Average Solar System Warming Statistics! Suck It Libs

[Welter_Skelter]

What nobody has proven is that Global Warming/Climate Change is a bad thing.

Is The Earth warming?.. Yes
Has it warmed up before? Yes
Does man play a role in Earth's temperature? If yes.. Then only very recently.
Right now the evidence points to temperature fluctuations being unaffected by humanity since so many variations in climate occurred before the industrial age.

Whatever the cause of the recent warming trend.. Where is the proof that it will be catastrophic?
So far every "soon to be disaster" has yet to materialize.
No mass flooding.. Not mass extinctions (Polar Bears are thriving to the point of a recently government ordered cull). Cities still stand, Humanity and the Earth keep chugging along.

[Jim Jeffries]

Glad to see you've given up playing scandal denier.

1998 saw a dramatically high temperature, in an el nino year (that means it's hotter, look at the graph). That was eclipsed in 2005 in a year that was not el nino followed by higher temperatures again in 2010 which was an el nino year.

Good catch, they made it difficult to see the non Nino/Nina years and interesting use of the word "eclipsed" for a 1/100th of a degree increase (7 years later.)

2012 was a lower temperature than 1998 but it was a la nina year where temperatures drop. Again look at the graph. 2012 is the hottest la nina year since records began.

Part of the problem is that we haven't had records for long enough to make proper conclusions.

What you have done there is that you have cherry picked one single temperature that you think supports your point and ignored all the others, including the more recent higher temperatures.

You mean temperature singular. Yes I "ignored" the single 1/100 degree increase over that baseline. Since 1998 there hasn't been any significant increase in the non Nino/Nina years, least of all in the Nino years. What you have done is cherry picked a ~1/5 of a degree increase in the Nina years over that period that you think supports your point (that any previous trend in global warming hasn't subsided over the last 15 years.) You also used a graph covering the last 63 years (which clearly shows about 1/2 of a degree increase in average global temperatures) to attempt to disprove my comments that there really hasn't been any global warming since the late 90's (to speak of,) or that there has been a continuation of the warming trend prior.

You definitely haven't provided any proof of this supposed connection between global warming/cooling trends and Man's production of CO2.

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

Citation needed.

[squealpiggy]

Glad to see you've given up playing scandal denier.

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

Good catch, they made it difficult to see the non Nino/Nina years and interesting use of the word "eclipsed" for a 1/100th of a degree increase (7 years later.)

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"?

Part of the problem is that we haven't had records for long enough to make proper conclusions.

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?

You mean temperature singular. Yes I "ignored" the single 1/100 degree increase over that baseline. Since 1998 there hasn't been any significant increase in the non Nino/Nina years, lease of all in the Nino years. What you have done is cherry picked a ~1/5 of a degree increase in the Nina years over that period that you think supports your point (that any previous trend in global warming hasn't subsided over the last 15 years.) You also used a graph covering the last 63 years (which clearly shows about 1/2 of a degree increase in average global temperatures) to attempt to disprove my comments that there really hasn't been any global warming since the late 90's (to speak of,) or that there has been a continuation of the warming trend prior.

You definitely haven't provided any proof of this supposed connection between global warming/cooling trends and Man's production of CO2.

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.

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

This is shown to be false.

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.

So to summarise:

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.

Citation needed.

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]

[A7glow]

I'm shocked that people still try and deny the existence of change in the earth's climate. In our now hyper-polarized society it does make sense that people would make this a political issue, and, to be honest, science has never truly been separate from politics. However, excusing the disaster theorists and their predictions,the science to support the effects of climate change is quite sound. We are not just seeing a trend in global climate change since the 60s or 70s. That's just when we became aware of it. We've been able to trace a massive increase in CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century up to our present date, somewhere along 41%, I believe. In fact, CO2 emissions have reached the highest point in human history very recently as of this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/sc...anted=all&_r=0

For those of you who don't know, CO2 is a gas that makes up about .04 % of our air and it is known to trap heat. Research has shown that an increase in CO2 emissions will likely lead to an increase in the earth's surface temperature. The earth will likely see a change in temperature (well, it already has) but it will become more drastic as this trend continues. You can be political all you like, but there will be some changes and some very visible changes at that. We do need to address the issue of global warming, and soon. Actually, now would be a better option. But given the nature of our politics here in the states (even in this thread), I doubt much will change anytime soon. It's unfortunate, really.

[Canelo Phresh]

I'm shocked that people still try and deny the existence of change in the earth's climate. In our now hyper-polarized society it does make sense that people would make this a political issue, and, to be honest, science has never truly been separate from politics. However, excusing the disaster theorists and their predictions,the science to support the effects of climate change is quite sound. We are not just seeing a trend in global climate change since the 60s or 70s. That's just when we became aware of it. We've been able to trace a massive increase in CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century up to our present date, somewhere along 41%, I believe. In fact, CO2 emissions have reached the highest point in human history very recently as of this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/sc...anted=all&_r=0

For those of you who don't know, CO2 is a gas that makes up about .04 % of our air and it is known to trap heat. Research has shown that an increase in CO2 emissions will likely lead to an increase in the earth's surface temperature. The earth will likely see a change in temperature (well, it already has) but it will become more drastic as this trend continues. You can be political all you like, but there will be some changes and some very visible changes at that. We do need to address the issue of global warming, and soon. Actually, now would be a better option. But given the nature of our politics here in the states (even in this thread), I doubt much will change anytime soon. It's unfortunate, really.

Not denying that heating is taking place just that temp increases are bejng recorded throughout the solar system as well. Mars temp increase is the most similar to ours. That can't be blamed on humans though I did read a liberal article today trying to blame earth fo mars temp increase. Climate change is the current working title for the basis of an eventual cabon footprint tax that you can be sure will be subsidized or exempt to mega corporations but effect the middle class the most. When science decides to ignore all the facts and only use the data that supports the eventual carbon footprint tax it is safe to say that politics is influencing science not science influencing politics as should be the case. As for piggy complaining about the timeline of the data as a way of discrediting it is laughably ignorant considering the time it takes for satellites to reach these planets. If you have data that counter acts these findings then by all means site them but trying to discredit the facts won't work at all to pwople seeking the truth and not just political agendas. I'm leaving that last sentence for you to ignore the rest of what I said and attack my support of the bill of rights.

[Unknown Champ]

You know shit is going down when the graphs come out.

haha green k

[squealpiggy]

Not denying that heating is taking place just that temp increases are bejng recorded throughout the solar system as well. Mars temp increase is the most similar to ours. That can't be blamed on humans though I did read a liberal article today trying to blame earth fo mars temp increase.

Then whoever wrote it is idiotic.

As for piggy complaining about the timeline of the data as a way of discrediting it is laughably ignorant considering the time it takes for satellites to reach these planets.

What is laughable is calling somebody ignorant when you think that "satellites" are sent to other planets to read temperature.

[Canelo Phresh]

Then whoever wrote it is idiotic.



What is laughable is calling somebody ignorant when you think that "satellites" are sent to other planets to read temperature.

The most accurate data weve had on mars temp has come from curiosity. Cassini brought us the best data on saturn and said moons. Well aware of other sources of data retrieval.

[squealpiggy]

The most accurate data weve had on mars temp has come from curiosity. Cassini brought us the best data on saturn and said moons. Well aware of other sources of data retrieval.

Curiosity isn't a satellite. Neither is Cassini. Cassini got the most accurate data from Saturn, sure. But that fly-by wasn't going to record a range of temperatures over time.

Data on climate change through the solar system is obtained via spectroscopy which measures only the reflected heat. Oh and it doesn't correlate with warming on earth.

[Canelo Phresh]

Curiosity isn't a satellite. Neither is Cassini. Cassini got the most accurate data from Saturn, sure. But that fly-by wasn't going to record a range of temperatures over time.

Data on climate change through the solar system is obtained via spectroscopy which measures only the reflected heat. Oh and it doesn't correlate with warming on earth.

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