Average Solar System Warming Statistics! Suck It Libs

[squealpiggy]

Semantics. The solar system is warming. Cant blame humans yet though msnbc is gonna find a way.

You said that some "libtard" already found a way. Didn't link to it though.

The solar system isn't warming. Temperature fluctuations on extraterrestrial planets doesn't correlate with that on earth, providing one more evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Mars and Jupiter are in fact cooling. Furthermore the sun's output is cooling and has been over the last 50 years.

Good source here.

[Barn]

Semantics. The solar system is warming. Cant blame humans yet though msnbc is gonna find a way.

A satellite is an object in orbit around a body. The moon, for example, is Earth's natural satellite. It's not really semantics, it has a clear meaning.

[squealpiggy]

A satellite is an object in orbit around a body. The moon, for example, is Earth's natural satellite. It's not really semantics, it has a clear meaning.

You could argue that it's semantics if it's a choice between satellites and probes.

Unfortunately it isn't either. It's spectroscopes.

[ßringer]

This thread was a pleasure to read through.

[-Hyperion-]

love when piggy goes to work...

[Canelo Phresh]

Yeah nobody disproves or provides evidence to the contrary that other planets are warming and its the classic congratulatory circle jerk. We sure owned this guy lmao.

[Jim Jeffries]

Good grief you're a boring cunt, even for a (self proclaimed genius) government worker whose "job" affords him the countless hours to troll Christians and cuntservatives (your word) on a boxing site (all under the fabricated cloak of impartiality.)

Manufactured scandal, nothing to it and certainly nothing to justify playing partisan politics with it.

Surely there's an IMO missing there somewhere.

I'm sorry, does this mean you have changed your answer from "there has been no temperature increase since the late 90s" to "there has been a temperature increase but it is too small to worry about"?

There's a clear inflection point in the late 90's leading to minimal, if any, warming since. Unless you solely look at the Nina data, as you did.

You just said that there has been no temperature increase since the late 90s, but now you're saying that its significance is questionable. Why? Is it because reality doesn't match your politics?

If a stock price looked like the graph you posted, I'd be selling right now.

Here's how this debate tends to go. Firstly somebody makes a bold assertion based on a blog containing out of date links and fallacious appeals to authority. Then somebody points out that the information is out of date or fallacious.

Which has nothing to do with me.

Then you come in with a claim, namely that temperatures haven't increased.

Since the late 90's. I stand by that claim, with the addition of a significantly modifier.

This is shown to be false.

Incorrect. If I had claimed that the La Nina temperatures hadn't increased that would be a false statement. The El Nino and non El Nino/La Nina years (and the aggregate temperatures) simply haven't shown any significant increase during the last 15 years.

You change the claim to suggest that the temperatures are insignificant. Then you say that it's impossible to know what's going on (despite an entire field of science devoted to the topic that doesn't think that it is impossible to know - ignored because it doesn't agree with your politics), then you say that the temperature data we have doesn't matter because it doesn't go back far enough, then you change the subject entirely and start asking whether or not it is anthropogenic.

An entire field that is dependent on govt grants to survive. A govt looking to pass a substantial new Cap and Trade tax.

Jim Jeffries accepts that his assertion that there has been no temperature increase since the late 90s is incorrect and there has in fact been a trend of increasing temperatures meaning that this decade is warmer than the previous one in line with the trend generally accepted within the scientific literature.

I modified my position to "no substantial increase" based on new evidence. Unlike you, I actually do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Etymology

The term global warming was probably first used in its modern sense on 8 August 1975 in a science paper by Wally Broecker in the journal Science called "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?".[224][225][226] Broecker's choice of words was new and represented a significant recognition that the climate was warming; previously the phrasing used by scientists was "inadvertent climate modification," because while it was recognized humans could change the climate, no one was sure which direction it was going.[227] The National Academy of Sciences first used global warming in a 1979 paper called the Charney Report, which said: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."[228] The report made a distinction between referring to surface temperature changes as global warming, while referring to other changes caused by increased CO2 as climate change.[227]
Global warming became more widely popular after 1988 when NASA climate scientist James Hansen used the term in a testimony to Congress.[227] He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."[229] His testimony was widely reported and afterward global warming was commonly used by the press and in public discourse.[227]

Ah. So you've gone from

Wrong. Climate change has always been used as the dominant term in the scientific literature.

To "it was first used in 1975 and became widely popular after 1988." Mmmkay. What I see here is an awful lot of empty pontificating and copy/pasting to avoid providing a single shred of evidence that any warming is in fact anthropogenic, or more specifically caused entirely by human CO2 production.

[squealpiggy]

Good grief you're a boring cunt, even for a (self proclaimed genius) government worker whose "job" affords him the countless hours to troll Christians and cuntservatives (your word) on a boxing site (all under the fabricated cloak of impartiality.)



Surely there's an IMO missing there somewhere.

I know you're not stupid. There's an IMO everywhere for everyone at all times, unless it's a statement of utter fact together with corroborating evidence. Like the fact that global temperatures have been increasing since the late 90s.

There's a clear inflection point in the late 90's leading to minimal, if any, warming since. Unless you solely look at the Nina data, as you did.

Ah so you're back to denying that there is a trend for increasing temperatures. How does that work exactly? I mean you just conceded that you were wrong, then you repeat the lie!

There was a spike in temperature in 1998, another higher one in 2005 and another higher still in 2010. La Nina and El Nino temperatures are rising as have temperatures in years not corresponding to the Southern Oscillation. This makes the last decade hotter than the previous one in keeping with the trend of increasing temperatures.

If a stock price looked like the graph you posted, I'd be selling right now.

I must say this is a new one. Well done. So temperatures are increasing but they're about to drop!

By what mechanism are we expecting a drop in temperature?

Which has nothing to do with me.

Nope, you decided to jump right into the incomplete graph lie, you know, the one where they end the graph at 2004 and claim a net drop in temperature since the 90s.

Since the late 90's. I stand by that claim, with the addition of a significantly modifier.

So you accept that there is a warming trend, but you just disagree on the significance of the increase? Make up your mind!

Incorrect. If I had claimed that the La Nina temperatures hadn't increased that would be a false statement. The El Nino and non El Nino/La Nina years (and the aggregate temperatures) simply haven't shown any significant increase during the last 15 years.

Actually the increases in the la nina years and years that are not affected by the Southern Oscillation have shown greater levels of increase over previous corresponding years. Look at the graph! Especially the La Nina years!

Good grief, the level of denial is absurd!

An entire field that is dependent on govt grants to survive. A govt looking to pass a substantial new Cap and Trade tax.

Cap and trade is a bunch of horseshit, stick to the science.

I modified my position to "no substantial increase" based on new evidence. Unlike you, I actually do that.

More than a tenth of a degree on average is a substantial increase given the short timespan.

Ah. So you've gone from



To "it was first used in 1975 and became widely popular after 1988."

Read what I posted. "Global warming" was first coined in 1975 and became popular in 1988 but the dominant term in the scientific literature referenced climate change. Global warming was news reporting shorthand.

Mmmkay. What I see here is an awful lot of empty pontificating and copy/pasting to avoid providing a single shred of evidence that any warming is in fact anthropogenic, or more specifically caused entirely by human CO2 production.

So you're looking to change the subject now?

By the way ATTN admin, I'm sick of the word "spike" being censored. I know it's an attempt to censor a racist term but anybody moronic enough to spell "spic" with a K pretty much is worse off having it uncensored. Oh and "spic" - not censored.

[Jim Jeffries]

I know you're not stupid. There's an IMO everywhere for everyone at all times, unless it's a statement of utter fact together with corroborating evidence. Like the fact that global temperatures have been increasing since the late 90s.

But they haven't been increasing since 1998, obviously.

Ah so you're back to denying that there is a trend for increasing temperatures. How does that work exactly? I mean you just conceded that you were wrong, then you repeat the lie!

There was a spike in temperature in 1998, another higher one in 2005 and another higher still in 2010. La Nina and El Nino temperatures are rising as have temperatures in years not corresponding to the Southern Oscillation.

The average temperature since 1998 hasn't increased, it's decreased. As evidenced by the two data points slightly above 98's temperature and the numerous (the other dozen or so) noticeably below 98.

This makes the last decade hotter than the previous one in keeping with the trend of increasing temperatures.

True, but that doesn't actually contradict what I said.

I must say this is a new one. Well done. So temperatures are increasing but they're about to drop!

Hilarious, except that they haven't been increasing since 1998.

By what mechanism are we expecting a drop in temperature?

Given that they've been dropping, on average, since 1998.

Nope, you decided to jump right into the incomplete graph lie,

No idea which one you're talking about.

you know, the one where they end the graph at 2004 and claim a net drop in temperature since the (late 90s.

Except that there has been an average drop since 1998, which I believe is in the late 90's.

So you accept that there is a warming trend, but you just disagree on the significance of the increase? Make up your mind!

No warming trend at all since 1998, but rather a slight (but noticeable) cooling trend. You can argue against 98 as a starting point, but you can't argue that there's been a warming trend since 98 (except for La Nina.)

Cap and trade is a bunch of horseshit, stick to the science.

Finally we can agree on something. Well that and there has been a cooling trend since 1998, I'm sure.

More than a tenth of a degree on average is a substantial increase given the short timespan.

Which orifice did you pull this one out of?

So you're looking to change the subject now?

Don't worry, I never expected an answer.

You made the claim that the link was irrelevant, with some of the data going back as far as 1998 and I said there hasn't been any global warming since then anyway. Not exactly a change of subject for me to now ask for the small increase in the average temperature over the last century, century and a half (except for the last 15 years) has been directly caused by human production of CO2.

[deliveryman]

lol, this thread needs to be on PPV.