"The Big Three"

[swagmaster420x]

All right, so how many degrees per year, or per century, or decade, etc... ?? and for how long has this been happening?

Based on this
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

About 1 degree fahrenheit every 30 years, or about 0.03 degrees per year. Probably starting from around when industrial revolution kciked off... Why ?

[swagmaster420x]

I agree! The problem is how to prove things in physics.  Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity.  Luckily our moon and sun have the same visual size when viewed on earth so we can see how light bends during a total eclipse which supports Einstein's theory.  Proving things in physics can be a lot tougher than in math.  Mathematician Andrew Wiles finally proved Fermat's last theorem just recently after hundreds of years people trying.  Unfortunately to understand and therefore accept this proof would take a lifetime or longer for most of us.  I think the proof is 200 typed pages long. We will have to rely on experts.

it's not possible to prove things in physics the way you prove things in math.

[georgey]

All right, so how many degrees per year, or per century, or decade, etc... ?? and for how long has this been happening?

First, a quick thought on the concept of proving something:

Here is an excerpt from a math site on why it took Russell and Whitehead 300 pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2:

In my post about the myth that Logicians are crazy I mentioned in passing that Whitehead and Russell spend 300 pages proving 1+1=2 (but were both sane). Two people privately emailed me:
Are you sure Russell and Whitehead weren't a few axioms short of a complete set? How could they take 300 pages to prove 1+1=2. Isn't it... to obvious to be worth proving?
I responded by saying that they had to define 1, +, =, and 2 rigorously. One of them responded Are you a few limit points short of Banach space?

This shows that mathematicians can have a sense of humor!  It also shows that there are different levels of rigor to prove something.  Mathematicians would say that because Einstein’s theory of relativity exactly predicted the amount that light would bend by the mass of the sun this is not proof that Einstein’s theory is correct, it only supports it.  You are correct Swagmaster.

I saw Al Gore’s  documentary “an inconvenient truth”.  I know what you may say next, but this does have some scientific evidence that supports the concept that global warming exists and that humans may largely be responsible for it.  There are lots of scientific facts presented here.  I’m not an expert on global warming (I probably know about as much as most others – not too much), but I don’t think there is any way to prove with 100% certainty that global warming exists.  Everything is subject to a probability distribution.  You can flip a fairly weighted coin 100 times and every time it comes up heads.  This does not mean the coin is not a fair coin.  It is possible for temperatures to rise as they have and it is simply the result of statistical aberration. But I say we need to listen to the scientific community.

[pencilart3]

And when did these measurements start?

[huaidongxi]

from ncdc.noaa.gov, statistics for 1900-1999

population .6 billion to 6 billion ; carbon dioxide concentration in atmosphere 290 parts per million to 369 p.p.m. ; average temperature increase .6 degrees C per year.

[georgey]

I just reread all.  I made some grammar and typing mistakes.  I want to correct my bad typing of "God".  Sorry about that!

Edit: Second thought, I guess I was okay since I was using the word generically: "And when god is used generically or in reference to any but the Judeo-Christian, monotheistic god, it is not capitalized"

[outin]

I just reread all.  I made some grammar and typing mistakes.  I want to correct my bad typing of "God".  Sorry about that!

Edit: Second thought, I guess I was okay since I was using the word generically: "And when god is used generically or in reference to any but the Judeo-Christian, monotheistic god, it is not capitalized"

I personally don't feel any need to capitalize god since for me it's a thing (that exists in people's minds in various forms), not a real entity. In this specific case the grammar rule reflects a belief system that I do not agree with, so I feel entitled to break the rule 

[huaidongxi]

the neinsagers (deniers) can scoff at the numbers, which in themselves might indicate nothing to those of us untrained in environmental or climatalogical science, but they'd need a different (equally boring) story to respond to photographic evidence from the past century.  the ice sheets and masses, glaciers und so weiter formerly considered 'permanent, over a range of latitudes, not just arctic, antarctic, or greenland, have not cycled through decrease and increase, but have shrunk by many many square kilometers, with huge run offs of the liquefied H20.

[swagmaster420x]

from ncdc.noaa.gov, statistics for 1900-1999

population .6 billion to 6 billion ; carbon dioxide concentration in atmosphere 290 parts per million to 369 p.p.m. ; average temperature increase .6 degrees C per year.

this is literally impossible
over 100 years, thats a
100*.6= 60 C increase
Thats like the air went from room temperature to bnoiling water level

[swagmaster420x]

And when did these measurements start?

This question was already answered. Anyways this question doesn't even seem relevant to begin with, I don't know why you insist on asking it. and if you really want it to matter you can take 10 seconds to google right? can you make your point already

[swagmaster420x]

from ncdc.noaa.gov, statistics for 1900-1999

population .6 billion to 6 billion ; carbon dioxide concentration in atmosphere 290 parts per million to 369 p.p.m. ; average temperature increase .6 degrees C per year.

God how the fck are you so fcking off man,
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

"For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade—around twice as fast as the 0.06°C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global average temperature will rise by around 0.2°C (about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit) per decade."

0.06C per decade is 0.006C per year

[opus43]

Maybe our sins (e.g. polluting) are accumulating and gradually leading to another Great Flood.

(well, at least that's a stupid way of explaining it to stupid people)

[swagmaster420x]

Maybe our sins (e.g. polluting) are accumulating and gradually leading to another Great Flood.

(well, at least that's a stupid way of explaining it to stupid people)

Finally something I agree with!!!

[chopinlover01]

And when did these measurements start?

Some scientists have been arguing for it since before WW2. However, the idea of things like rising sea levels have been around since 1962.

[mjames]

Waiting for him to make his point ...

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Climate change isn't science it's religion for gods sake.

[mjames]

Climate change isn't science it's religion for gods sake.

swagmaster is dat u

[swagmaster420x]

Climate change isn't science it's religion for gods sake.

It's science for gods sake.

[mjames]

cmon arent trolls supposed to recognize troll posts? There's no way Rach4ever is being serious.

Is he..?

[mjames]

Anyways a new paper on scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming was published today:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus.

Paper is free, so it's a good read for those who are interested.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

cmon arent trolls supposed to recognize troll posts? There's no way Rach4ever is being serious.

Is he..?

no duh

[georgey]

Anyways a new paper on scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming was published today:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Paper is free, so it's a good read for those who are interested.

Here is the rest of the abstract:

Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

I bolded and underlined parts of the above.

Also, the following is in Wikipedia on Al Gore's documentary film "an inconvenient truth":

The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or had read the homonymous book said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors.

This is for those that like to see movies more than read books or scientific journals.  I'm like that on a lot of things.

[swagmaster420x]

HEY PENCILART3

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/ice-lake-suwa-japan-torne-river-climate-change-monk-shinto/

there is a lake that since 1300s has been freezing AND IS NOT FREEZING ANYMORE IN RECENT YEARS + PATTERNS ARE CLOSELY TIED TO INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS. i think you have to admit cilmate change exists now I mean or else your beliefs are based on facts  rather something that you were told was "right" to believe    xDDD hahaha

[mjames]

scientists are out to get americans


...

[pencilart3]

swagmaster so that means that IN THE PART OF THE WORLD, it's been trending a little warmer lately. So? You do know that there are certain ice blocks that are expanding, in addition to ice blocks that are contracting, right?

[mjames]

That is highly misleading and further reaffirms my beliefs that you NEED to study physics, chemistry, and geology. Just a bit will be enough.

When measuring the overall trend in glacier activity, various organizations from all over the world have found that MOST glaciers are decreasing in volume. Keyword most. Secondly like I pointed out in one of my previous posts, precise definitions and terminologies are required when discussing about scientific models. Which brings me to my point: the glacier activity isn't only affected by the temperature in the air, but it is also affected by the amount of precipitation. It is precisely why measurements might differ depending on the location.

Also you've been ignoring some of the other posts. It's not "that part of the world", averages in GLOBAL temperatures have been increasing.

[pencilart3]

Are they increasing as much as our carbon emissions are increasing though? No. The graphs don't correlate. Actually the earth is warming, but not as fast as it used to be. And we are emitting more gasses and such then ever.

[mjames]

Are they increasing as much as our carbon emissions are increasing though? No. The graphs don't correlate. Actually the earth is warming, but not as fast as it used to be. And we are emitting more gasses and such then ever.

wut wut wut wut wut wut

surface temperatures aren't supposed to increase at the same rate as carbon emissions....
You need to be baptized by science

[pencilart3]

Oh really? And I presume you have several Ph.Ds?

[mjames]

 

no I don't have a phd
But I don't need a phD to know that weak interactions cause radioactive decay in subatomic particles
I dont need a phd to know that you can calculate a stars luminosity through its apparent brightness and distance
 


Much like I do not need a phd to understand that heat transfer on Earth is determined by a multitude of factors such as (but not limited to) the thermal radiation/absorption by chemical compositions of the atmosphere, hydrosphere (hint hint hint), and lithosphere. Which is precisely why crap like this:

"if C02 emissions have increased by 45% why hasnt the global temperature increased by 45%?" is silly...

 

It's not as linear as you think it is. lol


BUTTTTTTTTT, on the topic of PhDs
Since um 97% of publishing (most if not all publishing scientists have phds) climate scientists agree on man-made global warming, what's stopping you from accepting it?

[swagmaster420x]

Are they increasing as much as our carbon emissions are increasing though? No. The graphs don't correlate. Actually the earth is warming, but not as fast as it used to be. And we are emitting more gasses and such then ever.

They are definitely correlated, don't spout misinformation
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temp-emissions-1850-ppt.jpg

[mjames]

this is the problem with using vague terminology, i think pencil was referring to the rate of co2 levels and global temperatures. Deniers commonly conflate short term climate trends with long term ones (the goal of climate models is to assess long term trends), which is why they commonly refer to cooling periods and what not.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Pencilart you're in highschool right?

What science classes have you taken so far?

[visitor]

suddenly, a wild Victorian ostrich  climatologist - warrior appears.

*speedily disappears as soon as mysteriously arrived due in order to search for and destroy misbehaving atmospheric hydronium ions

[goldentone]

Well, she's a pretty lady.

I don't see any such ions here.

[chopinlover01]

Waiting for him to make his point ...

....

[pencilart3]

Tell me, why would I? Why would I when you are all chomping at the bit like hyenas to shred my points with your brainwashed textbooks before even considering them?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I was gonna say something, but I'll let you guys handle it

[mjames]

Okay no freaking offense...
American public schools ARE sht but at least they give you a better chance of receiving an education from qualified people better than say, faith schools or.... homeschools..........

"brainwashed"

Do you know how science works? Have you read into the philosophy of science? Scientific inquiry? Anything? Empiricism? Like I said in one of my posts, there are no authorities in science. The way which we measure the validity of scientific models is through their ability to produce accurate predictions. Science is about falsifiability , repeated experimentation, empirical data, and theory. Your response honestly details just how scientifically ignorant you are.

Since you obviously don't have the access to a quality education, the internet can be your best friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry

I'll ask, what is it that you "doubt"? Climate change in general or man-made (as in we're largely the cause for the current crisis) climate change?
I'll do my best to present the predictions that have been verified by multiple (peer review process, another great aspect of science) publishing scientists.

[ajlongspiano]

Music is like, the coolest.

Best,
AJ

[pencilart3]

The first word of sense in this thread.

[mjames]

>Clearly doesn't want to talk about it
>But keeps coming back

Dude, stop deflecting. lol

I'm curious as to understandwhy you think scientific textbooks are "brainwashing." There's been plenty of sense in this thread from posters like trollmaster420 and chopinlover, however whenever they bring out interesting points you avoid/ignore them, deflect, and you carry on with your "skepticism."

A great science communicator once said: “If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

[chopinlover01]

Noah, I'm sorry, but no. Science textbooks, if anything, are biased to neutrality. They are forced to title their evolution handouts "why evolution is true", when it has just as much evidence as literally any other scientific theory. Same thing with climate change, as we've seen.
I wouldn't really care, except for the fact that blatant rejection when confronted with data that is simply factually correct is dangerous. It's what spawns things like religious fundamentalist groups, or, worse yet, Donald Trump supporters.

[swagmaster420x]

Tell me, why would I? Why would I when you are all chomping at the bit like hyenas to shred my points with your brainwashed textbooks before even considering them?

Jk it is clear you are feeling attacked so sorry about that   I respectfully promise to honor any opinions or facts you may harbor/share with my full consideration without savagely "chomping" at them like a "hyena"  

[swagmaster420x]

It is actually also clear after some rumination that every single fact is actually a belief when occupying the mind of an idividual. So basically this amounts to quibbling about personal beliefs and nothing changes personal beliefs immediately  . Therefore I can say with high confidence that nothing will come out of this conversation.

[chopinlover01]

It is actually also clear after some rumination that every single fact is actually a belief when occupying the mind of an idividual.

Regardless of what an "idividiual" may be, is 2+2 being 4 only a belief?

[swagmaster420x]

Regardless of what an "idividiual" may be, is 2+2 being 4 only a belief?

It's an extremely wide spread belief, and is a correct one, but if you talked to someone who honestly did not believe 2+2=4 (and believed it with a passion  the reason why most people believe 2+2=4 anyways is because that is what they were taught in schools. In school you are naturally primed to view everything the teacher tells you as true which is why there is not this road block.)

You probably would not be able to convince them 2+2=4.

[pencilart3]

You missed my point. My point was that I hate arguing with you all because you are apparently incapable of carrying out a reasonable debate. You love trying to make me angry and look silly, probably to convince yourselves that I am wrong. That is why I have been ignoring your pathetic studies and illogical arguments. I promised myself and PS I wouldn't go through this again so I won't.

[pencilart3]

I would however consider having a debate through PM where the one with the most insult noah points isn't the winner.

[mjames]

This thread wasn't designed to fish you out, you were the one who decided to post. I actually had no idea you were a denier.

Also   @ illogical arguments and pathetic studies. perhaps instead of crying you can point out the methodological flaws?  

Calling out your scientific illiteracy isn't an insult, but a concern for your well-being. This was also never a debate. You asked a few questions, which were all answered by peer-reviewed published studies (all of which contained documentation and analysis of empirical data). You never clearly defined your position, and also never explicitly explained as to why you're holding it. You deflect and ignore points, continue to reiterate debunked points, and then you complain about us not taking you seriously.  

I'm going to go and "brainwash" myself with classical electrodynamics.