MSM reports: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
No they do not focus only on the last couple decades solely.

The actual scientists focus on the last 800 years, then time since the Industrial Revolution, and then yes recent times.

Also, yes statistics can be manipulated, but aren't always.

It always sounds like people that are deniers haven't really read the fundamental main science papers. These science papers very specifically address virtually all counter points, including your guys' claim that we are just in a natural cycle. All of the climate scientists know that there are natural cycles, better than everyone on here.

They very specifically state that natural cycles, sun spot cycles, natural change, DO NOT account for all of the change we are seen, and they have proven that statistically. This is the point.

The natural cycle argument needs to die, it's been dealt mortal blows several times.

If they focused on the last 800 years they would have factored the medieval warm period, where wine grapes were grown in england...tell me how many wine grapes can be grown in England today?

If you want to be actually more serious about this question:

www.realclimate.org...

nce 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one ‘rather improbably’ located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn’t count, it not being in England ‘n’ all…), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines. - See more at: www.realclimate.org...

And the Medieval Warm Period was not global.

Exactly..
It was much warmer then than now.....

Thanks for saying anyone not in climate science can't undeslrstand the science.

If you aren't in auto mechanics you can't repair cars.

Sure you can repair cars. Here's what you can't do. Say that you're a backyard mechanic and then spout literally libelous baloney how the Chief Engine Scientist of Daimler-Benz and hundreds of other engine PhD experts who have worked on it for a lifetime are intentionally cheating at absolutely everything, and lying paid off (without any evidence) tools of radical Marxists who for who knows what reasons are suppressing the well-known carburetor which runs on 100% water and makes no smog.

Even string theory, quantum physics and astrophysics can be understood by a large percentage of folks with any sense.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Yeah the "good ol common sense" makes somebody qualified to judge advanced cutting-edge physics!

Do not condescend to me. I bet my IQ and science education trump yours, while you try to tell me I am not smart enough to understand a rudimentary subject like climate change.

You probably could. If you spend a few years in graduate school and a postdoc and maybe then you might be qualified to look at the methodological flaws and make improvement for suggestions in the peer-reviewed literature.

This is a solid post. Starred.

a reply to: Phage

Oh man...don't I know it. One of my very first tentative OP's
was about our population explosion, and I got hammered as
an elitest illuminati apologist...and here I just thought I was
being logical about a touchy subject

a reply to: Primordial

I guess you didn't read the thread I linked.

It's been getting warmer since the last ice age.

Not really. There have been warmer and cooler patches but for the previous 12,000 years it's been pretty steady. Until recently.

Recording temperature is not too difficult. Can we not get accurate equipment and just record the temperature at the same time it's always been?

Sure. Let's go back in time and replace all those instruments and start over.

You can post all the charts you want, if the data is incorrect they are unreliable. My original point.

All instrumentation has errors. Knowing what biases exist is what is important. Accounting for those biases is what statistical analysis is about. It is integral to all branches of science which measure stuff.

originally posted by: bbracken677

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Most Of The C02 on earth is dissolved in the oceans. Raising the temperature of the oceans even a fraction of a degree releases more C02 than man could hope to if he were trying.

Then why are concentrations of CO2 in the ocean rising?

Just pay a dollar every time you exhale.

Why? That CO2 came from the atmosphere, not fossil fuels.

Are you saying that most of the co2 on earth is not in the oceans?

For clarity:
Atmospheric co2 is approx 0.04%.
What we exhale contains approx 4% co2.

No. I'm pointing out it's difficult to reconcile the increase in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in oceanic CO2 if the claim is that the source of the atmospheric CO2 is warming oceans.

I know what we exhale. And I know the source of it. Here's a hint; do you eat coal?

a reply to: Phage

Not really. There have been warmer and cooler patches but for the previous 12,000 years it's been pretty steady. Until recently.

25000 years ago it was 9 degrees colder than today. In those 25000 years it has been steadily getting warmer.

Phage, you are cherry picking data.






You call these dramatic changes "Pretty steady"

The facts tell a different story.

P

a reply to: pheonix358
Please refer to the post I replied to. The last glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago. 25,000 years ago the Earth was deeply glaciated.

You call these dramatic changes "Pretty steady"

Neat trick. Too bad there's no vertical scale on that chart. Compared to the change and the end of the glacial period, yes, it's been pretty steady since the glaciers went away. Yes, major volcanic eruptions do have a great effect on climate but it's temporary. CO2 doesn't just go away after a year or so. It's been getting warmer for a century.

It all started when NASA provided statistical readings about the ozone layer around Earth.. I can remember that refrigerators had this chemical that had to be replaced . After that a whole environmental movements started to emerge.

It's almost like when economic boosts started to happen and money seemed to flow abundantly . New sources are needed to raise taxes..

So who started all this again?

a reply to: 0bserver1

After that a whole environmental movements started to emerge.

The first "Earth Day" was in 1970. The depletion of ozone above Antarctica was discovered in 1984.

The environmental movement began long before that discovery.
arnoldzwicky.s3.amazonaws.com...

a reply to: Phage

That may be true but , environmental taxes came after we were warned about our ozone layer , as that is what I remember of this.
But now it almost seem that MSM is trying to reverse the environmental issues here.

Not that I'm against environmental movements and progress of cleaner energies. Because we have to go forward not backward when it comes to fossil energies. This could easily be another way by the MSN to stimulate the use of oil again..

a reply to: 0bserver1

That may be true but , environmental taxes after we were warned about our ozone layer , as that is what I remember of this.

I'm not aware of any environmental taxes. I do know that government regulation on industry had a dramatic effect on cleaning up the environment in some places though.

This could easily be another way by the MSN to stimulate the use of oil again..

The use of oil hasn't really slowed down but there has been no lack of op-ed pieces which attempt to deny the fact that the Earth is warming.

a reply to: Phage

I'm not aware of any environmental taxes

Its not used in every country but there are countries that use them on coal ,water ,electricity etc..

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Phage

Not really. There have been warmer and cooler patches but for the previous 12,000 years it's been pretty steady. Until recently.

25000 years ago it was 9 degrees colder than today. In those 25000 years it has been steadily getting warmer.

Phage was correct. For the previous 12000 years (which is not 25000) it's been pretty steady. From 25000 to 12000 it got warmer quite quickly. (But nowhere near as quickly as what is happening now and in the next 100 years).

The second picture is a tendentious cartoon, not actual quantitative data. It's as justified as using Batman to explain WW1.

For some actual discussion of actual science, see, for example:

www.realclimate.org...

Global temperature since -20000BC

By the way, notice the slow cooling down frmio about 6000 BC (until modern times with AGW)? That's the Natural Cycle from changes in astronomical forcing, which humans have obviously overwhelmed tremendously recently.

Also, check out the Y axis. 20000BC was Ice Age, and that's 3.5C below pre-industrial times. We are heading to a Heat Age even larger in the other direction. Note the model stops at 2100, but at that moment the heating is still rocketing up and if you look to 2200 or 2300 the results are so dire that no climatologists dares go public.

3.5C cold meant that there were glaciers more than A MILE THICK in New York. Humanity was a few bands of scraggly hunter-gatherers. You think that 3.5C in the other direction won't be really disruptive and negative? And happening so fast?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, but that is what Luthier suggested, and what I replied to. Do not make strawmen where there are none.

Personally, I would favor an "all in" approach, Manhattan Project style, to fusion energy. At this time, no other solution is viable. Fusion energy would not only solve a multitude of problems but would also make the transition much more economically viable and hence the changeover quicker.

A great idea, but not good or fast enough. We already have the technology to make pretty safe fission reactors, and yet Germany is going in the other direction. If people won't accept a 15% carbon tax, why would they accept fission power at 2x the cost of coal, or fusion power at 10x the cost of coal? Are you in favor of government regulation to force them?

Greenhouse taxes & cap and trade are economically efficient mechanisms of accomplishing important ends which do not privilege any particular technological solution, unlike mandates.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Daedal
From a layman's point of view on the subject, is climate change happening, l don't know. However, the only question l have is, if we continue to destroy our habitat with pollution, air, water, and land, and degrade our environment by cutting down trees that provide sanctuary for animals, which in turn creates extinction of species, how long will this damage take to have a toll on humans beings.

Does having less trees contribute to the rise in carbon dioxide?

What would happen if we had no trees?

Do a little research, there are more trees today than in the past in the USA. That is a myth.

In the US, the air and water are much much much cleaner than when I was a child. That is also a myth.

Indeed, and the industry sponsored denialists against environmentalism back then claimed (but less stridently) that the correlation was flawed, or the regulations or taxes would kill us, and the environmentalists were lefists (and maybe Soviet inspired saboteurs)....

And that demonstrates that scientists and environmentalists were right all along and economically motivated denialists dissemblers were wrong.

It is true in China, and we in the US who have done a magnificant job of clean up are being made to pay for what China is doing.

The Chinese government accepts the reality of human induced climate change, they are not morons. US is not paying for any smog abatement in Beijing.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Daedal



The Chinese government accepts the reality of human induced climate change, they are not morons. US is not paying for any smog abatement in Beijing.

Why are carbon credits in play for the US but not for China? The Democrats are licking their chops to instate carbon credits, charging people to use "carbon" - while exempting China, even Obama when he went to China agreed for them to be exempt.

I put this article on another thread but it links to climate and is important research.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.livescience.com...

The climate-driven rise and fall of sea level during the past million years matches up with valleys and ridges on the seafloor, suggesting ice ages influence underwater volcanic eruptions, two new studies reveal. And because volcanic chains suture some 37,000 miles (59,500 kilometers) of ocean floor, the eruptions could pump out enough carbon dioxide gas to shift planetary temperatures, the study authors suggest.

"Surprisingly, the deep seafloor matters in the long-term climate cycle," said Maya Tolstoy, lead author of one of the studies and a marine geophysicist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.

a reply to: mbkennel

3.5C cold meant that there were glaciers more than A MILE THICK in New York. Humanity was a few bands of scraggly hunter-gatherers. You think that 3.5C in the other direction won't be really disruptive and negative? And happening so fast?

You just don't get it.

Look at the whole graph!




As we have countless times before, we are heading for an ice age.

It is due.

1,000 Al Gores are not going to stop it.

Why do you think the world is in a resource frenzy. Governments know this truth.

This temp rise is normal for our planet. Stop looking at tiny bits of the puzzle. Open your mind to the unthinkable.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

You just don't get it.

No.You don't get it.


You said that temperatures have been rising steadily for 25,000 years. They haven't. Temperatures began rising about 20,000 years ago. Temperatures continued to rise for 10,000 years. For the past 10,000 years temperatures have been relatively steady in comparison.

As we have countless times before, we are heading for an ice age.

It is due.

Sure. How long do you want to wait for it? As the chart above shows, obital/axial conditions don't indicate it. Modeling doesn't indicate it. What makes you think a glacial period is imminent?

Most CO2 scenarios (15) led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years before the present to 50,000 years from now (see the bottom panel of the figure), with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for CO2 concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance into glaciation simulated (15).

campus.udayton.edu...

We're way beyond that 22O and have been for a very long time. Since before we started burning so much stuff.
www.ems.psu.edu...

a reply to: Phage

You are calling a +/- 2 degree variation "relatively steady". Good for you! I don't think that is steady.

All of the previous warm periods have had an average duration of about 11,500 years and your source says the next one could be a total of 60,000 years.

That is paid science.

See here for details of paid science.

Science is a whore!

P

a reply to: pheonix358

You are calling a +/- 2 degree variation "relatively steady". Good for you! I don't think that is steady.

As I said, in comparison to the the exit from the last glacial period, yes, quite steady. And temperatures certainly have not been "steadily rising" for the past 25,000 years, have they?

All of the previous warm periods have had a duration of about 10,000 years

All of them? Are you sure about that? Have you studied MIS-11? Here's a starting place.
en.wikipedia.org...

source says the next one could be a total of 60,000 years.

You mean the current one? Yes, the study does say that.

That is paid science.

How do you know?