Jump to content

Global Warming discussion: is it a hoax?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. 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". 

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. 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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-
.. 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.

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

.. 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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-
"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.

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

http://cdn.bgr.com/2015/01/t1kpxh3abj4xfczcodvy.gif?w=624

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. 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. ?

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. 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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/scientists_move_doomsday_clock_global_warming_apparently_an_imminent_threat.html#ixzz3PlONlBRy

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More lunatic nonsense for your reading enjoyment. :lol:

 

Scientists Are Coming Up With 'Last Ditch' Remedies for Climate Change

by Louise Downing

June 8, 2015 — 6:00 PM CDT

Updated on June 9, 2015 — 9:33 AM CDT

 

As talks aimed at slowing global warming drag on, researchers are pushing new ideas that some are calling last-ditch attempts to avert the worst effects of climate change.

Some proposals are uncontroversial, such as using charcoal to lock carbon dioxide into soil or scattering carbon-absorbing gemstones. Richard Branson, the billionaire chairman of Virgin Group Ltd., has offered a $25 million prize for the best solution in the field known as geoengineering.

Other ideas to cool the planet have scientists worried about unintended consequences. There are proposals, untested at scale and with uncertain costs, to block the sun’s rays with airborne particles or seed the oceans with carbon-absorbing iron. That they’re even being considered reveals both frustration over government inaction and skepticism that policy alone will solve the problem.

“For the last 20 to 30 years, governments, at the back of their minds, have assumed that mitigation is the main way forward,” said Mark Maslin, a fellow at the U.K.’s Royal Geographical Society. Researchers now realize that the planet needs “other urgent ways of dealing with CO2.”

Interest in geoengineering comes after two decades of United Nations talks that have yet to produce a global climate-change agreement. Envoys from about 200 nations will meet December in Paris, where they’re expected to finalize a pact to curb carbon emissions.

 

Two Degrees

 

There is a sense of urgency. Researchers are seeking to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial times.

“To achieve that we will have to actually do some sort of geoengineering,” Maslin said.

Global surface temperatures have already risen about 0.85 degrees Celsius since 1880, according to a 2014 UN report. The researchers found that while the unintended consequences of manipulating the climate may be significant, “some basic inquiry does seem appropriate.”

“Two degrees Celsius is not a magic ‘on-off’ switch, but rather where the risk to us and our supporting systems becomes excessive,” said David Titley, a professor in Pennsylvania State University’s department of meteorology. “As the average temperature rises, the risk increases exponentially.”

In a February report, a National Academy of Sciences panel found little evidence that researchers can deploy geoengineering anytime soon. Still, it concluded that the U.S. should study the technologies as a “last-ditch” tool.

Branson’s Prize

Tinkering with the planet’s climate may carry more risk than efforts to reduce carbon emissions, Titley said.

“Climate intervention involves techniques that are of high and unknown risk,” he said. “The risks for mitigation and adaptation are understood and manageable.”

Branson’s Virgin Earth Challenge began in 2007 and announced 11 finalists in 2011. The winner must be able to remove 1 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere annually for 10 years and be economically viable, among other criteria. Branson hasn’t said when the prize will be awarded, if ever.

The goal is to “find true breakthroughs and hopefully create new ways of attacking the climate change problem,” Branson said in an interview.

“CO2 reduction at any sufficient scale is unlikely to happen soon, considering the fact that the priorities of China and India are on developing their economies, and both dispose of huge coal reserves,” said Olaf Schuiling, scientific adviser at Smart Stones, one of the Earth Challenge finalists.

 

Smart Stones

 

Smart Stones, based in the Netherlands, is working with olivine, a yellow-green mineral found abundantly in the earth’s crust. Once a favorite of Egyptian jewelery makers, olivine absorbs CO2 as it weathers. The idea is to mine olivine, crush it and scatter it over land.

A ton of olivine can capture about a ton of CO2. Cost estimates range from 3 pounds to 41 pounds ($4.60 to $63) a ton. “I could make sure that every year as much CO2 is absorbed by this method as is emitted by humans,” he said.

Another finalist is Zurich-based Climeworks AG, which is developing mobile systems to capture CO2 in filters. The gas is injected into greenhouses to promote plant growth or used in carbonated drinks.

The Biochar Co., also a finalist, takes waste wood from lumber mills and bakes it at high temperatures to produce biochar, a black compost-like material that can be added to soil to boost its quality and productivity.

Biochar also locks CO2 into soil for hundreds or even thousands of years. For every pound (454 grams) of biochar added to soil, about 1.5 pounds of CO2 is sequestered, the company said.

 

Mount Pinatubo

 

Some geoengineering ideas have scientists worried. Solar radiation management, which seeks to reduce warming by blocking the sun’s rays, may trigger changes in regional rainfall and temperature patterns that aren’t well understood.

The effect would be similar to the aftermath of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, one of the largest volcanic blasts of the 20th century. The volcano spat as much as 20 million tons of sulfur into the upper atmosphere, shielding the earth from the sun’s rays and causing global temperatures to drop by nearly half a degree Celsius in a single year.

Tiny Blue Bubbles Designed to Help Save the Planet

The technology “is on the edge of science fiction and would be highly problematic,” Maslin said. “‘It might keep the average temperature slightly lower than it should be, but it mucks up climate anyway.’’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Jim Hansen is at it again. Considering the ice reports and the strong winter the Southern Hemisphere is experiencing, I can't believe they're still selling this message.

 

 

Alarming new report warns coastal cities may be uninhabitable within 50 years

July 22, 2015.

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/alarming-new-report-warns-coastal-cities-may-be-uninhabitable-within-50-years

 

If they're uninhabitable, it will more likely be due to politics or mismanagement, or both.

With all humility. (huh. ?)

---
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...
On 1/21/2015 at 9:24 PM, tbone8 said:

"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.

The only Problem here is the lack of warming from La ninas when in truth La Ninas tend to fit with a back ground warm system longer term.Sort term It is a leveling off but it only supports longer term warming by promoting the continued build up of warm western Pacific Ocean temperatures which are then release in the strong super El ninos.So El nino sort term is indeed a warm factor but long term it is anything but a warm indicator in fact in cold cycles the system was dominated mostly by El ninos and or neutral systems reather then La ninas in the warm cycles the system trended to be dominted more by La ninas then El ninos.I suspect as Phil said when you have a long term El nino driven system with not that many La ninas or year after year of La ninas you lose  the build up  effect of the western Pacific warmth that is so common in the 2 to 3 year La nina systems as the heat is release into space reather then builds up.So any one that is rooting for a end to the global warming cycle a Dominate La nina system is not what you are looking for or would want to see.Your want to see a system that is less dominated by year after year of La nina phases or cycles.One of the reasons I personalty root for Neutral and El nino type dominated systems and not La ninas lol.The crap that La nina summers can bring here is another reason I don't tend to root much for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought.  
This may add a different perspective on climate. 

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-shifting-cloud-patterns-exacerbating-climate.html

Before You Diagnose Yourself With Depression or Low Self-Esteem,...First Make Sure You Are Not In Fact, Just Surrounded By A$$holes.

“If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent out Texas and live in Hell.”  Gen. Sheridan 1866

2018 Record Rainfall - 62.65"   Record High Temp. 120.0*F
Record 
Low Temp. - 8.4*F

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...