User Controls
Scientists Predict There's 90% Chance Civilization Will Collapse Within 'Decades'
-
2020-08-16 at 2:26 AM UTC
-
2020-08-16 at 3:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-observations-versus-models/16865
It is the same as the one i referred you to earlier, you fucking idiot.
See the name of the link? 3000 BC - present. notice the numbers on the bottom say -3000 on teh very left and 2000 on the very right? what do you think those numbers mean?
now that thats out of the way, look at the rightmost spike, that is todays warming period. what is the most recent spike before that? look on the bottom and notice it is close to where it says 1000 AD.
you can't post globalresearch.ca and expect anyone to take you seriously. The weekly world news at the checkout counter calls that shit fake news -
2020-08-16 at 6:02 AM UTC
-
2020-08-16 at 6:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo you can't post globalresearch.ca and expect anyone to take you seriously. The weekly world news at the checkout counter calls that shit fake news
it is annotated, the sources are all on the article. is the greenland ice core data fake news? what about the vostok ones? is the National Climatic Data Center also fake news? is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fake news? -
2020-08-16 at 6:36 AM UTC
-
2020-08-16 at 6:37 AM UTC
-
2020-08-16 at 6:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev you realize we have rigorous climate data that goes back millions of years?
We didn't start collecting it until fairly recently, like in the last 100 years. Stop dodging. Did you read anything beyond the graph saying "100 years" or what? How does 100 years invalidate anything? -
2020-08-16 at 6:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE We didn't start collecting it until fairly recently, like in the last 100 years. Stop dodging. Did you read anything beyond the graph saying "100 years" or what? How does 100 years invalidate anything?
that is irrelevant, the data we have shows us what the historical temperatures were way before 100 years ago. if we had warming periods that were way warmer than this one in an age before we had industry or fossil fuels, that invalidates the lunatic theory that we are warming the planet today. -
2020-08-16 at 7:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev that is irrelevant, the data we have shows us what the historical temperatures were way before 100 years ago. if we had warming periods that were way warmer than this one in an age before we had industry or fossil fuels, that invalidates the lunatic theory that we are warming the planet today.
No it doesn't you fucking illiterate god damn moron.
That is why I keep asking if your brain short-circuited and blew a fuse after seeing the first graph, because you are either completely illiterate or deliberately trying to avoid expert scientific interpretation of the data you are totally unqualified to review.
The first graph is intended to show GROWTH RATE since 1880 and it just one EXAMPLE of anthropogenic climate change. Which has been pretty alarming considering the earth usually has these magnitudes of temperature shifts on a geologic timescale, not an anthropic one.
Everything else doesn't hinge on this graph and you're retarded on what it means anyway.
We only have granular data from since the 1880s because that is when we started collecting granular present data. There are no 2 ways to interpret this data, the rise in temperatures has been rapid due to human activity. We have climate data from millions of years ago but it's not granular down to even close to year by year, but it still shows much slower shifts than in the last 140 years.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-08-16 at 7:14 AM UTC"You burnt dinner"
"Actually no, how could I burn this dinner if it came from a much hotter supernova billions of years ago? Do you think my stove is hotter than a supernova?"The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-08-16 at 8:08 AM UTCThat's right TJ you show him the facts and don't let him pull his boomer global cooling theories somewhere else /rant
-
2020-08-16 at 8:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE No it doesn't you fucking illiterate god damn moron.
Yes it does you fucking idiot. if the middle ages was warmer than today despite no fossil fuels, that directly contradicts your theory. did they burn fossil fuels during the roman warming period too?That is why I keep asking if your brain short-circuited and blew a fuse after seeing the first graph, because you are either completely illiterate or deliberately trying to avoid expert scientific interpretation of the data you are totally unqualified to review.
One only needs to add and subtract, since 1880 the temperature rose by 1 degree yet it is still 2 degrees colder than what the temperature was in year 1000.The first graph is intended to show GROWTH RATE since 1880 and it just one EXAMPLE of anthropogenic climate change.
Prove it is anthropogenic. was the previous warming period also anthropogenic?Which has been pretty alarming considering the earth usually has these magnitudes of temperature shifts on a geologic timescale, not an anthropic one.
still need the proof of the anthropogenic assertion.We have climate data from millions of years ago but it's not granular down to even close to year by year
the resolution is mean 20 years per point i believe. why do you need it year by year?but it still shows much slower shifts than in the last 140 years.
no, it doesnt, the previous warming spike was bigger and steeper and so was the fall. the previous one before that was even worse. -
2020-08-16 at 8:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev Yes it does you fucking idiot. if the middle ages was warmer than today despite no fossil fuels, that directly contradicts your theory. did they burn fossil fuels during the roman warming period too?
If the Big Bang was warmer without burning fossil fuels, how can fossil fuels make it hotterOne only needs to add and subtract, since 1880 the temperature rose by 1 degree yet it is still 2 degrees colder than what the temperature was in year 1000.
Doesn't understand trends ^Prove it is anthropogenic. was the previous warming period also anthropogenic?
still need the proof of the anthropogenic assertion.
97% of scientists qualified to interpret the data agree on it. I'm not trying to change your mind because you don't know what you don't know.the resolution is mean 20 years per point i believe. why do you need it year by year?
We don't have direct climate data from millions of years ago at a resolution of 20 years.no, it doesnt, the previous warming spike was bigger and steeper and so was the fall. the previous one before that was even worse.
Literally nobody ever disputed that the Earth's climate changes, only asserted that human activity is causing a more rapid change in climate than ever has naturally been the case. -
2020-08-16 at 9:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE If the Big Bang was warmer without burning fossil fuels, how can fossil fuels make it hotter
So you concede our puny existence cant control the universe?Doesn't understand trends ^
Here is the long term trend:
97% of scientists qualified to interpret the data agree on it.
yes, any idiot agrees the planet has been warming the past century. whats your point?We don't have direct climate data from millions of years ago at a resolution of 20 years.
See the greenland and vostok ice cores, the isotopes are as direct as can be.Literally nobody ever disputed that the Earth's climate changes, only asserted that human activity is causing a more rapid change in climate than ever has naturally been the case.
Which is lunacy that is contradicted by the long term record. -
2020-08-16 at 12:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kev So you concede our puny existence cant control the universe?
Doubling down on being retarded^Here is the long term trend:
Hey look, an article addressing these exact graphs and their data!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/
Extract:
The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.
Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the worldyes, any idiot agrees the planet has been warming the past century. whats your point?
Yes any idiot believes it's not happening especially fast due to human activity.
The experts on the other hand, do agree that it is the case.See the greenland and vostok ice cores, the isotopes are as direct as can be.
Neither of these have a resolution of 20 years.Which is lunacy that is contradicted by the long term record.
No it isn't, it's pretty basic reasoning and climate science that you're not able to wrap your head around because it is shoved 400m up your ass, drill for shit cores to analyze for long term data. -
2020-08-16 at 1:01 PM UTCOh and just in case you have a problem with the source, David L Chandler:
http://news.mit.edu/staff-directory -
2020-08-16 at 3:10 PM UTC
-
2020-08-16 at 4:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL What about the data before the collecting of rigorous data collection?
I'm talking about rigourously recording present data as it happens. We only started doing that globally in the late 1800s.
There are very powerful techniques for gathering historical data before that such as drilling ice cores and analysing the air bubbles that get trapped in there year by year.
But of course this isn't as useful for studying what happened precisely between 1300 and 1200 BC, of course it doesn't have the same accuracy as literally collecting it live on a day by day basis with global collaboration across the board, as is the case now.
We can do longer term analysis, the "pixels" we can see are just bigger. You can still gain a lot of detailed information with statistical analysis. It's just not as good as literally recording it day by day as it happens.
And the evidence is pretty clear: the earth does not warm up this quickly naturally and it never has. -
2020-08-16 at 4:30 PM UTChow did they know how hot it was 1000 years ago? check mate TRUMP
-
2020-08-16 at 5:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE I'm talking about rigourously recording present data as it happens. We only started doing that globally in the late 1800s.
There are very powerful techniques for gathering historical data before that such as drilling ice cores and analysing the air bubbles that get trapped in there year by year.
But of course this isn't as useful for studying what happened precisely between 1300 and 1200 BC, of course it doesn't have the same accuracy as literally collecting it live on a day by day basis with global collaboration across the board, as is the case now.
We can do longer term analysis, the "pixels" we can see are just bigger. You can still gain a lot of detailed information with statistical analysis. It's just not as good as literally recording it day by day as it happens.
And the evidence is pretty clear: the earth does not warm up this quickly naturally and it never has.
So, in other words, your technique cherry picks the data, with a very convenient narrow focus.
