Oddbean new post about login | logout This year has been quite hot here. Just about the entire month of October has been 5 degrees hotter than average temps. Can’t imagine what it will be in 10 years …
Where is "here"
When you live long enough you discover that in 10 years it will be cold again and than hot again and it has never been stable
I’ve lived long enough to see that it’s only getting hotter every decade.
In 2003-2004 was waaay hotter than now. Then went back to normal.
There is no normal. On average it’s all trending up.
why is it trending up?
lol, seriously?
No it's not. Watch the long term temp recording. We are just getting out of a short iceage. After the Renaissance time when it was hotter than today it turned cold,.is just going back. Anyway you can perfectly match cold period with human degradation of quality of life and big wars and hot periods with big creations, expansions and wellbeing. We are having 3 years of El nino now.. good. Hotter more humid more plants more oxigen more life
Sure, just show me your data source that says global average temperature was hotter after the Renaissance than today. The main drivers of the "little ice age" were decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity (aerosols). These factors cannot explain the current warming we observe. The stratospheric cooling that is observed, confirms that CO2 is the primary driver of change in the last decades. The physics behind this are well established and 170 years old by now (Tyndall, Foote). The first accurate predictions of radiative forcing are 120 years old (Arrhenius). Feel free to disprove it but I'd suggest you educate yourself first
I spend my life educating myself and not believing what they want to push as a religion. There is a paper signed by thousands of scientists that disprove the CO2 theory. There is no correlation between CO2 and increase in temperature and on the opposite hot temperatures are followed by an increase in temperature. Educate yourself outside of the mainstream narrative that has other goals and not out best interests
What paper
Search it. You are on the side of people that are teaching my daughter in high school that she should not shower too often because she waste water. Because the water goes down the drain and gets burned into a black hole. Or that electric cars lower pollution because the efficiency of 4 conversions I better than one. Or they are greener because lithium fume, a neurotoxin, released by burning cars are better than CO2. Search. Educate yourself. I know where to get the data and it's public. Then search about how many metro stations do not exist and report statistical data and how many moved to urban areas and are comparing those temps to those previously recorded in the country. Educate yourself. Ban google and start using serious search engines and not propaganda tools
Red herring. As always. Why am I not surprised 🤦♂️
The fact is you want proofs but you have none. There is not one scientific paper that prove CO2 is cause of increase of temperature. Not one
Start here but then is your path if they told you to verify and don't believe everything the powerful fed you. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/
This https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
Really, a paper by a GP that brings Frederick Seitz forward as an expert on climate? Seitz was paid by big tobacco to deny smoking causes lung cancer before moving on to being paid by big oil to deny climate change
There are many if you want. Better that Bill Gates expert on climate change.
Many deniers paid for by big oil you mean? No doubt there are. But I have no clue why you feel you need to bring Bill Gates into the conversation
Because he's one of the rich that keep pushing for exterminating cows, destroying farms and having people use bike instead of cars in the name of global warming. Or you are not aware of what all this is about? Do you really think they are concerned about us?
I think you're too easily manipulated into fearing "they" and bikes But before going into all those tangents, let's go back to your original statement that you still have not substantiated. Global mean temperature wasn't warmer after the Renaissance than it is today
You are on this side.... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRjwT7mkx8
There is no such 'paper' that is peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Don't base your views on baseless speculations, a.k.a. conspiracy theories, a.k.a. misinformation, a.k.a. fake news. Scientific consensus on climate change due to human activity is crystal clear amongst actual climate scientists.
Science doesn't work with consensus. Science is not democracy. If you can repeat and experiment and get the same results it works, if not is not proven. CO2 cause of human climate change is not proven and therefore is bullshit. And this bullshit about fake news and misinformation is psychological warfare. The economical interests into pushing climate change hysteria are clear. Taxes on carbon, forcing All to change cars, new business into modifying industrial processes. Economic power bullshit. Here I have to change a car that emits 0.1% less co2 and at the same time In china they build 3 new coal power plants every month. We are not stupid and I am an engineer. Most of the people that push climate change cannot even tell quantity of CO2 and how this green house effect could be proven. And it is not
Wait a moment, I'll stop you there at the start. Scientific consensus is where scientists agree about something (scientific). In this case human caused climate change. Of course there are always nay-sayers, who disagree even when scientific facts stare them right in the face. Lay people get confused easily by these people, so leave it to experts to correctly digest available scientific information and simply just listen to what they say and follow their instructions. They're the experts.
No sir, science is based on reproducible experiment not consensus. I push you to check what the scientific method is. We are not in babilon with the high priests that has the knowledge and the people should trust them. I know well enough to understand when something is bullshit even when 10 paid scientists keep saying it's not and when the 10 that say it is are silenced by the media. As you see by the few links I send, from universities, the Senate and not from some magic priests, the consensus does not exist. The temperature are colder than 1000 years ago, the ice is not melting, the forests are not dying and CO2 correlation with temperature is a nice theory easily disproven by the comparison of CO2 prehistorical data and average temperature. Just get the graphs (not from bullshit wikipedia) and compare them.
And by the way... The average IQ of many expert is sometimes lower of the average population. There are no experts in climate change because never ever a single prediction they did turned true. Not a single one. They are quite failed as experts
Well... Actually there are climate change scientists and the scientific consensus amongst them is that greenhouse gases are causing the currently observed global warming and other changes of a delicate balance of our ecosystem. Apparently is bad, really bad and getting worse quickly because of various feedback loops. The paper I gave elsewhere in this discussion is one of many clearly showing this. The average I.Q. of scientists is at least a standard deviation or two or even more, above the population average (which is 100 per definition).
Well it was. Now the average is 90 not 100 any more and most of the scientists are not. They just publish papers of some of their helpers and students in their name and get famous for things they never did. Today most of the people under the spotlight are friends of friends and not very smart people. Anyway no, if you check the few test made in universities,.while you see some more that 100I.Q I can tell that if you are 2 to 3 deviation more than that you cannot tolerate to give as sure assumptions that not even your teachers can justify or explain. Very smart people never even finish college because they don't need that.
Right... I'm beginning to see what your problem is: an inflated sense of your own capacities. The average I.Q. is still and always 100, per definition (read up on it).
Definitions are not reality. Check the world chart of IQ and how it declined in the last decades. Things move,.things change,.systems update. The definition was made on the western world citizens when the world population was half or less than now. Sorry it not still and it's not always. Dogmatism is not associated with intelligence.
Are you really that misinformed? Decline? Have you not heard about the Flynn-effect? Also: "The level of intelligence, in other words the Intelligence Quotient, is always a comparison with the sample or group of individuals that took part in the creation of the test and is therefore always a relative measurement." and "Average IQ of a group is always 100" https://www.brain-testing.org/intelligence-quotient-iq
You live by definitions. Informed a lot about the synthetic world they build. You cannot question it and cannot access real data that disprove it. You are trying to fight me over a definition that clearly does not work. If in a group the average IQ is always 100 how do you fuck compare groups? How is this even useful. How the heck all the IQ tests work if they are relative to a group only. Wake up theorist we live in a real world. 100 IQ was set decades ago on a control group of white westerners. The average of the entire planet is way under that and the mixed western countries too.
Read the text on the page I gave. "Nowadays psychologists continue to use Thurstone's deviation method. Any IQ score hence represents the relative position in comparison to the individuals that took part in the test calculations (called test sample) according to a normal distribution of intelligence". – hence gaussian distribution in which IQ 100 is average.
You literally copied : the average IQ of a group is always 100. Do you at least read what you copy. I do not expect this indoctrinated generation to create their own points of view but at least do not copy two definitions that collide to each other. And,.by the way.. what should mean that you send me links? I know how to browse. I was here before Internet was born. The easy concept I referred is: the average IQ of the humans population is lower than 50 years ago. You can mess up with definitions how much you want but humanity turned stupid.
So you can't grasp what it reads. How can you then expect to discuss it?
What should I grasp. I'm explaining a concept and you keep copying definitions that do not matter at all.
IQ tests are statistics and clearly defined. Your concepts are pseudoscientific nonsense at best and quite baseless. Where did you get the idea that IQ is 'declining'. IQ is always relative to a representive test group, at a certain time, within a certain population. Just statistics, nothing more. Study the info.
Not going to lose more time on this discussion. Sorry. Be happy.
There is no discussion: you're not qualified and presumably not very intelligent (base level IQ or below). I had lost interest in your speculations already.
Yes sure. Self esteem issues. Need to try to lower others to feel better. I understand don't worry..have fun
80 IQ pleb here checking in
Silly new generation. Can't discuss about things, just copy link and wants to feel smart. Life accomplishments ZERO ahha
Well... Actual you're the one who felt the urge to present your baseless and unfounded speculations to the public. When confronted with this it became quickly clear that you don't havr a clue how IQ-tests work and how the numbers csn be used. That's a clear sign of a low IQ. Sorry for you.
Second and third graph in the second row. As I said reality is not told on Google and tv and unfortunately not even in universities Any more. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm
That page literally says "Data obtained from Internet sources". That's not a reference, it's not even an opinion I can check. Why do you think those graphs stop at 1900 AD? What would they look like of you would include the last 50 years of warming? This is just online quackery. Fine if you're just trolling, but scientifically worthless
It's pretty hard to measure temperature. Even with the most modern readings, because most of the earth is water, and we cant measure the deep ocean. The Argo network is under funded. Satellite data from the polls can vary. That's even with modern space technology. Before that we had proxy methods such as tree rings and ice cores which are even more sketcy. But you can safely say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that traps heat. And since energy cant be created of destroyed acc. to the well-tested 2nd law of thermodynamics, you can assume that the heat goes somewhere. And that C02 has a log effect on temperature, with possible feedback mechanisms, mainly water vapour. Figuring out temperature involves a lot more detective work that people realize. And scientists dont want to admit that, because it's red meat for the skeptics. Then there is the sensationalism in the media which doesnt help. We probably have warmed about 1.5C in 150 years and c02 probably is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, on land, but in also some strange cycles in the ocean. There is an awful lot of detective work that is needed to come to that conclusion, but it's prolly just about right. Whether this is catestrophic is anyone's guess. Probably not, but those wanting to be cautious have a point. Using it as a tax strategy is non-sensical, tho. If humans were able to solve simple problems, climate change might be a good one to tackle. But we are barely able to stop ourselves nuking each other, in which case we'll need all the heat we can get. Maybe we'll get smarter when the machines help us think for ourselves...
Probably cooler. We're at a peak in solar as activity.
Kinda doubt it given the trend.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/world/solar-maximum-activity-2024-scn/index.html
Doesn’t say anything about temps.
Solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures. All of the energy on earth comes from the sun.
What I mean is the greenhouse effect will make any change in temp from solar cycle less noticeable.
The sun is a far greater variable in our climate than we will ever be.
This simply isn’t true.
I simply disagree.
