[Thanos]

Clearly the scientitians are lying to us again.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh it's time to get nasty is it? Is that admitting defeat? Oh well...if you must take your ball and go home then you must. I'm going to stay and explain further why you're wrong.

The fact that you can't understand basic fact means I'm not wrong.
CO2 reflects IR.
There is more CO2 in the atmosphere to reflect it.
We know it's man made because of a change in the carbon isotopes that make up CO2.

That's it. It's actually pretty simple.

$1:

Concerning the cherry picking claim for instance, sure it is, but why does that mean it can't be considered?

Because that's not how science works. That's not how anything works ever. You can find the data to support your conclusion, and then say "welp that's it" and turn your brain off.

Example, say we are doing a test to measure gravity's acceleration. So we create a vacuum so as to not be affected by air resistance and drop some objects. 99 times out of 100, it gives a reading of 9.8m/s^2. Do we include the one time it didn't coincide with the rest of the data, thereby skewing the measured acceleration of gravity, or do we draw the reasonable conclusion that the equipment malfunctioned, or that the vacuum was unsealed or air was in it, or any other number of issues. Outliers happen because of mistakes, or outside influence, and need not be considered to make a conclusion.

Statistics have built in metrics to rule out outliers all the time, that's why when we try to determine accuracy of something, we don't go to "100%" because that would include outliers to skew data. That same graph that Cruz showed, start it in 2000. What happens? No "warming pause" Because it takes out the massive outlier that skews the average. And before you freak out, yes, that warming was natural, yes warming and cooling can be natural, no one disputes that. What is disputed is that the current state of warming is natural, the current trend upwards for the last 160 years. Key word there: trend.

$1:

If it can't then we can't pay a lot of attention to the cherry picked period the alarmist want to pee their pants over that begins at the end of the era known as the little ice age. About 1850. A cooling period was coming to an end. It did so naturally. CO2 increase wasn't really kicking in until about a hundred years later.

Got your dates wrong. From 1750 to 1875 CO2 increases were going at 10 times the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

Lastly, to add to Beav's point in his post. Why should we NOT try to reduce carbon emissions? Do you like breathing more poison? Do you enjoy oxygen levels in the atmosphere going down? You down with the ocean becoming more acidic and killing significant portions of aquatic animal and plant life?

What is the downside to reducing carbon emissions, on the probable chance that virtually all of science is right and Tucker Carlson is wrong?

It's like lead in gasoline all over again.

Ok. Finally got back from voting. I voted for the Devil we know (and name Christy) if anybody cares. Not so much though...right?

Now as to the above: Tricks, you seem to be determined to discuss the full gamut of the global warming debate in response to the inconvenient truth in the OP that global temperatures plummeted recently in a brief downward tumble, which conflicts with panic over the El Nino worry of some melting ice.

Very well, we can discuss the whole schmole, but don't make the mistake Doc makes. Don't be thinking you know what I think before I do. I'll tell you what. If we have to rehash the whole global warming argument, I'll do my best to lay out what I actually do believe in general, and we can go on from there.

I believe there has been a gradual long term warming trend of somewhere around 1.5 degrees celsius since the Little Ice Age ended around 1850ish.

I don't believe we know what the main cause of it was, but my personal guess is the majority was natural causes. Personally, I keep thinking we need to know more about what's happening with ocean influence. To me the warming seems to trace back to there, then gets lost in the chaos.

I can accept a Climate Sensitivity influence on warming of about 1 degree c per doubling of CO2 in a black body environment, however I don't believe the natural world is in thermodynamic equilibrium, so I think we're still guessing how strong that influence is exactly in the real world.

I don't believe we have evidence of a human caused climate catastrophe from the warming we've seen so far, even if we extrapolate it into the future.

Even if it remains about 1 degree warming per doubling of CO2 until we run out of fossil fuels all that is, is nice weather.

Anthropogenic based crisis climate depends on a hypothesis of positive feedbacks from water vapor increasing the human contribution of greenhouse gas warming from CO2. As far as I know there is no concrete, physical, scientific method based evidence that such a thing exists so I'm not worried. In fact I believe in AR5 the IPCC decreased their climate sensitivity projections to about half what the previous hysterical projections were. Personally, I'm guessing they're still too high.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

The "it's good for plants" argument only works if the biggest eater of CO2, the rain forests, weren't getting annihilated at the same time emissions are increasing.

I refer you to the first paragraph of the NASA article:

$1:

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thanos Thanos:

The "it's good for plants" argument only works if the biggest eater of CO2, the rain forests, weren't getting annihilated at the same time emissions are increasing.

I refer you to the first paragraph of the NASA article:

$1:

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

Also from that article:

$1:

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing yet whether climate changes will continue to have a positive effect on vegetation productivity,” he cautions. “India, for example, got a blessing from nature during the 1990s. For 100 years, there has been a strong relationship between El Niñoo and the monsoon season that brings rain to India and Southeast Asia; El Niñoo events interrupt the monsoon and create drought. In the 1990s, that relationship broke down, and the monsoon rains came despite a severe and persistent El Niño.” As a result, while much of the globe saw a decrease in productivity during El Niño events, India was one of the places where productivity increased. Whether the region can count on such a lucky break this decade can’t be predicted.

And I'll refer you to another NASA article:

$1:

In the Amazon alone, scientists estimate that the trees contain more carbon than 10 years worth of human-produced greenhouse gases. When people clear the forests, usually with fire, carbon stored in the wood returns to the atmosphere, enhancing the greenhouse effect and global warming. Once the forest is cleared for crop or grazing land, the soils can become a large source of carbon emissions, depending on how farmers and ranchers manage the land. In places such as Indonesia, the soils of swampy lowland forests are rich in partially decayed organic matter, known as peat. During extended droughts, such as during El Niño events, the forests and the peat become flammable, especially if they have been degraded by logging or accidental fire. When they burn, they release huge volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... pdate2.php

And a video showing satellite images of actual rain forests being disappeared.



Carbon dioxide may be good in the short term for plants, but people in the long terms are bad for those plants.

[BartSimpson]

We should restore all of the midwestern farmland to prairie to prove our commitment to the environment.

[Thanos]

Trees are the enemy too. Anyone who likes them is some kind of a cuck. #MAGA!

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

We should restore all of the midwestern farmland to prairie to prove our commitment to the environment.

That would be a good start. Feed cows grass, like they evolved to eat, instead of subsidizing farmers to grow corn and soy and Skittles to feed to cows.

[Thanos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

We should restore all of the midwestern farmland to prairie to prove our commitment to the environment.

That would be a good start. Feed cows grass, like they evolved to eat, instead of subsidizing farmers to grow corn and soy and Skittles to feed to cows.

Commie talk like that gets in the way of billions of dollars worth of agriculture subsidies, every dollar of which has been blessed by the GOP and Jesus himself. #MAGA!