• 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.
snowlover91 said:
Remember when they said the Coral Reefs off Australia were bleaching at an alarming rate and this never happened prior to 1979? Well now research is showing that there are cyclical cycles of bleaching that have been occurring for 400+ years.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full
View attachment 5637
Click to expand...

Again you are cherry picking data for the USA only. Extreme events are clearly on the rise globally as expected.

fecf4164e91cc1c449fa0ae1d869f966.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Again you are cherry picking data for the USA only. Extreme events are clearly on the rise globally as expected.

fecf4164e91cc1c449fa0ae1d869f966.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What is your source for that graph and how does it determine “extreme” events? Sorry but we were talking about extreme heatwaves and I demonstrated that here in the US there has been a decline over the past 100 years and you changed the topic to something completely different.
 
Last edited:
snowlover91 said:
What is your source for that graph and how does it determine “extreme” events? Sorry but we were talking about extreme heatwaves and I demonstrated that here in the US there has been a decline over the past 100 years and you changed the topic to something completely different.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep talking about the USA when it’s a global phenomenon? The graph is showing heatwave ratio. Here’s the source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Why do you keep talking about the USA when it’s a global phenomenon? The graph is showing heatwave ratio. Here’s the source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There's a few problems with your argument here. One being that the source has at the top "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" which indicates it's possibly a source that isn't reliable. The second is its outdated by 3 years.
 
pcbjr said:
Very humbly, please join me in the court system ... you'll rapidly, if not immediately retract that assertion ... LOL ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I’m just saying folks aren’t going to write a paper about a very specific subject like USA heatwaves every year especially about a subject like global warming that takes time to see trends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
I’m just saying folks aren’t going to write a paper about a very specific subject like USA heatwaves every year especially about a subject like global warming that takes time to see trends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about the world as a whole and GW in general. Those get papers, graphs, charts, and data every year.
 
BHS1975 said:
I’m just saying folks aren’t going to write a paper about a very specific subject like USA heatwaves every year especially about a subject like global warming that takes time to see trends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I know what you were saying, but sometimes a little levity might just cut down on fractious overtones (and that is not directed to you or anyone in particular!) ... So, your Curmudgeon was simply offering an overarching yet trite bit of jest ... ;)
... and yes, it's hot outside today; AGW ... awful Gainesville warm ... :confused:
 
Last edited:
ForsythSnow said:
I thought we were talking about the world as a whole and GW in general. Those get papers, graphs, charts, and data every year.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know I was talking a specific paper to directly address the claims snowlover was making that don’t get written every year. Updated maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Why do you keep talking about the USA when it’s a global phenomenon? The graph is showing heatwave ratio. Here’s the source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The reason I mentioned the USA is because that’s what I was originally referencing.

You had stated “It seems like the se has escaped most of the extreme summer heat from AGW so far. I wonder how long it will last.”

My response to this was to provide data which showed the US (of which the Southeast is a part of) in particular has seen less extreme heat over time, not more.

Regarding the skeptical science article... I’m not a fan of their website because the entire basis of the website is to take any skeptical arguments, find AGW data that would argue otherwise, and then say that any AGW skepticism is a myth with no scientific basis. They are really good at cherry picking any data that fits the AGW view and ignoring other data which might cause problems for their position.

Btw the founder of Skeptical Science is not even a climatologist, his PhD is in cognitive psychology and almost the entire staff of the website have degrees in unrelated fields or even no scientific background. What’s incredibly ironic about this is they reject the OISM petition project because many of the scientists who signed it are not in the field of climate science and most of the Skeptical Science staff isn’t either. Hypocrisy much? It is nothing more than a glorified blog composed of people who religiously hold to AGW and will reject any other alternative explanations.
 
Here is some food for thought. Global temps based on OAA vs OSS stations show temperatures have been flat for over a decade.

upload_2018-8-19_15-11-9.jpeg
Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X18756670?journalCode=eaea
Click to expand...

The urban heat island effect is a factor to consider as urbanization and expansion of cities has rapidly increased the past 50-60 years.
Parker and Ollier, 2017
“We should also consider the role of the Bureau of Meteorology. The climate trend maps compiled by Bureau of Meteorology in their climate change section are completely unreliable, as the alleged increasing temperature is obtained by lowering temperatures of the past by “adjustments“.
“The global reconstructions as GISS (Hansen et al. 2010, GISTEMP Team 2017) are artificially biased upwards to reproduce the carbon dioxide emission trend, but the strong natural oscillation signal prevails. The very likely overrated warming rate since 1880 is 0.00654°C/year or 0.654°C/century. This rate increases to 0.00851°C/year or 0.851°C/century by considering the data only since 1910. The warming rate cleared of the oscillations is about constant since the 1940s.”
“There are stations covering different time windows having very close patterns of temperatures. In this circle of 3,141,593 km2 (roughly 50% of Australia) that is mostly underdeveloped, none of the stations […] actually has a warming trend. … It is therefore only an artefact by BOM to produce the warming. Homogenization is supposed to be used to account for upwards biases such as Urban Heat Island, not to introduce upwards biases. … The longest of the Australian temperature records that were considered the most reliable by Bureau of Meteorology on February 2009 (BOM 2009) are still available as raw temperatures in the climate data online section and consistently show no warming and no increased extreme events within the limit of accuracy of measurements.
Click to expand...

Oyler et al., 2015
Artificial Amplification of Warming Trends …Western United States “Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (US) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here, we critically evaluate this network’s temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network’s 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16 °C decade−1 to +0.106 °C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western US elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western US.”
Click to expand...

McKitrick and Michaels, 2007
“[E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.”[/quote)
Click to expand...
 
Then of course there is research out there questioning if the rise of CO2 is in fact manmade or from natural sources. See below.

Ahlbeck, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772
“The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by, the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Quirk, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689123
“The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”
 
My point in all the above posts and papers cited? We don’t have it all figured out yet. There is plenty of research in various fields, with different conclusions, that offer alternative views to the AGW theory. The science isn’t settled and both AGW views and skeptical ones should be evaluated and considered as we seek to better understand our planet.

One of my main concerns is around deforestation. I live in a very rural area but all around me large swaths of land have been completely deforested with nothing but some dead logs left behind. It’s being done by people who I presume are having the land logged. Globally this is also a concern as urbanization increases, forests are transformed into concrete jungles, and the demand for resources increases. It’s sad to see a once beautiful forest turned into a pile barren wasteland with nothing but stumps and weeds/brush left behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top