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

[Horse Style]

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

I did but it's also helpful to ask the guy who read it and possibly other studies to pinpoint what I was asking him. Go back to thinking proof/data that something is happening = a lot of people agreeing that something is happening

 

[Blayt7hh]

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"

I thought you were all about reading up on this stuff for yourself and not taking the word of some anonymous person.

Turns out you're full of shit

 

[Horse Style]

I thought you were all about reading up on this stuff for yourself and not taking the word of some anonymous person.

Turns out you're full of shit

Calm down and stop spazzing <45><45>

If I were just taking his word, I wouldn't be asking him those questions, would I?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

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"

Volcanic activity could another factor, but that usually cools the earth and we've haven't seen any activity that could account for this much excess heat. This article explains why scientists see a strong link between greenhouse gasses and the deviation from where the climate should be:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

"Here are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years."

 

[Blayt7hh]

Calm down and stop spazzing <45><45>

If I were just taking his word, I wouldn't be asking him those questions, would I?

Yeah whatever. It's been a while since I've seen anyone self own this hard. It actually made this whole waste of time worth it. Epic fail dude, epic fail

 

[no fat chicks]

Study is a can, wait until it goes to the big leagues and gets SLEPT by a mid tier journal peer review.

 

[Horse Style]

Volcanic activity could another factor, but that usually cools the earth and we've haven't seen any activity that could account for this much excess heat. This article explains why scientists see a strong link between greenhouse gasses and the deviation from where the climate should be:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

"Here are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years."

Thanks for the links. The first one did a good job explaining greenhouse gasses preventing a lot of heat from escaping into space.

With that said, what does an extra ~1°C over these decades do to the environment? Also, why wouldn't planting more trees just be an easy solution?

 

[Horse Style]

Yeah whatever. It's been a while since I've seen anyone self own this hard. It actually made this whole waste of time worth it. Epic fail dude, epic fail

I agree

1) Thinking people agreeing something is happening is proof something is happening and
2) Getting frustrated because I won't go on an unnecessary tangent with you

is quite the fail for you. But then again, that's par for the course for you.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Thanks for the links. The first one did a good job explaining greenhouse gasses preventing a lot of heat from escaping into space.

With that said, what does an extra ~1°C over these decades do to the environment? Also, why wouldn't planting more trees just be an easy solution?

Because a 1 Deg C difference over the globe could look something like this. In the picture below, that's probably a 6-8 Deg C difference over Siberia and Northern Canada. When that permafrost melts, it's going to release a lot more locked up CO2 and Methane which will accelerate the warming even more as Methane is much more potent. The real problem is, that there could be an unknown mechanism in the earths carbon cycle that will eventually control this but right now scientists don't see one that could restrain this runaway heating. And I don't know how many seedlings need to be planted in order to stop this.

 

[Horse Style]

Because a 1 Deg C difference over the globe could look something like this. In the picture below, that's probably a 6-8 Deg C difference over Siberia and Northern Canada. When that permafrost melts, it's going to release a lot more locked up CO2 and Methane which will accelerate the warming even more as Methane is much more potent. The real problem is, that there could be an unknown mechanism in the earths carbon cycle that will eventually control this but right now scientists don't see one that could restrain this runaway heating. And I don't know how many seedlings need to be planted in order to stop this.

From your links and other sources I've been reading, it seems the science of climate change isn't settled. There are several things that factor into it, some more significant than others, and climate study is fairly new in the scope of this planet's history.

There is data that shows that even though the global temperature has only increased ~1°C since the 1800s, a large portion of that small increase has been within the last 60 years or so. It's still unclear if this trend will continue at the same rate or this is just a fluctuation.

With this much uncertainty, the climate alarmism coming from politicians and environmentalists looks inappropriate and reeks of ulterior motives.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

From your links and other sources I've been reading, it seems the science of climate change isn't settled. There are several things that factor into it, some more significant than others, and climate study is fairly new in the scope of this planet's history.

Nothing is ever really "settled" completely in science as new data can and will change the theories, models and courses of actions that we take. What are the more significant factors in this case?

There is data that shows that even though the global temperature has only increased ~1°C since the 1800s, a large portion of that small increase has been within the last 60 years or so. It's still unclear if this trend will continue at the same rate or this is just a fluctuation.

Well yes, the most significant part of our industrialization has happened in the past 70-80 years where we've released the most amount of greenhouse gases. You can see the correlation/causation here I'm assuming?

With this much uncertainty, the climate alarmism coming from politicians and environmentalists looks inappropriate and reeks of ulterior motives.

Uncertainty with what exactly? We've seen the evidence that the main driver for the warming is our CO2. We still continuously produce more and more CO2. What in your mind concerning this trend is uncertain?

 

[Whippy McGee]

and poor forest managament

The private forests, turn a profit, slow fires, and are far heathier. In the Sierra near where I grew up, when the fires hit the public forests, they explode with all that fuel not cleared and no breaks from harvesting.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

"The results show the average rate of warming of the surface of the earth for the past 170 years is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade, possibly as low as 0.038 degrees C per decade. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere."

 

[Steve-French]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that this wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, and that the guy who wrote this nonsense works for the fossil fuels industry.

Do you ever get tired of posting fossil fuel propaganda?

Can't there be a place to meet in the middle here? Of course humans are fucking up the planet and of course there are steps we should take to reduce our carbon foot print; but you would also be naive if you don't realize that most of these Green energy solutions are just another way for corporations to make billions of dollars. Their end game isn't the environment.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Can't there be a place to meet in the middle here? Of course humans are fucking up the planet and of course there are steps we should take to reduce our carbon foot print; but you would also be naive if you don't realize that most of these Green energy solutions are just another way for corporations to make billions of dollars. Their end game isn't the environment.

We have the answers, but they are not profitable for some people. Modern nuclear power plants both the large Westinghouse AP1000 and Small Modular Reactors AP300. They are incredibly safe, very efficient, and can go up quickly. You also scrap coal, but go heavy on Natural Gas which burns incredibly clean. Add local solar in sunny regions and you're pretty set. But, they have Lithium to sell!

 

[Sano]

This again...

1. The scientific community has never claimed that the world is going to end in a few years. It's a strawman that keeps getting brought up because it's easier to attack that than the real thing.
2. Most of the literature point to an increase in temperature that will gradually make fewer places habitable in the next 50-100+ years, however the issue is that the scale is so big that it's going to be difficult preparing for it.
3. The earth is, without a doubt, warming. This has been examined in countless peer reviewed publications as well as measured directly for decades.
4. The notion that this is a conspiracy with a financial incentive is nonsensical. Scientist all over the world from entirely different ideological and socioecononic spectrums have all corroborated the findings. Median salary for climate scientists across the globe is somewhere around 45.000-70.000 dollars a year. You don't become a scientist if you want to get rich, there's no incentive. I should know.
5. The study in the OP is a post-hoc analysis designed to fit a narrative. Reading it through, it's a joke honestly. Excludes crucial data as "statistical noise", correlation/causation fallacy, misleading graphs and lazily references other peoples work without due diligence. It's not reviewed, it's not published and it's done by a single author. Those are major red flags in science. But here's the kicker, it still found that the earth has warmed by 0.04-0.07 degrees each decade in the last 170 years. That's an increase of 7-12 degrees.

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."

I don't even have a count anymore of how many times you've had to post this.

 

[ocean size]

Hey man, I was just asking an honest question. No need to call me a dolt. I don’t believe I’ve ever done any of the things you’re talking about.
I just wanted to know why it’s bullshit. So I can be informed. I don’t know enough about it to look at the citations and know if they’re hogwash.

It's not really about the citations mate, the guy is purporting to conduct an original analysis of a (legit) temperature dataset. It's his analysis that is comical, he fit a type of trendline in Microsoft excel that isn't appropriate but gives him an answer he likes, and then does a statistically inappropriate comparison of his smoothed curve and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. It's a little bit funny, but I shit you not if I had a student hand in this as an assignment in an entry level uni stats class they wouldn't get a very good grade.

It's the tale as old as time, some dinosaur (dude finished undergrad in 1960) steps outside their wheelhouse to take on climate but doesn't even realise what they don't understand, which in this case is basic principles of time series analysis or the basics of climatology. Who needs those, when you can have "oil and gas industry uncertainty analysis methodology?"

The focus of current research is (1) to better understand the structural evolution of the Los Angeles basin area and the continental borderland region with emphasis on the use of seismic data to characterize the deep structure of offshore basins and (2) to clarify climate change issues by applying oil and gas industry uncertainty analysis methodology

straight from his uni profile page.

Thanks for the links. The first one did a good job explaining greenhouse gasses preventing a lot of heat from escaping into space.

With that said, what does an extra ~1°C over these decades do to the environment? Also, why wouldn't planting more trees just be an easy solution?

It isn't just a uniform degree across the planet's atmosphere, you've got to think about the amount of heat energy that has entered the system overall.

No exaggeration, it is the equivalent of more than one million nuclear bombs getting set off per day over the past 50 years - 381±61 zetajoules. zeta =one billion trillions. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1675/2023/

only 1% of that excess is stored in the atmosphere. About 90% is absorbed into the oceans. the extra heat can result in big nonlinear regional and seasonal swings around that 1.2°C average through a few mechanisms.

 

[Horse Style]

Uncertainty with what exactly? We've seen the evidence that the main driver for the warming is our CO2. We still continuously produce more and more CO2. What in your mind concerning this trend is uncertain?

Uncertainty in how this warming trend will continue and uncertainty with how this will affect us down the line. There are many alarmist out there who act as if everything is settled and the effects of warming means catastrophe in the near future which fuels disingenuous "fixes" that are just grabs for more money and more power.

 

[ocean size]

Uncertainty in how this warming trend will continue and uncertainty with how this will affect us down the line. There are many alarmist out there who act as if everything is settled and the effects of warming means catastrophe in the near future which fuels disingenuous "fixes" that are just grabs for more money and more power.

It's pretty clear cut, there's no real way to understand the data in which the warming trend continuing isn't overwhelmingly likely. The biggest source of uncertainty is how much we get our shit together regarding reducing emissions, but most of them have a long enough half life we are locked into a decent amount of warning for the medium term.

And I mean, of course people are going to be making money on the solutions, our societies are structured around capitalist economic systems... people make money on everything.

 

[Horse Style]

It's pretty clear cut, there's no real way to understand the data in which the warming trend continuing isn't overwhelmingly likely. The biggest source of uncertainty is how much we get our shit together regarding reducing emissions, but most of them have a long enough half life we are locked into a decent amount of warning for the medium term.

And I mean, of course people are going to be making money on the solutions, our societies are structured around capitalist economic systems... people make money on everything.

The trend will undoubtedly continue but the rate isn't so clear cut. It taking decades for the temperature to go up 1 degree gives us a lot of time. With continued innovation and alternate sources such as nuclear being an option in the near future, the energy industry that powers our society can look very different in 20-30 years.

And I'm talking about alarmist pretending that the world is going to face great catastrophe in a matter of years and use that fear to push through policy that would cause way more harm than good.