Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

[Stormlover]

totally different story than you hear put out
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

 

[Webberweather53]

I'll stick to whatever I want, thanks. If you want to dispute the facts presented, have at it. I have no time for info from the in crowd that has been proven to manipulate data to suit their agenda. You may want to forget climategate, but I'm not. No wonder they want "peer reviewed" stuff out, the "peer's are all in on the political scaremongering hysteria.

To date no one from the other side has actually published any legitimate literature regarding NOAA's manipulation of the data, this claim is utter nonsense... The NOAA data has been independently verified by buoys, satellites, and the addition of millions of new observations in ICOADS version 3 improved quality control, the EOF reconstruction, and uncertainty estimates, among other things. If you want more details refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread.

 

[Stormlover]

To date no one from the other side has actually published any legitimate literature regarding NOAA's manipulation of the data, this claim is utter nonsense... The NOAA data has been independently verified by buoys, satellites, and the addition of millions of new observations in ICOADS version 3 improved quality control, the EOF reconstruction, and uncertainty estimates, among other things. If you want more details refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread.
View attachment 16

Again, even IF it was all true and mostly manmade(big problems with that), the solutions put out by the Al Gore's, Obama's, UN, etc. are horrible for us. No thanks. It wouldn't matter much at all and the costs would be astronomical(already the costs have hurt many in this country).

 

[Webberweather53]

Even IF, and that's a big IF, some of these suspicious numbers put out by the in crowd are right, there is no amount of money we can punish ourselves with and transfer wealth to make a real difference. Thus, it's all political. And yes, it was published, you just read it, and Dr. Roy Spencer here is one of the world experts on the satellite data and he would disagree with you very much..but for starters, stop the money drain and transfer of wealth and start using our own resources again(pipelines, coal, etc)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01...en-100-of-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/

totally different story than you hear put out
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

*facepalm* Lmao, the daily mail op ed piece is not published literature in a reputable journal, but nice try... It's not political at all, it's a fact that human induced emissions of greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, and methane released from incomplete fossil fuel combustion, farming practices, and other various industries are increasing the energy budget of the globe via increased interception of outgoing longwave radiation. The internal inertia of the climate system and non-linear expressions and reactions amongst its various natural phenomena lead to a discontinuous rise in global temperatures with occasional inadequately denoted "pauses" in temperature, while in reality the internal equilibrium is still warming. For the most part, the other side attempts to make this argument political because they have no other physical explanation of their own to offer. You do realize that satellites and surface data aren't actually measuring the same thing? Satellite-based datasets indirectly measure temperature in the column of the troposphere (w/ significantly higher uncertainties), whilst the surface data measures temperatures directly at the ground (w/ lower uncertainties but less spatial coverage), discrepancies are to be expected, even if the observational platforms, uncertainties, and coverage in the data sources were assumed to be equivalent

 

[Webberweather53]

Again, even IF it was all true and mostly manmade(big problems with that), the solutions put out by the Al Gore's, Obama's, UN, etc. are horrible for us. No thanks. It wouldn't matter much at all and the costs would be astronomical(already the costs have hurt many in this country).

What are you talking about? I'm not claiming that it's mostly manmade at all, I'm only pointing out a fact that a) carbon dioxide, NOx, and methane are greenhouses gases whose concentrations are increasing due primarily to man's activities and these gases intercept outgoing longwave radiation that results in an increase in global temperatures. The real questions that remain in the climate community regarding the fate of AGW pertain to the uncertainties in aerosol and cloud feedbacks to the climate system, other natural forcings are far more likely to be closer to being resolved to this point in time (note I chose my words carefully here)... If it really was largely just natural then how do you explain the discrepancy between natural variability and the observed temperature record even since the satellite record? How do you explain the asymmetry in global temperatures in the 21st century w/ very similar natural forcing juxtaposition as we observed decades ago, better yet how does one explain why global temperatures continue to warm with each subsequent La Nina event despite the fact that the frequencies of El Ninos and La Ninas are nearly the same over the past few centuries? The system's equilibrium at an inter annual-interdecadal temporal scale is undeniably warming and is expressed through ENSO and some residual warmth released from the Indo-West Pacific warm pool during El Ninos is being retained, natural variability can not explain the latter portion of this aforementioned statement. In spite of multiple noteworthy phase shifts in decadal natural variability such as the PDO, AMO, and decrease in direct solar output (although UV variations that are an order of magnitude larger than solar irradiance contribute to indirect forcing of the BDC and stratosphere which can be communicated into the troposphere), how does one explain the unprecedented losses in both arctic and antarctic sea ice in the past several years, the expansion of the hadley cell network, the increased frequency of central pacific El Nino events and above normal-record high temperatures globally and even locally in the US and North America, decreasing long-term snowfall averages in much of the southeastern US, weakening of the upper tropospheric tropical easterly jet (TEJ) and concomitant Indian monsoon circulation with mostly natural variability? You simply can't...

 

[Stormlover]

A longer growing season helps poor people in many parts of the world too. We NEVER hear of positive impacts from any global warming.

 

[BHS1975]

A longer growing season helps poor people in many parts of the world too. We NEVER hear of positive impacts from any global warming.

The negatives HUGELY outnumber the positives. What good is a longer growing season with NO RAIN. smdh. I'm seeing trees that have been budding since late January which I have never seen before due to the extreme warmth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stormlover]

http://www.cfact.org/2016/05/21/paper-scientists-obsessed-with-climate-models-that-dont-work/
Scientists are obsessed with climate models that don't work

 

[GaWx]

Again, even IF it was all true and mostly manmade(big problems with that), the solutions put out by the Al Gore's, Obama's, UN, etc. are horrible for us. No thanks. It wouldn't matter much at all and the costs would be astronomical(already the costs have hurt many in this country).

Keith,
Despite the beneficial effects of warming, one thing you can't debate is the unfortunate rise in sea level from warming. I'm seeing it almost in my backyard (well, on the road to the beach about 12 miles from me). It is getting flooded at spring tide way more frequently than when I was a kid. That almost has to be due to GW. Now I'm not saying all of the GW is from AGW. I think that at least a nontrivial portion is from that. But I'm still open minded as to what % has been from AGW and what % has been a result of the most active 50 year period (1959-2000) for the sun in 400++ years as well as other possible natural factors.

 

[Webberweather53]

http://www.cfact.org/2016/05/21/paper-scientists-obsessed-with-climate-models-that-dont-work/
Scientists are obsessed with climate models that don't work

Lol more nonsense... I see they use an older, much cooler version of RSS. The new version is much warmer after 1998 and is more in line w/ the climate models, and all of the more reliable surface-based datasets are practically near the ensemble mean of the climate models.


Of course if you still somehow think the satellite data is more reliable, coming straight from the horse's mouth, one of the creators of RSS speaks about the relative uncertainties and reliability of the surface and satellite data. Once again, it's pretty clear the surface data is more reliable...

 

[Webberweather53]

 

[Stormlover]

John Christy lives here where I do, and he's what you call a "skeptic"...he doesn't buy the man made GW disaster fearmongering at all, and doesn't buy that it's settled science at all. Far from it. He works with Dr. Roy Spencer and they are two of the most outspoken critics of the UN's agenda and the massive transfer of wealth using this as an excuse that Obama and others want to do. Oh, and the video didn't even spell his name right

Dr. John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He has also been Alabama's State Climatologist since November 2000. He is mostly known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. Roy Spencer received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Christy helped draft and signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change [Source: Wikipedia].

Dr. Christy believes that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and doubts that human activity is to blame for most of the observed recent warming.

 

[Stormlover]

Wow
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

 

[BHS1975]

This is from one of your links saying we have to be at 300 ppm CO2 or we're screwed which has a lot of evidence to back it up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Webberweather53]

Wow
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Why are you posting this crap again?
Let me just re-iterate in case I didn't make myself clear the first time... The daily mail authors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. For starters, they don't even know how to use the same base period to compare the HADCRUT and NOAA global temperature datasets which they claim to be fraudulent because the NOAA dataset is supposedly warmer, when in fact they forgot to use the same base period to compare anomaly data for both datasets (oops!)... That elementary mistake alone discredits their entire article. Smh...

 

[Webberweather53]

Hold on, it gets better... When you utilize the same base period w/ NOAA's ERSSTv4 and the UK Met Office Hadley Centre's HADSST3, the Hadley Centre data is actually warmer anomaly wise. Lol
Pic via Zeke Hausfather

 

[Webberweather53]

John Christy lives here where I do, and he's what you call a "skeptic"...he doesn't buy the man made GW disaster fearmongering at all, and doesn't buy that it's settled science at all. Far from it. He works with Dr. Roy Spencer and they are two of the most outspoken critics of the UN's agenda and the massive transfer of wealth using this as an excuse that Obama and others want to do. Oh, and the video didn't even spell his name right

Dr. John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He has also been Alabama's State Climatologist since November 2000. He is mostly known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. Roy Spencer received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Christy helped draft and signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change [Source: Wikipedia].

Dr. Christy believes that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and doubts that human activity is to blame for most of the observed recent warming.

Dr. Christy and Roy Spencer are among a few fringe scientists that deniers run to in a last ditch attempt to present any legitimate skepticism towards AGW, however both of these scientists usually fail to contrive any really legitimate, verifiable, and/or publishable arguments that will significantly alter the AGW theory. In fact, one of Christy's latest statements regarding the climate models' recent handling of global temperatures shows how out of touch he is with reality...
February 2016 Dr. John Christy “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”
Lol....

 

[Webberweather53]

Again, I've already mentioned this wrt adjustments but just to drive this point home yet again so there's no more confusion, particularly in the cooler and earlier portions of the record, the adjustments to global temperature stations have actually been more favorable towards less warming at least in the surface based datasets...

 

[Stormlover]

Why are you posting this crap again?
Let me just re-iterate in case I didn't make myself clear the first time... The daily mail authors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. For starters, they don't even know how to use the same base period to compare the HADCRUT and NOAA global temperature datasets which they claim to be fraudulent because the NOAA dataset is supposedly warmer, when in fact they forgot to use the same base period to compare anomaly data for both datasets (oops!)... That elementary mistake alone discredits their entire article. Smh...
View attachment 33

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's just tough. The expert used could have been in any publication...so the lame excuse to trash the mail is a big fail. It's sad to see so many that have such a closed mind to what is going on and not believe anything wrong is happening with any of this related to GW. Keep your head in the sand, I don't care. Don't respond to my "trash" anymore if you don't like it.

 

[Webberweather53]

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's just tough. The expert used could have been in any publication...so the lame excuse to trash the mail is a big fail. It's sad to see so many that have such a closed mind to what is going on and not believe anything wrong is happening with any of this related to GW. Keep your head in the sand, I don't care. Don't respond to my "trash" anymore if you don't like it.

What in the world are you talking about?. Do you not understand that even if you use the exact same data, you get different temperature anomalies if you use different climatological base periods? The daily mail compared the NOAA data to HADCRUT with a different base period assigned to each dataset. Then the authors screamed bloddy murder when the NOAA data was warmer than HADCRUT. In reality, the NOAA temperature anomalies were derived against a colder base period in comparison to HADCRUT, hence their modern anomalies are warmer than HADCRUT which uses a warmer base period, therefore its anomalies are closer to 0, but the editors of the Daily Mail obviously weren't smart enough to think that one through and check for this simple mistake, or were lying about there being any fabrication in the first place and thus were purposely misleading their readers. Therefore their entire argument about NOAA's data fabrication is complete garbage, and I've shown you time & time again, the adjustments actually reduce the long term rate of warming in the data... Seriously, pull your head out of the sand, this isn't that hard to figure out...