I remember the ice age scare in the 70's real well. That too was a flawed arguement.
look, there are factors way more in play than aerosols, although, depletion of ozone due to aerosals is a very real issue.
We have the variable tilt of the earth, which varies. We are at 23.4 degrees, but, we know the earth's tilt has varied from 22 to 24 degrees in recorded history. If the tilt gets more shallow, we get a colder and longer winter. Look at what happened in Antarctica this past summer. Record cold.
We have sun spot activity, which maxed out around 1999 and then bottomed out a couple of years ago, it is currently still low. Today there are 5 facing earth.
We have the Pacific ocean currents which cycle back and forth. That directly affects the ice in Northern Canada and Alaska.
We have volcanoes. One volcano can emit more matter into the atmosphere in a day, than anything man can produce in a year.
The biggest one though, is the sun. It's variable output is the single biggest contributor to climate change.
BTW, CO2 is created as a result of increase temperatures increasing plankton and plant growth, not the cause.
Arn
Ahh, I own page 49, ( the same year I was born)
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 10-18-2012).]
Aerosols: Industrial emissions of solid matter that become suspended in the atmosphere. Contributed to global cooling trend from 1940s through 1970s. Global temperatures started climbing again after widespread measures were effected (starting about 1980) to reduce industrial aerosols.
Quit it with those facts, they're obviously made up.
The facts are all lies.....
Which facts? These those, the other...?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Aerosols: Industrial emissions of solid matter that become suspended in the atmosphere. Contributed to global cooling trend from 1940s through 1970s. Global temperatures started climbing again after widespread measures were effected (starting about 1980) to reduce industrial aerosols.
I just don't understand why some people are trying so hard to keep Global Warming alive when it should have died already. The scientists, who rely on the paycheck, yes. But some of the people here???
I just don't understand why some people are trying so hard to keep Global Warming alive when it should have died already. The scientists, who rely on the paycheck, yes. But some of the people here???
It's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been fooled.
So who actually wrote the IPCC Report - the so-called "bible on Global Warming"? You WILL be surprised (if you believed the IPCC report as being completely factual). Basically written by 3 unqualified 20-something enviromentalists. http://www.calgaryherald.co...n/7406060/story.html
I have a friend who is a "believer" - he wouldn't even consider looking at this. Odd that he believes the UN - but thinks all government and gov. organizations LIE.
yes the bro's ''K'' have paid to fool a lot of nut-con's this thread is proof
why won't you answer the question why ain't we cooler ?
The reason is that the average for the past 16 years has been "0" increase or decrease. You can argue a specific year or a few months whenever the up or the down is occurring, but, net it is a wash. The increased sun spots faded after 2000, which had been driving Global Warming. The Global Warming stopped. So in effect we started coasting. Of course the line is never constant and goes up and down all the time. There is also a delayed effect for this, with so many variables you really can't claim the temperature has been going down since 1996 because it is a net wash, including the gains up to 2000.
The fact that warming is not happening, does not mean we are cooler. Now if the sun goes to low output again, as in "0" sun spots and "0" storms, then we could actually go into another mini Global Cooling, or even an ice age if it kept up.
So there is the answer, no cooling because it is net level instead of going up.
Unless I'm mistaken, the largest climate study ever completed by mostly "man made" climate change skeptics is absent from this thread. Why is that? All issues climate change skeptics decried were addressed in this study. The issues of "bad temperature data" or "bias" that seem to be the keystone of the skeptics argument against climate change studies.
When the study kicked off Anthony Watts, a infamous climate change skeptic, blogger (Watts Up With That?), and meteorologist said:
quote
I’m prepared to accept whatever result they [BEST] produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.
Much to everyone's surprise, (well, mostly skeptics who had already decided what the data would say) the results came out and they looked like this:
The data matched. Not only did this prove NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU had good temperature data they were also honest about their results. This is of course against any argument climate skeptics have.
Anthony Watts of course back peddled:
quote
I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked.
WHATS UP WITH THAT?! Talk about moving the goal post. This highlights a major problem with this debate, most skeptics don't want to believe its true and will fight to the bitter end rather than admit they may be wrong.
What about the story that global warming stopped 16 years ago then?
Well that's only true if you take a insignificant portion of data, present it as significant, and commit SCIENCE FRAUD by cherry picking data. BEST also notes:
quote
Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
I guess 15 is too short, so the story ran with 16 years to validate the idea. Again, SCIENCE FRAUD.
At least anti-skeptics have something going for them, as time goes on this argument gets easier. But winning an argument when the planet is a barren wasteland is meaningless.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: When the study kicked off Anthony Watts, a infamous climate change skeptic, blogger (Watts Up With That?), and meteorologist said:
Infamous? To whom, the ones who are pushing this agenda for their own gain?
Watts did the survey on the USHCN sites, and found that most of them weren't up to their own spec for siting for proper temperature gathering.
Originally posted by 2.5: Winning, losing, will it be one anyway?
Yes. But why should it be our fault?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Infamous? To whom, the ones who are pushing this agenda for their own gain?
Like Watts himself has something to gain from his agenda? He doesn't host that ad bar all the way down his website for free. I assume he's also being paid for speaking at conferences hosted by scientifically respected establishments.
I called him infamous because he has a bad reputation in the scientific community and for good reason. Watts agreed to support every aspect of the BEST study only because Watts thought BEST would prove him correct. When Watts was proved completely wrong, rather than admit he may be wrong his ego began to cannibalize his soul.
This is a complete contrast to the leading author of the BEST study who went into the study as a climate change skeptic but changed his mind when he saw the results. That's called integrity which Watts lost when he blatantly wrote a hot check with his mouth.
A real scientist is after the truth even if it proves him wrong. Starting with a conclusion and looking for proof is the opposite of science.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Watts did the survey on the USHCN sites, and found that most of them weren't up to their own spec for siting for proper temperature gathering.
Your own copy and paste article, written by Watts himself I might add, addressed this:
quote
The [BEST] paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
Originally posted by fierobear: And the BEST study has been debunked.
No it hasn't. In the link above you cited Watts as your "debunked" proof. Watts supported every aspect of the BEST study until it proved him wrong.
Again, Watts before the study:
quote
I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.
Watts after the study:
quote
I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked.
To be up front and honest, I'm not here to pick apart your argument or change your mind. I only express my own views so that I may fully understand why I believe the way I do. I look forward to a reply of substance.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 10-23-2012).]
If Watts is largely upholding the data the Warmers use then the results should be consistent with his findings.
The results were supposed to be, increased violent weather, particularly increased hurricane activity, drastically increased ocean levels, inundating low lying islands and mash lands, decimated northern animal species, and the list goes on.
As it stands, the oceans have been gradually increasing in temperature at a very slow rate which is consistent over several centuries. Antarctica is building its ice fields. The ambient atmospheric temperature is nowhere near the projections of those scientific studies.
The "hockey stick" pattern of the graphs has been thoroughly debunked. This is simply regurgitation and rejigging of old debunked data.
To be up front and honest, I'm not here to pick apart your argument or change your mind. I only express my own views so that I may fully understand why I believe the way I do. I look forward to a reply of substance.
Look, I have no idea why Watts said that. He (and several volunteers) spent YEARS compiling information about the out-of-spec temperature stations. The recorded warming can be tied directly to station sighting issues. The BEST study, and the supposed "former denier", was criticized by warmists as well. I've posted all that information here or in other threads, so I'm not going to take the time to rehash it. Don't believe it? Fine.
To be up front and honest, I'm not here to pick apart your argument or change your mind. I only express my own views so that I may fully understand why I believe the way I do. I look forward to a reply of substance.
Sorry, my posts as of late in this thread were more frustration than substance.
Something I would ask is what should be done, specifically to halt what you believe is happening.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: BTW, CO2 is created as a result of increase temperatures increasing plankton and plant growth, not the cause.
This is very basic elementary school science. Plants do not create CO2 in any way shape or form. Plants create O2 that animals breathe. Plants use the carbon to build themselves. The majority of material that makes up a plant comes out of the air not the ground or water. Therefore, the amount of CO2 available is directly proportional to plant growth.
The notion that plants create CO2 discredits anything you could possibly say about science. You cannot possibly understand anything you have mentioned in this thread if you do not understand the basic elementary science of biology, chemistry, and physics that make life on Earth possible. You should retract this statement immediately. Inability to do so will confirm the Dunning-Kruger effect you suffer from.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Look, I have no idea why Watts said that.
That should be obvious. The BEST study received funding from the same special interest group Watts is connected to, the Koch Foundation. The BEST study consulted Watts on the method of analyzing temperature data. The BEST study used a method Watts signed off on. Watts signed off on the method because the study takes into account all arguments raised by skeptics, especially Watts, including your heavily referred to "poor station quality."
Watts genuinely thought that using a method he approves to analyze the data would prove him correct so he agreed to support the results. BEST proved Watts and his work completely wrong.
It's a horrible feeling to realize you've wasted years of your life on a theory that is wrong, but if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen!
Richard Muller after the study:
quote
Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: He (and several volunteers) spent YEARS compiling information about the out-of-spec temperature stations.
Are these random people off the street also college drop outs like Watts? Could you imagine if the foundation of my argument stood on work done by a college dropout sponsored by special interest?
The BEST study team included: Arthur H. Rosenfeld, physics Ph.D Charlotte Wickham, Statistics Ph.D David Brillinger, statistics professor, Math Ph.D. Elizabeth Muller, BA in Math and Lit (exec director) Jonathan Wurtele, physics Ph.D Judith Curry, Geophyics Ph.D. Richard Muller, physics Ph.D. Robert Jacobsen, High Energy Physics Ph.D. Robert Rohde, physics Ph.D. Saul Perlmutter, physics Ph.D. & Nobel Prize in Physics
When the study team was announced, Watts said the following:
quote
I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.
Would a scientist who is constantly questioning whether or not he maintains a correct understanding of the universe have to qualify a statement by saying "even if it proves my premise wrong"? Absolutely not. A real scientist, by default, is always open to being wrong.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The recorded warming can be tied directly to station sighting issues.
No it cannot. BEST consulted the very person you got this information from (Watts) to ensure it was taken into account. Watts also signed off on the method used in the study. The BEST study completely addressed and debunked station issues.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The BEST study, and the supposed "former denier", was criticized by warmists as well.
The only documented criticism of BEST I have found, besides Watts, is a writer heavily critical of global warming named Steven Mosher who said: “I’m not happy until the code is released and released in a language that people can use freely.”
And unless he's moved the goal post like Watts, Mosher should be happy. All the data and code is open to the public for anyone to review.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I've posted all that information here or in other threads, so I'm not going to take the time to rehash it.
You post copy and paste drivel. I'm only interested in your interpretation, not an echo of someone else's interpretation.
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Don't believe it? Fine.
I don't believe it because all current scientific evidence from experiment says it's wrong. Closing your eyes with your fingers in your ears doesn't change that.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 10-24-2012).]
see above link basely a return to normal after the sun spot return PLUS THE BEGINNING OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Newcomen engines and watt's better ones = lots of coal burning
see above link basely a return to normal after the sun spot return PLUS THE BEGINNING OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Newcomen engines and watt's better ones = lots of coal burning
Which means that the temperature rise could be NATURAL.
Also, NOBODY (even pro-warming scientists) is saying that CO2 could have contributed to warming until around 1950.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 10-24-2012).]
Which means that the temperature rise could be NATURAL.
Also, NOBODY (even pro-warming scientists) is saying that CO2 could have contributed to warming until around 1950.
WRONG
THAT IS JUST NUT-CON FUNDED DIS-INFORMATION
THE PIGS LIKE THE BRO'S ''K'' JUST DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR THEIR POLUTION SO THEY SET UP THE SECRET LOBBY TO FIGHT THE TRUTH AND NUT-CON TEABAGGERS EAT UP AND REPEAT THEIR LIES JUST AS YOU HAVE FOR 49 PAGES HERE
BTW I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION
The reason is that the average for the past 16 years has been "0" increase or decrease. You can argue a specific year or a few months whenever the up or the down is occurring, but, net it is a wash. The increased sun spots faded after 2000, which had been driving Global Warming. The Global Warming stopped. So in effect we started coasting. Of course the line is never constant and goes up and down all the time. There is also a delayed effect for this, with so many variables you really can't claim the temperature has been going down since 1996 because it is a net wash, including the gains up to 2000.
The fact that warming is not happening, does not mean we are cooler. Now if the sun goes to low output again, as in "0" sun spots and "0" storms, then we could actually go into another mini Global Cooling, or even an ice age if it kept up.
So there is the answer, no cooling because it is net level instead of going up.
Arn
Ray you really need to read older posts. I answered you on Monday
Originally posted by ray b: THAT IS JUST NUT-CON FUNDED DIS-INFORMATION
BULLSHIT, ray. Prove me wrong. With facts. Present your evidence.
quote
SOLAR SPOT MINIMUM WHY NO COOLING ?
That isn't the right question. The right question is "was the 20th century warming due to an especially active sun?" Now, the sun is quiet, and temperatures are FLAT.
rain and wind here now storm center is still south of cuba we just hope no eastern jogs will be cat2 by next update maybe cat3 thru the center of the bahama's
weather is something to learn about first hand I was 10 when donna hit surfed others in the 60's had both boats survive andrew at anchor you really think I do not know late season storm were rare ? but are they not any more now ?
something is happening but you don't know what it is do you mister jones ?
you really think I do not know late season storm were rare ?
Rare neither means impossible nor attributable to global warming. Now, if hurricanes start hitting in mid-December, and when they've NEVER happened before, then you might have a point.
That isn't the right question. The right question is "was the 20th century warming due to an especially active sun?" Now, the sun is quiet, and temperatures are FLAT.
NO
solar activity is basically atomic and leaves radioactive records [ C-14 and others] in addition to ice core and tree rings and mud layers in lakes
wiki said NO too ''The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1-0.2%.[8][9][10] Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]
you are just regurgitating nut-con spin there is a double reason I call your guys nut-con's it ain't just you are nuts you have been conned too by your ultra rich spin masters
