What are your thoughts on global warming?

[adavisus]

Here's an example of crooked denial fraud, notice the inset part used, showing how there has been no global warming 'globally'

Inset shows UAH chart (which does not record atmosphere affected by global warming)
Its from records of the 48 states only, not the globe
The timescale chosen makes the most of a period when the Pacific was a cooling influence
The edited selection chops off prior cooler times, and recent massive spike

Notice the professional level of the fraud, leaving the cop out of plausible denial, not knowing the significance of a UAH chart.... Now folk with basic scientific knowledge check or know this stuff.... So the fraudsters are very pickily targeting this fraud to folk of very substandard education, but then, this is a typical pattern of professional criminals

Now, who would go to such lengths to peddle such fraud in social media... Like it has not been done hundreds of times by exxon and koch super pacs with $500 billion budgets

 

[Bullfrog]

Believe what you want, as I said, no minds will be changed here. I'm through with this topic and fanatics.

 

[adavisus]

But wait, you will miss out on the main event, the methane clathrates, are rising, with global warming ramming arctic water temps 10f-20f warmer... surely you would like to know what the planet is like, when you treat it like a gas chamber and pump it chock full of toxic stuff?

Am looking forward to the frauds pretending that isn't happening

Am looking forward to the denial folk explaining the 'abnormal' 1048,758,857 tons of rain water about to overflow in the next week, do you suppose the 200,000 folk below the busted Oroville dam will not notice that when it pops?

For sure the gubmint isn't noticing, too busy cancelling the California high speed train project, to pay for some pointless ineffective wall elsewhere, for which no cost benefit analysis has been done, I'm sure

 

[Bullfrog]

But wait, you will miss out on the main event, the methane clathrates, are rising, with global warming ramming arctic water temps 10f-20f warmer...

Am looking forward to the frauds pretending that isn't happening

Am looking forward to the denial folk explaining the 'abnormal' 1048,758,857 tons of rain water about to overflow in the next week, do you suppose the 200,000 folk below the busted Oroville dam will not notice that when it pops?

For sure the gubmint isn't noticing, too busy cancelling the California high speed train project, to pay for some pointless ineffective wall elsewhere, I'm sure

As I said.

 

[MoonShadows]

Another thing I found interesting about that NASA video is how much of the heavy lifting of CO2 absorption was being done by the boreal forests in Canada and Russia.
The tropical rainforests in Brazil seem to get much more attention, but their effect on CO2 levels seems pretty localized.
We need to pay more attention to the northern forests.

I have to thank you for your mentions of the boreal forests. I never remember learning about them in school and only had a vague notion of these huge forests without any real knowledge about them, thinking the rain forests were the forests we needed to be concerned about. Further reading about them in a few articles on websites have been eye-opening.

 

[budgenator]

That chart is often peddled by crooked denial folk, it says 'global' on it, however it refers to the lower 48 states only. It is the 'average' for the USA

Absolutely not, that chart was taken from http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ , the blog of Dr. Roy Spencer.

"Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.[3][4] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[3][4]

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)"​

The Aqua satellites do have limited coverage in Arctic and Antarctic regions, as do surface measurements, but over all the satellites give far more data coverage to the entire global than any other method.

You have been mislead by people with an agenda.

 

[adavisus]

um nope, the title of the file is fraud, it is not 'global'

Its the 48 states only, You can find that data published, accurately as the 48 states elsewhere. I'd like to look at the original file however the doctors website, like his satellites are on the blink

It represents temperatures above the level at which global warming radiation occurs, measuring the reflectivity brightness of moisture in the air as an analog for energy values (do what why?) The lower tropsphere is 11,000-20,000 ft at an elevation where energy (heat) does not transfer

"As energy transfer to a parcel of air by way of heat is very slow, it is assumed to not exchange energy by way of heat with the environment. Such a process is called an adiabatic process (no energy transfer by way of heat). Since the rising parcel of air is losing energy as it does work on the surrounding atmosphere and no energy is transferred into it as heat from the atmosphere to make up for the loss, the parcel of air is losing energy, which manifests itself as a decrease in the temperature of the air parcel. The reverse, of course, will be true for a parcel of air that is sinking and is being compressed"

Its FRAUD to represent it as global warming at ground level.... especially when its only the USA data being labelled as 'global' data. Poor choice of title, or a lame attempt to do fraud...

Now, I'm sure he takes great pride in his scientific work, however other folk run off with it and misrepresent it

"Even Roy Spencer now admits that satellite "measurements" of tropospheric temperature cannot and must not be used as proxies for surface temperature measurements, due to major unresolved issues in the assumptions used in the complex conversions of the microwave measurements into estimates of temperatures. (Spencer is one of the two main people responsible for the "UAH" satellite-based troposphere temperature estimations.)"

Which is self explanatory. Crooks ran off with his muddly charts....

Nobody told me this stuff, I fact check bullshit coming from fake news peddlers. I did wonder why the deniers were peddling a different set of stats compared to four meteorology sources....

oh looky, the crooks peddle misleading stuff fabricated to misrepresent global warming

AGAIN

 

[budgenator]

um nope, the title of the file is fraud, it is not 'global' ... Nobody told me this stuff, I fact check bullshit coming from fake news peddlers

I've said my peace, I've shown my citations, I'm not getting into a flamewar over it.

 

[MoonShadows]

I've said my peace, I've shown my citations, I'm not getting into a flamewar over it.

I don't blame you, @budgenator. This all-knowing, sarcastic, superior-like attitude, often citing cherry-picked sources supporting just one point of view, while demeaning other sources and what others have to say as uniformed or ignorant is outrageous. But, that's what the left tries to do...shut down real debate. It's their way or the highway. This is exactly what they have tried to do throughout the climate change discussion going back years. This character is no different and not worth fretting over.

Not even attempting to make this political....just calling a spade a spade. If he can say what he likes throughout this thread without impunity, than so can I. I'm sure I'll be his next target, but that's OK. I pay little mind to those who have a closed one.

 

[Becky]

Please would you all remind yourselves of the forum etiquette (link in my signature).

Discussion allows people to learn from other people's perspectives and experience - not everyone is right, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. However this does not mean that everyone has the right for their opinions to be accepted. You are all within your rights to disagree with an opinion expressed and to provide a counter argument; this is how everyone learns. But attacking each other instead of the theories expressed is rude and will not be tolerated here.

In short please treat each other as you wish to be treated yourself. If you disagree with a theory, then provide a counter argument to the theory instead of criticising the poster in a personal way. Likewise, if someone disagrees with your theory you should not take it personally.

Finally, no politics or religion please.

@MoonShadows a difference of opinion does not justify a personal attack, so please ensure your criticisms are directed at the argument a person is making rather than that person.

In general:
If you want to sway someone's view then present some persuasive evidence (ie peer reviewed empirical data, not links to people expressing their opinions).

An open mind means taking new information into account before forming your own opinion, and it goes both ways. Before you criticise someone for being closed minded, ask yourself if you have fully considered the evidence they have put forward. An open minded person considers all evidence, not just the things that align with their current thinking.


I will keep this topic open for now, but if there are any further issues then I will close it.

 

[MoonShadows]

@Becky It appears from your response that you did not review his earlier posts as I had asked you...in which his attitude was very demeaning, especially towards other members and what they had to say. Or, perhaps you did, and you are of the same ilk as he when it comes to this topic. That I don't know, but something I hope you really ask yourself. His superior attitude and demeaning discourse is attacking enough. With all due respect, if you disagree, I am open to any sanctions you feel you must impose, but I won't stay silent in the face of someone who uses these tactics to silence others...whatever the consequences. I came to this forum seeking information and camaraderie with others who share a similar interest in ponds. I came to this thread by off chance looking for good debate and discussion on this topic (that has nothing to do with ponds) and have had to endure his self-righteous attitude towards others and what they have to say. Wonder why this forum feels that there needs to be a section to discuss anything other than ponds. LOL

I was trying, for days in this thread, to stay open minded, but his responses have whittled away my resolve, and the resolve of others, as you can see by some of their responses.

I suggest closing this thread since no reasonable discussion can be expected at this point on the subject. Do what you feel is best. I won't post again in this thread; I believe I have had my say...when what I really wanted was a good discussion.

 

[adavisus]

You can easily look up the carnage trail of fraud and fake information that is documented to have been published to corrupt the public domain in various fact checking websites

If you have a problem seeing baloney debunked alas it is a fact of life

Take the UAH global temp fraud, peddled by Rush Limbaugh, who was pushing that out

Not difficult to find out who, and why one chart is pushed on denial threads compared to four meteorology sources. Yup it is cherry picking to look at the peer reviewed information, then select relevant information. You can always put that information into google and locate the rest of the bumph to wade through. Its there to find. Heckuva lot of scientists hummed and hawed over that one, feel free to choose what pearls of wisdom you find among that lot

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm

Both Singer and Seitz pulled off their first major (-snip-) on the public by denying the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. From 1979 to 85 Seitz distributed $45million to scientists around the country on behalf of F. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The brief was to find other links to lung cancer other than cigarettes to get tobacco off the hook

https://skepticalscience.com/fred-singer-denies-global-warming.html

my cognitive dissonance is, why on earth do these folk publish so much bunk, I find it hard to grasp how many millions of bucks are involved.... its, seriously creepy stuff

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Actually this thread is good representation of the global attitude of the human race towards resolving issues. If the small handful of people here can't even come to an agreement on whether there is even a problem to begin with how in the world could you expect 7+ billion people from all kinds of diverse political,religious and economic backgrounds to come to any sort of agreement and suddenly start cooperating with each other, especially when you know that you'll have to make personal sacrifices and you know that others around you won't be willing to make any.
No, if you are truly convinced in global warming the best thing you can do as an individual to prepare for it is to sell off your ocean front property (if you have any) and move to higher ground.
Of course maybe if we see just one more temperature graph or one more scientific article, maybe we'll all come around.

 

[MitchM]

There's always hope, Mucky.
I may have my opinions, but they are subject to change as facts become available.

 

[adavisus]

I see maybe 50 plus climate denier frauds coming up in feeds daily, from any of a thousand sources, eg npr, bbc,guardian, der spiegel, el arabiyah, aljazeera, china daily etc That is after culling the bulk of fake news conservative websites.

Maybe one of them has a gem of a reply, to a fraud that was debunked in 2009, which puts into perspective the difference between fok that really do know their stuff, and those that are determined to do fraud. Its 2016 and debunked stuff from 2009 is still being peddled for clickbait

Yup, there are some charts which measure up what is happening

I would have to say the 3d models which can display any climate data patterns on the planet are dang impressive at forecasting serious stuff, whether it be record breaking hurricanes headed my way, or to record breaking sea temps melting the arctic north of siberia. You can then switch the satellite scan to measure methane emissions and size up its impact, can such an emission ignite on a large scale, I always wondered that, waiting for the day to see such a thing as the sky on fire

There was such a day in prehistoric times, when the surface of the earth was toasted briefly at a pizza oven temperature. Say buhbye to most of the dinosaurs. Just enough time to hop into a bunker and wait for it to pass....

Well done climate scientists, for developing such stuff, so accurate you can spot a tornado fifty miles off before it hits you