• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
From Dr. Roy Spencer about the story I posted above(which was using a good, expert source)
yes, I know John Bates, and have known about this brewing internal controversy for the last year or so. Glad Bates is speaking out. I also see Rush covered it today. The story might get legs and help lead to a new NOAA Administrator who will look into the issue and not just sweep it under the rug. I do think Karl's new dataset was politicized science purposely concocted to support the Paris Climate Agreement, with dubious justification. It all looked very fishy.
 
Stormlover said:
From Dr. Roy Spencer about the story I posted above(which was using a good, expert source)
yes, I know John Bates, and have known about this brewing internal controversy for the last year or so. Glad Bates is speaking out. I also see Rush covered it today. The story might get legs and help lead to a new NOAA Administrator who will look into the issue and not just sweep it under the rug. I do think Karl's new dataset was politicized science purposely concocted to support the Paris Climate Agreement, with dubious justification. It all looked very fishy.
Click to expand...

I think you started this thread AGAIN so you could post nonsense that no one else is agreeing with. I don't need NASA or NOAA to tell me it's getting warmer, just walk outside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
I think you started this thread AGAIN so you could post nonsense that no one else is agreeing with. I don't need NASA or NOAA to tell me it's getting warmer, just walk outside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
o_O well that settles it, it's warmer in Raleigh, NC so mankind is causing the world to be destroyed. You can't make up stuff this nutty.;)
 
mydoortotheworld said:
I don't understand you stormlover. Just trying to catch up here: Do you think climate change is caused by man or not?
Click to expand...
I think man has very little to do with it compared to natural effects. There has always been climate change, even way before we started using oil, etc. It was warmed in the middle ages than now. Also, the climate change models have been way off, and there was basically a pause for about 16 years when the models showed a rapid increase due to happen. Finally, I believe that even if the far left UN/Al Gore/ etc claims were right(they have been way off, over and over) that the cost to make a minute change would be so high it's never going to happen, so we need to stop hurting ourselves. I'm all for alternative energy. I'm also for us using our natural resources which we will still depend on for many decades to come.
Here is more about what this is really about
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism
 
Last edited:
I'm still learning about this issue, but I can already tell you that is one of the most sensationalist headlines I have ever read in my whole life. You must be careful about what news sources you are using. Anyone can just take any quote out of context and spin it in any form or fashion that they like. Stuff like this requires media literacy and from the way you simply pick and choose articles to fit your narrative, I don't know if you have it...
 
mydoortotheworld said:
I'm still learning about this issue, but I can already tell you that is one of the most sensationalist headlines I have ever read in my whole life. You must be careful about what news sources you are using. Anyone can just take any quote out of context and spin it in any form or fashion that they like. Stuff like this requires media literacy and from the way you simply pick and choose articles to fit your narrative, I don't know if you have it...
Click to expand...
What headline? The spin is on the other side, and time after time we find they have mainipulated data or done something else to fit their agenda...glad we have an administration in now that will give opposing sides their fair hearing and not doing things like this: FEDERAL SCIENTIST COOKED CLIMATE CHANGE BOOKS AHEAD OF OBAMA PRESENTATION
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017...bama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html
 
Stormlover said:
What headline? The spin is on the other side, and time after time we find they have mainipulated data or done something else to fit their agenda...glad we have an administration in now that will give opposing sides their fair hearing and not doing things like this: FEDERAL SCIENTIST COOKED CLIMATE CHANGE BOOKS AHEAD OF OBAMA PRESENTATION
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017...bama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html
Click to expand...

Lol sure it is, I just find it very ironic how you scream bloody murder that the other side is spinning the issue and is politically motivated when virtually every one of your posts here are riddled w/ erroneous assumptions, little if any discussion of the actual meteorology that goes into (or to refute) AGW, and/or nonsensical political slander. I really don't feel like going through this again, I mean I don't know how many times I have to explain myself that the adjustments to the data a) are less significant than the actual trends themselves, b) actually create less warming, c) are vital due to c1) the addition of million of new observations c2) alterations in instrumentation (due to outage, natural/man-made disasters destroying or causes stations to move), better calibration, QC methodology, etc & c3) to homogenize completely.different observational platforms w/ their own sources of bias and error, and I could keep going on & on...
 
Stormlover said:
I think man has very little to do with it compared to natural effects. There has always been climate change, even way before we started using oil, etc. It was warmed in the middle ages than now. Also, the climate change models have been way off, and there was basically a pause for about 16 years when the models showed a rapid increase due to happen. Finally, I believe that even if the far left UN/Al Gore/ etc claims were right(they have been way off, over and over) that the cost to make a minute change would be so high it's never going to happen, so we need to stop hurting ourselves. I'm all for alternative energy. I'm also for us using our natural resources which we will still depend on for many decades to come.
Here is more about what this is really about
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism
Click to expand...

There actually was no "pause"... at least in the sense that one side of the AGW is trying to implore, aside from the fact that the global temperatures are currently near if not slightly above the center of the climate model projections. The internal equilibrium of the climate system was still getting warmer, the system is large and relatively inefficient, and the supposed "pause" in temperature was merely an illusion to the fact that the system's expressions were juxtaposed s.t. the heat was more effectively redistributed and sequestered only to very temporarily suppress the long term (& increasing) upward trend in temperature, which vehemently returned last year (as expected) and may continue especially if another El Nino develops next year. Again, if this rise in global temperature was largely natural, then why are there such large inter annual-interdecadal asymmetries in the global temperature response due to ENSO in the satellite era? Why are the temperature spikes due to El Nino so much larger than the declines during the subsequent La Nina events. Essentially what I'm asking is if this modern warming is largely being controlled by natural variability, what exactly is (are) the natural forcing mechanism(s) causing the positive residual and the temperature spikes to be semi-permanent? How do you account for the increasing integrated anthropogenic footprint in the climate and isolate natural variability from man-made variability when the former's character is also changing at the expense of the latter? Therein lies the discontinuity in a denier's line of rationale and where many fail to the next step and connect the dots... To date, natural variability alone or even w/ the majority of forcing originating from natural variability, can not explain the observed aforementioned alterations in the climate system's promulgation of global temperature, better yet, it's also becoming increasingly apparent that the conduit through which the climate system is expressing these "natural" forces is also changing, thus, what one insinuates as "natural" forcing in the 21st century is significantly different from the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries and may not be applicable...

"I think man has very little to do with it compared to natural effects. There has always been climate change, even way before we started using oil, etc."
While the climate has always changed in the past w/ natural forcing, the forcings and natural processes (as I explained a little above) are not the same anymore, esp with the unprecedented rapid rise in carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, CFCs, and other GHGs that has likely not been observed in earth's history for an appreciable amount of time, potentially on the order of billions of years...
 
Webberweather53 said:
There actually was no "pause"... at least in the sense that one side of the AGW is trying to implore, aside from the fact that the global temperatures are currently near if not slightly above the center of the climate model projections. The internal equilibrium of the climate system was still getting warmer, the system is large and relatively inefficient, and the supposed "pause" in temperature was merely an illusion to the fact that the system's expressions were juxtaposed s.t. the heat was more effectively redistributed and sequestered only to very temporarily suppress the long term (& increasing) upward trend in temperature, which vehemently returned last year (as expected) and may continue especially if another El Nino develops next year. Again, if this rise in global temperature was largely natural, then why are there such large inter annual-interdecadal asymmetries in the global temperature response due to ENSO in the satellite era? Why are the temperature spikes due to El Nino so much larger than the declines during the subsequent La Nina events. Essentially what I'm asking is if this modern warming is largely being controlled by natural variability, what exactly is (are) the natural forcing mechanism(s) causing the positive residual and the temperature spikes to be semi-permanent? How do you account for the increasing integrated anthropogenic footprint in the climate and isolate natural variability from man-made variability when the former's character is also changing at the expense of the latter? Therein lies the discontinuity in a denier's line of rationale and where many fail to the next step and connect the dots... To date, natural variability alone or even w/ the majority of forcing originating from natural variability, can not explain the observed aforementioned alterations in the climate system's promulgation of global temperature, better yet, it's also becoming increasingly apparent that the conduit through which the climate system is expressing these "natural" forces is also changing, thus, what one insinuates as "natural" forcing in the 21st century is significantly different from the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries and may not be applicable...

...
Click to expand...
No, they have continued to lag behind what models have shown.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013-1024x921.png
 
From your CO2 coalition link that you just posted:
"Climate alarmism can also be a pretext for the redistribution on of wealth on a global scale. You can never be green enough, Comrade, and climate change offers a potent pretext for the consolidation on of governmental power: it is, as one wag put, the “killer app” for extending governmental control."
This is classic far-right-wing crap spewing alarmism at its finest. I understand being a climate change skeptic in terms of whether or not our models today can accurately predict the future, but this? This is absolute bullcrap and you know it, I know it, and everybody knows it.
 
so do i ever get just a normal spring, summer, fall and winter again, or do i just go buy as much whiskey as i can find, drink myself silly thinking it's all over, and wait for whatever --- just askin' as i do not have 1000 years to later evaluate ....
 
Webberweather53 said:
You do realize that Dr. Roy Spencer used a 5-year average (1979-1983) vs UAH & HADCRUT4 which use a warmer 1981-2010 base period to create this graph, which shifted CIMP5 up by 0.3 degrees? Smh, deception at it's finest...
Click to expand...
Yeah, the climategate crowd have deceived so many...now when a NOAA whistleblower comes forward it creates hostility. It's like a religion to so many of you.
 
Webberweather53 said:
It's not a religion, it's a fact that Dr. Roy Spencer manipulated that specific graph... Jeez.
Click to expand...
Many of the in crowd "peers" had a HUGE scandal called climategate, where it was proven they manipulated data for their agenda. Do you need to review that again? You act like it never happened. Now we hear about this incident during Obama's time to get the Paris deal. It is a constant thing with the ones that treat it like a religion.
Finally, again, even if it was all as the climategaters claim...there is nothing we can do to make a big enough change anyway, yet even that would cost us so many trillions of transferred wealth...it's a non starter. But controlling more of lives, hurting our use of our own resources, and increasing energy costs is all good for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
 
Stormlover said:
Many of the in crowd "peers" had a HUGE scandal called climategate, where it was proven they manipulated data for their agenda. Do you need to review that again? You act like it never happened. Now we hear about this incident during Obama's time to get the Paris deal. It is a constant thing with the ones that treat it like a religion.
Finally, again, even if it was all as the climategaters claim...there is nothing we can do to make a big enough change anyway, yet even that would cost us so many trillions of transferred wealth...it's a non starter. But controlling more of lives, hurting our use of our own resources, and increasing energy costs is all good for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
Click to expand...

Nice strawman... I was once a climate change denier, so I'm very familiar with the climategate "scandal" and used to tout it as evidence of data manipulation and alarmism until I actually stopped focusing on the political aspect of the issue and studied the meteorology and science involved in AGW and read & absorbed a multitude of information from a vast array of climate papers from both sides of the issue. The over-arching theme that soon became apparent was a) the lack of a very solid, competing theory against AGW b) the multitude of failed predictions from the denier side (& incessant wish casting of a cooler climate/ice age and persistence of the "pause") c) reliance on a few, misconstrued pieces of information d) dearth of published literature, etc. but I digress... Essentially what transpired is the emails of several reputable scientists at East Anglia were illegally hacked and their messages were taken entirely out of context and it was later discovered that they didn't actually commit any wrongdoing and the denier assertions of supposed data manipulation were simply not true. Why don't you stick to the science & meteorology of AGW instead of focusing on fringe scientists, claims, and political puppets on either side of the issue?
 
Climate change as a whole is political. No matter what the real story is data-wise, both sides will wage a war on it to fit their agenda and twist it into their views.

I gave up on it a long time ago. No offense or anything. I don't deny or claim it. I'd just rather spend a billion dollars on my friends and family's lives than a bunch of ants and roaches that may live past a nuclear war.

It's like these guys with their models and stuff want to claim credit like 3000 years after their death for figuring it out.
 
It's a lose-lose argument; can anybody deny the "trends" over the last 30 -40 years or so; no. I can draw on my own experience of being able to skate on the ponds and C&O Canal up in the DC area back in the 70's routinely; sledding down a hill onto the country club lake that had ice 2 feet thick, etc. Doubtful there's been many years that's been done lately.

On the other hand is the "science" settled as claimed; highly doubtful. Man in his arrogance thinks he can say for certain he has caused the climate to change; has he really? There is no such thing as settled science, science is a process.

At the end of the day does a slightly warming planet really hurt mankind? Greenland was farmed centuries ago; is that a bad thing? Was the land mass where coastal cities now exist underwater during that timeframe, no. Have we further encroached into coastal areas that for centuries helped protect the land mass further inland, yes. Does that encroachment allow for the possibility of disaster, absolutely.

Does what is going on justify hundreds of billions of dollars being spent when that money could've been used for education/farming techniques/irrigation techniques/etc, I say no. Should we develop alternative sources of energy, absolutely. Is that energy reliable, without quantum leaps in storage capacity, it is not. Should there be a blend of technologies, yes.

I do find one hypothesis about the current state of earths weather extremely intriguing which is the enhanced solar activity over the last hundred years or so has greatly contributed to the warming of the oceans thus potentially vastly affecting the natural weather cycles to such a degree that it has contributed to the warming. There appears to be a lag effect with that enhanced activity so the current solar decrease could potentially affect the cycles however it will be many years before that effect can be quantified or observed.

At the end of the day it's a no-win argument, I firmly believe the man-made argument helps justify huge expenses that in the end contribute zero to the betterment of mankind and only help line the pockets of a few when those resources could be expended towards the actual betterment of mankind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top