-74

Ask a progressive liberal about global cooling and the coming ice age and they’ll look at you like a deer caught in the headlights. Amirite?

Image for post Ask a progressive liberal about global cooling and the coming ice age and they’ll look at you like a deer caught in the headlights. Amirite?
9%Yeah You Are91%No Way
TheSimmeringFrogs avatar Politics
Share
1 29
The voters have decided that TheSimmeringFrog is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

A few people were concerned about Global cooling was due to aerosols in the 70's. Yet, the majority were concerned about warming.

Image in content

"So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. " What 1970s science said about global cooling
Posted on 26 February 2008 by John Cook

https://skepticalscience.com/Wh...l-cooling.html

vegans avatar vegan No Way +6Reply

That's what loony liberals started with, when they couldn't get anyone to b believe that, they switched to global warming and the end of the world coming every 10 to 15 years.

DandyDons avatar DandyDon Yeah You Are -4Reply
@DandyDon That's what loony liberals started with, when they couldn't get anyone to b believe that, they switched to global...

Most scientists predicted warming, although a few predicted cooling due to aerosols. Misrepresentation and cherry picking fallacy.

vegans avatar vegan No Way +5Reply
@Thinkerbell They were closer to the truth the first time.

Co2 from the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change.

vegans avatar vegan No Way +3Reply
@vegan Co2 from the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change.

Then why was the rate of global temperature increase the same between 1910-1940 as it was between 1980-2010?  The levels of CO2, as well as the rates of emissions, were much  higher in the latter period.
 
Image in content

@Thinkerbell Then why was the rate of global temperature increase the same between 1910-1940 as it was between 1980-2010?  The...

I do not know the source of the graphic, and thus cannot validate its authenticity. Next, we don't know what the graph is measuring, surface air temperature, atmospheric temp, ocean temp, or land temperature.
.
Image in content

As per the above picture from skeptical science, a reliable pro science website, ocean temperatures are increasing.

https://skepticalscience.com//g...ed-in-1998.htm

vegans avatar vegan No Way +6Reply
@vegan I do not know the source of the graphic, and thus cannot validate its authenticity. Next, we don't know what the...

The graph comes from Skeptical Science, and you have recently posted the very same graph yourself.
Since the data go back over 100 years, I assume it plots global surface temperature.
 
https://skepticalscience.com/Ha...g-Stopped.html

@Thinkerbell They were closer to the truth the first time.

I think the liberals should start a coat drive, for polar bears.
They could have a commercial, showing a polar bear and 2 cubs and talk about how cold the bears are and make them look sad.

Then whatever coats the libs don't steal for their selves, they should take them and go personally put them on the polar bears. hehe smilie

DandyDons avatar DandyDon Yeah You Are -8Reply
@DandyDon I think the liberals should start a coat drive, for polar bears. They could have a commercial, showing a polar bear...

Polar bears are starving to death due to loss of habitat, melting of ice.

"Because of melting sea ice, it is likely that more polar bears will soon starve, warns a new study that discovered the large carnivores need to eat 60 percent more than anyone had realized. Turns out they are high-energy beasts, burning through 12,325 calories a day—despite sitting around most of the time, according to a unique metabolic analysis of wild bears published Thursday in Science." By Stephen Leahy

PUBLISHED February 1, 2018

https://www.nationalgeographic....a-environment/

vegans avatar vegan No Way +1Reply
@DandyDon I think the liberals should start a coat drive, for polar bears. They could have a commercial, showing a polar bear...

Nah, Gov, Newsom and other lefty governors would issue executive orders saying conservatives had to put the coats on the polar bears, because it was Trump's fault the bears were cold. hehe smilie

@vegan Polar bear are in danger of becoming extinct. ...

There seems to be varying expert opinion about the imminence of polar bear extinction.
 
https://www.canadiangeographic....ut-polar-bears

@Thinkerbell There seems to be varying expert opinion about the imminence of polar bear extinction.  ...

Well, mediabiasfactcheck has not given a review of candiangeographic. I have no idea if the link you posted is reliable or not.

"News like this leaves climate-change deniers crowing from the rooftops. But a closer look reveals that everything may not be quite so sunny. “Some populations appear to be doing OK now, but what’s frightening is what might happen in the very near future,” says wildlife biologist Lily Peacock, who has worked with polar bears for the Government of Nunavut and the U.S. Geological Survey. “All indications are that the future does not look bright.” While population trends might appear stable, she says, “we’re picking up declines in body condition that are really frightening.” Scientists have shown a direct correlation between warm years and skinny bears. Even more distressing, one study predicted that 40 to 73 percent of pregnant females could fail to deliver healthy cubs if ice breakup happens one month earlier than in the 1990s. Polar bears are long-lived animals that reproduce slowly; counting the number of animals that are alive today might not paint an accurate picture." By Zac Unger
December 1, 2012

Second, look at the date, 2012. The information is a little bit dated. Compare that to the skeptical science which was last updated in 2017.

"Last updated on 22 July 2017 by pattimer."

If both sources are equally valid, I would take the more recent source, since it has more information. Since skeptical science is pro-science and high factual reporting, skepticalscience wins.

Finally, from your source there is more than few worrying signs about polar bears. I would not conclude from reading this that polar bears are just fine.

Furthermore, I submit more evidence, Snopes.com the go to site when separating truth from myth.

"
What's True

An analysis of 13 of 19 Arctic polar bear subpopulations, which collectively make up about 80% of the species, determined many of those populations were likely or very likely to experience reproductive failure, a precursor to extinction. Though moderate emissions reductions will likely prolong the survival rates of some, it is likely that at least some of the population will become locally extinct within this century.
" snopes
Madison Dapcevich Published 22 July 2020

Now from Nasa:

"
Sept. 14, 2016
Polar Bears Across the Arctic Face Shorter Sea Ice Season

Polar bears are among the animals most affected by the seasonal and year-to-year decline in Arctic sea ice extent, because they rely on sea ice for essential activities such as hunting, traveling and breeding.

A new study by University of Washington researchers, funded by NASA and using satellite data from NASA and other agencies, found a trend toward earlier sea ice melt in the spring and later ice growth in the fall across all 19 polar bear subpopulations, which can negatively impact the feeding and breeding capabilities of the bears. The paper, published on Sept. 14 in the journal The Cryosphere, is the first to quantify the sea ice changes in each polar bear subpopulation across the entire Arctic region using metrics that are specifically relevant to polar bear biology." Nasa

Thank you for continuing the conversation.

Sources.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-che...tinct-by-2100/
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/go...sea-ice-season

vegans avatar vegan No Way +4Reply
@DandyDon

Polar bears are now in danger of going extinct from melting sea ice they need to hunt for food. Before they were in danger from over hunting. There's a myth going around that polar bears numbers are increasing. That is largely due to a hunting ban.

vegans avatar vegan No Way +4Reply

Nah, they would just use their usual "old news, nobody thinks about that anymore" excuse. think smilie

@Thinkerbell Nah, they would just use their usual "old news, nobody thinks about that anymore" excuse.

You might catch a liberal off guard because they never heard of the dis proven theory. Sort of like not hearing about Lamarckism theory of evolution or the hollow Earth theory. Nevertheless the cooling was caused by Aerosols and most literature on climate in the 1970's thought the planet was going to warm due to co2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

vegans avatar vegan No Way +5Reply
@vegan You might catch a liberal off guard because they never heard of the dis proven theory. Sort of like not hearing...

I'd be surprised if Halley didn't retract his hollow Earth hypothesis after Newton's theory of gravitation came out.  After that, it was an elementary calculation to prove that the Earth could not be hollow.
 
And as for Lamarck, it seems that epigenetics may have breathed a bit of new life into his ideas.

Actually, we are on the cusp of a new ice age, so if anthropogenic global warming is true, it couldn't have happened at a better time.   biggrin smilie
 
Image in content

@Thinkerbell Actually, we are on the cusp of a new ice age, so if anthropogenic global warming is true, it couldn't have...

There are natural cycles of warming and cooling. Yet, manmade co2 from burning of fossil fuels is happening much quicker than the usual heating and cooling. Just look at your graph and see the epic long time line. How slow the heating and cooling usually are.

"The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels."

YouTube video thumbnailps://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

vegans avatar vegan No Way +5Reply
@vegan There are natural cycles of warming and cooling. Yet, manmade co2 from burning of fossil fuels is happening much...

If you look closely at the graph, the transition periods can occur over a time scale of one or two thousand years.  If it hadn't been for the industrial revolution and the assumed CO2 warming, it is possible that we would not have recovered from the "mini-ice age", and could have been a degree C or so colder today than we were then.

@Thinkerbell If you look closely at the graph, the transition periods can occur over a time scale of one or two thousand years...

Well, I don't know where you got the graph, so I cannot validate whether it is accurate or not. We are not going into a mini ice age. Second, the mini ice age in the 1650 to 1715 was only the northern hemisphere. Global warming effects the entire planet.

"But every so often, the Sun becomes quieter for longer periods of time, experiencing much fewer sunspots and giving off less energy. This is called a "Grand Solar Minimum," and the last time this happened, it coincided with a period called the "Little Ice Age" (a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715 in the Northern Hemisphere, when a combination of cooling from volcanic aerosols and low solar activity produced lower surface temperatures)." Blog | February 13, 2020, 14:02 PST
There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age' By NASA Global Climate Change

Image in content

As you can see from the graph, from the below link at nasa, that the change would be -.4C instead we are plus 1C. If Sun activity were reversed we would have a total of +1.8C. The rapid rate of which the climate is changing is the problem.

Btw, I really like this website, amirite.com. I've seen so many other websites go into decay or are more difficult to use.

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2...-mini-ice-age/

vegans avatar vegan No Way +4Reply
@vegan Well, I don't know where you got the graph, so I cannot validate whether it is accurate or not. We are not going...

"As you can see from the graph, from the below link at nasa, that the change would
be -.4C "
 
No, I don't think so. The yellow solar line corresponds to the left vertical axis, not the right vertical axis. For what you say to make sense, the red (temperature) data curve and the yellow (solar) curve would have to be referenced to the same zero of temperature at the same year. They obviously do not do this.
 
Instead, the two data sets have merely been arbitrarily offset so as not to interfere with each other. In another version of the same data, the offset is different, so by your argument, the solar effect "should" be -0.5 C instead of -0.4 C.
 
Image in content
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ty_and_climate

@Thinkerbell "As you can see from the graph, from the below link at nasa, that the change would be -.4C "   No, I don't think...

Honestly, I do not know why the two graphs are different. I'm not a climate scientist. I do know that it is easy for the layperson to misinterpret data.

This reminds me of a time I debated a creationist. I couldn't make heads out of tails what the creationist was talking about. I followed the creationist's links and still couldn't understand.

Finally, I went to an evolution site and it made sense. The concepts were simple, yet the creationist's argument was incoherent possibly deliberately so.

Anyways, it sounds like your implying the data has been tampered with somehow. This may not be your argument, I just find your argument so incoherent I have to guess what you are stating. This is an appeal to ambiguity.

"What the science says...
The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data. "

Thinking that the data was tampered with is a conspiracy theory. Better get out your tin foil hat. There are many organizations and to pull of a conspiracy this large would be extremely difficult. The data is correct.

Here is a list of 200 organizations that would be need to be infiltrated for a conspiracy to take place.

Image in content

Sources.
https://skepticalscience.com/CR...ature-data.htm
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/li...nizations.html

vegans avatar vegan No Way +2Reply
@vegan Honestly, I do not know why the two graphs are different. I'm not a climate scientist. I do know that it is easy...

“Honestly, I do not know why the two graphs are different.”
 
I already explained why they are different. The vertical offset of the two data sets is of no consequence; it is arbitrary.
Think of the two data sets being plotted on two separate plastic transparencies (such as might be used on an old-fashioned overhead projector), the yellow irradiance curve corresponding to the left vertical irradiance axis, and the red temperature data corresponding to the right vertical temperature axis. Both transparencies use the same horizontal time axis.
Now imagine laying one transparency over the other so that the horizontal offset is zero; i.e., that the times (in years) match each other. It is perfectly obvious that for the purposes of comparing the variations  of temperature against the variations of irradiance, the vertical offset makes no difference.
 
Here is a similar plot from Skeptical Science, using the NASA data for temperature, but a different group’s data for irradiance, with yet another vertical offset.
 
Image in content
 
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=5
 
“Anyways, it sounds like your implying the data has been tampered with somehow. This may not be your argument, I just find your argument so incoherent I have to guess what you are stating.”
 
No, I’m not implying data tampering… you simply did not understand my argument, nor did you understand the significance of the original plots. I tried explaining it again above.
 
“Thinking that the data was tampered with is a conspiracy theory. Better get out your tin foil hat.”
Ad hominem now…? Tsk,tsk.

@Thinkerbell “Honestly, I do not know why the two graphs are different.”   I already explained why they are different. The...

Alright, so you are not implying a conspiracy theory. Then I ask what is the relevance? If you are correct, this hardly disproves anthropogenic climate change. For example, if one chart is slightly off this doesn't disprove ocean acidification, polar bear dwindling numbers, rising ocean temperatures, the 97% scientific consensus, and tremendous amount of other evidence that supports anthropogenic climate change and co2 from burning of fossil fuels as the main driver.

As for the supposed ad hominem, I was mocking conspiracy theories in general. That most conspiracy theories are ridiculous. I meant no offense, yet being the written word, I could see where my statement could be perceived as a personal attack on you, I apologize for any confusion.

Back to the original point, you said if it wasn't for global warming we could still be a degree C or lower.

" and could have been a degree C or so colder today than we were then." Thinkerbell

I said that global warming from Co2 greatly outpaces solar maximum and minimums and I show a graph. Then, you talk about very specific details about the graph which is beyond my knowledge scope at this time. I can neither verify nor deny your claim with my current knowledge.

Yet, this doesn't mean I am incorrect. I've had flat Earthers bring up very specific and bizarre arguments about gyroscopes I could not refute at the time. I still can't refute the Flat Earth gyroscope argument even after watching hours of youtubes and reading about flat Earth arguments and rebuttals. Nevertheless this did nothing to convince me that I was wrong. The Earth is still roughly spherical in shape.

Someday I may stumble upon the correct counterargument for the flat Earth gyroscopes and the same with this specific argument. To think you've won simply because I cannot understand and counter your argument right away is an on the spot fallacy.

I just don't have the time at the moment to spend hours learning about how graphs are made and overlays. I don't feel bad because there are 198 known climate change denier arguments it is difficult to be an expert on every single one and disprove each one. Let alone any novel arguments that may be manufactured in the future.

I may reply tomorrow or never at all. As for evolution versus creationism, I thought I could easily win just as I did with the Flat Earther. I was wrong, the creationist knew way more about evolution than me.

I forget most of what I was taught about evolution. I thought evolution = dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are real, you know Jurassic Park. When the creationist starting talking about fossils, I'm like what in the world is a fossil? Why aren't we talking about dinosaurs? Let alone the more detailed arguments about transitional fossils.

I did eventually read Bill Nye's book Evolution undeniable and did well against creationists. In fact, I found it faster to read Bill Nye's book and understand as opposed to looking solely at creationists arguments and websites.

Back to the original post made my Simmeringfrog.

"Ask a progressive liberal about global cooling and the coming ice age and they’ll look at you like a deer caught in the headlights. Amirite?" simmeringfrog

I think most liberals would recognized this as climate change denial propaganda. Just as the Tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and lung cancer the fossil fuel industry has denied climate change. The industries in both cases hired professional deceivers who's product was doubt of legitimate science.

YouTube video thumbnail

Only a minority ever feared a coming Ice Age and that was due to Aerosols. Koala bears are in danger of going extinct over climate change. The time to act is now. Think of the Koalas.

"Koalas are listed as vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which has named the species one of 10 animals most vulnerable to climate change. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is decreasing the nutritional quality of eucalyptus leaves (which is already quite low) and causing longer, more intense droughts and wildfires. In response to drought, koalas are forced to stop napping and come down from the trees to find water, spending precious energy and putting them at a higher risk of predation. " nationalgeographic

Image in content

https://www.nationalgeographic....mmals/k/koala/

vegans avatar vegan No Way +8Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.