Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

a reply to: seasonal

Yeah it's dem pesky science type guys alright.

Dem guys who don't know that the melting of the icecaps could upset the pacific and Atlantic currents and hurricanes will develop quicker and won't be aptly predicted as they are now. If you knew the currents, you know the storm which is why hurricanes paths can have predicted landfalls. But if those currents were to change...

I have no Doctorate but I will tell you what would happen. If there is more thawed freshwater that altered the current in a hurricane season then a tropical low would form a hurricane quicker and intensify quicker due to greater convection and it's predicted path would be much different. Hurricanes would last for longer because the heat trapped in the atmosphere and may lead to increased precipitation.

But don't take my word for it, ask the internet, because smarts count for nothing these days.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

So is the stuff you wrote happening?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...

Not is a "camp" just looking at the money and recognizing this has happened before. And it happened before we had the industrial revolution.

I would love not to have gas stations, natural gas furnaces and coal fired gen plants. But in the real world we "need" this dirty power. And whether the tech is not there yet or is being restricted ( I vote for restricted) we have little control because we do not individually have the $$$ to push for what I think is right.

Separated we do as we are told, together we could change the status quo.

Your "source" uses an ATS thread from 2006 as its "source"...

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

So is the stuff you wrote happening?

Yes, yes it is.

Glaciers in Peru are melting and is robbing the Peruvians of their fresh water supplies, there is a huge ice shelf that is about to shear off Antarctica, and what makes freshwater ice melt? heat.

If the world was cooling then why is the ice melting?

In the 70's scientists predicted "Ice Age"
In the 90's scientists predicted "Global Warming"
In the 00's scientists predicted "Climate Change"
in the 20's scientists will predict "Something Alarming"

Do you see the trend ?

a reply to: manuelram16

*RRRRRRR*-wrong answer, try again.

Scientists were warning us about global warming since the 70's, just like doctors proved in the 30's that smoking was bad for you, and almost a century later they still sell them. Nuclear testing has caused thousands of cases of bone cancer around the globe due to high levels of Strontium-90 which was a contributing factor to banning atmospheric atomic tests.

So do the math and you will see we have had a negative effect on the planet climate wise and otherwise. Chernobyl anyone?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie
WRONG!!! I read a lot of stuff in the 70's about the earth headed to an ICE AGE!

My question is when will this fear mongering scam end? How many times do the predictions have to turn out false until people realize they have been suckered? The anthropogenic climate change scam is like a never ending doomsday. These terrible things are going to happen 30, 50, 100 years from now unless we do something!!... blah blah blah. If they push out the doomsday predictions 50 to 100 years, the current generation(s) will be dead when that doomsday fails to arrive. We already know humans don't learn from history. I fear that this scam will still be perpetuated 300 years from now.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: manuelram16

*RRRRRRR*-wrong answer, try again.

Scientists were warning us about global warming since the 70's, just like doctors proved in the 30's that smoking was bad for you, and almost a century later they still sell them. Nuclear testing has caused thousands of cases of bone cancer around the globe due to high levels of Strontium-90 which was a contributing factor to banning atmospheric atomic tests.

So do the math and you will see we have had a negative effect on the planet climate wise and otherwise. Chernobyl anyone?

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

All I know is our local weather gathering station was removed from a farm about 5 miles out of town and put on the high school roof next to the parking lot. From a grassy field to a city parking lot. I bet the temps did go up!

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

So is the stuff you wrote happening?

Yes, yes it is.

Glaciers in Peru are melting and is robbing the Peruvians of their fresh water supplies, there is a huge ice shelf that is about to shear off Antarctica, and what makes freshwater ice melt? heat.

If the world was cooling then why is the ice melting?

Do you expect the ice shelf to grow forever and cover the world?

Weather patterns are not set in stone. If Peru is dry, Bolivia or somewhere else is getting more precipitation.

Humidity and temperature move inversely. When places like Phoenix get drier, temperature goes up. Combining temperature with humidity gives enthalpy, or energy content. When you look at temperature charts showing spikes, humidity charts conversely show dips. Total enthalpy flat lines.

Relative global humidity has been decreasing for the past 60 years. This would create rising global temperatures. I haven't checked the math, but a huge drop in humidity should equate to much more than a tiny rise in temperature. The Earth may actually be losing energy.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

Relative humidy(RH) can be misleading. Dew point is the better value for moisture in the air.

RH is temperature dependent. For example in Florida the dew point can be 75°, the high can
reach 95°+, making the RH around 40%. Someone can erroneously conclude that because the RH is only 40%, it is not muggy outside.

It is a rookie mistake, but something someone well studied in meteorology will not make.

Your conclusion that because RH values are lower, the Earth may be loosing energy is an erroneous one.

www.theweatherprediction.com...

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jrod

Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...

Not is a "camp" just looking at the money and recognizing this has happened before. And it happened before we had the industrial revolution.

I would love not to have gas stations, natural gas furnaces and coal fired gen plants. But in the real world we "need" this dirty power. And whether the tech is not there yet or is being restricted ( I vote for restricted) we have little control because we do not individually have the $$$ to push for what I think is right.

Separated we do as we are told, together we could change the status quo.

Your "source" uses an ATS thread from 2006 as its "source"...

This is dishonest. The link lists two sites as sources, not just this one.
this is the other one, which in fact is listed before the ATS one:
www.theeventchronicle.com...#

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

So is the stuff you wrote happening?

Yes, yes it is.

Glaciers in Peru are melting and is robbing the Peruvians of their fresh water supplies, there is a huge ice shelf that is about to shear off Antarctica, and what makes freshwater ice melt? heat.

If the world was cooling then why is the ice melting?

Glaciers in New Zealand are growing, glaciers in Asia are growing, the Antarctic sea ice is growing, Hubbard glacier in Alaska is growing. And what makes water freeze? cold.

If the world is warming, why is the ice growing?

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: manuelram16

*RRRRRRR*-wrong answer, try again.

Scientists were warning us about global warming since the 70's, just like doctors proved in the 30's that smoking was bad for you, and almost a century later they still sell them. Nuclear testing has caused thousands of cases of bone cancer around the globe due to high levels of Strontium-90 which was a contributing factor to banning atmospheric atomic tests.

So do the math and you will see we have had a negative effect on the planet climate wise and otherwise. Chernobyl anyone?

This is wrong. In the 70's the warnings were of a coming ice age, not a coming warming trend. Every mainstream outlet reported on it.

Newsweek: www.scribd.com...
science digest 1973 "Brace Yourself For Another Ice Age" i.gyazo.com...
National Geographic 1976 : "Scientific Consensus For Global Cooling" realclimatescience.com...
In Search Of episode, "The Coming Ice Age" www.youtube.com...
LA Times : "Is Man Manufacturing A New Ice Age?" pqasb.pqarchiver.com...
Time Magazine : "Science: Another Ice Age" content.time.com...
Popular Science: "New Ice Age Coming?" content.time.com...
Science News: "Climate change : Chilling possibilities" www.sciencenews.org...
Newsweek : "The Cooling World" www.denisdutton.com...

In fact, here is a pretty good list of some of the news agencies, science productions, magazines etc that discussed the coming ice age in the 1970's. Be prepared to read a ton, there are a couple hundred links to them when you scroll to the bottom of the page.

www.populartechnology.net...

Scientists, news agencies, magazines... they all predicted imminent global cooling.

originally posted by: DClark

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: manuelram16

*RRRRRRR*-wrong answer, try again.

Scientists were warning us about global warming since the 70's, just like doctors proved in the 30's that smoking was bad for you, and almost a century later they still sell them. Nuclear testing has caused thousands of cases of bone cancer around the globe due to high levels of Strontium-90 which was a contributing factor to banning atmospheric atomic tests.

So do the math and you will see we have had a negative effect on the planet climate wise and otherwise. Chernobyl anyone?

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

apologies, I double posted your link. Hadn't seen your reply yet. That page is virtually littered with links of major outlets reporting on a coming ice age. Great find.

originally posted by: jrod
The study was done by the Cato Institue, which is funded by the Koch's. To but it simply, the 'liberterian free market' think tank that Cato is, is funded heavily by fossil fuel interests.

Amazing how quick you guys are quick to dismiss the findings of NASA, NOAA and thousands and thousands of actual universites, yet jump on a pro-Oil, right wing think tank bandwagon.

More on the Cato Institute here:
www.sourcewatch.org...

Where the funding comes from does not mean automatically the information is false from either side of the debate. Yes, there is a debate no matter how much shutdown howling the religious cult barks their god cannot be blasphemed.

a reply to: seasonal

That is a very interesting article you have linked to. I don't see many of the posts here talking about the article in the initial post itself. Most of the posts here seem to be an attempt to discredit the article without providing any evidence, typical for global warming discussions on internet forums. Lets talk about the article itself. Here is a snippet:

The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”

Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”

“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.

The article leads us to another most interesting link:

The ‘Fingerprint’ Of Global Warming Doesn’t Exist In The Real World, Study Finds

One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers.

Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.”

They found that once El Ninos are taken into account, “there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about.”

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,”

“Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed,” they wrote.

dailycaller.com...

I've read nothing from the defenders of C02 caused global warming in this thread that indicates that C02 is the primary contributor to the changing climate. I have been watching ATS forums since around the last election day, and I see the same names pop up in these threads, defending AGW, yet supplying no evidence of it's existance. I see the same claims repeated over and over from certain individuals about C02 being a greenhouse gas, yet they have no eplanation why all of the climate models have failed.

If the climate models had proved accurate they might have a talking point, but as anyone that follows the AGW news knows, the climate models have failed, even the top dogs in the AGW camps are now admitting that. I just wonder why there are still some on the forums that are trying to push the agenda that C02 is anything more than a minor contributor to global warming. We are all aware that the internet has it's share of shills that will try to sway public opinion. Really the climate realists don't need to go paying people to post on forums, the abundance of scientific papers showing that C02 is but a trace contributor and the failed climate models from the IPCC itself are enough evidence for the general public to make up their own minds.

It's a shame that the only talking points that the AGW camp has anymore rely upon consensus still, I guess it's all they have left, no matter how thoroughly that is debunked, over and over and again and again, they will still use it. What a hill they have chosen to die on, one so easily debunked by a simple google search.

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"
www.populartechnology.net...

a reply to: chevweyed

Did you even look at the first page?

It became apparent that the OP doesn't really want to debate the article when the OP refused to rebut my rebuttal.

Naturally, the thread decayed from then on.