Goat Whisperer
Well-Known Member
This is the exact reason why I hate debating global warming, I'm not reading or posting anymore here. Neither of us are open minded enough for this to be a good way to spend our time.
Global warming proved to be a scam?
- Thread starter retro
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
175Replies
-
3KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
You're impossible. You said:
And you said NASA had trustworthy data:
So I went to NASA and looked at their data, and like you requested in the second post I quoted, I explained why the data is wrong. I proved it with their own information, and you know it, and you refuse to admit it.
It's absolutely pathetic. "WAAAA somebody came at me with facts and figures and now I'm leaving!". You can't have it both ways. You can't demand somebody show you why the data is wrong, and then leave when somebody shows you why the data is wrong.
Goat Whisperer
Well-Known Member
No you didn't prove anything to me, because I stopped reading after my post before last, you want me to go back and read it, waste my time refinding my own data, and disproving it. But the truth is I just don't want to, I have homework, art projects to do for AP, goats to take care of... a life outside of this stupid pointless debate.
So I am done wasting my time, and I should have never wasted my time in the first place.
So I am done wasting my time, and I should have never wasted my time in the first place.
Then what do you want me to do??? I did EXACTLY what you asked, and now you're refusing to even acknowledge the points I made. In fact, you apparently refuse to even read the post.
Goat Whisperer
Well-Known Member
I kind of want you to respond, or I wouldn't have put all the work into I did. Maybe you can correct me, which would be great. Maybe you can't, which would be greater. Either way, I think that if you're going to issue a challenge to prove you wrong you should at least acknowledge the response.
Goat Whisperer
Well-Known Member
Argh damnit you got me. I read it and now I have to respond.
Okay, give me a bit of time. I need to check my resources, but you have some good points, that I actually haven't heard much of before, I've heard variations, but you've put it nicely.
Okay, give me a bit of time. I need to check my resources, but you have some good points, that I actually haven't heard much of before, I've heard variations, but you've put it nicely.
Goat Whisperer
Well-Known Member
Alright, fair enough. You don't want me to question the data, and you say NASA is trustworthy. So let's look at some NASA data, using the following 2 sites:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- "Warm" Stations'
A quick look at the first site shows us the following two scary graphs:
Those graphs scream "OMG WE'RE HEATING UP!!!!".
Then you scroll a little further down, and see this convenient breakdown by latitude:
If you'll notice the scale on the left of the Temperature Anomaly, it seems the Northern Latitudes have double and triple the warming of low and southern latitudes over the last 100 years. So now you have to wonder, how is it "global" warming, if it isn't remotely close to uniform across the globe?
And they nicely compile it back together again for us in this graph:
How can there be such a disparity in the warming of the north and south hemispheres? Don't worry, I asked myself the same question. Luckily, the second site I provided might have some answers:
More than 2/3 of the weather stations used for this data are located between 30 and 60 degrees of latitude! I'm not a statistician, and I'm not a climatologist, but looking at that fact objectively seriously makes me question the accuracy of the overall claims. 1/3 of the data comes from 1/6 of the planet? That's bad statistics, and bad science.
But wait, I kept looking. On the first link, there's a handy-dandy list of the top 10 hottest years in a Word Doc.
For the area between 24 degrees and 90 degrees north in latitude, the 10 hottest years are:
1997, 1998 ,2001 ,2002 ,2003 ,2004 ,2005 ,2006 ,2007 , and 2008.
In the US (which is entirely in that same latitude band) the 10 hottest years are:
1921, 1931, 1934, 1938, 1939, 1953, 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006.
How can there be such a huge discrepancy? Two locations at the same latitude on different sides of the globe typically have very similar climates overall.
So who's right? Was the hottest year 1934 or 2005? Apparently NASA isn't even sure. Personally, my hypothesis is that the US temperatures are right. I have more confidence in our weather reporting than I do in the reporting coming out of Ankara Turkey or Tunis Tunisia.
So what does the US temperature averages say about warming trends?
They've gone up a little, but not NEARLY as much as those first two graphs indicate. I think the data used in the first two graphs is inherently flawed by global inaccuracies in reporting procedures, which I showed with the US temps versus the global temps at the same latitudes.
What's my conclusion, you ask? I don't know. I'm just trying to show that there are a lot of inaccuracies in the data, that lack coherent explanations.
I'm going to feel bad, because Dt3 obviously spent some time putting this together...and well I'm just not really 'up' to answering in the same amount of detail. Truth is, I was far more educated in this a few months ago, but I have forgotten some of the more detailed science and numbers. And I lost my page of resources (links to sites that I can get credible stats and graphs from) so it's a bit harder for me to respond nowadays, but I'll try
:willy_nilly:Since I am not going to go into extreme detail (for now, anyways) I'm not going to quote and add a response for everything you say.
First off, you have some very valid points. The goal of improving temperature data is something we can all agree on. I would certainly not say, that our global average temperature is anywhere near perfect or reliable.
What this argument is truly lacking in, is that it does prove that it is unreliable for us to rely upon the "Average Global Temperature" as 'proof' global warming exists. But it doesn't prove global warming doesn't exist either. Nor does it cause us to lose all of our statistics and solid evidence.
What we can't say, is that "Average global temperature is rising." Because as Dt3 has shown, the temperature is not take in enough places in enough variety for it to be a correct average. But what we can say, is that on average, temperatures are going up.
Whether the temperature was taken next to the ocean in Seattle or on top of a pyramid in Egypt, they are both doing the same thing-- going up. Which is what matters. Almost all temperatures are correlating around the world, in a trend, that we are going up in temperature every year. Trends are what matter. Trends are something we can rely on as being consistent, because they aren't area dependent.
If it's normally -50 degrees in Canada right now, and we've noticed that steadily over the past years, it has risen to -40 degrees at this time of year, we know that a trend is happening, it' warming. And if this is happening everywhere that we record temperature, it's pretty safe to assume that on average, trends are showing that temperatures are rising. Because they are.
The main point of finding the global average temperature isn't to prove that the temperature is rising around the world, it is to compare with temperatures in ice core. It is just now used to prove that temperature is rising around the world, because it is easier to pass around the hundreds to thousands of different trends.
The surface temperature trends is also confirmed from multiple, independent sources:
- Surface temperature analysis by NASS GISS find strong correlation with two independent analyses by CRU's Global Temperature Record and NCDC.
- Weather balloon measurements have found from 1975 through 2005, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.23°C/decade.
- Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures shows temperature rises of between 0.16°C to 0.24°C/decade since 1982.
- Ice bore reconstructions found the 20th century to be the warmest of the past five centuries, confirming the results of earlier proxy reconstructions.
- Sea surface temperatures, Bore hole reconstructions and ocean temperatures all show long term warming trends.
And lastly, we have evidence beyond average global temperature and temperature trend increases. Polar bear populations are still decreasing. Sea ice is decreasing. Ice in Churchill (Polar bear capitol of the year) is taking up to two weeks longer to return. Glaciers are dissapearing. Extreme weather (such as hurricanes) are increasing in severity. Perma-frost is melting. Invasive species are suddenly being able to encroach upon new areas, because of temperature increase. Disease is spreading...Well the list goes on. These are all proven to be mainly caused by the climate warming.
The climate is warming. What we should be disputing in this thread is why it is warming.
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking at trends in Tavg may be inherently flawed in and of itself though. I can't seem to find it again, but I was just reading an article discussing the issues with looking at Tavg. Apparently in many instances, Tmax is relatively constant but Tmin is going up, driving up Tavg, but, and this is the important part, Tmin is MUCH more sensitive to land use changes and other non-greenhouse factors than Tmax is. We could easily be overestimating even the amount of warming by looking at Tavg as an indicator without filtering out other contributing factors.
Those sources are not as independent as is made out. Their data is overlapping to the tune of 90-95% (admitted to by Phil Jones in some of the released emails). Given the same source data and similar methods, they have an extremely high probability of correlating with each other...
A Myth About The Surface Temperature Record Analyses Perpetuated On Dot Earth By Andy Revkin « Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.
Lately sea ice extent has been increasing. NOAA attributes the vast majority of recent severe declines to changes in wind patterns disrupting ice formation and increasing break up. There are even some nice animated satellite images showing the wind effects on the ice floating around should you choose to look.
No they're not. Hurricanes are no more severe today than they were in the past. 8 of the top 10 and 3 of the top 5 occurred before 1969.
Hurricanes are causing more monetary damage but thats only because we've built up the coastlines in the lats 40 years. I'm originally from south MS (Katrina or Camille ring a bell?). According to my grandfather, who has lived there since 1938, the only reason Katrina caused more damage than Camille is there was comparatively nothing for Camille to destroy in 1969....
On top of that, its a well established fact that hurricane frequency follows approximately 30 year cycle. Thats why there were peaks of activity around 1900 or so, followed by the 1930s, 1960s and finally the 1990s and why now we're not seeing a whole lot of activity.
Say what? Are you just reading the talking points now or what? I mean, what diseases are spreading in the first world? The joke that is H1N1 is the only one I can think of and thats sure not related to climate.
Except maybe you should make sure what you're claiming is really happening. Its kinda hard to prove something thats not happening is being caused by climate change.
I thought just about everybody around here already said that?
Last edited by a moderator:
Goat Whisperer
Well-Known Member
Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.
Now if supposedly you're post had any truth to it, claiming that we are gaining ice, then why is it the polar bear population is declining? Considering they are probably the most well studied species in the world, I would highly doubt we are wrong about their populations being in decline, so I hope that's not your reason to doubt it.
There is more extreme weather then just hurricanes. One great example, is Texas. Northern Texas this year was downpoured on. A much larger amount of rain then they have ever experienced before. But the Southern Texas experienced one of the worst droughts they have had in history. This is because the soils, plants, lakes, and streams in Southern Texas were depleted of water, which moved north and rained down on that part of Texas.
This drought was also predicted 15 years ago, anthopogenic climate change scientists.
I mean insects like misquitos being able to live longer because of warmer weather, and being able to migrate further up mountains, and over land that normally would be too cold.
Malaria and Flesh Eating disease, as I recall, are fairly serious diseases. And because of the warming climate, they are indeed spreading.
Unless if there is no other explanation as to why they are happening, then the climate is warming. I didn't say this proved the climate change was man caused--just that the climate is changing. Which is what we are currently debating in this thread. I thought Dt3 made that pretty clear in his post.
Except Dt3 who just wrote that page long post that was disputing that the earth was really warming all that much.
Last edited by a moderator:
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Global warming exists, there is no debate about it. Odds are we're helping it along too, its just a matter of how much.
Goat Whisperer
Well-Known Member
The reason why I think we are the main cause, is because the variables that normally cause climate change are virtually non-existent.
And because if we are causing it, it will most likely be a far more severe, unpredictable, and sudden climate change then previous changes.
One example of why this may be worse change, is that the polar bear has survived passed climate changes. But right now, their populations are declining at such a high rate l, personally, am almost 100% we won't be able to save them. They are the canary in the coal mine--the warning sign.
The truth is there is no way for me to know if climate change is real, and it is something I openly admit to not be certain of. But it's because there is no other reasonable explanation that fits, and because we are putting the world, and my future at such a high risk--to put off doing something we will have to do eventually anywyas; go green, renewable energy, green electricity, etc. Eventually, even if climate change never happens, we will have to be energy independent. We will run out of oil, and then what? Hyrdo, wind, thermal, nuclear, all viable options that we need to take advantage of ASAP, so were not even risking climate change.
We need to change the question from "Is it true?" to "Why risk it?'
Try not to change the subject when I point out your errors. You were talking about arctic sea ice not Greenland, Antarctica or inland glaciers.
Here's a nice graph showing that just as I said, we have gained some ice extent in the last couple of years. If we are currently gaining extent year over year, by definition there is no loss acceleration.
Here's a video based on NSIDC data showing arctic ice extent from 1979-2009. Notice just how typical things look year after year.
YouTube - Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009
Again, here's video of the wind patterns disrupting the arctic ice.
YouTube - Arctic ice driven by the wind not global warming
Now if you want to talk about the large ice masses of Greenland, Antarctica and inland glaciers, then we most certainly can talk about them. We can talk about the physical mechanics of these ice masses, the time lag of ice accretion, melting and glacier motion and the impact of climactic variations 100s and even 1000s of years ago on the current state of the ice mass along with how all those and other complex factors can play into ice mass growth or decline just as much as a simple change in average temperature....
Other than the fact southern ocean is colder than normal according to NOAA, you're 100% right.
Who the said anything about polar bears? My understanding is that polar bear populations were poorly documented and understood before the 1970s and that the information we have since then has been of a population recovering from over hunting. Given those facts, what exactly is a "normal" population of polar bears? Is it possible that the recovering population overshot the carrying capacity of their habitat and is now correcting? What sort of cyclical patterns (short and long term) does the population undergo?
I'm not about to deny an easily quantifiable fact, but until the answers to those and quite a few other questions are known and well understand, I'd be very hesitant to attribute the decline to any particular factor.
You know what? It might also have a lot to do with the fact we had a relatively strong La Nina event over the last year or so which has a strong correlation with low rainfall in south central TX (along with other areas) and high rainfall in north TX. How much you wanna bet conditions reverse when the El Nino thats firing up right now get going?
Considering TX state climatological records only go back to 1895, saying "its the worst drought ever" isn't saying all that much. When you've only been paying attention for a relatively short period of time, its rather ridiculous to assume that anything you haven't seen before is outside the norms. It may be a rare occurrence but entirely within the normal bounds of the system.
I could predict a drought in TX sometime in the next 20 years and probably be right too. Doesn't mean I know WTF is going on with the climate of the world, just that I know its typical that TX has a major drought every 15-20 years on average.
And what about all the predictions that have been made that HAVE NOT come true? To ignore those is to fall into confirmation bias...
Show me some evidence that disease is spreading outside of third world countries. Spreading disease in third world countries with horrible sanitation, prevention and health care is nothing new.
In the complex interconnected dynamic system that is the world, there are plenty of other potential explanations for a lot of what you claim is connected to climate change, you're just choosing not to admit to them. As far as magnitude, its probably better to rely on the satellite temp data(UAH orRSS) which shows a continuation of the slow steady warming thats been observed for a long time, rather than looking to other phenomena with rather tenuous connections to temperatue.
There are a lot of people who would dispute that given the the prior correlation between solar activity and climate variation and our recently very active sun. There's also the fact that we've been steadily warming since the end of the "little ice age" before large scale industrialization and emission of CO2.
Seriously, just WTF makes you think a climate system that has proven itself relatively stable for longer than we as a species have been alive, will suddenly become unstable simply because we are changing the gain on one single feedback path that is known to have an exponential decay in effect?
More like hysterical hyperbole than a canary....
Again, the climate is changing. That is fact. The question is how much are we contributing.
No other reasonable explanation that you're willing to admit to...
As we run out of oil, the price will go up and people will develop new technologies and new habits to mitigate its effects.
To force half-assed solutions to an as yet non-existent problems is to force waste on humanity at large, potentially taking resources from future technologies that really could solve future energy issues.
Every option you listed has very real and very serious problems that limit their applicability.
Hydro: Find me some place in the US suitable for hydro that doesn't already have a dam. You won't find many since we've filled up the majority of them. Then you go and see just how long it takes to jump through all the enviro hoops to actually build those few dams and then get back to me on viability.
Wind: Sorry, but the wind doesn't always blow and the times it doesn't have a bad habit of being periods of peak electrical demand. You can also only count on 15% of the rated generating capacity increasing costs. You end up having to have some other more stable generation systems on top of wind.
Thermal: Geothermal I guess? There's only a few places you can get that without digging an unfeasibly deep hole.
Nuclear: Very good idea except nuclear has a very high latency in response to electrical demand. You have to have something like gas turbines ready to spool up and supplement the nuclear during periods of sharp power demand increase.
The question has to be changed to "what is the cost vs the benefit." Don't fall into the trap that these changes have no cost, especially if they are mandated changes outside what is economically viable.
AP? Advanced Placement? Are you still in high school?
I've got an engineering degree with all the math and physics that entails including a couple semesters of partial differential equations and still don't have a complete understanding of the underlying scientific issues. Thats even considering my work background is in data reduction and analysis, computer modeling and feedback control systems.
Somehow I think you need a little more education/experience under your belt in order to really start understanding this. Although for high school you're aren't doing too bad. :thumbup
JanieDough
V.I.P User
It continues on:
Climate research chief Phil Jones stands down pending inquiry into leaked emails at East Anglia university | Environment | The Guardian
A very interesting quote:
Climate research chief Phil Jones stands down pending inquiry into leaked emails at East Anglia university | Environment | The Guardian
A very interesting quote:
Extremely interesting actually.
So that would pretty much be admitting that it's not a man-caused phenomenon, right?
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members