Current Affairs Environmental Stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm no math genius but could one of the alarmist folk on here please explain how experts in this field can without a science of irony claim that everywhere is warming faster than the global average?











 
I'm no math genius but could one of the alarmist folk on here please explain how experts in this field can without a science of irony claim that everywhere is warming faster than the global average?












The oceans are no longer acting like a heat sink?
 
That's exactly what I'm talking about.. you provide a graph that said here's proof that CO2 levels have never been higher.. by never they mean in the last thousand years.. explain why they would say never but only produce evidence of a thousand years? When there is evidence going back millions of years.
Even at the lowest point of the range of error co2 levels are far higher than now. View attachment 145456

I don’t know if you know this, but humans haven’t been on the planet for almost all of the past 600 million years.

What is good for us in CO2 terms might not have been so good for dimetrodons, stegosauruses, trilobites etc, and likewise having much higher CO2 levels might benefit ginkgoes more than us, or any other member of our kingdom.
 
I don’t know if you know this, but humans haven’t been on the planet for almost all of the past 600 million years.

What is good for us in CO2 terms might not have been so good for dimetrodons, stegosauruses, trilobites etc, and likewise having much higher CO2 levels might benefit ginkgoes more than us, or any other member of our kingdom.
Irrelevant to the climate change topic that's being discussed.. if its good for us biologically or not is another debate.. High CO2 levels in the past didn't drive climate and certainly never caused run away climate change, and I will not for 1 second be convinced that these days even miniscule rises in the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic and irreversible climate change..
 
Irrelevant to the climate change topic that's being discussed.. if its good for us biologically or not is another debate.. High CO2 levels in the past didn't drive climate and certainly never caused run away climate change, and I will not for 1 second be convinced that these days even miniscule rises in the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic and irreversible climate change..

Of course they drove climate change; the climate was radically different then.
 
Of course they drove climate change; the climate was radically different then.
CO2 used to lag temperatures if the temperature went up the CO2 went up over the following years but that was only before the industrial revolution for some reason it's opposite now in the last 100 ish years. How anyone could believe that "a completely different physical-biological process is going on" but only for the last 100 years is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
lol

FD6O008XMAQo0d-
 
Would you still trust their authority if they were changing data? The hockey stick graph is a great example they left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age, this gave the impression of a perfectly stable climate only for the current warming trend to look severe.. in 1990 before the alarm there was a graph by the IPCC but 21 years later there was a new graph by the IPCC same organization same data fields different data figures just when it was needed for Al Gore to begin the hoax .
Comparison-charts-300x130.jpg

Have you seen how bad wild fires in the USA have been? proof of climate change its never burned as much? a major upward trend since 1986 what an odd year to start a graph I wonder why they started that year?
AcresBurned_US_1986-2015.jpg


tot-ac-bur.jpg

Look a graph since 1916, amazing to see that 1986 is near enough a record low, by starting the first graph at a low point it makes things look worse. Now look at how bad was it previously? Ignore that probably started by farmers clearing their land nothing to do with climate well that's the reason given as to why it's not relevant today, while leaving in current fires started by people.

I'd be more inclined to believe "experts" if they weren't changing historical data or starting graphs at a very specific year to make their claims look legitimate.

Hahaha...another one emerges from the woods, armed with a bunch of climate-denial talking points from youtube.
I'm no math genius but could one of the alarmist folk on here please explain how experts in this field can without a science of irony claim that everywhere is warming faster than the global average?













These are autoregressive moving average models, coupled with projections of a future average (which is what ARMA models do) so it is possible.
 
Science predicted a virus pandemic, most people ignored it, our government ignored it as well, even its own report "Pegasus".

Know this place very well...They are not doing it for a laugh.

There's plenty of places that are being eroded it's a natural process that's been happening for quite some time..
 
Hahaha...another one emerges from the woods, armed with a bunch of climate-denial talking points from youtube.


These are autoregressive moving average models, coupled with projections of a future average (which is what ARMA models do) so it is possible.
I especially like the way climate denial talking points on YouTube look at data that goes further back in time than the experts do, as for ARMA models any future predictions are only as good as the information it's given, if the input data starts at the most recent low point of course its going to spit out a warming trend.
 
Would you still trust their authority if they were changing data? The hockey stick graph is a great example they left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age, this gave the impression of a perfectly stable climate only for the current warming trend to look severe.. in 1990 before the alarm there was a graph by the IPCC but 21 years later there was a new graph by the IPCC same organization same data fields different data figures just when it was needed for Al Gore to begin the hoax .
Comparison-charts-300x130.jpg

Have you seen how bad wild fires in the USA have been? proof of climate change its never burned as much? a major upward trend since 1986 what an odd year to start a graph I wonder why they started that year?
AcresBurned_US_1986-2015.jpg


tot-ac-bur.jpg

Look a graph since 1916, amazing to see that 1986 is near enough a record low, by starting the first graph at a low point it makes things look worse. Now look at how bad was it previously? Ignore that probably started by farmers clearing their land nothing to do with climate well that's the reason given as to why it's not relevant today, while leaving in current fires started by people.

I'd be more inclined to believe "experts" if they weren't changing historical data or starting graphs at a very specific year to make their claims look legitimate.
This forest fire stuff isn't much "proof" that there's an Al Gore-driving conspiracy about global warming, but rather from 1928 to 1935 there was a major drought in California. So forests were dry and forests started to burn. But back then there was less capability of fighting fires so they tended to burn more acreage, not to mention there were more acres to burn due to way less development and roads to access forest to fight them in the first place. But what is going on now that California is experiencing droughts more frequently and the "fire seasons" are extending. But the large magnitude of a thing in the past (such as lot of forest fires in the 1930s) does not negate the fact that there is an increasing frequency (occuring more often) and a appreciable magnitude (intensity) of fires today. It's the pattern of increase in frequency/magnitude of droughts that is getting people alarmed.
 
I especially like the way climate denial talking points on YouTube look at data that goes further back in time than the experts do, as for ARMA models any future predictions are only as good as the information it's given, if the input data starts at the most recent low point of course its going to spit out a warming trend.
There has been literally thousands of published peer-reviewed studies using historical temperature data. I just did a quick search for one journal "Journal of climate" and they have >1800 studies that mention historical records. You think some youtuber is out-smarting people who do this for a living?
 
This forest fire stuff isn't much "proof" that there's an Al Gore-driving conspiracy about global warming, but rather from 1928 to 1935 there was a major drought in California. So forests were dry and forests started to burn. But back then there was less capability of fighting fires so they tended to burn more acreage, not to mention there were more acres to burn due to way less development and roads to access forest to fight them in the first place. But what is going on now that California is experiencing droughts more frequently and the "fire seasons" are extending. But the large magnitude of a thing in the past (such as lot of forest fires in the 1930s) does not negate the fact that there is an increasing frequency (occuring more often) and a appreciable magnitude (intensity) of fires today. It's the pattern of increase in frequency/magnitude of droughts that is getting people alarmed.
The frequency/magnitude of droughts, just going to ignore the droughts that lasted for a hundred plus years in the past then.. I guess the current 6 year drought is proof enough of man made climate change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top