Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: stinkelbaum

they have gotten very quiet of late

That's a deep statement...wow

a reply to: projectvxn

Which was to set up a global corrupt tax scheme.

The worst thing we could have done is allow politicians to get involved in a scientific debate. It's not like they will actually listen to scientists and engineers.

The corrupt tax scheme will feed the corrupt shorters like JP Morgan who monopolize the carbon trading market. Who allowed them to get involved? Their corrupt politician buddies -

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I thank it's funny people think that 98% of scientists would conspire against everyone and hide the truth that is in front of our face.

Well its not funny when they feather their own roost and keep on the gravy train, but scientists never intentionally lie do they?

I'm pretty sure there were droughts before there was 'climate change'

just this is the worst YOU've ever seen doesn't necessarily make it 'climate change'

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

can you give us the weather conditions in June for the abovementioned places going back 10 years - you know, just so we are comparing eggs with eggs, and not just throwing anecdotes around.

Sorry. The point of this thread is that the time for all those games is over -- though many still seem happy to play it, ignoring what is in front of their faces. If you want to play My Statistic Is Bigger Than Your Statistic there are many who will oblige you. Count me out.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

From about 1945 to about 1975, the northern hemisphere was cooler than the 20 century average (I belive that is 11.1 degrees celcius) in the northern hemisphere.

southern hemisphere longer than that!

Therefore, within our lifetimes! not that long at all.

BTW - can you explain why carbon dioxide is affecting global temperatures now but did not do so for the first 95 years of the industrial revolutionÉ

1) the rate of greenhouse gas being emitted from fossil sources then was much lower than it is today, and the accumulated amount wasn't that big.

2) it was affecting temperatures but the net change as a result of #1 was smaller than natural variation then.

3) Accompanying the industrial revolution and burning of coal (mostly) and others there was also an increase in particulates and sulfates (smog) which are net cooling, but have a substantially shorter lifetime. These have declined relatively because of increased pollution control (they are hazardous to health) and so the "global dimming" (which is really mostly "northern hemisphere dimming") is substantially less.

www.realclimate.org...

If you don't consider the difference in temperature between north and south hemispheres to be significant, why do you consider current global temperatures to be significant.

Still shying away from the MWP question, I see. The MWP only disappeared because of data provided by "hide the decline" micheal Mann. So much credibility here!

www.realclimate.org...

Mann's work has been replicated and extended many, many times and the same essential message comes through.

And in any case, the observation of temporary warmth from natural means does not preclude much more substantial warming from unnatural means, which is happening now.

You understand that this is not based on just "we see warming now" and no other investigation of course. There is firm observations & theory supporting specific, predictive physical mechanism, and a much greater observational fidelity and quality than in medieval times. If we had comprehensive global data from medieval times available today, we could also figure out what specifically was happening then in substantial detail and security.

Thinking that medieval warmth means that current changes cannot be artificial is ridiculous. It's like reading about stories about the "sweating sickness" and other pre-modern narratives and diseases, and then using that fragmentary and unclear data to cast massive doubt on current medical science based on known molecular biology and direct observations of pathogens and accuse physicians of global decades-long conspiracies.

a reply to: mbkennel

Mann's work has also be disproven many times. The very fact that he tried to "hide the decline" is proof of his lack of credibility. Nothing the man says should have any credence.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Our most recent crystals suggest a warming relative to the LIA in the last century, possibly as part of the regional recent rapid warming, but this climatic signature is not yet as extreme in nature as the MWP. The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere, but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region have had mixed results.

As for the MWP - now that it is back - is not to compare it to temperatures today in absolute terms. It is to demonstrate that despite catastrophic warming, the effect on humankind was not catastrophic, as so many are trying to convince.

The same is true for the Roman Period.

To be clear, that means that there was hundreds of years when the global temperture was "above average" and with the confirmed Little Ice Age presenting hundreds of years of continuous cooling.

Thirty years of warming may be "significant" as the casual reader would assume that this provides "proof" of AGW. This is sheer propaganda. Significant is a mathematical term used in statistical analysis. Something may be "significant" mathematically and remain entirely insignificant in terms of effect. The MWP lasted over 200 years!

It is this type of propaganda that disturbs me so greatly and leads me to believe the AGW is a hoax (that plus the fact that all government policies developed to "combat" global warming are more directed to global income redistribution with money sticking to everyone's hands along the path). The science may be as solid as it likes to be but when interpretations are biased and exaggerated, then the science is being cast aside.

Tired of Control Freaks

if only a climate change skeptic had analyzed the data, looked for bias and poor reporting stations and bad science and then let us know what he found in front of congress under oath

that guy would probably have an interesting perspective

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Well, there is this guy, who was hired by the Koch brothers among others to do just that.
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Well, there is this guy, who was hired by the Koch brothers among others to do just that.
www.nytimes.com...

I wonder what his conclusion was ? I'm sure he found the data skewed by bias and poor quality reporting stations, and that we are in a cooling period or a pause

right ?

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Did he publish his raw data? No? why would anyone listen to him?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Did he publish his raw data?

Um. He used the same raw data which skeptics claim has been adjusted in order to show a warming trend. He started out, as a skeptic, trying to show that was indeed the case. To his chagrin, he found that his own adjustments show the same thing.
static.berkeleyearth.org...

Or are you saying that global temperatures are not rising?

a reply to: Phage

what is sean and ice?

a reply to: Phage

I am saying that if this guy expects his work to convince anyone or to influence anyone, he needs to show it. The entire thing. Every number. how its was altered from its raw state to its adjusted state and why. He needs to do more than say "Its ok guys, I looked at it and I am convinced".

I am saying that scientists claimed there was an increased rate of warming from about 1975 to about 1998. This caused alarm to scientists. Then the rate of warming slowed drastically for over 18 years. The "pause" in the rate of warming has been alternatively denied and then dozens of possible explanations were provided. Then the data was "adjusted" again and the "pause" was denied again.

Then El Nino happened and temperatures spiked. Some people call the spike in temperature to be caused by global warming and not just El Nino. Some people claim that the change in weather from a strong El Nino was proof of global warming.

That is what I am saying.

Tired of Control Freaks

not sure what the global data says, but the lower 48 saw the hottest june ever. The CO2 data, as usual, matches it.

400,000 years is not "weather"

its gettin hot in here

Heat Driven By Spiking Carbon Dioxide Levels At the same time that national temperatures were hitting new record highs, average carbon dioxide levels measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory saw record rates of rise for the month. According to NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory, June of 2016 saw average carbon dioxide levels that were 4.01 parts per million higher than June of 2015. That’s a huge jump in the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas that rose by about 1 part per million every year during the 1960s and during recent years has risen by an average of about 2 parts per million.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

I am saying that if this guy expects his work to convince anyone or to influence anyone, he needs to show it. The entire thing. Every number. how its was altered from its raw state to its adjusted state and why. He needs to do more than say "Its ok guys, I looked at it and I am convinced".

I am saying that scientists claimed there was an increased rate of warming from about 1975 to about 1998. This caused alarm to scientists. Then the rate of warming slowed drastically for over 18 years. The "pause" in the rate of warming has been alternatively denied and then dozens of possible explanations were provided. Then the data was "adjusted" again and the "pause" was denied again.

The heat was going into the oceans---some of the surface heat was being taken in because of new patterns from climate change.

Now that heat is coming back out to surface and it's yuuuge.

Ocean heat content, no 1998 pause.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

Then El Nino happened and temperatures spiked. Some people call the spike in temperature to be caused by global warming and not just El Nino. Some people claim that the change in weather from a strong El Nino was proof of global warming.

That is what I am saying.

And what you are saying is misleading. Of course El Nino contributes to fluctuations---but now it is upon an even and ever increasing base, and that's why it's definitely hotter now than in 1998, which was a stronger El Nino.

El Nino is declining now, and yet the records are continuing to break.

a reply to: mbkennel

ok but you are going to need to show me the data in temperature - not heat content. I have no concept or perception of heat content.

Further, I notice the heat content prior to about 1978 was below average. How do you explain this? This is some 90 years after the start of the industrial age.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: mbkennel

Yes - the heat is coming out of the ocean and its likely that an El Nino will follow. How long do you think it will take for the ocean to heat up to that degree again? Will records continue to be broken or are we in fact entering the cool phase of the 30 year ocean cycle of heat and cold.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

sorry that should be "la nina" not El Nino

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Further, I notice the heat content prior to about 1978 was below average. How do you explain this?

Did you notice the period for which the average was taken?

Will records continue to be broken

Since more heat is being continually retained, I would say yes.