, and if anything bad happens, let's pray and say "we couldn't do anything about it, we're not cockroaches". Yet.
I'm sorry, but blaming others for our own mistakes is maybe something that fits your beliefs, but not mine.
Yes, but what you seem to deny is that in the past, climate changes took hundreds, even thousands of years.
Now, this change is occurring in a few decades. And that corresponds to the beginning of the industrial age.
Failing to reflect on this is in my opinion stupefying.
Among the many left-wing (or even trostyist) fake science, here is a video from the National Geographic Society, a well-known source of disinformation (est. January 13, 1888; 130 years ago). Of course, that was about 10 years ago, since then, none of what was predicted happened. Or did it?...
Can you believe how much crap those pseudo-scientists fed the brains of young American citizens? Thanks
Eppur, si muove...
leatherback
The Treedeemer
Nah, Storms have not gotten stronger nor have we seen a lot of hurricanes recentely
https://www.sciencenews.org/article...n-central-pacific-storm-season-record-breaker
termperature is not going up
There are no more droughts
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2017-state-climate-global-drought
and it has not gotten warmer
All of these are lies from a globval conspiracy that is making billions of climate change avoidence.
