Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

The massive industrialization that has increased C02 levels in our atmosphere has only been around for about 100 years.
They dumped a lot of coal smoke into the atmosphere in the 1800's which might have blocked some of the UV radiation.
Its too soon to find any clear patterns in the data because global cooling and warming cycles are thousands of years long.
All it would take is super volcano activity or an asteroid strike and we could find ourselves in the next ice age.
I agree with Gray the global warming debate is probably more about funding and politics.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pikestaff

Satellite information says that for the last 16 years, the earth's mean temperature has not budged

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like satellite data indicates that it has gone up about 0.4º since 2000. That seems like a significant "budge." A "budge" that would result in an increase of more than 2º by the end of the century, if it continues at that rate.

www.drroyspencer.com...

 

North America's shocking winters, all continental states COLD last winter, "Oh there just blips" really? 3 years in a row?

All continental states cold last winter? Are you sure? Yes, part of North America was cold. So were a couple of other places. So what?

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

 

Both poles with above 'average' sea ice? year on year?

Are you sure about that?

Arctic sea ice extent for March 2015 averaged 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles). This is the lowest March ice extent in the satellite record. It is 1.13 million square kilometers (436,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.52 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles). It is also 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month observed in 2006.

Air temperatures reached record high levels at two Antarctic stations last week, setting a new mark for the warmest conditions ever measured anywhere on the continent. On March 23, at Argentina’s base Marambio, a temperature of 17.4° Celsius (63.3° Fahrenheit) was reached, surpassing a previous record set in 1961 at a nearby base, Esperanza. The old record was 17.1° Celsius (62.8° Fahrenheit). However, Esperanza quickly reclaimed the record a few hours later on March 24, reaching a temperature of 17.5° Celsius (63.5° Fahrenheit).

nsidc.org...

While it is true that sea ice extent in the Antarctic has increased, it is also true that land ice is dramatically decreasing. That is problematic.

Thanks for taking the time to post these and adding to the content of this thread. I too have read the increase broke down to .36 over some time period but I would have swore it was from the 50s or 70s.. bad memory on my part or something...... .36 or 4.0 are pretty close though.. all we can ask for are accurate numbers to base any kind of judgment upon.

I feel that consumers waste a lot of resources. I also see those third world countries coming into their own. What would happen if all those consumers wasted resources? If you push something like say, carbon taxes, it forces people to conserve. It also brings out innovation by means of necessity. You would try your hardest to find the cheapest way not to pay those taxes. People would innovate and move us into a better tomorrow.

Just don't lie about it.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: jrod

Like I said, there are natural factors at play that can change the C14 ratio, not just fossil fuel burning.

Changes in solar activity.
Changes in our magnetosphere.
Changes in volcanic activity.


The list goes on and on.

Really? Where is the evidence for any of the mechanisms above? What is the quantitative analysis?

Where is the evidence the current understanding is incorrect?

What other factor other than fossil fuel burning results in the sharp rise in CO2 since 1750? What happens to the combustion products of known fossil fuel burning? What happens when you estimate the amount of fossil fuel burning and the resultant CO2 increase?

and finally, WHICH EXPLANATION FITS THE FACTS THE BEST? T hat is obviously: humans dig and burn fossil fuels and since nobody is sequestering anything, the result goes into the atmosphere and that's exactly what has been measured, and the isotopic ratios confirm it further.

Not, "can I think of some possible alternative explanations without mechanistic scientific verification and assert them which might have a minuscule probability of having some minuscule effect". That bizzare special pleading to volcanism or whatever having something to do with suddenly changing isotopic ratios and not fossil fuel burning is like looking at the brown stuff flowing down the sewer and saying it came from martian microbes and not having any explanation to what happens to the crap coming out of people's bums.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: tkwasny

The reason for the argument is that we have a window, well a now closing window to decrease the impact of our ignorance... yes, prepare but let's lessen the thing we're preparing for.

Prove that the proposed solutions will work in an effective cost:benefit ratio. There is historic PROOF that having abundant energy to either cool or heat our spaces where we exist will work.

It's what we are doing right now. We just need to ensure there is more energy and a better delivery system for that energy.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
The massive industrialization that has increased C02 levels in our atmosphere has only been around for about 100 years.
They dumped a lot of coal smoke into the atmosphere in the 1800's which might have blocked some of the UV radiation.

And even through the 1950's: "global dimming'

Its too soon to find any clear patterns in the data because global cooling and warming cycles are thousands of years long.

Except for the present period, where the results are now clear and obvious, because the timescale of human digging of fossil fuels and inserting them into the atmosphere is enormously faster than any past other natural geological or biological process.

Humans are doing something which has never been done in the geological history of the planet, and it's not surprising that the results will similarly be novel. How do we predict what they will be? By using laws of physics. It's not historical correlation, it's laws of physics. The paleoclimate is interesting in figuring out what those laws are and how they once manifested themselves.

All it would take is super volcano activity or an asteroid strike and we could find ourselves in the next ice age.
I agree with Gray the global warming debate is probably more about funding and politics.

The existence of the "debate", now, is indeed politics, certain political faction does not want to accept the rational consequences of actual scientific results, which in the large scale on this issue are confirmed and certain.

a reply to: tkwasny

It's what we are doing right now. We just need to ensure there is more energy and a better delivery system for that energy.

Energy is good. Great stuff.
The problem is not "more energy" or the delivery system for it. It is the process by which we produce it. Burning fossil fuels is a real problem because it increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That's why increasing efficiency and lowering costs of other means of producing electricity is being encouraged, as well as discouraging the increased use of fossil fuels. That's also why oil, coal, and gas producers are so against it.

originally posted by: Phage

As for your earthquake question....i dont know of athropogenic earthquaqes. Its not talked about in mainstream news. Feel free to educate me...

You shouldn't rely much on mainstream news. For anything.
esd.lbl.gov...

There's that, fracking 'lubricating' natural forces. There's also the big booms and radioactive holes.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: Phage

How do we know that the Earth isn't still warming up after the Little Ice Age?

The earth is warming up after the Little Ice Age.

Human CO2 makes up a tiny proportion of the whole, and there's supposed to be an 800-year time lag between warming and release of CO2...which would correspond unremarkably to the Medieval Warm Period.

Except that the CO2 release is much faster now and we know it comes from deep fossil sources which would not play any part in the cycles observed in ice ages. (That carbon was locked down in coal & oil much much much earlier).

Any natural release of CO2 from increased temperatures would be additional to human-released CO2.

Overall the global temperature was declining slowly from arout 8000-6000 BC, which is just what you expect from natural astronomical forcing (Milankovitch cycles), until the very recent period in which it has shot up much faster because of fossil fuel extraction.

a reply to: mbkennel

certain political faction does not want to accept the rational consequences of actual scientific results, which in the large scale on this issue are confirmed and certain.

The goals of reducing fossil fuel dependance and incentive for building smart infrastructure in hurricane prone coastal areas benefit from the gllobal warming myth. Its supposed to be for the better good since the public often needs to be scared into action.

The lies are pretty transparent and experts like Dr. Gray have debunked the data, but there are still a lot of people trying to profit from the global warming myth including Obama.

a reply to: Cauliflower

The lies are pretty transparent and experts like Dr. Gray have debunked the data

Actually, no.

a reply to: Phage

Open a hole in the sky then and release the pressure.

I wonder when some WHOLE science will ever be done, oh wait that is all controlled by the good guys right ??

In no way could science have ever been hijacked and routed in a manner that escapes detection.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Open a hole in the sky then and release the pressure.

You think the sky is a dome of some sort, or a balloon? You think it holds "pressure?"

AGW alarmists get away with "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

AGW alarmists have never proved

1) That climate is affected by Man

2) That the climate effects will be bad or even noticeable

3) That the AGW political control is able to do anything about the climate.

4) That more totalitarian government is less damaging to human life than any change in climate.

AGW is political power grabbing.

a reply to: pikestaff

And what about the ocean heat content?

That certainly counts as part of the Earth. And it's going straight up.

Polar ice is at an all time low. Glaciers are disappearing. Seabed and arctic methane is being released. The world is warming up. I don't care if anyone is responsible and I don't think we can stop the change. But we can prepare for what's coming.

originally posted by: DavidWright
I'm at a point now where Climate Change talk just pisses me off..........its all people pointing fingers at each other and isnt productive......If the planet is such a threat to flood the coastlines then why arent we fortifying them now? Why arent we pushing clean vehicles by force.....clean industry by force?

When the United States needs to get something done......WE DO IT........at least we used to. I want people to stop telling me 100 years from now that the sea level will rise by a few feet and other things MAY happen to the planet.

WE know a lot that IS happening to the planet and it keeps going unchecked while people bicker.......take California.......running out of water and yet only just recently decided they should take a serious look at it.

America is such a reactive country and the government is so bloated that by the time we do react......its much harder to fix the problem at hand.

While I agree with many of the points you've made up through this post, I must counter with this--why must we do things like fortify coastlines or 'fix the problem'? Instead, I would argue that, like the hundreds of thousands of years before us, we need to adapt to the changing environment instead of fighting it or trying to change it.

I agree 100% that we need to be better stewards of the earth, and that we have the ability to create far less polution and have much less reliance on destructive things, but in the end, if we don't adapt, all we are doing is prolonging the inevitable. Intelligent people should be moving away from the coastlines if they truly feel that land in threatened with rising oceans. People should willingly abandon heavily polluting things and industries.

I think that the reality is that humans are not causing as much long-term damage to this planet as the most vocal AGW advocates would try to force us to believe, but we are having an impact that is generally more negative than positive. But the final answer is not forcing people to do this or that, or fortifying coastal cities--we need to adapt and the naturally changing environment of the earth while being more intelligent about how we live on it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

...but we are having an impact that is generally more negative than positive

At least you admit that we are causing problems.

We have directly affected something like 80% of all the land on this planet, and that figure is still climbing.

It is asinine to deny that we have made anything but a giant impact on this planet.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CranialSponge

I'm not quite sure what your asking...

I'm asking how you account for the decline in the ratio of 14C to 12C.

More volcanic activity ?

Any evidence for that? But I thought you said that the increase in CO2 was due to plants. How does volcanic activity account for the change in 12C/13C?

Less cosmic rays ?

Any evidence for that?

Neverending wars and uranium enriched weapons blasting everyone to Timbuktu ?

Wouldn't that increase the amount of 14C?

Who knows.

We know. It is because fossil fuels (plant material) are depleted of 14C because they are millions of years old. When fossil fuels are burned they do not release 14C because they do not contain 14C. When modern plants decay they release 14C because they contain 14C. When modern plants decay they do not change the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere because they are release the same 14C they absorbed from the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned they decrease the ratio of 14C to 13C because they are releasing mostly 12C, no 14C. This has been known since before warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) became an issue.
uscentrist.org...
The rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

I'm sorry, may I ask for clarity in your argument?
You acknowledge C14 being a result of uranium enrichment, or indeed nuclear technology.
Do you also acknowledge a decrease in Nuclear testing and/ or active nuclear power plants?
Do you think that may have something to do with the decrease in the C14 isotope?

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

What???

I just went through all of Phages posts and didn't see where he ever said C14 was a result of uranium enrichment.

I have no idea how you are coming up with a relationship between Uranium/nuclear testing/nuclear power plants and 14c.
You do realize the "C" stands for carbon right?