The trend continues in August; The World is Warming as NASA says hottest on record

a reply to: DAZ21

Well, when your starving "butt is walking around snapping at the ground", you'll get it. Bye.

a reply to: MOMof3

And when you're eating that stuff, and growing a new nose on your back, you'll get it. Bye.

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: Chickensalad

Cherry picking in terms of scientific data would be saying that those handful of dissenters are correct despite the much, much larger scientific consensus that says they are wrong. So you can better understand what cherry picking is and isn't. Bold is to highlight the key portion of what is cherry picking and how it applies to these arguments.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.

en.wikipedia.org...

Iknow


Next you are going to say that 99.99% of all scientists agree on AGW...consensus!Har!

99.9%? As a statistics nut, I'd very rarely, if ever, say that. The actual percentage of consensus is dependent on statements made in papers on the climate and self rating according to a 2013 study on the subject.

In written papers on the subject of the climate, 66.4% of those papers did not make an overt position statement on AGW (in other words, they made no mention of the cause of the subject of their paper). 32.6% directly endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW, and 0.3% were uncertain. This makes sense as making a statement one way or the other may not be applicable to the paper's actual research topic.

When authors of peer reviewed scientific papers were asked to self-rate their own papers on AGW positions, those numbers shift. 62.7% viewed their papers as having endorsed AGW positions, 35.5% held no position, and 1.8% rejected AGW. Again, same reason as before--statements in regards to AGW may not have been applicable or even considered disputed or worthy of mention in relation to the paper, itself. In other words, one could write up a paper on observable changes to a particular lifeform in response to a climate change without ever once making a statement explaining why that climate is changing. Get it?

Now the 97.1% statistic that has been used lately is based on those papers that actually have an overt position statement on AGW. In all papers that provide a position on AGW, 97.1% endorse the scientific consensus and 1.9% reject it.

There you go. That's the actual statistics. The one thing that is consistent among all three types of statistics lumps is that positions that reject AGW represent around 2% of scientists writing climate related, peer reviewed papers.

Source: iopscience.iop.org...

a reply to: DAZ21

LOL.

Here we go again, some one from BBC has been on ATS...

They stress again that it's man made with no evidence to back up the claim. Just expecting the minnows to suck it all up.

The Austrian Climate Change Assessment Report 2014 says average temperatures in Austria have risen by almost 2C since 1880.

This is compared with a global rise of 0.85C in the same period.

The document says that the changes in temperature are mainly man-made and caused by "emissions of greenhouse gases".

www.bbc.co.uk...

I stand corrected, they did supply the report. I'm sure it's manipulated anyway, I'll have a little read.

Edit: No I won't because I can't read German.

originally posted by: DAZ21

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: jjkenobi

I am not a scientist. I don't expect you to believe me. I just know my personal experience in my local area and it concerns me. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to food production. You do what you gotta do.

So what? We should allow GM crops that are drought proof etc. ?
Playing God like that is so bad, why? Because these crops will be introduced and thrive overtaking and wiping out natural species.

When messing around with the genetic makeup of these crops we don't know the long term health affects associated with consuming such genetically modified material.

If they were deemed detrimental in the long run, we'd have an uphill battle on our hands, as these crops would unnaturally be the dominant species, surviving in harsh conditions where the natural species can not.

Not all genetic modification in crops are the same. There are actually three different types of GMO crops--transgenic, cisgenic, and subgenic. Genetic modification, a good deal of the time, is like a super scientific way of selecting for specific traits in a plant. It's like Mendel on steroids where, instead of leaving things to some random chance of heritability, the specific desired traits in a crossbreed are directly implanted. So if Mendel was aiming to make those blue sweet peas and was a genetic engineer, instead of it being somewhat subject to chance, he could've made every sweet pea produced blue. He would be using cisgenic genetic modification (same species or two closely related species).

Transgenic is basically the cross between two species within the same kingdom and sometimes from differing kingdoms. That one is where you can get some weirdness depending on whether it's between two species from the same kingdom or not. Some of it could potentially occur in nature (like polar bears mating with grizzlies), others are just, well, weird...like glow in the dark kittens. Which is just fundamentally weird and wrong in my book. Don't do that to kittens.

Lastly, subgenic modification is basically the deletion of some genes to create a specific trait or eliminate a problem. I'm not entirely a fan of that one either. In a human being though, that would be like deleting those traits that produced sickle cell anemia. Might not be bad but I think it enters into gray areas of unexpected consequences.

So not all genetic modification is created equal. Cisgenic isn't going to get one sporting a nose on one's back. Transgenic probably still won't but the cross-kingdom variant is meh. Subgenic is tricksy.

It was very very hot here in Arkansas this summer, but I was extremely suprised at how rainy this summer has been for me here. Usually the grass is dead brown during august, but not this year, lush green. The humidity is a beast around these parts in the summer. And they say Winter is supposed to be very bad, with more chances of Freezing rain, just like last year. great, time to break out the Generator, and up the Windmill/solar power output

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Just an FYI: It is important to note that science is not one of consensus, but rather proof.

There is no proof of rampant out of control, man made GW.

If one looks back at previous interglacial periods one thing that stands out is that temperatures typically reach higher levels than today (by 2-4C) before flipping to global cooling.

Another thing is the huge emphasis placed on co2 as a GHG. Disregarding, in most cases, that water vapor accounts for 95% of the GH effect. Seems that there is no money in naturally occurring water vapor. When they are tossing out the numbers regarding how much of an effect man has had, they typically disregard water vapor which allows their numbers to be a bit more impressive.

I am a semi-retired geologist who no longer practices, so I will not disavow that there has been global warming over the last 150 years, as a trend. What I will state is that the trend is well within historic (geologically speaking) numbers and that man's part is not as significant as they would have us believe.

99.99% of doom porn is false.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Ok so cisgenic is basically like breeding dogs to get the traits you want? (my simplification)

Ok well maybe that's not so bad but those other two sound dodgy as hell. I take it there's no way we would ever know what type of genetic modification they were using? Probably best to stay clear of them, unless it happens to state it on the food packaging.

a reply to: Greven

So..I have been waiting for a claim that GHG is responsible for warm temperatures at the surface.

What happens when a gas is under pressure? Heat results. Most of the surface temperatures we experience are explained by the simple, well established and documented gas laws. Without GHG effects I might add.

It's very odd that the temperatures we see on other planets in our solar system that have a significant atmosphere are all accounted for by gas law, and that methane and co2 content is virtually irrelevant.

Not to mention that our current ice age began with high levels of co2...multiple times the level we see today.

But here's the problem.

All these scientists that I respect, I'll just name one, Tyson, keep showing me all this data and explaining why man made global warming is real and is happening. Is he in on the conspiracy? What about Nasa? Are they in on it? What about Bill Nye? (yeah not a scientist but I like and trust him) Is he in on it? Or worse, all three---two guys and an organization incompetent?

a reply to: amazing

I am not a climatologist, but I have been told repeatedly all my life how GHG is bad and contributes to global warming. Initially there was no hysteria involved, it was just a fact of nature.

Now we have all the hysteria and doom.

I have learned much related to geology as well as other fields, and many of the more recent finds suggest that co2 is a result of warming, not a cause. Co2 levels have, when interglacials begin, and the process of warming begins at the end of glaciation, that co2 level rise lags behind temperature increases by roughly 800-1000 years. This is quite evident as shown by ice cores that have been layed down at antarctica over succeeding periods of glaciation and interglacials.

Also, I read a paper about indications that GHG is not the contributor that is popularly portrayed. One: often glaciation begins with high levels of co2 content. That glaciation ends with very low levels of co2. It is a given that oceans absorb co2 as they cool, and release co2 as they warm. The paper also addressed the temps we see at the surface, compared with gas law which predicts the temperature of a gas under pressure. It seems that our atmosphere, at the pressures we see at the surface, accounts for most of the temps we see at the surface. Given that, typically, high pressure systems are warmer than low pressure systems... well... I think Sherlock could put the pieces together pretty well.

I have read quite a few papers, most of them geological, that address the cycles of glaciation. Every one suggests that GHG does not play the part that has been portrayed. Astronomical cycles affecting insolation are the main drivers and there is a huge correlation (much better than GHG) between cosmic rays and climate. This was addressed in at least 2 of those papers. They are all available online. I have linked to many of them in previous posts on, perhaps this, but for sure other threads about this same subject.

Then, the last straw that breaks this camel's back is the intense doom porn nature of the whole thing. We all know how doom porn works out... In the last 20 years there has been a steady diet of it. Yet none of them turned out to be factual. GHG and the GH effect is, so often, presented in the same style.

a reply to: amazing

I would say imo that everyone you mentioned makes money from the information they are presenting. They have a certain amunt of so called facts to spew in order to keep up their pursuits in life while never choosing to end the money train by going the other direction.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Ha! You don't live where I live! Coldest summer in the northeast in decades. Never warmed up to normal summer temps. And to boot, meterologists are predicting a bitterly cold, snowy winter.

One morning last winter I awoke to a temperature of -130 degrees. That wasn't the wind chill, my friend, that was the real temperature.

Last winter was one of the worst winters I've ever lived through.

Global warming? Maybe at your house, but not at mine.

a reply to: MRuss

I suspect a typo... either you mean -13, or maybe -30... pretty sure you didn't mean to type -130. I assume Fahrenheit.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Greven

I agree. Who's to say it's entirely our fault, or that it wouldn't happen anyway and either way - what's there to do?

Hold hands and recycle while we all sing folk songs?

It may be too late for a bottom up strategy, but of course it wouldn't hurt if we all do our part. At this point, I think we need a top down strategy which begins with the corporations (oil and gas mostly) and governments and what they can do on a global scale.

Yes, but that isn't going to happen - is it?

Can we then agree that what you're doing isn't creating awareness, but fear?

a reply to: Rezlooper

Now, if you were to read the end of that article you would notice this part.

...
The US west continues to swelter under a prolonged drought while much of the north and eastern US has been noticeably cooler than average for much of 2014. Record temperatures up to 4C above normal have been recorded in west Antarctica, even as the extent of sea ice has reached record levels.

www.theguardian.com...

One part of the world is hotter, while another part is cooler... Antartica sea ice has extended despite the fact that there are underwater volcanos melting some areas and despite supposed increases in tempratures.

You do have to wonder how is it possible that while temperatures are "supposed to be higher" in Antarctica that sea ice is extending. That sounds like a contradiction.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

18% more sea ice in Antarctica.

Not to mention that this last year Arctic ice increased for the first time in how long? Not that a single year of increase is a trend or anything, but it is something to watch to see if does continue. The Arctic ice could just as well start shrinking again.

I read a piece that suggested that it appeared that the Arctic ice would melt until practically gone (historically) and once gone would begin to freeze up again, continuing until glacial growth began. Not trying to present doom porn, since it would be quite some time before glacial growth would become problematic, but rather just tossing out a proposed hypothesis that someone is working on.

a reply to: bbracken677

The Arctic was ice-free enough that for the first time (in our recorded history anyways) they detected waves this summer.

originally posted by: Kuroodo
For those who don't know, Global Warming doesn't mean that the whole planet get's warm and everyday is a hot day. It means that the planet gets warm, causing the climate to change. Places get warmer, and colder. Some warm places go hotter, some colder/cold. Some cold places get colder, some hotter/hot.

That is why Climate Change is a better term than global warming.

So will planet cooling cause places to get hotter and cooler too ??

Surely you can see just what a silly premise this all is, and how it is framed in the mind.

And what would you do about it ??

And to those who want to fight the NATURAL climate change, please tell us how to do that as well, since we already know not a LICK of anything useful has been shared on any level about that.