Will this disprove climate changes?

[Nithavela]

Yes, one can always be mistaken of course, but people always nags about humanmade climate changes like they nags about everything else so I had in my heart to disprove it to get a little peace inside, I just want peace for once but people always make up something else to talk about

I take it that 1985 is your birth year.

Don't worry, if you ignore the problem and you don't own seaside property you can propably live into your sixities without being inconvenienced by climate change.

 

[Goodman1985]

I take it that 1985 is your birth year.

Don't worry, if you ignore the problem and you don't own seaside property you can propably live into your sixities without being inconvenienced by climate change.

Yes i sat myself free from it yesterday by disproving it

 

[Nithavela]

Yes i sat myself free from it yesterday by disproving it

Any other things you plan on disproving for your personal peace of mind?

 

[Goodman1985]

Any other things you plan on disproving for your personal peace of mind?

Yes, when people believe you`re a brain only I laugh so I drool on myself

 

[variant]

I still don`t believe that humans causes climate changes though, It`s like, I walk in the forest sometimes which I have over many years and I can`t really see any changes

Well, to be blunt, we can't put our faith in your ability to see anything. You started out this discussion with an argument based on knowing the difference between a dinosaur eating foliage and an industrialized coal plant. When you walk in the forest we can't tell you what you're missing but when we actually study forests we see differences.

Just because you don't see the changes doesn't mean they don't happen. Or, you aren't looking at the right things.

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal evidence.
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

Meanwhile in other forests:

We can see the human impact pretty well.
Eyes on Deforestation

 

[variant]

Pooooooooe

Yeah I guess that makes sense.

 

[Goodman1985]

Well, to be blunt, we can't put our faith in your ability to see anything. You started out this discussion with an argument based on knowing the difference between a dinosaur eating foliage and an industrialized coal plant. When you walk in the forest we can't tell you what you're missing but when we actually study forests we see differences.

Just because you don't see the changes doesn't mean they don't happen. Or, you aren't looking at the right things.

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal evidence.
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

Meanwhile in other forests:

We can see the human impact pretty well.
Eyes on Deforestation

Well I can`t really agree completly, I`m very sensitive as a person I think I would have seen anything or felt the temperature change or something atleasts and when I look at animals they have it good also, I think they also would have known something was wrong, what you and people are really saying is that there`s something wrong with our planet and atleasts heading that way and that is a very strong and cold statement of not caring really, besides if it really was true, why don`t you change your ways then and not drive cars and so forth, do you really care that little?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I take it that 1985 is your birth year.

Don't worry, if you ignore the problem and you don't own seaside property you can propably live into your sixities without being inconvenienced by climate change.

If those who live near the sea (75 percent or so of all mankind lives within a few hundred miles of the seas) don't move inland very far.

 

[Nithavela]

If those who live near the sea (75 percent or so of all mankind lives within a few hundred miles of the seas) don't move inland very far.

Im an optimist, I think most of them will drown.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread

From Ethics & Morality
To The Kitchen Sink

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[blackribbon]

What an amazing insight. Congratulations, good sir, you have singlehandedly disproven decades of research by thousands of scientists because the forest you sometimes take a walk in doesn't look noticeably different to you.

That is the problem... DECADES. We haven't been tracking temperatures long enough to have a feel for the natural cycles of the world. The increases we are aware of are in the range of only slight changes over that time.

 

[Belk]

That is the problem... DECADES. We haven't been tracking temperatures long enough to have a feel for the natural cycles of the world. The increases we are aware of are in the range of only slight changes over that time.

According to whom?

 

[blackribbon]

According to whom?

NASA

Global temperature records start around 1880 because observations did not sufficiently cover enough of the planet prior to that time. The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. World of Change: Global Temperatures

Here is an estimate based on the various other indicators that show climate change of the world over its history. Again, the source is NASA.



Above: The general trend of average global temperatures from Precambrian time -- when multicellular organisms first evolved -- to the present. Notice that average global temperatures vary by roughly 10 degrees Celsius between warm and cool periods. Image courtesy of Dr. Chris Scotese.

Earth's Fidgeting Climate | Science Mission Directorate

 

[Nithavela]

NASA

Global temperature records start around 1880 because observations did not sufficiently cover enough of the planet prior to that time. The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980.World of Change: Global Temperatures

How long would be long enough to have a "feel"?

 

[blackribbon]

How long would be long enough to have a "feel"?

see link in thread 33 (I did an edit and added more after you posted.)

 

[Nithavela]

see link in thread 33 (I did an edit and added more after you posted.)

A number of years, please.

 

[blackribbon]

A number of years, please.

Whatever is the natural temperature cycle is. Since the time we have been measuring temperature is about 140 years, it is obviously a lot larger that that. And again, compared to the life of the world (regardless if you believe thousands or millions of years), this is just a drop in the hat. Pieces of the answer really lay in the cores that they pull out of Antarctica. If you are really interested, I suggest you read the second link. It isn't a difficult read and isn't particularly long.

Earth's Fidgeting Climate | Science Mission Directorate

 

[Nithavela]

Whatever is the natural temperature cycle is. Since the time we have been measuring temperature is about 140 years, it is obviously a lot larger that that. And again, compared to the life of the world (regardless if you believe thousands or millions of years), this is just a drop in the hat. Pieces of the answer really lay in the cores that they pull out of Antarctica. If you are really interested, I suggest you read the second link. It isn't a difficult read and isn't particularly long.

Earth's Fidgeting Climate | Science Mission Directorate

Not going to read that.

So you don't have a number of years, but it is obviously larger than the number of years we have.

Let's, for arguments sake, assume that the scientists are correct and we only have about 10-20 years to correct our behaviour. Can you see how, if you hold this to be even remotely possible, waiting another couple of centuries for data gathering purposes might be problematic?

 

[blackribbon]

Not going to read that.

So you don't have a number of years, but it is obviously larger than the number of years we have.

Let's, for arguments sake, assume that the scientists are correct and we only have about 10-20 years to correct our behaviour. Can you see how, if you hold this to be even remotely possible, waiting another couple of centuries for data gathering purposes might be problematic?

So you don't want to read an article BY SCIENTISTS on a SCIENTIFIC webpage...but you want MY opinion? I tend to believe the scientist and the science that says that climate change is part of the natural cycle of this world and that it will eventually cycle back down, including self adjustments that it makes on its way up as well as on the way down. I have no problem making plans for the next 10-20 years without considering the climate change....because I don't believe that it is an issue but rather a campaign to freak out people and bully them into doing what the government wants us to do. Again, remember my article is proof there are plenty of scientists (real NASA scientists) doing climate research who do not believe that the world is going to crash in 10-20 years.

 

[blackribbon]

Not going to read that.

So you don't have a number of years, but it is obviously larger than the number of years we have.

Let's, for arguments sake, assume that the scientists are correct and we only have about 10-20 years to correct our behaviour. Can you see how, if you hold this to be even remotely possible, waiting another couple of centuries for data gathering purposes might be problematic?

Where is the scientific evidence that indicates that we only have 10-20 years to correct our behavior? And I want scientific information (since you are saying this is from scientists) and not some journalist's opinion that has no science background.