• 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.
mydoortotheworld said:
Weren't those adjustments made to compensate for urban heat island effect?
Click to expand...

Adjustments for urban heat island would lead to a downward change w/ low temperatures especially but alterations in station location, the number of stations, quality control, number of samples taken per day, spatial distribution of stations isn't constant with time, etc. all need to be accounted for among other things. It gets complicated in a hurry
 
Webberweather53 said:
Do you even understand why those adjustments were made in the first place before spouting nonsense?
Click to expand...
Yes, they took the GISS data and "homgonized" it with GHCN data using GHCN homogenisation (since GISS no longer does their own homogenisation) plus factored adjustments due to UHI, station moves etc based against the actual data versus the computer modelled projections of increases.
 
I see you had responded while I was formulating my response but I was in the middle of an excel spreadsheet and it took me a while to respond.
 
MichaelJ said:
Anything on a Jeff Masters site is not suitable for reading IMO. Climate Change is the latest meme from the left because it has and always will change so it makes sense from a propaganda stand point ( hard to prove a negative). The devil however is in the details, not the terminology used, like what is causing the warming, has it happened in past times, will it continue or reverse, and is it really catastrophic for temps to rise a few degrees anyway? Severe storms are not increasing, sea levels are rising at a rate measured in millimeters worldwide, and the misnomer of "average" temperature is just that, so people need to quit using that fake statistic. If you would like to know why it is a fake number, let me know and I will gladly list the reasons.
Click to expand...
Agree, he's obsessed with it.
 
MichaelJ said:
Anything on a Jeff Masters site is not suitable for reading IMO. Climate Change is the latest meme from the left because it has and always will change so it makes sense from a propaganda stand point ( hard to prove a negative). The devil however is in the details, not the terminology used, like what is causing the warming, has it happened in past times, will it continue or reverse, and is it really catastrophic for temps to rise a few degrees anyway? Severe storms are not increasing, sea levels are rising at a rate measured in millimeters worldwide, and the misnomer of "average" temperature is just that, so people need to quit using that fake statistic. If you would like to know why it is a fake number, let me know and I will gladly list the reasons.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We know c02 has increased and continues to do so. We do not need the left pushing one thing, and the right for another making this a political warfare. It promotes division and people are forced to take one side because of their political affiliations.

It really hurts any progress we could make in this science.
 
This could be a rant but here is something I always say to people who ask me what I think about climate change (the just of it):

The tri-cities tornado that did so much damage and killed so many people. Even farmers. At the time, farmers knew what was up with the weather as a whole. Before we had these models and the weather channel. It got a lot of people by surprise.

We are finally learning that it may have been a family of tornadoes, instead of just one big monster. But if that same scenario happened today, does it mean the weather is getting worse?

It would surely do more damage with all the development and overall, more people. Does that mean climate change created the super tornado, or there are just more people and buildings, along with inflation of the economy?

I always get stumped responses on that one. And I do not know the true answer. What I do know though, is one day, it is going to happen again in some form. Will it be blamed on climate change? Most likely.
 
Shawn said:
This could be a rant but here is something I always say to people who ask me what I think about climate change (the just of it):

The tri-cities tornado that did so much damage and killed so many people. Even farmers. At the time, farmers knew what was up with the weather as a whole. Before we had these models and the weather channel. It got a lot of people by surprise.

We are finally learning that it may have been a family of tornadoes, instead of just one big monster. But if that same scenario happened today, does it mean the weather is getting worse?

It would surely do more damage with all the development and overall-, more people. Does that mean climate change created the super tornado, or there are just more people and buildings, along with inflation of the economy?

I always get stumped responses on that one. And I do not know the true answer. What I do know though, is one day, it is going to happen again in some form. Will it be blamed on climate change? Most likely.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant tri-state tornado/tornados. Missouri, Illinois, Indiana. What a case study that must have been. As you alluded probably still being studied. Having grown up near St Louis I've always been fascinated by that event. March 18th, 1925. 695 Killed. I couldn't imagine if that occurred nowadays. Granted we have better warning apparatuses in place. Like you said higher population and more structures.
 
What’s alarming to me is that when there’s daily records broken lately it’s by several degrees and not just one or two. This current torch has been destroying records here and is expected to keep doing so this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
What’s alarming to me is that when there’s daily records broken lately it’s by several degrees and not just one or two. This current torch has been destroying records here and is expected to keep doing so this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This week/this month is not global warming anymore than a week/month in the dead of winter in 1977 was global cooling.
That's not to say there is no warming; it is to suggest that short range observations are not the basis for long range conclusions ...
 
dunno, background state has a say, whatever the pattern and indices may indicate... individual storm systems are harder to pin to any overarching climate variance, but month/year long temperature/precip trends are a different matter. You can't just assume long AN monthly streaks are simply a factor of natural variance. Not anymore, given the extent of Climate Change data available.
 
^I'm not saying the comparisons in this Breitbart article of stations in both Jan 2018 and Jan 2014 vs Jan 1943 aren't right, which IF true would mean they're making a valid point that should be considered. The problem is that it would take me a good bit of time that I don't have right now to either confirm or deny their comparisons as accurate and not deceptive. If I ever get time, I'll attempt to research this.

However, one thing I can right off the bat say that is deceiving is that Breitbart is implying that NOAA showing only slightly colder than normal (-0.3 F) in January 2018 in the NE US is wrong. Well they're not wrong. Indeed, there was extreme cold, but that was limited to only the first week of the month. The rest of the month averaged quite a bit warmer than normal, which is not being mentioned by Breitbart. As a result, the month as a whole was actually pretty close to normal in just about every major reporting station in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. That raises a huge red flag that warns me that the main point of the article may very well not be valid and instead be deceptive. January of 2018 really was a near normal month in the NE US rather than a cold month!

Edit: More specifically, the most deceiving part of this article, which is found here, is the headline along with some other statements early in the article"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

"NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence"

"This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history. If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees."

No, NOAA isn't trying to erase the record-breaking cold in the NE from history as per what I said earlier in this post! That's pure hogwash!
 
Last edited:
Why have Arctic met. autumns & winters been so consistently warmer than normal since 2005 but Arctic mid to late met. springs and summers haven't warmed at all? Why hasn't it been even a little warmer than normal in the Arctic May-August since 2005? Shouldn't warmth carry over to some extent? It hasn't been doing that at all!

Does or doesn't this pattern of anomalies by month give us any hint as to the % of GW caused by AGW vs natural causes? JB thinks the summers not being warmer than normal means natural reasons rather than AGW have been the main GW driver but JB is so biased anti-AGW that I don't trust him. Is there any chance he's right? I honestly don't follow his connecting Arctic summers not being warm to AGW not being the main driver but I suppose that could be due to my lack of knowledge vs his. But again, his strong bias makes me quite skeptical.


Here is the link to very easy to see year by year Arctic temperature anomalies since 1958:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

**Edited: added JB related comments.

*Additional edit: By the way, JB has been harping on CO2 rising due to warmer oceans rather than higher CO2 leading to GW. Is there any chance he's right rather than it just being his anti-AGW bias talking?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top