Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Ahhzz]

My wife actually worked for a development company in the late 90s/early naughts. They were working on a rechargeable battery which was lasting longer than the current rechargeables, and was destined for large cells for electric cars. The process was purchased, and the company rejoiced. Then they discovered the parent company several times removed was Exxon Mobile. The process never surfaced again that she, or any of the R&D group she still talks with, ever saw.

Anyone who believes that "dirty" power industries are rushing to support new, cheaper, cleaner energy at their own expense is part of the problem.

Also, your original quote said nothing of "Cro Magnon". Yet another issue of people with that mindset: change their statements based on responses.
"That house is white!" "No, it's just white on this side because I haven't finished painting it yet: the other sides are light blue" "That house was white 78 years ago! Disprove that! See?! Still right!"

 

[Papahyooie]

The problem is that too many people with the ability to change things are retarding and preventing those tech advances with the battlecry of "Fake Science", with the sole purpose of lining their pockets. Whether or not humankind is a major source of the temperature changes, or the CO2 does this, or the yen does that, the facts of oil and coal being "dirty" energy sources are indisputable, but too many people with power wouldn't make "enough" money allowing technology to shift away from those industries to "cleaner" ones, and so they do everything they can to prevent them. \

And honestly, your statement of "zero actual evidence" is indicative of that mindset.

Coal is still by far and away the most economically viable source of energy. If clean tech were more economically viable, everything would have changed over by now, simply by virtue of greed. When old tech becomes less viable than new tech, industries shift to the new tech. Not before. So the question becomes "why?" Why should we change over to clean energy sources? Or more specifically, why should we pay MORE for clean tech? There has to be a reason. So the reason comes in the shape of a bogey man called global warming. The "conspiracy" is not on the side of old tech. Keeping old tech is the default, until something more viable comes along. The "conspiracy" is on the side of clean energy, which needs a reason other than being viable, in order for the new upstarts to take a slice of the pie.

And I don't want anyone to think I'm against clean energy advancements. I'm absolutely for them. I am, however, against using questionable science and scare tactics to push them.

As for what @Easy Rhino said, I've provided the closest thing to real data we have about temperatures during the rise of the Cro-Magnon. It is definitely not as good as actually taking temperatures, but it's all we have. Few would contest the validity of the science behind the different measuring techniques scientists use to determine those temperatures. And those data points show that there is no anomalous rise in temperature.

 

[Easy Rhino]

My wife actually worked for a development company in the late 90s/early naughts. They were working on a rechargeable battery which was lasting longer than the current rechargeables, and was destined for large cells for electric cars. The process was purchased, and the company rejoiced. Then they discovered the parent company several times removed was Exxon Mobile. The process never surfaced again that she, or any of the R&D group she still talks with, ever saw.

Anyone who believes that "dirty" power industries are rushing to support new, cheaper, cleaner energy at their own expense is part of the problem.

Also, your original quote said nothing of "Cro Magnon". Yet another issue of people with that mindset: change their statements based on responses.
"That house is white!" "No, it's just white on this side because I haven't finished painting it yet: the other sides are light blue" "That house was white 78 years ago! Disprove that! See?! Still right!"

You have still not provided RAW data points for the period in question. My original statement is clear. We lack instrumentation accurate enough to come to any real conclusion on climate change. So unless you can provide said data any argument made today using data from the past 100 years is irrelevant given the age of the earth.

Also, battery technology has vastly improved since the 90s rendering your conspiracy theory debunked.

 

[Ahhzz]

You have still not provided RAW data points for the period in question. My original statement is clear. We lack instrumentation accurate enough to come to any real conclusion on climate change. So unless you can provide said data any argument made today using data from the past 100 years is irrelevant given the age of the earth.

Also, battery technology has vastly improved since the 90s rendering your conspiracy theory debunked.

https://theconversation.com/the-thr...climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368
here's some facts for ya

"The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years."

and no, my conspiracy fact is not "debunked" simply because battery technology has improved. It could have been improved faster if Exxon Mobile hadn't bought up a new technology.

 

[Easy Rhino]

https://theconversation.com/the-thr...climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368
here's some facts for ya

"The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years."

and no, my conspiracy fact is not "debunked" simply because battery technology has improved. It could have been improved faster if Exxon Mobile hadn't bought up a new technology.

The article you linked does not contain RAW data from that time period. No such data exists. You do know that when they develop these theories they use more recent data and then develop an algorithm that seems to fit the trend, right? You do know that the cro-magnon man was unable to fathom the idea of a thermometer, right? So my point stands that all arguments using data today is irrelevant. So again my main argument stands. We do not have accurate instruments to draw a conclusion!

"it could have improved faster" actually you do not know that. Again your theory is debunked. Going back through some of your other posts it seems you make some pretty big assumptions to form your opinions on things. I won't bother responding to you until you can show you have the ability to think at a higher level.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Coal is still by far and away the most economically viable source of energy.

False, natural gas is presently the cheapest source of energy. Only geothermal is cheaper but limited availability. Wind is cheaper only because of subsidies.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

 

[Ahhzz]

False, natural gas is presently the cheapest source of energy.

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...e-cheapest-source-for-new-electric-power.html

"
Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).



Department of Energy
"Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report.
"

 

[Papahyooie]

https://theconversation.com/the-thr...climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368
here's some facts for ya

"The speed at which CO₂ is rising has no comparison in the recorded past. The fastest natural shifts out of ice ages saw CO₂ levels increase by around 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. It might be hard to believe, but humans have emitted the equivalent amount in just the last 17 years."

and no, my conspiracy fact is not "debunked" simply because battery technology has improved. It could have been improved faster if Exxon Mobile hadn't bought up a new technology.

What IS debunked however, is Magibeg's claim that no scientist has ever claimed that CO2 was the main factor in "global warming." So... thanks.

False, natural gas is presently the cheapest source of energy.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Not when considering the cost of creating and moving infrastructure. We do indeed use natural gas where it can be most cheaply retrofitted: residential (and to a lesser extent, commercial) heating.
Sure, it's cheaper by the unit so to speak. But I'm talking the whole picture. The cost and time before ROI are far higher for large scale energy production than coal, if for no other reason than that the infrastructure is already in place.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3190409/sustainable-it/unsubsidized-wind-and-solar-now-the-cheapest-source-for-new-electric-power.html

"
Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).



Department of Energy
"Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report.
"

DoE's Levelized Costs include Solar - PV and Solar - Thermal. They disappoint and that's not going to change. Reason: DoE considers the cost of producing power 24/7. Solar creates a massive hole.

Not when considering the cost of creating and moving infrastructure. We do indeed use natural gas where it can be most cheaply retrofitted: residential (and to a lesser extent, commercial) heating.
Sure, it's cheaper by the unit so to speak. But I'm talking the whole picture. The cost and time before ROI are far higher for large scale energy production than coal, if for no other reason than that the infrastructure is already in place.

DoE takes into account that as well (transmission costs). It's about electricity generation strictly, not heating. These guys:

 

[Papahyooie]

DoE takes into account that as well (transmission costs).

Actually, I apologize. I didn't read your link before answering, as I was just reading articles about this very subject yesterday. Turns out you have newer information than I was reading. After skimming it, I see that the paper does indeed take that into account. I'll read the whole thing. If this is indeed true, it's great news!

EDIT: (except for the fact that the solar and wind crowd will still stir up the anti-fracking scares...)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ehm, Does the production of natural gas from shales cause earthquakes? If so, how are the earthquakes related to these operations?

To produce natural gas from shale formations, it is necessary to increase the interconnectedness of the pore space (permeability) of the shale so that the gas can flow through the rock mass and be extracted through production wells. This is usually done by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). Fracking causes extremely small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern. In addition to natural gas, fracking fluids and salt water trapped in the same formation as the gas are returned to the surface. These wastewaters are frequently disposed of by injection into deep wells. The injection of wastewater and salt water into the subsurface can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage.

 

[Papahyooie]

I'm not sure about other places, but where I come from there is an entire industry dedicated to transporting and disposing of the waste water, that was a big boon for job growth for a long time. I'll have to ask around, but I'm almost certain they didn't just inject it back into wells. The wells they dug were filled in with sand (yet another transportation industry that sprung up.) I'm pretty sure they took the waste water to treatment plants.

Regardless, all of that is solvable. If natural gas has indeed surpassed coal for direct energy production, that's great news. The cleanliness and efficiency possibilities are far higher than coal... the problem has been the infrastructure cost.

 

[Boosnie]

Coal is still by far and away the most economically viable source of energy.

Where's the data about that?

If clean tech were more economically viable, everything would have changed over by now, simply by virtue of greed.

What's exactly the machanism of greed? could you elaborate on that? Please, provide hard data as this is central to your beliefs of a climate change scam.
(please remember data is here not intended as a plot of two seemengly interacting variables. Thanks)

When old tech becomes less viable than new tech, industries shift to the new tech. Not before.

In fact "The Industry"(what industry? which kind?) is never ever delaying new technologies to maximize the profit/investment ratio of the old ones. Expecially in those markets where a handful of companies share a single, global market.

So the question becomes "why?" Why should we change over to clean energy sources? Or more specifically, why should we pay MORE for clean tech? There has to be a reason.

Why? why one would never ever be walking down the street without breathing a host of carcinogens and smelling the great smell of the past century?

[diesel exaust composition]

Why would one turn on the AC in his apartment knowing the majority of the energy is being produced a few feet over his head by a source he has already paid for for the next 20-30 yrs that use a kind of fuel that's not suceptible from scarcity, economic crisis, market fluctuation?
Why, knowing the basic fact that CO2 is venomous and contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect, one should ever want that the people who make decisions and regulations will look at the future as a better place than it is now?

And do we pay more?
Are we paying the majority of the investment in clean tech research? Nope, The Industry is. Do we asked The Industry for a shift in research in clean tech? nope, they did that because they knew all along that the time would have come that the shift was inevitable and they reacted. Go look where the biggest renewable projects are in costruction right now.

So the reason comes in the shape of a bogey man called global warming. The "conspiracy" is not on the side of old tech. Keeping old tech is the default

So now is the old tech is the default and the greed mechanism is gone. This The Industry is very shady.

until something more viable comes along. The "conspiracy" is on the side of clean energy, which needs a reason other than being viable, in order for the new upstarts to take a slice of the pie.

Oh, I see. We need something more viable for The Industry, not for the general wellness of the population.
You know, Renewable sources are cheaper than mining and burning, and require less maintainance. In fact, hydro power has been exploited as the first preferable energy source all around the world(set aside America where oil oligarcs have run the country since 1910). We know that burning coal is bad for everyone since the first British Industrial Revolution.

[RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: COST ANALYSIS SERIES: HYDROPOWER]

It's difficult to look at the actual data and see a conspiracy.
Surely is difficult to make assumptions without keeping up with the news; prices change over time when a new, better tech tries to replace a century old, everywhere present technology.

[Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis]

And I don't want anyone to think I'm against clean energy advancements. I'm absolutely for them. I am, however, against using questionable science and scare tactics to push them.

Obviously you want not. One can not act against his own benefit and safety.

Unless...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Why would one turn on the AC in his apartment knowing the majority of the energy is being produced a few feet over his head by a source he has already paid for for the next 20-30 yrs that use a kind of fuel that's not suceptible from scarcity, economic crisis, market fluctuation?

Because no AC is hell, especially in the central/eastern continental USA. Not concerned about what is happening 20-30 years down the road when we feel like we're dying today.

 

[Papahyooie]

Where's the data about that?



What's exactly the machanism of greed? could you elaborate on that? Please, provide hard data as this is central to your beliefs of a climate change scam.
(please remember data is here not intended as a plot of two seemengly interacting variables. Thanks)



In fact "The Industry"(what industry? which kind?) is never ever delaying new technologies to maximize the profit/investment ratio of the old ones. Expecially in those markets where a handful of companies share a single, global market.



Why? why one would never ever be walking down the street without breathing a host of carcinogens and smelling the great smell of the past century?

[diesel exaust composition]
View attachment 89054

Why would one turn on the AC in his apartment knowing the majority of the energy is being produced a few feet over his head by a source he has already paid for for the next 20-30 yrs that use a kind of fuel that's not suceptible from scarcity, economic crisis, market fluctuation?
Why, knowing the basic fact that CO2 is venomous and contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect, one should ever want that the people who make decisions and regulations will look at the future as a better place than it is now?

And do we pay more?
Are we paying the majority of the investment in clean tech research? Nope, The Industry is. Do we asked The Industry for a shift in research in clean tech? nope, they did that because they knew all along that the time would have come that the shift was inevitable and they reacted. Go look where the biggest renewable projects are in costruction right now.



So now is the old tech is the default and the greed mechanism is gone. This The Industry is very shady.



Oh, I see. We need something more viable for The Industry, not for the general wellness of the population.
You know, Renewable sources are cheaper than mining and burning, and require less maintainance. In fact, hydro power has been exploited as the first preferable energy source all around the world(set aside America where oil oligarcs have run the country since 1910). We know that burning coal is bad for everyone since the first British Industrial Revolution.

[RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: COST ANALYSIS SERIES: HYDROPOWER]
View attachment 89052

It's difficult to look at the actual data and see a conspiracy.
Surely is difficult to make assumptions without keeping up with the news; prices change over time when a new, better tech tries to replace a century old, everywhere present technology.

[Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis]
View attachment 89053


Obviously you want not. One can not act against his own benefit and safety.

Unless...

- Where's the data about that?
On google.
As already said, the information I had was older than what Ford posted, so that statement may be incorrect. I've already addressed that.

-What's exactly the machanism of greed? could you elaborate on that? Please, provide hard data as this is central to your beliefs of a climate change scam.
(please remember data is here not intended as a plot of two seemengly interacting variables. Thanks)

I'm not really sure greed has data points. Asking for data points for something that is simply a matter of logic is misdirection. On top of that, if you had read my post with an intent to understand rather than to rebut, you'd realize that I don't believe there is a scam at all.

-In fact "The Industry"(what industry? which kind?) is never ever delaying new technologies to maximize the profit/investment ratio of the old ones. Expecially in those markets where a handful of companies share a single, global market.
Any industry. On the whole, industry resists changes in technology until a new technology shows a greater cost/benefit ratio (including the cost of building infrastructure, etc) than the old tech. It's why the military still uses weapons and radios that were invented in the 60's. It's why ATM's still use windows 3.1 or BSD or Windows XP. And it's why 40% of America's energy is still on coal. Coal has continuously shown to be more cost effective than a switch to newer alternatives. (As I said, that may not be the case in light of the information that Ford posted, which is very recent.

-Why, knowing the basic fact that CO2 is venomous and contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect...
Debatable. In fact we're debating it right here in this thread. Welcome. See a page or two back. You're out of your element, Donny.

-And do we pay more?
Yes. If the plant producing your energy switched from coal to natural gas, you would see a rise in energy costs until the plant was operating in the green (meaning it had achieved return on investment and was making a profit.) This could happen in several ways, i.e they might forgo a large increase in cost and settle for a longer ROI time in order to keep the market stable, or if the plant was part of a larger nationwide company the cost might be spread among customers in order to keep any one place from experiencing a large cost increase. Either way... it must be paid for, and the customer will pay it one way or another.

-Are we paying the majority of the investment in clean tech research? Nope, The Industry is. Do we asked The Industry for a shift in research in clean tech? nope, they did that because they knew all along that the time would have come that the shift was inevitable and they reacted. Go look where the biggest renewable projects are in costruction right now.
I agree. They know that the shift is inevitable. But it won't shift until its cost feasible. That's just how business works.

-It's difficult to look at the actual data and see a conspiracy.
As I said... I agree. I wasn't the one who posited there was one.

 

[magibeg]

I'm just going to ignore your patronizing and focus on a couple of pieces.
"2nd, you need to realize that CO2 is not a driver of climate change. No scientist claimed it was."
That is simply not true, and you know it. The main cause cited is always human emissions of CO2 (among other gasses to a lesser extent.) A quick google search is enough to disprove that statement right there. Moreover, your own statements say that you don't believe that. You're arguing semantics. What is the difference between saying that CO2 is a driver of climate change, and saying that CO2 is the driver of amplification of climate change? We all agree here that the earth follows natural cycles, so when we say that CO2 is the driver of climate change, obviously we are talking about the change to those cycles, and the amplification of those cycles as you said. On top of that, you said yourself that CO2 release is a natural part of those cycles. We aren't arguing about whether those cycles exist. We are arguing about whether human emissions have had a relevant effect on them. That is the main talking point in "global warming." Nobody here is going to deny that climate change does happen. We're talking about the human effect. That is what is up for debate.

CO2 isn't a driver of climate change, it is just part of a larger climate cycle. Historically CO2 increases react as an amplifier.

CO2 is however currently driving anthropogenic climate change in spite of other natural climate cycles that are currently taking place. This is not arguing semantics, this is a fundamental understanding of how climate works and the current issues with climate change today and why it's important. This process actually answers the rest of your paragraph.

If you wish to discuss if the current CO2 that is released is in fact man made or not, that is actually a simple matter of looking at carbon isotopes. So if you're willing to accept CO2 as a climate amplifier in this case, and knowing that CO2 is a very well studied gas with known properties, it shouldn't be hard to come to the same conclusion as nearly every scientist in that field of study.

The truth however, is that there is simply no amplification of those cycles due to human intervention. The data shows that. Wider swings in temperature were experienced long before humans started emitting CO2. And that is the crux of the issue. Not whether climate change does happen (as it obviously does) but rather does human intervention have any effect. The data says no.

Well the problem here is that you're using very localized data with your graphs as opposed to much more global temperature composites. Your 400~ year ago jump in temperature disappears for example once you equalize with more data points.

As for the resolution of the graphs, that is absolutely my point. On a time scale long enough to see the climate cycles of the earth, the current trend towards hotter temperatures is insignificant, and not anomalous. The fact that you can't see it on a longer time scale IS THE POINT. If you cherry pick data from the present and present it on a shorter timescale, it become significant and anomalous, yes. But that is the point. If you zoom in further, say to six months, temperatures will have skyrocketed by tens of degrees! (at least in the northern hemisphere) We're all doomed!
But that doesn't tell the whole story does it?

Or lets put it another way: you say that the graph isn't high enough resolution to see the uptick. You're basically saying that the uptick is not statistically significant enough to be seen on the graph. Which means by proxy that the uptick is not an anomaly. We can see plenty of other swings on the

I don't feel you understood my point at all. If you're looking for drastic spikes of temperature you won't see it in long term graphs because it has a smoothing effectively applied to the data otherwise it would be a horrendously jagged mess that would be unreadable. A perfect example of this is even your CO2 graph that was posted earlier. If you were trusting the graph data you'd assume that CO2 levels would be at roughly 375ppm today, however we are closer to 407ppm. Your graph is not adequate to show the severity of the rapid changes taking place.

You didn't read it all didya?

See, this is the type of sheep mentality that I'm talking about. The argument is always "this is too complicated for you to understand."
And see, the difference between my graphs and the lemons graph, is that no scientist has ever claimed that lemon imports are related to highway fatalities. But they HAVE claimed that CO2 emissions result in anomalous high global temperatures. And they've done so by zooming in the graphs to the point that it looks anomalous. If a scientist DID claim that lemon imports were related to highway fatalities, you'd call him a nut job. So why do climate scientists cherry picking data to make the graphs look scary get a pass?

As some members may vouch who I have discussed topics with in the past, i absolutely read everything.

As far as cherry picking data goes, you're the one selecting graphs that don't accurately display the information, or don't display relevant information to the argument at hand (such as choosing localized data points).


I'm going to throw an edit down here because I don't feel you have a full understanding of "why" humans are considered to be a cause of global warming.

-Global temperatures appear to be rising
-The upper atmosphere is cooling
-The amount of energy the earth has been getting from the sun hasn't changed significantly
-The amount of energy leaving the earth has been dropping at the specific wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

And that is essentially the TL;DR argument for man made global warming.

 

[R-T-B]

Guys, we do not have instruments accurate enough to judge changes in climate across 2 billion years...

That's highly debatable. I'm pretty sure geologic samples and frozen ice, as mentioned, is very measurable.

 

[Nuckles56]

Coming from someone who did geology and climatology at university, the further we go back beyond about 500 million years ago, the harder it is to get data which is reliable for the temperatures and CO2 concentrations experienced by the planet, mostly due to the fragmentation, damage (metamorphic alteration etc) and destruction of the rock record, there is also a much more limited set of proxies that can be used to collect the data. Once we have the Cambrian explosion it becomes easier as there is a lot more carbonate formation which can be readily used to estimate temperatures.

We have very good records from foraminifera for the last 10 million years and that record is getting more complete for the last 60 million years thanks to the ocean drilling projects and alike sampling the sea floor mud. All these records are showing that we have or almost have the highest CO2 levels in the last 50 million years and if that doesn't rate as significant, then I have no idea what does.

 

[Vayra86]

Please provide me raw data points for temperatures taken during the rise of the Cro-Magnon. And there is no conspiracy to thwart tech advancements for renewable energies. If there were, Elon Musk would be out of business.

Renewable energy techs have been heavily delayed on a worldwide scale for the past 30-40 years at least, through constant lobbying and geopolitical nonsense. Its not a conspiracy, its just lots of people and countries with power that like to make money. In the exact same way Trump is now pushing for Coal and shit, he needs to create jobs and does something that worked well 30 years ago, meanwhile the world is past that and everyone frowns at his idea.

The only reason Elon Musk is now popular is because people can make money off renewable tech, and even the big corporations are invested in it in some way. Power has moved towards renewable energy, and businesses now don't want to miss out on the hype that surrounds it.

It never is, and it never was idealism or 'doing what is right', it is always about power and money. Regardless, the change still is too slow. Take a good look at Shell's business decisions for one, and how they chime on about renewable energy towards the public, but have kept expanding fossil fuel ventures worldwide over the past few dozens of years. The hypocrisy is literally unlimited.

 

[Papahyooie]

As some members may vouch who I have discussed topics with in the past, i absolutely read everything.

We've already had this same discussion, you and I, several years ago on GN. And I absolutely beg to differ that you read everything, as evidenced by the fact that you apparently didn't read the quote to which I was replying when I said "You didn't read it all didya?" That wasn't aimed at you.

 

[magibeg]

We've already had this same discussion, you and I, several years ago on GN. And I absolutely beg to differ that you read everything, as evidenced by the fact that you apparently didn't read the quote to which I was replying when I said "You didn't read it all didya?" That wasn't aimed at you.

I do read everything, unfortunately I simply quoted and read your response in the quote, which didn't show that you had quoted someone else to write that line. I also thoroughly encourage you to refute through research my points I made above.

I would especially like you to debate CO2 as a greenhouse gas or the variables that drive long term climate.

 

[Papahyooie]

We already know how this is going to go. You're going to spout off all sorts of terms and figures of which the layman has no understanding. Which is fine, because the layman generally has no understanding of much of science in general. But you're going to use them to call me ignorant. You always do. Which is, in a way, true. I have no doubt that you have more knowledge of the justifications of global warming. But here's my point: It doesn't matter how you come to your conclusion. Because your conclusion is wrong. The reason the spike doesn't show up on my graph is not because of the time resolution of the graph. The reason is that <1 degree Celsius over 100 years is insignificant enough to be completely irrelevant when the graph shows natural swings of 3.5 degrees C over roughly the same amount of time, and swings of upwards of 16 degrees over much longer time periods.
So I don't really care to debate about the hows and whys, when the IF doesn't even hold water. Let's completely get rid of the graphs, bypass all the resolution and smoothing nonsense and take the raw data points. A climb of .5 degrees Celsius is not anomalous in any way. It is in fact to be expected considering we are in a natural warming period. There is simply no compelling reason to believe that the Earth is warming faster than it should. So until I see some actual raw data that either says the earth is warmer than we think it is (it isn't) or that our methods of measuring past temperatures through proxies are faulty (possible, but unlikely) then no, I don't want to debate the variables that drive long term climate change. Because the answer to that is "the Earth." I'm sure you could lose anybody, myself included, in all the complicated math that it surely took to come up with the hockey stick graph. But that's really my point. I need no justification for my viewpoint because it is evident already from the raw data.
Fact: The Earth has experienced completely natural temperature changes that are more drastic than our current rate of change, with no human intervention. Therefore, there is no reason to ask why we are having an unusual period of warming. It is not unusual according to the data. To me, that's the end of discussion. But of course there's a whole industry out there that would love to justify putting the fossil fuel industry out of business. And seeing as how they can't make it on their own through merit of their effectiveness... bleeding hearts and government backing go a long way to getting people to adopt inferior technologies before they're ready.

 

[Nuckles56]

Fact: The Earth has experienced completely natural temperature changes that are more drastic than our current rate of change, with no human intervention. Therefore, there is no reason to ask why we are having an unusual period of warming. It is not unusual according to the data. To me, that's the end of discussion. But of course there's a whole industry out there that would love to justify putting the fossil fuel industry out of business. And seeing as how they can't make it on their own through merit of their effectiveness... bleeding hearts and government backing go a long way to getting people to adopt inferior technologies before they're ready.

I'd like to see some evidence for your claims that the earth has seen such rapid temperature changes in the past, because nobody here is claiming that the earth hasn't seen 0.5 degree changes in the climate in the past, it is the rapidity and the fact that we are continuing at add additional CO2 into the atmosphere to amplify the warming (and thus the rate of temperature change) that is important here. If nothing is done, the rate of warming we are currently seeing will push us well past the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum which is the hottest the planet has been since the dinosaurs became extinct. If you think that isn't important, then maybe look at how much the glaciers have already retreated globally and how much sea ice has been lost in the arctic.

Spoiler: Relevant video for your beliefs

 

[Papahyooie]

I'd like to see some evidence for your claims that the earth has seen such rapid temperature changes in the past, because nobody here is claiming that the earth hasn't seen 0.5 degree changes in the climate in the past, it is the rapidity and the fact that we are continuing at add additional CO2 into the atmosphere to amplify the warming (and thus the rate of temperature change) that is important here. If nothing is done, the rate of warming we are currently seeing will push us well past the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum which is the hottest the planet has been since the dinosaurs became extinct. If you think that isn't important, then maybe look at how much the glaciers have already retreated globally and how much sea ice has been lost in the arctic.

Read the thread.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Fact: The Earth has experienced completely natural temperature changes that are more drastic than our current rate of change, with no human intervention. Therefore, there is no reason to ask why we are having an unusual period of warming. It is not unusual according to the data. To me, that's the end of discussion. But of course there's a whole industry out there that would love to justify putting the fossil fuel industry out of business. And seeing as how they can't make it on their own through merit of their effectiveness... bleeding hearts and government backing go a long way to getting people to adopt inferior technologies before they're ready.

They usually involved something catastrophic like an asteroid colliding with the Earth or a super-volcano erupting. There's been nothing of the sort in the past 100 years. Imagine if Yellowstone decided to erupt tomorrow. That's a recipe for a mass extinction event.