EatTheRich
President
But not at a constant rate. Rather, today that rate is greatly accelerated.Yep. That's what Earth does. Constantly.
But not at a constant rate. Rather, today that rate is greatly accelerated.Yep. That's what Earth does. Constantly.
Yeah, sometimes the Earth changes at different rates. This is nothing new.But not at a constant rate. Rather, today that rate is greatly accelerated.
No, what makes this unique is that it is happening while human civilization exists, and it was forecast in precise detail based on the physical theory whereby greenhouse gas combustion would lead to it.Yeah, sometimes the Earth changes at different rates. This is nothing new.
Nonsense. Nothing was forecast in precise detail. Even if it was, it's an easy bet. Here, I'll play the game: I predict temperatures will keep rising. Safe bet, given history:No, what makes this unique is that it is happening while human civilization exists, and it was forecast in precise detail based on the physical theory whereby greenhouse gas combustion would lead to it.
PS: Earth doesn't give a sh1t about human civilization.No, what makes this unique is that it is happening while human civilization exists, and it was forecast in precise detail based on the physical theory whereby greenhouse gas combustion would lead to it.
The "bias" the data is "adjusted" to avoid is, well, the truth. The oldest "adjustments" reduced past temps to make the current warming appear more dire:The data are “adjusted” to remove known sources of bias. The net effect of adjustments is to reduce the apparent warming. Many of your “failed predictions” are about things that may or may not happen in the future ... revealing the intellectual honesty of the folks who compiled the list. The rest is an extremely cherry-picked list of a handful of things of marginal importance that the scientists got wrong, alongside their thousand times as many accurate forecasts. The issue is not that “many people believe” that humans are the cause. The issue is that those most intimately familiar with all the evidence have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that humans are the cause.
From the rest of this chart alone it would have been difficult to predict that the slope would have become so much steeper over the last 50 years covered by it.Nonsense. Nothing was forecast in precise detail. Even if it was, it's an easy bet. Here, I'll play the game: I predict temperatures will keep rising. Safe bet, given history:
No, but some of us do. And “the Earth has done this before, tens of millions of years ago, causing mass extinctions” doesn’t make what we are causing the Earth to do now less alarming.PS: Earth doesn't give a sh1t about human civilization.
Mann et al. corrected their data after McIntyre & McKittrick pointed out their error, and when they applied PCA correctly the hockey stick shape still popped out. Their criticism, btw, had nothing to do with data adjustments. Also, dozens of climate reconstructions have been done independently using a variety of proxies, and every one has produced the same hockey stick shape ... even those produced by those who explicitly approached it as global warming deniers and looked to produce a different shape. Nothing about the so-called plateau was “obfuscated.” On the contrary, it was openly discussed and investigated by the same scientists whose research made the rest of us aware of it.The "bias" the data is "adjusted" to avoid is, well, the truth. The oldest "adjustments" reduced past temps to make the current warming appear more dire:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
More recent "adjustments" we used to obfuscate the "plateau:"
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/temperature-plateau-is-likely-due-to-warming-of-deep-oceans-16280
A fake narrative that suggests "cherry picking" is about all you guys have left. In fact, the "cherry picking" is all on you r side.
That applies to the other temperature spikes as well, correct?From the rest of this chart alone it would have been difficult to predict that the slope would have become so much steeper over the last 50 years covered by it.
Your chart only goes back 800,000 years. There has not been this steep a global average temperature rise in as short a time in that 800,000 years.That applies to the other temperature spikes as well, correct?
False. The spine before this one clearly had a steeper increase.Your chart only goes back 800,000 years. There has not been this steep a global average temperature rise in as short a time in that 800,000 years.
No. You are looking at the long, gradual increase over the past several thousand years as the “current spike.” But in fact if you were to plot it so the current spike (which is at the very tail of the part you’re looking at and has a much higher slope) could be visible, you would have to stretch out the whole chart so that what you thought was “the current spike” looked pretty much flat.False. The spine before this one clearly had a steeper increase.
Good lord, you're a disgraceful liar. At the end of the younger dryas event temperatures rose as much as 10 degrees celsius in a single decade:Your chart only goes back 800,000 years. There has not been this steep a global average temperature rise in as short a time in that 800,000 years.
"Error" insinuates it wasn't intentional.Mann et al. corrected their data after McIntyre & McKittrick pointed out their error, and when they applied PCA correctly the hockey stick shape still popped out. Their criticism, btw, had nothing to do with data adjustments. Also, dozens of climate reconstructions have been done independently using a variety of proxies, and every one has produced the same hockey stick shape ... even those produced by those who explicitly approached it as global warming deniers and looked to produce a different shape. Nothing about the so-called plateau was “obfuscated.” On the contrary, it was openly discussed and investigated by the same scientists whose research made the rest of us aware of it.
OK, then plot the whole 800,000 years so we can compare.No. You are looking at the long, gradual increase over the past several thousand years as the “current spike.” But in fact if you were to plot it so the current spike (which is at the very tail of the part you’re looking at and has a much higher slope) could be visible, you would have to stretch out the whole chart so that what you thought was “the current spike” looked pretty much flat.
You must drive one of those new-fangled Liberal vehicles that runs on bullshit.Well, there are those that choose to worship at the alter of big oil/ Trump and there are those that don't. I am glad Mickey is on the side of the non-worshippers - he has a lot of pull with the younger demographics.
I guess the right wing has never heard, that when you are getting signatures for a petition/ survey to always get 10% more than needed to cover such people like those above. I mean I thought that was a pretty standard assumption made by petitioners. I guess the RIGHT WING petitioners must not do that as EVERY SIGNATURE is a BONAFIDE AMURICUN' CITIZEN. LMAO at how this made a top post but we do need to deflect from Trump don't we.
So let's say 10,900 real scientists that did sign are now fake also? Trump Facts at work ladies and gentlemen
I do too, so they'll outnumber the grandchildren of the morons who bought into the hoax. Undoubtedly, in the coming years, the insanity of man made climate change will be taught in schools as one of the great scams of the modern age, along the lines of the Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme, and the Entron scandle.I hope climate change deniers have lots of grand children.
Rose as much as 10 degrees in Greenland is not at all the same as a change of that degree globally. Local warming in the Arctic over the past decade has exceeded that.Good lord, you're a disgraceful liar. At the end of the younger dryas event temperatures rose as much as 10 degrees celsius in a single decade:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The Younger Dryas
The fractions of a degree change we've seen in the last 100 years is almost a microscopic change compared to the rapid changes the Earth has seen in the past.
It wouldn’t fit on a computer screen, or the tail would be (as in your chart) so truncates horizontally as to be effectively invisible. Here’s one going back 20,000 years that should give you an idea how the recent rapid warming compares with the trend you where looking at.OK, then plot the whole 800,000 years so we can compare.