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

#101
Chris

Posted 20 January 2015 - 05:17 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1132 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

.. successfully. 

Yes, thanks for the correction.



#102
Chris

Posted 20 January 2015 - 05:28 PM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1132 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

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...

 

We have that in common, as I'm not sure how this related to my response. 

 

The IPCC models will eventually be proven (or not) by observed conditions, no matter what 97% of the scientists think.  For what its worth, I have no problem believing that CO2 molecules absorb heat.  That can be tested.  The varying degree of feedback mechanisms are what is uncertain IMO.


  • Scott26 likes this

#103
Scott26

Posted 20 January 2015 - 05:38 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

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

We have that in common, as I'm not sure how this related to my response. 

 

The IPCC models will eventually be proven (or not) by observed conditions, no matter what 97% of the scientists think.  For what its worth, I have no problem believing that CO2 molecules absorb heat.  That can be tested.  The varying degree of feedback mechanisms are what is uncertain IMO.

Of course, I agree with you completely. It's not like the properties of CO2 are suddenly going to change. The climate is extremely complex and there are many other factors that the models have trouble depicting. It's just ridiculous that people on this forum believe it's all a giant hoax and humans are attributing nothing to the warming of the Earth in recent years don't you think? The biggest uncertainty is, like you said, the extent of this warming in the future and whether it's going to be catastrophic, fairly harmless or somewhere in the middle.



#104
richard mann

Posted 20 January 2015 - 05:59 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. More academic Scott, what I look for myself where searching for a better appreciation and assessment of cases more general, is the idea that where different, even differing ideas are pointed to / brought more into focus, whether or not those being "discounted" more and to whatever degree, are being with a decent degree of "form"; .. or otherwise looked at, "deference" to the other individual's or group's efforts, where having offered / put more forward, their "assessment" / "evaluation" / "conjecture".

 

.. Or put more simply, "Deference and Form" ... first.  (Others' points, or near to points. First.)

 

Even "Wheat from chaff". 


  • Scott26 likes this
---twitter_logo-t12.png

#105
Phil

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:10 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15422 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

We have that in common, as I'm not sure how this related to my response.

The IPCC models will eventually be proven (or not) by observed conditions, no matter what 97% of the scientists think. For what its worth, I have no problem believing that CO2 molecules absorb heat. That can be tested. The varying degree of feedback mechanisms are what is uncertain IMO.


CO^2 molecules don't "absorb heat". They intercept infrared radiation in a few specific frequencies, as most tri-atomic molecules do, and subsequently transition into an excited state. Most of this kinetic energy is then transferred to the surrounding gases via conduction/collisional line broadening, warming them, before the CO^2 molecule can re-emit the intercepted photon(s).

However, this extra kinetic energy can only be thermalized (realized as an increase in kinetic energy) in molecules that are in a less-excited state than the original CO^2 molecule(s) doing the transfer (2nd law of thermodynamics). Hence, the relevant thermalization can only occur in the mid/upper troposphere, where temps are cold enough, and the rate of collisional transfer is greater than the rate of emission.

In the stratosphere, CO^2 has a cooling effect, because the rate of emission is greater than the rate of collision (lower air pressure/higher DOF). Up here, N2/O^2/O^3 molecules collide with CO^2/N^2O, which subsequently emit the energy at a rate that exceeds low frequency collisional transfer.
  • Glacier likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#106
tbone8

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:12 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

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...

Evolution has a genetic trail that likely links all living things together. Its pretty much the only theory going besides divine creation. Plate tectonics is pretty much a slam dunk, they just argue on what causes them to move. Finally, the big bang can be mathematically calculated. Its really an apples and oranges argument I think. As time goes on and these dire predictions keep fizzeling out, more and more folks are jumping the GW ship. Like the polar bear drownings, the guy that came up with that fabrication was a fraud...



#107
Phil

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:16 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15422 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

CO^2 molecules don't "absorb heat". They intercept infrared radiation in a few specific frequencies, as most tri-atomic molecules do, and subsequently transition into an excited state. Most of this kinetic energy is then transferred to the surrounding gases via conduction/collisional line broadening, warming them, before the CO^2 molecule can re-emit the intercepted photon(s).

However, this extra kinetic energy can only be thermalized (realized as an increase in kinetic energy) in molecules that are in a less-excited state than the original CO^2 molecule(s) doing the transfer (2nd law of thermodynamics). Hence, the relevant thermalization can only occur in the mid/upper troposphere, where temps are cold enough, and the rate of collisional transfer is greater than the rate of emission.

In the stratosphere, CO^2 has a cooling effect, because the rate of emission is greater than the rate of collision (lower air pressure/higher DOF). Up here, N2/O^2/O^3 molecules collide with CO^2/N^2O, which subsequently emit the energy at a rate that exceeds low frequency collisional transfer.


So, this is why the lack of a well defined "hotspot" in the upper troposphere is concerning for AGW advocates. The majority of thermalization occurring via CO^2 radiative forcing should be occurring above 400mb. If that warming is not occurring, then CO^2 cannot be the culprit, despite what many say.

Not to mention the increase in observed OLWR, the reduction in H^2O aloft, and the lack of spectral dampening since 1998.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#108
Phil

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:20 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15422 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Evolution has a genetic trail that likely links all living things together. Its pretty much the only theory going besides divine creation. Plate tectonics is pretty much a slam dunk, they just argue on what causes them to move. Finally, the big bang can be mathematically calculated. Its really an apples and oranges argument I think. As time goes on and these dire predictions keep fizzeling out, more and more folks are jumping the GW ship. Like the polar bear drownings, the guy that came up with that fabrication was a fraud...


Big Bang theory stands on weaker ground than AGW, actually. Don't pull me in on this one unless you want a 50 page rant, lol.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#109
richard mann

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:50 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. I promise.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#110
tbone8

Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:06 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Big Bang theory stands on weaker ground than AGW, actually. Don't pull me in on this one unless you want a 50 page rant, lol.

Interesting, do you have a condensed half page rant we could read? ;)  I just always wondered, its presented as a slam dunk butt the physics is a tad above my paygrade. I thought the confirmation of the Higgs boson a couple years ago lent a lot of credibility to the whole deal?



#111
Scott26

Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:06 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

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

So, this is why the lack of a well defined "hotspot" in the upper troposphere is concerning for AGW advocates. The majority of thermalization occurring via CO^2 radiative forcing should be occurring above 400mb. If that warming is not occurring, then CO^2 cannot be the culprit, despite what many say.

Not to mention the increase in observed OLWR, the reduction in H^2O aloft, and the lack of spectral dampening since 1998.

But, water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. Wouldn't a reduction in H^20 aloft being an argument that CO^2 is more likely to be the culprit? I'm not trying to argue anything, but I'm trying to understand. Also it's currently estimated that human impacts on the atmosphere exert a cumulative radiative forcing of 1.6 watts/m^2, but why exactly should most of the CO^2 radiative forcing be occurring in the middle/upper troposphere? I understand that some of the re-emitted infrared energy is lost to space and some travels back downwards, but what keeps most of the warming going on in the middle/upper troposphere instead of most of it getting absorbed into the oceans for example.



#112
Phil

Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:27 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15422 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

But, water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. Wouldn't a reduction in H^20 aloft being an argument that CO^2 is more likely to be the culprit?


Should be the other way around..warmer upper troposphere should raise the bonding threshold.

I'm not trying to argue anything, but I'm trying to understand. Also it's currently estimated that human impacts on the atmosphere exert a cumulative radiative forcing of 1.6 watts/m^2, but why exactly should most of the CO^2 radiative forcing be occurring in the middle/upper troposphere?


I already explained this..the radiative forcing must be thermalized before it is realized as a macroscale forcing. The intercepted frequencies we're talking about here are very low, analogous to a temperature ~ -47F. You're only going to get thermalization at or below that temperature, as a "colder" (less-excited) molecule cannot further warm a warmer (more excited) molecule.

I understand that some of the re-emitted infrared energy is lost to space and some travels back downwards, but what keeps most of the warming going on in the middle/upper troposphere instead of most of it getting absorbed into the oceans for example.


Because the thermal energy is transferred to O^2/N^2, which do not emit in the relevent frequencies
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#113
richard mann

Posted 20 January 2015 - 11:48 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

-
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-should-governor-inslee-do-about.html


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#114
Chris

Posted 21 January 2015 - 08:37 AM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1132 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

CO^2 molecules don't "absorb heat". They intercept infrared radiation in a few specific frequencies, as most tri-atomic molecules do, and subsequently transition into an excited state. Most of this kinetic energy is then transferred to the surrounding gases via conduction/collisional line broadening, warming them, before the CO^2 molecule can re-emit the intercepted photon(s).

However, this extra kinetic energy can only be thermalized (realized as an increase in kinetic energy) in molecules that are in a less-excited state than the original CO^2 molecule(s) doing the transfer (2nd law of thermodynamics). Hence, the relevant thermalization can only occur in the mid/upper troposphere, where temps are cold enough, and the rate of collisional transfer is greater than the rate of emission.

In the stratosphere, CO^2 has a cooling effect, because the rate of emission is greater than the rate of collision (lower air pressure/higher DOF). Up here, N2/O^2/O^3 molecules collide with CO^2/N^2O, which subsequently emit the energy at a rate that exceeds low frequency collisional transfer.

 

Yes I understand that that CO2 intercepts OLR in a certain range.  I was trying to stick with layman's terms.  That's also why I showed the IPCC troposphere model instead of sea levels.



#115
Chris

Posted 21 January 2015 - 08:45 AM

Chris

    Community Mod

  • Admin
  • 1132 posts
  • LocationOregon Coast Range 1000'

But, water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. Wouldn't a reduction in H^20 aloft being an argument that CO^2 is more likely to be the culprit? I'm not trying to argue anything, but I'm trying to understand. Also it's currently estimated that human impacts on the atmosphere exert a cumulative radiative forcing of 1.6 watts/m^2, but why exactly should most of the CO^2 radiative forcing be occurring in the middle/upper troposphere? I understand that some of the re-emitted infrared energy is lost to space and some travels back downwards, but what keeps most of the warming going on in the middle/upper troposphere instead of most of it getting absorbed into the oceans for example.

 

The original models showed the GHG in the troposphere warming first, than spreading lower.  This hasn't happened.  If anything, the troposphere temps are lagging SST's.   AGW proponents attribute this to stronger than modeled trade winds.  I am oversimplifying of course...maybe Phil will elaborate.



#116
Glacier

Posted 21 January 2015 - 10:07 AM

Glacier

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

The use of "hoax" in the title or when talking about AGW is unfortunate because the actual arguments are a lot more sophisticated than that. The theory of AGW can be summarized as such:

1) The world is warming.

2) Humans are to blame.

3) This is bad.

4) We need to do something about it.

 

If you question any of these 4 pillars, you are a denier (to use another unsophisticated term). The science by any stretch of the imagination shows that the world has indeed warmed since 1950 when human emissions are thought to start contributing to the warming. 

 

This brings us to the second pillar around humans causing the warming. Humans are contributing somewhat because the planet would be 2.5C cooler if there were no CO2. Since the effects of CO2 on the atmospheric temperature is logarithmic, the human effects decrease as the emissions go up.

 

This brings us to the third pillar. On the environmentalist side of the AGW theory, the naturalistic fallacy is used to point to human emissions as being a problem. In the past the warmer planet was good for life, but now this time that humans are causing it so it's going to be bad. The other common fallacy invoked when trying to support the third pillar is the spotlight fallacy. This one is easy to get carried away with because there is always extreme weather happening somewhere, just as there always has been in the past. With more media coverage and more interest in the climate extremes, it appears that the weather is getting weirder and more extreme, but the science doesn't support this assertion. 

 

As for the fourth pillar, let's assume that the climate is going all haywire. We would then have to perform a cost-benefit analysis similar to that done by Bjorn Lomborg



#117
tbone8

Posted 21 January 2015 - 12:20 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

The use of "hoax" in the title or when talking about AGW is unfortunate because the actual arguments are a lot more sophisticated than that. The theory of AGW can be summarized as such:

1) The world is warming.

2) Humans are to blame.

3) This is bad.

4) We need to do something about it.

 

If you question any of these 4 pillars, you are a denier (to use another unsophisticated term). The science by any stretch of the imagination shows that the world has indeed warmed since 1950 when human emissions are thought to start contributing to the warming. 

 

This brings us to the second pillar around humans causing the warming. Humans are contributing somewhat because the planet would be 2.5C cooler if there were no CO2. Since the effects of CO2 on the atmospheric temperature is logarithmic, the human effects decrease as the emissions go up.

 

This brings us to the third pillar. On the environmentalist side of the AGW theory, the naturalistic fallacy is used to point to human emissions as being a problem. In the past the warmer planet was good for life, but now this time that humans are causing it so it's going to be bad. The other common fallacy invoked when trying to support the third pillar is the spotlight fallacy. This one is easy to get carried away with because there is always extreme weather happening somewhere, just as there always has been in the past. With more media coverage and more interest in the climate extremes, it appears that the weather is getting weirder and more extreme, but the science doesn't support this assertion. 

 

As for the fourth pillar, let's assume that the climate is going all haywire. We would then have to perform a cost-benefit analysis similar to that done by Bjorn Lomborg

 

I gotta say, I think the thing that rubs me the most is the the labeling "denier" if you don't agree with someone or some thing. As far as your four points go:

 

1) The world is warming. The earth goes through MANY warming and cooling trends, fact.

2) Humans are to blame. We could not control the climate if we tried, absolutely no proof.

3) This is bad. Actually, I hope it is rising. Many more beenifits than cooling.

4) We need to do something about it. Again, we can't control the climate.

 

The world was thought to be flat, sun revolved around the earth and someday hopefully soon, global warming will fall on that ash heap...



#118
Scott26

Posted 21 January 2015 - 05:11 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

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

The original models showed the GHG in the troposphere warming first, than spreading lower.  This hasn't happened.  If anything, the troposphere temps are lagging SST's.   AGW proponents attribute this to stronger than modeled trade winds.  I am oversimplifying of course...maybe Phil will elaborate.

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting  and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? Once again I'm not presenting an argument right now, but I want to see some of your guys take on it. Here is what NOAA says about the hiatus...

 

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

"Completed analyses show that more than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future."



#119
Scott26

Posted 21 January 2015 - 05:17 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

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

I gotta say, I think the thing that rubs me the most is the the labeling "denier" if you don't agree with someone or some thing. As far as your four points go:

 

1) The world is warming. The earth goes through MANY warming and cooling trends, fact.

2) Humans are to blame. We could not control the climate if we tried, absolutely no proof.

3) This is bad. Actually, I hope it is rising. Many more beenifits than cooling.

4) We need to do something about it. Again, we can't control the climate.

 

The world was thought to be flat, sun revolved around the earth and someday hopefully soon, global warming will fall on that ash heap...

Are we back in the 1800's right now? :lol:   With all of the technology and knowledge we have today the majority of scientists being wrong seems very unlikely.



#120
Phil

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:00 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15422 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? Once again I'm not presenting an argument right now, but I want to see some of your guys take on it. Here is what NOAA says about the hiatus...


Problem is, if NOAA cannot account for the lack of warming above 400mb, they cannot attribute any of that oceanic warming to AGW. The energy MUST be thermalized in the troposphere before it can be distributed.

Right now, we've got billions upon billions invested in AGW theory, so there's definitely an incentive make it work. Unfortunately, there's a lot of anti-physical nonsense popping up as a result.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#121
Phil

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:05 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15422 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Are we back in the 1800's right now? :lol: With all of the technology and knowledge we have today the majority of scientists being wrong seems very unlikely.



Uh, what? I suggest you research the recent paradigm shift in how we understand stomach ulcers, or the discovery of quantum mechanics, for starters. Truth is, the majority of theoretical "consensuses" have actually turned out to be false.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#122
Scott26

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:19 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

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

Uh, what? I suggest you research the recent paradigm shift in how we understand stomach ulcers, or the discovery of quantum mechanics, for starters. Truth is, the majority of theoretical "consensuses" have actually turned out to be false.

I'm not trying to get too off topic here, but wasn't Quantum Mechanics more of a discovery, as you said, instead of proving anything false? It's not like it disproved Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Didn't it just bring us into a new world of physics at the subatomic level?



#123
tbone8

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:24 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting  and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? Once again I'm not presenting an argument right now, but I want to see some of your guys take on it. Here is what NOAA says about the hiatus...

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

"Completed analyses show that more than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future."

 

Funny how nature is a good excuse for explaining GW. :lol:  As far as "the majority of scientists being wrong seems very unlikely", you have seriously got to be kidding me. 10 years from now, our technology and what we know will look like childs play. When I was your age, the were no home computers, internet, ipods and the pending ice age was all the rage. I mention the global cooling thing not to jab at you but to try to make you realize how things change.You really need to break out of your pigeon hole thinking.



#124
Phil

Posted 21 January 2015 - 07:14 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15422 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I'm not trying to get too off topic here, but wasn't Quantum Mechanics more of a discovery, as you said, instead of proving anything false? It's not like it disproved Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Didn't it just bring us into a new world of physics at the subatomic level?


No, it replaced classical mechanics/upended most of our theories on how the atomic world worked, actually.

If you want to be blown away, read "The Quantum Enigma". We have more questions now than ever.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Cold season 2017/18:
Snowfall: 0"
Largest snowfall: 0"
Number of winter events: 0
Coldest High 67*F
Coldest low: 44*F
Highest sustained wind: 17mph
Highest wind gust: 26mph

#125
richard mann

Posted 21 January 2015 - 07:26 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Problem is, if NOAA cannot account for the lack of warming above 400mb, they cannot attribute any of that oceanic warming to AGW. The energy MUST be thermalized in the troposphere before it can be distributed.

Right now, we've got billions upon billions invested in AGW theory, so there's definitely an incentive make it work. Unfortunately, there's a lot of anti-physical nonsense popping up as a result.


All quite plain. To anyone who ..... (Fill in the blank.)
---twitter_logo-t12.png

#126
Scott26

Posted 21 January 2015 - 07:49 PM

Scott26

    Forum Contributor

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

No, it replaced classical mechanics/upended most of our theories on how the atomic world worked, actually.

If you want to be blown away, read "The Quantum Enigma". We have more questions now than ever.

Fascinating... I know that we don't understand quantum mechanics very well at this time, but I didn't know it upended so many other theories. I will definitely try to read that when I have time since quantum mechanics and physics in general really interests me also.



#127
Glacier

Posted 21 January 2015 - 10:43 PM

Glacier

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting  and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? 

Why is it that you always talk about arctic sea ice melting, but always fail to mention the fact that Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, bringing total global sea ice to above average?



#128
richard mann

Posted 21 January 2015 - 11:23 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. In line with what you've asked here above "Glacier", .. more basic (with emphasis.) I've always asked and questioned, just where does cold go where and when it's shown to have been disappearing from whatever other area, region, perhaps being focused on.

 

Key point here, i.e. more than "appearing", or better with my not wanting particularly here, to either whether negate or support whatever appraisal more staunch, .. the idea of this question more basic not having been able to be answered more satisfactory per my appreciation, in my view (effectively.) working to call into question whatever more general (parameteral.) measure of temperature. 

 

Or more basically, .. Show me that you've got every square cm of the planet above it's main crush, hooked up to more direct and continuously registering measurement, and I'll start to allow for assessment other than something more in line with "prudence". 


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#129
tbone8

Posted 22 January 2015 - 09:00 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

.. In line with what you've asked here above, .. more basic (with emphasis.) I've always asked and questioned, just where does cold go where and when it's shown to have been disappearing from whatever other area, region, perhaps being focused on.

 

Key point here, i.e. more than "appearing", or better with my not wanting particularly here, to either whether negate or support whatever appraisal more staunch, .. the idea of this question more basic not having been able to be answered more satisfactory per my appreciation, in my view (effectively.) working to call into question whatever more general (parameteral.) measure of temperature. 

 

Or more basically, .. Show me that you've got every square cm of the planet above it's main crush, hooked up to more direct and continuously registering measurement, and I'll start to allow for assessment other than something more in line with "prudence". 

I have to admit, I have absolutely no idea what you said. It kinda reminds me of the spam emails I get every once in a while. :huh:



#130
richard mann

Posted 22 January 2015 - 02:49 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

-
.. If you gotta, you gotta. 
 
If you do, find anything (at all.) within it, that you think .. you might have an interest with, or otherwise be interested in seeing more into, please do not hesitate to let me know. ... (About it.) 
 
"Fat" clue. Perhaps mark and ponder the word "prudence" there at the end. And maybe work backwards from there. (no appropriate emoticon available more immediately.)
 
Otherwise .. (Still with me. ?), with having read through much of what you've posted here above within this thread, I'm thinking (…) that you perhaps might find it fun .. responding to what this gentlemen > http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/user/147-skagit-weather/ .. had had to say, over in the other, "Global Warming" ("so called".) thread, listed started within this same section, just recently.
 
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64712
 
 I know I did.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#131
tbone8

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:32 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

-
.. If you gotta, you gotta. 
 
If you do, find anything (at all.) within it, that you think .. you might have an interest with, or otherwise be interested in seeing more into, please do not hesitate to let me know. ... (About it.) 
 
"Fat" clue. Perhaps mark and ponder the word "prudence" there at the end. And maybe work backwards from there. (no appropriate emoticon available more immediately.)
 
Otherwise .. (Still with me. ?), with having read through much of what you've posted here above within this thread, I'm thinking (…) that you perhaps might find it fun .. responding to what this gentlemen > http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/user/147-skagit-weather/ .. had had to say, over in the other, "Global Warming" ("so called".) thread, listed started within this same section, just recently.
 
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64712
 
 I know I did.

I have to ask, is English your first language? Maybe its me, I can't understand your gibberish...



#132
richard mann

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:37 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. With your need expressed here above, it's a pity that you can't [then], find a more dignified manner in which to ask what you have. 

 

(Isn't it.) 

 

Care to try for three. ... ?


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#133
tbone8

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:56 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

.. With you need expressed here above, it's a pity that you can't [then], find a more dignified manner in which to ask what you have. 

 

(Isn't it.) 

 

Care to try for three. ... ?

Must be a California thing.



#134
richard mann

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:01 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Apparently.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#135
richard mann

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:02 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

---twitter_logo-t12.png

#136
tbone8

Posted 22 January 2015 - 10:35 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
MIT Climate Scientist: Global Warming Believers a ‘Cult’

 

An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.

During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.

“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.

Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”

But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree.

Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”

“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call:

“I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!”

Lindzen chuckled when the voicemail was replayed.

This writer asked him if, as has been alleged in some of the warmist blogs, he is taking money from the energy industry.

“Oh, it would be great!” he said with a laugh. “You have all these people, the Gores and so on, making hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you, it’s a new profit center.”

Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”

“They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”

As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”

“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”

The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.

“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”



#137
richard mann

Posted 22 January 2015 - 11:13 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

-
"Global Warming discussion: is it a hoax?"
 
.. We talkin' about the potential, or the discussion more, where looking at it. ?

 

Because the value of some of it, is certainly fairly questionable. 

 

.. If you're asking more societally focused, follow the money. Before the funding for research dedicated to the idea of determining the potential and how it might affect us, more who benefits more from and with discounting it. 

 

.. And if you're asking more with the idea of determining if all of the research done in the name of "prudence", with the potential having been appreciated as more important perhaps presenting us with a more adverse climate and environment .. is wasted, even funds for that research being procured / sought, for "no good reason", ... then you're mostly likely, more interested in the idea of hoaxes than what they might involve, my view.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#138
tbone8

Posted 23 January 2015 - 04:31 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
Al Gore: Spend $90 Trillion To Ban Cars From Every Major City In The World

 

Former Vice President Al Gore and former Mexican President Felipe Calderon are pushing for $90 trillion in spending to ban cars from every major city in the world and make them more dense.

Gore and Calderon presented a report from the Global Commission on the Economy & Climate (GCEC) and argued that fighting global warming will require making cities more compact and wholly reliant on public transit. This is the only way to make sure urban areas don’t contribute to global warming, the two politicians argued.

Calderon and Gore argued that $90 trillion is going to be spent anyways in the coming decades upgrading cities around the world. They argue that it should be spent on making cities more climate friendly.

“The mistake we made in Mexico was to let cities develop however they want, and it’s a mess,” Calderon told Business Insider.

GCEC’s study says that “more compact, better-connected cities with strong mass transit systems will help policy-makers tackle these pressing challenges. Such cities are more productive, socially inclusive, resilient, cleaner, quieter and safer.”

The study says that 70 percent of the world’s energy-use and greenhouse-gas emissions come from cities. Reducing emissions from ever-growing urban areas will show “that the goals of economic growth and climate change can work together,” according to GCEC.

Calderon and Gore made their presentation at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland where, ironically (or maybe not, at this point), some 1,700 private jets — which use petroleum — were used to shuttle in conference participants and others to discuss global warming and other pressing global issues.

There was such a big influx of air traffic, reports Newsweek, that the Swiss military had to open an air base for the private jets to land. At last year’s meeting in Davos, some 200 helicopters were used to bring in conference-goers.

Gore also used the conference to announce a massive concert to raise awareness about global warming. He and pop star Pharrell Williams are calling it “Live Earth” and it will be staged in six cities across the globe — not exactly a small carbon footprint.

The concert is supposed to build up support for an international climate treaty ahead of the United Nations summit in Paris later this year. Pharrell says he wants to “have humanity harmonize all at once.”

“It is absolutely crucial that we build public will for an agreement,” Gore told World Economic Forum participants. “The purpose is to have a billion voices with one message, to demand climate action now.”



#139
richard mann

Posted 23 January 2015 - 06:48 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. Stay tuned for more older rhetoric. 


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#140
tbone8

Posted 23 January 2015 - 07:04 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

Is it warm in here, or is it just us? The debate surrounding climate change, and specifically global warming, will rage on for years to come. There are certainly plenty of arguments on both sides of the fence, and neither side wants to concede any of its key talking points. The simple truth, however, is that numbers don’t lie… and these are some pretty horrifying numbers.

We recently showed you a shocking little image that packed 63 years of global warming into one GIF, and now there’s some new imagery to help us visualize just how significant climate change really is.

It’s impossible to argue with numbers, and an animated chart created recently by Bloomberg shows the peak monthly global temperature each year for the past 135 years, as well as the average annual temperatures. Once we get into the 20th century, it’s positively terrifying to watch as the average temperature climbs continuously until it hits a new record in 2014, 1.39°F over the 20th century average.

An abridged version of the animation that was made into a GIF by Gizmodo can be seen below. The full animation is on Bloomberg’s site, which is linked down in the source section.

 

t1kpxh3abj4xfczcodvy.gif?w=624



#141
tbone8

Posted 23 January 2015 - 08:40 PM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.

..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.

(And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern…more about that later).

The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:

With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.

Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.

In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.

Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.

Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.

And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.

In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.

As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.

Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).

Of course, 2015 could still set a record if the current El Nino ever gets its act together. But I’m predicting it won’t.

Which brings me to my second point. If global temperatures were slowly rising at, say, a hundredth of a degree per year and we didn’t have cool La nina or warm El Nino years, then every year would be a new record warm year.

But so what?

It’s the amount of temperature rise that matters. And for a planet where all forms of life experience much wider swings in temperature than “global warming” is producing, which might be 1 deg. C so far, those life forms — including the ones who vote — really don’t care that much. We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree, which no one can actually feel.

Not surprisingly, the effects on severe weather are also unmeasurable …despite what some creative-writing “journalists” are trying to get you to believe. Severe weather varies tremendously, especially on a local basis, and to worry that the average (whatever than means) might change slightly is a total misplacement of emphasis.

Besides, once you consider that there’s nothing substantial we can do about the global warming “problem” in the near term, short of plunging humanity into a new economic Dark Age and killing millions of people in the process, its a wonder that climate is even on the list of the public’s concerns, let alone at the bottom of the list.



#142
richard mann

Posted 23 January 2015 - 08:51 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

.. I'd had a post up here previous "tbone8", between your two most recent. In which I'd asked just who the "we" had been, connected to your post, two above. But with some checking through what you'd posted, found the answer to my question. 

 

.. But with this, don't you think that it might be a good idea if you were to perhaps identify just where some of what you post is coming from in fact, i.e. as a basic preface to whatever. ?


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#143
tbone8

Posted 24 January 2015 - 12:57 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana

.. I'd had a post up here previous "tbone8", between your two most recent. In which I'd asked just who the "we" had been, connected to your post, two above. But with some checking through what you'd posted, found the answer to my question. 

 

.. But with this, don't you think that it might be a good idea if you were to perhaps identify just where some of what you post is coming from in fact, i.e. as a basic preface to whatever. ?

I have to ask, why cant you just type something that makes sense? This circular nonsense gets old real fast. If you think it makes you look smart or something, you are badly mistaken. It makes you look like a dope. If it is not possible or you are not capable of writing English composition, I am just flat going to ignore your posts. This foolishness has to come to an end...



#144
richard mann

Posted 24 January 2015 - 01:03 AM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

I have to ask, why cant you just type something that makes sense? This circular nonsense gets old real fast. If you think it makes you look smart or something, you are badly mistaken. It makes you look like a dope. If it is not possible or you are not capable of writing English composition, I am just flat going to ignore your posts. This foolishness has to come to an end...

 

Have your "Moma" read it for you.  I don't need your b.s. commentary, on your ability or otherwise to read what I post. Apparently, (Still with me. ?) you have a great deal of trouble with ideas put together one lending to the other. Aka: Logically connected ideas. This with also appreciating what context might develop relative what you post more yourself.   (Context. ?)

 

Do what you like. Wherever your b.s. takes you, certainly won't confront me. 

 

$ .... Join the "circular", when it comes to town maybe.  All highly incomprehensible from your "perspective" additionally, I'm sure.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#145
tbone8

Posted 24 January 2015 - 10:06 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
Scientists move Doomsday Clock: Global warming apparently an imminent threat
 

A hundred years from now, if we're all dead because of global warming, scientists have my permission to spit on my grave.

But that's 100 years in the future. So why did the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists move their iconic Doomsday Clock 2 minutes closer to midnight and cite global warming as a major reason? The proliferation and modernization of nukes I can understand. Human civilization can be destroyed in half an hour if there was a large scale nuclear exchange.

But by the time the terrible effects of global warming are supposedly to be felt to the fullest, you and I and all the scientists caught up in this issue will be dead. Why not cite death by a gamma ray burst or a comet striking the earth? Those events are just as likely to occur over the next 100 years as catastrophic global warming.

CNN:

"Today, unchecked climate change and a nuclear arms race resulting from modernization of huge arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity. And world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe," said Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a news release. "These failures of leadership endanger every person on Earth."

The Bulletin's Science and Security Board looks at global issues on a regular basis and decides whether to move the minute hand of the clock, with particular stress on the status of nuclear arms and reaction to climate issues.

In recent years, the clock has moved the wrong direction for humanity. After standing at 17 minutes to midnight in 1991 -- the furthest it's ever been from the end of the world -- it's gotten closer each time it's been changed since, with the exception of 2010, when it was pushed back by one minute to 11:54 p.m.

The last time the clock was moved was in 2012, when it was moved up one minute to 11:55.

The scientists expressed disappointment at the latest developments.

Noting that nuclear trends are moving backwards, the Science and Security Board's Sharon Squassoni pointed out that weapons modernization programs and disarmament have "ground to a halt."

And action on climate change? "Efforts at reducing global emissions of heat-trapping gases have so far been entirely insufficient to prevent unacceptable climate disruption," said the Bulletin's Richard Somerville. "We all need to respond now, while there is still time."

In 1984, the last time the Clock was moved to 3 minutes to midnight, liberals made a huge deal about it because, well, Reagan and his anti-communism that most liberals predicted would blow up the world.

Instead, communism blew up - much to the chagrin and sorrow of liberals. Today, the movement of the Doomsday Clock under a Democratic president is ignored because, well, Obama.

The scientists wouldn't have dared mention it, but one of the reasons we're closer to the end of the world today is we have a putz for a president who combines incompetence with naievte - an extraordinarly dangerous combination. These next two years are going to be the most dangerous period since the 1950's as Putin tries to distract the Russian people from the ongoing economic meltdown. The chances for confrontation over Ukraine, or some other former Soviet satellite make the near future a roll of the dice and no one with half a brain feels confident that Obama can manage a crisis like that.

Read more: http://www.americant...l#ixzz3PlONlBRy
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



#146
tbone8

Posted 20 May 2015 - 07:47 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps

2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse

An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea

New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’

The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.

To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.



#147
tbone8

Posted 20 May 2015 - 07:50 AM

tbone8

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationNW Indiana
Report: Foreign Countries Altering Weather Data to Show Warming
 

Three foreign countries may be changing their historical weather data to show warming trends, according to a scientist in the field.

Dr. H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute claims in a story that Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have altered their data in an effort to prove global warming is real.

"Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments," Burnett writes. "In previous editions of Climate Change Weekly, I reported weather bureaus in Australia and Paraguay were caught adjusting datasets from their temperature gauges. After the adjustment, the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded."
 
Citing a report from Swiss Science journalist Markus Schär, Burnett writes that Switzerland altered its weather data and now it shows a "doubling of the temperature trend."

"For example, in Sion and Zurich, [the Swiss Meteorological Service] adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend," Burnett writes. "Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data-tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a 'propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.'"
 
In March, it was reported that U.S. government scientists often change weather data  — a practice that is neither new nor a secret. Scientists say the data is changed to correct for inaccuracies in testing. Critics say it is a way to show a warming trend, which it has done.

"[The National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC] pulls every trick in the book to turn the U.S. cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s," a science blogger said.

"NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend. This includes cooling the past for 'time of observation bias' in filling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects."

Global warming skeptics say it is a man-made scam, but defenders of the phenomenon point to evidence in weather data — which is apparently being changed in countries across the world.

Bill Nye, who hosted a popular children's show in the 1990s, told Rutgers University graduates over the weekend global warming is real.

"So, hey deniers — cut it out, and let's get to work," Nye said.

 


#148
richard mann

Posted 20 May 2015 - 10:44 AM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA
URGENT: Do You Think Global Warming Is a Hoax? Vote Here Now! 

(Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.)

(Promote a more Reductive view, Often, Repeat.)
---twitter_logo-t12.png

#149
remyweather

Posted 05 June 2015 - 05:06 PM

remyweather

    Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • LocationIrvington, NY

https://stevengoddar...erature-record/

 

Take a look at that link, really amazing to see two of the same charts doing completely different things for the same years, supposedly using the same exact data set. Shall I say some data altering was [is] going on? 

 

Several new datasets have come out in the last couple of months, including the UAH 2015 data in April, and ERSSTv4 was just released as well...it got many major upgrades for the SST configurations, bouy adjustments and ship bias stuff. Supposedly we can see the ENSO events better with the latest data. My problem with all these data sets is that they have gone through algorithms, correcting and whatnot. You cannot tell me there is no bias in these "corrections" the data goes through, because otherwise the different data sets would not have different ideas. Another issue is the base period used to create the anomalies. UAH uses 1961-1990 I believe, while latest NASA data uses 1981-2010 I believe...these different base periods will yield different anomalies since the averages during those base periods are different, assuming these anomalies are being derived from taking the averages of each month or year (depending on set) and then taking the Standard Deviation of each Month or Year (again depending on the set) and then finding the Normalized Anomaly from that (=(Unit AVG-Total$AVG)/STD$DEV). Why cant all the data just get the anomaly from the avg's and stdev of that entire set of data. FOR instance, if we have global temps 1978-2015, why cant the anomaly be based off that entire period, why must they use 1981-2010 or 1961-1990. That makes no sense. They want Anomaly from "Normal" well the normal for 1978-2015 would be the average from 1978-2015, and any anomaly would be off that avg. I would love to get my hands on PURE raw data, no comparing, no algorithms, no fixing, I want the temperature that the measuring device measures and then let me find the norm from that. 

 

Enough for now, I cannot digress too much. BUT I did include SOME (if I shared all id be sharing 12+GB of data) graphs of the datasets I have been using, I made the graphs myself and spent hours and hours removing the "base periods" from the sets to be able to compare it myself.

 

17421667214_78635421d4_k.jpg

17423715913_bc7a4342b4_k.jpg

18045461145_a9931b709d_k.jpg

18045465835_aa3f2dd0c2_k.jpg



#150
richard mann

Posted 05 June 2015 - 09:13 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Probably outgassing up some sort. Somewhere. 


---twitter_logo-t12.png