Sandy is a storm alright, and a big one, however there is no evidence of increased storm activity in the tropical zone, and there has been no net gain in global temperature in the past 16 years. So, what warming ?
Originally posted by ray b: your chart cuts off about 1984 for sun spot cycles and shows no data post 1990 as did most of the charts in that link you posted bear
cherry pick much??????
No, that's the only chart I had. I'll try to find another one.
quote
all the while the north pole is going to be ice free soon but the nut-con's spin machine will keep going
They've been saying that for 20 years, ray. It isn't even CLOSE to being ice free. Looks like you and the warmists are the ones spinning.
The study of the Troposphere temperatures is the most exact study of mean temperature
Notice the period between 1996 and 2011 the temperature variations were only about 1/2 a degree Celcius over the entire time period. And, notice that we ended up at the same mean temperture at the end of it or thereabouts.
This is data collected by satellites. This is not ground level stations with all the effects of urban heat and other factors.
It goes to show that Global Warming is not the issue that Gore presented at all. It shows how fatuous their arguements are.
'''Twice I have mentioned that the way the microwave signal is generated at different altitudes in the atmosphere is important. Go back and look at the first figure, of weighting functions. The horizontal line at 200 mbar marks the approximate starting height of the Stratosphere. (this actually varies from 1l km near the pole to 17 km at the equator). Look at how much of each curve is above this line. And recall that one of the major effects of AGW is a cooling of the Stratosphere. So Stratospheric cooling adds a cooling bias to the microwave signals. The signal the satellite measures underestimates the Tropospheric temperature. This is most an issue with channels T2 & T3. For T2, around 15% of the signal originates in the Stratosphere and since the Stratosphere has cooled much more than the Troposphere has warmed the effect of this is more than15% of the reading. T3 is split almost 50/50 between the 2 layers. T4 on the other hand gets most of its signal from the Stratosphere with very little from the Troposphere. As a result T2 & T3 significantly underestimate the warming that has occurred in their nominal altitude band. Without some form of correction, they are almost useless. '''
Many people seem to get much of their information from what they see in newspapers, with variously biased viewpoints presented in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Canadian Free Press, etc. I may be considerably different, in that I always like to look at both sides of things that I take special interest in. So when I decided to look closely at the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming crisis claims, I avoided focusing on media reports, and instead, went directly to available raw climate data. The intent was to see if that data might just as reasonably be interpreted differently.
Then, what really drew me into the subject, was when I found that I couldn’t obtain the raw data that I was looking for. I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn’t share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.
It's an interesting read from someone who isn't a Climate Scientist™, but is a gifted engineer and understands how to interpret data. He doesn't come up with any data or do any research of his own. He just analyzed the data presented as proof of Global Warming.
It's a good interview with Forbes, and includes a link to his site with his own analysis of the data. Note, he's using their data, not his own.
Yeah right. Global Warming in the stratosphere causes Global Cooling in the Troposphere.
This is techno-nonsense. If the troposphere is cooler, it is because of lower sun activity. It has nothing to do with anything else. Somebody may be paid to try to discredit one system against another, but the fact is that warmer stratosphere cannot possibly be implicated in cooler Troposphere, and, it is well understood that satellite reading of temperatures is untampered with.
So sunspots do impact climate (of course only in the U.S. according to that graph ) I think most would agree on that. Climate Scientists and experts have accounted for solar activity, it's in the research.
Seriously what point was your earlier graph supposed to make? That no matter what sunspot activity was happening didn't matter.... just the length of the cycle as compared to temperature? I'm still not following.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-26-2012).]
A Cool-Headed Climate Conversation With Aerospace Legend Burt Rutan It's an interesting read from someone who isn't a Climate Scientist™, but is a gifted engineer and understands how to interpret data. He doesn't come up with any data or do any research of his own. He just analyzed the data presented as proof of Global Warming.
It's a good interview with Forbes, and includes a link to his site with his own analysis of the data. Note, he's using their data, not his own.
I found this interesting as well...
There is a common lie that the “alarmist” scientists are motivated by money. The opposite is true: of the 16 “sources” (only four of whom had scientific training in the field) that Rutan published within a soothing syrup editorial in the Wall Street Journal, 12 had connections to energy firms.
Closing the matter, let’s look at the BEST (Berkeley Earth Sciences Team) research on climate change and the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect. Professor Richard Muller, widely regarded as a skeptic, said, “Global Warming is real.” His team, to avoid charges of cherry picking (which Rutan routinely implies), analyzed 1.6 billion data points. They found more than a 2 to 1 preponderance of evidence for warming. Nor can prejudice be implied for reasons of greed. The research was funded by the Koch Foundation, fossil fuel magnates.
The bottom line is that Burt Rutan is not competent in the field. His data field is biased. Most importantly, he is locked into the carbon cycle energy program and can’t imagine any other way of life. But we must find a new way of life or face a “Great Extinction” of more than 90 percent of life forms on this planet dying, including our own.
The bottom line is that Burt Rutan is not competent in the field. His data field is biased. Most importantly, he is locked into the carbon cycle energy program and can’t imagine any other way of life. But we must find a new way of life or face a “Great Extinction” of more than 90 percent of life forms on this planet dying, including our own.
HE USED THEIR DATA, what data he could get, at least. Their own data doesn't support their own conclusions.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-26-2012).]
When you can't argue with a man's theory or statements of fact, then argue about his character. The old "Character Assassination" often used by leftists.
Try this on.
"The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation."
OK, so you'll believe that all of the skepticism about global warming is because of money from oil companies and polluters, but you WON'T believe that governments and scientists can be influenced by money?
The Warmists are likely the same guys who believe in Barack Obama. The man who has lived off the public purse for his whole career. Of course he isn't in it for the money either. Or would you more believe in Mitt Romney who leaves a multimillion dollar business to help his country?
These are likely the guys who believe that Romney is in it for the money, for the oil interests, but Al Gore isn't even though it is proven he has made multi-millions on the "new energy" and got his bucks to support his extravagant lifestyle, all in the name of ecology?
But, hey, don't believe the host of independent thinkers out there who still don't believe polar bears are starving, islands are disappearing under the waves and weather is degenerating all over the world.
Or can one reasonably prove the theories espoused by Al Gore in the 90's which still have not come true?
I'm curious if the climate change deniers are in full throat after Sandy. Folks there is change happening. How much is natural and how much is man caused is still open to debate as far as I'm concerned, but surely something is going on and it's happening faster and on a greater scale than i've ever seen.
I'm curious if the climate change deniers are in full throat after Sandy. Folks there is change happening. How much is natural and how much is man caused is still open to debate as far as I'm concerned, but surely something is going on and it's happening faster and on a greater scale than i've ever seen.
What evidence is there that global warming caused this storm?
Did you only read the part about deniers? Something is going on. I am not ruling out natural causes. I am not ruling out man causes. I am not ruling out a combination of the two. You only seem interested in completely denying any connection with man caused change. I'm not able to make that leap.
Did you only read the part about deniers? Something is going on. I am not ruling out natural causes. I am not ruling out man causes. I am not ruling out a combination of the two. You only seem interested in completely denying any connection with man caused change. I'm not able to make that leap.
You are being led by these scamsters. They count on the naive, good natured or outright stupid, for this scam to continue.
NOAA's Martin Hoerling rejects 'Frankenstorm' climate link: 'This is not some spell conjured upon us by great external forces....unless you believe in the monster flicks of Universal Studios fame!' -- Meteorologist Hoerling of NOAA: 'The immediate cause is most likely little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent W. Atlantic in Oct....nothing unusual with that'
Martin Hoerling of NOAA on Sandy: 'As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over N. Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change' -- U.S. Govt Scientist Hoerling: 'Nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades'
Frankenscience: 'Sandy doesn't tell us anything about climate change' -- Prof. Pielke Jr.: 'We've done long-term trends with respect to hurricane damage in the United States, and it's very safe to say that regardless of how [Sandy] plays out, there's a century-long time series with no trend in it — and that's in damage, the number of landfalls, or the intensity of storms at landfall. So, if you are looking for signals of long-term climate change, focusing in on any one storm is the wrong way to go about it to begin with'
Sandy caused by global warming? 'The science of climate change & hurricanes does not support this conclusion' -- It's 'just not supported by science at this time' -- Houston Chronicle's Science guy Eric Berger: '...it is a big stretch to go from there to blaming Sandy on climate change. It's a stretch that is just not supported by science at this time'
Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels on Sandy: 'It's also consistent with a planet with colder temperatures as well as one with warmer ones' -- Michaels: 'More important, events like this are inevitable on a planet that has an ocean with the geography of the Atlantic (meaning a Gulf Stream-like feature), a large north-south continent on its western margin without a transverse mountain range to inhibit the merger of tropical warmth with polar cold, and four seasons in the temperate latitudes'
German Meteorological Expert Says: 'No Evidence Showing Link Between Storms And Global Warming' -- Meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt: 'Brandt said that by looking back at the global data available over the last decades, there's 'no indication or evidence showing there's been an increase in storm activity. The data don't show it.' He added: 'Luckily we don't need to worry much about increasing storms in the future'
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: 'Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane' Hurricane Expert Chris Landsea: Any connection between AGW & hurricanes is 'almost certainly undetectable' -- '...and that this view is not particularly controversial among tropical cyclone climatologists. He concluded that hurricanes should not be the 'poster' representing a human influence on climate...Chris responded that asserting such a connection can be easily shown to be incorrect and thus risks some of the trust that the public has in scientists to play things straight'
Prof. Judith Curry on Sandy: 'Kevin Trenberth frequently says that global warming is affecting all of weather' -- Curry: 'Trenberth s probably right, but apart from the relative magnitude of the effect, this begs the question as to whether the effect is good or bad; arguably in terms of Atlantic hurricanes, the warming is resulting in fewer U.S. landfalls'
Sandy as AGW poster child?: 'When maybe 35th most damaging U.S. storm hits after longest major hurricane-free period since Civil War, they hold that storm up as proof that CO2 is dangerous' Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: 'EQECAT downgrades Sandy's damage to $5B insured, $10B total...At $10B in damage Sandy would be 35th all time in normalized losses'
'Seven Years Since A Major Hurricane Hit U.S...the longest such period since at least Civil War...It has also been more than 20 years since a category 5 hurricane hit U.S. This summer had the fewest tornadoes on record in US'
October Hurricane Strikes Are Becoming Much Less Common: 'Occurred almost 3 times as often during 19th century as they do now' 'They used to happen about once every 1.7 years, and now they happen about once every five years. The peak decades for October hurricanes were the 1880s and the 1940s, which both had six'
1775 Hurricane Had A 30 Foot Storm Surge: 'It wiped out many British ships & killed 4,000 people' -- 'Many ships & other vessels drove ashore & damaged, at Norfolk, Hampton, & York' Flashback: 1821 Storm Surge Drowned Lower Manhattan: 'Reaching the City on Sept. 3, 1821, the storm was one of the only hurricanes believed to have passed directly over parts of modern New York City. The tide rose 13 feet in one hour and inundated wharves, causing East River to converge into Hudson River across lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street'
So I'm reading your reply to once again say that man causes have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Absolutely nothing. I'm not so ready to rule out anything! I'm willing to look both left and right while going down the road. I don't have blinders on.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 10-31-2012).]
So I'm reading your reply to once again say that man causes have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Absolutely nothing. I'm not so ready to rule out anything! I'm willing to look both left and right while going down the road. I don't have blinders on.
Most of the stuff I just posted was from SCIENTISTS, including NOAA. So what is your basis this being caused by man?
Didn't say it was caused by man. Not willing to rule man out of the mix. Are you willing to admit that man might be part of the problem or do you completely discount that possibility? I already know the answer to my question.
so...thread started in 2008. we've had incrementally irregular weather each of them 4 years (and the 2 prior).....each one individually dismissed as isolated.....
this thread itself is showing itself to be the very evidence of its mis-title.
That's pretty funny Pyrthian. Weather is in continual flux all the time, every year, every century.
Example Sandy. We've had a low occurrence hurricane season, and then along comes Sandy. Surprise surprise. It does not mean that Global Warming is to blame, and it does not mean mankind created the storm. The reason it is so big is the cold air coming south and creating a big reaction.
Remember Hurricane Hazel in 1954? It was a whopper and more destructive than Sandy when it got up to Canada.
Don't believe the fair tales, including "the Day After Tomorrow" (a good flic btw). The proof is in the numbers. This thread has made the point rather successfully. There is no proof at all that there is Global Warming, and no proof at all that mankind can influence the weather.
I agree in that I believe that mankind has little to no influance on the weather but, global warming IS real. it has happened before, it will happen again. most of the very arguements many use here are "...it is cyclacle..." well - that means IT HAPPENS.
Sure, Global warming happens, but so does Global cooling. However, net, it has cancelled each other out since 1997.
There is the point. None, net, in 16 years. Of course there is Global Warming from 10,000 years ago, but that is not what Al Gore was preaching. He was preaching catastrophic, hide the kids in the cellar, put out your cigar and hold your breath kind of catastrophy. It just ain't happening.
) I think most would agree on that. Climate Scientists and experts have accounted for solar activity, it's in the research. 
