Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[eclipsenow]

Again, 98.7% of all of what you call 'subsidies and kickbacks' goes to help the poor.

Assertion without evidence is just your blind faith or opinion that it is so. Assertion is not evidence. It is just you flapping your gums.

"Help the poor" is definitely a lie because coal is a death industry. You may as well support ISIS! Dude, seriously, have you read ANYTHING else I've been posting?

Harvard estimates 'externalities' at a third to half a trillion in costs to the American public.

Asthma (hospital admissions) 3,020,
Pneumonia (hospital admissions) 4,040,
Asthma (emergency room visits) 7,160
Cardiovascular ills (hospital admissions) 9,720
Chronic bronchitis 18,600
Premature deaths 30,100
Acute bronchitis 59,000
Asthma attacks 603,000
Lower respiratory ills 630,000
Upper respiratory ills 679,000
Lost workdays 5.13 million
Minor restricted-activity days 26.3 million
WHO | Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health

Lastly, this:

 

[Heissonear]

.

Meanwhile, as those in Environmental Extremism stray, back on topic the "one global temperature value for earth" is about as likely as:

One global valve for precipitation on earth for a 24 hour period 1 month period, or even a one year period!

Be sure to graph the global precipitation data to the hundredth of a decimal point like the global temperature graphs!

What a farse to defend "Global single data points!"

.

 

[hurste1951]

.

Meanwhile, as those in Environmental Extremism stray, back on topic the "one global temperature value for earth" is about as likely as:

One global valve for precipitation on earth for a 24 hour period 1 month period, or even a one year period!

Be sure to graph the global precipitation data to the hundredth of a decimal point like the global temperature graphs!

What a farse to defend "Global single data points!"

.

At this point this has been explained to Heissonear so many times that it makes you wonder WHO is really the "extremist"?

Heissonear doesn't seem to be able to understad that the temperatures the climate scientists talk about are GRIDDED AVERAGE ANOMALIES meaning they are related to the differential between the temperature in an area and it's average over a longer timeframe. The "Gridded" part means it is unique to general locality.

This really isn't advanced tensor calculus or anything. Most of us who got geology degrees can understand it pretty easily and see the value.

I am always amazed at what kind of education Heissonear must have gotten when he got his geology degree.

 

[andypro7]

Assertion without evidence is just your blind faith or opinion that it is so. Assertion is not evidence. It is just you flapping your gums.

FINALLY he gets it.

It took you dozens of posts, but I think you've finally gotten it.

Eh, you might not have gotten it now.

That quote of yours above, that describes YOU this whole thread. I've just been trying to get you to realize it. I checked out about 3 pages ago.

Dude, seriously, have you read ANYTHING else I've been posting?

Almost none of it. I've no use for you just flapping your gums.

 

[Loudmouth]

FINALLY he gets it.

It took you dozens of posts, but I think you've finally gotten it.

Eh, you might not have gotten it now.

That quote of yours above, that describes YOU this whole thread. I've just been trying to get you to realize it. I checked out about 3 pages ago.

Dude, seriously, have you read ANYTHING else I've been posting?

Almost none of it. I've no use for you just flapping your gums.

The problem with climate denialists is that they have to misrepresent everything. At no time have climatologists said that the only driver of modern climate is CO2. At no time have they ignored other causes of climate change. At no time have they said that modern temperatures should be the highest in recorded history because of CO2.

And yet, those are the words that climate denialists will put in their mouth.

 

[andypro7]

The problem with climate denialists is that they have to misrepresent everything. At no time have climatologists said that the only driver of modern climate is CO2. At no time have they ignored other causes of climate change. At no time have they said that modern temperatures should be the highest in recorded history because of CO2.

And yet, those are the words that climate denialists will put in their mouth.

I have NEVER denied that the climate changes. I doubt you will find one single climate realist who has said they deny that the climate changes.

If you really hate it when people 'misrepresent everything' and 'put words in other's mouths', you'd stop using that term, because it's meaningless.

But we both know you can't stop using that term, because what is incorrectly called climate science is based on propaganda and emotionalism, so you have to keep using it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have NEVER denied that the climate changes. I doubt you will find one single climate realist who has said they deny that the climate changes.

If you really hate it when people 'misrepresent everything' and 'put words in other's mouths', you'd stop using that term, because it's meaningless.

But we both know you can't stop using that term, because what is incorrectly called climate science is based on propaganda and emotionalism, so you have to keep using it.

You do deny the science demonstrating that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the major driver in recent climate change.

 

[andypro7]

At no time have climatologists said that the only driver of modern climate is CO2. At no time have they ignored other causes of climate change

You do deny the science demonstrating that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the major driver in recent climate change.

Uh, ok. That sounds 'sciency' to me.

Here are the FACTS that you have to DENY to believe that CO2 is the major driver:

From 1910 to 1940, we saw a global temp increase that compares to current one, but CO2 increased just slightly
From around 1940 to the late 1970s, CO2 increased greatly, but temps fell pretty severely
In the last 18+ years, we've seen big increases in CO2, but no statistical increase in temperatures.

That's 75% of the time over the last 105 years that your 'CO2 is the major driver' theory has been PROVEN WRONG BY ACTUAL DATA.


Go ahead, denier, deny the science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Uh, ok. That sounds 'sciency' to me.

Here are the FACTS that you have to DENY to believe that CO2 is the major driver:

From 1910 to 1940, we saw a global temp increase that compares to current one, but CO2 increased just slightly
From around 1940 to the late 1970s, CO2 increased greatly, but temps fell pretty severely
In the last 18+ years, we've seen big increases in CO2, but no statistical increase in temperatures.

That's 75% of the time over the last 105 years that your 'CO2 is the major driver' theory has been PROVEN WRONG BY ACTUAL DATA.


Go ahead, denier, deny the science.

I deny your description of the facts. The data shows an upward trend of temperatures.

Where is this severe drop from the 40's to 70's? It's not on that graph.

 

[andypro7]

I deny your description of the facts. The data shows an upward trend of temperatures.



Where is this severe drop from the 40's to 70's? It's not on that graph.

It's there, if you take the apex of temps in the early 40s to the lowest of temps at the end of the 1970s

The important thing is that industrialization really ramped up beginning in the 40s, CO2 increased dramatically, and temperatures DID NOT INCREASE, but actually declined.

And thus, just like approximately 75% of the time over the last 105 years, temperatures and CO2 show no correlation, which you DENY, denier.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's there, if you take the apex of temps in the early 40s to the lowest of temps at the end of the 1970s

It is nowhere near the warming that is seen from 1910 to 1940. If your cherry picked data points are "severe" then the warming from 1910 to 2013 is 3 times as severe, at least. Notice how you don't mention that.

The important thing is that industrialization really ramped up beginning in the 40s, CO2 increased dramatically, and temperatures DID NOT INCREASE, but actually declined.

No climatologists says that there is going to be an exact correlation between the two. You are once again putting words in the mouths of climatologists. Weather from year to to year is chaotic. What you have to look at is the long term climate trends, which you refuse to do. Instead, you pick out two points and ignore the rest.

 

[andypro7]

What you have to look at is the long term climate trends, which you refuse to do. Instead, you pick out two points and ignore the rest.

Ya got me. You're right, let's look at the long-term trend

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya got me. You're right, let's look at the long-term trend

From a previous post of mine.

"At no time have they said that modern temperatures should be the highest in recorded history because of CO2."

 

[andypro7]

From a previous post of mine.

"At no time have they said that modern temperatures should be the highest in recorded history because of CO2."

Right. Modern temperatures are clearly among the LOWEST over the last 10000 years, EVEN with substantial increases in CO2.

So, problem solved. Nothing to worry about. Right??

 

[Loudmouth]

Right. Modern temperatures are clearly among the LOWEST over the last 10000 years, EVEN with substantial increases in CO2.

Why would modern temperatures need to be the highest in history in order for CO2 to be the main driver of recent warming?

 

[andypro7]

Why would modern temperatures need to be the highest in history in order for CO2 to be the main driver of recent warming?

In order to show the 'C' part of 'CAGW'

The past 10000 years shows us that current climate is not the least bit catastrophic, so who cares?

Again, there is NO problem, can we finally agree?

 

[Loudmouth]

In order to show the 'C' part of 'CAGW'

Why would you need the warmest temps ever in order to have catastrophic results? It didn't take the warmest temps ever to take a lush savana and turn it into the Sahara desert.

Also, it wouldn't take the warmest temps ever to melt all of the ice in Greenland and other large ice resevoirs. All it would take is sustained warmer temps.

 

[andypro7]

Why would you need the warmest temps ever in order to have catastrophic results? It didn't take the warmest temps ever to take a lush savana and turn it into the Sahara desert.

Also, it wouldn't take the warmest temps ever to melt all of the ice in Greenland and other large ice resevoirs. All it would take is sustained warmer temps.

Ok, now take that same exact logic, and apply it to sustained COOLER temps. What would happen then? Because, as I've shown, that's the trend for the last 10000 years.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, now take that same exact logic, and apply it to sustained COOLER temps. What would happen then? Because, as I've shown, that's the trend for the last 10000 years.

That is not the trend over the last 100 years when we have been adding record amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

 

[eclipsenow]

.

Meanwhile, as those in Environmental Extremism stray, back on topic the "one global temperature value for earth" is about as likely as:

One global valve for precipitation on earth for a 24 hour period 1 month period, or even a one year period!

Be sure to graph the global precipitation data to the hundredth of a decimal point like the global temperature graphs!

What a farse to defend "Global single data points!"

But on our specific topic of the moment, do you think governments should subsidize smoking? Because that's what they're doing when the world's governments subsidise fossil fuels. Now they could be subsidising clean energy like nuclear power and renewables to clean up our cities and prevent 3 million fossil-fuel deaths per year, and half a TRILLION in externalised costs to America alone?