• 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top