Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

a reply to: TheRedneck

While I applaud your hard work and effort I think your conclusions are wrong or.... skewed.

Like you said yourself, its possible to affect any graph by changing the periode of meassurement and the increments, fx by making the step upwards in halves or thirds.

If you really wanted to show man made cause wouldnt it be more reasonable to go back to 1890? Even if we had to rely on earth samples...

a reply to: flice

While I applaud your hard work and effort I think your conclusions are wrong or.... skewed.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific? As in, what part of the results do you think I have misinterpreted?

Like you said yourself, its possible to affect any graph by changing the periode of meassurement and the increments, fx by making the step upwards in halves or thirds.

The average daily temperatures reported are based on hourly observations. Those are what the results use. How much shorter intervals are you suggesting, and where can I obtain those readings?

Or are talking about going back farther in time?

If you really wanted to show man made cause wouldnt it be more reasonable to go back to 1890? Even if we had to rely on earth samples...

It would be reasonable to go back to 1890... and even more reasonable to go back to a few thousand BC. But that data is not available, and I know of no way to directly measure temperatures that have occurred in the past. We simply do not have access to that kind of data. Even "earth samples" are merely approximations and cannot be relied on to be accurate in the range of temperature changes we are apparently talking about, based on Global Warming predictions.

1950 was not chosen at random. It was the date of the earliest temperature readings available in the area I was investigating.

TheRedneck

The thing I hate most is when they say stuff like "we've never seen warming at this pace before". They don't have the data resolution to tell you that. They can estimate what the temperature was say 180,000 years ago, 180,100 years ago, etc etc. But there's no solid data of year by year temperatures from the distant past, so no way to compare the current trend to trends in the past at this resolution. As Redneck notes, these days we're analyzing data on an hourly basis. Nobody can give you an analysis like that from centuries or millennia ago.

The debate on environmental harm has been reframed as global warming. Global warming is but one facet of the environmental damage mankind is causing, so why has the debate been reframed? Easy. It's easier to muddy the water when discussing global warming since weather patterns get wonky as the Earth heats. Environmental harm, however, is far easier to quantify. All one has to do is look at the changes in the environment since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Don't think this is not real, not for a minute. Earth is experiencing the largest extinction event ever. Guess who is to blame?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: narrator

You fail to understand that "climate change" is not the same as "Anthropogenic Global Warming/Anthropogenic Climate Change."

The climate changes constantly naturally. Heck I do believe in "Climate Change," but don't believe the hoax that is AGW/ACC...

Just because someone says "I believe in "climate change" does not equal to believing that "mankind causes climate change."

The fact that you don't understand the difference shows the level of brainwashing you have been subjected to. But don't worry, you are not the only one who doesn't understand the difference.

I most definitely don't fail to understand that, and I don't appreciate you thinking so little of my mental capacities. We're complete strangers. Stop being combative, stop attacking the messenger, and just have a rational discussion.
The poll I addressed in my original post specifically says that they feel humans have a hand in the current rate of climate change, because it's changing at a rate that has never been documented/seen/whatever. It's moving really fast, and it started right around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
We're discussing the same thing, and, according to you, we both agree that climate change is happening. Where we disagree is whether or not humans have an impact on it. You don't believe we do. I believe we do. There is scores of evidence that points to the fact that we do, at least to some extent. But if we take a big enough step back, we honestly have no definitive evidence in EITHER direction. My main point is, what's so wrong with moving towards a more green-centered energy sector? There isn't anything wrong with it, other than "I don't like change".

It's generally considered poor form to attack someone because you disagree with them, without presenting evidence to back you up. The entire post I'm replying to was just you saying I don't understand the difference between 2 types of climate change. Which isn't true.
Poor form. You can do better, I've seen you do it. This post makes it seem like you don't want to actually argue my points, you just want to try to (falsely) point out that I shouldn't have a say in the discussion because "I don't understand". But, I do. Attack the points, not the person making the points.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: narrator

Where did I say CO2 is a pollutant? I didn't.

That's what AGWers say... Now you are going to claim you believe some of what they say but don't believe their main argument that CO2 is a pollutant?...

originally posted by: narrator
I was simply using CO2 as an example, as it's the most commonly talked about greenhouse gas. I also never said that the amount in the atmosphere is toxic to life. However, it most definitely is a greenhouse gas, and it most definitely causes the temperature of the earth to rise when there is more of it (CO2) in the atmosphere compared to when there is less of it.

In the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather events occur, water vapor constitutes ~97% of the greenhouse effect, if not more.
In the Troposphere CO2 constitutes ~5% of the greenhouse effect.

originally posted by: narrator
Using the current rate of growth in atmospheric CO2, we're going to hit 500 ppm within 50 years. That's going to raise the global temperature approximately 3 degrees Celsius.

BS... No one knows when atmospheric levels of CO2 will reach to 500ppm. Tomorrow we could have several major volcanic eruptions that could increase atmospheric CO2 to over 500ppm, or it could never happen. As for your claim that an increase of 100ppm to the 400ppm of CO2 that exists now will increase temperatures by 3 celsius, that's false... If in the 20th century, and for 100 years CO2 levels increased by 100ppm and temperatures increased by ~0.8 C, how the heck is the next 100ppm of CO2 will increase temperatures by 3 celsius?...

Your claim is not only false, but in fact you leave out the "real fact" that of the 0.8 celsius that increased in the 20th century, the majority of it was increased by water vapor and not CO2.

Apart from that, the absorption of heat by CO2 is not linear. You would need a higher amount of CO2, a lot more than 100ppm, for CO2 to absorb the same amount of heat that was absorbed by the 100ppm that increased in the 20th century.

originally posted by: narrator
That isn't good. Also, CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose use/presence could very easily be mitigated. So why not do something about it?

What is the harm in trying to lower the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? True, honest harm. There isn't any. So why not do it?

This yet again shows you have no idea of what you talk about.

CO2 sequestration will cause a lack of CO2 for all plant life on Earth, which will provide less harvests/less food. Not to mention the fact that with less atmospheric CO2 plant life will need more water than it needs now. With a higher level of atmospheric CO2 plant life uses water more efficiently, leaving more potable water for humans and animals.

There are several downsides to CO2 sequestration. It will be worse for all life on Earth.

Where did I say that I'm "an AGW"? I didn't. Again, stop with putting words in my mouth. It's not a good look for you. Just because I believe that humans have caused a ramp up in the rate of climate change doesn't make me an "AGW" or whatever term you're trying to use to make a negative slur towards someone. By your same logic, all republicans are nazis, because some republicans believe the same beliefs that nazis hold.
See how ridiculous that sounds? That's exactly what you're doing. Stop it.

Now, on to the rational discussion:
CO2 is most definitely NOT a pollutant. I'd like to see a scientific paper that makes that claim, because honestly, I don't believe you, it seems like you're saying that just to make "AGW"s sound stupid. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true, nor does it mean that everyone on their side believes the same thing. My father is a Christian, a devout one at that, but he laughs hysterically at the idea of Jesus being dead for 3 days and then rising from the dead. That doesn't mean he isn't a Christian, he just recognizes that the zombie Jesus story is ridiculous. Just because a fringe group of people that oppose your beliefs say something ludicrous, it doesn't mean that every single person that opposes your beliefs holds the same crazy idea. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. And humans accelerate climate change. I can say both, because I believe both.

#2- Strawman. I'm not talking about water vapor. I'm talking about CO2. Which is a greenhouse gas. Which makes the earth hotter. Logically, the more CO2 that's in the atmosphere, the hotter the earth is going to get. It's much easier to mitigate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than the amount of water vapor. Decrease the burning of fossil fuels, and CO2 levels go down. Simple as that. Water vapor...the earth is 70% water, and we have this pesky thing called the hydrologic cycle, in which water evaporates into the atmosphere, hence the presence of water vapor. Unless we get rid of all the water on earth (probably not a good thing), there's always going to be a high amount of water vapor. Which is why climate scientists want to focus on CO2...it's easier to mitigate.

#3- It isn't BS. It's fairly easy to analyze a graph of the rate of increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, look at the % that it's increasing every year (or 3, 5, 10, whatever number of years you want to) and extrapolate that to see when it'll reach a certain number, in this case 500 ppm. Basic math. If NASA is wrong about that, you should probably call them up, they'd be very excited to hear that you solved the problem, as it's making a lot of scientists pretty worried. Obviously there are small fluctuations because nothing in nature is exact, but the overwhelming trend is that we're going in the wrong direction in terms of the amount of CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. We really need to fix that. And you answered your own question in regards to the increase in Celsius: heat absorption isn't linear. The more that's in the atmosphere, the faster it'll happen.

#4- Plants did just fine without humans for a very long time. It could be argued that there were more plants back then, and fewer (or no) people. They had no problem with lower levels of CO2. That's the only time I'm going to spend on this one, as this seems like a fringe belief and is easily debunked. More plants and less people and lower levels of CO2, and plants did just fine, even flourished. Not to mention the fact that life expanded greatly during that period, with thousands of new species cropping up. High CO2 levels are affecting life on earth negatively. We need to fix that.

a reply to: TheAiIsLying

And I get tired of people whining about "kids" trying to come up with solutions without proposing one themselves, all while typing on their plastic-encases electronic devices that will possibly be cleaned up one day from floating around our oceans by such ideas.

Also, you understand that mass matters as to how things react to waves, correct? Yes, a giant, heavy-ass ship gets thrown up and down and side-to-side, but small plastics and light-weight tubes would generally ride on the surfaces still. But no one person involved in the project said that they have delusions of catching all plastic and every bit of it all at once--to expect such a thing is asinine.

Garbage trucks don't get all of the trash in the world, either, but they exist and are used because it's a good way to stop massive trash piles from forming all over the place. See how that concept works? Yes, storms still blow trash cans over and carry trash into the local environment, but it's a lot less than if garbage trucks didn't perform their services.

This is an approach to minimizing the impact of plastics on the ocean. If you think that this is more pointless than cap-and-trade legislation or forced taxation on behalf of carbon "pollutants," then I don't know what to tell you.

Best regards.

originally posted by: tabularosa
Earth is experiencing the largest extinction event ever. Guess who is to blame?

Whoever told you that lied to you.

We once lost over 90% of marine species and over 70% of land species.

And there have been numerous other large extinction events.

What else are they lying about?

a reply to: narrator

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. And humans accelerate climate change. I can say both, because I believe both.

Actually, if you to stick to a scientific discussion, you can not say that... you can say you believe that. As you point out, there is no definitive evidence either way at this time.

I believe the concerns over carbon dioxide levels are erroneous. I will accept hard data to the contrary, should any be found.

Unless we get rid of all the water on earth (probably not a good thing), there's always going to be a high amount of water vapor. Which is why climate scientists want to focus on CO2...it's easier to mitigate.

Actually it's fairly difficult to mitigate. It's easy to say "just stop burning fossil fuels," but it's much harder in practice to do so. Humans are temperate/sub-tropical creatures at best. We do not have fur or substantial fat layers (late-night WalMart shoppers excluded of course) to survive very cold climates without external insulation (which we call clothing). Yet, we have colonized vast areas of the planet far from our natural habitat. These areas experience cold temperatures on a regular basis that are not survivable without heat.

We also have developed a society that depends greatly on transportation... not just of people, but of food, clothing, fuel, and about everything else one can imagine. Transportation takes energy. At this point in time, we do not have sufficient infrastructure in place to produce the needed amounts of energy without fossil fuel use.

In addition, human contribution to carbon dioxide levels is a very small percentage of the carbon dioxide available. The rest comes from fires (a natural part of many semi-arid areas, such as California), volcanic release, fauna respiration (including us), and natural decay processes. We have no control over those.

And you answered your own question in regards to the increase in Celsius: heat absorption isn't linear. The more that's in the atmosphere, the faster it'll happen.

Actually, no. The increase in reflected heat energy versus carbon dioxide levels is not exponential, but logarithmic. The higher carbon dioxide levels rise, the less increase in heat reflection will rise for a given amount of carbon dioxide.

More plants and less people and lower levels of CO2, and plants did just fine, even flourished. Not to mention the fact that life expanded greatly during that period, with thousands of new species cropping up. High CO2 levels are affecting life on earth negatively. We need to fix that.

Again, no.

We have actual first-hand evidence that higher carbon dioxide levels, up to 2000 ppmv if memory serves, accelerate plant growth. More plant growth leads to an increase in herbivore fauna, as it means more food for them. An increase in herbivore fauna leads to an increase in carnivore fauna, for the same reason. Our evidence for increased carbon dioxide levels benefiting flora comes from established greenhouse practices, where plants are grown in a monitored environment to produce healthier plants and faster growth rates. Greenhouses commonly use increased carbon dioxide levels, up to the level mentioned above, to accomplish this. And it works. It has worked as long as I can remember.

I believe you are mistaken when adding in the condition of lower carbon dioxide levels in the past when the ecology flourished... it was actually higher back then than now.

TheRedneck

a reply to: narrator

Regardless, a group of scientists was polled, and 97% of them said they believe in climate change, and that it's probably at least partly due to mankind.

No. A group was polled, and then the responses were SELECTED and cherry picked.

I'll trust NASA, Yale, and Scientific American over some journalist I've never heard of.

All of which are keying off the Cook survey. (and cite it as such)

The main point of contention with the 97% is that it's hard to specifically quantify, and some scientists/journalists take issue with that. The precise group of scientists can't be quantified, therefore, some people (such as those you mentioned) feel like the percentage doesn't exist because the exact group can't be pinned down.

EXACTLY!!! Science is ALL ABOUT PINNING IT DOWN! If you can't quantify it, then you shouldn't believe it.

He, the MAIN critic of the 97%, agrees with the results.

Sure, if you go to Cook's site...LOL. Too funny.

You're interpreting the results in a way that fits what you want to hear.

No, YOU are. If you go by the numbers, even those putting forward the idea of climate change still can't dispute the .08 of a degree figure for an increase. What they ARE NOT SAYING though, is that this number is well within the margin of error for any statistical analysis (which is generally a plus or minus 3-4%), which means it is basically, statistically, "no change" whatsoever. To try and make it otherwise...THAT is interpreting the results in a way that fits what you have been told to hear.

originally posted by: Gazrok
a reply to: narrator

Regardless, a group of scientists was polled, and 97% of them said they believe in climate change, and that it's probably at least partly due to mankind.

No. A group was polled, and then the responses were SELECTED and cherry picked.

I'll trust NASA, Yale, and Scientific American over some journalist I've never heard of.

All of which are keying off the Cook survey. (and cite it as such)

The main point of contention with the 97% is that it's hard to specifically quantify, and some scientists/journalists take issue with that. The precise group of scientists can't be quantified, therefore, some people (such as those you mentioned) feel like the percentage doesn't exist because the exact group can't be pinned down.

EXACTLY!!! Science is ALL ABOUT PINNING IT DOWN! If you can't quantify it, then you shouldn't believe it.

He, the MAIN critic of the 97%, agrees with the results.

Sure, if you go to Cook's site...LOL. Too funny.

You're interpreting the results in a way that fits what you want to hear.

No, YOU are. If you go by the numbers, even those putting forward the idea of climate change still can't dispute the .08 of a degree figure for an increase. What they ARE NOT SAYING though, is that this number is well within the margin of error for any statistical analysis (which is generally a plus or minus 3-4%), which means it is basically, statistically, "no change" whatsoever. To try and make it otherwise...THAT is interpreting the results in a way that fits what you have been told to hear.

It's hilarious that 97% myth lives on. For anyone interested in thinking for themselves, here's a pretty easy to understand explanation of why that 97% claim is bogus.

a reply to: Gazrok

It's kind of funny in a way... I keep hearing the argument that 97% of all climate scientists agree, as well as the argument that there is this vast conspiracy of oil companies that are paying off scientists to dispute Global Warming. I just don't see how both can be true (even though I have seen people use both in a single post!). If the oil companies are paying so many scientists off, why was Cook able to show only 3% disagreed? If 97% disagree with the supposed oil companies' payoff goals, how are the oil companies responsible for such a vast conspiracy?

The two complaints simply do not make sense taken together. Of course, neither do many of the wacky claims (are you listening, Al Gore?) surrounding Global Warming, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Of course, I know what Cook did, and I know I do not work for any energy company (nor do many of the scientists/engineers I know personally), so I know both claims are false. I just don't see how anyone could possibly believe in both of them at the same time?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gazrok
a reply to: narrator

Regardless, a group of scientists was polled, and 97% of them said they believe in climate change, and that it's probably at least partly due to mankind.

No. A group was polled, and then the responses were SELECTED and cherry picked.

I'll trust NASA, Yale, and Scientific American over some journalist I've never heard of.

All of which are keying off the Cook survey. (and cite it as such)

The main point of contention with the 97% is that it's hard to specifically quantify, and some scientists/journalists take issue with that. The precise group of scientists can't be quantified, therefore, some people (such as those you mentioned) feel like the percentage doesn't exist because the exact group can't be pinned down.

EXACTLY!!! Science is ALL ABOUT PINNING IT DOWN! If you can't quantify it, then you shouldn't believe it.

He, the MAIN critic of the 97%, agrees with the results.

Sure, if you go to Cook's site...LOL. Too funny.

You're interpreting the results in a way that fits what you want to hear.

No, YOU are. If you go by the numbers, even those putting forward the idea of climate change still can't dispute the .08 of a degree figure for an increase. What they ARE NOT SAYING though, is that this number is well within the margin of error for any statistical analysis (which is generally a plus or minus 3-4%), which means it is basically, statistically, "no change" whatsoever. To try and make it otherwise...THAT is interpreting the results in a way that fits what you have been told to hear.

You are batting 1000 in this post. Home runs.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

*applause*


Thank you. A well thought out, detailed analysis.

I, for one, appreciate the work that went into it.

Again, thank you.



This has spurred me to conduct a study of my own. We often hear about water levels rising and since I live on a coastal area, I can look at water levels here.


Thanks for making me think!

Im in my 40s and it has not moved lol. The weather fluctuates as the OP shows but these crooks like Al Gore and the evil UN with all its Global warming run for the hills if your rich and not just kill yourself if your not types need to be hung from the nearest Oak tree.

It was hotter, a lot hotter many years ago but that was just me about to have a heat stroke everyday. Just sayin. If the Sea was rising I would not be near it !!!

It always baffled me that these people talk about Global Warming like its a Crisis. The earth tends to warm after an Ice Age or did these people not go to elementary school?

Measurement time were changed from afternoon to morning around 1960. Thats why all official studies only go far as 1960... So you have huge error on your calculations.

a reply to: Koldioxid

"Until the late 1950s the majority of stations in the U.S. record recorded temperatures in the late afternoon, generally between 5 and 7 PM. However, volunteer temperature observers were also asked to take precipitation measurements from rain gauges, and starting around 1960 the U.S. Weather Service requested that observers start taking their measurements in the morning (between 7 and 9 AM), as that would minimize the amount of evaporation from rain gauges and result in more accurate precipitation measurements. Between 1960 and today, the majority of stations switched from a late afternoon to an early morning observation time, resulting a systemic change (and resulting bias) in temperature observations."

a reply to: Koldioxid

Here is the data for Redstone Army Air Field, AL (station KHUA) for the date January 2, 1950. If you took time to look, you would have already noticed that it specifies a maximum, minimum, and daily average temperature for that date. A single daily reading, whether morning or afternoon, is insufficient to produce the data presented.

In the OP, the very first link was to the database used in my analysis. You have taken a general argument and tried to apply it to a specific situation. One click of your mouse on that link would have informed you that your statement is not applicable to the data used.

In addition, I did not see any supporting source for where the quoted statement came from in your post.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Since I first read your Op and S& several Flags I have wondered how much your end result would have changed if the data from say 1930 was included ?

The good news is we peons do not have to just rely on some government NWO funded agency to tell us what is happening. There are plenty of independent people looking and gathering information about the climate that cast a critical eye on the IPCC findings and other "we only have 10 years left" people.

a reply to: 727Sky

I wonder the same thing. Chances are, we'll never know... the data simply isn't there. Sadly.

But you're right about the good news part. If this little analysis has done anything, may it be that it awakened others to the possibilities for good, reliable research. Science is not wizardry... one need not go to Hogwart's school to learn how to cast spells and ride brooms and work wands. It's just knowledgeable people, no different that you or anyone else reading this who want to know the truth, actually working with the data to determine what that truth is. And today, with the Internet and online access to books, all the needed knowledge is there and easy to find... if one has a clear mind and a sincere desire for truth.

I have done nothing here that anyone else could not do.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: RudeMarine

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

*applause*


Thank you. A well thought out, detailed analysis.

I, for one, appreciate the work that went into it.

Again, thank you.



This has spurred me to conduct a study of my own. We often hear about water levels rising and since I live on a coastal area, I can look at water levels here.


Thanks for making me think!

It always baffled me that these people talk about Global Warming like its a Crisis. The earth tends to warm after an Ice Age or did these people not go to elementary school?

This is another fact that is simply ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative. Geologically, we're currently at the end of an ice age. It's completely natural that the planet would warm during this period.