International 170 Years Of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence Of Significant Warming

[Blayt7hh]

You do know that this article you clicked on without reading more than a sentence isn't showing data that proves climate change is man-made. The article just talks about there been a consensus on climate change being man-made. I wasn't aware that many people agreeing on something is the same as clear cut data points proving cause and effect.

And this proves that you didn't actually do any research to come to a conclusion. You just go "well, those anonymous experts say it's so and that's all the thinking I'm gonna do"




Yes, investigating the data, thinking critically and learning more about a subject is such a low IQ mentality <45>

Im confused. Do you think that I need to re research this? I linked that article to demonstrate exactly what a pedantic ass you are. Still never answered my my question

 

[Horse Style]

Im confused. Do you think that I need to re research this? I linked that article to demonstrate exactly what a pedantic ass you are. Still never answered my my question

I asked for data that points to climate change being mostly man-made. People agreeing it's man-made isn't data.

I don't expect you to go out to experiment and record your findings, you moron. I'm asking for the data that made those people come to the conclusion that it's man-made.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I asked for data that points to climate change being mostly man-made. People agreeing it's man-made isn't data.

I don't expect you to go out to experiment and record your findings, you moron. I'm asking for the data that made those people come to the conclusion that it's man-made.

Actually, you did not.

Just wondering which figures in which studies did you look over that convinced you? I'm not even making a joke. I'm genuinely curious.

So maybe work on asking the question you meant to ask before insulting people next time. Not that I haven't seen that data too. But you have to answer the question first

 

[Horse Style]

Actually, you did not.




So maybe work on asking the question you meant to ask before insulting people next time. Not that I haven't seen that data too. But you have to answer the question first

So you don't know figures in a study = data? You think when I asked for figures in a study that convinced you, I meant "how many people agree that it's man-made?"

 

[Blayt7hh]

So you don't know figures in a study = data? You think when I asked for figures in a study that convinced you, I meant "how many people agree that it's man-made?"

3,000 studies coming to the conclusion is a figure. The more you know

You going to answer the question or keep bitching out?

 

[Horse Style]

3,000 studies coming to the conclusion is a figure. The more you know

You going to answer the question or keep bitching out?

It would be a figure if my question was "how many people think climate change is man-made" instead of "what data made you believe it's man-made". Nice reading comprehension fail

And is your projection of "bitching out" while you cowardly run away from showing these data points and the main discussion supposed to work?

 

[Poon Goon]

It would be a figure if my question was "how many people think climate change is man-made" instead of "what data made you believe it's man-made". Nice reading comprehension fail

And is your projection of "bitching out" while you cowardly run away from showing these data points and the main discussion supposed to work?

I also think those 3000 studies are full of shit, but the one in the OP is probably correct.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I asked for data that points to climate change being mostly man-made. People agreeing it's man-made isn't data.

I don't expect you to go out to experiment and record your findings, you moron. I'm asking for the data that made those people come to the conclusion that it's man-made.

Sure, here's the first part. It's not the sun, as solar irradiance has decreased over that past 50 years.

Next, scientists can see heat being trapped on precisely the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs radiated energy; ground sensors can also see the longwave radiation returning to earth.

Next, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has the isotope signature of burning fossil fuels associated with it.

The current data is pointing to man-made CO2

 

[Horse Style]

Sure, here's the first part. It's not the sun, as solar irradiance has decreased over that past 50 years.

Next, scientists can see heat being trapped on precisely the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs radiated energy; ground sensors can also see the longwave radiation returning to earth.

Next, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has the isotope signature of burning fossil fuels associated with it.

The current data is pointing to man-made CO2

Link me to the study this chart came from. I want to read up on the data myself.

 

[Blayt7hh]

It would be a figure if my question was "how many people think climate change is man-made" instead of "what data made you believe it's man-made". Nice reading comprehension fail

And is your projection of "bitching out" while you cowardly run away from showing these data points and the main discussion supposed to work?

No no, your question was what data do I find convincing. For figures I refer you to table 3 in the study. You never asked for any specific data. If you have some specific data in mind maybe you should voice it now. And also, stop being a bitching out and answer the question

For the record, the reason I didn't feel like getting into this earlier is because it was obvious it was going to end like this; you trying to nitpick or move goal posts. Quite boring really.

 

[Loiosh]

No no, your question was what data do I find convincing. For figures I refer you to table 3 in the study. You never asked for any specific data. If you have some specific data in mind maybe you should voice it now. And also, stop being a bitching out and answer the question

For the record, the reason I didn't feel like getting into this earlier is because it was obvious it was going to end like this; you trying to nitpick or move goal posts. Quite boring really.

He's just hitting you with busy work, best to ignore him and move on.

At this point anyone denying anthropomorphic climate change is a waste of time.

 

[Horse Style]

No no, your question was what data do I find convincing. For figures I refer you to table 3 in the study. You never asked for any specific data. If you have some specific data in mind maybe you should voice it now. And also, stop being a bitching out and answer the question

For the record, the reason I didn't feel like getting into this earlier is because it was obvious it was going to end like this; you trying to nitpick or move goal posts. Quite boring really.

So the "data" that convinced you is anonymous scientists saying it's man-made without looking over actual data. So you're a person who adopts a viewpoint because someone said so and not using actual evidence. That was my assumption from the start. It would have been quicker to say that from the start instead of crying about me not letting you divert into some nonsense tangent



lol @ moving the goalposts = consistently asking for data and not going off on a tangent

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Link me to the study this chart came from. I want to read up on the data myself.

This one is from about 15 years ago:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

Here's another:
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

[Jballer]

This is a tough one. On one side is a guy sourcing countless scientific studies showing man’s contribution to climate change. On the other side is a guy that posted both Emilia Clarke AND Michael Jordan laughing GIFs, which as we all know count as making a point. I don’t know what to think.

 

[ShadowRun]

ZOMG!!!!!!!! guys our last 200 years of weather data totally predicts what the Earth is going to do... 0.000000000001% of Earth's weather being recorded by us is a for sure thing.... even though we still get when it's gonna rain on the next day wrong, trust us climate change shrieeeeek

 

[Horse Style]

This one is from about 15 years ago:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight

Here's another:
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

To save time, do either of these studies talk about what the natural temperate changes would be without the influence of greenhouse gasses?

If we have an approximation of what the climate should be (without man-made influences) and what it actually is, then it should be easy to show how significant man-made influences have been on the climate.

 

[Scheme]

You won’t answer because you know it’s a silly bitch move.

I’ll get you started though
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/...4b5589_page=2&70ef0ed6_page=3&c0d8a10d_page=2

I’ll also leave the whole search for


https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...te+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Did you even read the first study?

The methodology is ridiculous it's hard to even call it evidence. It's basically analogous to saying "most papers about string theory papers are pro-string theory therefore the scientific consensus is that string theory is real".

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

To save time, do either of these studies talk about what the natural temperate changes would be without the influence of greenhouse gasses?

If we have an approximation of what the climate should be (without man-made influences) and what it actually is, then it should be easy to show how significant man-made influences have been on the climate.

Since the sun is the biggest factor to the earths temperature, the earths temperature should be decreasing in line with the decreasing TSI reaching the earth. Instead, it's been increasing and the only thing that can account for this is greenhouse gases.

"In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions."

 

[Blayt7hh]

To save time,

OH YOU DON'T WANT TO READ IT FOR YOURSELF??!?!

 

[Horse Style]

Since the sun is the biggest factor to the earths temperature, the earths temperature should be decreasing in line with the decreasing TSI reaching the earth. Instead, it's been increasing and the only thing that can account for this is greenhouse gases.

"In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions."

Are the sun and greenhouse gasses the only contributors to significant climate change? I mean, there's a difference between "we've observed a strong causal link between greenhouse gasses and the deviation from where the climate should be" and "it's not the sun so process of elimination says it's us"