Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Vocab List
anthropogenic: originating in human activity
greenhouse gas: any gaseous compound in the atmosphere capable of absorbing infrared radiation; the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor

Casual Reminders
You are in the serious debate forum.
Downvotes are apparently not an "I disagree" button (you learn something new every day).

This thread is not about whether the planet is or is not warming. It is. We know this.
This thread is about why and what we need to do to ensure our long-term survival.

I'm presenting this not really as a debate, but as a discussion, so don't go into it with an "I'm going to prove each point line by line wrong" outlook, just respond based on what you've read and what you know and what you might have found out after being compelled to research some of the finer points yourself.

---

If you ask the governments of the world, global warming is a completely unnatural process caused by human activity that is turning the world into a literal oven of death. We can stop this, they say, by taxing businesses who expel a certain amount of CO2, or fail to meet clean energy standards, or a thousand other petty little ways they can peg you with a dick full of fines and fees. In fact, Obama stated a mere 4 days ago that global warming is a national security threat that lead to the rise of Boko Haram and proposed a $3,000,000,000 grant to the UN's Green Climate Fund.

Many of you know the IPCC, I would assume; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN Environment Program's baby. Its computer models that show the global temperature rising as greenhouse gases rise, most significantly CO2, are used globally to justify fossil fuel taxes and other regulations.

In a report you will not find mentioned by mainstream media sources (but can find from many non-English sources), the IPCC had to admit that their computer models are horribly wrong now that we have observational data to compare with. They also admit their computers didn't take enough consideration of natural climate variation and exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on temperature. Despite this, the IPCC concludes that they are 95% certain (a 5% increase from their last assessment) that global warming is anthropogenic.

Now, for those of you wanting something a little more solid than investigative journalism by the Daily Mail, you will please note that the sources are the report's authors themselves, most notably the director of Oxford University's Climate Research Network, who said, "It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works. It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works."

Also note that this leaked IPCC report comes merely two months after IPCC lead author Hans von Storch spoke out and said, "According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year { which is the very same leaked document reported by the Daily Mail two months later }."

IPCC models vs. observational data in graph form:

At this point you may find yourself asking, even if the models are wrong, how does that prove humans aren't responsible for the climate change?

I'm glad you asked! Though we have only been reliably recording global climate data for a short time, we are able to make educated estimates of the Earth's climate throughout its history with a combination of various techniques that make up the field of paleoclimatology.

Giant version.

First, note how the X-axis is labelled. It starts by 100 million year increments, then zooms in to 10 million years, then 1 million, then 200,000 and finally 5,000 years. The graph has been arranged so 0 always = the 1960-1990 global temperature average, or the "Holocene optimum". The red dots at the end are the IPCC model's predictions for our temperature in 2050 and 2100, which are absolutely ludicrous.

You can see throughout history our climate has never been a stagnant, stable thing. You can see that roughly 20,000 years ago our climate began ascending out of an ice age, and rapidly warming then becoming more stable, long before humans were industrializing. You can see how utterly pointless it is to talk about a "10 year temperature increase" or "17 year global warming pause" on this more historically relevant scale.

---

So, at the very least, we've established that climate science is not definitively conclusive, and we have good evidence to support the theory that humans are not directly responsible for a devastatingly dramatic rise in global temperature.

Why does the distinction matter in the first place?

On a general level, it absolutely could not matter less. The climate is changing, we do have to react to it somehow. Do we deal with it by simply restricting industry in our countries (while countries like China welcome the businesses fleeing fees and taxes and fines from America/the UK/etc) and filling the federal pocketbook? Or do we deal with it by putting logic and conservation together to get easily applicable, real life sustainability that allows our species to adapt to the changing planet?

What does taxing industry and lowering greenhouse gas emissions (and not even the most abundant GG, but the most common industrial by-product and thus the one the feds can most easily justify "green taxing") actually do to the climate? What does taxing industry do to ease the drought in the western USA? What does it do for agricultural conditions in countries that were already poor choices for farming? What does it do to actually solve any of our problems?

Well, it doesn't do anything, because it's not designed to solve any of our problems. It's designed to fund the government.

What will solve our problems? Is there a place for government regulation in environmental policy? Currently our solution has been to stop the change. We legislate on the assumption that we caused the increase and if we stop whatever we're doing the increase will also stop. Obviously, that's not going to happen if it's just not true.

Diverting from global warming briefly, I do think there's a place for government regulation in environmental policy. While the changing climate might not be on us, there are plenty of legitimate problems that are. Pollution, acid rain/chemical runoff, illogically planned habitat loss, etc etc. These are issues regulation could curb as well as issues that dramatically effect our natural resources and thus our future.

Now, this actual conservation strategy part is where I have to get a bit more vague, as my future career depends on shopping my personal ideas to investors, but it can be broken into a few general parts. This is literally what I have my degree in btw (Wildlife Ecology and Conservation).

{ Freshwater Extraction/Rainwater Collection/Distribution }

Water is a vital resource, you can't even call it a resource, a component of life. We require freshwater for living, for growing food, for everything. Why are we able to ship billions of barrels of oil around the world, but we can't figure out how to get excess rainwater from regions that get 20+ inches of rain and flash floods on a weekly basis to cities with regular periods of drought? We act like it's a surprise when cities we founded in the middle of deserts dry out, like nobody at all thought California and Nevada might have some moisture retention issues in the future? Currently some states ban collecting rainwater, even on your own private property. Rainwater must be made a resource that states can trade and sell to each other en masse. Giant corporations buy up natural springs and bottle the water to sell to us at extraordinary markups, this also needs to end. Natural freshwater needs a price ceiling, a reasonable price ceiling that can allow for some profit, but nothing like we pay now (estimated to be a roughly 280,000% markup compared to tapwater). $8 a bottle for glorified tapwater in a world where at least 4,000 children die every day from disease contaminated water.

{ Logical Conservation }

I am so unwilling to go into detail about this it's not even funny, this is the core of everything I'm trying to sell. Just know that the standards by which we choose which animals deserve conservation efforts today is totally fucking backwards and, as is generally the case, another industry run on funding governments rather than solving problems.

{ Sustainable Living }

This is something I'm very willing to go into detail about, fortunately. Sustainable architecture is already an industry in progress, there are amazing builders and designers already out there transforming the way we live from simply being dwellings to being productive, efficient habitats. It's almost tragically funny, the closer we get back to nature, the more efficient and progressive our technology becomes.

It can be very simple…

…and very modern.

Some people are even living completely off the grid.

Feeding themselves from backyard gardens and farm shares.

Even urban areas can be efficient and sustainable.

Okay I'm sure I'm running out of room so I'm going to stop, but I think I've made it pretty obvious that the world needs a pretty drastic change if we want to keep living comfortably, and it's not all due to "global warming".

2srs4me

i'll read over the post some tomorrow, though, i don't have much knowledge myself.
I think if you want to read a real debate, you should read this http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=87200

1,700+ very long and thoughtful posts.
Maybe that thread can help fuel this thread, idk, just thought i'd throw that out there.

The thread you linked is from a year before the data sourced in my first post came out. Its first post can't find any research suggesting observational data doesn't match the IPCC models because it didn't exist yet.

idk how helpful it would be to read a thread full of posts based on what we now know is incorrect

So, a few things I guess

“It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works. It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works.”

That's the case with everything in science. While we can say certain things with a high probability, we can never truly say something is always certain. Many times we can say the probability of an even is functionally 0, or functionally 100, but we can never truly say that any alternative outcome is truly 100% impossible. Technically, there is a chance (extremely small) that gravity will just no longer work. Something like this doesn't completely refute all climate claims by any means. It would be like throwing out all of our knowledge about economics because people failed to predict the next recession, or predicted on and it never actually happened.

You can see throughout history our climate has never been a stagnant, stable thing….You can see how utterly pointless it is to talk about a “10 year temperature increase” or “17 year global warming pause” on this more historically relevant scale.

No one who actually knows about how the climate works believes that it is static. The problem is the rate at which climatic conditions vary. 10-17 years scales do become relevant if they have changes that are too extreme for species to adapt to, which might be more manageable if they occurred on a slower (say 100-500 year) rate. A dramatic decrease in rainfall for an area over a few years may make it impossible for certain species to survive in a location they currently thrive. With frequently changing conditions, some species are just unable to disperse to good conditions quickly enough to keep up.

What does taxing industry and lowering greenhouse gas emissions (and not even the most abundant GG, but the most common industrial by-product and thus the one the feds can most easily justify “green taxing”)

What does taxing industry do to ease the drought in the western USA?

The point is not to make the drought better. By making water more expensive for certain things (such as farming, hydro fracking, and sewage management), it does push groups to make more efficient use of water or use water free solutions if they exist. Water is conserved for more essential functions. Not saying the system is perfect, but it's not just "the government needs your money". Also, maybe it's just me, but it seems odd that you say that the government does not tax the most abundant greenhouse gas (water vapor) and then state that they tax businesses in drought areas (over what I'm assuming is water).

Currently our solution has been to stop the change. We legislate on the assumption that we caused the increase and if we stop whatever we’re doing the increase will also stop.

It depends on who you ask. There are people (in congress no less) who believe all claims about changes in the climate are purely fabricated and fake. Or they believe it is happening but it is not something to worry about. Or they are like you in that it is real, and may be something to worry about, but impossible to stop and we are better investing in trying to adapt to unpredictable conditions. I do believe there is merit in trying to adapt to a changing world, but I believe that both sides should be addressed.

Giant corporations buy up natural springs and bottle the water to sell to us at extraordinary markups, this also needs to end. Natural freshwater needs a price ceiling, a reasonable price ceiling that can allow for some profit, but nothing like we pay now (estimated to be a roughly 280,000% markup compared to tapwater).

This one is odd. While I do not disagree with it (bottled water is terribly unsustainable), this would pretty much have to be done by government. You seem to have made it clear that this is not the solution, at least with taxation. While a flat out ban on it may be an alternative, I really have doubts that would go over well compared to higher taxes.

I guess after that, I should add some of the points I do agree with. Conservation efforts I do think could be manged better. I do think sustainable living should be strived for, but considering the large stigma some people have attached to anything "green", really something is going to be needed to convince them otherwise. many people will continue living the same way they have always lived while the world changes around them. While there are some measures in place to try to encourage/ discourage certain behaviors most of these are put in place by governments.

EDIT: Jacob's post above covers all of the points that mine does not, and vice versa. What a nice coincidence :P

IPCC had to admit that their computer models are horribly wrong now that we have observational data to compare with.

Almost every claim made by Mail Online was false or based on misinterpreted evidence/statements. I trust that you know better than to use tabloids to support your arguments.

no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break

Here are a handful of compelling answers courtesy of Scientific American. There are plenty more, of course.

http://i59.tinypic.com/6pri9u.png

This particular image has been thoroughly debunked as blatant abuse of statistical representation. Source 1 -- Source 2, direct rebuttal to Roy Spencer, the creator of that image -- Source 3.

To summarize, Spencer pulled a number of tricks to bend the data to his liking, the most damning of which was his use of a five-year baseline chosen specifically during an interval in the 20th century where measurements were abnormal. In other words, he cherry picked his favorite part of the data and attempted to present the entire set through this lens. Ironically, he accuses the IPCC of misrepresenting their data.

the IPCCmodel’s predictions for our temperature in 2050 and 2100, which are absolutely ludicrous

The only thing that’s ludicrous here is your attitude, young lady your rather suspicious failure to provide evidence for this point. If your intention is to dismiss the work of teams of PhD-holding climate scientists, at least make an effort.

“I’m going to prove each point line by line wrong”

¯\(ツ)/¯

{ I trust that you know better than to use tabloids to support your arguments. }

>links me to personal blog of a sixty year old woman who says she started the blog to "shine a spotlight on misogyny".

Nonetheless, read your sources, the source you've posted only disputes one number and it's so minor the researcher they reached out to for a quote said: "Arguing over a few tenths of a degree in climate sensitivity at the bottom of the range masks the real issue which is the expected substantial climate change in response to the continued emissions of greenhouse gases."

Expected at that point, not definitive, it's what the computer models predicted, but I'm sure we all learned the same lesson in middle school, correlation =/= causation.

{ Scientific American }

"It's true that Willis and nearly every other climate scientist dismiss the idea that global warming has paused. Yet the fact remains that average surface temperatures worldwide have not increased since around the turn of the century."

Greenhouse gas emissions certainly haven't paused, only dramatically increased, if the temps are so closely linked to GG emissions that we can say they are the cause, why isn't observational data showing us they act like it?

Back to SA: { Even if they don't think global warming has paused, scientists are still interested in learning why the rate of surface warming over the last 10 to 15 years has been much slower than in the decades before, even as levels of greenhouse gases continue to increase. }

But that goes back to the very tippy top of my thread. Nobody denies that the Earth is warming. It's why. A 15 year "pause" on a 20,000 year scale where the temperature has been slowly rising ten full degrees of its own accord is insignificant. So is an increase of .006 degrees over a decade, but that's what we're supposed to be panicking over.

{ Source 1 -- Source 2, direct rebuttal to Roy Spencer, the creator of that image -- Source 3. }

I really like the blog you've linked to here with your first two links: { Eavesdropping on the deniosphere, its weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy whoppers. } if that tagline doesn't say unbiased and professional I just don't know what does!

Still, again, there are only technicalities being disputed here, not the bottom line.

Here's your source's reconstruction of Dr. Spencer's (he's a retired NASA scientist) graph:

Here's what your source says it should look like:

The bottom line is the same. Around 2000 we started seeing observational temperatures suddenly stop correlating so perfectly with our computer models and start leveling off or beginning to "pause". The graphs look different because of the way the yearly averages were calculated, but scientists haven't definitively agreed on which method is better or more correct, as is the case in every wing of science.

{ your rather suspicious failure to provide evidence for this point }

For their estimations to be right, the temperature would have to already be increasing on an extreme and dramatic level, those are the IPCC's apocalypse estimates. We already know we're not going to reach anywhere near those levels by 2050 and 2100 unless the global temperature starts inexplicably skyrocketing.

{ If your intention is to dismiss the work of teams of PhD-holding climate scientists, at least make an effort. }

You have not linked me to a single source that involves a PHD-holding climate scientist, but you have made every effort to dismiss the work of a scientist with a PhD in meteorology who received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his global temperature monitoring work with satellites (Dr. Spencer :] ) by linking me to opinion blogs.

I have to question which one of us needs to put in more effort here.

---

{ 10-17 years scales do become relevant if they have changes that are too extreme for species to adapt to, which might be more manageable if they occurred on a slower (say 100-500 year) rate }

The IPCC models certainly project that to be true, if their 2050 and 2100 predictions are correct then the rate of warming is definitely increasing exponentially and anthropogenically. But our most recent 15 year data suggests that's not what's happening, the temperature is not continuously and steadily rising with the rate of greenhouse gases, which is what the computer models were set up to assume. We've gained more data and now we need to adjust our methods and what we know to incorporate this new data.

{ A dramatic decrease in rainfall for an area over a few years may make it impossible for certain species to survive in a location they currently thrive. With frequently changing conditions, some species are just unable to disperse to good conditions quickly enough to keep up. }

A dramatic increase in rainfall for an area over a few years may make it impossible for certain species to survive in a location they currently thrive, that's kinda the way the cookie crumbles. You adapt or you cease to exist. As long as we're not the ones causing those conditions (and evidence increasingly points to "we're not"), those animals are simply dealing with nature and evolution as they've been doing for millions of years. Everything alive today made it through at least 20,000 years of temperatures so low they hadn't been seen out of season in hundreds of thousands of years.

I would rather worry about how sagebrush habitat loss and agricultural chemical runoff effects the ability of species in those areas to thrive than worry about how they're going to adapt to, what appears to be for now at least, a naturally warming climate.

{ Also, maybe it’s just me, but it seems odd that you say that the government does not tax the most abundant greenhouse gas (water vapor) and then state that they tax businesses in drought areas (over what I’m assuming is water) }

The government doesn't tax businesses for water in drought areas, they tax them for carbon emissions like business everywhere else. That is why I say it's purpose is for the government to take your money, they're not regulating the processes that make a difference, they're regulating the processes that can generate the most money. As I briefly expanded in my second post, I do think there's room for government regulation in certain areas of environmental policy. I fully support a freshwater price cieling and regulating industrial processes that use it, like decontamination and reuse. This is another part of what I mean by logical sustainability, regulating freshwater makes sense, regulating chemical runoff makes sense, but heavily regulating carbon emissions is currently based on extremely inconclusive, constantly changing science.

{ I do believe there is merit in trying to adapt to a changing world, but I believe that both sides should be addressed. }

As do I, which is why I keep reinforcing significant environmental problems we 100% know for sure are a direct result of our actions, which we are conveniently ignoring while pouring billions of dollars into stopping the planet in its tracks. It's "Preservation vs. Conservation", one of my fav phrases.

I'm confident all of our issues on this topic are a result of government intervention. If solely scientists were handling climate change, we'd see typical science in action, peer review, data collaboration, the most advanced technology being used, but the government stepped in and discovered a cash cow. Government scientists don't share data or submit to peer review, they are the government. And of course, replanting forests and restoring habitat and developing efficient/safe chemical disposal methods costs money, fees and fines and taxes are hand-delivered at the end of the year.

{ You seem to have made it clear that this is not the solution, at least with taxation. }

I offered price ceilings in the paragraph you quoted, that's government intervention that isn't a tax or ban, shit, price ceilings were literally invented to protect consumers from conditions that make necessary commodities unobtainable, if that doesn't sum up our global water crisis nothing does. The government has many options they can take to solve different problems, taxing is often the easiest to implement so that's the default. Taxing isn't the one-size-fits-all-solution they want it to be.

{ considering the large stigma some people have attached to anything “green”, really something is going to be needed to convince them otherwise }

This is more of an individual problem than a corporate one, and imo the biggest hurdle of all. Governments are not meant to regulate individual behavior, so we put them out of the discussion here completely. There have been hundreds of successful public campaigns to turn stigmas around over various issues, there's no reason we can't take "green" living back from the hippies. It's also a matter of sustainable living becoming more practical, our ability to store solar/wind generated power efficiently has improved dramatically within the last five years alone. It wasn't very efficient or practical to live off the grid in the 80s, but now it's possible to power an entire home with a few large solar panels. More and more people will accept it as it gets easier to implement and the real life savings for the average household becomes more and more apparent. Can't really blame people for not wanting to make a major lifestyle change when the alternative is an obvious downgrade.

Nobody denies that the Earth is warming

That's cute. Did you tell my Senator Jim Inhofe that? I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it.

But our most recent 15 year data suggests that’s not what’s happening, the temperature is not continuously and steadily rising with the rate of greenhouse gases,

I guess I should have made it clear that this is climate change I'm referring to with rapid change, not just temperature change. Climate change encompasses weather phenomena including rain and what time of year the temperature shifts occur, which is ultimately more important in the short term than temperature swings.

A dramatic increase in rainfall for an area over a few years may make it impossible for certain species to survive in a location they currently thrive, that’s kinda the way the cookie crumbles. You adapt or you cease to exist.

I never suggested the opposite. I only ran with that since we were already on the topic of drought. Problems like this are even more evident when areas receive drought and then flooding.

As long as we’re not the ones causing those conditions (and evidence increasingly points to “we’re not”), those animals are simply dealing with nature and evolution as they’ve been doing for millions of years.

I would rather worry about how sagebrush habitat loss and agricultural chemical runoff effects the ability of species in those areas to thrive than worry about how they’re going to adapt to, what appears to be for now at least, a naturally warming climate.

This is a point I've been wanting to make for a long while. Even if we could conclusively prove that all the climate problems were originated form a source other than us, and it is "natural", is that really what we want? Unpredictable climate is horrible for agriculture. Changes in climate zones would more easily allow the spread of some diseases like Malaria to areas that historically did not have it. We depend on literally hundreds of thousands of species directly and indirectly for our survival who are threaten by this (among other things) The loss of many of those species, even if due to completely natural, will be difficult for people to adapt to.

Also, changing climate conditions have potential to lead to to sage brush habitat loss. Drier conditions are more difficult for sages to reestablish after a disturbance event, such as fire, which allows for invasive species to take over more easily. Sure, there is the factor of invasive species is at play here, but the climate isn't just something that can be disregarded, and actually being able to remove these invasive species from the environment fully is impossible.

Everything alive today made it through at least 20,000 years of temperatures so low they hadn’t been seen out of season in hundreds of thousands of years.

Technically, everything thing alive today has made it through 3.8 billion years of Earth's history. Should we just stop caring about them because their ancestors were clearly able to survive all of that? I'm curious as to what you mean by "hadn't been out of season". Many species are spreading to new areas that they have never occupied in response to climate conditions. Armadillos used to not be in Texas, now they stretch as far Nebraska.

Taxing isn’t the one-size-fits-all-solution they want it to be.

I agree with this.

It’s also a matter of sustainable living becoming more practical, our ability to store solar/wind generated power efficiently has improved dramatically within the last five years alone.

Part of the reason for these strives in efficiency were was due to incentivizing greener options and discouraging less green options.

{ Did you tell my Senator Jim Inhofe that? }

I meant in this thread, but the handful of genuine climate change {side note that I'll switch to this term from here on since you rightly point out, we have learned that surface temperature is merely one piece of the puzzle} deniers in Congress don't have enough sway to actually make a policy difference, and worst case scenario will all be dead in ~20 years anyway (isn't Jim Inhofe like eighty ffs? like holy shit go home buddy.)

The age of all of these people is especially important to consider, since we will once again have the opportunity to replace them with moderates, if we can convince 30 and under to get out and vote even in non-Presidential elections. Always gotta bring that up somewhere in a thread, it seems, but it's relevant to every issue, they're the ones who vote on every issue!

{ weather phenomena including rain and what time of year the temperature shifts occur }

and hurricanes (number that have reached land in the last 40 years is lowest since the 1800s ) and tornadoes (60 year low for the past 4 years). 2013 was the least extreme year for weather in recent history. Climate scientists say less extreme weather will take place as the climate gets hotter, with only tropical storms likely to increase.

There are benefits to a warming climate in the same way there are detriments. We have to decide which consequences we need to defend against and which we can embrace.

{ Unpredictable climate is horrible for agriculture. }

A gradual increase in surface temp "unlocks" areas of land further north that are currently too cold to farm in. Agriculture has never been a sure industry though, no matter how much technology we have farmers and crops still have some bad years and some great years. We have greenhouse technology advanced enough for this not to be a significant issue for me.

We already suck at sustainable farming in general, Peru has become the #1 producer of asparagus, it's caused the economy to boom, the local cities to modernize, but they've practically depleted the aquifer that the whole country gets their freshwater from. Who told Peru to start growing asparagus, like why would you start growing a tropical crop in the middle of a desert?? It doesn't make any sense, it's a complete waste of resources to try and grow asparagus there, thus the price is higher for everyone anyway. Nobody wins here, but that's still the way it works right now.

{ Changes in climate zones would more easily allow the spread of some diseases like Malaria to areas that historically did not have it. }

And eliminate the risks of others. Cold viruses, like influenza and pneumonia, are the 8th leading cause of death in the US. They lose their ability to spread from person to person in warmer weather.

{ The loss of many of those species, even if due to completely natural, will be difficult for people to adapt to. }

This is the most pressing issue related to climate change for me. Many of the animals we depend on are much more capable of adapting to warm weather than cold weather. Amphibians and fish are most at risk, but there are species of both that have already adapted to warm water, those species will thrive in the place of those that disappear. Isn't that their right, their time has finally come? We'll have to adapt too, some stuff we used to take for granted might not be so freely available anymore, but from my point of view it was ridiculous to think that the planet could support our level of natural resource exploitation to begin with.

{ Also, changing climate conditions have potential to lead to to sage brush habitat loss. }

But also the potential for the birth of new tropical rain/forests, as alpine ecosystems melt and rain patterns change. Forests hold greater quantities of more diverse life than sage brush habitat, I can live with that trade off.

{ actually being able to remove these invasive species from the environment fully is impossible. }

If an invasive species is much more successful than the species in the environment, why shouldn't they take over? I had a discussion with a lecturer about this very question when I was in school. He was a part of a team trying to "conserve" (preserve) an endangered species of Lake Tahoe trout. They're being replaced by much hardier species of trout (brown/rainbow/brook) that can deal with the changing temperature and human activity in the lake.

The Lake Tahoe trout doesn't offer anything to the ecosystem that the Brown trout can't, so why does it honestly matter? Why are we trying so hard and putting so much effort into preserving this particular species of trout? I hounded the guy about it until he admitted it was literally just a matter of one predator replacing another. There are species where it matters, but there's our lack of logical conservation again.

{ Armadillos used to not be in Texas, now they stretch as far Nebraska. }

Good for the armadillos! They're expanding to new areas that are now available to them in search of more territory, resources, and mates. This is everything Darwin lived for in action.

{ I’m curious as to what you mean by “hadn’t been out of season” }

With the natural climate "seasons" (cycles might have been a better word) that the Earth has gone through in history, which we can see in the paleoclimatology graph. Every ~100,000 years we'd been going up down up down up down but then it went way down and hung there for a second, and now it's going back up.

All of the animals adapting for warm weather were effectively fucked is what I meant by that, just like animals adapted for cold weather now start to be, but there were no humans there to care at the time.

one number and it’s so minor

Have you read the source?

{ the paper was forced to make a swift correction yesterday after suggesting the 2007 IPCC report claimed warming since 1951 had been… ten times the actual figure. }

Ironically, it’s the denialism camp that tends to use the term ‘alarmist’.

“which is the expected substantial climate change in response to the continued emissions of greenhouse gases.”

You cut off the last part of the quote; “which are at present following the worst case emissions scenarios."

why isn’t observational data showing us they act like it?

start leveling off or beginning to “pause”.

Once again, follow your own advice and read the source. Or did you really just stop at the introductory paragraphs?

{ A study published yesterday in the journal Science bolsters that idea. It uses fossil data to reconstruct past temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. That research shows that the middle depths of the ocean, between about 1,500 and 3,300 feet deep, have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than at any time during the past 10,000 years. }

{ The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2010 had almost doubled, from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate for the 20th century to a 0.125-inch-per-year average rate. }

We already know we’re not going to reach anywhere near those levels by 2050 and 2100 unless the global temperature starts inexplicably skyrocketing.

You have once again failed to provide an adequate counter to Marcott et al outside of just dismissing it. In the interest of saving time, I will take the initiative and actually elaborate on this point.

In reference to Marcott et al:

{ the 'blade' of the 'hockey stick' – the instrumental temperature record – is our most accurate temperature data set. As noted in the FAQ on RealClimate, the instrumental temperature record is also consistent with proxies from other studies. For example Anderson et al. (2012) compares their study's natural proxy temperaturereconstruction (Paleo; solid line in Figure 3) to the instrumental surface temperaturerecord (MLOST; dashed line in Figure 3) and finds a strong correlation (of 0.76) between the two. Reanalysis data, as in Compo et al. (2013), has also independently confirmed the instrumental global surface temperature record accuracy (correlations between 0.84 and 0.92), as of course did the Koch-funded Berkeley Earth study. }

You have not linked me to a single source that involves a PHD-holding climate scientist

I was referring to Marcott and his colleagues. This should have been incredibly obvious from my paragraph structuring, but I guess not.

(isn’t Jim Inhofe like eighty ffs? like holy shit go home buddy.)

We can only hope :)

A gradual increase in surface temp “unlocks” areas of land further north that are currently too cold to farm in. Agriculture has never been a sure industry though, no matter how much technology we have farmers and crops still have some bad years and some great years.

Again, these changes are going to be unpredictable. The overall average may be more favorable to agriculture in certain areas, but one stray weather event can cost farmers potentially billions. To be fair, this has always been the case, ut with a changing climate, such events will become more frequent. If we cannot seem to get right the future climate conditions, how will farmers know what crops to plant where in the future?

There are benefits to a warming climate in the same way there are detriments. We have to decide which consequences we need to defend against and which we can embrace.

I agree with this, though I don't know if changes that would cause ares that not used to certain weather conditions is a good thing, even if overall, conditions are less extreme across the board.

And eliminate the risks of others. Cold viruses, like influenza and pneumonia, are the 8th leading cause of death in the US. They lose their ability to spread from person to person in warmer weather.

I guess I should have emphasized that I was not solely considering human diseases. Animal bore diseases that do not affect humans directly would also be something to consider. These could cause problems with livestock production as well as have other unintended ecological effects. Additionally, while not a disease, many northern species of trees did not live with the large threat of certain insect pests due to the winters being to cold for them, and so have adapted without them. Warmer winters would mean these pests could potentially wipe out millions of acres of forests.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that warmer temperatures would make certain diseases less common, but, like with climate conditions above, I don't know if trading a disease we are used to dealing with for one we are not used to dealing with is a great alternative.

If an invasive species is much more successful than the species in the environment, why shouldn’t they take over?

You just said you cared about protecting sage bush habitat, now you say you are fine with invasive taking over. Which is it? You can't have both. Species such as cheatgrass and invasive thistles cannot be utilized as easily by cattle or other species the same a native ones can be, and they can out compete native species to the point they become dominant. Additionally, sagebrush habitat is largely composed of perennials. Cheatgrass is an annual and is only a live for part of the year. It does not hold the soil in place or allow for soil infiltration of water nearly as well as natives. This causes problems with large amounts of water that normally would go into the ground instead going into the rivers, carrying large amounts of sediment with them. Weren't you previously discussing how we should be taking care of underground water resources?

However, while this was what I had in mind when I wrote what you quoted, it seems clear what you had in mind was something different. For the specific trout issue: I actually have had these arguments before. While I do think there is merit in preserving species, practicality does become an issue. Things like trying to preserve the spotted owl, while I'd hate to see any species go, really seem more like a waste of resources that could be better used somewhere else. I would think that trying to learn as much about them genetically and behaviorally would be more useful and less expensive, It is impossible to keep the invading Barred Owl out of their habitat forever.

Good for the armadillos! They’re expanding to new areas that are now available to them in search of more territory, resources, and mates.

I'd be less concerned if they weren't know to carry and transmit leprosy to people. Too be fair, I brought this point up initially because I miss interpreted what you meant by "hadn't been out of season" and it really doesn't make any sense at all now that you clarified it.

Granted I skimmed through some parts, I'm a little confused as to what the goal of this discussion is. Your introduction says that this thread is to discuss why global warming occurs (in addition to our long-term survival), but you haven't discussed much. Your main points seems to be the unexpected temperature change in the last 15 years and that large time scale graph which shows the oscillating climate with time. I don't know if you expected that to shock us, but most people are aware of earth's periodic climate from time periods like the ice age and the volcanic environment of early earth that's hypothesized. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it: the atmosphere is an insulator like a thermos and when you are hot it keeps the warm in, but when you are cold it keeps you from getting warmer.

I don't mean to belittle your argument because you do have a point, but your argument is like finding a senior lying dead on the floor next to an empty cup of antifreeze that was consumed and saying "well, we know from previous data that people around this age die naturally so it is unlikely that antifreeze was the cause of death." Come on. Really?

The facts are that the global temperature is rising and that industrial processes are causing an increase in CO2 levels. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to see the connection. What do you think happens to the atmospheric CO2 from industry emissions? Carbon dioxide doesn't leave the earth in appreciable quantities so it has to go somewhere. One place it can go is in the ocean but that wont help for long. The best removers of carbon dioxide have got to be green plants which strike a balance between respiration and photosynthesis. However the deforestation of rain forests leaves little to be desired and is a dangerous mix which only makes the effects of global warming worse.

Its true that water vapor and methane are better greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, but unlike carbon dioxide, water vapor can be pulled out of the atmosphere by condensation, reactions, or even consumption. Meanwhile carbon dioxide requires unpractical pressures/temperatures to condense and is essentially trapped in the atmosphere. It is already oxidized so it cannot be used a fuel source for any "adapting" organisms other than plants and it is quite inert. I only know one devastating reaction of CO2 with Ca(CO3) off the top of my head. Methane is more potent, however it can be pulled away using simple reagents in addition to consumption by microorganisms.

About your second point, I wont bother going into whether the numbers are accurate because that sounds like a waste of time to me. I don't have any data to compare your 0.06 degrees Celsius with, but to say it is next to zero is kind of silly. In the blue region of the temperature history chart you can see that the temperature goes roughly between 0 and -4 degrees. 0.06/4 is about 1.5% increase from the maximum increase in that, long, period. What will happen in the next 15 years? 3%? We are also assuming that the number of (industrial and biological) plants stays the same which is highly unlikely.

There are also a million and one reasons why the predicted temperature change didn't match up with the data. For example the ocean is greatly impacted by changes in CO2 levels. As you may know carbon dioxide is a Lewis acid and increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 leads to increased levels of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, which leads to water acidification. According to my analytical chemistry book the CO2 levels have lowered the pH by ~0.1 units in the past few years, however the ocean can only hold so much CO2. What will happen when it reaches its limit?

This may not seem like a lot, but keep in mind that a 0.1 unit is the difference between acidosis and normal blood pH. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidosis
In addition, as I mentioned before the reaction with CO2 and calcium carbonate is threatening to marine life especially creatures that rely on shells composed of CaCO3 as it causes their shells to dissolve. This will no doubt have severe impacts on our lives in the future if we continue.

{ ten times the actual figure. }

That'd be your source taking a petty shot at a media typo, which you'd know if you were actually reading these things instead of skimming through them. The corrected typo said {1.3} instead of {.13}. The two numbers being disputed are {.13} and {.12}, or "arguing over a few pointless tenths of a degree", as the guy they were hoping would agree with them is quoted saying.

{ You cut off the last part of the quote; “which are at present following the worst case emissions scenarios." }

Because now we know they're not, they're not even following the best case emissions scenarios. It's a quote given before the 15 year data was released that confirms the "pause" beginning at 2000. The rough draft report the Daily Mail leaked was only officially released in 2014.

{ The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2010 had almost doubled, from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate for the 20th century to a 0.125-inch-per-year average rate. }

Nothing I said disputes this? The ocean levels are rising because the ice caps are melting. That's a pretty obvious consequence of a warming climate. The planet hasn't always had ice caps at either end, Antarctica has been a tropical island more than once, and the ocean has been hundreds of feet higher in the past.

{ That research shows that the middle depths of the ocean, between about 1,500 and 3,300 feet deep, have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than at any time during the past 10,000 years. }

Now come on, I already explained why this is perfectly natural.

{ "Over the past 10,000 years--a period of time known as the Holocene, when the plant’s climate was relatively stable and human civilization arose--the Pacific generally cooled, with a few exceptions, until about 1600, when ocean temperatures began gradually warming." }

15,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago, what was the rate of ocean warming? Much faster than we see now. You can see on the graph that it's as our sources say, the ocean maintained its average for about 10,000 years until ~1600. Were we emitting such a drastic amount of CO2 throughout the 1500s that we influenced the entire ocean to begin warming again at the turn of the century?

{ You have once again failed to provide an adequate counter to Marcott et al outside of just dismissing it. }

This is the first time in this entire thread you have mentioned such a name, and you haven't actually linked to any study at all, how could I have dismissed it?

{ the ‘blade’ of the ‘hockey stick’ – the instrumental temperature record – is our most accurate temperature data set }

Now, I can't respond for sure since you didn't actually source where you got this information from, but from what I know about the "hockey stick" you're still referring to the IPCC climate models that assume temperature exponentially increases as the rate of our GG emissions do.

The blade of the hockey stick is all we have observational data for, that's true, but the assumption that it's going to skyrocket from here and increase at nearly 1 degree per year is how the handle of the hockey stick gets formed. With the 2014 report, we know the observational data doesn't currently support the theoretical increase that the IPCC models predicted we would see from this set of data: instead of a sharp increase forming the handle, we see the blade continuing its gradual ascent.

{ This should have been incredibly obvious from my paragraph structuring, but I guess not. }

>does not link to study
>does not even mention author's name in any previous posts
>"should have been obvious from my paragraph structuring"

---

{ If we cannot seem to get right the future climate conditions, how will farmers know what crops to plant where in the future? }

How do they do it now? How did they do it before we had the Weather Channel?

{ such events will become more frequent. }

I just linked you to a report that says one of the few things both sides of the global warming debate agree on is that a warmer climate will cause less extreme weather.

{ Animal bore diseases that do not affect humans directly would also be something to consider. }

Every species is effected by diseases and viruses that thrive in different conditions. No matter what species, the cold weather viruses will become less and less common and the warm weather viruses will become more common. In no longer worrying about cold weather viruses, we can concentrate our efforts on defending against the rising warm weather viruses. Just one more adjustment we'll have to make.

{ Warmer winters would mean these pests could potentially wipe out millions of acres of forests. }

It would also defrost and expand millions of acres of currently untouched forest in new locations, and pests that can't handle the heat would cease plaguing many warm-climate trees and plants. You win some, you lose some, it should be pretty obvious that we're going to be losing the species adapted to cold-weather. The opposite would be true if the planet was cooling.

{ You just said you cared about protecting sage bush habitat, now you say you are fine with invasive taking over. }

I was using sage-brush as an example of an ecosystem, not saying I value it above all the others. I was just watching the latest Nature episode (Sagebrush Seas), so it was on my mind.

If it came down to forests vs. sage-brush, I'd obviously choose the ecosystem that supports more resources that we need. That's logical conservation again. Sagebrush is a very specialized ecosystem with very specialized animals that inhabit it. The animals that stand the test of millions of years make it because they're not very specialized, they can adapt to a wide range of conditions, they can eat a wide range of things. I don't see a point in preserving specialized creatures or ecosystems that were obviously not going to last anyway just because they happen to exist with us today.

{ I’m a little confused as to what the goal of this discussion is. Your introduction says that this thread is to discuss why global warming occurs (in addition to our long-term survival), but you haven’t discussed much }

My whole second post addresses the discussion, which is what we have to do and what we should do to ensure our long term survival. Do we keep going as we are now? I suggested we integrate how we live with nature more completely, and enforce global water regulation, as two examples. Briefly touched on logical conservation but I wont count that.

I want to know what you guys think we should do. My two examples aren't the only possibilities, and they're pretty extreme suggestions, maybe somebody has more moderate ideas, maybe somebody has additional ideas that are just as extreme, maybe somebody has a really simple idea that could be super effective without being very extreme at all that nobody else has considered.

That's why I presented it as a discussion instead of a debate. Most of the topics I want to post here don't have answers or completely conclusive sciences to back them up, otherwise we wouldn't need to discuss them. The first post just lays out the most recent research we have on the subject, which is relevant for discussing how we regulate based on the reasons the climate is changing. It isn't trying to prove anything that isn't already obvious to anyone familiar with the topic, it's just a summary/some background info for people who aren't so they can take part. I want people to be compelled to read the links and stuff posted here, even if they're a lot longer and more in-depth than this forum usually gets.

{ The best removers of carbon dioxide have got to be green plants which strike a balance between respiration and photosynthesis. However the deforestation of rain forests leaves little to be desired and is a dangerous mix which only makes the effects of global warming worse. }

I'm genuinely glad someone is bringing this up. It has always seemed to me that the most obvious counter to our increased CO2 emissions would be to replant vast areas of forest ecosystems. It doesn't even have to be where it was originally removed, this is what I meant when I said "poorly planned habitat loss". There are a ton of places industry has exploited and moved on from, they're wastelands where nothing is happening but the local climate and location is capable of supporting the habitat that used to be there. Why aren't we replanting like crazy in those areas? We just let them sit there and be barren until nature restores it the long way (seeds carried via wind and other animals etc) when we could be actively restoring millions of acres of tropical and temperate forest and grassland.

They also clear massive areas of land on purchased property that is way over sized even for industrial needs. Instead of clearing 3 sq miles and getting 5 or 6 factories in there, we're getting just 1 sitting on a huge expanse of wasted land. It exasperates our problem needlessly, but we're so universally wasteful in how we develop the land like that, everybody wants more, everybody wants a big property instead of merely what they need.

{ Meanwhile carbon dioxide requires unpractical pressures/temperatures to condense and is essentially trapped in the atmosphere. It is already oxidized so it cannot be used a fuel source for any “adapting” organisms other than plants }

Nothing to disagree with here, goes hand in hand with the last point about replanting forest ecosystems.

{ 0.06/4 is about 1.5% increase from the maximum increase in that, long, period. }

But why did it happen? Why did it happen 15,000 years ago without our contributions?
We don't even know why it "paused" in the first place, or why it picked up again at this rate.
We noticed it correlated with our CO2 emissions and jumped on that, and now the real observations aren't matching up as nicely as they first did (aka correlation =/= causation). Is it that big a deal? So we've been on the wrong track for awhile, now we learned something new and can adjust accordingly. That's what science is. The only people damaged by this action are the governments currently pulling in billions from the fees and fines and taxes that were only justified on the assumption that our first CO2 assumption was correct.

{ oceans }

I kinda addressed this in my last post.

{ What will happen when it reaches its limit? }

What happened in the past? It will probably cycle, in a warming climate there will probably be a significant phytoplankton/algal boom, and all that CO2 will become accessible, and I guess pH will probably drop a bit. But this goes back to the "replant the forest" thing again, that's how the planet has managed the ocean's carbon cycle in the past.

“arguing over a few pointless tenths of a degree”

…that are within a statistically acceptable margin and hence not "horribly wrong", rendering this point null. 1.3 is a significant overshoot from 0.12; 0.13 is not.

Because now we know they’re not, they’re not even following the best case emissions scenarios.

Source? You are aware of the fact that "emissions" refers to greenhouse gases, not temperatures, correct? I can't imagine why else you would have quoted him clarifying this. CO2 emissions have indeed been following IPCC models since the turn of the 21st century.

Nothing I said disputes this?

This was part of the case that Scientific American made for ocean-centric warming. See below

Were we emitting such a drastic amount of CO2 throughout the 1500s that we influenced the entire ocean to begin warming again at the turn of the century?

No, the article does not claim this. The entire point of the piece is that warming in recent decades has outpaced warming in the past by tenfold and more. The article that you linked to as support for your argument also refutes it.

{ other studies have indicated that the oceans began taking on significant heat around the same time that surface warming began to slow down in 1998 }

So much for the "inexplicable slowdown".

you haven’t actually linked to any study at all, how could I have dismissed it?

Seeing as how you posted a graph in your OP with the study present in it, which you dismissed as, I quote, "ludicrous", I kind of assumed that you knew what you were referring to. It is not my responsibility to elaborate on a study that you (unintentionally or otherwise) brought up and subsequently attempted to wave away until you bring evidence to support yourself.

With the 2014 report

Ignoring the fact that the study was published in 2013 and it is hence horribly premature to assert that one year's worth of observational data is enough to draw a conclusion, the fact is that the data we have supports the hockey stick. Analysis of past temperature trends and consideration of present ones was the entire purpose of the study.

---

>wholly rejects the validity of a study that her own source brings up
>does not even know the name of the study
>expects other people to tell her and gets mad when they assume she isn't clueless
>attempts to deflect criticism of intellectual laziness with dank meme arrows

{ hence horribly premature to assert that one year’s worth of observational data is enough to draw a conclusion }

We have 15 years worth of observational data, 14 of which it includes, so idk where you're getting this from.

This (the author of which I will discuss momentarily)

is this

zoomed in.

Nothing I said rejects the validity of that.

But see those red dots? Those are the IPCC apocalypse estimates. The hockey stick theory says, based on the IPCC models, we'll continue to see observational temperatures surge and surface temperatures will rise nearly ten degrees by 2100.

The brief "pause" we see starting at 2000 says that the IPCC models aren't correct, they don't take enough natural variation into consideration, and they overestimate the influence greenhouse gases have on climate change overall. This information was not obtainable at the time Marcott's 2013 study was published, and even if it were wouldn't render it invalid as it's literally just a summary of the past temperatures. How does anything I've said disagree with this study??

Yes, when responding to a post, specifically one image, that sources at least six different studies on its own, it's kind of necessary to tell people which one you're referring to. "Hockey stick" doesn't exclusively refer to Marcott's study.

{ So much for the “inexplicable slowdown”. }

It's an inexplicable slowdown because the ocean's carbon cycle alone does not account for the sudden rate of the pause, if the science were settled you'd be able to Google it really easily, as you've obviously been attempting to do. The lead scientist of the IPCC himself calls it a "pause we can't currently account for". Sorry, simply "the ocean is absorbin it all" doesn't actually explain the change.

{ 1.3 is a significant overshoot from 0.12; 0.13 is not. }

1.3 was a typist error from the journalist writing the report. Neither study's actual text involves the number 1.3, it was a reporting error by completely unrelated people, that's why I called it petty. But that's what you get when you link to opinion blogs, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring that you're still doing.

Now, let's go back to the site you got that graph from, sketpicalscience.

This site is run by John Cook, who is famously behind the "97% of all climate scientists studies endorse anthropogenic global warming" report which was utterly destroyed by the authors of the studies that John Cook declared support anthropogenic global warming, saying that is absolutely not what their studies conclude and was actually often the opposite in a lot of cases.

I can almost hardly believe you would link to something hosted by him, but I totally believe you had no idea, and since it's just a graph of a study he didn't author I can let it go this time.

Seriously, look this one up and actually read this time, it's an excellent example of "alarmism" in contrast to "deniers".

{ The survey by Australian global-warming activist John Cook, released recently with a massive media sendoff, is rapidly melting, as scientists and statisticians subject it to analysis. The Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the anthropogenic position. }

Dutch chemist and science journalist Marcel Crok is one of many who posted their public analysis of it.

{ To the credit of the researchers they made all their results available in a searchable database. Their rating system is online as well. There are 7 levels of endorsement, going from quantified endorsement of AGW all the way down to a quantified rejection of AGW. Seems fair enough. But here is the issue. Only the first category can be regarded as a real or strong endorsement of AGW. Here is the description of category 1:

1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification 1.1 Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

Now specifically look at 1.1. This comes close to the iconic statement from the IPCC AR4 report which said that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Now if 97% of the abstracts would repeat in slightly varying terms this major conclusion, than at least the conclusion of the survey would be more or less fair. However the survey doesn’t come even close.

Brandon Shollenberger, who is guest blogger at The Blackboard, was the first who reported that actually only 65 papers have been rated “category 1″. Yes that’s right, only 65 abstracts clearly “mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)”. 65 on a total of 12,000 is 0.5%. So a completely fair conclusion from their survey is that only 1 in 200 abstracts explicitly mentioned that humans are dominating climate. }

He goes on to show how they twisted the stats to get the 97% figure.

Thanks for the opportunity to bring that up now, people always invariably link to that "study" during these kinds of conversations.

The brief “pause” we see starting at 2000 says that the IPCC models aren’t correct

the ocean’s carbon cycle alone does not account for the sudden rate of the pause

These two points are strongly linked, and hence are best addressed simultaneously. Needless to say, climate change is a highly complex and evolving science; a case can indeed be made for a temperature pause if the IPCC models are compared to raw temperature data. But to look in more detail:

Firstly, the "pause", when examined in more detail, can be attributed to several "noise" factors. There have been several studies examining this, one of the more detailed of these being Murphy et al; once temporary and random factors are accounted for, there has evidently been no slowing since the turn of the century.

Secondly, "ocean's carbon cycle"? This is about the ocean's accumulated heat; in addition to the temperature increase, the ocean has indeed been receiving the brunt of the earth's overall warming. Earth's oceans absorb more than an order of magnitude more warming than its land and atmosphere does. “The ocean is absorbin it all” is indeed a decent summary, because that's exactly what has occurred; once it is taken into account, even earth's raw temperatures show a significant upward slope.

Neither study’s actual text involves the number 1.3

Note that my point about Mail's inaccurate reporting stands; { the headline should have been "Global warming is just 92 percent of what we said it was", on an apples-for-apples comparison." }

I think you're so hell-bent on "proving me wrong" you aren't comprehending that I haven't tried to prove anything. Is it my titles that are throwing you guys off, because this happened in the Islam thread too. They're attention grabby titles, nothing more~

My entire first post is a summary of a recently released (2014) IPCC report, it is globally accepted as the most current information. You're linking me to studies that "disprove" what the IPCC report concluded five years after some of them were published (Murphy et al, published in 2009, researched and written even earlier, thus discussing a pause that had only been happening for 5-7 years at the time when we knew even less about its cause). The exact causes of the sudden "pause" in warming (which is not really a pause at all, it's still increasing, but so slow compared to what the models predicted that it looked like a literal pause when we first noticed it) are not known. The ocean is a contributing factor, but we know it's not the sole factor. Universally. Accepted by climate scientists across the world who are currently trying to shed light on the very phenomenon.

Anthropogenic global warming has not been accepted by the scientific majority in nearly two decades, verifiable by the John Cook study which inadvertently confirmed that only 65 out of 12,000 recent studies conclude human actions are responsible for at least 50% of climate change. The accepted theory is that the majority of climate change is natural but human action can have a devastating effect on local climate and, obviously, the current/ongoing ecologic health of the planet (ocean dumping, pollution, land clearing, etc).

{ This is about the ocean’s accumulated heat }

Heat radiation is part of the carbon cycle… it doesn't just mean CO2 → Ocean. The warmer the ocean gets the less CO2 it can absorb, it doesn't really make sense that it would suddenly start absorbing it at a more increased rate now after 200 years of warming waters. That basic fact is part of why we had to step back and say "hang on a second this emissions based theory isn't really adding up in the long run".

{ Note that my point about Mail’s inaccurate reporting stands }

Okay? The Mail reporters poor interpretation the leaked rough-draft of a pretty complex IPCC report that they most likely didn't actually read doesn't effect the content of the actual report…

I haven’t tried to prove anything

My entire first post is a summary of a recently released (2014) IPCC report

Both of these claims are truly bemusing. You made several arguments beyond simply summarizing what the IPCC said in your original post, and used an intellectually dishonest graph from a denialist source. Apparently, you did not consider the possibility that a denialist interpretation and summary of the IPCC's information is not the only possible interpretation. By your own standards here, I haven't been trying to "prove [you] wrong" either; I've only offered my own summary and explained why it is more factually consistent than yours, so relax. Or, alternatively, you could drop the amusingly transparent pseudo-neutrality you've been attempting to put on.

As for the rest of your post, I will respond later this evening once I have time.

You didn't like my brackets so I'll use plus signs this time.

+ still not acknowledging that you linked to personal opinion blogs by completely unqualified bloggers

+ { a denialist source } Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD in meteorology, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites, still works for NASA as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, all research supported by NASA, the NOA, and the DOE, does not deny climate change in any way shape or form.

Please explain.

{ You made several arguments beyond simply summarizing what the IPCC said in your original post }

Where? Are you sure you know what the IPCC report says well enough to know which of my arguments agree with which sections?

{ it is more factually consistent than yours }

??????

{ Or, alternatively, you could drop the amusingly transparent pseudo-neutrality you’ve been attempting to put on. }

Or, you could specifically site the problems you have with my original post instead of repeating that you're right because you're right and diverting to attacking my character. :)

---

and side note not to you specifically, but more than one person has made comments about my response time to forum posts lately and this is the most relevant place to address it. I have an actual career and I'm still a student, I assume at least some people here also have lives and understand, sometimes I do not have time to write a lengthy discussion response while I do have time to casually post from my phone during the day. It doesn't mean I'm "ignoring" anyone or "giving up on" the topic.

Dr. Roy Spencer… does not deny climate change in any way shape or form.

You say all of this as if it actually means anything in regards to his denialism. Newton was a creationist.

{ Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". }

Just one example. There are many more a quick google search away. Even as someone who denies catastrophic warming, your interest in conservation should make a "self-regulating and self-correcting" attitude towards the environment seem abhorrent, no?

you could specifically site the problems you have with my original post

I've kind of been doing that for my last dozen or so posts.

which of my arguments agree with which sections?

You made this rather obvious yourself: { The red dots at the end are the IPCC model’s predictions for our temperature in 2050 and 2100, which are absolutely ludicrous. }

---

Also,

I haven’t tried to prove anything

how does that prove humans aren’t responsible for the climate change? I'm glad you asked! [provides evidence for argument]

lol

---

but so slow compared to what the models predicted
The ocean is a contributing factor, but we know it’s not the sole factor.

Only if you ignore ocean heating. Ignoring this doesn't make it go away. Sure, oceans aren't the only factor (see below), but as I've shown, their heating utterly dwarfs earth/atmosphere heating. Once again, you have failed to actually disprove anything outside of trying to wave it away, so I will have to keep reminding you.

Murphy et al, published in 2009, researched and written even earlier, thus discussing a pause that had only been happening for 5-7 years at the time when we knew even less about its causes

Here's a study from 2011. And if that's still not good enough, here's one from 2014. All with the same or similar conclusions--once you remove bias and noise factors, there has evidently been zero pause.

{ The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. }

The exact causes of the sudden “pause” in warming… are not known

Now you're just lying to my face.

---

more than one person has made comments about my response time to forum posts lately… I do not have time to write a lengthy discussion response

Really? Wow, I'm surprised that someone would object for that reason. You easily respond the fastest and the most often of any user I've seen. I would probably be able to reach your WPM (words per minute) if I wasn't distracted so easily; my phone's gimmicky keyboard never fails to kick my ass, and makes copy-pasting nigh impossible.

I guess we're not getting that abortion thread so might as well revive this thread…

“According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) --

According to http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The temperature anomaly for 2014 was 0.68 C and 0.29 C in 1994. So the increase in the past 20 years was around 0.39 C. Its obvious from the graph that each year has significant oscillations, but if you pick points that fall on the dark average line (like 2013 and 1994 for example) you still get an increase of 0.31 C. These numbers seem to support the prediction more closely than the numbers you reported.

What's your opinion on NASA's results?

Hey, I have an idea. Let's stop discussing this on an Internet forum and get shit done in the real world. Good? Good.

bruh I'm too sick to even be looking at a screen right now, I just want to know when I was supposed to make an abortion thread because I am more then willing.

& why do people act like talking about something online means you're not doing anything irl? My first degree is in wildlife conservation bud, this is already my real world.

https://knowyourmeme.com/forums/general/topics/31186-unpopular-opinions-thread-v2/page/8

My post in that thread. You can't miss it since nobody posted in 3 days…, which I assumed was a go-ahead by the lack of responses.

Anyway you should take a look at that site. It doesn't have a lengthy article to read, but it does have a simple interactive graph where you can drag your mouse and see their data for each date. The source of the data is NASA, which is good enough for me.

@the guy above lisalombs, I get my first degree in chem. eng. in 2 years, but I can do private research now if you want to fund me with all the expensive equipment. Otherwise I prefer to have rational discussions with others and spread the knowledge of climate change rather than brawling with the police in a violent protest.

NASA and NOAA have been adjusting the method of calculating global temperature to shoot their agenda for decades. NOAA three days ago published "newly corrected and updated" temperature data that says not only is every single climate model being used by scientists globally wrong, but our observational data is wrong, because the newly corrected calculations say there has absolutely been no "pause" in global temperature at all and the IPCC models underestimated temperature increase, which has actually doubled since the 90s.

ah I see your post. I already have a animal vs humans thread ready to post on my laptop tho, abortion will have to wait another few days. Or, you know, someone else could do it. I can't do anything right now, I only checked this from my phone because I got Owen's post notification while listening to the Cubs game under my covers taking shelter from the light. :C

I'll create an abortion thread tomorrow or possibly the day after if I find the time. Right now I'm both rushing to finish an essay and trying to fix my chronic sleep derpivation, which is not a good combo.

Also, I still need to finish compiling the data for that gender and sexuality thread. God, so many loose ends.

What's NASA's agenda?

I didn't read the whole article, but I guess I might as well.

Wow a new thread from Lisa and one from Particle mare in the span of a couple days, we're going wild here!

True, but you're wasting your time by opening a discussion about this on a KYM forum of all places.