I am panicking about Global Warming

"Possibly"?

Donald Trump.

LMFAO

Oh I see . . . so we can't stop it so let's just throw our hands up and carry on making it worse?

Capitalists whose profits are more important than the future generations of mankind repulse me.

Fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers . . . you don't hear them talking like that.

Call me a . . . hang on, let me get it right . . . an ecofascist neo-pagan tree-hugging earth -worshipper then, because that's what I am. I'll never be like you. Glad I'm not.

The Paris agreement is a global agreement to phase out dirty energy over time with set targets, then national governments giving tax breaks for clean energy and innovation in the field as an incentive to develop green energy faster.

Plastic is a problem, but again there is lots of progress here as well such as biodegradable alternatives. Many people are becoming more renewable focussed, and it is part of the culture of younger generations. (e.g. moving away from being an American consumer mentality). 

Unfortunately, some people of older generations have been brainwashed by the Church, and their financial backers the dirty energy companies. The alternative reality brigade. 
The younger someone is, the more likely they embrace renewable products. 

Even if mankind fails in this endeavour, many of us would rather go down fighting than just give up. 

With regards to electric cars, I am not sure what the difference is between having a petrol station and an electric station. 
Also, could someone charge their car at home? Probably more convenient than keeping petrol and oil at home. Everyone has electricity at home. so as long as the adapter was safe it would be like charging a mobile phone. 

I'm not saying don't try. I'm all for living greener.

I'm saying, knowing what I know about humanity, it's not going to happen.

I think the only way it will happen is if green energy becomes cheaper than dirty energy on a like-for-like basis.

Not sure how long the oil available will last us humans but we best come up with a plan to service our transport and other utility requirements before we have neither.

Can you picture flying in an electric passenger plane in the year 2050 at 35,000 feet over the Atlantic ocean.

Thankfully I can only picture it and will not be around or have to fly in it.

Goodluck you young studs and remember this:

Our Father...........

Stav

You are a nice guy and it is a great pleasure for me to upset your line of thinking on issues and then respond.    I am afraid I am beyond the brainwashing stage since I do not rely on media to think on my behalf.    In the above I deal with the WEF started by a chap whose father was a senior Nazi who fled to South America.   I occasionally look at their website and am horrified by what I saw there - they are making no secret that the body formed by the ultra-rich wants absolute control in the world  with one agenda for the billionaires and another for everybody else.   The everybody else are the serfs - they are the gods.   

Anyway watch out for them - they are a dangerous lot.   

So DumbMike, do you have the personal phone numbers of all the people that are in the media (e.g. Putin, Trump, Biden).

How can you know so much, without relying on the media? You are just one of the Trumpanzees that want to live in your own fantasy reality. 
You will accept media that you agree with as fact, but reject anything else as fake media

Tucker Carlson is your definitive source of truth. While Tucker Carlson has the most popular news show(at least in viewership numbers) - it is widely accepted these are below-average intelligence, uneducated old white people. Too emotionally stubborn and stupid to fact-check. The white grievance show. 

Dumb mike we know you are past being brainwashed. you would require a brain for it to be washed.

Unfortunately it appears that the laundromat lost you brain a while ago. 

Mozart can quote your sources about those temperature changes.
While your argument is sound, you are basing it on a data fallacy.  

No fallacy…the record from 1880 to 1940 is essentially a mirror image of the record from 1950 to 2000. By 1940 man made CO2 in the atmosphere was a fraction of what it is today ie couldn’t have caused that 0.6% of the 1.2%

• (opens in new tab)
 
• (opens in new tab)
 
• (opens in new tab)
 
• (opens in new tab)
 
• (opens in new tab)
 

I have never seen a reasonable explanation of those facts. But they suggest at worst man made CO2 has contributed about 40% of warming.

You have, you just choose to ignore it so you can repeat the same claim about early 20th century warming over and over.

Hall Of Fame

37325 posts

No fallacy…the record from 1880 to 1940 is essentially a mirror image of the record from 1950 to 2000. By 1940 man made CO2 in the atmosphere was a fraction of what it is today ie couldn’t have caused that 0.6% of the 1.2%

------------------------

I have run a search on Google Lens for that image, and it brought up x2 website links. (see below).
However, these website links do not have the image you provided. 
Not sure why Google Lens is suggesting these 2 websites, however, they do seem to re-iterate my data point - that the change is accelerating rapidly. (Since 1980)

Climate Change: Global Temperature

World of Change: Global Temperatures

This is the Search Link

Google Search Lens for your Image

It does suggest "similar images", but do appear to be the same (at the very bottom of the search page).

I cant find the website that is host ing your exact image. 

I tried again with Google Lens, and this is what showed up for Google Image Search

Image Provided

When you read those articles that reference the image you provided, they seem to concur with my data point (That warming is accelerating since 1980). 

So I think what scientists are saying is that the next 40 years could double or even triple from the last 40 years - and if so, that would cause a global catastrophe. 

This is one example. 
https://www.universetoday.com/51824/scientist-discusses-latest-report-of-rising-global-temperatures/

Trends in Global Emissions

As you can see from the chart all the government efforts to curb CO2 emissions have failed miserably ….because it’s far more complex than just having good intentions. If you think Covid had a bad effect on global economics try and force through a solar/wind world.

If this is a serious issue, population control, more sensible use of fossil fuels and rapid adaption of nuclear are the most effective levers. The Fairy story that we can turn over 120 years of fossil fuel infrastructure in 10 years using windmills and solar farms is nonsense,

It's actually in line with the historical pattern...and what goes up...

Seems that we're close to the tipping point...something needs to be done, but what? We've got worse problems than only the CO2 and methane emissions, and yet that's the only solutions being put on the table...strange.

"We're discovering now that we can't expect reasonably priced fossil fuels while excluding Russia. None of this is as scary as the realisation Russia is also a top three producer of most of the materials that we need to go green."

SB

I was amazed by your comment since it shows total mental incapacity.  So here goes:-

So DumbMike, do you have the personal phone numbers of all the people that are in the media (e.g. Putin, Trump, Biden).

How can you know so much, without relying on the media? You are just one of the Trumpanzees that want to live in your own fantasy reality. 
You will accept media that you agree with as fact, but reject anything else as fake media

Tucker Carlson is your definitive source of truth. While Tucker Carlson has the most popular news show(at least in viewership numbers) - it is widely accepted these are below-average intelligence, uneducated old white people. Too emotionally stubborn and stupid to fact-check. The white grievance show. 

I do not have the telephone numbers neither does the media has it.  If one needs those numbers to think - you must be a first class dolt since that person would be unable to think for himself.

I do rely on the media to a limited extent.   I have found that the media has gone bad in the last decade.  They are not the traditional media representing objective news spreading and is now nothing more than propaganda outlets.   After following the media for five years since 2016 the media has become a source for spreading disinformation and lies and those believing the BS spreading instead of news are indeed incapable to think for themselves.

Tucker Carlson is not everybody's cup of tea.   He has and is critical of both Democrats and Republicans.  - but he has opinions normally supported by facts.    Carlson is hated by the leftists because he is correct on most issues and only occasionally have been wrong.   However, you accuse me of being  influenced by the media - while in your case the media do the thinking for you  and you copy on site any BS they come up with.   Five years of constant media lies have taught you nothing since you still believe habitual liars.  

What fact-checking are you talking about?   T he media you believe in have supposed fact-checkers - but they lie nonetheless.     

Tucker Carlson is a contrarian. Much of his material turns out to be dubious, but the part that turns out to be right is not covered much anywhere else. The biggest lie and it was a massive, incredible work of fiction, was the Russia hoax. This total fiction was believed by more than half of the population.

There were many Covid lies, but nothing came close to the Russia hoax in scale and effect on feeble minds.

I agree, the lies about Russia and Ukraine, spanning nine years now... that's is beyond compare. Sadly, nearly everyone bought it without any thought to conduct any research. That's the bottom line with these things, the majority take information at face value, from sources that don't care to know, for emotional reasons. Thankfully, the USA is starting to reap what it has sown. 

Remember guys, they never proved that Trump didn't collude with Russia. They just could not prove that he did..hahaha 

Admit you got duped or cop-out with the above.

We know which one Rooi chose.

Of course

He chose to hate...as usual.

No fallacy…the record from 1880 to 1940 is essentially a mirror image of the record from 1950 to 2000

Mirror image you say?

By 1940 man made CO2 in the atmosphere was a fraction of what it is today

I like the way you choose the word fraction, so people if they are already of a certain persuasion can input whatever tiny fraction they want.

ie couldn’t have caused that 0.6% of the 1.2%

Your right it didn't cause 0.6° of 1.2°. It caused something more around 0.25°to 0.3° of the 1.2° depending on what figures you use for the the total amount of warming by 1940. CO2 contributed to about half the total warming. Natural factors account for the other half.

But since 1940 man made  CO2 has increased 10 fold

It hasn't increased 10 fold. Its about 7.2 times greater now going by 2021's numbers.

Since 1990 the rate of temperature may have increased slightly but no more than the rate of emissions.

The current rate of warming is 1.8° per century and increasing, the warming between 1900-1940 was at a rate of 1.3° per century of which only about half was caused by CO2. CO2 is driving warming at rate almost 3 times greater than it was between 1900-1940.

As you can see from the chart all the government efforts to curb CO2 emissions have failed miserably

An argument that doesn't acknowledge that efforts already undertaken have stopped emissions from being even higher than they actually are.

If this is a serious issue, population control, more sensible use of fossil fuels and rapid adaption of nuclear are the most effective levers.

Nuclear has been looked at, and while it might form a small part of the solution, there is major issues around the cost  and the time it takes to build them. In short not enough of them can be built quick enough to combat the problem. If your response is to let our capitalist market system drive innovation in the field of nuclear power to bring down the cost and speed up construction time, why can't we apply that same system to green technologies?

There is also the small matter of nuclear waste. Would you really be comfortable living closing to a nuclear waste storage site? You might but many wouldn't.

@DbDraad

It's actually in line with the historical pattern...and what goes up...

Its not, your graph deals in temperature rises over a time of thousand of years. If you take the example of  the first big spike in the graph you posted you can see a temperature rise of 8 degrees over a period of a least a few thousand years (its difficult to tell exactly as the graph doesn't have a grid). The current rate of temperature warming would match that in less than 500 years.

"We're discovering now that we can't expect reasonably priced fossil fuels while excluding Russia. None of this is as scary as the realisation Russia is also a top three producer of most of the materials that we need to go green."

LOL will you just come out and say that you want Putin to win at this point.

A lot of false assertions. Let’s just examine the first one, looking at trough to peak temperature increases in the two periods. 

1900 approx lowest reading minus 0.4 

1940 approx highest reading 0.2

So in 40 years temps went up by 0.6 degrees max.

……

1950 approx lowest reading minus 0.15

2000 approx highest reading 0.57 degrees

So in 50 years temps went up by 0.72 degrees. 

Now multiple 0.6 by 50/40 and you get 0.75 degrees. In fact you get what your eyes tell you. The slope of the curves in the two time frames are very similar.

….

You flubbed that one. But here’s your next challenge ….tell us why temps in 1980 are clearly below temps in 1940 when the amount of man made carbon going into the atmosphere was 4 times higher. Google away.

A lot of false assertions.

No false assertions, you said 1880 to 1940 is existentially a mirror image of 1950-2000. All I did was crop out the 5 year mean temperature between 1950-2000 and placed it over the 1880-1940 5 year temperature mean. It clearly demonstrates your assertion was false. The warming rate between 1950-2000 is clearly higher.

This is to say nothing of the fact that had the graph had data from 2010-2020 it would show a sharp increase in the rate of temperature rise.

1900 approx lowest reading minus 0.4 

1940 approx highest reading 0.2

So in 40 years temps went up by 0.6 degrees max.

……

1950 approx lowest reading minus 0.15

2000 approx highest reading 0.57 degrees

So in 50 years temps went up by 0.72 degrees.

Ah the classic cherry picking of data.

The slope of the curves in the two time frames are very similar.

LOL The subtle change of position. Shame the new position is also wrong.

You flubbed that one. But here’s your next challenge ….tell us why temps in 1980 are clearly below temps in 1940 when the amount of man made carbon going into the atmosphere was 4 times higher. Google away.

And the desperate attempt to move on to something else.

Stav, I'm actually suprised Moffie even offers opinions on global warming after the humiliation he suffered on this thread when his sources turned out to be from a pair of New Earth Creationists trying to prove bible prophecies . . . and he still had the nerve to tell us we hadn't done our homework!

LMAO!

One of the funniest threads ever . . . and the pompous and arrogant old relic has still never admitted what a complete dick he made of himself on that thread.

You can click here to read more about Moffie's idols, Cliff Harris the "Climatologist" and Randy Mann the "Meteorologist". It's very funny. 

No cherry picking, I’m simply measuring the two surges from 1900 to 1940 and from 1960 to 2020. I actually do your argument a favor by leaving out the period from 1940 to 1960 when man made carbon was surging but temps stayed flat.

So here’s an easy way of expressing it. Let’s simply extend the trend from 1900 to 1940 when we added roughly 400 million metric tons of man made carbon, and see how that compares with the actual reading in approx 2015 when the graph ends, and  after which we have added another 9000 million metric tons. In other words compare a period with 22.5 times the earlier period’s carbon impact.

I don’t have the data to calculate a simple linear regression line, but in this case a visual extrapolation is easy. Put a rule on the 5 year mean line for the period 1900 to 1940 and you end up at about at about 0.9 degrees vs 0.5 degrees actual.

In other words natural warming, with tiny amounts of man made Co2, was far more vigorous than warming in the later period, with huge amounts of absolute carbon increases each year.

You see nobody is denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s when the myth that man made CO2 has warmed the planet 1.2 degrees since the IR is left uncorrected, that one gets the sense there is another agenda.

It’s quite possible that man made CO2 has only budged the needle by 0.6 Degrees and the other 0.6 is simply the natural extension of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

These distinctions are important because they imply different responses. Is this a relatively benign warming or a catastrophe. The words of politicians suggest a catastrophe, their responses suggest something so benign we only change the habits they disapprove of and certainly none of their personal conveniences.

No cherry picking, I’m simply measuring the two surges from 1900 to 1940 and from 1960 to 2020. I actually do your argument a favor by leaving out the period from 1940 to 1960 when man made carbon was surging but temps stayed flat.

You picked the lowest and highest readings of both periods because it best suits you argument as opposed to comparing the 5 year mean temperature trend which which is better at smoothing out spikes caused by short terms localized weather events that skew the data, events like El Niño/La Niña. You also keep moving dates. First it was to compare 1880-1940 to 1950-2000, then it was 1900-1940 to 1950-2000, now  its 1900-1940 to 1960-2020. As for favor no need, we know what caused the temperatures to remain flat or even cool slightly in the middle of the 20th century, anthropogenic sulfur emissions ie aerosols.

So here’s a simple way of expressing it. Let’s simply extend the trend from 1900 to 1940 and see how that compares with the reading in approx 2015 when the graph ends. I don’t have the data to calculate a simple linear regression line, but in this case a visual extrapolation is easy.

Put a rule on the 5 year mean line for the period 1900 to 1940 and you end up at about at about 0.9 degrees vs 0.5 degrees actual.

Or even simpler we can check the rate of temperature rise from multiple temperature records.

All 5 records that have temperature rise rates for 1910-1940 show that early 20th century rate of temperature increase was not as high as the current rate.

Half of the early 20th century rate of temperature rise was caused by natural factors as opposed to the current temperature rise which is pretty much exclusively driven by man made CO2.

You see nobody is denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s when the view that man made CO2 has warmed the planet 1.2 degrees since the IR it’s clearly left uncorrected, one gets the sense there is a clear agenda.

Man made CO2 is the primary contributor to the planet warming since the IR. It doesn't account for all of it but it does account for most of it and virtually all of the current warming.

It’s quite possible that man made CO2 has only budged the needle by 0.6 Degrees and the other 0.6 is simply the natural extension of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

The science does not support that theory.

These distinctions are important because they imply different responses.

Indeed they are important, but the science has been proven at this point. You have to have your own agenda to not to want to see that such as people pushing a view like oh say...

The words of politicians suggest a catastrophe, their responses suggest something so benign we only change the habits they disapprove of and certainly none of their personal conveniences.

The science…what that greenhouse gasses were 22 times higher at the end of the measurement period and temp increases were only marginally higher. There wasn’t enough man made CO2 to make a difference in the first 2 decades of the century but temps  soared.

There is no debate, the first 4 decades of the 20th century saw a higher rate of temperature increase than the next 80. That should never have happened if CO2 dominated natural causes, vs playing a similar role.

Man made CO2 could not have all counted for the first 0.6 degrees and it couldn’t have counted for all of the next 0.6 degrees, so it’s role has been exaggerated for agenda reasons….the science is not science.

Do the exercise, extend the 5 year mean line from the period 1900 to 1940 and you get a number well in excess of the current number. Then include the aerosol argument which is pretty convenient and flip it….if aerosols flattened the curve for 40 years, extracting those aerosols would dramatically accelerate the curve as all the other factors were continuing behind the curve.

So deceleration then acceleration which would explain rapid increases later. And of course we should be back to a normal line which lies significantly below the 1940 projection.

Case closed I would say.

Touche.

Wait a minute...do you think they could be one and the same!

Moving on to more serious matters, who agrees to take DumbMike to the vet to be put down?
Environment aside, the world would be better without him 

Stav, best you ready yourself for a spellcheck and that other chestnut the X2 tester......Bwhahahahaha

Ah the resorting to insults, not much different to the cornered Mike. So firstly, obviously when I say greenhouse gasses were 22 times higher I’m referring to the rate of production. That’s the chart I produced and have been referencing throughout.

I’m not factoring natural causes in lowering the temp increases at the end of the measurement period. Funny from a fellow who supports the view that natural causes can’t be producing any significant temperature change.

I’m excluding natural causes in the first half of the century rise? Nope it’s all natural causes man made CO2 was too low to have a meaningful effect. That’s the whole point…half of the 1.2 degrees probably  came from natural causes. 

And you are missing the point…if you can’t measure 50 through 80 because of aerosol build up, you can’t measure 90 through 20 because of aerosol decline. You have to measure the whole period, which grew at a slower rate than 1900 to 1940.

And nice try on the extending the curve. But as I literally said in my post above ….measuring the two surges, trough to peak. The first surge started shortly after 1900. I didn’t think I would need to be totally literal. But I see I do…start at whatever point represents a local minimum around 1900.

I’m glad you think aerosols are evidence, because that supports the idea of temporary greater than expected temp increases as they were eliminated. You can’t have it only one way. If aerosols explain the temperature hiatus, the reversal has to represent an influence in the opposite direction.

I bet you never thought of that, just as you never knew anything about early 20th century surges, until I schooled you. Game, set and match.