• 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.
Shawn said:
You know what chaps my a$$ though? (i support/supported trump); is his stupid rhetoric on

All humans know co2 is bad. Oxygen is good. Our survival is based on it. .
Click to expand...
c02 also has very good benefits, it's not just something bad.
Shawn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I asked Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist, for a reply to what you said here, and here it is:
Human survival (as all animals) is dependent on food, and the food chain collapses if there's no CO2 for photosynthesis. So, while oxygen is necessary for humans, oxygen AND CO2 is necessary for ALL life on Earth to exist. Yet, only 4 parts of 10,000 of the atmosphere are CO2, while O2 is 2,095 parts out of 10,000. Maybe we need way MORE CO2, just to be on the safe side?
 
Stormlover said:
c02 also has very good benefits, it's not just something bad.
I asked Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist, for a reply to what you said here, and here it is:
Human survival (as all animals) is dependent on food, and the food chain collapses if there's no CO2 for photosynthesis. So, while oxygen is necessary for humans, oxygen AND CO2 is necessary for ALL life on Earth to exist. Yet, only 4 parts of 10,000 of the atmosphere are CO2, while O2 is 2,095 parts out of 10,000. Maybe we need way MORE CO2, just to be on the safe side?
Click to expand...
We keep cutting down trees, though. :( There is so much logging going on around here and up in the mountains.
 
Little Food for Tought:

Take your hand over a fire after its been burning and the flame long gone. All you see is a couple of minature embers glaring red. You still feel the heat but not nearly as intense as you do when the fire is flaming.

Now think of the Earth as the fire pit. When the sun is beaming down on one side its warming any and everything under its rays. The sun has been doing this since the begining of time. Also since the begining of time the sun has been warming the same land masses, oceans etc. However their is one big subtle change and thats the volume of Asphalt,Brick, buildings etc. Urbanization/development is a way bigger contributor to GW than fuel emmisions. Now when the sun goes down evryone on here knows what happens, we radiate but way less in urban areas compared to rural. So our big fire pit the earth has these embers putting off more and more heat each night as time progresses.

Yet youll never hear the govt chastise urban development and its effect on the enviroment. Reason being is they cant fit it into their political narrative and tax/grab power from that angle like they can the co2 avenue streams aka Big Oil/energy etc.
We all need to become better stewards of our enviroment and do our part, but we all need to get real in identifying the roots to the problem. Also one of the biggest beefs I have with GW aurgument and I dont feel like typing 100s of words to explain is the metrics we use to gather and analyze climate data in order to make past,present and future comparisons. Thats a whole other can of worms Ill save for another time.
 
NCSNOW said:
Little Food for Tought:

Take your hand over a fire after its been burning and the flame long gone. All you see is a couple of minature embers glaring red. You still feel the heat but not nearly as intense as you do when the fire is flaming.

Now think of the Earth as the fire pit. When the sun is beaming down on one side its warming any and everything under its rays. The sun has been doing this since the begining of time. Also since the begining of time the sun has been warming the same land masses, oceans etc. However their is one big subtle change and thats the volume of Asphalt,Brick, buildings etc. Urbanization/development is a way bigger contributor to GW than fuel emmisions. Now when the sun goes down evryone on here knows what happens, we radiate but way less in urban areas compared to rural. So our big fire pit the earth has these embers putting off more and more heat each night as time progresses.

Yet youll never hear the govt chastise urban development and its effect on the enviroment. Reason being is they cant fit it into their political narrative and tax/grab power from that angle like they can the co2 avenue streams aka Big Oil/energy etc.
We all need to become better stewards of our enviroment and do our part, but we all need to get real in identifying the roots to the problem. Also one of the biggest beefs I have with GW aurgument and I dont feel like typing 100s of words to explain is the metrics we use to gather and analyze climate data in order to make past,present and future comparisons. Thats a whole other can of worms Ill save for another time.
Click to expand...

Good post. I can get behind that idea of there is just too many people, building, destroying the natural land. That is a lot of my gripe, in fact. I used to live in the middle of nowhere, and now I have neighborhoods all around me and can't even see the stars right anymore. This place I am at was here well before anyone else; and I happened to have a good amount of land. I'm about to just leave and go elsewhere, where I can be at peace and have privacy and clean air. Then, within 15-20 years, the same process will repeat.
 
Another comment from Dr. Spencer:
and yet, satellites have been measuring global greening over the last few decades, especially in semi-arid areas. Sheesh. The headline is also dishonest...it would be physically impossible. All of that evaporated water from the ocean, none of it will fall on land, huh?

about this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/earth-become-desert-2050-global-11795575
 
Stormlover said:
Another comment from Dr. Spencer:
and yet, satellites have been measuring global greening over the last few decades, especially in semi-arid areas. Sheesh. The headline is also dishonest...it would be physically impossible. All of that evaporated water from the ocean, none of it will fall on land, huh?

about this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/earth-become-desert-2050-global-11795575
Click to expand...
That's the most ridiculous article headline ever. If you go with the whole sea levels rising argument, it means there is more water available, and there would be more rain in areas that get a constant wind flow. The reason we have deserts is because if moisture not getting over mountains, land, or unfavorable weather patterns. Earth would have to significantly cool for it to become a desert. That is the opposite if global warming and is just silly to think that the Earth can cool that rapidly to stop evaporation from the oceans. I doubt we see a drastic change that fast.
 
ForsythSnow said:
That's the most ridiculous article headline ever. If you go with the whole sea levels rising argument, it means there is more water available, and there would be more rain in areas that get a constant wind flow. The reason we have deserts is because if moisture not getting over mountains, land, or unfavorable weather patterns. Earth would have to significantly cool for it to become a desert. That is the opposite if global warming and is just silly to think that the Earth can cool that rapidly to stop evaporation from the oceans. I doubt we see a drastic change that fast.
Click to expand...
That's what is so amazing about so many of the fearmongers on GW, they are so far over the top that it's hard for anyone to buy what they are selling.
 
Climate changes because it always has and will. How much of that can be attributed to man is an open question but I believe it to be rather small, and most of that is due to land use changes not CO2. Personally I am more concerned with pollution (air/water/oceans etc) caused by man than I am CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHG emissions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be smarter about our energy consumption but not enough to ruin the global economy in doing so. We have a planet of over 7,000,000,000 and it is increasing, so more food sources, jobs, infrastructure will have to be developed for that increasing population and that involves massive amounts of affordable energy being needed largely in the form of fossil fuels, coal, Nuclear and not solar panels, wind turbines etc. If I could only develop that perpetual energy machine I would be rich! :p
 
1300m said:
Here's some more research I did, spurred on by Climate Central worshipper Nate Johnson and WRAL weather.

First his post:
View attachment 2699

I'll admit, I was skeptical of this chart, so I decided to recreate it.

View attachment 2700

Looks the same right? So Nate is right, it's clearly getting warmer and he even says in his post he looked at other COOP sites across the state and saw similar results. So I decided to check to.

Let's start right down the road in Chapel Hill:

View attachment 2701

Nope, the 1985-89 period was clearly the warmest and no significant trend has emerged since then.

Moving on to Fayetteville:

View attachment 2702

No trend there, either.

Finally, Clayton:

View attachment 2703

Nope, no trend there.

RDU shows a clear trend towards more and more hot days, while Chapel Hill, Clayton, and Fayetteville all agree that we saw more 95F+ days in 85-89 than any period since then! I'm also curious if only RDU is getting into the global climate models (my suspicion).

I think what drew my ire the most from Johnson's post was when he said "we looked at some of the co-op observer sites around the area and we see similar trends there too". A) I don't believe they looked at all, and B) if they did, I wonder which ones they were because I see no trends that support the RDU data from the three more rural sites I looked at. I have long-believed that the microscale urban heat island effect at certain ASOS stations is the main buoy that keeps the global warming alarmists afloat, and I think this definitely supports that. It's just not comparing apples to apples in regards to time periods nor other monitors (as this analysis has shown).

The other really blatantly obtuse thing about this data at RDU that is hard for me to believe is that RDU truly had zero 95F+ days from 70-74 when the other three sites did, and it's also interesting that at all three of the other sites there was nearly as many (actually more in Clayton) in 70-74 as there was in 2000-04. It seems apparent that the environment around that ASOS was vastly different and resulted in at least part of the trend. Admittedly, Chapel Hill's number was low too, but yet Clayton's was high -- that isn't a signal for AGW to me. It's truly unfortunate that no one can examine this issue without a biased opinion, and I'll admit I can't do it either.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about that. It seems that as time has changed, the heat islands have grown, and that the reporting stations have likely stayed in the same locations. Adding urban sprawl causes heat and keeping heat in overnight as well. As you looked at, the other cities don't have a warming trend, but the major one appears to have it, and that is likely due to the build up in RDU. That is good info about another side to the argument that more need to look at. I'm sure if someone ran the same experiment with a city such as Blue Ridge, GA, Clayton, GA, plus a few small cities and then Atlanta, it could come out the same. Same could go for any state. Unfortunately, I'm sure that the politics would trace it to carbon and blame it on CO2 again.
 
This doesn't have individual locations but clearly show the temps in the decade of the 1930's is so far the warmest for the US
daleo-two.png
 
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.
 
As far as I understand it, it’s caused by CO2’s ability to absorb infrared energy. As it gets warmer the sea also gets warmer and expands. Land ice melts and adds to the sea level rise. Temps rising a few degrees is fine over the course of thousands and millions of years, but over just 100 is a different story and can be catastrophic to ecosystems as organisms cannot adapt as quickly.
The left however is pretty ridiculous but what I think is more ridiculous is assuming that anyone that thinks man-made climate change is real is just a puppet of the left. We know hurricanes are not on the increase in either frequency or intensity, we know there is no observable trend in severe weather, etc., Earth’s not a laboratory that we can conduct controlled experiments with. if anyone says otherwise then they’re not worth listening to anyway. Focus on FACTS, not rhetoric - the right AND the left have done a hell of a good job distracting people from what scientists are actively seeking: answers to questions in order to ask even more questions about the planet
 
EastAtlwx said:
try again.... there is 12 months in a year... sick and tired of people cherry picking data sets.. smh..View attachment 3634
Click to expand...
You mean this graph that you show after NOAA had "adjusted" the temperatures in the 30's to lower levels than the raw data actually originally showed? Will the 2010-20 decade also be adjusted downward in 50 years too? NOAA is the ultimate champion of cherry picking
 
MichaelJ said:
You mean this graph that you show after NOAA had "adjusted" the temperatures in the 30's to lower levels than the raw data actually originally showed? Will the 2010-20 decade also be adjusted downward in 50 years too? NOAA is the ultimate champion of cherry picking
Click to expand...

Do you even understand why those adjustments were made in the first place before spouting nonsense?
 
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