• 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.
A report on the validity of 20th century GW (see link below) was just released that was done by 3 PHDs including Joe D'Aleo. I'm neither endorsing nor refuting its findings but rather just wanted to put this out there to possibly generate discussion. It claims that the datasets showing warming since 1900 are not reflecting reality due to adjustments made that hide a warm period in the 1930s/1940s and a cooldown in the 1970s. I bet Eric Webb will have an opinion about this and I bet it wouldn't be favorable. I'm concerned about anti-GW bias considering the website that is showing it, "Junk Science":


https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

I, myself, haven't questioned whether or not there has been GW but rather am wondering if AGW has definitely been the one and only major component. I've been wondering whether or not the active last half of the 20th century sun could have had a significant warming impact from mainly indirect effects such as a decrease in cosmic rays hitting Earth.
 
Last edited:
GaWx said:
A report on the validity of 20th century GW (see link below) was just released that was done by 3 PHDs including Joe D'Aleo. I'm neither endorsing nor refuting its findings but rather just wanted to put this out there to possibly generate discussion. It claims that the datasets showing warming since 1900 are not reflecting reality due to adjustments made that hide a warm period in the 1930s/1940s and a cooldown in the 1970s. I bet Eric Webb will have an opinion about this and I bet it wouldn't be favorable:


https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Click to expand...
Love discussion and evaluation ... Thanks, Larry! Really.
Likely you are correct on opposing views, but that's what makes us all here so lucky -
A studied evaluation.
Evaluate, digest and draw conclusions -
We do get that here.

Too much lawyer coming out on a Friday evening, so time for me to sit down, but beforehand ...

Cross-exam?

And Thanks in advance to Webb for his thoughts as well!
 
The Arctic temperatures have recently warmed back up to near normal. This along with recent seasonal steep Arctic ice extent losses from a relatively low point, makes me increasingly concerned that we could challenge the 2012 low point in September when considering how warm was last fall and winter (ice not in good shape from that, alone.)
 
Last edited:
science FACT = the climate has NEVER been "stable" constant CHANGE is the historical record and change continues, blaming humans for warming is IDIOCY.......
 
I dunno what's going on but it just seems like here lately all we ever set is record highs and warmth as far as the eye can see... I long for a winter like the 1980s honestly. Just not sure its ever going to happen again

even the cold coming has trended warmer than it was... and not even far off seasonal norms.
 
Last edited:
Brent said:
I dunno what's going on but it just seems like here lately all we ever set is record highs and warmth as far as the eye can see... I long for a winter like the 1980s honestly. Just not sure its ever going to happen again

even the cold coming has trended warmer than it was... and not even far off seasonal norms.
Click to expand...
And it will get colder too, back and forth. Global warming has nothing to do with this upcoming setup. GW, what small part of it that may be due to human activities, can't be changed much at all by throwing trillions of dollars at it and a huge transfer of wealth. The models have consistently been wrong predicting this and the fearmongering of Al Gore and the UN and the like has been proven wrong over what they already said would happen. It's a political movement, and almost a religion to many.
 
Very interesting article, 8 out of 10 warmest years are after 2000. Pretty significant statistical feature that shouldn't be ignored or passed over as simply 'naturally occurring' variation: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/a...slope-record-warmth-record-low-sea-ice-extent

Top 10 Warmest Years on Record for Utqiaġvik (Barrow), Alaska (POR 1921-2016)
1. 18.9° 2016
2. 17.0° 1998
3. 15.3° 2007
4. 14.9° 2014
5. 14.4° 2013
6. 14.3° 2010
7. 14.1° 2015
8. 14.0° 2011
9. 13.9° 1940
10. 13.6° 2002
 
whamby said:
Very interesting article, 8 out of 10 warmest years are after 2000. Pretty significant statistical feature that shouldn't be ignored or passed over as simply 'naturally occurring' variation: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/a...slope-record-warmth-record-low-sea-ice-extent

Top 10 Warmest Years on Record for Utqiaġvik (Barrow), Alaska (POR 1921-2016)
1. 18.9° 2016
2. 17.0° 1998
3. 15.3° 2007
4. 14.9° 2014
5. 14.4° 2013
6. 14.3° 2010
7. 14.1° 2015
8. 14.0° 2011
9. 13.9° 1940
10. 13.6° 2002
Click to expand...

was reported here last week that we're on track for warmest year

but more importantly 4 of the top 5 are in the last 10 years....
 
The changes have been stable in the historical record but this is the first time in at least 10 million years CO2 levels have reached present levels of > 400 ppm as was the case in the Miocene. The Miocene was about 4-5C warmer than it is today, and even though the forcings are juxtaposed differently now than they were then, we likely have some catching up to do...
It's unfortunate that some only point to one extreme side of the issue to validate their own personal biases on AGW/Climate Change and that it's entirely a farce, scam, and sensationalize completely irrational points of view and decide to completely ignore some of the meteorology behind it. It's certainly arguable that the policy decisions being made in response to the meteorology and science involved w/ climate change are really bad (& many of them are) but looking through the veil of political vitriol that encircles this issue, the science underpinning AGW is not that bad...

Screen Shot 2017-12-18 at 11.23.54 AM.png

Capture8trimmed.jpg
 
It's hilarious how both sides of the issue point to one extreme end of the issue and/or sensationalize obvious garbage like this polar bear picture or the supposed temperature "hiatus" only to reaffirm their own preconceived notions and political interests wrt AGW instead of sticking to the actual science which clearly says the earth is warming discontinuously and an ever-growing proportion of it is likely not natural, and natural variability is capable of masking the warming on inter annual-interdecadal timescales (several years to a decade or two) but not much beyond that. It's as if many on either side (especially those outside the scientific/climate community) have no argument of their own so they take advantage of nonsense from the other side and blow it out of proportion to make themselves look good...
 
Webberweather53 said:
It's hilarious how both sides of the issue point to one extreme end of the issue and/or sensationalize obvious garbage like this polar bear picture or the supposed temperature "hiatus" only to reaffirm their own preconceived notions and political interests wrt AGW instead of sticking to the actual science which clearly says the earth is warming discontinuously and an ever-growing proportion of it is likely not natural, and natural variability is capable of masking the warming on inter annual-interdecadal timescales (several years to a decade or two) but not much beyond that. It's as if many on either side (especially those outside the scientific/climate community) have no argument of their own so they take advantage of nonsense from the other side and blow it out of proportion to make themselves look good...
Click to expand...
I agree. People don't actually seem to want to know the truth but instead just are looking for political or monetary gain. As for the polar bear pic, I'm not sure if I was reading it right, but Ryan Maue had posted or retweeted about that recently and I think it may have been a polar bear with cancer, which isn't telling the full story or is just lying.
 
ForsythSnow said:
I agree. People don't actually seem to want to know the truth but instead just are looking for political or monetary gain. As for the polar bear pic, I'm not sure if I was reading it right, but Ryan Maue had posted or retweeted about that recently and I think it may have been a polar bear with cancer, which isn't telling the full story or is just lying.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's pretty sad the lengths some will go to perpetuate or deny AGW, the reality is almost certainly less sensational, characteristically boring, and somewhere in between. No the warming is most certainly not all or even mostly anthropogenic by any means especially on smaller temporal scales (especially over several decades or less), but it's also not mostly-entirely natural either, oceanic cycles, solar and volcanic activity, and random variability on their own simply can't largely explain the increasing positive skewness wrt global temperatures in the last several decades & centuries...
 
my christmas present to me:
goodell.jpeg
 
I firmly believe in Climate Change as that is the history of our planet. The fact we are living in near the optimum Climate for human existence is a fortunate circumstance, or a plan of intelligent design (take your personal pick), The question is in the details, how much is cyclical, natural variation(s), human land use issues, and greenhouse gases? Based on temperature records (which are extremely limited in time span) we are definitely in a warming period as a whole since the 1930's with years fluctuating in some years in either direction. My biggest complaint is when people of either side sensationalize a specific event or even decade to make their point or you use a model projection to do the same thing. It really bothers me when people say we are above or below the "average" temperature when nobody could possibly come close to defining exactly what that number is over the history of Climate. If you mean average for the numerical record then you have at least a scintilla of a point but to measure to the 2nd or 3rd decimal and comparing it to a proxy is ridiculous IMO. Time itself will be the official arbitrator of who was closest to being correct
 
I firmly believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change... still a good post though..
 
whamby said:
I firmly believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change... still a good post though..
Click to expand...
Yeah I think it plays a role but not the major driver some are trying to make it out to be. How much of a role is the 64,000 question and one we are nowhere near putting an accurate number to. I can see how some can draw the conclusion it is the biggest difference from the 1940's on, but also believe correlation is not causation.
 
MichaelJ said:
Yeah I think it plays a role but not the major driver some are trying to make it out to be. How much of a role is the 64,000 question and one we are nowhere near putting an accurate number to. I can see how some can draw the conclusion it is the biggest difference from the 1940's on, but also believe correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...
It’s definitely in the drivers seat and natural variation cannot explain the accelerated warming we have seen in the last one hundred years. In fact, natural drivers alone we should be cooling. Another thing is if you factor in C02 in climate models it matches up with the changes of temperature. I wish I could find the two graphs but it was explained very well in my introduction to weather and climate class..
 
For clarity purposes, two climate models were “run” with and without co2 factored in and guess what the co2 once matched very linearly with the rise in temperature... and the other one predicted cooling..
 
EastAtlwx said:
For clarity purposes, two climate models were “run” with and without co2 factored in and guess what the co2 once matched very linearly with the rise in temperature... and the other one predicted cooling..
Click to expand...

Every run the IPCC has produced that I have seen have substantially exceeded the model predictions of magnitude of temperature rise. When they include the cloud feedback and have their other warming feedback mechanisms factored correctly then they will some clarity, but they are a long way away from that now
 
So, second coldest NYE in history for some areas;Ball drop. How does this factor into Climate Change? Is this considered just an extreme or something?
 
Shawn said:
So, second coldest NYE in history for some areas;Ball drop. How does this factor into Climate Change? Is this considered just an extreme or something?
Click to expand...
Lets just say, next weeks brutal cold snap will not be a subject of discussion for the left. According to the original manuscript for "Global Warming" this shouldn't be happening. Carry on
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
Lets just say, next weeks brutal cold snap will not be a subject of discussion for the left. According to the original manuscript for "Global Warming" this shouldn't be happening. Carry on
Click to expand...
no climate scientist or anyone who actually knows a bit of science behind AGW would ever remotely claim that.
 
whamby said:
no climate scientist or anyone who actually knows a bit of science behind AGW would ever remotely claim that.
Click to expand...

Awesome, that leaves out Mann and his disciples who are responsible for one of the biggest frauds in modern times; the "hockey stick."
 
whamby said:
no climate scientist or anyone who actually knows a bit of science behind AGW would ever remotely claim that.
Click to expand...

"In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934.

The outlandish predictions of snowless winters have failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming."
 
Preface: I am not pro or against climate change science/theories.

This cold outbreak might be considered an "extreme" and not a "constant".

Point: co2 is on the rise. so lets try to stop that. seems like that stuff kills humans, regardless if its causing warming etc. Lets not invest billions of dollars into failed wind and solar companies that are looking to make a quick buck though. lets do it smartly. with the will of humans. not the government.

The problem with climate change/anti climate change is that the government is involved.

Lets be real right now. If anyone, right or left, doesn't believe that humans attribute to co2 levels, then they are sadly mistaken. As an individual with no view each way, it doesnt take much to figure that the more people we breed and the more houses we build, we destroy forests. Which replenish oxygen from co2.

Its not cow farts, human farts, or even garbage causing it. Its human greed. Cause you know, we totally need soccer mom SUVs and Hummers as an example. Lets not forget about Mrs. Macy down the road that MUST always have her vacation home's power on 24/7 with optimal heating and air. Even when she is in another country.
 
Last edited:
You know what chaps my a$$ though? (i support/supported trump); is his stupid rhetoric on Twitter about how this cold weather is a reason to have global warming or not, as a whole. Once again. Political.

If you remove the government & politics from the debate, guess what? People will listen. Right now, its a divisive. Sucks. But people naturally, want to be opposite of each other. All the idiots in Washington have to do is draw a line in the sand to make people think one way or another. Think about it for a second.

All humans know co2 is bad. Oxygen is good. Our survival is based on it. The government has used it as a tool, for both the left and right, to divide people.
 
It makes it hard for people to believe it's anything other than political when AGW pushers make these absolute short term predictions about the changes that are coming and they never verify. So then, they make 100 and 200 year predictions knowing that no one will be around to see if they were right or not. That gives them zero credibility. It's all political and it's sad bc we humans do not treat this planet with as much care as we should and yes we could all do a lot better. We are tiny little specs living on a tiny spec surrounded by other tiny little specs and to think we possess all of this control over our existence is comical
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top