4 ms·

It is always in how the numbers are used, cherry picking by both sides. However the real take away here is that they figured out they were wrong yet again. Of c

It is always in how the numbers are used, cherry picking by both sides. However the real take away here is that they figured out they were wrong yet again. Of course they lean towards the more extreme each time but even some publications indicate that Antarctic changes are due to natural variability. Then lets play with sea rise, the fear is always that some islands will wash away and port towns will be at further risk. Yet studies of the Marshall islands show the reverse, the islands continue to grow in the majority. What about changes leading to flooding, changes in rain fall patterns, and the like. Well the common trend is to over exaggerate unique events as if they were common place, ie Katrina leading to years of violent hurricanes wrecking the US (oops). Sixty years of studying rain falls in some central US states show no changes, the recent floods in Louisiana weren't even unusual. Even China has had an area in drought for centuries. In other words, the climate does change but we don't know all the variables and people's whose very jobs depend on income from both studying it and "fixing it" (read : GE) will always push the numbers that support their side. Just like big oil will try to claim that oil isn't the leading cause; its cows btw. So take it all with a grain of salt. Articles on Vice lean one direction and one direction only and tend to exaggerate . however those inclined to always believe this type of alarmism won't think otherwise.

merlincorey 10y ago
>In other words, the climate does change but we don't know all the variables and people's whose very jobs depend on income from both studying it and "fixing it" (read : GE) will always push the numbers that support their side. Just like big oil will try to claim that oil isn't the leading cause; its cows btw. Potentially, not anymore! http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/seaweed-livestock-methane-emissions/ http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/seaweed-livestock-methane-em...
- wott 10y ago
  In my place, animals die if they wander in places with seaweed (the sprawl of which is caused by industrial agriculture and breeding), because those produce toxic gases when they rot.
givinguflac 10y ago
This is an idiotic response at best. Are you honestly trying to say that the variations are natural? We have thousand upon thousands of years of climate details in ice cores, and while there is natural variation, the last 100 years vary more than anything else we can find in history. Here is an unbiased visual representation of all the temperature data we have from the last 20,000 years or so. Notice how the temperature does vary over time, but it takes thousands of years for the variance to occur. Scroll all the way to the bottom and look how drastically it's changed over even the last fifty years. This is the most straightforward representation I could find, and it's facts not opinion: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- brianwawok 10y ago
  You realize an infographic involves opinion right? What data to use, what scale, etc. You can't just present one graph and say you win... Both sides could find a graph or 3.
  - givinguflac 10y ago
    The data is all temperature records, and the scale shows every recorded variation. What about that is opinion??
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      1) What date range was picked? That was a choice. Look back to the last Ice Age, and you would see more variation in the data. 2) What colors are picked for the background? We are in white now and going to red? What if the colors showed us in blue, and global warming moving us to white? It is a total lie to say raw numbers don't lie. Every part about making an infograph lies. X axis. Y axis. Colors. Labels. We could take the same dataset and draw many different conclusions. (Not that global warming isn't true, but that infographic isn't enough)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - 10y ago
Freestyler_3 10y ago
I take it with a grain of salt because of the title including: "suggests" And what's the projection, will it rise 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 100, 200 or 300 meters in the next 100 years? I have seen so many numbers, I don't know what the current estimation is. Anyway I tried to make sense of the article: " This number has hovered around 0.6 inches per decade since 1900...[]...Global sea level, the paper concluded, rose no less than 5.5 inches over the last century, and likely saw an increase of 6.7 inches." lets see, 6.7 is likely. 6.7 / 10 = 0.67 inches per decade. and no less than 0.55 (lower than measured).
- Freestyler_3 10y ago
  Or can someone explain these numbers otherwise (since people seem to disagree with down-votes)
  - triplesec 10y ago
    You're confusing C20th sea level rises with projected future changes, which are much faster. (I'm sure you can find models, estimates and measurements they make the from and the associated data from climate reports)

merlincorey 10y ago

>In other words, the climate does change but we don't know all the variables and people's whose very jobs depend on income from both studying it and "fixing it" (read : GE) will always push the numbers that support their side. Just like big oil will try to claim that oil isn't the leading cause; its cows btw. Potentially, not anymore! http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/seaweed-livestock-methane-emissions/ http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/seaweed-livestock-methane-em...

wott 10y ago
In my place, animals die if they wander in places with seaweed (the sprawl of which is caused by industrial agriculture and breeding), because those produce toxic gases when they rot.

givinguflac 10y ago

This is an idiotic response at best. Are you honestly trying to say that the variations are natural? We have thousand upon thousands of years of climate details in ice cores, and while there is natural variation, the last 100 years vary more than anything else we can find in history. Here is an unbiased visual representation of all the temperature data we have from the last 20,000 years or so. Notice how the temperature does vary over time, but it takes thousands of years for the variance to occur. Scroll all the way to the bottom and look how drastically it's changed over even the last fifty years. This is the most straightforward representation I could find, and it's facts not opinion: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

brianwawok 10y ago
You realize an infographic involves opinion right? What data to use, what scale, etc. You can't just present one graph and say you win... Both sides could find a graph or 3.
- givinguflac 10y ago
  The data is all temperature records, and the scale shows every recorded variation. What about that is opinion??
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    1) What date range was picked? That was a choice. Look back to the last Ice Age, and you would see more variation in the data. 2) What colors are picked for the background? We are in white now and going to red? What if the colors showed us in blue, and global warming moving us to white? It is a total lie to say raw numbers don't lie. Every part about making an infograph lies. X axis. Y axis. Colors. Labels. We could take the same dataset and draw many different conclusions. (Not that global warming isn't true, but that infographic isn't enough)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 10y ago

Freestyler_3 10y ago

I take it with a grain of salt because of the title including: "suggests" And what's the projection, will it rise 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 100, 200 or 300 meters in the next 100 years? I have seen so many numbers, I don't know what the current estimation is. Anyway I tried to make sense of the article: " This number has hovered around 0.6 inches per decade since 1900...[]...Global sea level, the paper concluded, rose no less than 5.5 inches over the last century, and likely saw an increase of 6.7 inches." lets see, 6.7 is likely. 6.7 / 10 = 0.67 inches per decade. and no less than 0.55 (lower than measured).

Freestyler_3 10y ago
Or can someone explain these numbers otherwise (since people seem to disagree with down-votes)
- triplesec 10y ago
  You're confusing C20th sea level rises with projected future changes, which are much faster. (I'm sure you can find models, estimates and measurements they make the from and the associated data from climate reports)