It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

13 Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

page: 12
26
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


At no time in the past 800,000 years + has the Earth's magnetic field been so weak... At no time in the last 800,000 years has Earth's core undergone the changes occurring now.

False.
www.windows2universe.org...



Not to mention that I rather look at the graph horizontally and show how different the fluctuations of Earth's magnetic field are today from what they normally are.



Here is one of the sites where you can find that graph.
image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The red data points to the left of the graph is showing some of the changes in the fluctuating magnetic field.

BTW, that graph is not showing the changes the Earth's magnetic field has been undergoing the last 7 months of course.



Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

by Kelly Dickerson | July 08, 2014 11:29am ET

Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.
...

www.livescience.com...


But yeah Phage I must be lying huh?...





edit on 30-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




The issue is that I could dispute the majority of his rebuttals to Mr. Sunglasses with peer-reviewed, scientific papers as well. That's the problem with this debate--it seems like he who has the most funding and loudest bull horn wins the argument, even if there is published scientific work out there that is just as credible that proves or suggest otherwise (or even just suggests that there's more to the puzzle and that we don't have it figured out, yet [which is the most accurate conclusion]).


Well first he was playing both roles and sunglasses was the one who disputed AGW but that is really immaterial. As far as funding goes there is a lot on both sides as I have already brought up Heartland inst the same ones who propagated the myth that smoking was harmless fund much of the denial in fact they fund one of your sources in this post WUWT they only need to keep the debate going so that their financiers such as polluting companies can keep doing what they are doing. They are pretty loud doing it as well.

I can agree that it isn't all figured out. In retrospect evolution and gravity isn't all figured out either.



I take all videos like this with a grain of salt until I research what is said (and I've researched everything brought up). Another problem is that most people do not, and since videos like this are the most prevalent and the subscribers to this data the loudest in the argument, it tends to win out over time.


Being skeptical of info delivered such as this is good. I made the mistake when posting the thread of assuming most people would know how to find the links provided on youtube that supported the info and I have learned my lesson also as you said many do not do their research ,hell some didn't even watch the video before going full bore denouncing it. I would have to disagree about who wins out though. There is an endless supply of red herrings and false information being presented repeatedly just in this thread alone. Even when it is addressed with facts and links it will be brought up again like it is new news.



But, yet, it it doesn't seem to be working. And while I rarely link to--or waste time reading--Mother Jones articles, I used their site to show that even they're covering the decline in belief/support for the global warming mouthpieces, albeit with a condescending tone (we're not "deniers," we are "skeptics").


I don't read Mother Jones either but there does seem to be a trend in the "US" of the decline in support for AGW. That is why I said it is a "US" phenomenon. I find it curious though that you posted that article that says this.


As we have reported before, the notion of a global warming "pause" is, at best, the result of statistical cherry-picking. It relies on starting with a very hot year (1998) and then examining a relatively short time period (say, 15 years), to suggest that global warming has slowed down or stopped during this particular stretch of time. But put these numbers back into a broader context and the overall warming trend remains clear. Moreover, following the IPCC report, new research emerged suggesting that the semblance of a "pause" may be the result of incomplete temperature data due to the lack of adequate weather stations in the Arctic, where the most dramatic global warming is occurring.


And then you go on to post this.




I always find it perplexing when articles like Mother Jones talk about time periods too short to be trustworthy data, or lack of weather stations here or there that lead to cherry picking of data from one side or the other. The truth is, we haven't had enough weather stations on earth--well, EVER, if we still don't today--to accurately measure everywhere and everything from earth. It wasn't until the invention of climate satellites that we could accurately measure the earth everywhere, so I only tend to trust that data when looking through scientific eyes. Doing so tends to suggest (or even prove) trends other than warming on a global scale.



Your sources being. www.climatedepot.com... and wattsupwiththat.com...

You see I didn't know Climate Depot deleted any comment on their page that wasn't in total support of their narrative. One poster in this thread posted a page from them that showed cold records broken in 10 days. Phage caught what they were showing a few posts down which were "Low Max” means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been" not low min. I posted on their page that people should look into what "low Max" actually means. Not 5 minutes later t was deleted by them and i was post banned. I already told you about watts funding you should look up for yourself "climate depot" funding.

Anyway lets examine the claim of no warming for 17 years. Here is the graph they used for the claim.

I think the video even addressed that isn't how you draw a trendline but lets take a look at that same graph extended out.

Gives a whole different perspective right. Now don't forget 13 of the 14 hottest years on record are this century.

Sorry that I answered out of order but I thought it related to each other well.



Personally, I expect the earth to be warming due to the cyclical nature of our planet. We're still in the rebounds from a mini ice age, but we're also coinciding with the timing where we start heading back toward cooling, so it's no wonder there may be data for both warming and cooling on any given year (which isn't climate, it's weather...I know).


Well we are indeed coming out of an ice age and some warming can be expected it is the matter of us helping it along unnaturally that is concerning because to much warming too fast has adverse effects and ecosystems we depend on for survival and that is what is at the crux of the matter. As far as warming and cooling each year yes that will happen but as I linked above overall the earth is warming it is the speed that which is concerning. Then there is this 99.999% Certainty Humans Are Driving Global Warming: New Study That would be 1 in 100,000 chance we are not.



Add into the mix that government agencies sometimes do whatever they can to try and fit the data to their narrative--that also sends up red flags for me. And then the same agencies go and launch satellites at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to try and prove their unproven hypotheses about CO2 and AGW--well, that just simply starts to piss people off who are paying attention to the costs of chasing this white rabbit.


You see we disagree on this subject. I am all for more studies and more methods to study the climate because ATM everything indicates we are in for some serious problems. The only way that diagnosis will change is with more research into the matter. I hope to be wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually, I was trying to make a point, which I believe I have succeeded in making. Without understanding of the scientific concepts involved, an opinion is just that: opinion. The guy in the YouTube video has no more ability to speak on this subject than I do. What he's doing is regurgitating what he has been told, probably by people who have been regurgitating what they have been told, by people... you see what I mean? Eventually, we could get back to some actual scientist, but it could take a while.

When we do get back to the scientist involved, we will find a few things there as well. Firstly, chances are good that his paper is not "doom-and-gloom." It is probably either a dissertation on a way to approach the issue or a report on an experiment. Either way, that paper is then read by others who are familiar with the science and the experiment or mathematical procedure is duplicated and studied to detect flaws. That's called "peer review."

Eventually, some politician gets wind of the number of papers that have been published, gets an aide to read them over, concocts a way to profit politically off things, and launches a campaign. The media picks up the story and starts reporting on it, basing their reports on the politician's stance and whatever pop science opinions they can find. The whole time, the original scientists are sitting back watching just shaking their heads in disgust.

I should point out I am taking about physicists and researchers when I say "scientists," not the pop-sci scientists that seem to be everywhere these days. That's more like an advocate, or even a paid shill... some of them are quite intellectually dishonest if the money is right. Even good scientists can be manipulated if there's enough money at stake; they exist on grant money, and grant money usually comes with strings depending on who is supplying it.

Global Warming started out with a series of experiments to determine temperatures on the planet using black-body radiation techniques. The results were not consistent with observations of temperatures. When trying to discover the cause of the inaccuracy (that's what scientists do most of the time), the possibility of greenhouse gas warming came up, and since carbon dioxide can act as a greenhouse gas under certain circumstances and can be easily tied back to oil and therefore money, enough politicians saw a chance to profit that it became a media sensation.

Today everyone is clamoring over carbon dioxide, while sulfur dioxide is poisoning the oceans due to a complete lack of regulation on ship fuels, the Amazon jungle is still being stripped and burned, heavy metals are being dumped into the environment at an alarming rate (mostly to increase efficiency of oil because of the AGW scare), and the EPA is overrun and understaffed, ignoring heinous violations because they are spending their time chasing carbon atoms.

I wanted to point out that the opinions presented here and those on the YouTube video were not based in a thorough understanding of the principles behind Global Warming. I think I accomplished that quite well.

Please, carry on.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Your opinion is noted.

Question: Did I give you adequate information on your question of how is co2 measured in ice core samples?



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

You sure love to make claims about everyone but you don't look at what your idols do.

Realclimate.org, the website where has as directors Michael Mann the author of the Hockey Stick hoax together with Gavin Schmidt, among others... The same people who were caught lying, posting false information, denying access to data to skeptics, etc, etc...

How about this, stop the rhetorical BS, stop the false claims that "people presenting red herrings and false information"... All you are doing is blowing too much CO2 for crying out loud you are going to cause a whole new level of AGW with all that nonsense...

As for the article about the "99.999% we are certain that humans caused climate change'... How stupid do people have to be to believe that crap?...

The IPCC THEMSELVES had to admit in their latest report AR5 that GCMs predictions have not panned out, despite the fact that they claimed to be 90-95% certain about it...

But hey, after all, according to people like "grimpachi" the observations are wrong, and the GCMs are right...







edit on 30-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Can you not post without calling people stupid? Are you trying to make things personal?

The "99.999%" is based off a computer model it was in the link I provided.



Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence.

We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.

Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.

There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions.


It is just another piece of evidence that AGW is real and it was in context to the person I was responding to because they had brought into question our ongoing studies which included the addition of satellites to study the earth's climate.

If you are going to interject yourself into other conversations please try to stay within context of those conversation.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I asked how stupid people have to be, didn't say you are stupid.

It is sheer stupidity to believe another percentage number from computer models/global circulation models none the less when claims that there was a 90-95% certainty about what the GCMs were telling us and they HAVE BEEN WRONG....


edit on 30-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Oh and btw. We can still take a good look at the study from 2012 that shows what the temperature trend in the northern hemisphere has been like for the past 2,000 years...


Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time

Calculations prepared by Mainz scientists will also influence the way current climate change is perceived / Publication of results in Nature Climate Change

09.07.2012
An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." The new study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Was the climate during Roman and Medieval times warmer than today? And why are these earlier warm periods important when assessing the global climate changes we are experiencing today? The discipline of paleoclimatology attempts to answer such questions. Scientists analyze indirect evidence of climate variability, such as ice cores and ocean sediments, and so reconstruct the climate of the past. The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
...
In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
...

www.uni-mainz.de...

Here is a link to the graph. BTW the red dotted line is inclined to show the cooling.

www.uni-mainz.de...


I drew a yellow line on the following graph to show a base line of 0 throughout the 2,000 years.



It might be easier to see the incline, although I can't make the graph any bigger.

BTW, before certain people get gun ho and start saying, "but weren't you climate deniers blaming the sun then"? The sun's activity started increasing about 100 yeas ago, and for about the past 80-100 years our Sun's activity has been at the highest than in the past 1,000 years. BTW, even during times when the Sun's activity increases, it is not always a "linear increase" as some seem to believe. The sun goes through periods of calm, and more active times, not just during the 11 year cycles, but even during these cycles our sun has shown that it can surprise us.



The blue data points in the above graph shows the increase in magnetic storms the sun has been undergoing throughout the 20th and part of the 21st century.

Then add to that the fact that WATER VAPOR is the ghg that accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect on the troposphere, and during warming cycles the atmosphere can hold more water vapor inducing a positive feedback effect which causes a warming world. WATER VAPOR is the real ghg, and it is this ghg that "certain scientists" can't account for the lack of warming, and the strange climate extremes we have been seeing.





edit on 1-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and correct statement.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


It is worth noting that none of the people signing this letter has any actual relevant background on the subject. They are engineers and space flight controllers and other tasks that has nothing to do with climate science. An IT-manager at the Fed can say nothing about the economic analysis of the financial breakdown just because he happens to work at the Fed. This is the same. Irrelevant.

My next door neighbor works at NASA in fact there are several employees of NASA in my neighborhood none of which have anything to do with climate science. Their views would also be irrelevant.



These people that you want to dismiss so easily are scientists, scientists who earned degrees in different fields of the sciences and it is probable that at least some have analyzed climate data. These people, whether they had been involved or not on missions investigating climate change, they surely have the skills and knowledge to understand this topic 1,000 times better than you ever will.

But of course you have to try to put them down. How nice of you.



Oh man I had missed this from you.

First of all you can try twisting things as much as you want but I did not put them down I pointed out that their field was not climate science and that is true. Second I love how you say they they have skills and knowledge to understand the topic 1,000 times better than I but you leave yourself out of that equation. Are you claiming to be their intellectual equals by that?

Finally NASA itself has said...err...wait here let me return the favor of your walls of text and you can read just what NASA which has been comprised of over 16,000 employees not just 49 has to say on the matter.



The letter was reportedly supported by Leighton Steward from the Heartland Institute, an organization known for its stance of trying to cast doubt on global warming science.

“NASA has always been about looking out to the skies and beyond, not burying our heads in the sand,” climate scientist Michael Mann told Universe Today in an email “This is an old ploy, trying to cobble together a small group of individuals and make it sound like they speak with authority on a matter that they have really not studied closely. In this case, the effort was led by a fossil fuel industry-funded (climate change) denier who works for the Heartland Institute, and sadly he managed to manipulate this group of former NASA employees into signing on to this misguided statement.”

Mann added that 49 people out of tens of thousands of former and current NASA employees is just a tiny fraction, and that “NASA’s official stance, which represents the full current 16,000 NASA scientists and employees, is clear if you go to their website or look at their official publications: human-caused climate change is real, and it represents a challenge we must confront.”

NASA has responded to the letter, inviting those who signed it – which includes Apollo astronauts, engineers and former JSC officials – to join the debate in peer-reviewed scientific literature and public forums.

“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate,” wrote Waleed Abdalati, NASA Chief Scientist. “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.”

“If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,” Abdalati concluded.

As several different people have noted — including former astronaut Rusty Schweickart who was quoted in the New York Times — most of those who signed the letter are not active research scientists and do not hold degrees in atmospheric sciences or fields related to climate change.

Schweickart, who was not among those who signed the letter, said in the New York Times that those who wrote the letter “have every right to state and argue for their opinion,” and climate scientist Gavin Schmidt added in the article that people stating their views is completely legitimate, “but they are asking the NASA administrator to censor other peoples’ (which is something else entirely).”

The letter from the former NASA employees – including Apollo astronauts Jack Schmitt, Walt Cunningham, Al Worden, and Dick Gordon — chides that since “hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Schmidt wrote previously on the RealClimate website that he certainly agrees the science is not settled. “No scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out…The reason why no scientist has said this (that the science is settled) is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy.”

However, he added, “In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt.”
www.universetoday.com...

As you see they were invited to debate the validity of the peer reviewed literature but you know I couldn't find anything where any of them took them up on the invite.
edit on 1-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Grimpachi

I asked how stupid people have to be, didn't say you are stupid.

It is sheer stupidity to believe another percentage number from computer models/global circulation models none the less when claims that there was a 90-95% certainty about what the GCMs were telling us and they HAVE BEEN WRONG....



You imply people have to be stupid to believe that study and just now you double down saying it is sheer stupidity to believe in computer models.

I have news for you. That was an insult!!!! Not once but twice over.

As far as GCMs all being wrong as you claim that was number 10 in the video it starts at 4:17 please review it as he says it much better than I. If you wish to debate what he said then I welcome that.

Also the the climate model simulation that was run in which the figure of 1 chance out of 100,000 that what we are seeing isn't caused by man or 99.999% certainty that man is the driving force to what we are seeing was a simulation that plotted the variables of the past climate drivers to present. The simulations run were not being run to predict the future climate but to see if the climate up until now could have been naturally occurring.

I suggest taking time to read the article on that figure as you seem to be under the impression it is modeling future climate but in actuality it was to understand or past.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Then add to that the fact that WATER VAPOR is the ghg that accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect on the troposphere, and during warming cycles the atmosphere can hold more water vapor inducing a positive feedback effect which causes a warming world. WATER VAPOR is the real ghg, and it is this ghg that "certain scientists" can't account for the lack of warming, and the strange climate extremes we have been seeing.


That is actually covered in #9 of the video and as I said before it explains it much better than I but if you would like to refute or debate what is presented there I welcome that. BTW that starts at 3:30.

It seems as though the rest of your post may have been addressing #11 in the video. Again that is pretty much covered there but you seem to disagree with Milankovitch cycles and you're going back with it is the sun.

Tell you what it is becoming increasingly difficult to figure out what you are trying to address in the video because it seems like to me you are jumping around a lot plus you haven't actually stated what you disagree with in the video. If you are not trying to address the content of the video dare I say then you are going off topic. Until now I have pretty much let the thread go as an "ask me anything" which was never my intention. It is becoming tiresome chasing all the rabbits down their holes metaphorically speaking.

So I would appreciate it if from now on you could address the info in the OP clearly so that we stay on topic.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well first he was playing both roles...


Yes, I know.



...and sunglasses was the one who disputed AGW but that is really immaterial. As far as funding goes there is a lot on both sides as I have already brought up Heartland inst the same ones who propagated the myth that smoking was harmless fund much of the denial in fact they fund one of your sources in this post WUWT they only need to keep the debate going so that their financiers such as polluting companies can keep doing what they are doing. They are pretty loud doing it as well.


True, but unless one seeks out the papers and info from skeptics that rebuts or questions the pro-GW arguments, you rarely hear anything about it. Pro-GW folks have basically the entire entertainment industry to use as a bullhorn (and funding)--we skeptics do not. So, loudness is relative.




I can agree that it isn't all figured out. In retrospect evolution and gravity isn't all figured out either.


I agree. But, the way I approach things is like this: I take in all the evidence that is available at the time (that I know of) and make my decision from there. Evolution fits the evidence best for me right now. Gravity is a bit iffy--the "electric universe" seems to make a lot of sense to me, but I'm not sold on it, either. With GW, a natural explanation (at a much lower alarmism level of intesity) makes the most sense to me.




Being skeptical of info delivered such as this is good. I made the mistake when posting the thread of assuming most people would know how to find the links provided on youtube that supported the info and I have learned my lesson also as you said many do not do their research ,hell some didn't even watch the video before going full bore denouncing it. I would have to disagree about who wins out though. There is an endless supply of red herrings and false information being presented repeatedly just in this thread alone. Even when it is addressed with facts and links it will be brought up again like it is new news.


Agreed, to a certain extent, but for both sides of the argument. Much of the AGW or GW-alarmists use red herrings all the time to incite emotional responses. I'm not saying everything said is based on a false premise, but it is often distorted or exagerated to the point of absurdity. And yes, I understand that goes for both sides. But for me, like I said, when you wade through all of that garbage and look at accurate, raw data and other possible reasons for warming and cooling, a dramatic effect on the natural cycle from man-made issues seems implausible to me. I understand that there is some correlation that can be considered indisputible, but the causation is not there for me.




I don't read Mother Jones either but there does seem to be a trend in the "US" of the decline in support for AGW. That is why I said it is a "US" phenomenon. I find it curious though that you posted that article that says this.




As we have reported before, the notion of a global warming "pause" is, at best, the result of statistical cherry-picking. It relies on starting with a very hot year (1998) and then examining a relatively short time period (say, 15 years), to suggest that global warming has slowed down or stopped during this particular stretch of time. But put these numbers back into a broader context and the overall warming trend remains clear. Moreover, following the IPCC report, new research emerged suggesting that the semblance of a "pause" may be the result of incomplete temperature data due to the lack of adequate weather stations in the Arctic, where the most dramatic global warming is occurring.




And then you go on to post this.







I always find it perplexing when articles like Mother Jones talk about time periods too short to be trustworthy data, or lack of weather stations here or there that lead to cherry picking of data from one side or the other. The truth is, we haven't had enough weather stations on earth--well, EVER, if we still don't today--to accurately measure everywhere and everything from earth. It wasn't until the invention of climate satellites that we could accurately measure the earth everywhere, so I only tend to trust that data when looking through scientific eyes. Doing so tends to suggest (or even prove) trends other than warming on a global scale.



I was hoping that was clear, but it was to show that MJ was complaining about cherry picking data, while doing the same thing they were arguing against doing. I used the same tactic to show the absurdity in it. And as for "low max" temperature, that's pretty self explanitory...but I looked it up, and I was right. I don't know what your point would be about that--it's that the high temperature for the day was the lowest it had been in any given time. If a high temp in Atlanta in August were 35-degrees, that would (presumabley) be a "low max" (probably of all time).



Anyway lets examine the claim of no warming for 17 years. Here is the graph they used for the claim.



I think the video even addressed that isn't how you draw a trendline but lets take a look at that same graph extended out.



Gives a whole different perspective right. Now don't forget 13 of the 14 hottest years on record are this century.


Okay, neither graph indicates anything about climate--and what's the difference between your provided graph's trendline compared to the one I provided? They're both a straight line indicating the average or mean deviation over a very short period of time. Plus, it's hard to deny that since about 2005-ish, the trend isn't going up at all. That's nearly a decade--but, again, that's not climate, we're debating weather trends, which is not my argument at all. So, no, your graph doesn't provide a whole different perspective, it just cherry picks a different short amount of time.




Well we are indeed coming out of an ice age and some warming can be expected it is the matter of us helping it along unnaturally that is concerning because to much warming too fast has adverse effects and ecosystems we depend on for survival and that is what is at the crux of the matter. As far as warming and cooling each year yes that will happen but as I linked above overall the earth is warming it is the speed that which is concerning. Then there is this 99.999% Certainty Humans Are Driving Global Warming: New Study That would be 1 in 100,000 chance we are not.


As much as I like I F*cking Love Science, their AGW articles are, in my opinion and taking into account all sides, garbage. Elise Andrew is, above all else, a social media specialist and not much more (from what I can devise) concerning science itself--basically, she regurgitates information that she reads somewhere else. Hell, anyone can do that, she just specializes in the packaging of it, and she does it well. But, I read that article when it was posted, and commented on it on the FB page. You can assume the gist of my comment, I'm sure.



You see we disagree on this subject. I am all for more studies and more methods to study the climate because ATM everything indicates we are in for some serious problems. The only way that diagnosis will change is with more research into the matter. I hope to be wrong.


Disagreement is healthy. I disagree that "we are in for some serious problems," as that is the whole alarmism that I utterly can't stand (and, IMO, is responsible for the decline in people drinking the AGW kool-aid). But be careful with your hope--I had hope in 2008 when I voted for Obama. Hope doesn't produce results, but often times, neither does throwing taxpayer dollars at something that is a hypothetical.




posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

LOL, you actually post a response from Michael Mann the author of the Hockey Stick HOAX in which he tried to bury the Medival and part of the Roman Warm periods?...

Not to mention that Michael Mann NEVER worked for NASA...he is the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University who got his PH.d from a thesis in which he uses GCMs to supposedly model temperatures in 1,000 years. When you plot his data points on a graph it shows what looks like a Hockey Stick because for much of the first 1,000 years of data present in his thesis he claims temperatures were almost flat despite the fact that dozens and dozens of research work done all over the world show much higher temperatures in the past than in the 20th century...

This is the same man who claims that anyone who disagrees with him is a "climate change denier" the same claim made by the average AGW proponent who can't understand the difference between "climate change" and the claims behind "anthropogenic global warming"... Climate change happens all the time and is natural, meanwhile the claim behind AGW is that mankind has caused the warming of the 20th century... But this difference escapes people like you for some unknown reason...

BTW, the claim made by Gavin Schmidt that these scientists want to censor other people's views is patently FALSE, what they are saying is that this claim that AGW is irrefutable and anthropogenic CO2 is the reason for climate change has no basis on facts but are based on flawed computer models which don't take into consideration a plethora of factors that does affect the climate...

As for the thousands of "employees" that work for NASA this is a disingenuous argument. The 16,000 employees that work for NASA, which the liar "Mann" talks about, includes janitors, human resource employees and other office personnel, contract specialists, etc... So proclaiming that there are 16,000 people working for NASA doesn't refute anything at all when you don't know that the majority of those people don't ever even see or work on any research dealing with climate change. Not to mention that there are plenty of IT personnel who also work for NASA and can have a bachelors degree in IT, or some other similar degree but know next to nothing about climate change.

As for this invitation which you claim was never answered that is BS, there are hundreds of research papers that can be found in scientific journals which refute AGW... And as for debating in scientific forums, THEY DO THAT ALL THE TIME, and some of these people are the same scientists you keep dismissing and you claim "they work for the oilfield blah blah blah"...





edit on 1-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did you just see the name mann then skim over the entire thing. He quoted those from NASA.

Are you dismissing NASA or are you dismissing mann?

And as far as you dissing the employes of NASA as janitors and the like you better have a look at the 49 names you trotted out because there are quite a few without any hoity toity title I took the liberty of looking up a few and they were average joes so you either except them for both sides or you dismiss them.

IMO which I already made clear is that the only ones qualified are those in the field you can have your own standards.




As for this invitation which you claim was never answered that is BS,


Prove it. Pull up one example where any of those 49 that were invited to debate the articles took them up on it.




there are hundreds of research papers that can be found in scientific journals which refute AGW


Good then you should have no problem posting them from those 49 former employes from NASA that signed on to that paper.

Maybe you misread again but here it is for you again.



NASA has responded to the letter, inviting those who signed it – which includes Apollo astronauts, engineers and former JSC officials – to join the debate in peer-reviewed scientific literature and public forums.


So do you still claim they took them up on the offer and wrote hundreds of research papers on it?

If you do then there should be no problem posting them right.
edit on 1-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Lol, really? first of all I was "dissing all of NASA" the fact remains that the majority of people who work for NASA are not scientists. Mann is using the same old tactic of "we are more so we must be right" yet he is leaving out the part where the majority of those 16,000 employees are not scientists. BTW, all you really need is a concise and intelligent argument, and "claiming there are 16,000 employees at NASA" doesn't disprove the statements made by those 49 scientists.

Then again, it seems that you prefer to believe Mann, the same person who made up the Hockey Stick hoax and got a PH.d from a lie than actually look at the evidence from all over the world that says the contrary to the claims by Mann, Jones, Schmidt, Hansen, et al, all which have been caught lying, publishing false information, and using every tactic there is to refute the facts behind climate change.

Hockey Stick vs the real temperatures of the past..




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

That is actually covered in #9 of the video and as I said before it explains it much better than I but if you would like to refute or debate what is presented there I welcome that. BTW that starts at 3:30.

...


wow... The only thing that guy is claiming is that "the warming couldn't have started because of water vapor because it would have to get warmer for the atmosphere to contain more water vapor"... Guess what?... The Earth was warming since the 1600s... Almost 300 years BEFORE the height of the industrial revolution and before CO2 levels increased...

Here is a graph of global borehole temperatures. BTW, borehole temperatures don't show the wild swings that atmospheric temperature graphs will show because it takes more energy to warm the solid Earth than it takes to warm the troposphere.(atmospheric layer)



The Earth was ALREADY warming before CO2 levels went up...

The Earth was warming, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor which causes a positive feedback effect warming the troposphere(atmospheric layer) more, then CO2 levels went and all of a sudden it was CO2 which caused the warming?... Makes NO SENSE...



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But yeah Phage I must be lying huh?...

Not necessarily. But you are mistaken.
You said this:

At no time in the past 800,000 years + has the Earth's magnetic field been so weak... At no time in the last 800,000 years has Earth's core undergone the changes occurring now.


There have been many times in the past 800,000 years when the Earth's magnetic field has often been weaker than it is now. Both the chart you show and the one in the link I provided show that.

But how do you know that the core is undergoing changes that have not occurred in the past 800,000 years? The field has been far from constant over that time span.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Here is a graph of global borehole temperatures.
You didn't provide a source for that chart. Here's what a study of borehole data says study (Huang, 1999) .

Here we use present-day temperatures in 616 boreholes from all continents except Antarctica to reconstruct century-long trends in temperatures over the past 500 years at global, hemispheric and continental scales. The results confirm the unusual warming of the twentieth century revealed by the instrumental record6, but suggest that the cumulative change over the past five centuries amounts to about 1 K, exceeding recent estimates from conventional climate proxies2, 3, 4, 5.

www.nature.com...

And a more recent study with a different dataset of boreholes.

We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate the information in the heat flux database, the T-z database, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions resolve the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of mid-Holocene warm period, a MWP and LIA, and the rapid warming of the 20th century, all occurring at times consistent with a broad array of paleoclimatic proxy data.

www.earth.lsa.umich.edu...

Yes, things did warm up after the little ice age. We know that. Reduced volcanic activity, the Sun regaining a more "normal" level of activity.

But didn't you notice that sudden change right around 1900? The curve gets a lot steeper right there.
 

As far as water vapor causing rising temperatures? No. Because the level of water vapor is dependent upon temperatures, not vice versa. Were what you saying true, water vapor would have caused "runaway" warming a long time ago.


It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water.

www.acs.org...

edit on 10/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Another poster did. There has not been a tine during that era where we can get data from ice cores where the CO2 level has been higher. That goes back to the question of understanding the data. If one does not know where the data is coming form, one can easily make totally false assumptions.

TheRedneck



new topics




 
26
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join