Take your pick. All time favourite (paraphrased): "It’s cold outside, so how can the earth be warming?"
Ironically, back in 2009 Trump signed a statement in the NYT saying the exact opposite of what his Twitter account claims. Which seems to support my hypothesis that he probably doesn’t know how to read.
The purpose of this tread from what I understand is to debunk given points set forward. I don't think i have quite enough of knowledge to do this.
My points will be reflecting my views on this topic in general
First of all here in Chicago summers are hot and humid they are getting hotter and more humid . One could say summers in Chicago always have been hot and humid. However Chicago usually had relatively cold winter. This year winter was like spring while spring was little bit like winter with what are normally coldest months were almost as warm as April during spring. While in April on the other hand it actually snowed for few days. This breaks up cycle of seasons which has bad side effects.
to name one ticks some of which cause lime disease normally die off in winter. with hotter winters they pose significant problem. The early signs of Global warming also include hurricanes which were growing stronger and stronger every year and they also traveled north further north this increase coincides with increase of speed of melting of Ice on Arctic.
Since Ice caps are melting with much more significant speed than ever before if we don't do something now it will be too late to stop rise of the oceans.
Animals at arctic are all ready suffering polar bears for example.
As it was mentioned large oil companies pay off politicians to vote on their side. They then ignore or dispute scientist's findings for political reasons
In last 10 years solar cells and other clean energy sources became much more efficient than before. And could replace or at least decrease the amount of fossil fuels we emit into the atmosphere. The reason they were not implemented is because of oil companies. Because they influence politics statements from those politicians cannot be fully trusted. Scientists have nothing to gain and they are trained in this field their word is more trustworthy and they all agree that global warming can be a disaster.
Claim: "It was just as warm as/warmer than today in historical times (E.g. medieval warm period)"
Rebuttal: Global temperature record for the Holocene adapted from Marcott et al. 2013 and NOAA 2020 data.
Composite temperatures in the middle ages and late antiquity were approximately as warm (or cold, depending on how you look at it) as the frequently used 1961-1990 reference period (NOAA 2020, Marcott et al. 2013). That means only approximately 0.1° warmer than the average of the 20th century, around 0.3° warmer than the average of the 1880-1940 period (NOAA 2020). On the other hand, the decade 2000-2009 was 0.7° warmer than the 20th century average, and the decade 2010-2019 was 0.8° warmer (NOAA 2020).
This is also consistent with findings of Crowley & Lowery (2000), who, while acknowledging some individual records with temperature spikes during this time, conclude that composite temperatures for the warmest intervals in the medieval warm period did not exceed modern (i.e. pre-2000) temperatures, and Huges & Diaz (1994), who acknowledge regional warm periods warmer than most of the 20th century (but not the "most recent decades"), but a lack of global synchronicity between these events.
In other words, yes there were warm phases during the middle ages, at least regionally, but sustained global temperatures were at most as high as during the mid-late 20th century, well below current levels.
Crowley, T.J. and Lowery, T.S. 2000. How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29 (1): 51–54. Hughes, M.K. and Diaz, H.F. 1994. Was there a ‘Medieval Warm Period’, and if so, where and when? Climatic change 26 (2–3): 109–142. Marcott, S.A., Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2013. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science 339 (6124): 1198–1201. NOAA. 2020. Global Surface Temperature Anomalies | Monitoring References | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Downloaded from www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php on 17 July 2020. Raftery, A.E., Zimmer, A., Frierson, D.M.W., Startz, R. and Liu, P. 2017. Less than 2 °C warming by 2100 unlikely. Nature Climate Change 7 (9): 637–641.
Last Edit: Mar 17, 2021 23:40:17 GMT 5 by theropod
As you can see the overall trend of solar irradiance is not just not rising, but even slightly positive. It is also small compared to the amplidude of the 11-year sunspot cycle, meaning solar irradiance varies much more over the course of those 11-year cycles than along the multi-decadal trend, at least for recent times. So if solar irradiance where the primary driver of recent climate change, then why is the global temperature going up more or less continuously, and not oscillating between warm and cold phases along the sunspot cycle, or getting slightly colder following the multi-decadal trend of solar irradiance? Well, again, simple: because solar irradiance isn’t what is driving recent climate change, greenhouse gases are.
What you can furthermore see is that the absolute climate forcing (in W/m²) of solar irradiance is small (deviating from the mean ~0.5 W/m² along the sunspot cycle) compared to that of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which gets us to our second point:
2) The claim fails to refute and in fact plain ignores, the radiative forcing (i.e. the change in the energy balance for a given area) of greenhouse gases, which is far higher than any solar forcing over the relevant time period and, according to the claim, nevertheless somehow magically without any effect.
For reference, even the most optimistic of the IPCC scenarios (representative concentration pathway/RCP 2.6) works with a GHG-induced forcing of 2.6 W/m² for 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels, which we have basically already reached now. On the high end of their scenarios, the forcing is 8.5 W/m², this being the kind of scenario we are trying to prevent.
van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G.C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S.J. and Rose, S.K. 2011. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109 (1–2): 5–31.
Compare that to the less than 0.5W/m² that solar irradiance has increased on average since the year 1800, which is less than what methane alone contributes to the GHG-induced radiative forcing caused by humans. CO2 meanwhile has increased from about 280 ppm to 415 ppm since then, which corresponds to a radiative forcing of over 2 W/m².
Etminan, M., Myhre, G., Highwood, E.J. and Shine, K.P. 2016. Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters 43 (24): 12,614-12,623.
So in Summary; The sun does not excert a major climate forcing compared to greenhouse gases, and it does not explain the trend in global temperatures, unlike greenhouse gases, which have been rising continuously along with the latter.
The fallacy in point 2 may also come from the unfounded (or circular, as in "the sun is what’s causing climate change, not GHGs! Why? Because the greenhouse effect isn’t real! Why not? Because the sun is what’s causing climate change!") a priori assumption that the greenhouse effect, in which case of course the one making the claim will of course dismiss evidence like what I just presented as part of a global conspiracy of climate scientists who simply made up the greenhouse effect. That claim is worth its own post some time in the future, but for now please note that there are simple experiments available in which even school children can convince themselves of the greenhouse effect (e.g. sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf) . So unless the laws of physics themselves are complicit in that conspiracy, it is hard to see how the greenhouse effect could be made up by some sort of global elitist plot.
PS: NOAA also has a nice site that lets you play around with various different variables relevant to the climate here: www.climate.gov/maps-data
Last Edit: Mar 18, 2021 17:11:43 GMT 5 by theropod
Post by creature386 on May 16, 2021 16:53:59 GMT 5
Today, let's dissect a classic from those who accept that global warming take place, but assert that all those who wish to fight it are Evil Liberals Trying To Smack The Economy For No Reason.
"We [as in, North America and Europe] don't have to do anything against global warming as long as China doesn't."
1. This argument has a number of faulty premises. The first is the notion that China doesn't do anything to combat climate change. This is often based on misrepresenting the Paris Agreement, according to which China allegedly can emit as much CO2 as it wants until 2030. This makes it sound as if 2030 was the earliest date from which on China is planning to do anything at all. The opposite is true. 2030 is the latest date on which China must reach peak emissions. This might seem very late, especially considering that Western countries are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions right now, but considering China's immense economic growth, which it refuses to slow down, high increases in CO2 emissions are inevitable. By contrast, most Western countries have stagnant economic growth. Therefore, it China doesn't lay the groundwork for a green economy, its greenhouse emissions will not shrink after 2030. Its government knows. China leads the ranking of countries with the highest installed renewable energy capacities by a long shot, with an upward trend being discernible. Moreover, President Xi Jinping announced a goal to achieve carbon neutrality by the year of 2060. To make one thing clear, a very valid case can be made that China isn't doing enough, but to imply that it's doing nothing at all (or significantly less than the West) is factually incorrect.
2. The second assumption is the idea that a transition to renewable energies is inherently harmful for the economy or something. It is not:
3. But let's just ignore these first two points. Let's assume that continuing to emit CO2 emissions is good for a country's economy, even if it's bad for the planet as a whole. Then, we're dealing with what is called a prisoner's dilemma. A prisoner's dilemma is a dilemma in which cooperation greatest the greatest amount of net benefit for both parties involved, but defection is always more beneficial on the individual level. The classical example involves a scenario in which two prisoners are in solitary confinment and they are given to testify whether the other prisoner comitted a crime or not. The prisoners can cooperate by not betraying each other or they can defect by betraying each other. If both defect, they serve two years in prison. If both cooperate, they only serve one year in prison. If one betrays the other, however, and the other does not, the one who testified will be set three while the one who kept silent will serve three years in prison. The moral of the story is that betrayal is almost always better for the individual prisoner, regardless of what the other does, but cooperation is always best for the prisoners as a collective. However, this is all assuming a one-shot PD. If multiple PDs happen in succession and other "players" can see whether a certain player cooperates or defects, things look different. The player who tends to betray others will be more likely to face betrayal in turn, making cooperation a viable strategy. Climate change policy is very much like an iterative PD. However, there is an important difference. Climate change is a bit abstract, so, for the players involved, the benefits of reducing their greenhouse emissions aren't so clear. Thus, countries are expected to be less cooperative than players in a "normal" iterative PD. However, this is precisely the reason why cooperation must be enforced through collusions like the agreements in Paris or Kyoto. This will only lead to cooperations if everyone cooperates, even countries whose emissions are less than 1% of the total ones worldwide.
Infinity Blade: I'm not sure. Freshwater plants certainly grow from the underwater sediment upwards, but I don't know if they support the same kinds of diverse ecosystems seagrass meadows do.
Mar 25, 2022 21:40:57 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Is there a freshwater equivalent of seagrass meadows?
Mar 24, 2022 22:17:28 GMT 5
hypezephyr: IN DROWN, WATER WILL CHIMPS
May 27, 2021 22:33:21 GMT 5
kekistani: IN WATER, CHIMPS WILL DROWN.
Mar 18, 2021 11:18:01 GMT 5
roninwolf1981: I wonder why is it that the greater apes would drown if they fell into water from the trees?
Mar 16, 2021 22:25:11 GMT 5
kekistani: The virgin and bluepilled Mokele Mbembe versus the CHAD and REDPILLED Water Elephant
Mar 4, 2021 22:31:57 GMT 5
Ceratodromeus: Considering even the most terrestrially inclined extant crocodilians are also very good swimmers, i see zero reason for sebechids to not be.
Feb 25, 2021 21:09:18 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Virtually every terrestrial animal can swim if it needs to. I don't know about tail flexibility, though.
Feb 21, 2021 22:17:14 GMT 5
jhg: Probably not. Terrestrial crocodiles stayed on land for a good reason.
Feb 21, 2021 11:17:16 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Do you think sebecids and other crocodile-like terrestrial animals were good swimmers and if so, would they have used their tails to swim or would they have been too stiff?
Feb 21, 2021 6:16:35 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Welcome to World of Animals.
Jan 31, 2021 5:06:24 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Any idea how well pterosaurs would have fared in extremely cold climates? I can't help but assume that their wing membranes would be more vunerable to frostbite than a bird's wing.
Jan 23, 2021 9:38:14 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Turns out there is a study: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08812-2 fresh bones provided 63% more energy than dry bones but what I find intresting is that dry bones that are between 3-12 months old is still a viable food source for them.
Jan 4, 2021 9:18:34 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I think they might get calcium from the bones, but those might be harder to digest as well. For bone marrow, I'd say however long it's around before it completely decays.
Jan 4, 2021 6:23:06 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Question: I know a bearded vulture's diet consists mainly of bone marrow, but are they able to derive nutritional value from old bones or do the bones have to be relatively fresh?
Jan 4, 2021 2:59:21 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Happy New Year mudda fuggas.
Jan 1, 2021 10:02:06 GMT 5