Climate Change, the Surge...

Scroll to see replies

Did you miss the bit right after when it said it has unequivocally ended?

Its a way of dismissing your argument because its so stupid that it's just not worth engaging with it. A boomer is a member of the older generation. A generation known for espousing climate denialism contrary to all the established facts.

Reply 22

z-hog

Original post by AJ126y

Oh please, that stupid **** is what makes it impossible to take someone like you seriously at all. And then they want to the world to stop and listen to them...

Reply 23

username4748284

If you weren’t such a boomer you might know.

Reply 24

z-hog

That's exactly where the 20% surcharge on our bill goes, the pockets of the people who own the land where we plant a few turbines to make it look like we're saving the planet.

Reply 25

username4748284

Lol when someone says ok boomer they don’t mean the literal baby boomer era. It’s referring to a characteristic displayed stereotypically by baby boomers. Maybe the science community would love to hear your cold hard facts, I’m sure they’ll be delighted to indulge your delusions. Hell, they might change their beliefs and even start pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, cause why not?

Reply 26

username4977980

Yes and without it and the other greenhouse gases the earth would be below freezing. This is well known science. Blackbody radiation is not enough alone to explain why the earth is so warm. The earth already has a natural greenhouse effect.Logic dictates that if you add more gases this will increase the effect.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 27

SHallowvale

Totally irrelevant. Stick to the evidence you gave me, don't try to justify it with something totally different. The data you gave does not show evidence that temperature has remained the same since the 90s. I ran a statistical analysis on this and, even after removing the periods that are inconvinent for you, found an undoubtably significant trend.

Reply 28

SHallowvale

I see. In that case, the conclusion reached above is inaccurate since it only goes up to 2012. We now have an additional 6-7 years to work with. My analysis included the years 2013-present. The article you've linked also contains two amendments, one in 2015 and one in 2018, both stating that warming has since resumed. This agrees with my own analysis.

I removed both volcanic cooling and el nino warming from the data, as you said. The trend was still significant.

Reply 31

username4977980

So we can just add as much CO2 as we like? Forever? You've admitted there is in fact a greenhouse effect and that it causes warming. Logic dictates that the more CO2 you add the stronger this effect will be. That's basic logic. Also 1 degree in 100 years globally is not mild warming. That's actually quite a lot. The last ice age had ice extending across North America and it was only 5 degrees cooler. And before you go on about the mini-ice age, that was mainly in Europe. Temperatures haven't been this high globally for 2000 years.

Reply 32

SHallowvale

Take the original data as you provided. Remove data from the years 1991, 1998, 2016 and 2017. Fit the remaining data to a linear model with an intercept and slope parameter (this can very easily be done in R). Check the summary statistics to see if the slope parameter is significant, which it is.

You could also compare this model with a null model (which has an intercept but no slope parameter) using an ANOVA table/F-test and see if the different in RSS is significant, which it is.

Reply 33

SHallowvale

Original post by AJ126y

Stop demonising CO2! Didn't you know that CO2 is the foundation of all life on Earth?

It's exactly like water; fundemental for all life on Earth. So just shut up and let me flood your house. :rolleyes:

Reply 34

SHallowvale

You asked me to remove certain periods and I did. Stop shifting the goalpost. :wink:

You missed the point/joke.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 35

SHallowvale

The article you linked earlier gave an explanation as to why we saw little warming between the 1990s to the early/mid-2010s. It even concluded that we would expect to see an increase in warming thereafter, which it also says we have done.

Reply 36

SHallowvale

Nope. The article you gave did not attribute the pause in warming to China's aerosol production. It reads:

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

This is the article you gave me.

Reply 37

Just my opinion

Ive seen convincing presentations from both sides. If find it interesting that you never seem to see the same people debating one another on the same platform.

Reply 38

username4977980

Original post by Just my opinion

Ive seen convincing presentations from both sides. If find it interesting that you never seem to see the same people debating one another on the same platform.

But that's the thing. It's not even a debate. The science on it is settled. The only debate is what to do about it.

Reply 39

Just my opinion

Then surely the believers should debate the non believers on the same platform show them up as wrong and put it to bed once and for all.
It's because both sides get to put up points unchallenged that for many, whether you like it or not, some see it as in dispute.