• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

Yup . You claimed it was from a 'denier' blog so prove it ? (I'm waiting to humiliate you by posting the full paper but am enjoying watching your contortions in the meantime) :waiting: #3

Oh please. Post the ‘kobayashi’ study with your half graph
 
I swear there could be 50 years without snow, sea levels could rise by 10 feet, and entire regions could become deserts and you will still have people saying "actually the earth is getting colder" as soon as they feel a cold breeze.
 
It’s half the graph.

The key part is not the noisy temp variations, it’s the curve and averages.

The conclusion says... the opposite of what you claim.

I think you should find the ‘Kobayashi’ study instead.

It couldn’t be worse! LOL

Even over the last 1000 years the study illustrates our current temperatures are within natural norms. These arent climate models they are direct measurements

I guess as a consequence the rich won't be giving you their money any time soon.

Get smarter work harder
 
I swear there could be 50 years without snow, sea levels could rise by 10 feet, and entire regions could become deserts and you will still have people saying "actually the earth is getting colder" as soon as they feel a cold breeze.

A bit like people saying todays conditions are unprecedented by deliberately ignoring the precedents you mean ? :roll:
 
Nope.
If you're not going to look at the links people give you then you shouldn't challenge what they say...
lol

1) You obviously didn't bother to read the paper to which you pointed. Again, it's trying to explain why CO2 dropped during the Ordovician ice age. Do you really not understand how that does not support your claim?


2) As to the chart.... The early CO2 proxy measurements had a resolution of about 10 million years; the glacial period in question was probably 1 million years long. Unsurprisingly, newer techniques (which by now are nearly a decade old) have higher resolutions, and they show... wait for it... drops in CO2 levels during the Late Ordovician period.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821000115X
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gs...-evidence-for-a-short?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I.e. you're relying on denier crap that is at least a decade old. No surprise there.


3) Unsurprisingly, the end of the Ordovician Ice Age was accompanied by... wait for it... increases in CO2 ppm. Huh.

So no, your outdated denialist misunderstanding of science does not, in fact refute the causal impact of CO2 on global temperatures.


the article demonstrated that Nature overwhelmed CO2 levels. Not the reverse. THAT was the point and you missed it because of your blinders.
lol

No, I missed it because you didn't bother to actually read what you were linking
 
Even over the last 1000 years the study illustrates our current temperatures are within natural norms. These arent climate models they are direct measurements

I guess as a consequence the rich won't be giving you their money any time soon.

Get smarter work harder

LOL.

From the abstract:

“Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. “

Maybe ‘kobayashi’ says something different! LOL
 
LOL.

From the abstract:

“Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. “

Maybe ‘kobayashi’ says something different! LOL

Yet their graph spectacularly fails to illustrate that. I guess they were worried about getting paid..... or published via the hysteria of 2011 :wink:

Thankfully since its peak 12 years ago this hysteria has almost evaporated entirely from the mainstream media

Prove my graph was from a denier blog :waiting:#5
 
Last edited:
Yet their graph spectacularly fails to illustrate that. I guess they were worried about getting paid..... or published via the hysteria of 2011 :wink:

Thankfully since its peak 12 years ago this hysteria has almost evaporated entirely from the mainstream media

So you think they can’t interpret their own paper correctly?

Yeah. That’s a denier for ya!
 
- Nope ...
Yep. Again, you fail to understand the actual claims made by climate scientists about hurricanes -- even when I point them out to you repeatedly. Hmmmm.


- "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers....
:roll:

Yes, I've seen deniers latch onto Zwally's work; Zwally himself was worried that would happen. (https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ntist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612).

As mentioned in other discussions here rather recently, Zwally (who is a respected researcher) is using less accurate measures of measurement. And again, I pointed out that the bigger concern is the loss of ice shelves. We don't know yet if that's going to happen, but events like the collapse of Larsen Ice Shelf C is not a good sign.

Anyway... so far, that means you have failed to refute the following impacts of AGW in recent years:
• more extreme weather events (heat waves, high precipitation events, cold snaps etc)
• hurricanes that are larger, more intense, travel slower, and produce larger storm surges
• larger and more intense heat waves
• forest fires happening in unprecedented areas (e.g. the northern parts of Sweden... which are in the Arctic Circle, by the way)
• loss of ice/glacial masses in Greenland, Himalayas, the Arctic etc
• loss of fresh water
• rapid rise in sea levels
• acidification of oceans
• massive loss of coral reefs
• rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
• rapid increase in global temperatures
• more extreme weather events
• permafrost starting to melt

Just to name a few.
 
Ignorant people don't know the different between weather and climate. The weather goes up and down, but climate trends are long-standing. Sure, we had a cold snap, but guess what, today in my region we broke the record for the warmest February 6 ever recorded, at 83 degrees. So, the cold snap went out, and a hot one followed. That's weather. If we were to say about the cold snap, "there is no global warming," then we'd have to a few days later, say about the hot snap, "there is global warning."

The correct way is that we don't pay attention to weather snaps, but rather to climate averages, and these are going unequivocally up over the years.

This is very obvious, but it is amazing how many ignorant people don't understand the difference.
 
Ignorant people don't know the different between weather and climate. The weather goes up and down, but climate trends are long-standing. Sure, we had a cold snap, but guess what, today in my region we broke the record for the warmest February 6 ever recorded, at 83 degrees. So, the cold snap went out, and a hot one followed. That's weather. If we were to say about the cold snap, "there is no global warming," then we'd have to a few days later, say about the hot snap, "there is global warning."

The correct way is that we don't pay attention to weather snaps, but rather to climate averages, and these are going unequivocally up over the years.

This is very obvious, but it is amazing how many ignorant people don't understand the difference.

What you've done is construct a straw man argument.
Most of the people on these boards will tell you that
there's been warm-up over the last century. The
disagreement is whether or not it's a problem.
 
You’ve been eviscerated already.

But it’s not the full figure from the paper, was it?

So simply prove my graph was from a denier blog and did not appear in a peer reviewed paper ? Whats the problem ? :waiting: #7
 

Having an extra 0.01% of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas (thats actually a component of your natural breathing cycle) within our atmospheric envelope is not a problem, however much you'd like to demonise it and humanity for it.

To put that into context watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwEHL8mG6o

Extra CO2 is net benefit not a problem as the observed greening of the earth in recent decades bears witness
 
Last edited:
What you've done is construct a straw man argument.
Most of the people on these boards will tell you that
there's been warm-up over the last century. The
disagreement is whether or not it's a problem.

If warming has been noticeably occurring for the last century then why did experts claim just 50 years ago that research proved the earth had been cooling at an alarming rate over the previous century?
 
So simply prove my graph was from a denier blog and did not appear in a peer reviewed paper ? Whats the problem ? :waiting: #7

I guess you’re just gonna just roll with the fact that the paper literally says the opposite of what you claimed.

I don’t need to do your homework. Hell- I directed you to the paper since you didn’t even know the authors name!
 
I guess you’re just gonna just roll with the fact that the paper literally says the opposite of what you claimed.

I don’t need to do your homework. Hell- I directed you to the paper since you didn’t even know the authors name!
I have to say, I am not sure trolley you used to arrive at that destination.
Here is what is said in the abstract.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444
Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100.
So Greenland decadal mean temperature, is still within the envelope of natural variability,
but the same models that expect .21C per decade of ongoing warming say Greenland may leave the natural variability envelope by 2100.
 
If warming has been noticeably occurring for the last century then why did experts claim just 50 years ago that research proved the earth had been cooling at an alarming rate over the previous century?

Did they? The Global Cooling scare was about cooling after World War II. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
 
Did they? The Global Cooling scare was about cooling after World War II. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
It was actually 44 years ago, and possible cooling was a real concern.
https://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt
The NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES put together a report for
UNITED STATES COMMITTEE FOR THE GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH PROGRAM in 1975.
In reality while warming is hypothesized to be bad, we know from historical records that cooling would actually be very bad.
Warming, so far, just seems to be increasing the amount a arable land, without much downside.
 
Given the short duration of these graphs its a bit like tailoring your wardrobe by looking out your window one day in July and deciding thats it I don't need jackets or long trousers..... ever :lol:

I've always said you can make graphs like those play songs and dance to them if you get to choose the timeframe and axis graduations.
When you can't do that, you either change the data or draw a line through the unfortunate sections and hope no one notices.
 
Yep. Again, you fail to understand the actual claims made by climate scientists about hurricanes -- even when I point them out to you repeatedly. Hmmmm.



:roll:

Yes, I've seen deniers latch onto Zwally's work; Zwally himself was worried that would happen. (https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ntist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612).

As mentioned in other discussions here rather recently, Zwally (who is a respected researcher) is using less accurate measures of measurement. And again, I pointed out that the bigger concern is the loss of ice shelves. We don't know yet if that's going to happen, but events like the collapse of Larsen Ice Shelf C is not a good sign.

Anyway... so far, that means you have failed to refute the following impacts of AGW in recent years:
• more extreme weather events (heat waves, high precipitation events, cold snaps etc)
• hurricanes that are larger, more intense, travel slower, and produce larger storm surges
• larger and more intense heat waves
• forest fires happening in unprecedented areas (e.g. the northern parts of Sweden... which are in the Arctic Circle, by the way)
• loss of ice/glacial masses in Greenland, Himalayas, the Arctic etc
• loss of fresh water
• rapid rise in sea levels
• acidification of oceans
• massive loss of coral reefs
• rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
• rapid increase in global temperatures
• more extreme weather events
• permafrost starting to melt

Just to name a few.

I showed you a graph of the hurricane occurrence data. You just don't accept it.
Weather events are no more extreme than in cycles past.

Zwally is respected ... but his results don't conform to what you want to believe so you make up something about his measurements being less accurate.
You're a scream.
 
Back
Top Bottom