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

[dirtypablo]

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.

The uncertainty is, as @ocean size pointed out largely around how humans will behave, as well as around feedback loops, which will only make things worse.

And, no, we don't have a lot of time. We had plenty of time in the 1980s when this issue was understood well enough for us to know we needed to change something. Hell, even in the early 2000s we could have started making real changes that would have us in a radically different place then we are in now. But now? We've long since crossed the point where we could stop catastrophic effects.

 

[RogerB08]

Eating meat, driving a car etc. = sin
'Scientists' = priest class
Greta Thunberg = prophetess
'Climate Change' = dogma
'Climate Change Deniers' = heretics, witches etc.

Abase yourself! Repent! Obey!

Strawman much?

 

[PEB]

The Quebec wildfires that caused that, were a product of lightning or arson.

Yeah sure some family in a campground caused 150 forrest fires to spread across drying land an who knows 11 million acres. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees? Lack of rain an rising temperatures made for an extremely efficient conditions for much more damaging fire. Obviously you never been camping where it rained a day before an fought to get a fire burning. Wood tends to be harder to ignite when damp.

Nevermind dust storms rising water an a other problems.

 

[dirtypablo]

Yeah sure some family in a campground caused 150 forrest fires to spread across drying land an who knows 11 million acres. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees? Lack of rain an rising temperatures made for an extremely efficient conditions for much more damaging fire. Obviously you never been camping where it rained a day before an fought to get a fire burning. Wood tends to be harder to ignite when damp.

Nevermind dust storms rising water an a other problems.

Not to mention that warmer temperatures cause more lightning.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1259100

 

[ocean size]

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.

As I said, the uncertainty arises from whether we get our shit together, but as I also said IIRC its a moot point in the medium term. Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide both have atmospheric half lives longer than 100 years. We could stop all emissions today but we are locked in for 1.5 °C.

What bills and what provisions in them are you talking about specifically that have used or attempted to use fear of pretend catastrophe to push through policy that will be net-harmful?

 

[Natural Order]

You'll note almost universally that eco-cult members are also steadfast transhumanists who believe mankind to be an ill on this planet and are aimed at pushing our existence into an AI driven digital medium.

When you understand where it all comes from psychologically it all starts to make sense. At the end of the day, it stems from existential panic. A bizarre mashup of misanthropy and munchausen.

We most certainly need to do better in terms of pollution, particularly physical pollution in the oceans. But the frothing nonsense should be laughed at.

 

[Fugazy]

I didn't automatically assume it's wrong. I have enough of a brain to know when information deserves to be taken seriously. 40 years of peer reviewed research all saying similar things, vs a 'study' that was published on an internet blog by a guy with a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus. Hmm, ya, really tough to figure out who to trust here.

Pro-tip

Trust No One

 

[dirtypablo]

As I said, the uncertainty arises from whether we get our shit together, but as I also said IIRC its a moot point in the medium term. Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide both have atmospheric half lives longer than 100 years. We could stop all emissions today but we are locked in for 1.5 °C.

What bills and what provisions in them are you talking about specifically that have used or attempted to use fear of pretend catastrophe to push through policy that will be net-harmful?

There's zero chance of us stopping warming anywhere below 2 degrees.

 

[Horse Style]

As I said, the uncertainty arises from whether we get our shit together, but as I also said IIRC its a moot point in the medium term. Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide both have atmospheric half lives longer than 100 years. We could stop all emissions today but we are locked in for 1.5 °C.

What bills and what provisions in them are you talking about specifically that have used or attempted to use fear of pretend catastrophe to push through policy that will be net-harmful?

I said policy they're pushing. I didn't say a specific bill. The main one is wanting to overhaul the coal, oil and natural gas industry in the short-term without having a suitable and realistic replacement. Trying to overhaul those industries will cause a global energy shortage which has a negative effect on several other industries and most importantly the people who depend on that energy for survival.

 

[Hdfi]

It doesn't matter anyway because the Sun will become a red giant.

 

[dirtypablo]

Pro-tip

Trust No One

I'm all for holding beliefs lightly, acknowledging that we don't know what we don't know, and am well aware that scientists and institutions can be corrupted. But how's that old saying go? Be open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out? That applies here.

The basics of the physics at play here have been understood for well over a hundred years. There were literally scientists in the 1800s suggesting that industrial scale carbon emissions could cause the earth to warm. The big picture understanding of this issue has been confirmed time and time again by researchers all over the globe, including ones working for oil companies. The idea that there's some massive conspiracy at play here is simply idiotic.

 

[Deorum]

I said policy they're pushing. I didn't say a specific bill. The main one is wanting to overhaul the coal, oil and natural gas industry in the short-term without having a suitable and realistic replacement. Trying to overhaul those industries will cause a global energy shortage which has a negative effect on several other industries and most importantly the people who depend on that energy for survival.

#TeamPetroleum

It doesn't matter anyway because the Sun will become a red giant.

And those are comparatively lame. It needed to have a hell of a lot more mass than it does to go supernova, much less become a stellar black hole. It's a god damn forgettable star!

 

[Sano]

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?" straight from his uni profile page.



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.

Great post. What's your background ocean?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

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.

Like I said before, scientists don't see anything naturally constraining this warming in our carbon cycle and see a lot of accelerating factors. How do you think scientists should convey this message without sounding off some alarms?

You're right in that there is some uncertainty with timescales as we're studying climate feedback loops and sensitivity. That is why every real model provides a range for their projections and adjusts when new data is verified. The alarmists that believe the sky is falling tomorrow are not scientists.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

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.


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

It's funny, almost every time I bring this up, the poster is surprised that it's not the sun causing the current warming and that scientists around the world somehow missed this LOL

 

[Fugazy]

I'm all for holding beliefs lightly, acknowledging that we don't know what we don't know, and am well aware that scientists and institutions can be corrupted. But how's that old saying go? Be open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out? That applies here.

The basics of the physics at play here have been understood for well over a hundred years. There were literally scientists in the 1800s suggesting that industrial scale carbon emissions could cause the earth to warm. The big picture understanding of this issue has been confirmed time and time again by researchers all over the globe, including ones working for oil companies. The idea that there's some massive conspiracy at play here is simply idiotic.

I'm not being serious whatsoever.

Thank you for your PSA though.

 

[Horse Style]

Like I said before, scientists don't see anything naturally constraining this warming in our carbon cycle and see a lot of accelerating factors. How do you think scientists should convey this message without sounding off some alarms?

You're right in that there is some uncertainty with timescales as we're studying climate feedback loops and sensitivity. That is why every real model provides a range for their projections and adjusts when new data is verified. The alarmists that believe the sky is falling tomorrow are not scientists.

The same way you conveyed it ITT. The Earth is warming, it's happening at ~this~ pace and show evidence of what this gradual warming does to the environment in the present and future. From there, a realistic plan to transition to better energy sources that will do the job coal/oil/natural gas has been doing thus far.

Noticed how our back-and-forth was productive and I didn't need a certain university degree to understand the data you cited? There's also nothing from what I've seen that justifies the "OMG if we don't something this instant, we're all doomed" sentiment that makes up most of the "climate change is man-made" side of things.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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

That's the thing. If you're actually interested in doing your own research and knowing the truth, you look at all the relevant studies and surveys you can get your hands on, work through them and make a decision. But what people like the TS and Horse do is just look to see if they can find a headline to a study that roughly goes along with the GOP line, and say "aha! Case closed."

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

The same way you conveyed it ITT. The Earth is warming, it's happening at ~this~ pace and show evidence of what this gradual warming does to the environment in the present and future. From there, a realistic plan to transition to better energy sources that will do the job coal/oil/natural gas has been doing thus far.

Noticed how our back-and-forth was productive and I didn't need a certain university degree to understand the data you cited? There's also nothing from what I've seen that justifies the "OMG if we don't something this instant, we're all doomed" sentiment that makes up most of the "climate change is man-made" side of things.

The scientific community does/should not determine political or economic policy. Their job is to provide data/models and analysis to the policy makers in government and industry. These policy makers can then use this data/analysis in their strategic decisions or ignore it. A good example of this was Exxon in the 70s-80s, the paid for various studies on CO2 and greenhouse emissions. They knew the warming effects and they chose to ignore it because it would hurt their bottom line.

When it comes to "We're all doomed", I really think you've just been mainly seeing sensationalized headlines or political talking points because most (I won't say all as there may be outliers) scientists don't speak that way.

 

[Horse Style]

The scientific community does/should not determine political or economic policy. Their job is to provide data/models and analysis to the policy makers in government and industry. These policy makers can then use this data/analysis in their strategic decisions or ignore it. A good example of this was Exxon in the 70s-80s, the paid for various studies on CO2 and greenhouse emissions. They knew the warming effects and they chose to ignore it because it would hurt their bottom line.

When it comes to "We're all doomed", I really think you've just been mainly seeing sensationalized headlines or political talking points because most (I won't say all as there may be outliers) scientists don't speak that way.

When I talked about the "we're all doomed" crowd, I wasn't talking about the scientists.