# 2016 will be the warmest year by record



## Lakigigar

Global warming is speeding up because of El Nino. Seventh warmest month on record in a row. We need a wonder if 2016 isn't going to be the warmest year on record. (Ultraplinian eruption or significant asteroid impact). After this peak, the temperature rise will cool but will stay high and we will set a new marker for warmest year after this year (just like we did in 1998). and the average month in the upcoming years are going to be at least 1.0C warmer than average.


----------



## PowerShell

The extreme weather is becoming nuts. It's kind of scary in a way.


----------



## floodbear

when life gives you boiling oceans, make lots of pasta.


----------



## Carpentet810

I love warm weather! Needs to be hotter much hotter with higher ozone for me to be comfortable.


----------



## LandOfTheSnakes

Carpentet810 said:


> I love warm weather! Needs to be hotter much hotter with higher ozone for me to be comfortable.


Could just lock you up in a sauna and throw away the keys.


----------



## PowerShell

Carpentet810 said:


> I love warm weather! Needs to be hotter much hotter with higher ozone for me to be comfortable.


Yeah I think the sauna idea is a good idea. The warmer the planet gets, the more ripple effects we have and they aren't pretty.


----------



## floodbear

fingers crossed we'll develop our own great red spot


----------



## Morgoth

Venus, with your naturally occurring greenhouse effect, we're coming after you, we'll see who's hotter than the surface of mercury in a few hundred years.


----------



## IAmBored

Here in Spain we're getting longer,colder winters and warmer summers


----------



## Death Persuades

Something as simple as a volcano can make a year without a summer. It's easier to cool something than it is to heat it... I'm not too concerned.


----------



## Lakigigar

Morgoth said:


> Venus, with your naturally occurring greenhouse effect, we're coming after you, we'll see who's hotter than the surface of mercury in a few hundred years.


A bit exaggerated, but yes it could eventually go in this way. But it would take billions of years. I don't think that even in the most pessimistisc scenario, this is something realistic. But if this warming continues for thousands of years, we could eventually reach the point of no-return to a less hostile climate (even warmer then during the P-T extinction).

We already reached the point of no return to our previous climate, and the only we can do is try to make the damage as less damaging as possible and try to reverse global warming.

It is dangerous, and we are damaging our ecosystems, but it is not going to be that worse that we will ever have a Venus-climate (we would be dead for a long time).



IAmBored said:


> Here in Spain we're getting longer,colder winters and warmer summers


Statistically not approved. Winters & Summers become warmer in Spain.



Doge Precedes said:


> Something as simple as a volcano can make a year without a summer. It's easier to cool something than it is to heat it... I'm not too concerned.


Indeed, but it didn't happen for the last 100 years. And after a year, we're back to the previous level of global warming. Volcanism is not going to stop the current climate change. Or you need a supervolcano eruption like Toba, and there are no signals that a volcano of that kind is going to erupt (don't believe the doomsday prophecies, they are not true. It is even unusually calm for since 100 years ago (for volcanism). Go back 200 years ago, and it looked like the world was going to end... (eruptions of krakatao, laki, tambora (biggest eruption in the last 10.000 years), the 1809 eruption (probably somewhere in North Chile/Bolivia or South Peru but still the volcano itself is not found was also a big one (the volcano Putana was named somewhere)).

Last century we had some volcano eruptions, but it wasn't the most active century for volcanoes (way too calm). We had 3 VEI 6-eruptions: Santa Maria in 1902, Novarupta in 1912 (Alaska) and Pinatubo in 1991 (Philippines, and this volcano had an impact on our worldwide climate for 1-2 years). Nevado Del Ruiz eruption killed 25000 peoples in Colombia by a lahar (volcanic mud stream) in the mid 80's. Mount St. Helens was a volcano in America that erupted (VEI 5). El Chichon was also one of the larger ones last century.

This century is calmer than ever. We are waiting for a big eruption since 1991 and even VEI 5's are uncommon the last two-three decades, with only the distant Chilean volcano Puyehue-Cordon Caulle reaching that benchmark. Europeans will know Eyjafjallajokull for disrupting aviation in 2010. Maximum potential for such a small volcano. Was an VEI 4.


----------



## IAmBored

Lakigigar said:


> Statistically not approved. Winters & Summers become warmer in Spain.


It _was_ warmer last year. Heard of el Niño? It's making some places become warmer, some places colder. This Christmas it snowed in Egypt and went 1ºC in the North Pole. Maybe that's Global warming is not too generalized throughout the world. It usually colder in interiors, and warmer in coastal zones. This winter was definitely colder than the last one in spain, I live here, I would know. Yes, the climate is changing, but that doesn't mean that a freak alteration in marine currents can't mess up the weather of several countries.


----------



## Lakigigar

IAmBored said:


> It _was_ warmer last year. Heard of el Niño? It's making some places become warmer, some places colder. This Christmas it snowed in Egypt and went 1ºC in the North Pole. Maybe that's Global warming is not too generalized throughout the world. It usually colder in interiors, and warmer in coastal zones. This winter was definitely colder than the last one in spain, I live here, I would know. Yes, the climate is changing, but that doesn't mean that a freak alteration in marine currents can't mess up the weather of several countries.


Yes indeed. If it snows in Egypt, it doesn't mean the climate is changing.










It is not generalized throughout the world, but I don't see the interiors getting colder. Only some ocean regions are getting colder (Southern Ocean, The North of the Atlantic Ocean, and Patagonia.

I don't see prove that last winter was warmer than normal. If it was colder, it wouldn't mean so much. Climate is getting warmer also in Spain. No doubt about that. If it was a colder winter than normal in Spain, it would only be a variation of our new climate and still wouldn't mean that much. We need several cold months and cold years to prove the climate is getting colder. This is absolutely not the case. Nearly anywhere on the world. There is indeed a possibility that sea currents will change in the future (southern ocean sea currents already did change on some locations).










Dec 2015, 2-3 degrees C warmer than normal










Jan 2016, 2-3 degrees warmer than normal










Feb 2016, 1 degree warmer than normal.

Only march is currently colder than normal in most of western Europe and also parts of western Africa.


----------



## IAmBored

I'll give you credit for that, you've done an impressive amount of research, although I never said climate change wasn't happening, I am aware that it's a reality. It's still impressive how much the pollution we cause can change how climate works in different places, though. Technically, if it weren't for the greenhouse effect, we would be heading towards a glacial period, but pollution is heating up the atmosphere so much we're heading for the opposite direction.
El Niño, however, I don't know if it's related to climate change. Noone really knows why that Pacific current of warm water suddenly switches direction. If a simple alteration in the water flow can cause the temperature to rise +30ºC in the Pole North and to decrease drastically in northern Africa, maybe we could learn to use that in our favor. Simple hypothesis, I'm not saying its a magical solution to the greenhouse problem, but it should definitely be studied more, in my opinion.


----------



## PowerShell

This doesn't look good: Carbon Emission Rate On Earth Unprecedented Since Dinosaur Extinction : SCIENCE : Tech Times


----------



## Lakigigar

IAmBored said:


> I'll give you credit for that, you've done an impressive amount of research, although I never said climate change wasn't happening, I am aware that it's a reality. It's still impressive how much the pollution we cause can change how climate works in different places, though. Technically, if it weren't for the greenhouse effect, we would be heading towards a glacial period, but pollution is heating up the atmosphere so much we're heading for the opposite direction.
> El Niño, however, I don't know if it's related to climate change. Noone really knows why that Pacific current of warm water suddenly switches direction. If a simple alteration in the water flow can cause the temperature to rise +30ºC in the Pole North and to decrease drastically in northern Africa, maybe we could learn to use that in our favor. Simple hypothesis, I'm not saying its a magical solution to the greenhouse problem, but it should definitely be studied more, in my opinion.


El Nino hasn't to do anything with water temperature at the pole North. Only thing it affects is the Pacific Ocean (and also worldwide temperature).


----------



## Peter

Lakigigar said:


> Global warming is speeding up because of El Nino. Seventh warmest month on record in a row. We need a wonder if 2016 isn't going to be the warmest year on record. (Ultraplinian eruption or significant asteroid impact). After this peak, the temperature rise will cool but will stay high and we will set a new marker for warmest year after this year (just like we did in 1998). and the average month in the upcoming years are going to be at least 1.0C warmer than average.


If it's because of El Nino, then within about 2 years we will see temperatures drop again. Don't use a periodical but short event to make it look like the trend of the last 3 years will continue into the future, only going up. It's misrepresentation of the data.

Like you said, the average temperature in the years to come will be up 1 degree celcius. Well,.. that already happened this year, so in the years to come, the temperature won't rise again..... See how that makes no sense?

Do you want to do something about global warming?.... Get solar panels or buy energy from sustainable energy suppliers and get yourself an EV (Electrical Vehicle),... Tesla has the best options in terms of range and free (often solar generated) charging stations. But the other car manufacturers are (slowly, very very slowly) also starting with EV's as well.


----------



## Lakigigar

Peter said:


> If it's because of El Nino, then within about 2 years we will see temperatures drop again. Don't use a periodical but short event to make it look like the trend of the last 3 years will continue into the future, only going up. It's misrepresentation of the data.
> 
> Like you said, the average temperature in the years to come will be up 1 degree celcius. Well,.. that already happened this year, so in the years to come, the temperature won't rise again..... See how that makes no sense?
> 
> Do you want to do something about global warming?.... Get solar panels or buy energy from sustainable energy suppliers and get yourself an EV (Electrical Vehicle),... Tesla has the best options in terms of range and free (often solar generated) charging stations. But the other car manufacturers are (slowly, very very slowly) also starting with EV's as well.


Yes and no. It will drop again, but not on previous levels. I also said this clearly. But the climate is warming and it doesn't disprove this as well.

I don't have the money for solar panels. If you want to something, you should become vegan... You would have the biggest impact.


----------



## Dante Scioli

Morgoth said:


> Venus, with your naturally occurring greenhouse effect, we're coming after you, we'll see who's hotter than the surface of mercury in a few hundred years.


We could burn every barrel of oil, every ton of coal, and scorch every tree on earth and we still couldn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

Global warming is not apocalyptic. It really doesn't matter. The global temperature fluctuates all the time anyway, regardless of human activity. Who cares if we are contributing to this round? And warmer is actually _preferable_ to colder, anyway. So, in a certain way... it makes more sense to be _pro-_global warming.


----------



## marblecloud95

We need to increase global unity, encourage empathy, and enrich the environment.


----------



## PowerShell

Lakigigar said:


> Yes, i pay some attention to it, but there is no known link between more storms and global warming. It could be, but we simply don't know if there is a possible link. I also don't know if there are indeed more storms than decades ago. We indeed don't know what will happen. That's right.


It's not the amount of storms, it's the intensity of storms.



SuperDevastation said:


> It's humble to acknowledge humanities lack of control over something like the weather, and copying me but changing it a little is pathetic. The fact it snowed quite a bit the other day proves the Earth isn't getting warmer, deal with it. Also playing the science card doesn't make you right.


To think we CAN'T impact the environment is completely ignorant. Besides global warming, humans are notorious for ruining the environment and essentially making it almost uninhabitable. With our society and the scale at which we do things, we can easily cause a lot of damage if we're not careful.


----------



## SuperDevastation

PowerShell said:


> It's not the amount of storms, it's the intensity of storms.
> 
> 
> 
> To think we CAN'T impact the environment is completely ignorant. Besides global warming, humans are notorious for ruining the environment and essentially making it almost uninhabitable. With our society and the scale at which we do things, we can easily cause a lot of damage if we're not careful.


It's not ignorant it's true, stop trying to change my mind, you can't. And stop with the paranoia.


----------



## Lakigigar

SuperDevastation said:


> It's humble to acknowledge humanities lack of control over something like the weather, and copying me but changing it a little is pathetic. *The fact it snowed quite a bit the other day proves the Earth isn't getting warmer, deal with it.* Also playing the science card and appealing to authority doesn't make you right, quite the opposite.


I think it should be humble if we acknowlegde the problem and do something about it and decrease our influence on the climate then denying that we have an impact on our climate. You are just insinuating some things where you have simply no knowledge about. You say that scientists and people in authoritarian functions are wrong. Do you have some proves that what you are saying is correct? It is simple to just say some things. Everyone can do it.

Some definitions about weather & climate. More people should learn this because it looks like the majority even don't know what the difference is between weather & climate.


----------



## PowerShell

SuperDevastation said:


> It's not ignorant it's true, stop trying to change my mind, you can't. And stop with the paranoia.


Then why are you in a thread that is clearly about global warming and how 2016 is set to be a record year by projections? We're discussing something that most people on this thread agree with and you're the contrarian.


----------



## Lakigigar

PowerShell said:


> *It's not the amount of storms, it's the intensity of storms.*
> 
> 
> 
> To think we CAN'T impact the environment is completely ignorant. Besides global warming, humans are notorious for ruining the environment and essentially making it almost uninhabitable. With our society and the scale at which we do things, we can easily cause a lot of damage if we're not careful.


I also have that impression, but i have no numbers about it, and i can't confirm it.


----------



## PowerShell

Lakigigar said:


> I also have that impression, but i have no numbers about it, and i can't confirm it.


How many times on the news you hear "this is a type of storm that happens once in 100 years" or "this is off the charts." This stuff is becoming more and more frequent. Even growing up in Wisconsin I've seen in the last 20 years how storms have changed in intensity. It has literally went from having a line of green on the radar to the Dakotas and a slow, soaking light rain for 3 days. Now a big line of red comes in and you got walloped with a storm storm in a matter of a few hours. There's rarely ever just a slow soaking rain like we used to get. There's just the big intense storms that come through fast.


----------



## SuperDevastation

PowerShell said:


> Then why are you in a thread that is clearly about global warming and how 2016 is set to be a record year by projections? We're discussing something that most people on this thread agree with and you're the contrarian.


Have you considered it's because I acknowledge that global warming is a hoax and should be treated as such? And name 1 good thing about everyone agreeing about the same thing just because of the thread name.


----------



## SuperDevastation

Lakigigar said:


> I think it should be humble if we acknowlegde the problem and do something about it and decrease our influence on the climate then denying that we have an impact on our climate. You are just insinuating some things where you have simply no knowledge about. You say that scientists and people in authoritarian functions are wrong. Do you have some proves that what you are saying is correct? It is simple to just say some things. Everyone can do it.
> 
> Some definitions about weather & climate. More people should learn this because it looks like the majority even don't know what the difference is between weather & climate.


Why should anyone acknowledge a problem that doesn't even exist? That's called insanity/stupidity/wishful thinking. And I never said scientists were authoritarian (though some have authoritarian views), don't lie to protect your ego. Also it doesn't take a genius to know weather and climate are linked.


----------



## PowerShell

SuperDevastation said:


> Have you considered it's because I acknowledge that global warming is a hoax and should be treated as such? And name 1 good thing about everyone agreeing about the same thing just because of the thread name.


So thousands of papers have been written supporting the theory of manmade global warming and there is a 97% consensus among scientists on the topic (Global warming: climate scientists overwhelmingly agree it's real and is caused by humans.) yet you're argument is we're just not being humble supposedly refutes all this scientific work. Dream on.


----------



## Lakigigar

PowerShell said:


> How many times on the news you hear "this is a type of storm that happens once in 100 years" or "this is off the charts." This stuff is becoming more and more frequent. Even growing up in Wisconsin I've seen in the last 20 years how storms have changed in intensity. It has literally went from having a line of green on the radar to the Dakotas and a slow, soaking light rain for 3 days. Now a big line of red comes in and you got walloped with a storm storm in a matter of a few hours. There's rarely ever just a slow soaking rain like we used to get. There's just the big intense storms that come through fast.


The news isn't a reliable source. The fact you hear that so much times on the news is because that information is sometimes false and they like to exaggerate some things (more sensation) to attract more viewers and keep the viewer's attention. Wisconsin always had some huge storms, it could be a wrong impression. I'm not saying what you're saying is false. There are just no numbers about it, and i can't confirm it. I also wanted to know some years ago if thunderstorms changed in frequency and intensity. With tornadoes this is indeed the case, but this is also because we are in a new information age where everyone can share their experiences fast (= internet), where more people can take videos from things, where the average guy is more educated about storms, where there is better (radar) technology, where there is a huge rise in number of storm chasers and because of that: the chance of a tornado going unnoticed is reduced. We simply can't conclude something on frequency and intensity on tornadoes. Neither on different weather phenomens. There are some active tornado years. There are some less active tornado years (like the last two years). Same for hurricanes (it is even very calm on the Atlantic side).

I can't confirm anything about frequency and intensity about storms and phenomens like that.


----------



## SuperDevastation

PowerShell said:


> So thousands of papers have been written supporting the theory of manmade global warming and there is a 97% consensus among scientists on the topic (Global warming: climate scientists overwhelmingly agree it's real and is caused by humans.) yet you're argument is we're just not being humble supposedly refutes all this scientific work. Dream on.


Come up with an original argument and try to make more sense. Also not 100% of scientists say the same thing, stop blindly believing the majority (not sure if it even is the majority view in the scientific community) and be open-minded.


----------



## PowerShell

Lakigigar said:


> The news isn't a reliable source. The fact you hear that so much times on the news is because that information is sometimes false and they like to exaggerate some things (more sensation) to attract more viewers and keep the viewer's attention. Wisconsin always had some huge storms, it could be a wrong impression. I'm not saying what you're saying is false. There are just no numbers about it, and i can't confirm it. I also wanted to know some years ago if thunderstorms changed in frequency and intensity. With tornadoes this is indeed the case, but this is also because we are in a new information age where everyone can share their experiences fast (= internet), where more people can take videos from things, where the average guy is more educated about storms, where there is better (radar) technology, where there is a huge rise in number of storm chasers and because of that: the chance of a tornado going unnoticed is reduced. We simply can't conclude something on frequency and intensity on tornadoes. Neither on different weather phenomens. There are some active tornado years. There are some less active tornado years (like the last two years). Same for hurricanes (it is even very calm on the Atlantic side).
> 
> I can't confirm anything about frequency and intensity about storms and phenomens like that.


Here's a study on increased heatwaves: Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds | Environment | The Guardian



SuperDevastation said:


> Come up with an original argument. Also not 100% of scientists say the same thing, stop blindly believing the majority (not sure if it even is the majority view in the scientific community) and be open-minded.


And where is your evidence besides, "Oh we're just no being humble for cripes sakes. We can't change the weather." I posted links to legitimate sites that outline stuff and you're only discredit to them is, "stop being paranoid we can't change the climate." Honestly the lumberjacks cut down the majority of our old growth forests with axes. Can you imagine if they had chainsaws? Before regulation, areas were being fished to the point of extinction. Man can and does overexploit natural resources and causes catastrophic ecological damage.

I will take thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers over some alternative news sites that are funded by big oil and people who don't want regulation for the damage they are causing to the environment.


----------



## SuperDevastation

PowerShell said:


> Here's a study on increased heatwaves: Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds | Environment | The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> And where is your evidence besides, "Oh we're just no being humble for cripes sakes. We can't change the weather." I posted links to legitimate sites that outline stuff and you're only discredit to them is, "stop being paranoid we can't change the climate." Honestly the lumberjacks cut down the majority of our old growth forests with axes. Can you imagine if they had chainsaws? Before regulation, areas were being fished to the point of extinction. Man can and does overexploit natural resources and causes catastrophic ecological damage.
> 
> I will take thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers over some alternative news sites that are funded by big oil and people who don't want regulation for the damage they are causing to the environment.


It's snowing a lot in some places so your argument is invalid. And so called scientists have made predictions before about what would happen if everyone didn't take them seriously and have always been wrong so stop with the confirmation bias and appeal to authority. And no sites are funded by big oil, you just want an excuse to not believe anyone that doesn't think like you do. Also we aren't causing any major damage to the planet and to think we have such power is very arrogant.


----------



## PowerShell

SuperDevastation said:


> It's snowing a lot in some places so your argument is invalid. And so called scientists have made predictions before about what would happen if everyone didn't take them seriously and have always been wrong. And stp with the confirmation bias and appeal to authority. And no sites are funded by big oil, you just want an excuse to not believe anyone that doesn't think like you do. Also we aren't causing any major damage to the planet and to think we have such power is very arrogant.


Yes it's snowing here in Wisconsin. But it's March. Literally claiming because it's snowing in winter or early spring and saying global warming is not happening is like eating a meal and going "what world hunger?" The scientists have made predictions, but like any predictions, it's not clearly certain. Like I said earlier, we don't know exactly what will happen. Convection currents could shut down and we could plunge into an ice age and this can happen rapidly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation We could also experience a bunch more warming. We don't specifically know. We just have trends that it the temperatures are setting records and we have ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years telling us CO2 is rising at an unprecedented rate. We have trends showing more extreme weather.

This isn't "appealing to authority" or any of the other BS you say, this is stating facts. Facts that I have posted but it seems you're more interested in semantics and trying to play it down as it's some personal fault that we're not "humble."

Additionally, most of those alternative climate research is funded by Koch Industries or the oil companies that do have a lot to lose if we start putting on regulations. The only reason you have scientists disagreeing at a 3% rate is because you have petroleum engineers and other scientists affiliated with these industries trying to deny it. Then you have the puppets of "freedom" eating up the propaganda they post. It's clear you're one of those "freedom" lovers by the quotes in your signature.

Now actually provide some valid links to prove your point.


----------



## PowerShell




----------



## SuperDevastation

PowerShell said:


> Yes it's snowing here in Wisconsin. But it's March. Literally claiming because it's snowing in winter or early spring and saying global warming is not happening is like eating a meal and going "what world hunger?" The scientists have made predictions, but like any predictions, it's not clearly certain. Like I said earlier, we don't know exactly what will happen. Convection currents could shut down and we could plunge into an ice age and this can happen rapidly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation We could also experience a bunch more warming. We don't specifically know. We just have trends that it the temperatures are setting records and we have ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years telling us CO2 is rising at an unprecedented rate. We have trends showing more extreme weather.
> 
> This isn't "appealing to authority" or any of the other BS you say, this is stating facts. Facts that I have posted but it seems you're more interested in semantics and trying to play it down as it's some personal fault that we're not "humble."
> 
> Additionally, most of those alternative climate research is funded by Koch Industries or the oil companies that do have a lot to lose if we start putting on regulations. The only reason you have scientists disagreeing at a 3% rate is because you have petroleum engineers and other scientists affiliated with these industries trying to deny it. Then you have the puppets of "freedom" eating up the propaganda they post. It's clear you're one of those "freedom" lovers by the quotes in your signature.
> 
> Now actually provide some valid links to prove your point.


You've provided no evidence for your position you only used the same tired arguments used by every other global warming alarmist, not to mention your habit of appeal to authority and confirmation bias. And you can't use famine and eating everyday to prove man-made global warming, that's just stupid. Also warmth decreases snowfalls, not increases, go back and educate yourself.


----------



## puzzled

.


----------



## puzzled

SuperDevastation said:


> It's snowing a lot in some places so your argument is invalid.


 @PowerShell

get rekt


----------



## PowerShell

SuperDevastation said:


> You've provided no evidence for your position you only used the same tired arguments used by every other global warming alarmist, not to mention your habit of appeal to authority and confirmation bias. And you can't use famine and eating everyday to prove man-made global warming, that's just stupid. Also warmth decreases snowfalls, not increases, go back and educate yourself.


You tell me I have provided no evidence (which I have provided links of peer reviewed science), YET YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE YOURSELF. Why do I need an "original" argument? I think the current narrative of we're warming up the planet and the thousands of peer reviewed papers with the vast majority of scientists in agreement.

Where is your evidence? If I'm so alarmist and my facts are wrong, where are your facts to refute them? You've provided nothing and are a typical tea-party parrot who wants to deny overwhelming science and parrot your views, which actually aren't backed up by science or even provide any evidence to counter what I'm saying. If what I'm so is just "tired statements" provide me with some evidence to prove me wrong.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

This is the most important issue of our generation and the most widespread. It affects all of us, all 7 billion of us. That is why it's so difficult to tackle, solutions will involve global cooperation, which is fairly difficult. It will also mean everyone taking a look past the immediate and realize change is needed to deal with problems that will crop up 20/30 years in the future.


----------



## SuperDevastation

Sporadic Aura said:


> This is the most important issue of our generation and the most widespread. It affects all of us, all 7 billion of us. That is why it's so difficult to tackle, solutions will involve global cooperation, which is fairly difficult. It will also mean everyone taking a look past the immediate and realize change is needed to deal with problems that will crop up 20/30 years in the future.


Please stop with the paranoia and fearmongering.


----------



## SuperDevastation

PowerShell said:


> You tell me I have provided no evidence (which I have provided links of peer reviewed science), YET YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE YOURSELF. Why do I need an "original" argument? I think the current narrative of we're warming up the planet and the thousands of peer reviewed papers with the vast majority of scientists in agreement.
> 
> Where is your evidence? If I'm so alarmist and my facts are wrong, where are your facts to refute them? You've provided nothing and are a typical tea-party parrot who wants to deny overwhelming science and parrot your views, which actually aren't backed up by science or even provide any evidence to counter what I'm saying. If what I'm so is just "tired statements" provide me with some evidence to prove me wrong.


I already gave you contradicting information (such as the increase in snowfalls), it's not my fault you refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit your worldview. And majority doesn't mean right (appeal to popularity) so you can't use that.


----------



## PowerShell

SuperDevastation said:


> I already gave you contradicting information, it's not my fault you refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit your worldview. And majority doesn't mean right so you can't use that.


No you didn't. I have yet to see a link or any scientific evidence.


----------



## SuperDevastation

PowerShell said:


> No you didn't. I have yet to see a link or any scientific evidence.


I'm not gonna give you any links cause you'll just reject anything that doesn't fit your worldview, I see it happen all the time when your kind is given contradictory information. Also stop believing everything that has the word science/scientific in them and learn to think for yourself instead of believing blindly.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

SuperDevastation said:


> Please stop with the paranoia and fearmongering.


I'm not paranoid nor am I fearful, I am realistic though. I also wish more people would pay attention to climate change instead of less important issues.


----------



## PowerShell

SuperDevastation said:


> I'm not gonna give you any links cause you'll just reject anything that doesn't fit your worldview, I see it happen all the time when your kind is given contradictory information. Also stop believing everything that has the word science/scientific in them and learn to think for yourself instead of believing blindly.


Then you're merely stating an opinion with nothing to back it up. Sorry, an opinion with nothing to back it up isn't worth the hot air it takes to say it.


----------



## aef8234

PowerShell said:


> Then you're merely stating an opinion with nothing to back it up. Sorry, an opinion with nothing to back it up isn't worth the hot air it takes to say it.


HOT AIR BALLOON



Sporadic Aura said:


> I'm not paranoid nor am I fearful, I am realistic though. I also wish more people would pay attention to climate change instead of less important issues.


Dude, if I couldn't veer a couple hundred horny men on the issues of porn, it's a great indicator that "paying attention" isn't our strong suit.
Also being influenced, and noticing patterns.

Then again there's a lot of obstacles in the way of climate change that people paying attention might not even be the biggest issue. 
The conscious media... I forget the word... blackout is a bad sign too.


----------



## Penny

i agree about being concerned with the changing weather. as far as higher snowfalls and stuff, i think that just points to instability in general. i mean, science is telling us that pollution/"greenhouse gases" are eroding the ozone layer. i think that should be cause for a greater alarm than has been rung. i mean, what can we do to stop the ozone depletion or fix it even?
well, this wasn't was i was thinking when i googled "how to stop ozone depletion" but i thought i'd copy and paste it as a reminder for everyone: 

There's no such thing as a "healthy" tan. Tanning isn't good for you, especially when the ozone layer is depleted. Fair-skinned people are particularly vulnerable to UV radiation, as are infants and children — but everyone should be careful.

Be aware that UV radiation is most intense during the summer, so take extra precautions. Don't overlook all the "innocent" minutes throughout the year when you're outside briefly. They can add up to a lot of radiation.

Sit in the shade, and avoid prolonged exposure when the sun is high: between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Wear protective clothing and a broad-brimmed sunhat. Sunglasses with 100% UV protection are also important.
Use a good sunscreen and apply it liberally. It should have a sun-protection factor (SPF) of 30 or higher, and screen both UV-A and UV-B rays.

Reapply sunscreen after you've been swimming or perspiring a lot.

from - What You Can Do about Ozone Depletion


----------



## Euclid

97% My ass. More like 0.3%


----------



## Lakigigar

People that adopt opinions from youtube video's rather than real scientists. :dry: You are insinuating things where you have literally no knowledge about and you are ignoring all the stuff researched by scientists.

I don't know why there are so many people in the world that don't agree with this and believe in conspiracies. This really makes me angry.

Unless you do some research about this in a university, or at least read a lot of papers about this, you have to say probably nothing.

I'm going to show it with a example what you guys are doing. Imagine that you were just a kind dad that cares about his children. But your wife flees and immediately said that you're mistreating her and her kids. The police officers know after some research that this isn't true and that she lied, but because some other guys in that same street say that you are indeed mistreating the girl and the kids, and that they saw it, the whole community where you live turns their back to you and don't want to see you and think indeed that you're a criminal, a pedophile, a misogynist. Whatever wat. Just see the movie: Jagten / The Hunt from Thomas Vinterberg. And than change the suspect into rejecting climate change.

That's what makes me so angry. So, *stop with making prejudgements about something where you have obviously no knowledge about.*


----------



## Euclid

Lakigigar said:


> People that adopt opinions from youtube video's rather than real scientists. :dry: You are insinuating things where you have literally no knowledge about and you are ignoring all the stuff researched by scientists.


I suggest you follow your own advice, as you are merely assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Lakigigar

Euclid said:


> I suggest you follow your own advice, as you are merely assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.


It's not an assumption, it's a fact. (= unless you're joking).

If not, I can only repeat this. "Stop with making prejudgements about something where you have obviously no knowledge about". It's my number one frustration.


----------



## Lakigigar




----------



## Euclid

Lakigigar said:


> It's not an assumption, it's a fact. (= unless you're joking).
> 
> If not, I can only repeat this. "Stop with making prejudgements about something where you have obviously no knowledge about". It's my number one frustration.


If you click on the watch on youtube link you'll get the references in the description. Just because it's on youtube doesn't mean you can't verify anything that's said there. Most of the things you can verify directly by looking at Cook's own study. First off he did not ask every scientist, but only a select few after selectively filtering out a bunch of papers, secondly not every scientist replied, and the vast majority that did, did not have an opinion on the subject - more filtering. Let's say if there are 5 scientists and 2 replies and 1 says yes, it doesn't mean 50% of scientists say yes, it means 20% says yes. The 97% is derived from conflating 3 categories, 2 of which the vast majority (96.6%) fall into, are practically meaningless, because climate skeptics also agree with these namely
a) that humans cause *some* global warming
b) GHG cause warming but does not explicitely say is anthropogenic (the vast majority who actually did respond and had an opinion fall into this category)
So funnily enough 97% of the 97% claimed to endorse AGW did not endorse the IPCC's definition of consensus but a broader almost meaningless definition.
So basically this is just deceptive politically motivated junk social science, employed as a strawman argument.


----------



## Lakigigar

These are not sources. I can't see most of the articles because of adblock and 'paying for read articles' what i sincerely regret. But from that research from The Economist, you can't take conclusions. It says only things about the economy in relation with global warming. The newspaper says NOTHING about climate change itself. Others are insinuating things on base of articles like that (that don't deny or confirm climate change).

I don't agree with your latest statement, and even than there are a lot of people, newspapers and politicians claiming that there is even no climate change what is bullshit. I think the vast majority agree with the fact that climate change is real and dangerous, possibly the most dangerous thing happening to world. If not, i would question their interests (economically) and their grades (and studies).

I don't want to spend a word about it. It makes me really angry that people are still diminishing the potential dangerous effects of climate (and denying it, or thinking this isn't dangerous) while it is thing where i'm the most certain of and where i know a lot about it. How longer we are waiting, how more devastating the effects would be, and i'm really ashamed to be human. So ashamed that this would be a reason itself to kill myself.

I'm really tired of all the climate sceptists.


----------



## Euclid

@Lakigar

I wasn't talking about climate change in the first place. I was talking about the study that the supposed consensus is based on from @PowerShell's article. 
Your anger does nothing but cloud your judgment. Most of the things I got off the Friend's of Science article which itself has sources listed, but I ended up checking out the study itself accurately reflecting the claims. So yes, I know what I'm talking about.

From Cook's own website:
The Consensus Project
You can read the paper. You can read the description of the categories (Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW)
and you can get the self ratings of the articles through the search tab. Enter a letter like "a" in search term thats bound to occur in all articles and you should get the number of articles that fall into each category. 
Do the math. 

Also climate skeptics can do better than 97%: 








The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% | Watts Up With That?


----------



## PowerShell

Euclid said:


> @Lakigar
> 
> I wasn't talking about climate change in the first place. I was talking about the study that the supposed consensus is based on from @_PowerShell_'s article.
> Your anger does nothing but cloud your judgment. Most of the things I got off the Friend's of Science article which itself has sources listed, but I ended up checking out the study itself accurately reflecting the claims. So yes, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> From Cook's own website:
> The Consensus Project
> You can read the paper. You can read the description of the categories (Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW)
> and you can get the self ratings of the articles through the search tab. Enter a letter like "a" in search term thats bound to occur in all articles and you should get the number of articles that fall into each category.
> Do the math.
> 
> Also climate skeptics can do better than 97%:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% | Watts Up With That?


How can you be a climate change "skeptic" when you believe it is happening and we have a part in it? Under that logic, that means we need to do something about it and minimize our role in it happening. Basically what you just posted proves my point, the only people against taking action are oil companies and other people who would ultimately have more regulation on their industry. That's who is funding these misinformation campaigns at these "alternative" think tanks.


----------



## Lakigigar

Stop mentioning me for some climate sceptist bullshit. I don't want to read it anymore. It make me literally sick.


----------



## Euclid

PowerShell said:


> How can you be a climate change "skeptic" when you believe it is happening and we have a part in it? Under that logic, that means we need to do something about it and minimize our role in it happening. Basically what you just posted proves my point, the only people against taking action are oil companies and other people who would ultimately have more regulation on their industry. That's who is funding these misinformation campaigns at these "alternative" think tanks.


Climate change skeptics just don't agree that humans are primarily responsible for global warming. That puts them in category 2 or 3 as per Cook's categorization. Only category 1 explicitely quantifies the role of humans. The rest could believe it's anywhere from but not including 0% to 50%, which is what makes the 97% figure meaningless since 97% of those 97% fall into category 2 and 3. And no it does not follow that we need to do anything about it, or that this is misinformation. The numbers are taken directly from the study in question, not climate change skeptics, proving that they are right. Check it for yourself.


----------



## PowerShell

Lakigigar said:


> Stop mentioning me for some climate sceptist bullshit. I don't want to read it anymore. It make me literally sick.


Get sick from picturing your average climate change denier:


----------



## PowerShell

Euclid said:


> Climate change skeptics just don't agree that humans are primarily responsible for global warming. That puts them in category 2 or 3 as per Cook's categorization. Only category 1 explicitely quantifies the role of humans. The rest could believe it's anywhere from but not including 0% to 50%, which is what makes the 97% figure meaningless since 97% of those 97% fall into category 2 and 3. And no it does not follow that we need to do anything about it, or that this is misinformation. The numbers are taken directly from the study in question, not climate change skeptics, proving that they are right. Check it for yourself.


If we are doing damage to the planet, in any amount, it's a good idea to stop doing it if we can. There's no way to 100% minimize our damage, but we can minimize it substantially more than we are now. Anyways, ignore climate change for a minute. What people are arguing for is to continue using dirty fossil fuels that are limited in supply and come from unstable countries that ultimately hate us. You're literally arguing to keep polluting, which pollution's effects cannot be denied. You're also sending money to countries with unstable governments and corruption and this money is often channeled in to terrorist organizations who are trying to undermine our national security. Not moving away from fossil fuels is just stupid in other realms including direct pollution and also national security.


----------



## infjhere

These same scientists were saying we were entering an ice age back in the 1970's because the earth was cooling. Now they say we are in danger of global warming. Everyone who touts this needs to step up to the plate and live their values. Stop using AC to cool your home and natural gas to warm your home because it contributes to global warming because you are using fossil fuels. Sell your car(s) and ride your bike. Don't use airplanes anymore, no cruises for vacation. Don't use the grocery store because all the energy used to keep food fresh is destroying the environment. All the foods brought from overseas on cargo ships is destroying the environment because it requires refrigerated containers and the fuel to move the ships. How about most of our clothing? Most of it is synthetic and is made from plastics, switch to linens and natural fibers. Using electronic devices puts out electrical waves that over the long term can harm us. Don't go to the hospital when you are sick because of all the energy the hospital uses to save and sustain life. This has become an ideological issue rather than a science issue. Science is always studying and researching to ensure that statements made are true and valid. For those who denounce those who disagree with global warming are denying the same science they claim they uphold. Science should be used to test truth statements. It shouldn't be used to silence the opposers.


----------



## PowerShell

infjhere said:


> These same scientists were saying we were entering an ice age back in the 1970's because the earth was cooling. Now they say we are in danger of global warming. Everyone who touts this needs to step up to the plate and live their values. Stop using AC to cool your home and natural gas to warm your home because it contributes to global warming because you are using fossil fuels. Sell your car(s) and ride your bike. Don't use airplanes anymore, no cruises for vacation. Don't use the grocery store because all the energy used to keep food fresh is destroying the environment. All the foods brought from overseas on cargo ships is destroying the environment because it requires refrigerated containers and the fuel to move the ships. How about most of our clothing? Most of it is synthetic and is made from plastics, switch to linens and natural fibers. Using electronic devices puts out electrical waves that over the long term can harm us. Don't go to the hospital when you are sick because of all the energy the hospital uses to save and sustain life. This has become an ideological issue rather than a science issue. Science is always studying and researching to ensure that statements made are true and valid. For those who denounce those who disagree with global warming are denying the same science they claim they uphold. Science should be used to test truth statements. It shouldn't be used to silence the opposers.


Or we just find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly that allow us to do all those things and enjoy the standard of living we have now. You can use an electric car and have solar panels to generate alternative energy to power that as well as your home. You can use an electric heater, geothermal, or wood burning stove (which is carbon neutral and is something my parents actually do). You can buy local at the grocery store, as many grocery stores do offer local foods. There are other natural fibers or plastics made from alternative sources.

The key is minimizing the damage and working to advance technology. The more people use the new technology, the better it will become. You don't have to revert to basically living like it's 1999BC in order to be more environmentally friendly.


----------



## Euclid

PowerShell said:


> If we are doing damage to the planet, in any amount, it's a good idea to stop doing it if we can.


By that logic I think you should stop breathing right now, or perhaps that's not CO2 you are breathing out? Is the planet sacred and all humans should be sacrificed to death to save it? We all do exhale CO2.


----------



## Euclid

"I’ve often said there are three questions that would destroy most of the arguments on the left.

The first is: ‘Compared to what?’

The second is: *‘At what cost?’*

And the third is: ‘What hard evidence do you have?’"

- Thomas Sowell


----------



## PowerShell

Euclid said:


> By that logic I think you should stop breathing right now, or perhaps that's not CO2 you are breathing out? Is the planet sacred and all humans should be sacrificed to death to save it? We all do exhale CO2.


And yet you fail to read everything I said. Notice the words, "If you can," at the end of what I said. Obviously, your lack of reading comprehension makes your conclusion invalid because you can't just stop breathing. I guess that would explain why the science backing up global warming just doesn't make any sense to you.


----------



## Euclid

PowerShell said:


> And yet you fail to read everything I said. Notice the words, "If you can," at the end of what I said. Obviously, your lack of reading comprehension makes your conclusion invalid because you can't just stop breathing. I guess that would explain why the science backing up global warming just doesn't make any sense to you.


Sure you can, you can just kill yourself. It will stop you from breathing. Your hypocrisy increases with every breath...


----------



## PowerShell

Euclid said:


> Sure you can, you can just kill yourself. It will stop you from breathing. Your hypocrisy increases with every breath...


What can't you read about, "If we can." I don't like litter being put all over the place. I can throw litter in the proper garbage or recycling bin. It's something I can voluntarily do to do my part and prevent litter. I can't voluntarily quit breathing, nor can anyone else. It would be hypocritical to complain about litter, but not dispose of my litter properly. Then again, you lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills when coming up with a valid argument.


----------



## Euclid

PowerShell said:


> What can't you read about, "If we can." I don't like litter being put all over the place. I can throw litter in the proper garbage or recycling bin. It's something I can voluntarily do to do my part and prevent litter. I can't voluntarily quit breathing, nor can anyone else. It would be hypocritical to complain about litter, but not dispose of my litter properly. Then again, you lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills when coming up with a valid argument.


I don't know if you are dense or not but killing yourself does stop breathing.


----------



## PowerShell

Euclid said:


> I don't know if you are dense or not but killing yourself does stop breathing.


And you're a troll because you tell me to kill myself yet you won't even debate. Telling someone to kill themselves is not debating, it's just being a dick.


----------



## WickerDeer

****This is a moderator warning***

Keep the discussion clean and respectful, please.


*


----------



## Stelmaria

infjhere said:


> These same scientists were saying we were entering an ice age back in the 1970's because the earth was cooling.


Stating this doesn't make it true. The media routinely misreported science back then, just like it does today.

Global warming was discussed as a significant problem even in the 1970s. The difference is the science behind the effect of various aerosols and feedback effects was not well understood and so there was variability in the models.

Example of a paper published in a "top" journal:
Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect (Nature - 1972)

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1


----------



## PowerShell

Just for the heck of it, I want to buy a Razor Ecosmart Scooter and start messing with it to mod it and learn about electric engines. Might even start using it to commute and run errands to places where the range reaches. EcoSmart Metro - Commuter, Electric Scooters


----------



## Euclid

PowerShell said:


> And you're a troll because you tell me to kill myself yet you won't even debate. Telling someone to kill themselves is not debating, it's just being a dick.


If you read carefully, you would see that I have not told you to do so. Just told you that you can stop breathing by killing yourself. If you stop breathing you stop exhaling CO2. If you stop exhaling CO2 then you stop contributing to global warming by any amount. You can stop damaging the planet by *any* amount through killing yourself. As long as you are alive you contribute to global warming by breathing. You can do this yet you refuse to.

My intention isn't that you should kill yourself, just point out the foolishiness of what you said in "by any amount". Any amount includes 0.00001%. In economics there is a law called the law of diminishing returns. Psychiatrists call it OCD. There are people who keep washing their hands for hours because they don't think they are clean enough. Sure washing them may remove a few more particles of dust and bacteria from your hands each more minute but the number will decrease over time and become microscopic, but guess what, a microscopic amount is included in *any* amount. Any reasonable person would realize that at some point the amount of cleanliness you get from spending water, soap and time is just not worth it. Compare this to the environmental hysteria of zero pollution policy. Any reasonable person would admit that there is an acceptable amount of pollution, just as there is an acceptable amount of dirt on your hands. This amount is where the cost of pollution becomes smaller than the cost of cleaning it up, likewise you stop cleaning when your hands are sufficiently clean, not 100% clean. There are however lunatics who are Gaia worshippers, who believe any amount of pollution is a crime against mother earth, and that if it takes blood sacrifice, then so be it to appease Gaia. Reasonable people however know that the planet is just an inanimate object mostly consisting of molten iron and magnesium silicates. It is not sacred, it has no inherent value. Rather they go by the proverb "As you make your bed, so you must lie in it" and avoid polluting or cleaning up after pollution to the extent it's less costly than living with the pollution.


----------



## PowerShell

Euclid said:


> My intention isn't that you should kill yourself, just point out the foolishiness of what you said in "by any amount". Any amount includes 0.00001%. In economics there is a law called the law of diminishing returns.


I understand the law of diminishing returns and hence the reason I said "if we can." If you look at my other threads, I have defended fracking and oil pipelines, because practically speaking, we still need oil. We do, however, need to look past oil and start looking into alternatives. There's a lot of stuff we can start doing that will not cut into our standard of living. We achieved an awesome standard of living with fossil fuels and now it is time to maintain that standard of living, but supply it with alternatives.

No matter what, we will have an impact on the environment. Birds get killed by windmills. Solar panels and batteries use rare earth elements and batteries can contain nasty chemicals. There is always going to be a trade off, but we need to start looking in alternatives or we're going to screw ourselves.


----------



## marblecloud95

PowerShell said:


> Just for the heck of it, I want to buy a Razor Ecosmart Scooter and start messing with it to mod it and learn about electric engines. Might even start using it to commute and run errands to places where the range reaches. EcoSmart Metro - Commuter, Electric Scooters


Why not buy a segway, lol


----------



## PowerShell

marblecloud95 said:


> Why not buy a segway, lol


Because I want something I can sit on, that has a narrower profile so I can more easily use the bike lanes, and something that costs under several hundred dollars instead of several thousand dollars. Being cheap, but having parts available is the key. I want to start modding it and if I break something, I don't want to be out several thousand dollars.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells

If it gets any hotter, I'm gonna turn into a puddle.


----------



## Cesspool

Global warming doesn't matter. I know it's real, and it's definitely man made, but even with the most grim predictions, the major effects wont be happening until the end of the century. We will be WELL into the singularity by then, and therefore global warming doesn't matter.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar

Jesus, this year is supposed to be even worse than the last one? tfw no cooling at home.


----------

