« prev   random   next »

10
2

Global Cooling 1/2 degree in last 2 years.

By Onvacation following x   2018 May 18, 1:27pm 7,322 views   336 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/860837?section=newsfront&keywords=earth-cool-half-degree-nasa&year=2018&month=05&date=16&id=860837&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main

The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.

Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18

« First    « Previous    Comments 201 - 240 of 336    Next »    Last »

201   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 3:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.


Rebutting my argument with a mere statement suggesting that a scientific proof exists without either giving the proof or linking to it is meaningless. Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.
202   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 4:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Just preserving this, too...


Awfully trollish on this thread.

If you have a point, please make it.
203   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 4:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance


I'll assume that your burden of proof is ridiculously high as such literature exists and is quite easy to find. I can post many links if you're truly interested.
204   marcus   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 7, 9:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven.


Quigley says
he fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.


Are you serious ? I especially liked this part.

Quigley says
Rebutting my argument with a mere statement


No offense, but what you seem to think are arguments on your part are nothing more than statements.

Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.

As for your statement that any effects of increasing amounts of C02 in the atmosphere other than benefits to plants are nothing more than theories is grossly misleading but also it doesn't make it unscientific. In the past there a have been many theories that were accepted by scientific communities based on analysis and Math, before they were proven true with empirical evidence. Something being theoretical doesn't mean that it's not true enough to act on. Besides there have been experiments which support the theoretical in this case.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
205   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 12:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
LeonDurham says
Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.


Just preserving this, too...


Yes, this one is a real beaut.
206   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 8, 1:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.


I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.


You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.

(Did I virtue signal properly. Sorry, new at this.)
207   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 8, 1:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.


Yup models are just tools. It's the politicians, leftwing fundamentalists, and journalists who are unscientific.

Let's try this cause/effect thought exercise.

Cause: we give $$trillions to an international beaurocracy, who will...

Effect: totes save us from our own sins.

(Ya know cause beaurocracies ALWAYS save the day and benefit the working class. Always)

If you question any word of the above, you are a science denier.
208   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 6:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.


Nope--science deniers are the folks who claim the greenhouse effect (discovered in the mid 1800s) is a myth. Or that there is no evidence of temperature rising. Denying facts.
209   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 6:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Yes, this one is a real beaut.


Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.

It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.
210   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Malcolm says
Yes, this one is a real beaut.


Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.

It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.


There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.
211   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.


lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.

Like I said--trolling. (just reread the part about the Easter Bunny)
212   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:21am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.


I have an open challenge to anyone who can show an actual doom and gloom climate change prediction that came true or even just a photograph showing a rise in sea level. For all of the people who believe the way you do, not one has been able to, with a simple old and recent photograph, show any rise in the high water line, yet on my thread relating to this very topic, I have my own and other pictures showing no change on a fixed object.

Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.
213   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
our logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.


You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying.

If you're going to attempt to engage in a constructive discussion, then at least read what I write and understand it.
214   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.


As an example.

You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.
215   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
You are basically saying that gravity doesn't exist because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.


A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.
216   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That's what makes it a religion, because it becomes a belief.
217   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says

A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.


Wrong. It means gravity is settled science. But there are many other variables that affect where the feather will land that can be modeled, but all the inputs have variability so the final outcome is a probability curve.

Just like the greenhouse effect is settled science. But its effect on Earth as CO2 increases can only be modeled.
218   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying


This is called equivocating. This allows a safe space for plausible deniability. If you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.
219   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
f you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it.


Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

I've consistently posted that one can argue the validity of the models. Most open minded people who look at all of the agreement in data showing a warming Earth believe that the climate is changing, but like I said earlier--models are models. They are not facts.
220   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.


Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.
221   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 9:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.


Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?
222   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 10:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Since you are not digesting what I am telling you let me be clear, with your own words.

CBOEtrader says
I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.


LeonDurham says
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.


Now with my words:

Malcolm says
asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.


The reason you think I missed something is because you don't understand the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because the predictive theory on its relationship to temperature didn't pan out. Therefore I simply go to the main point, the effect of human activity. The reason some of your comments are keepers is because of the bizare logic of admitting that the predictive theories might be flawed, even due to circumstances yet unknown (some consider it settled science), yet you still believe there is an actionable crisis.

That is why some of us are taken aback.
223   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 10:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?


curious2 says
LeonDurham says
The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?


Just preserving this...


Also preserving this.
224   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Good. I think that is a perfectly reasonable statement. No fear mongering.
225   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 8, 12:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

Well said!
Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?
226   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 8, 12:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

Is there a law of co2 planet heating?
227   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 12:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says

Is there a law of co2 planet heating?


Nope--as I've said time after time, we only have models that attempt to predict how the additional radiation that is re-emitted will ultimately change the climate on Earth.

Sure seems like you guys are arguing against a strawman.
228   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 3:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?


Similar behavior by followers and similar behavior by those controlling the followers. It’s almost like they follow this model like the Bible. Don’t you dare question the contradictions, that is heracy.

Yes, people need a belief or a cause to feel complete.
229   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 11, 9:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.


Or this one Goran? Sure seems like a repeat offender to me.
230   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 12, 5:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.


The fact that one considers something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that they neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit their ignorance.

better?
231   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 6:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
The fact that one considers something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that they neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit their ignorance.

better?


Not according to the moderator. If a poster is clearly directly the attack at a user then it's still against the rules, regardless if they use "one" or "Trumpkins" or "libtards"
232   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 12, 1:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The fact is that earth is not warming uncontrollably, the arctic is not melting faster than ever, and the ocean level is not rising to flood Manhattan and Florida. Anyone that tells you it is, is ignorant or trying to scam you.
233   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 1:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
The fact is that earth is not warming uncontrollably, the arctic is not melting faster than ever, and the ocean level is not rising to flood Manhattan and Florida. Anyone that tells you it is, is ignorant or trying to scam you


I'm not sure about the melting rate at the arctic, but the other two are correct. For now. The question is looking at the trends and models, what is going to happen in the future?
234   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 13, 6:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says

I'm not sure about the melting rate at the arctic,

The melting between decades is much less than the melting between seasons. Unless you mistake the seasonal variations as an iwogian asymptote to hell!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
235   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 13, 7:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

iwogian asymptote to hell!

Iwogian? Is that a "canard? (Yes, I know, a pun is the lowest form of humor).
236   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 15, 6:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
he melting between decades is much less than the melting between seasons. Unless you mistake the seasonal variations as an iwogian asymptote to hell!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/


#1-- It's the trend that matters, not the seasonality.
#2-- You should be worried about the Antarctic, not the arctic.
#3-- The ice in Antarctica is melting faster than modeled.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/antarctica-lost-three-trillion-tonnes-174950597.html
237   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 15, 12:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
#3-- The ice in Antarctica is melting faster than modeled.

Then why is Florida still above sea level?
238   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 15, 12:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Then why is Florida still above sea level?


Can you show me the model that predicted Florida would be under water in 2018?
239   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 15, 12:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Onvacation says
Then why is Florida still above sea level?


Can you show me the model that predicted Florida would be under water in 2018?

I'm not the one posting links that say the ice is all melting and the sea level is rising.
240   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 28, 8:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Saved by volcanoes!
"If we have volcanic cooling, it does buy us a little bit of time. So does extra solar cooling," Folland told Haaretz. "It buys us a little bit of extra time to respond through mitigation or adaptation to global warming."

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/science-and-health/MAGAZINE-we-need-more-volcanoes-eruptions-slowed-global-warming-in-past-1.6155381

« First    « Previous    Comments 201 - 240 of 336    Next »    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions