Converation thread

Why?

Beyond the nonsense of measuring 'average global temperature,' which tells us nothing, we aren't living in a flat space with evenly distributed temperature, it's also a measurement without context.

A Spring day in Ohio can start at 30° peak at 75° and end at 20°

Is 2° bad? Why? How does this reflect in the desert vs. the arctic? Where is the measurement being taken?

This isn't the 'climate.'

The globe does not have a climate.

This is essentially a scare-looking chart that tells us nothing useful but easily manipulates liberals.

This doesn't show the idea is "bunk".

Some of the "objections" are also incredibly stupid. This is like claiming averages in general are "nonsense" because they don't tell you what the variance of the data is. That doesn't make the very concept of an average nonsense or bunk.

I don't have time to answer you now. I week try to get back, but it's not a concept rooted in science

And yet climate change has been proven time and time again by scientists. It’s actually one of the most heavily studied scientific discoveries currently around. 98% of scientists believe in climate change too, that’s a great place to start.

Logical fallacy alert! (Why am I not surprised?) "98% of scientists believe in climate change"? Using that as an argument is called the Faulty Appeal to Majority Authority. The basic structure of the argument is

(1) Bill believes x.

(2) Therefore x is true.

And though you cloaked this absurdity, whether accidentally or intentionally, in your comment by making this glaring logical fallacy INDIRECTLY, the point remains that you have proven nothing, nor support anything. If climate change truly were basic science, you should have easily been able to prove it without resorting to logical absurdities. But it looks like you just defeated your own argument (again!). Please feel free to comment back whenever you feel like being logical again :)

I am stating that fact because scientists, especially on the area of climate, work with and support the fact that climate change is real. I shouldn’t have to explain every argument that I know you will contest with frequently debunked theories, but I guess it is necessary. The earth is hotter than it has been in the last ten thousand years, the last 3 years have been the hottest on human record, acidity of the ocean’s has increased 30% since the Industrial Revolution. The reason it is not the sun’s change in radiation is due to the fact that during the 1800s, our heating inc…  Read morereased dramatically faster than usual at the same time we expanded the use of fossil fuels to unprecedented amounts. Just as that use was unprecedented, unprecedented heat change coincided. Earth orbiting satellites have seen the increases in temperatures since the 60s and it’s been nothing but up, nearly at 1.5 C what it was before. Scientists have demonstrated the heat-trapping capacity of carbon dioxide and that the quantities of it increasing in the atmosphere coincides with said temperature increase. The polar ice caps are at their lowest in centuries, and from details as minute as tree-ring study, we have noticed unprecedented heat changes across the earth. It’s human caused, and this is a tiny fraction of the surface-level proof.

So essentially you're just restating the very fallacious argument you made, in different words but with the same logical hurdles? If you can't argue reasonably, don't embarrass your cause. But anyway, let's discuss your rapid "heating" that happened after the Industrial Revolution. It just so happens that climatologists have estimated there was a "Little Ice Age" or an abnormally COOL period from AD 900 to the mid 19th century. We're not getting warmer because of fossil fuels but because we are emerging from an abnormal period of cold temperatures back into the "normal range" in respect to the meteorological history of our planet...

The warming trends of the past before the little ice age were not NEARLY as high as the ones we currently have. It was a small dip, what we have is a sudden spike.

And how can you deduce that? Are there in detail records about ancient weather cycles? Or is this returning to the very fallacious reasoning I rebuffed at the start of this debate? Even if you had tangible data about the distant past, the warming trends would "not [be] NEARLY as high" because the earth was already considerably warmer than it is now, and how do we not know the warming trends weren't this high at the start of that period of normality that came before the Little Ice Age? Do you honestly know what you're talking about, or this what CNN has told you?

Because we literally mapped the warming trends from those times. Look up “Mini Ice Age Climate Change Map”. The dipping effects were a minuscule amount in comparison to a massive spike over the last 200 years.