[blueash]

Another farcical attempt to deny what a huge majority of climate scientists and the data have clearly shown : the last few decades have had a significant increase in land temperature, sea temperature, glacial melting etc. And sounding using the last seven years to attempt to convince readers that we are in a cooling period is propagandist lying. We have had this before when the deniers used a particular hot year, 1997, to attempt to show there was no global warming. Seven years ago was a hot year. A very hot year.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online

Take a look at the graph. Notice the trend. Take a look at 1997 and how it was an outlier which all the deniers used as a baseline to try to tell us that nothing was happening because the temperature dropped from 1997 to 2011. See how they could bloviate about global cooling over the last 14 years by cherry picking?

And here we have more of that. Just look at the bigger picture. Air temperature is just one of the indicators of global temperature change. It is the one we best understand. But increased heat is not just in the air, it is in the soil, it is also in the water surface and deep ocean, it is used to melt glaciers. When you melt ice the energy of melting does not change the temperature of the material It is 32 ice then it is 32 water. But lots of energy get used. The amount of energy to melt a unit of ice, with no temperature change, just a phase change is the same as required to then heat that unit of water from 32 degrees to 176 degrees. A huge amount of energy.

The glaciers in the national park that have been there for nearly 10000 years have shrunk in recent years. The glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica are melting. That is not a cooling trend.

yes it is a FACT that 2021 was cooler than seven years ago, a completely misleading fact the obfuscates the clear trend of higher temps, melting glaciers, sea level rise.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Actually, it DOES ! Go to the link on post # 2 and scroll down almost to the end. Then look right after the bold heading, " Climate Change measured in DECADES, not years. Look for a blue underlined sentence stated by an NOAA Climatologist that reads.........."Earth's global temperatures are RISING due to HUMAN-GENERATED greenhouse gases".

Then if anyone wants to know by how much is the global temperature RISING. The VERY FIRST sentence at the top of the link says, " Global Temperatures have been in increasing at a rate of 2 degrees Farenheight since 1880.

I believe that this link DEFINITIVELY proves that earth temperature is INCREASING and CAUSED by mankind !
(And now I can't wait to hear the rebuttals to the expert by our very own non-experts)

BELIEFS and CONSENSUS have NO value in science. Beliefs drive religion -- Consensus drives politics -- and DATA drives science.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by blueash

Another farcical attempt to deny what a huge majority of climate scientists and the data have clearly shown : the last few decades have had a significant increase in land temperature, sea temperature, glacial melting etc. And sounding using the last seven years to attempt to convince readers that we are in a cooling period is propagandist lying. We have had this before when the deniers used a particular hot year, 1997, to attempt to show there was no global warming. Seven years ago was a hot year. A very hot year.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online

Take a look at the graph. Notice the trend. Take a look at 1997 and how it was an outlier which all the deniers used as a baseline to try to tell us that nothing was happening because the temperature dropped from 1997 to 2011. See how they could bloviate about global cooling over the last 14 years by cherry picking?

And here we have more of that. Just look at the bigger picture. Air temperature is just one of the indicators of global temperature change. It is the one we best understand. But increased heat is not just in the air, it is in the soil, it is also in the water surface and deep ocean, it is used to melt glaciers. When you melt ice the energy of melting does not change the temperature of the material It is 32 ice then it is 32 water. But lots of energy get used. The amount of energy to melt a unit of ice, with no temperature change, just a phase change is the same as required to then heat that unit of water from 32 degrees to 176 degrees. A huge amount of energy.

The glaciers in the national park that have been there for nearly 10000 years have shrunk by 1/2 in recent years. The glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica are melting. That is not a cooling trend.

yes it is a FACT that 2021 was cooler than seven years ago, a completely misleading fact the obfuscates the clear trend of higher temps, melting glaciers, sea level rise.

Regarding your attached NOAA temperature graph ... what month(s) does it represent?

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Regarding your attached NOAA temperature graph ... what month(s) does it represent?

All 12 months for each year.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

All 12 months for each year.

That is not correct. This time please display the data "criteria" which is shown to the upper-left of the diagram. The criteria that was used to create the diagram you provided were selected to maximize a "warming" graph. Thank you for showing data, but knowing what data is being used can make a difference.

[Taltarzac725]

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

And looks can be deceiving. Kerry has a history of creating data to fit his beliefs. 1. He likes to "model" hurricane projections -- and as we all know, those climate models have all failed for the past 35 years because they produce results way too hot and have never verified. 2. The article presented does not show any "historical" hurricane trend data -- and for good reason because it shows decreasing hurricane strength and frequency -- not to mention the dramatic decrease during the last 2 years. Here is data which Kerry, Al Gore, and the media refuse to show ... https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I'm so disappointed. Never thought you would steal. Borrow, alright. But not steal. Tsk, tsk!
And I thought the post was waaay to long when the point, hidden in all that verbosity was, "I don't care".
Disappointing Post, if you ask me (which you won't because I am one of those "truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer"s).
😎

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......

Quite a few surly someones around these here parts.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

You didn't know that?

We built machines, that ran on coal and oil, and put out so called "greenhouse gases" for the last 150-200 years. So now, according to some, the world is going to end in our grandchildren's lifetime. And our influence, our "evil", will destroy the world by overriding millions and millions of years of climate cycles driven by the power of the sun, the Earth's orbit and variations in its axis. And all this is because you bought the latest SUV. Amazing, isn't it????

So let's all go back to living in caves in the dark and hunting our food with a bow and arrow. We will be "saving" the planet

Not that far off base, in the minds of some anyway.

I heard a speaker at a seminar some time back, a self-styled "futurist", who opined that this continent can "sustainably" support only eleven million hunter-gatherers. He quoted some data to give credence to his point.

I have little doubt that there are probably quite a few people who believe such rot, and even scarier--that there are some who are trying to bring such a scenario about.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Not that far off base, in the minds of some anyway.

I heard a speaker at a seminar some time back, a self-styled "futurist", who opined that this continent can "sustainably" support only eleven million hunter-gatherers. He quoted some data to give credence to his point.

I have little doubt that there are probably quite a few people who believe such rot, and even scarier--that there are some who are trying to bring such a scenario about.

We used to call such folks "Tree huggers." They are more concerned about saving the trees than those that might need the wood for said tree to build shelter for their families. Progress has it's cost and man is at the top of the ecology food chain.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

It's become a "disease", a "pandemic" actually; if it supports MY personal view, it's a FACT, if it supports a different view or opinion, then it's "dis-information" ! We don't even question the fallacy of using that method to determine "fact" any more. What will happen to the ACTUAL scientific method of investigation ? Will it not even be taught any more ? Everything seems to have gone emotionally based, all decisions, all facts, all arguments on all subjects from "effectiveness to masks" to the results of warming and cooling trends on earth, seem to be based on just "emotional feelings" ! ! I think we are in real trouble when we confuse science with emotions, and we vote, make purchases, choose our personal philosophy solely on FEELINGS ?

Excellent points.

My opinion on just why this is the case corresponds with the rise and scope of the internet, and even more to the point, social media. Back in the day, if someone was doing research on any topic, it meant going to the local library, poring over books for hours on end, then crunching those numbers with (if you were lucky) a electrically-powered mechanical calculator. You then put your thoughts to paper, maybe several drafts on a manual typewriter (mine was an Underwood) before the finished result was ready for whatever it was being prepared for.

Today? Well, today a few mouse clicks can reveal "data" on just about any subject. Not a bad thing if used correctly, but unfortunately one can find "data" to "prove" any hypothesis they might have, no matter how off-the-wall it might be: settlements on the far side of the moon--the Holocaust never happened--the Earth is flat--there are data out there to support those three, plus a whole lot more. That is why this discussion as well as just about all discussions come down to dueling data: one side digs up some numbers to support a point while the other side digs up some more to support the opposite. And usually those duels involve people with little to no knowledge of the subject.

The complicating factor is that, more and more, it appears that all too many people aren't interested in INFORMATION at all, but in VALIDATION. They want to be right and will go through any length to "prove" that. When science becomes dogma--well, we are all in a lot of trouble. And unfortunately with social media, it is no problem to locate like-minded people who will validate your point of view, as well as the scoundrels who are experts at getting people to think what THEY want people to think.

As Mark Twain once stated, there are three kinds of untruths: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". And of the three, statistics are the worst, because they can be made to "prove" any lie or damned lie out there.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

That is not correct. This time please display the data "criteria" which is shown to the upper-left of the diagram. The criteria that was used to create the diagram you provided were selected to maximize a "warming" graph. Thank you for showing data, but knowing what data is being used can make a difference.

Sorry, You are not correct. Blueash provided the graph and your response was to me. My response was to me. My comment was based on information I just read on a NOAA article on climate.gov.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by sounding

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.

In that case, perhaps man should not build residential structures either since they will "alter the local wind pattern." Can anyone say "reaching?" Maybe someone is attempting to equate or confuse man caused climate change with simple POLLUTION. If you wish to discuss pollution, I could probably find many points where I agree with you. Still haven't proven man caused climate change. If you wish to suggest that man has changed his environment, I can agree with that.....through pollution.