Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arnold Martin said:
When Al Gore was born in 1946 there were only 6,000 Polar Bears.
Click to expand...

Some teams used to have a small fan base. The topic is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The undeniable one, unless you are a denialist or a denier and make a living or a hobby from trying to sell colourful balloons for noisy parties.

Again: Stay on character.

"Captain, the force shield is loosing integrity!"
 
Another slew of records in Colorado today...76 here south of Denver. With February almost half over we are already close to breaking the all time record for 70+ degree days. Global Warming + El Nino is going nuts right now. My colleagues are celebrating the insane warmth, oblivious to the major wildfire that is currently burning to the west...wildfires are not supposed to be happening in February...:mad:
 
Arnold Martin said:
If politics were removed from Global warming there would be nothing left. And we can see that happening as we speak . Most people do not care about it.
Click to expand...
Politics is a different forum Arnold. But I will say that politics comes into play once we start discussing mitigation strategies ie what to do about it, not the science showing the problem exists.

You first need to understand the realities of the problem before you can even begin to discuss mitigation proposals acceptable to your political and/or socioeconomic ideology. Your posts are analogous to being opposed to welfare entitlements because the poor don't exist. A ridiculous failure on your part. Potentially there are many ways to solve the problem, and you don't necessarily need to change your ideology to accept AGW.

That's where you continually fail. Denying the science in the first place does not help your case.
 
stanfr said:
Another slew of records in Colorado today...76 here south of Denver. With February almost half over we are already close to breaking the all time record for 70+ degree days. Global Warming + El Nino is going nuts right now. My colleagues are celebrating the insane warmth, oblivious to the major wildfire that is currently burning to the west...wildfires are not supposed to be happening in February...:mad:
Click to expand...

Well, even Tisdale's is "advancing" GISS' land+ocean global temperature anomaly as a record breaking +1.13°C ! (they have to go with the flow)

In my neck of the woods I can't wait for the Summer to end. We've just had a lot of days with an average temperature of 34°C between noon and midnight, something that surely has happened before but I don't remember day after day after day of it before. It's overwhelming.

Just to mock us, I think, we had 10 days in a row of Summer as I knew it during my childhood and teens, with sunny days, not overwhelmingly humid air, lows between 14 and 19°C and highs between 25 and 32°C. No need of air conditioning, you just let the windows open by night and closed by the day and the brick walls do the trick. There were hot summers -not like the hell we have experienced this century- and cold summers, plenty of days with a low of 11°C and a high of 22°C -now that happens frequently during Winter-.
 
Arnold Martin said:
Let me correct you ...
Click to expand...
Let me correct you - inability to understand written English is not good, Arnold Martin, :jaw-dropp!
You posted some pretty pictures of polar bears in an article that was not about climate change.
You could not understand the written English contained in the article.

It looks like delusions about polar bears is what we can expect from you.
  • Summary of polar bear population status per 2014 shows: Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, three are declining, six are stable, one is increasing, and nine have insufficient data, as of 2014.
  • Polar bears are not stupid enough to "for a 40 km swim just for the heck of it". They go for multi-kilometer swims looking for new hunting grounds on sea ice or scavenging on new islands). Polar bears die during their water crossings from one hunting ground to another. That is one cause of the death of cubs.
  • The basic fact you remain ignorant about, Arnold Martin: Polar bears hunt from sea ice. The shorter the sea ice lasts, the less food they can gather. This starves the bears. This is especially bad for female bears because the depend on being fat to feed cubs boron during the winter.
  • A fantasy about "in 1946 there were only 6,000 Polar Bears" is just that.
    There were no reliable estimates for polar bear numbers in the 1940s. Scientific surveys did not start until later.
  • More ignorance from Arnold Martin: There are other factors that affected polar bear numbers, especially hunting. The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973 caused increases in numbers. So we expect more bears after 1973 - duh!
    The science though is that from 2002 to 2014, all except one of the subpopulations declined.
 
Arnold Martin said:
.

You would be surprised how much I know .
...

.
Click to expand...
.Arnold Martin dot

I know what you do not know.
  • A rant about a uncited and maybe even imaginary event seems to be most of the content of that post, Arnold Martin.
  • The stupidity of thinking that some uncited news release is climate science, Arnold Martin.
  • The idiocy of obsessing with Al Gore.
  • Arnold Martin: ignorance about polar bears.

.Arnold Martin dot
 
Reality Check said:
A fantasy about "in 1946 there were only 6,000 Polar Bears" is just that.
There were no reliable estimates for polar bear numbers in the 1940s. Scientific surveys did not start until later.
Click to expand...

I guess it's a popular claim. It is true that sport hunting could likely have had a significant impact on their population, but I can't really imagine people wandering all over the arctic trying to take a census.
 
NOAA's state of the climate report for January:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201601

The January 2016 globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces was 1.04°C (1.87°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the highest for January in the 137-year period of record, breaking the previous record of 2007 by 0.16°C (0.29°F). This departure from average is the second highest among all months in the historical record, second only to December 2015, which was 1.11°C (2.00°F) above average. These two months are the only two to-date to surpass a monthly temperature departure of 1°C.
Click to expand...
 
In local news, we've tied the all time February record of 81 degrees and the day isn't half over yet. We've shattered the old historical record of 9 days in February above 70 degrees...up to 12 I think and the month is still young. This will surely go down as the warmest February on record here in CO.

Whenever I get frustrated trying to argue the science with a denialist (because they always have some concocted form of science as a response...) I always ask them how much of an observational anomaly would convince them that "something unnatural is happening" absent some clear natural event (like the sun exploding...) What if it hits 120 degrees in February?? How about 140 degrees??? They either refuse to answer, or hey insist that it is an improper question--because, in their denialist minds, NO amount of empirical evidence will matter "If the science doesn't support the claim." Then they retreat to their claim that the science convincingly demonstrates that CO2 is not a culprit...blah bah. You just can't convince these folks. Unfortunately, so long as they are a large minority, we may have to wait for it to hit 120 degrees for people to take note. :(
 
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...vorite-temperature-data-just-got-a-lot-hotter

In a new paper, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) have revised their data set estimating the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. [...]

In their new paper, Mears and Wentz detail the revised RSS method to account for drift in the time of day at which satellites measure the same location on Earth (known as “diurnal drift”, discussed by Mears at the 0:47 mark in the above video). They applied a method suggested by Stephen Po-Chedley and colleagues at the University of Washington in an important paper covered by John Abraham last year. As a result, the new version of RSS (v4.0) shows about 60% more warming than the previous version (v3.3) since the record began in 1979.
Click to expand...
 
ouch....again

COMMENT 7 March 2016

Northern hemisphere temperature breaches a terrifying milestoneWarming appears to have gone into overdrive, with the northern hemisphere going 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures for the first time, says Eric Holthaus
gettyimages-504913904-1200x800.jpg

Arctic scene
Unusually warm
Frank Olsen/Getty
Preliminary February and early March temperatures are in, and it’s now abundantly clear: warming is going into overdrive.

As of 3 March, it appears that average temperatures across the northern hemisphere breached 2°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time in recorded history, and probably the first time since human civilisation began thousands of years ago.

The 2°C mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become “dangerous” to humanity. It has now arrived – though very briefly and only in the northern hemisphere – much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

As for the planet as a whole, there are dozens of global temperature datasets, and usually I (and other climate journalists) wait until the official ones are released to announce a record-breaking month at the global level. But February’s global data is so extraordinary that there is no need to wait: it obliterated the all-time temperature record set only in January.

Using unofficial data and adjusting for different baseline temperatures, it appears that February was somewhere between 1.15°C and 1.4°C warmer than the long-term average, and about 0.2°C above January – making it the most above-average month ever measured. (Since the globe had already warmed by about 0.45°C above pre-industrial levels during the 1981-2010 baseline meteorologists commonly use, that amount has been added to the data.)

Stunning rise
Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until October 2015 to reach the first 1.0°C rise. That means we have come as much as an extra 0.4°C further in just the last five months. Even accounting for the margin of error associated with these preliminary datasets, that means it is virtually certain that February beat the record set in January for the most anomalously warm month for the entire globe ever recorded. That’s stunning.

It also means that for many parts of the northern hemisphere, there basically wasn’t a winter. Parts of the Arctic were more than 16°C warmer than average for February, bringing them a few degrees above freezing, on par with typical June temperatures, in what is often the coldest month of the year.
Click to expand...

more
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-temperature-breaches-a-terrifying-milestone/
 
Do you have some climate science or just more crap from the deniosphere.

Anyone in denial of AGW these days is pathological. :rolleyes:

What don't you understand about these MEASUREMENTS ....or is it all some conspiracy brewed up in weak minds?...

The numbers are fascinating and kind of disturbing, of the hottest years on record, 15 out of 17 have come since 2000.
Click to expand...
blog-2016globalnumbers_horserace_2015jan-dec.jpg
 
Trakar said:
Goddard is being disingenuous to fool the ignorant and gullible, those who repeat his lies, are most often con-men or conned men.
Click to expand...
That blog entry is certainly bad science from Goddard.
  • The bad act of joining a graph from 1977 (data from 1957 to 1977) to one from 2015 (data from 1979 to 2015) with no sign of evaluating whether the 2 graphs are plotting compatible data.
    The data is obviously not compatible - the 1977 data was adjusted according to the knowledge available then. A point of this blog entry is that the 2015 data was adjusted differently!
    What is worse is that the graphs do not overlap to provide a check on whether they are compatible.
  • The denier myth about temperature records being purposely adjusted to make them warmer when there are valid scientific reasons to adjust temperature records.
  • Denial of the several confirmations of the hockey stick ("Another hockey stick of data tampering").
  • The incorrectness of "Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming".
    Climate science predicts that a warming Earth as we have measured will produce a warmer troposphere. This is seen by satellites except in the tropics.
  • Does not know how CO2 affects global temperatures.
    No one says that global warming has progressed at a constant rate over the last 58 years because the rate of CO2 increase was not constant. So radiosonde temperatures that start flat and then increases would not actually be a surprise.
 
Trakar said:
Goddard is being disingenuous to fool the ignorant and gullible, those who repeat his lies, are most often con-men or conned men.
Click to expand...

Lol, you guys calling people con men. Lol

The question would be, has there not been any warming when you consider the last 58 years?
 
Reality Check said:
That blog entry is certainly bad science from Goddard.
  • The bad act of joining a graph from 1977 (data from 1957 to 1977) to one from 2015 (data from 1979 to 2015) with no sign of evaluating whether the 2 graphs are plotting compatible data.
Click to expand...

  • So you're saying there's no way to evaluate the last 58 years together?

    The data is obviously not compatible - the 1977 data was adjusted according to the knowledge available then. A point of this blog entry is that the 2015 data was adjusted differently!
    Click to expand...

    So is there a way to make them work?

    [*]The denier myth about temperature records being purposely adjusted to make them warmer when there are valid scientific reasons to adjust temperature records.
    Click to expand...

    It does kinda mess up the data.

    No one says that global warming has progressed at a constant rate over the last 58 years because the rate of CO2 increase was not constant.
    Click to expand...
    Question is, if you take the last 58 years together, has the planet warmed?
 
logger said:
So you're saying there's no way to evaluate the last 58 years together?
Click to expand...
I said that Goddard incorrectly butted two graphs together without understanding what they contained. The correct and not lazy or ignorant way would be use actual data from Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) which starts in 1958.

logger said:
It does kinda mess up the data.
Click to expand...
No, logger - it makes the data better and more data available.
Homogenization allows us to double check that instruments are working correctly. Have a look through the Berkeley Earth description of their analysis. Stations are used against each other to check the trends.
Without these adjustments we would have throw away data every time an instrument changed and would have literally no data from before the early 1990s (when lots of weather stations changed to electronic instruments) :p!
Even the radiosonde data that Goddard "analyses" could largely be thrown away if we go for his delusion about not adjusting data.

logger, the answer is of course the planet has warmed over the last 58 years - that is called global warming!

ETA: One thing I missed out about how ignorant Goddard is about those graphs.
The NOAA graph is for data up to ~40,000 feet (200 millibar). The 1977 paper graph is for data at 100 millibar which is ~53000 ft. Goddard is comparing data for different heights. The NOAA graph dopes not contain any data that is comparable with the 1977 graph!
 
Last edited:
logger said:
And the Antarctic is growing.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant and wrong, logger.
Irrelevant because the temperature records show that the Earth has warmed over the last 58 years (and longer!).

Wrong because the Antarctic is not growing. There is more sea ice because of local conditions.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
Click to expand...

What about a rant on a random blog, logger?
People took up the use of the imprecise terms 'pause' or 'hiatus' because that was how the less steep (not a pause or hiatus!) warming trend over the last couple of decades was known by the public.
A author lying about climate science should not impress anyone.
  • There are different versions of HADCRUT because data and data analysis techniques improved.
  • The NOAA dataset was adjusted because there were valid scientific reason to adjust it.
  • Problems with the RSS satellite data analysis have been pointed out for years and the RSS team eventually found "huge errors" and fixed them.
  • Ignorance about the scientific process.
    Papers are often rejected by journals. In fact the harder it is to get a paper in a journal, the better a journal is considered to be!
    Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-15-0744.1, in press
    Submitted first to the Journal of Geophysical Research and rejected for an unknown reason.
  • Citing the dubious Watts Up With That blog which seems to be going a bit crazy.
    For example see Scientific Elitism Is Fundamentally Destructive To Science where Tim Ball tries to defend Immanuel Velikovsky's obviously crank ideas (Venus erupted from Jupiter because of Greek myths, etc.) as science.
    An analysis here: Crank magnet WUWT defends pseudo-science and promotes Velikovskyism "in the context of learning"
 
macdoc said:
Do you have some climate science or just more crap from the deniosphere.

Anyone in denial of AGW these days is pathological. :rolleyes:

What don't you understand about these MEASUREMENTS ....or is it all some conspiracy brewed up in weak minds?...


[qimg]https://4warnweather.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/blog-2016globalnumbers_horserace_2015jan-dec.jpg?w=640[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You missing the good news for deniers in that article. Now they have a new year to cherry pick as the start of a period without global warming. I can hear it now:

"There has been no warming since 2015.":boggled:
 
macdoc said:
Do you have some climate science or just more crap from the deniosphere.

Anyone in denial of AGW these days is pathological. :rolleyes: What don't you understand about these MEASUREMENTS ....or is it all some conspiracy brewed up in weak minds?...


[qimg]https://4warnweather.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/blog-2016globalnumbers_horserace_2015jan-dec.jpg?w=640[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

The AGW Hypothesis is dead in the eyes of the world. No one is going to do anything serious about it....like actually demand that it be seriously studied and accurately reported. Much less do anything real to mitigate it (if it is actually happening, at all).

Although I think we (as a planet) should be studiously funding research into the AGW Hypothesis, we won't. People have grown tired of being "Blamed" - especially those people who control the funding purse strings, and who also drive huge SUVs and fly around the world in Private Jets.

Is AGW a serious threat? "Could be" as far as I am concerned, but slinging insults will get you nowhere. Not ever. It's not helping the cause.
 
Jules Galen said:
The AGW Hypothesis is dead in the eyes of the world. No one is going to do anything serious about it....
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why the Canadian Prime Minister and the US President are getting together this week to address climate change? Because it's dead in the eyes of the world??

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is winning praise from the White House for his leadership on climate change ahead of this week's visit to Washington where that issue will be high on the agenda."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/white-house-state-visit-trudeau-obama-1.3480672

"Barack Obama wants to be remembered as the president who saved the world from climate change.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/climate-change-obama-paris-216716#ixzz42URDAqrn
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

The Pope's encyclical was used to promote the dangers of climate change.
Leonardo DeCaprio used his Oscar speech to tell people to fight climate change
Bill Gates just pledged 1 billion dollars to fight climate change
Sir Richard Branson has funded the Carbon War Room for years
Elon Musk is building electric cars

You are correct that not enough is happening but there are far more people that are starting to wake up. It's too bad that sound science doesn't convince people of your ilk, as evidenced by you ridiculous posts.

No one is doing enough because of people like you!
 
Last edited:
Also that many companies are working to convert to renewable energy sources and increased efficiency. We may actually meet the Paris targets simply because it makes good business sense. Can't find the link at the moment, but the largest area of new power generation in the US last year was solar (PV and CSP).

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
logger said:
And the Antarctic is growing.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. There's just more of it coming to light as Antarctic ice melts. Meanwhile ocean heat content has risen enormously, glaciers have retreated, and premafrost is melting.

How about this?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/how-the-pause-was-made-to-disappear/
Click to expand...
Do you understand how the mythical Pause was invented? It's a sorry story, but only to be expected given all the real stuff that's been happening.
 
Jules Galen said:
The AGW Hypothesis is dead in the eyes of the world.
Click to expand...
That is a seriously wrong post, Jules Galen.
  • There is no imaginary "AGW Hypothesis".
    AGW is an observation. There is strong physical evidence for AGW. It can even be explained in simple terms - GW exists and it matches the predictions from rising levels of CO2 which we are causing: Thus the A in AGW. Scientists take the existence of AGW seriously (97% of climate scientists). Politicians take the existence of AGW seriously. There are ignorant (or even deluded) bloggers who blindly deny the evidence of AGW - they are not the eyes of the world :p!
  • The climate was and is being "seriously studied and accurately reported". Over 150 years of temperature records. At least a century since the role of C02 and other gases in governing the temperature of the atmosphere was recognized (the greenhouse effect). Thousands of researchers and papers.
  • Reducing C02 is a real thing to do to mitigate global warming.
  • Climate research is "seriously funded".
  • Repeating the denier fantasy of the funders controlling research is not good, Jules Galen.
  • Pointing out that bloggers are writing ignorant blogs about climate is not insults.
    If the bloggers insist on displaying ignorance then we should advice people to keep clear of them because of that ignorance. When the bloggers descend to lies about science then we should comment on that. Ditto for not recognizing pseudoscience.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom