A look at the science behind climate change

a reply to: JesperA

Yep, and in reality, pollution may prevent global warming. There are a couple studies that make a good argument for clean air laws leading to the step up in temps in the 70's and 80's.

a reply to: gortex

Of course the level of climate change is at issue. More importantly, the level of anticipated climate change is at issue, considering every single prediction made but climate science has been proven wrong.

You feel free to call inaccurate prediction, science. I'll call it what it is, bunk occultism.

Jaden

If you laugh at apocalypse predicters that keep pushing back dates when proven wrong but "believe" in man made global warming, you might be a retard.

Jaden

originally posted by: dfnj2015

There are "government has no role in society" people who just refuse to accept the reality of man-made global warming.

This is not rocket science. It's just Big Oil pumps the system with anti-propaganda people love to echo thinking its their own thoughts. The only way to defend yourself against the propaganda is to be aware of its existence.

Here is how I know Big Oil is destroying the quality of life for humanity. When I go fishing off the New Jersey coast there's a crazy thick heavy smog of soot all the way down the Parkway you can see offshore. It's big dark and looks extremely unhealthy. But profit is our religion. Everyone serves the system. The system does not serve humanity.

OK, so honest question:

The industrial revolution started in the late 1700's and was in full swing by the mid-late 1800's. Granted, much of the power early on was generated by burning wood for steam power rather than coal, but the switch to coal happened in the late 1800's. Yet we don't see any significant change in temperature in the graph above for nearly 60 years after the switch from wood to coal happened, and for over 150 years after the start of the industrial revolution.

Not to mention that burning wood for steam power is not any better than coal, as steam is nothing but water vapor which is easily the most important contributor to a warming atmosphere, plus burning wood emits plenty of nasty pollutants as well. And there were little to no pollution controls throughout the 1800's and early 1900's. Considering all that, you would think that we'd see an increase in global temperatures much sooner than we did...so why didn't we?

a reply to: dfnj2015
I’m happy to believe man made climate change.

But your graph only goes back to 1850.

That’s not realistic. 1850 to present day is not even a blink of an eye, a micro micro snapshot of time. It proves nothing.

People who talk about science then produce this are contradicting themselves.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Predictive models are awesome until they're not predictive any more.

Precisely. Something seems to be mucking up the natural cycles. Models which take increasing CO2 concentrations into account seem to have a pretty good handle on things.

Whereas we have predictions like this, not so much:

“In 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark. With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.”

Don Easterbrook

Get back to me when it is statistically significant. NOTICE the Range of the data. That graph is dishonest when the scale is not labeled. Temp ranges are WAY more than 1.2 Degree C or F. To think that 1.2 Degree or 3 Degree is really statistically significant on the Actual Scale of the data, is CHERRY PICKING.

I attempted this post a few minutes ago, but it didn't seem to go through: I hope this is not a double post.

First, it is statistically significant and the scale is labeled. The scale is labeled as temperature anomaly. I wonder if you know what "temperature anomaly" means and why it's used? A temperature anomaly is the difference between a temperature measurement you make at a given station at a given time of the year compared to the average temperature reported by that same station at an equivalent time of the year when averaged over a reference time period. In modern climate research that reference time period is often taken to be from 1956 to 1980.

To give a hypothetical example: Suppose I have weather station sitting out in the middle of an open field somewhere in the middle of Oklahoma. I take the daily minimum and daily maximum temperatures it measures for every day in July, 1956 and average those to get an average temperature for the month of July, 1956. Then I do the same thing for every July from 1957 to 1980, and I find that the average July temperature reported by that station doesn't change much during that period; it's pretty much a flat line and it comes out to 90 F. Then I have another station 5 miles away that's located near the bottom of a river valley and I do the same calculations and the average July temperature between 1956 and 1980 comes out to be 80 F. That's not surprising, because you would expect the river valley to be cooler, on the average. Then I go to the same stations in the year 2000 and the average July temperature out in the middle of the field comes out to be 92 F and the average July temperature in the river valley comes out to be 82 F. So both stations show a 2 degree F temperature rise for July 2000 compared to the average for the period 1956 to1980, even though the river valley station is consistently 10 degrees F cooler than the open field station.

This technique uses the same thermometers located in the same conditions to compare temperatures between two different time periods and is done precisely to subtract out the effect of temperature biases between different geographic locations which may be large compared to the temperature differences you are trying to measure.

After that, then the only question is how accurate are the thermometers in use in weather stations? The National Weather Service requires stations to be accurate to about .25 degrees K. If you're measuring a temperature of about 90 degrees F, that's about 305 degrees K, so the absolute accuracy of the measurement would be about .25/305 , or about one part in 1220. That easily makes the temperature anomaly measurements statistically significant.

And by the way, if you really, truly don't think that temperature anomaly measurements are statistically significant and therefore meaningless, then why do you quote the article by climate scientist Anthony Watts that appeared on the American Thinker website and the journal article by Leeper et al. that Watts refers to and why do you endorse their conclusions? The Leeper et al. article utilizes the temperature anomaly methodology to reach its conclusions, Watts accepts those conclusions as vindication for his position, and—apparently—so do you. You can’t simultaneously claim that Watts’ findings are correct and that the mathematical methods used to obtain them are bogus.

Or can you?

a reply to: ausername

That's the problem with data. You can, with a little effort, make it say most anything you want...

There's more to it, the science, than just data.

Climate change is a thing...the question is how much of it is driven by the actions of man. ...and that, of course, is where the politicians, and others, come out to play. Non-experts giving us all their "expert" **paid for** opinions.

a reply to: underwerks

Why yes, that is, indeed, what happens.

Oddly enough, most of it seems to originate from the side that wants to tax us more, you know, so they can save us...all while getting rich **cough**Al Gore**cough**.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Global warming crisis debunked:

CO2 as a warmer is pathetic. It's a logarithmic warmer and for every doubling of it in the atmosphere, we have observed a 1C growth in temperature. We add CO2 in a linear fashion, so the next 1C change will come in about 350 years.

a reply to: seagull

"Torture numbers long enough and they'll give you any answer you want."
-Anon

a reply to: eletheia

I found that the other night. Interesting, no??

a reply to: DBCowboy

Word!!

Always has, always will. Cooler, than hotter, then cooler, again. ...and again, and again, and again.

It happened before man climbed down out of the trees, in fact, climate change may, indeed, have been the spur for that action. It's happened while we've been here, and it'll likely be happening long after we're gone.

It is easier to deny climate change than to accept that perhaps we, the human race, need to improve on the way we currently do things.

Why should we not requite solar panels on all on all new construction where it would work?

Why should we continue to make cars and trucks that need so much gas, diesel and oil? The answer to that is to support the oil companies.

Why do we not have infrastructure in place to make commuting easier? Once again, this is to support the auto industry and the oil industry.

Why do so many people continue to believe that burning millions of gallons of fuel per day will not have an impact on the environment? I think it is deliberate miss-information being indirectly supported by business that could lose business if people stand up for change to a more environmentally friendly way of life.

what happen to the whole solar system is heating up ? lost in all these carbon taxes ?

www.space.news...

a reply to: Wildbob77

Why should we not requite solar panels on all on all new construction where it would work?

Cost. Why do you hate poor people?

Why should we continue to make cars and trucks that need so much gas, diesel and oil?

Again, cost. Why do you hate poor people so much?

Why do we not have infrastructure in place to make commuting easier?

Because we have 300 million people spread through 3.8 million square miles. Most metro areas do have commuting infrastructure.

Why do so many people continue to believe that burning millions of gallons of fuel per day will not have an impact on the environment?

The question isn't whether there's an impact. The question is how much and what, if anything needs to be done about it. If you read my previous post it will become apparent that there is a lot of misinformation out there but it's basically all in support of man made climate change.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't need a scientist to tell me that the climate has changed.

I have lived in the same southern swamp area my entire life.

I know the climate has changed.

What I don't know is why. Or what caused that change.

When you live in farm country you grow up noticing the weather patterns.

No one here denies that the climate can and does change.

Most of us are skeptical that its as bad as claimed, what with the emails revealing numbers having to be fudged to fit theory, for one. Also am skeptical because the solution is taxes and not something that makes a damn bit of difference.

originally posted by: Subsonic

originally posted by: dfnj2015

There are "government has no role in society" people who just refuse to accept the reality of man-made global warming.

This is not rocket science. It's just Big Oil pumps the system with anti-propaganda people love to echo thinking its their own thoughts. The only way to defend yourself against the propaganda is to be aware of its existence.

Here is how I know Big Oil is destroying the quality of life for humanity. When I go fishing off the New Jersey coast there's a crazy thick heavy smog of soot all the way down the Parkway you can see offshore. It's big dark and looks extremely unhealthy. But profit is our religion. Everyone serves the system. The system does not serve humanity.

OK, so honest question:

The industrial revolution started in the late 1700's and was in full swing by the mid-late 1800's. Granted, much of the power early on was generated by burning wood for steam power rather than coal, but the switch to coal happened in the late 1800's. Yet we don't see any significant change in temperature in the graph above for nearly 60 years after the switch from wood to coal happened, and for over 150 years after the start of the industrial revolution.

Not to mention that burning wood for steam power is not any better than coal, as steam is nothing but water vapor which is easily the most important contributor to a warming atmosphere, plus burning wood emits plenty of nasty pollutants as well. And there were little to no pollution controls throughout the 1800's and early 1900's. Considering all that, you would think that we'd see an increase in global temperatures much sooner than we did...so why didn't we?

The extraction from the Earth and burning of fossil fuels for energy production (and therefore the introduction into the atmosphere of excess CO2) basically tracks economic activity. Since the time of the industrial revolution, the world’s economy has grown exponentially. As with any exponential growth, it starts of slowly and accelerates continuously, so it always takes a while for its effect to be seen. The world economy in 1850 was less than 0.5% the size it is today. Here is a graph showing the world wide consumption of fossil fuel and the buildup of excess CO2 in the atmosphere from 1850 to the present:

c3headlines.typepad.com...

It is true that water vapor is the strongest contributor to the greenhouse effect. However, the water vapor that is put into the air by the direct burning of either wood or fossil fuel has a negligible effect on the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere at any given time. That’s because water vapor is very transient in the atmosphere. Evaporation from surface bodies of water is continuously putting it in and precipitation is continuously taking it out—on a daily if not hourly basis. The amount of water vapor exchange with the atmosphere due to evaporation and precipitation totally swamps the direct injection into the atmosphere by burning of fuels.

Since the ambient atmospheric temperature near the surface of the Earth is what drives evaporation, the concentration of water vapor in the air will rapidly come into equilibrium with whatever the surface temperature is. If the atmosphere becomes warmer, more evaporation will occur until the air becomes saturated at the new and higher temperature, at which point any additional evaporation will be offset by additional precipitation.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and Methane (CH4) have very weak physical processes for removing them from the air. It never gets cold enough for either of those molecules to fall out of the sky as liquids or solids. CO2 will go into solution in rain drops and precipitate out as Carbonic acid, but that is not a very efficient process. The main natural processes for removing these gases from the air are chemical processes—the most notable one being photosynthesis for CO2. Even so, the average residence time for a CO2 molecule introduced into the air is measured in a few hundred years.

Water vapor is basically an amplifier for the greenhouse effect of CO2 and CH4. As those two gases build up, they cause a small temperature rise, which causes more water vapor to also build up which causes the temperature to build up even more.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

The way science is supposed to be conducted is to eliminate personal bias, bigotry, prejudice, and superstition.

The problem is one side of the issue just refuses to believe in the science no matter what:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Listen to Greta's talk. She's very compelling. How can you possibly argue with her little girl logic:

97 percent of 33 percent of all scientists are climatologist. The 33 percent are apparently out to make money by lying to the rest of us. Planet climate changes by itself. Its arrogance to claim man is causing it. And greta can go bleep herself. Little disease carrier.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

You are in the 3% then:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Are you a climate scientists? I'm just wondering where the authority of your credentials about speaking on the topic are coming from? Or are you just an amateur like me?

If you were an amateur anything you'd know that study is false, it's sources are cloaked and it's methods are hidden - 97% of Scientists don't agree the sky is blue. The closest anyone has come to verifying this "study" is that of the 10,000 supposed sources only a handful went on actual record and were even willing to say it might be humans - I can find 12 in 10,000 people to claim cats are smarter than humans on record. Then theres the matter of handing out billions to fund these "scientists" which sounds exactly like corruption.

An increase of solar output by less than .01% can cause global temperatures to rise by 2c, we've seen this happen in the mid 20th century and other times throughout history - 4x the claimed increase caused by the entire period post industrial revolution but still far below average temperature for all by the tiniest fraction of Earths history...dinosaur farts bro, man made by time travelers....

We don't even calculate things like international air travel which would likely be double auto based pollution but still 1/10th of gas flaring which is an easy fix as it's simply burning natural gas produced though extracting and refining oil....but the real killer bro the 97+1% of green house gasses...WATER VAPOR - FCK CLOUDS, DESTROY THEM ALL and the Oceans other bodies of water, milk rocks for the 5% of water they contain and eject it into space...for the polar bears!!!!

a reply to: circuitsports

If you were an amateur anything you'd know that study is false

If you looked at the link you'd know it refers to a number of studies.

An increase of solar output by less than .01% can cause global temperatures to rise by 2c, we've saw this happen in the mid 20th century

Source?

We don't even calculate things like international air travel which would likely be double auto based pollution

Actually, we do.
davidsuzuki.org...

WATER VAPOR - FCK CLOUDS, DESTROY THEM ALL

Clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is invisible. Low and mid level clouds tend to increase albedo and thus have a cooling effect. But the atmospheric content of water vapor (which is, indeed a very powerful greenhouse gas) is temperature dependent, CO2 is not, concentrations just keep rising.