Global cooling

mplspug

So if this trend continues our houses will burn down but not our sheds?  Maybe we should build giant sheds and lie in them and keep our yard tools in the small house in the backyard.

Tarponator

HomerSimpson said:

the first one is better.  Except graphs need legends and such.  that one would not have passed middle school science class as posted.  And then you have the sample data set.  You can't say the sample set is adequate because that's when thermometers started to be used.  Climate cycles existed long before man made thermometers.  Anyone who is able to look at data and actually think would understand the fallacy of that graph

The second one you are now changing your measurements.  But....if you want to post it.  As you can see there are cycles on the order of 100,000 year periods.  hence why your 140 year graph is but a speck, noise really.

and with the second one, you see the current cycle started about 2,000 years ago.  Guess now you'll say Christianity is to blame for the current climate change????

So the only way you believe climate science is if you have temperature readings before the invention of the thermometer?   

Incidentally, nobody is denying climate cycles existed for a long time, but some sure seem to deny our impact.  

But perhaps it's their belief in a god-given dominion over the Earth that is leading them astray -- so maybe you're on to something with your otherwise-rhetorical closing question.

Did you take science beyond high school?   You seem to have a very rudimentary and naive view of science (i.e., requesting a temporal graph when presented with one) and I am wondering how you got to that point....Mike

Resinhead

Easy on the ego pills, Mike.

You seem addicted and done for.

dave44

Resinhead said:

Easy on the ego pills, Mike.

You seem addicted and done for.

  Most kids think they are scientists these days.

HomerSimpson

Tarponator said:

So the only way you believe climate science is if you have temperature readings before the invention of the thermometer?   

no, but I am commenting to you statement:
For those of you capable of looking at the data and actually thinking, what part of this graph is unclear?

your graph does not yield the conclusions you draw.  Its just cut and paste stuff from an article you never (couldn't) read but did agree with the headline.

Tarponator said:

Incidentally, nobody is denying climate cycles existed for a long time, but some sure seem to deny our impact.  

to say we are causing climate cycles is as unfounded as saying we don't contribute to climate cycles. Nobody really knows. But there's alot of money in saying we do. And a lot of political pressure to hype up how we trump (or whichever republican president) caused the latest hurricane. Its just a political hot topic that garners support for politicians who then don't really have to do anything. Its also the hype that enviormentilists have jumped on to push their agendas.

Tarponator

Just because you choose to ignore the fact that humans are causing climate change doesn't mean it isn't happening.

The graph I posted was from GSIS website, not the article, and it shows very clearly the temperature rise that you choose to ignore or explain away because it's beyond your ability to understand.

Perhaps you should call your high school science teacher and ask him to explain why those last two sentences are linked and maybe ask him what a temporal graph is while you're at it.

Science.  It works.

kellercl

dave44 said:

Resinhead said:

Easy on the ego pills, Mike.

You seem addicted and done for.

  Most kids think they are scientists these days.

Agreed, which is a pet peeve of mine.  The vast majority in this country do not understand the basics, much less enough to spout off as an expert 

HomerSimpson

Tarponator said:

Just because you choose to ignore the fact that humans are causing climate change doesn't mean it isn't happening.

you have yet to show the human contribution to, or what they can do to stop, global warming.  Your first graph showed nothing that shows it's humans.  Nor did your second.  The data set is way to small.  You should have learned that in science.  

your 3rd graph, the CO2 in ice, that shows periodic changes and nothing out of the ordinary for the current one.

Tarponator

I never intended on showing the human contribution or what we can do to stop it.  I intended on showing the warming trend.  You know, the same thing that the author of the subject article tried to call into question by saying "NASA is a global warming denier" because of a short term cooling trend.  The evidence of this warming is not debatable, and even your favorite hedge fund risk manager turned environmental writer agrees.

Now, you've seemingly moved the goalposts that in an attempt to have me draw the line between humans, CO2, and climate change.  

If you'd like I can explain to you what CO2 in our atmosphere does, how humans contribute directly to that CO2, and how 400+ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere is anything but ordinary.  But I cannot make you understand that pissing in your well or smoking in an enclosed space is a bad idea and not a liberal plot to keep you down any more than I can make you understand that two years of cooling doesn't contradict climate change.

Either you get it or you don't.

surfman

Basically there really is not much we can do, we are not the problem really but, somehow we get most of the blame, look at the rest of the world.

HomerSimpson

Tarponator said:

 You know, the same thing that the author of the subject article tried to call into question by saying "NASA is a global warming denier" because of a short term cooling trend.

That's not what hte article was saying.  So either you didn't read and only saw the headline, or you have comprehension issues.

Tarponator said:

Now, you've seemingly moved the goalposts that in an attempt to have me draw the line between humans, CO2, and climate change.  

lol...dude, you tried to post temporal plots of global temperatures and threw in an unrelated CO2 plot as backup. Stay on track here.  contrary to your statement, you have no clue what the graphs are showing.    lol

Tarponator

Homer, I read the article, I read the original article that article referenced, and I'm very familiar with the GISS data set.  Since you seem confused, please allow me to repeat the first **** paragraph in this thread and the opening of the IBD article Sailfish linked:

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Coolingnconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Tell me, Homer, what's that last sentence say?

Moving on, the reason I posted the CO2 graph wasn't to prove the link between CO2 and warming (which, obviously, can't be shown in a graph and takes more than a cursory understanding of middle-school science and thus is beyond the scope of our conversation), but rather to show a data set that adhered to your apparent need to see data more for more than a hundred and forty or so years.  

On the bright side, it appears as if you've finally figured out what the word temporal means. 

Baby steps, I suppose.

mplspug

Tarponator said:

...which, obviously, can't be shown in a graph and takes more than a cursory understanding of middle-school science and thus is beyond the scope of our conversation)

Your High School teacher stopped taking your calls?

gandrfab

Isn't 1/3 of Fl under water since .Gov scientist switched from global cooling/warming to climate change? 

rain dog

Gardawg said:

Our planet has a fever.
Which is us.

self loathing is really not very productive but apparently popular with certain people

MelbourneMark

I think its illogical to think man cannot alter our environment.  Just think of the 1000s of nuclear test-blasts that occurred.  

I hope technology will catch up to lessen our "need" for fossil fuel... (and the wars enacted for oil)

Remember the flash/thumb-drive?  Whomever invented that, saved more trees than anyone else, and made lots of $ in the process..  

I am more concerned about ocean acidification than temperature increases.  

HomerSimpson

Tarponator said:

Tell me, Homer, what's that last sentence say?

Does say anything, it asks a question.  But again, you didn't read the article.  If you tried, you didn't comprehend what they were saying.  But keep trying.  Its hilarious as all get out.

Big Battery

Tarponator said:

The author, Aaron Brown, is a former risk manager for hedge funds.  Not exactly the type anyone should be taking direction from on this topic.

That said, he also says these things in his article ( https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html ):

"None of this argues against global warming."
"Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend."
"Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. "

For those of you capable of looking at the data and actually thinking, what part of this graph is unclear?

Care to share with us the calibration data from those thermometers?  Yea, didnt think so because they werent calibrated.

Tarponator

MelbourneMark said:

I think its illogical to think man cannot alter our environment. 

...
I am more concerned about ocean acidification than temperature increases.  

So, Mark, what's the cause of ocean acidfication?

Tarponator

HomerSimpson said:

Tarponator said:

Tell me, Homer, what's that last sentence say?

Does say anything, it asks a question.  But again, you didn't read the article.  If you tried, you didn't comprehend what they were saying.  But keep trying.  Its hilarious as all get out.

It does ask a question.  The question I was addressing in fact, which is why I brought it up.  Nobody says that question summarizes the article, except you.

I have also addressed the rest of that ridiculous article as essentially the author wondering why the cooling trend -- the same cooling trend the question was asking about -- isn't news.  If you read the article and my responses you'd know that.

Let me clue you in, again:  The cooling trend is not news because it's completely normal -- temperature doesn't go in a straight line.  However, CO2 levels (and the temperature rising over time as a result) are hardly so.   You know, the graph of CO2 I shared that you called "completely normal".

And, no, that does not make NASA a climate change denier either.

Now you can try to continue to suggest I've not read or comprehended the article, but we both know you just don't like what I'm saying and are unable to disprove even one sentence.

Good luck with that.

Tarponator

Big Battery said:

Tarponator said:

The author, Aaron Brown, is a former risk manager for hedge funds.  Not exactly the type anyone should be taking direction from on this topic.

That said, he also says these things in his article ( https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html ):

"None of this argues against global warming."
"Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend."
"Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. "

For those of you capable of looking at the data and actually thinking, what part of this graph is unclear?

Care to share with us the calibration data from those thermometers?  Yea, didnt think so because they werent calibrated.

Silly Battery, The MERRA-2 temperature dataset is from satellites not thermometers.  But you knew that already, right?

surfman

They had satellites in 1880?

Tarponator

Of course not.  Only since 1980.  But when satellites and ground stations say the same thing, it cannot be denied because of some silly argument that thermometers aren't calibrated (or the denier's next favorite topic, urban heating and thermometer placement).

Here's an article that touches on that point:  https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

Here's a description of the GISTEMP data if you would like to discuss it in more detail:  https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Anything else I can help you with, Surfman?

sailfish2

https://www.iceagenow.info/mini-ice-age-in-a-matter-of-months/

Caused by man too?

dragon bait

The beginning of almost every disaster movie starts out with a scientist being ignored

dave44

dragon bait said:

The beginning of almost every disaster movie starts out with a scientist being ignored

Every fictional movie. Goldblum usually played those parts pretty well, was he in Mars Attacks? 

Big Battery

Tarponator said:

Of course not.  Only since 1980.  But when satellites and ground stations say the same thing, it cannot be denied because of some silly argument that thermometers aren't calibrated (or the denier's next favorite topic, urban heating and thermometer placement).

Here's an article that touches on that point:  https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

Here's a description of the GISTEMP data if you would like to discuss it in more detail:  https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Anything else I can help you with, Surfman?

Because satellites are perfectly calibrated and can measure temperature within 0.1ºC from 150 miles away...

Why was all the temperature data shifted in the 80's?

So are to make conclusive pronouncements of the global temps changing with a snapshot of data and magically link the change to CO2?

Tarponator

sailfish2 said:

https://www.iceagenow.info/mini-ice-age-in-a-matter-of-months/

Caused by man too?

No, predicted by a wacko:

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/08/666-robert-w-felix.html

Consider the source.

Tug Boat Bob

George Carlin explains about saving the planet;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

MelbourneMark

Tarponator said:

MelbourneMark said:

I think its illogical to think man cannot alter our environment. 

...
I am more concerned about ocean acidification than temperature increases.  

So, Mark, what's the cause of ocean acidfication?

Without googling it; dissolved co2 off the top of my head.  Plastic is another major concern to me. 

Again, I'm betting that a "new" invention will help us out.    Basically, I don't agree that we should enact carbon-tax or try to punish people from driving cars.  
*i think ride share services and similar technology will help decline car ownership in the next decades.