Yea. What happened before 1950?
Yea. What happened before 1950?
There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".
Right!!!! You got it!!
Stop attacking the science and the scientists when it's the policy you object to.
The fact that you don't like the proposed policy does not make the science wrong.
1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago.
You didn't look at the graphs in the referenced article, did you? >By those graphs we STARTED climbing out of an ice age back then but we still have a long way to go. So they support the poster's claim, not yours.
The graphs show nothing of the sort. Look at it more closely and pay attention to the scale. http://geology.utah.gov/wp-con... The smallest time division on that graph is 50,000 years, and the temperature has been warm for about a quarter of a division.
The article summarizes it clearly: "Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago" which is pretty much what I just said.
Here's a good graph showing the sea level rise at the end of the glaciation. You can see the warming very clearly, and it's pretty much over by eight thousand years ago.
All of this fear mongering is just to push forward the globalist agenda of bringing down western civilization.
So, have you considered attacking the "globalist agenda," rather than attacking the science and the scientists?
Climate fluctuations are cyclical, and solar output DOES have a lot to do with the climate.
Of course it does. Nobody is challenging that point. But we measure solar output, and it is not the cause of the current warming.
Cycles have been consistent over centuries and it looks like they are changing now due to more limited solar input.
We have very good measurements of solar output. We know with very high certainty that the current warming is not due to a change in solar output.
The additional warming they're saying is going to happen comes from unproven, unsettled, feedback loop theories.
You're aware that the "feedback loop theory" you're referring to is the assumption of constant relative humidity, right?
If you want to suggest that this feedback doesn't exist, you are making the assumption that humidity decreases as temperature increases. Unless you can come up with a plausible mechanism for that, I'd call that an "unproven, unsettled" theory.
There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).
So, look on their site.
Show the raw temperature measurements NASA! We don't want to see those "corrected" data sets from James Hansen et al. anymore.
All of the data is available on the GISS site, which I assume you haven't bothered to look at: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/
The site includes the source code for the analysis and a discussion of what all the data corrections are, why they were done, and what the data looks like before and after corrections.
You might want to start with the FAQ on how the data analysis is done, here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
If you don't like the way NASA does the data analysis, there's an independent analysis from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, here: http://berkeleyearth.org/
In a world where we were discussing obsolete technology - you'd have a point. Since we don't live in such a world, stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.
WE'RE ALL GONNA BE DEAD IN 10 YEARS! Isn't that the oft-repeated timeline?
This is a long term effect. The timeline is many decades.
We're all going to be slightly warmer in 10 years.
We bomb brown people because we can get away with it. That's more opportunist than racist, but it's still racist.
As soon as "white" people start doing the same crap, it happens to them too. I'm guessing you're wishing away that pesky little Balkan conflict a few years back, where we bombed white people for, among other things, slaughtering olive people.
Pretending that it's skin color that makes ISIS a fair target for air strikes is the worst sort of craven intellectual laziness.
"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340