Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

I actually do believe that man has played a part but I also believe as shown in Jesse Ventura's conspiracy theory that there are some pretty powerful scum bags making money out of the climate change fiasco and the carbon point's con.

So what?
People have always taken advantage of the situation, good and bad. Does that mean it should be ignored? Does that mean that nothing should be done to mitigate the effects? "Oh, people can make money from this. Let's not do anything because people can make money from this."

Or let's do a reactionary something and cause quality of life to diminish for millions of people across the globe.

I get it. I do. Don't break the planet. Fine. But skepticism is warranted when there is money in it on BOTH sides of argument.

a reply to: 727Sky
But your OP is not about cause and effect. It is about effect.
It is about an article which disputes that global temperatures are rising.

In the past 365 days there have been 128 all time high temperature records set, vs 61 all time low temperature records. These are not "adjusted" numbers. Is that "proof" that the planet is getting warmer? No, but it sure seems to be a strong indication.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Deny the blob, all 3 of them!

Deny acidification! of our oceans

Deny science, unless its industry scientists!

Deny scientist because a politician said so!

Whatever you do don't go outside as it might effect your ideology!

a reply to: Phage

What do you mean so what?, if there is no correlation between recent warming and CO2 its time to end the BS and start funding real science. Instead of pushing an agenda from ignorance that profits no-one but banks and big oil we need work out how to better look after our home and prepare for any natural climate variations it may throw at us. If the sun enters another Maunder Minimum (livingston and penn) and causes another LIA we can kiss half the population away from famine.

a reply to: glend

What do you mean so what?, if there is no correlation between recent warming and CO2 its time to end the BS and start funding real science

There is a correlation. Over the past 100 years CO2 levels and temperatures have been rising.

a reply to: Phage

The world is warming.... naturally. Cyclically.

Remember, not so many years ago global cooling was the threat du jour.

(I am braced for the verbal beratement for having replied to your post)

a reply to: glend

LOL,

That is not going to happen.

The masters must have their Carbon Credit Scam.


There are easy solutions to sequester carbon. Problem is the right people don't make Billions doing them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Phage

The world is warming.... naturally. Cyclically.

Remember, not so many years ago global cooling was the threat du jour.

(I am braced for the verbal beratement for having replied to your post)

Cyclically, the world should be cooling.

In the 70's (actually it is "so many years ago") a few scientists made the claim in the media while many others where quietly working with reality.

a reply to: Phage

Yes there is a correlation but not the one you want to hear. Vostok ice core studies have shown that increases in CO2 levels have followed temperature changes not caused them. Which makes sense given that warming oceans are no longer able to absorb as much CO2, melting siberian marshes etc release more CO2. Given that earth has survived 10,000 ppm of CO2 without going into a run away greenhouse effect doesn't give CO2 a high insulation value in my book. Is there still not a atmospheric model that proves CO2 causes climate change?

a reply to: glend

Vostok ice core studies have shown that increases in CO2 levels have followed temperature changes not caused them.

Yes. Rising temperatures will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 because warmer oceans will release CO2. The trouble is, ocean levels of CO2 are rising. That means that oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it. The fact that prehistoric CO2 levels followed an increase in temperatures does not invalidate the fact that rising CO2 levels will cause an increase in temperatures. The physics of radiative forcing show that this is true.

Given that earth has survived 10,000 ppm of CO2 without going into a run away greenhouse effect doesn't give CO2 a high insulation value in my book.

Does your book take into account that the Sun produced 4% less radiation during the Ordovician period (with actually something over 5,000 ppm CO2, not 10,000)?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend

What do you mean so what?, if there is no correlation between recent warming and CO2 its time to end the BS and start funding real science

There is a correlation. Over the past 100 years CO2 levels and temperatures have been rising.

Agreed but there are also articles (even posted on ATS) that state temperature increase causes CO2 to increase; Temp first then CO2. hahaha for every posted article there is another side to that coin. The earth will continue to be polluted by industry and humans endeavors.....the countries we live in are but a microcosm or one small part of the rest of the world.... for most of the rest do not even has Wifi much less internet because they are to poor to afford a computer..

Personal observation over the years and speaking with some 90 year olds in S.E. Asia.. The summer seasons really does seem to be hotter and the rainy seasons seem to be more violent. The winds associated with the rainy season storms are more violent more often than what is remembered in past years . Last week it got up to 43C one day and the next it was 45C.. That is very hot for around here....or anyplace when I have to be outside..

As someone else stated if this is the beginning of a new mini ice age many of our pollution problems will be taken care of for there will be one heck of a lot less people is just a few years after onset.

I remember back in Aviation weather long long ago it was stated that all weather and wind is caused by differential temperatures. More cold in certain areas and hotter in other adjoining locations and you can expect, due to the boundary differential, someone down below is gonna get pounded..

Ice age or global warming the differential temps are going to make us surface dwellers duck at times.

Since the alarmist missed many of the 2015 predictions ( eweee history we can't have that we want to talk about now) it will be interesting to see if some of their predictions for the time frame of 2020 or 2025 are a little closer..

I will probably be dead by then.... to old... so you guys carry on.. and maybe I will watch from afar. hahah

a reply to: Phage

I was born long before the 70's so I used "years" instead of "decades" for my own vanity. A few is defined by you as......?
And the media is doing the chicken-little cries in direct opposition of truth, which apparently is a commodity to whoever is the highest bidder. $$$$$$$$$$$. Cha-ching!

Does China worry about carbon credits? Or India? Gross polluters who give the finger to global warming theorists. Get them in check and then chat about global climate change.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767
I didn't say you were ignorant. You at least, apparently, acknowledge that the world is warming. The OP does not seem to.

The world seems a bit warmer now than it did 50 years ago. That's just a 'personal' observation.

Do you think weather/temperature monitors are adequate/calibrated to make a truly 'scientific' call ... something that discriminates between the various perceptions?

a reply to: Ultralight
I don't care much about the media, science is more my thing.

So, your point is because China and India may not be doing anything we should ignore it? Or are you saying that AGW is a myth? Your point is not clear.

www.c2es.org...
www.c2es.org...

a reply to: Snarl

Do you think weather/temperature monitors are adequate/calibrated to make a truly 'scientific' call ... something that discriminates between the various perceptions?

Yes. Given that there is more than one system of doing so and they all agree in a warming trend.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky
But your OP is not about cause and effect. It is about effect.
It is about an article which disputes that global temperatures are rising.

In the past 365 days there have been 128 all time high temperature records set, vs 61 all time low temperature records. These are not "adjusted" numbers. Is that "proof" that the planet is getting warmer? No, but it sure seems to be a strong indication.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Tell us Phage, what direction should global temps be going? Seems out dear planet is not static and average temps either move up or down. Or do you believe they should ideally remain the same? If you can answer those questions with data and sound reasoning, then I'll listen to what you have to say.

IMO the global warming initiative is a diversion from something else. Just to let you know where I stand.

a reply to: Bilk22
"Should be going?" That doesn't mean much but since solar irradiance (the primary driver of climate) has been stable (or slightly declining) global temperatures should be be stable (or slightly declining). With that in mind, in lieu of other observed radiative forcing factors than CO2 levels, it is appropriate that temperatures are rising.

If you can answer those questions with data and sound reasoning, then I'll listen to what you have to say.

That's nice. The data is readily available.
lasp.colorado.edu...
www.climate.unibe.ch...

IMO the global warming initiative is a diversion from something else. Just to let you know where I stand.

I see.

a reply to: Phage
Why dont you lead the way and show how much you are going to pay to make a change. Actions speak louder then words. Another foul ball?

a reply to: visitedbythem

Huh? I don't do well as a leader, I seem to rub people the wrong way.

But I do drive as little as possible. Use as little electricity as I can. Both because it's cheaper and because it reduces my footprint. Recycle what I can (even though I don't get paid for it anymore). If I had enough money to put in PV I would and if I did that I certainly would have an electric vehicle.

Do you think denying there is a problem is a solution?

Sorry guys global warming is only part of the problem. There is a symbiotic relationship to global warming and habitat destruction. As we heat the planet we make habitat desruction happen faster. Also by destroying the ecosystem on such a large scale we also effect climate change as life cycles that are partbof the biomechanical machine are destroyed.

Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing we can do at this point accept stop consuming. We can talk about carbon and taxes and bull# solutions but by he time they are inacted it will be far too late it already is. The only thing to do now is learn to survive.

The other situation is that the world isnt just going to be hotter but the weather will become severe in both hot and cold conditions. More like global weirding.

I would love to see scientific proof that politicians are capable of creating policies that would have any impact at all.

The current suggestions would do next to nothing. But hey we cant stop people from buying useless junk which is where most of the problems dealing with the enviornment come from.