My data is better than yours! #1 Climate Change Data 1 - The Beginning
Introduction
This series started by me making a post criticizing the climate change hysteria. It got heavily criticized by @liberorist and @justtryme90 . I am always so proud in talking about how much I appreciate criticism and disagreements. I did not honor those words in the discussions with them. I disregarded their sources as government propaganda not even worth looking into. I did not say that out loud, but it was in fact what I did.
What I want to do in this series
Taking data and arguments apart, and looking critical at the results is a healthy training every mind should do once in a while. Do not just look at your own data and facts. Look at the arguments of your perceived opponent, see the facts they point out and the claims they make. Figure out how you can acknowledge the facts presented by them, but come to different conclusions.
(source)
This method can be virtually used on any dispute over any topic and is usually a great tool to nurture a debate instead of coming to the sad result “agree to disagree”.
Because the discussion started with climate change, it will be the first part of the series. I will start taking the data presented on https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/ . From top to bottom I will try to fit it into my worldview or refute it. All quotes in this article will be copied from https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/
Let's go!
(source)
“Global warming” refers to the long-term warming of the planet.
It is a definition ergo fact.
Global temperature shows a well-documented rise since the early 20th century and most notably since the late 1970s
Seen those. Fact.
Worldwide, since 1880 the average surface temperature has gone up by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), relative to the mid-20th-century baseline (of 1951-1980).
OK let's research a little, I took a graph from an official source. I will try to keep my research to government backed data.
source: http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/1700-years-global-temperature-proxy-data-0
We can clearly see an huge spike in the last decades, but also a 1 degree downward spike in the 14th century. Potentially the climate changes could be wilder than the proxy data suggests. This is expressed by the uncertainty, the yellow shadow. It could also make the line tamer to be fair. There are warming and cooling periods visible, but they are very irrational they seem to differ greatly in length and intensity. With the end of the little ice age, it could very well be that we just had a huge spike in the direction the earth climate trended towards over the past 20.000 years: warmer.
So the data presented can be accepted as fact. But we got some additional (government) data, that shows this might be normal.
“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, and shifts in flower/plant blooming times.
Definition, thus true.
These are all consequences of the warming,
Well, global warming being the reason for flower and plants circles to change is new to me. The melting of ice I agree is a sign of global warming
which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air.
Well, we are here to find out! I am not convinced, yet. The word "mainly" should be noticed, it acknowledges that there are other contributing factors.
The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are sometimes used interchangeably, but strictly they refer to slightly different things.
I dont know why we need both terms, but I guess everybody has a right to define words and give rules on how they are to be used.
Can I live with the facts presented?
(source)
Yes, I believe we are in a heat spike, in a a concerningly huge one, but nowhere has been the claim made why it should get cooler, see the waves in the 2000 years of climate graph. We should expect a downward trend in temperature for the next years. If that does not happen I could see me starting getting truly concerned.
My personal conclusions
For some reason they want to give the baby a new name. If all climate change is caused by global warming, global warming is still the problem. Personally I expect some luggage in the old global warming campaign so they want to semanticly differentiate.
The spike is more severe than I thought and does not really fit into the wave rhythm, maybe it is more dangerous than I thought. But maybe it is just a spike.
I hope this dry, objective approach is interesting for you to read. I definitely I enjoy writing it. Please debate in the comments if you disagree with my method or got different opinions out of it!
to be continued, it will get juicier ;)
Edit : straightened out my thoughts a little about the 1700 year graph
I appreciate you looking into the matter instead of being completely dismissive of cold hard evidence. While it's a start, you still have some learning to do to get up to speed with the scientific consensus. For example, you're quoting a very clear definition of climate change, and its relation to global warming, yet somehow seem to almost ignore what you have quoted.
I take it you're willing to accept that there is indeed a heat spike, but you're still in denial that it's a long term problem. Your graph stops at 2010, but guess what has happened since then?
Temperature anomaly is not just increasing, but it's accelerating. 2016 was the hottest year on record, as was 2015, 14 etc. The first quarter of 2017 was the hottest ever, and 2017 will once again set a new record. Meanwhile, CO2 has broken the 405 ppm mark. Over the last half a million years, the ice age cycles peaked at ~300 ppm, by the way.
I could go on and on, but there's overwhelming evidence from all around the world from nearly 200 countries and thousands of climate scientists using diverse methodology. There's no global conspiracy, this is quite simply cold hard reality.
This is unanimous scientific consensus with statistically significant evidence, there's nothing more to discuss here. I wish you the best in clearing out your biases and accepting the bleeding obvious :)
PS: Paleoclimatology that you cited in your previous post is completely irrelevant to this matter.
There should be a cooling period soon. I did not come across any evidence yet that this is not just a strong heating period. And 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is really not that impressive. But I will take on the C02 claims if we get there, I know a thing or two about chemistry.
There are scientists opposing this theory, im watching a presentation of Dr Don Easterbook as we speak.
Just so you dont lose interest in my series. A little Spoiler : in the next passage they will argue that climate is much harder to predict than weather. Since weather is already unpredictable Nasa has proven my point for me: They can not predict climate.
I won't be following your series any further. If you happen to win that Nobel Prize for turning the scientific consensus on this subject on its head, you would certainly have an audience. Till then, all the best!
sad, I would love to have a different opinion on board when I try refute the climate change hoax in detail.
Thought you would appreciate that I intent to only use government data. Most of my other readers wont trust these sources anyways...
Very small amounts of greenhouse gases (for example CO2 and water vapor) already have a strong impact as they prevent long-wave radiation to pass out of the atmosphere. In case the atmosphere would consist to 100 % of N2 and O2 the average global temperatures would be below zero. That they are not is the effect of that small percentage of greenhouse gases. You may imagine that even small changes of their percentages have strong effects ...
Apart from that, due to new methods there is some more evidence now that the release rate of CO2 into the atmosphere never was as high as nowadays: "We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years." You can read more about it in German.
Just read the article and looked more into the greenhouse effect of CO2. In fact it is only contributing 8-26% (according to wiki). It is always talked about correlation with rising temperature, which let me to believe it is not correct to call it the cause.
The "climate change opposition" tells the story of a trailing CO2 concentration which means the temperature is changing the amount of CO2, not the other way around. They are also numbers that state that nature is producing much more CO2 than we do.
Of course I have yet to double check it all. To be completely honest tho, the "new approach" of analyzing Isotopes sounds a little fishy, since Isotope analysis of sediments is a really old technique.
I really don't know anybody who says the increase of temperature came first and only after that the concentration of CO2 would grow, too. No, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are considered to be responsible for the rising temperatures.
I see no reason not to use 'old' but reliable techniques ... why not? New was not the method itself, but to use isotope analysis for solving this special problem ...
http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sift/global-warming/
The author of the webpage is a Steemer by the name @sift666 . He wrote it ten years ago and talked about it in the comment section of my previous post
I did not mean to criticize the technique. I believe in isotope analysis, I am not a creationist ;D. But the way they described it sounded like it was a new fanzy method.
"Just so you dont lose interest in my series. A little Spoiler : in the next passage they will argue that climate is much harder to predict than weather. Since weather is already unpredictable Nasa has proven my point for me: They can not predict climate."
climate is based on the average of weather.
Weather itself can not be predicted as it is a chaotic system. You can not measure where each atom will go, but you can measure the average combined effects. We can use ice and tree samples to measure temperatures and amount of carbon in the atmosphere
What’s the difference between weather and climate?
....“Weather” refers to the more local changes in the climate we see around us, on short timescales from minutes to hours to days to weeks. Examples are familiar – rain, snow, clouds, winds, thunderstorms, heat waves and floods. “Climate” refers to longer-term averages (they may be regional or global), and can be thought of as the weather averaged over several seasons, years or decades. Climate change is harder for us to get a sense of because the timescales involved are much longer, and the impact of climate changes can be less immediate."
quote taken from https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/
thats what I said
" Climate change is harder for us to get a sense of because the timescales involved are much longer, and the impact of climate changes can be less immediate."
" harder for us"
they are referring to the requirement of abstract thinking, which many people seem to lack. The scientists themselves understand it well.
they dont manage to predict the weather, climate is harder to predict than weather, since it is a combination of weathers essentially, climate change is even harder to predict. Hence they are not able to predict climate change.
As long as you agree that weather forecast is not a trustworthy fact, climate change prognoses are not trustworthy.
Want it as air tight logical proof?
according to everything I read we were supposed to be a cooling period right now but our carbon emissions overuled it
there could be an interruption in the pattern because of that, but the cooling and warming periods seem to varying in intensity. But I will keep it in mind when I actually get to the carbon emission. the cycle seems to be broken indeed.
0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere does not sound impressive, indeed, but compared to the normal cited before, which was 0.03%, there has been an increase of ~ 60%. That number sounds far more impressive now, doesn't it?
It is correct, that CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gases, but without the effects of all of them, we would have a cold ice-rock that isn't capable of sustaining life. Water vapor is another greenhouse gas - and the trailing effect comes from a feedback loop: It gets warmer, which results in two things: more water vapor in the atmosphere, and gases dissolve much worse in warm water than in cold - which means the oceans release even more CO2. The atmosphere is very complex, and it will take a while until there is a new equilibrium reached.
We are still fine for a bit, but the panic is coming from the effect, that the temperature might be running away for a few more years, even if we were to change our ways completely now. And then some people would come out and say: Look, we haven't done anything for a year, and the temperature is still rising, so we aren't at fault, ignoring once more what scientists have said ...
Looking at the data it is arguable if a rising temperature is really an issue. Usually I tend to see the nature as quite robust and not the fragile system that can be destroyed by us. Nature has been there for billions of years, I doubt we have the ability to destroy it.
We can destroy ourselfs and that is what we should be concerned with, but a few degrees global temp increase wont be the end of us, no way.
The danger is, that it is not only a few degrees ... there are a few degrees more globally. There are already arid places that are becoming larger, allowing for less plant life. There are countries where people hunger, because they can't grow anything anymore.
Some plants in nature are very robust, but most plants we rely on for food are not as robust as you think.
Then there is also a bigger different in temperature over all degrees of latitude, which results in more storms, as the weather tries to somewhat balance these differences in temperature.
And if all those arguments are still not enough, we should all remember that all those resources we use are finite, and we could save a bit of them and our climate, just if we wanted.
Oh, and yes, nature has been around for billions of years, but only humanity, in the last hundred years, was able to significantly disturb the natural balance in a very short amount of time. Nature is able to adapt, yes, but it needs far more time than we allow.
On that position I agree. I am in no way in favor of wasting limited resources especially fossil fuels since they are the remains of our ancestors and predecessors.
This is also quite arguable since there have been lifeforms that had bigger influence on the atmosphere (ie the bakteria that was responsible for creating oxygen billions of years ago)
If you look into climate history you will see that a rapid rise and fall of temperature is rather the norm than the exception.
I have to concede to that example. That was a big change, and one without life as we know it probably wouldn't be possible.
That is arguable, since those rises and falls have their own reasons, and, if I look on the graphs provided by two sides - there has not been such a steep rise in temperature within the last 1700 years. Which is especially notable because your graph shows the difference in degrees Farenheit, and the graph by liberosist shows differences in degrees Celsius. A change of 2 ° C can be translated to a change of 3.6 °F. The continuation is at more than double the space allow in your graph.
Having several hottest years on record, and a winter that feels a lot more like spring ... you can't deny that it is much warmer than in the past. Following a trend that scientists have predicted.
In all honesty - I find it very unreasonable to push the fault for everything into factors we can't control. And the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (which is a greenhouse gas, capable of trapping heat) is in our control. We use more and more fuels, we remove forests, we pollute the oceans ... and the very real danger of saying "that is not our fault" is, that we then just continue with our ways.
Nature maybe quite robust, but everything will cave, if punched a little too often!
To be nitpicking it's not climate when it's shorter then 30 years and this seems shorter. (But of course 30 is also only a rule of thumb number.)
So you have no allergies then ;) They already had to rework the whole Pollenkalender because the times got longer.
No, it doesn't. It just say there are other factors. One other man-made for example could be the increase of (dark) roads where trees used to be. That means more heat gets absorbed instead of reflected. (Of course that is a very minor point, but if you put 50 minor points together it becomes big.)
Climate change could also be a cooling ;)
The use of climate change instead of global warming originates in the US where people would not admit that is a warming, so a different word needed to be used.
No, wait!
It was the other way round. They would not admit it is the climate changing. The earth was just getting warmer, that has nothing to do with man-made climate, it was the sun getting hotter!
it is so hard to follow that snake like thinking!
you are right, I will change that in my text. I hope this reply is suficent as an edit note. I will delete "besides human" in "it acknowledges that there are other contributing factors besides human"
That would still be wrong (judged by just the quote) but that is definitely a correct formulation of the general scientific view.
how is it still wrong judged by the quote? What else should the word "mainly" mean other than that there are other contributing factors
Formallogisch hast du hier
Aussage A
Aus A folgt B (mainly -> other contributing factors exist)
Das aber ist nicht B, das ist Aussage C (contributing factors not made by human exist)
Aus A folgt zwar B aber nicht C. Und C folgt auch nicht aus B, weil B keine Aussage zum Attribut "menschlich" macht.
Folglich kann C nicht mit A begründet werden.
ok cool, du kennst logisches vokabular, das tut nicht jeder und ich wollte ja nicht so anfangen :3
A shall be all contributing factors to global warming
B shall be burning fossil fuel and and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air.
C shall be Global warming
A->C , by A's definition as all contributing factors of global warming
Now the sentence
now implies BcA and B=/=C ,
B is a contributing factor, but not all factors (C). The word main is a clear cut indication of C having more elements than B
achso, aber warte mal, ich habe ja die aussage zurückgezogen, dass es nicht menschliche Ursachen laut dem statement gibt. Lediglich andere, die auch menschlich sein können.
Grundsätzlich hast du mit der Argumentation, die du mit logischem Vokabular gemacht hast recht, aber ich hab ja schon vorher eingesehen, dass das besides human raus muss.
I've joked with some about climate change that if all the dire news about climate change was true that I have heard since my childhood, then I should've had to have moved inland about a decade ago (I live in Tampa, FL).
If I were a scientist, I would want data that is not centuries old, but several millennia old. There are tales I've heard of those data gathering centers being placed in some controversial places that might skew the data towards a Pinto-driving guy with a doctorate who really needs some grant money.
I've even heard that bovine flatulence contributes more to climate change than internal combustion engines! Maybe all that Dino-flatulence of eras past contributed to the extinction of those giants!
You gave them the benefit of the doubt, and I love that! I think the key here is the word associated with global warming--CRISIS. Maybe there is a problem, but is it something we can stop, or is it one of those--asteroid headed to earth--type problems that we can't stop.
But our governments are seldom solving any of our clearly solvable problems. Why should we trust them with this? Great work.
The governments of the world want us to believe it is a CRISIS that we should trust them to solve. All we have to do is give them our money, our souls, and our firstborn. :)
I somehow started to read your comment yesterday, but then I got interrupted and forgot to finish and reply. Sorry. Thank you for the kind words and the long comment!
There are many reasons for me to doubt the official story about climate change and most of them are listed by you, like scientists who lose their jobs if they don't find some incredibly important/dangerous data.
xD. That is exactly the reason why I am against the Crisis. I am pro environment but against world government.
Always good to see some rock solid facts. Nearly all governments agreed with the charts two years ago in Paris! If that doesn't count for something, I don't know what does.
I did not know that the charts I used were agreed upon by most governments. Danke für den Hinweis @fisch!
I have not read the comments, so i do not know if someone else already said what i am about to say. Anyway about the hoax thing and the science behind the situation, climate change is very very real, and our actions might not have anything to do with it ofc the evidence say differently. The thing is that sooner or later the climate is going to try to change, we dont want to let it change because our civilization is going to have a very difficult time or maybe even perish. As an environmental scientist i do admit it does not really matter if the climate changes is by us or by nature and our best interest is to keep it as it was 20 years ago, which we cant and its going to get warmer, so it is in our best interest to stop it, climate scientists are here to control the climate for humanity not for earth.
our climate will change, it always has. That is my argument. It is dangerous, but there are more important topics like getting rid of nuclear weapons, ending wars and if you want to go environmental lets talk about waste and recycling.
Everything u said is important but the climate has to do something with all of em, it is the general problem, and our abilities and technology can do a lot about it so i believe we have to focus on it for the next 50 to 150 years.
I agree, we will be able to do a lot more to influence climate willingly in the future, there is also potential danger in that.
Environmental laws are often used for political pressure. In the past against china and now against trump. I do not like how politizised the topic is and how people act like climate change is a meteor heading straight for earth,
It is heading straight to humanity, but we should be fine if we are to lower our emissions, plant half of an amazon forest and do something about the acidification of the sea which actually is our worst problem. Politics and politicians are dangerous people and shity situations. I dont really care about them or their opinions, since their opinions come from a company or even many companies.
exactly. You either help oil and coal. Or you help whoever is behind the climate change lobby, there is no doubt there is a huge lobby, I wonder what they want. Anyways as a citizen you can only try to treat nature as respectful as you can so she treats you respectful in return.
Very good arguments backed by facts for your case @thatgermandude! As per my knowledge I don't trust the global warming, I think other way around (I don't trust the mainstream anymore at least very skeptical to accept what is said. Always think of the polar opposite of what is in the news or forcefully being fed to general population! Each coin have two sides, don't accept a coin as a coin until I see its both sides!!
So you have to believe in global warming, because for about 3-4 decades the mainstream was dead set against it!
I never heard that my dear @lennstar :)
Probably because you weren't even alive at that time ;(
By mainstream I mean the media and their reports about it, and against mainly means "did not say a word about it". It just wasn't NEWS half a century ago.
The first scientific mentions of the topic date back to the 40s afaik.
Even the Club of Rome had a few words about it 1972 (the German WP article is better). And of course that one was ridiculed by deniers of all sorts by cherry picking and ignoring conditions etc.
You are right dear @lennstar, I am 42. But I did study Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry quite deep. My instinct based on the knowledge and my media assessment so far is what they say again and again is a lie. I may be wrong and you are right but based on my circumstances and knowledge, global warming story is not true.
that is why I was so shocked to see you spout the same "arguments"
This was the very reason why I started to look deeper into global warming. Environmentalism is a good thing, but if it is heavily mentioned in the news it becomes suspect.
Yes, I stopped listening to news in 2001 when I found out about the truth of 1984 Indian army attack on our holy shrine "The Golden Temple". What was told heavily in news and I believed was 100% opposite to the truth. Then I found out that why it was bombarded on channels 24/7 to tell a lie 100 times to make it truth (for the sheep)! Happy to have you as my friend!
same! I really like your calm and friendly attitude. You seem to have reached similar conclusions in life, but you come from a different background than I do and experienced events that I never even heard of, like the Golden Temple incident.
Right, we share same ideology! Very interesting @dude my friend, it is going to be fun, a lot of fun!!
I think our ideologies differ. We act and think in the same way, but you have your the spiritual ideas and religion, that I only know very little of.
We come from different places but we are heading in the same direction, my friend!
Thank you for the resteem @mathworksheets!
NP my friend. Also my English skills are not 100%, thanks for clearing about ideology :))