Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

Global Warming discussion: is it a hoax?


  • Please log in to reply

#51
tim the weatherman

Posted 18 January 2015 - 08:52 PM

tim the weatherman

    timtheweatherman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1169 posts
  • Locationmomence il

it was al gore that started this global warming hoax in the begin with anyway. :P



#52
Scott26

Posted 18 January 2015 - 09:07 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Amigo, there is not one shred of evidence that global warming (which isn't even happening) is caused by humans, not a shred. Its all theory. I have not conceded a single thing, only for arguments sake. If you wish to read about manipulated data, click on one of the many links I have provided. Its called climategate.

So the theory of evolution, plate tectonics and the big bang all have zero evidence as well? You never say "just a theory" in science. A theory has to go through the scientific method and peer review without anything disproving it. The anthropogenic global warming theory is no different. You have to begin researching more if you still believe there isn't a shred of evidence. Here is a nice website to start out http://skepticalscience.com/.  Also I'm well aware of so called climategate scandal where deniers took the emails out of context to try to prove their point. Here is a nice explanation of what really occurred from Wikpedia.

 

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29]The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33]The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]



#53
Scott26

Posted 18 January 2015 - 09:34 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

I appreciate your input and passion, I really do. But you are young and very naive to how politics affects just about everything, including "climate change". I wouldn't have known any better at your age either. It's something you will learn as you get older. The facts are that the earth hasn't warmed with any significance in what, 17 years? The nyt article claims 2014 is the warmest in history, when it is merely .2 degrees warmer than the previous high. Translation insignificant and well within the margin of error on record keeping. To make a claim that 2014 is the warmest ever was done for one purpose only, hyperbole to attract attention and make more money.

Thanks for the compliment at the very beginning that is. I am young that is true, but I'm definitely not naive. I think you found a new discovery in proportional reasoning maybe you will win a Nobel Prize. So let me get this straight. As I increase with age, I am less naive and my global warming denialism increases. Very interesting...tell me how your thesis goes. Hopefully it won't be called a government conspiracy in an attempt to strike fear into our hearts and take our money. All jokes aside(I am joking btw, I'm just trying to poke some fun at you) I'm just getting a bunch of anecdotal evidence instead of anybody giving me a nice explanation with some data. The problem is you can't take it from the NASA, NOAA or EPA websites because apparently they're all in on the world's largest conspiracy. I guess when I take my exam on the global warming unit this semester I should put a giant x through it and sleep through the rest of the period. Since I'm starting to sound a bit too smart-alecky I want to explain to you guys I reached my conclusion through pouring over the data as well. I'm far from an expert, but since tracking the weather and climate is a passion of mine I have spent a lot of time reading and watching videos and pouring over the data to formulate my own viewpoint on this subject. I did not walk into this with a one-sided thought process...



#54
Money

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:51 AM

Money

    Special Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6684 posts

Thanks for the compliment at the very beginning that is. I am young that is true, but I'm definitely not naive. I think you found a new discovery in proportional reasoning maybe you will win a Nobel Prize. So let me get this straight. As I increase with age, I am less naive and my global warming denialism increases. Very interesting...tell me how your thesis goes. Hopefully it won't be called a government conspiracy in an attempt to strike fear into our hearts and take our money. All jokes aside(I am joking btw, I'm just trying to poke some fun at you) I'm just getting a bunch of anecdotal evidence instead of anybody giving me a nice explanation with some data. The problem is you can't take it from the NASA, NOAA or EPA websites because apparently they're all in on the world's largest conspiracy. I guess when I take my exam on the global warming unit this semester I should put a giant x through it and sleep through the rest of the period. Since I'm starting to sound a bit too smart-alecky I want to explain to you guys I reached my conclusion through pouring over the data as well. I'm far from an expert, but since tracking the weather and climate is a passion of mine I have spent a lot of time reading and watching videos and pouring over the data to formulate my own viewpoint on this subject. I did not walk into this with a one-sided thought process...

 

There's this famous saying: ""If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain,""

 

You're young, so you have time to learn, but please don't fall into the global warming bullshit that was started by Al Gore who is benefiting personally from this. 


  • Grizzcoat likes this

#55
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 06:13 AM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

There's this famous saying: ""If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain,""

 

You're young, so you have time to learn, but please don't fall into the global warming bullshit that was started by Al Gore who is benefiting personally from this. 

Money, is the United States the only country in the world? 10,188 scientists from at least 74 different countries endorsed human-caused global warming. How is it possible that Al Gore started all of this? A failed presidential candidate starts the so-called conspiracy and suddenly all these scientists from 74 different countries jump on the bandwagon? You're just not making any sense and you know it. You guys are all sounding like a broken record now. You figured out that you can't disprove me with science so instead you're regurgitating similar responses.

 

"The crowd-sourcing nature of The Consensus Project enabled us to perform an analysis an order of magnitude greater than previous analyses. We identified 10,188 scientists who had authored climate abstracts endorsing human-caused global warming. These scientists came from at least 74 different countries. We identified nationality from email addresses and given that emails were not obtained for all scientists, it is expected that the number of countries is an underestimate. This indicates the scientific consensus involves a large community of scientists scattered all over the world." http://theconsensusproject.com/



#56
tbone8

Posted 19 January 2015 - 10:28 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Money, is the United States the only country in the world? 10,188 scientists from at least 74 different countries endorsed human-caused global warming. How is it possible that Al Gore started all of this? A failed presidential candidate starts the so-called conspiracy and suddenly all these scientists from 74 different countries jump on the bandwagon? You're just not making any sense and you know it. You guys are all sounding like a broken record now. You figured out that you can't disprove me with science so instead you're regurgitating similar responses.

 

As others have said, hopefully when you mature you will see how this is nothing more than nonsense. As I said, all the rage in the 70's was global cooling, but you chose to ignore that. If it had the funding that global warming has today, we would probably still be talking about it. You choose to ignore that in the past, CO2 and temps were much higher and still the earth carrys on. There are people a lot smarter than you and I that don't buy into this nonsense, how do you explain that? Conspiracy? Not a shred of evidence backing man made global warming, just studies and warped statistics for which there are studies saying the exact opposite. Conspiracy? Well no, you have this fictitious 97% out on thin air number. Home come 97% on this board don't agree? I know, I know, another conspiracy...



#57
Glacier

Posted 19 January 2015 - 10:56 AM

Glacier

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Little bit of overtime here while we all wait for an actual big snowstorm to come:

http://www.nytimes.c...-2010.html?_r=0

There's a 64% chance that 2014 was not the warmest year on record... http://www.dailymail...sure-right.html

 

Only fools make predictions -- especially about the future.



#58
Maxim

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:23 PM

Maxim

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts

post-1201-0-17383700-1421498508.png



#59
Maxim

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:24 PM

Maxim

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts

201401-201411.gif



#60
Maxim

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:24 PM

Maxim

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts

post-1201-0-23650100-1419957498.gif



#61
Maxim

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:28 PM

Maxim

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 998 posts

What I find interesting is the rapid rise in ocean temperatures the last two years. Could possibly be related to the increase in the PDO index, but there's no doubt the planet has been warming. 


  • Scott26 likes this

#62
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 01:19 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

What I find interesting is the rapid rise in ocean temperatures the last two years. Could possibly be related to the increase in the PDO index, but there's no doubt the planet has been warming. 

PDO values are relatively low up to 2014 where they did rapidly increase. Here they're up to 2013... You can see there was an increase from 1980-2005, but they quickly dropped off from that point forward. It shows that it's relatively null in terms of the ocean still getting warmer at a very fast rate. It also makes sense that the oceans are warming a lot faster than land in terms of anthropogenic caused reasons. A lot of that 400 ppm of CO2 that we're now releasing into our atmosphere is going into our oceans. 1935-1945 had a similar spike in PDO and you can see a slight spike in ocean temps. Between 1980-2005 you can see the rapid increase and after 2005 it still didn't level off much with the PDO sinking.

Attached Files



#63
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 01:45 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

post-1201-0-17383700-1421498508.png

The year 2013 is what really fascinates me as well in terms of ocean temperatures. The PDO was negative every single month except one and the oceans warmed as fast or even faster than any year between 1935-1945 with as high as a 2.0 PDO. You would expect 2014 to increase due to the rapidly increasing PDO, but the fact 2013 did with a similar rate as 2014 is truly eye popping.



#64
tbone8

Posted 19 January 2015 - 02:06 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

CO2-01.jpg

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you guys think 150 years with of data means anything. It is a grain of sand in a huge sand dune. Lets look at the big picture, a graph from the past 400,000 years from ice core data. Hmmm, what can we see? Believe it or not, temps rose, then then fell, then they rose and on and on. Its called nature folks. Way before us evil pollution spewing humans infested the air we breath. Can anyone explain this? It really isn't rocket science, its common sense.


  • Geos likes this

#65
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 02:29 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

CO2-01.jpg

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you guys think 150 years with of data means anything. It is a grain of sand in a huge sand dune. Lets look at the big picture, a graph from the past 400,000 years from ice core data. Hmmm, what can we see? Believe it or not, temps rose, then then fell, then they rose and on and on. Its called nature folks. Way before us evil pollution spewing humans infested the air we breath. Can anyone explain this? It really isn't rocket science, its common sense.

The greenhouse gas effect isn't rocket science either. It's beyond me how you think pumping 400 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere has a negligible effect on our climate. Of course surface temps go up and down regardless throughout time, but we understand the recent spike is mostly of man-made cause. Is it complete coincidence that average global temps, ocean temps and sea-levels began to dramatically increase shortly after the industrial revolution where we have been pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere at any point in the world's history? It has likely been a long time since you have been in science class tbone. Read up on the greenhouse effect before you continue to repeat the same old jargon.



#66
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 02:39 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Usually the ups and downs are also not this extreme...

Attached Files



#67
tbone8

Posted 19 January 2015 - 02:55 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

The greenhouse gas effect isn't rocket science either. It's beyond me how you think pumping 400 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere has a negligible effect on our climate. Of course surface temps go up and down regardless throughout time, but we understand the recent spike is mostly of man-made cause. Is it complete coincidence that average global temps, ocean temps and sea-levels began to dramatically increase shortly after the industrial revolution where we have been pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere at any point in the world's history? It has likely been a long time since you have been in science class tbone. Read up on the greenhouse effect before you continue to repeat the same old jargon.

It is you that does not understand atmospheric science. Maybe you should spend more time in the classroom instead of popping off about how smart you think you are.

 

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

 

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD


  • Geos likes this

#68
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 04:51 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Usually the ups and downs are also not this extreme...


The Mann et al 1999 "Hockeystick" is a badly flawed paleoclimatological reconstruction. You lose any credibility you have credibility when you use data like that..

The GISP2 cores are much more accurate because they capture temperature/humidity variations on a much higher resolution, and the because isotopic weighting analysis used allows us to interpolate global temperatures fairly easily as the heavier isotopes are dropped at lower latitudes..

Here's the GISP2 data: http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu

Today's temperatures are well within the realm of natural variability. The observed global temperature swings in the GISP2 cores are largely due to shift in the planetary circulation(s) and cloud cover..CO^2 forcing is extremely low frequency and inefficient on a molecular level:

1024.jpg
  • Geos likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#69
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 04:57 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

It is you that does not understand atmospheric science. Maybe you should spend more time in the classroom instead of popping off about how smart you think you are.

 

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

 

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

First of all, I didn't mean to offend you in anyway so I'm sorry if I did. I'm far from a genius... I view myself as an intelligent person, but my knowledge comes from spending a lot of free time researching about the weather and climate because I'm passionate about the atmospheric sciences.

 

What is said by Jeffrey A. Glassman is viewed by most of the science community as mostly incorrect. He is arguing that CO2 lags behind temperature and therefore global warming causes further CO2 increase. He is correct about a couple of things though, but this does very little to help your argument. He is wrong about CO2 not causing and amplifying global temperature increases. 90 percent of glacial-interglacial warming occurred after the atmospheric CO2 increase as shown in this diagram. The warming of oceans do indeed release CO2 creating a positive feedback loop. This is necessary to switch between glacial and interglacial periods since orbital changes aren't significant enough. The reason why this doesn't serve your argument is because this only exacerbates global warming. It's just adding on to the anthropogenic warming of the Earth by emitting even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Source: http://skepticalscie...ntermediate.htm

Attached Files



#70
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:01 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
The blog "SkepticalScience" is not an adequate source for scientific analysis because their work does not go through the peer review process. A large majority of what they post is pure crap..the site's owner (John Cook) is a cartoonist, not a scientist.

You won't see me linking to WattsupWithThat, because the same rules apply. The peer review process has its flaws, no doubt, but at least it sets standards.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#71
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:05 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

The greenhouse gas effect isn't rocket science either. It's beyond me how you think pumping 400 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere has a negligible effect on our climate. Of course surface temps go up and down regardless throughout time, but we understand the recent spike is mostly of man-made cause. Is it complete coincidence that average global temps, ocean temps and sea-levels began to dramatically increase shortly after the industrial revolution where we have been pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere at any point in the world's history? It has likely been a long time since you have been in science class tbone. Read up on the greenhouse effect before you continue to repeat the same old jargon.


That didn't happen..it is widely acknowledged that aggregated anthropogenic forcing was too weak to affect temperatures to a statistically significant degree until 1950. Any changes in temperature/sea level before 1950 were largely natural.
  • Glacier likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#72
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:06 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

It is you that does not understand atmospheric science. Maybe you should spend more time in the classroom instead of popping off about how smart you think you are.

 

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

 

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

First of all, I didn't mean to offend you in anyway so I'm sorry if I did. I'm far from a genius... I view myself as an intelligent person, but my knowledge comes from spending a lot of free time researching about the weather and climate because I'm passionate about the atmospheric sciences.

 

What is said by Jeffrey A. Glassman is viewed by most of the science community as mostly incorrect. He is arguing that CO2 lags behind temperature and therefore global warming causes further CO2 increase. He is correct about a couple of things though, but this does very little to help your argument. He is wrong about CO2 not causing and amplifying global temperature increases. 90 percent of glacial-interglacial warming occurred after the atmospheric CO2 increase as shown in this diagram. The warming of oceans do indeed release CO2 creating a positive feedback loop. This is necessary to switch between glacial and interglacial periods since orbital changes aren't significant enough. The reason why this doesn't serve your argument is because this only exacerbates global warming. It's just adding on to the anthropogenic warming of the Earth by emitting even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Source: http://skepticalscie...ntermediate.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Mann et al 1999 "Hockeystick" is a badly flawed paleoclimatological reconstruction. You lose any credibility you have credibility when you use data like that..

The GISP2 cores are much more accurate because they capture temperature/humidity variations on a much higher resolution, and the because isotopic weighting analysis used allows us to interpolate global temperatures fairly easily as the heavier isotopes are dropped at lower latitudes..

Here's the GISP2 data: http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu

Today's temperatures are well within the realm of natural variability. The observed global temperature swings in the GISP2 cores are largely due to shift in the planetary circulation(s) and cloud cover..CO^2 forcing is extremely low frequency and inefficient on a molecular level:

1024.jpg

Are the values on the y-axis the temperature anomaly? If they are why is it so different than the hockey stick paleoclimatological reconstruction? Does this being in higher resolution really much that of a huge difference? I'm not doubting you because you know way, way more than me and I'm just trying to understand.



#73
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:10 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

That didn't happen..it is widely acknowledged that aggregated anthropogenic forcing was too weak to affect temperatures to a statistically significant degree until 1950. Any changes in temperature/sea level before 1950 were largely natural.

Nice catch. That is what I meant. So you're saying that after 1950 the climate has been changing due to anthropogenic forcing?



#74
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:21 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Nice catch. That is what I meant. So you're saying that after 1950 the climate has been changing due to anthropogenic forcing?


A portion of it might be anthropogenic, yes. No one is denying the radiative dynamics of CO^2.

However, the evidence for natural variability as a primary contributor is very strong. When you analyze the trend(s) in sea level rise from 1880 to 1950, you find that the rate then was actually slightly higher than the rate observed from 1950-present. Clearly, a majority of the observed sea level rise is natural, unless you assume that the natural forcing(s) magically stopped in 1950 and were replaced by anthropogenic forcing(s), which is a pretty ridiculous assumption, in of itself. :)
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#75
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:28 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.


Are the values on the y-axis the temperature anomaly? If they are why is it so different than the hockey stick paleoclimatological reconstruction? Does this being in higher resolution really much that of a huge difference? I'm not doubting you because you know way, way more than me and I'm just trying to understand.


Yes, they are. It's both the data itself, and the method(s) of interpolation that differ. Dr. Mann relied on notoriously inaccurate tree-ring analysis, and used a shoddy interpretive statistical computation to analyze the data. Even most pro-AGW scientists acknowledge this.
  • Scott26 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#76
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:31 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
I have to say, you're a very smart young man. My only advice would be to keep your mind open when it comes to climate science and physics. It wasn't that long ago that I was a firm believer in the CAGW stuff.
  • Scott26 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#77
tbone8

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:47 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

First of all, I didn't mean to offend you in anyway so I'm sorry if I did. I'm far from a genius... I view myself as an intelligent person, but my knowledge comes from spending a lot of free time researching about the weather and climate because I'm passionate about the atmospheric sciences.

 

What is said by Jeffrey A. Glassman is viewed by most of the science community as mostly incorrect. He is arguing that CO2 lags behind temperature and therefore global warming causes further CO2 increase. He is correct about a couple of things though, but this does very little to help your argument. He is wrong about CO2 not causing and amplifying global temperature increases. 90 percent of glacial-interglacial warming occurred after the atmospheric CO2 increase as shown in this diagram. The warming of oceans do indeed release CO2 creating a positive feedback loop. This is necessary to switch between glacial and interglacial periods since orbital changes aren't significant enough. The reason why this doesn't serve your argument is because this only exacerbates global warming. It's just adding on to the anthropogenic warming of the Earth by emitting even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Source: http://skepticalscie...ntermediate.htm

Did you bother reading what Dr Glassman wrote or just looked for people who discredit him? His model makes perfect sense and explains why temperatures are not going through the roof during our industrial age. Thankfully, nature is not fragile, she is pretty darn stout. She is self regulating. Like I said, if you really sit down and think this through, it makes perfect sense and explains everything. All you hear from the doom and gloom activists is how hurricanes will wipe us off the planet due to global warming. How many of those have we had the past few years. We can barely get a 3 day forecast correct and you want to rely on some global warming computer model? And finally, you did not offend me but you did tick me off. I appreciate your apology and I apologize to you for my temper. I have a four year degree in science and four years post grad studies, I have spent plenty of time in a classroom. Your passion is noble and I give you an atta boy for it. But don't let your passion blind you to other sides of the coin. I used to be on the global warming team. I asked questions and looked into what the other side was saying and figured out I had been dooped. I don't like waste or pollution any less then anyone else, but in order to be an industrialized society, its a necessary evil.


  • Scott26 likes this

#78
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:47 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

I have to say, you're a very smart young man. My only advice would be to keep your mind open when it comes to climate science and physics. It wasn't that long ago that I was a firm believer in the CAGW stuff.

Thanks a lot for coming on here and clearing some things up. My mind is open, but through the research I have done so far I'm a firm believer in CAGW. I really look up to NASA and NOAA and since they believe the science is settled so do I. I have watched hours of lectures from universities with many of the professors agreeing that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and is a major problem. I have also watched lectures from the complete opposite spectrum. It's just that so many of the points that non-believers in CAGW make are addressed by the believers in CAGW. Also to me so far, it just seems like the deniers often don't use science to make arguments and instead rely on these elaborate conspiracy theories like the whole "climategate scandal" fiasco. I will continue to try to learn and keep an open mind like all scientists need to do in the future.


  • Phil likes this

#79
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 05:56 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Did you bother reading what Dr Glassman wrote or just looked for people who discredit him? His model makes perfect sense and explains why temperatures are not going through the roof during our industrial age. Thankfully, nature is not fragile, she is pretty darn stout. She is self regulating. Like I said, if you really sit down and think this through, it makes perfect sense and explains everything. All you hear from the doom and gloom activists is how hurricanes will wipe us off the planet due to global warming. How many of those have we had the past few years. We can barely get a 3 day forecast correct and you want to rely on some global warming computer model? And finally, you did not offend me but you did tick me off. I appreciate your apology and I apologize to you for my temper. I have a four year degree in science and four years post grad studies, I have spent plenty of time in a classroom. Your passion is noble and I give you an atta boy for it. But don't let your passion blind you to other sides of the coin. I used to be on the global warming team. I asked questions and looked into what the other side was saying and figured out I had been dooped. I don't like waste or pollution any less then anyone else, but in order to be an industrialized society, its a necessary evil.

I wasn't aware you had such a science background so I apologize once again. It's just that many people on here are just weather enthusiasts rather than scientists as you know. We're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Through everything I know so far CAGW just makes a lot of sense to me. I did read it and I didn't quickly post a response just to cater to my side. Most of what I read so far and watched was in opposition to that statement, but I will continue to research more about that in the future.



#80
bud2380

Posted 19 January 2015 - 06:23 PM

bud2380

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts
  • LocationNorth Liberty, IA

Thanks for the compliment at the very beginning that is. I am young that is true, but I'm definitely not naive. I think you found a new discovery in proportional reasoning maybe you will win a Nobel Prize. So let me get this straight. As I increase with age, I am less naive and my global warming denialism increases. Very interesting...tell me how your thesis goes. Hopefully it won't be called a government conspiracy in an attempt to strike fear into our hearts and take our money. All jokes aside(I am joking btw, I'm just trying to poke some fun at you) I'm just getting a bunch of anecdotal evidence instead of anybody giving me a nice explanation with some data. The problem is you can't take it from the NASA, NOAA or EPA websites because apparently they're all in on the world's largest conspiracy. I guess when I take my exam on the global warming unit this semester I should put a giant x through it and sleep through the rest of the period. Since I'm starting to sound a bit too smart-alecky I want to explain to you guys I reached my conclusion through pouring over the data as well. I'm far from an expert, but since tracking the weather and climate is a passion of mine I have spent a lot of time reading and watching videos and pouring over the data to formulate my own viewpoint on this subject. I did not walk into this with a one-sided thought process...


Your naïveté comes from a lack of understanding of how huge a role politics plays in this entire discussion. You are obviously very smart, but there are certain things that you only learn through life experience. Understanding politics and the role it plays in day to day life is one of those things. Sure some learn it sooner than others, but in high school you simply haven't been exposed to nearly as much as you will as you live your life and grow older. My statement wasn't meant to imply you will change your mind on global warming, if I did a poor job illustrating that I apologize. But it's clear from reading your statements that you don't yet understand that many statements made by government officials, scientists, and many others are often politically motivated statements. People will use whatever facts are available to drive home their point and that is true on both sides of the aisle. That is really the only point I was trying to make.

#81
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 06:34 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Your naïveté comes from a lack of understanding of how huge a role politics plays in this entire discussion. You are obviously very smart, but there are certain things that you only learn through life experience. Understanding politics and the role it plays in day to day life is one of those things. Sure some learn it sooner than others, but in high school you simply haven't been exposed to nearly as much as you will as you live your life and grow older. My statement wasn't meant to imply you will change your mind on global warming, if I did a poor job illustrating that I apologize. But it's clear from reading your statements that you don't yet understand that many statements made by government officials, scientists, and many others are often politically motivated statements. People will use whatever facts are available to drive home their point and that is true on both sides of the aisle. That is really the only point I was trying to make.

It's all good my friend.



#82
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 06:38 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Thanks a lot for coming on here and clearing some things up. My mind is open, but through the research I have done so far I'm a firm believer in CAGW. I really look up to NASA and NOAA and since they believe the science is settled so do I. I have watched hours of lectures from universities with many of the professors agreeing that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and is a major problem. I have also watched lectures from the complete opposite spectrum. It's just that so many of the points that non-believers in CAGW make are addressed by the believers in CAGW. Also to me so far, it just seems like the deniers often don't use science to make arguments and instead rely on these elaborate conspiracy theories like the whole "climategate scandal" fiasco. I will continue to try to learn and keep an open mind like all scientists need to do in the future.


Well, I will say, a lot of these so-called "skeptics" don't know what the heck they're talking about..most are politically motivated.

That said, most of the stuff you hear about this so called "consensus" is pure hogwash. Those who subscribe to CAGW do indeed hold a majority, but it's more like a 65-35 majority, rather than the 97-3 fairytale referred to by the usual suspects.
  • Glacier likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#83
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 06:58 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Through everything I know so far CAGW just makes a lot of sense to me. I did read it and I didn't quickly post a response just to cater to my side. Most of what I read so far and watched was in opposition to that statement, but I will continue to research more about that in the future.


The thermalization processes involved are actually extremely complex, down to the subquantum level. Are you sure you understand it all?
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#84
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 07:38 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

The thermalization processes involved are actually extremely complex, down to the subquantum level. Are you sure you understand it all?

I never said I understood it all. It's an extremely complex process as you said and I try to understand what I can.



#85
Scott26

Posted 19 January 2015 - 07:50 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Well, I will say, a lot of these so-called "skeptics" don't know what the heck they're talking about..most are politically motivated.

That said, most of the stuff you hear about this so called "consensus" is pure hogwash. Those who subscribe to CAGW do indeed hold a majority, but it's more like a 65-35 majority, rather than the 97-3 fairytale referred to by the usual suspects.

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?



#86
tbone8

Posted 19 January 2015 - 08:17 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?

 

Politicians and lies are pretty much one in the same. "If you like you Insurance, you can keep your insurance". You hear that one before, blatant lie. I agree its probably in the 60-40 range but 60-40 cast doubt, 97% sounds a whole lot better, dont you think? That NOAA consensus is available to read at this link http://www.pnas.org/...7/27/12107.full. What a load of crap that is, its basically a manufactured guess, not scientific at all. They will never produce an accurate poll because its not in their best interest. You need to understand, there is a lot of money to be made with this global warming, a lot. Most things in life, you will find, you can trace back to following the money. If you put all the scientific data aside and follow the money, it would make you sick.  Now does big oil have a lobby, you bet they do. There are no clean hands here. But oil and coal are cheap sources of energy. In my house, I have all LED lighting. Not because I am trying to save the planet but because they make my electric bill lower. Carbon tax and higher energy costs, that money has to go somewhere...


  • Money likes this

#87
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 08:40 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?


It's a political statement, for the most part. There's a difference between acknowledging that CO^2 affects the macroscale radiative budget, hence having some degree of influence on global temperatures, versus the dogmatic view that it's a powerful climate driver, capable of operating on higher frequency scales.

By NASA's standards, I'm part of the 97%.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#88
Phil

Posted 19 January 2015 - 08:43 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12041 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Furthermore, physics evolves as we learn. A few centuries ago, quantum mechanics would have been considered pseudoscience.

We humans aren't all that smart, when you get down to it.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#89
weatherfan2012

Posted 19 January 2015 - 09:11 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
Couldn't have said it any better phil.
  • Phil likes this

#90
Money

Posted 19 January 2015 - 09:41 PM

Money

    Special Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6684 posts

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?

 

Like people have said before, people will fudge numbers to make their side look better/more accurate. The 97% of scientists thing is pure b.s. 

 

Politics play a HUGE role in all off this. 



#91
richard mann

Posted 20 January 2015 - 12:17 AM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3398 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

(.. cross-ference.)
 
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64521
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64238


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#92
Scott26

Posted 20 January 2015 - 04:10 AM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Yeah this started in the Great Lakes sub-topic since we got into a debate over there, but was moved over here by a mod/admin. I don't think it's necessary to have two threads to be honest.



#93
Scott26

Posted 20 January 2015 - 04:13 AM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

It's a political statement, for the most part. There's a difference between acknowledging that CO^2 affects the macroscale radiative budget, hence having some degree of influence on global temperatures, versus the dogmatic view that it's a powerful climate driver, capable of operating on higher frequency scales.

By NASA's standards, I'm part of the 97%.

Understandable, but I would still like to see some source showing the 97% consensus being complete bs.



#94
BigDizBliz420

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:45 AM

BigDizBliz420

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

why are all weather boards filled with people who don't believe science? I think it's cause we love SNOW!



#95
tbone8

Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:54 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Understandable, but I would still like to see some source showing the 97% consensus being complete bs.

 

Think about it for a moment. You can't get more than 4 out of 5 Dentists to recommend Trident gum. If the 97% were a true number, in my book, that would imply only the fringe nutjobs did not buy into something. 97% is virtual metaphysical certainty, which in this case, it clearly is not. There are very smart, well educated and respected people that do not buy into it. Heck, just hearing from the so far majority on this forum telling you its bogus should make you a light a bulb...



#96
Scott26

Posted 20 January 2015 - 01:30 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Think about it for a moment. You can't get more than 4 out of 5 Dentists to recommend Trident gum. If the 97% were a true number, in my book, that would imply only the fringe nutjobs did not buy into something. 97% is virtual metaphysical certainty, which in this case, it clearly is not. There are very smart, well educated and respected people that do not buy into it. Heck, just hearing from the so far majority on this forum telling you its bogus should make you a light a bulb...

Well, other then you and Phil most of the people that have responded to this thread clearly don't have much of a scientific background. I have looked at forums like Americanwx and most of the Meteorologists there are firm believers in CAGW. This forum is overwhelmingly tilted in the opposite direction and I wonder why. I would still like Phil to tell me where he got the 65/35 ratio. He likely made an educated guess rather than knowing that is exactly the case, but there should be some sort of source that proves the 97% consensus is complete bs. I have looked all over the internet and I have seen no study or anything other then the 97% consensus. I do find it a bit interesting and odd that there is a large percentage in which the research papers have "no opinion" in the IPCC 97% consensus study. The largest percentage outright supported anthropogenic climate change with a very small amount of deniers. Though, a bit over 30% had no opinion whatsoever. So I'm a bit skeptical about that, but I still want Phil to give me a good source that 65/35 is the more accurate ratio before I write off the IPCC study.



#97
richard mann

Posted 20 January 2015 - 02:51 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3398 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Think about it for a moment. You can't get more than 4 out of 5 Dentists to recommend Trident gum. If the 97% were a true number, in my book, that would imply only the fringe nutjobs did not buy into something. 97% is virtual metaphysical certainty, which in this case, it clearly is not. There are very smart, well educated and respected people that do not buy into it. Heck, just hearing from the so far majority on this forum telling you its bogus should make you a light a bulb...

 

.. Don't forget the "4 out of 5 Dentists". 


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#98
Chris

Posted 20 January 2015 - 04:23 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1055 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

Well, other then you and Phil most of the people that have responded to this thread clearly don't have much of a scientific background. I have looked at forums like Americanwx and most of the Meteorologists there are firm believers in CAGW. This forum is overwhelmingly tilted in the opposite direction and I wonder why. I would still like Phil to tell me where he got the 65/35 ratio. He likely made an educated guess rather than knowing that is exactly the case, but there should be some sort of source that proves the 97% consensus is complete bs. I have looked all over the internet and I have seen no study or anything other then the 97% consensus. I do find it a bit interesting and odd that there is a large percentage in which the research papers have "no opinion" in the IPCC 97% consensus study. The largest percentage outright supported anthropogenic climate change with a very small amount of deniers. Though, a bit over 30% had no opinion whatsoever. So I'm a bit skeptical about that, but I still want Phil to give me a good source that 65/35 is the more accurate ratio before I write off the IPCC study.

 

Ultimately a theory is tested by being able to predict future outcomes.



#99
richard mann

Posted 20 January 2015 - 04:34 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3398 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. successfully. 


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#100
Scott26

Posted 20 January 2015 - 05:10 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationAmes, IA/Buffalo Grove, IL

Ultimately a theory is tested by being able to predict future outcomes.

Hence the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, which is on similar grounds to the theory of evolution, plate tectonics and the big bang, but it's just newer and therefore has more dissent. Also, I'm unsure how this related to my response you quoted me on at all...