Objective global warming

[John Cuthber]

Photons are very objective, if they haven't enough energy they don't do the job.

[jduff]

OK, the first page cited starts with,

"CO₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 "

which is wrong.

As I already pointed out, you can carbon -date the CO2 that has been added to the air. It's old, soi its origin ie geological rather than oceanic.

 

It also says

"Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. "

which is silly.

The whole point about the greenhouse effect is that the sun warms the earth. The greenhouse stops the heat escaping.

 

 

The second web page says things like

"However, since the LWIR re-radiation from increasing 'greenhouse gases' is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface 'skin' of the oceans."

which are unrealistic.

Heating the surface of the ocean makes it hotter.

It also makes the underlying water hotter by conduction.

The only way it could promote evaporation would be by heating.

 

Incidentally, that page also cites this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke#On_climate_change

He doesn't support your ideas that people are not responsible for climate change.

When you are citing people who don't agree with you in support of your ideas, it's probably time to find some better ideas.

 

I'm glad you find science funny.

There's not a lot of science in the pages you linked to- why is that?

 

 

Anyway, rather than posting links to stuff that doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis, why don't you answer my question?

Why don't you believe that the additional blanket we have put on is the reason we are hotter (and, yes- we are hotter- that's essentially the point Swansont is making)?

Man, that "doesnt stand up to analysis" seems familiar. Ohh yes, thats right, The Consensus Project

 

Here is a little info that does stand up. As it is observable. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/september-21-breaks-the-record-for-most-sea-ice-ever-measured-at-either-pole/

 

You would believe the temperature globally would have increased globally in the past 15 years. But it has not. Sea Levels are currently decreasing, Volcanic Activity increasing. Sun spots at a minimum for the past two years. Started decreasing 5 years ago.

 

Over 2800 Cold records broken just in the past 3 months compared to the 669 warm temperatures broken in the past 3 months. One of the worst winters in South America ever! 250,00 Alpacas die due to a extreme winter storm.

 

 

References:ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BREAKING_NEWS.pdf

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3729/20130829/snow-blanketing-south-america-kills-250-000-alpacas-5-people.htm

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tmp/1/3/1895-2011?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&filter=true

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg

https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/382952569535877120/photo/1?screen_name=RyanMaue

 

And we now know why IPCC Climate Models fail. Along with any theory or assumption made by Climate Change/Global Warming supporters. REAL DATA says it all!

Photons are very objective, if they haven't enough energy they don't do the job.

Point well taken John. Except Photons dont lose but do share.

Edited September 29, 2013 by jduff

[iNow]

[jduff]

heh pretty funny, I like this one too!

 

 

Ohh wait, your comics are meant to be funny. The people responsible for the polar bears are serious! I am not surprised you global warming types are not claiming victory for the current cooldown. Thats what it is all about right? Save the Polar Bears, make a better world? I would be darn happy if I believed in global warming. Means those grassfed bombs, Hybrid Prius Tanks, and drones that sing the lumaneers are working!

Edited September 29, 2013 by jduff

[iNow]

The people responsible for the polar bears are serious! I am not surprised you global warming types are not claiming victory for the current cooldown.

Except, it's not cooling down. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

There is no conversation to be had if you honestly think a short-term variation represents an overall cooling trend. You cannot ignore (and blatantly misrepresent) facts and expect to be taken seriously.

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2013 by iNow

[jduff]

Except, it's not cooling down. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

There is no conversation to be had if you honestly think a short-term variation represents an overall cooling trend. You cannot ignore (and blatantly misrepresent) facts and expect to be taken seriously.

 

 

 

Yes, lets take a look at long term history shall we?

 

Now if you want to use history. Our warmup blip is just one of many. In fact there were hotter global temperatures 1000 years ago than now. AGW according to these charts would indicate than man played a very low if insignificant role in global temperature. You may see the charts of historical empirical evidence at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112000070

 

You are right, those graphs are definitely needed!! Need the long term, just my long term graphs go a bit longer than yours!

 

Also a note(quote) from Real Science: We are now at AR5 with zero warming since AR4. The last IPCC report which actually experienced any warming was SAR in 1995. In fact, the vast majority of the IPCC’s history(existence) has seen zero warming.

 

IMAGINE THAT!

[doG]

Yes, lets take a look at long term history shall we?

 

Now if you want to use history. Our warmup blip is just one of many. In fact there were hotter global temperatures 1000 years ago than now. AGW according to these charts would indicate than man played a very low if insignificant role in global temperature. You may see the charts of historical empirical evidence at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112000070

 

You are right, those graphs are definitely needed!! Need the long term, just my long term graphs go a bit longer than yours!

 

Also a note(quote) from Real Science: We are now at AR5 with zero warming since AR4. The last IPCC report which actually experienced any warming was SAR in 1995. In fact, the vast majority of the IPCC’s history(existence) has seen zero warming.

 

IMAGINE THAT!

 

Here's a long term graph for you:

 

 

We are certainly on an uptick naturally. Thinking that man is not contributing to some extent is not admitting man's contribution to the greenhouse effect though. I question the subjectivity of anyone that says the additional gases caused by mankind is not adding to the natural cycle.

[jduff]

I believe we do contribute. But not to the extent these global warming guys do. I do know we pollute the planet more than we change a gradient of temperature on this planet. That would be a better recourse of study. Than Global Warming!

Edited September 30, 2013 by jduff

[swansont]

 

Over 2800 Cold records broken just in the past 3 months compared to the 669 warm temperatures broken in the past 3 months.

 

What's the reference for this?

[jduff]

 

What's the reference for this?

 

from http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/4week/us.html?cat=maxtemp,mintemp,snow,lowma

 

The map and legend above is during this years summer peak period.

 

A point to make. Sept has been the opposite of the July-Aug figures. In the case of Sept. It has been quite warm. You can use the sites options to define a month/year you prefer to look at. As well as the variables High temp/ Min temp for further adjustment.

 

Also for real time events of natural or manmade disasters you can use the http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php for further inquirys.

 

Both are very useful tools. Enjoy!

Edited September 30, 2013 by jduff

[swansont]

Protip: The United States is not a proxy for the world, so this has no direct relevance to the worldwide temperature. It's cherry-picking the data, which is not valid science. All you've shown is that the US had a relatively cool month.

[jduff]

Protip: The United States is not a proxy for the world, so this has no direct relevance to the worldwide temperature. It's cherry-picking the data, which is not valid science. All you've shown is that the US had a relatively cool month.

Well there are various places you can use. For Worldwide global temperature here is a comparision of the past 13 months as of the end of July..

 

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2012 1 -0.145 -0.088 -0.203 -0.245

2012 2 -0.140 -0.016 -0.263 -0.326

2012 3 +0.033 +0.064 +0.002 -0.238

2012 4 +0.230 +0.346 +0.114 -0.251

2012 5 +0.178 +0.338 +0.018 -0.102

2012 6 +0.244 +0.378 +0.111 -0.016

2012 7 +0.149 +0.263 +0.035 +0.146

2012 8 +0.210 +0.195 +0.225 +0.069

2012 9 +0.369 +0.376 +0.361 +0.174

2012 10 +0.367 +0.326 +0.409 +0.155

2012 11 +0.305 +0.319 +0.292 +0.209

2012 12 +0.229 +0.153 +0.305 +0.199

2013 1 +0.497 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387

2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.034 +0.195

2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.068 +0.243

2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165

2013 5 +0.083 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112

2013 6 +0.295 +0.334 +0.255 +0.219

2013 7 +0.174 +0.134 +0.215 +0.077

 

Here is the site where you can view the reports pdf. http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

This year so far has been cool.

Edited September 30, 2013 by jduff

[swansont]

Cool relative to what? Looks like two months have been cooler than last year, and the rest of the months have been warmer.

[jduff]

Cool relative to what? Looks like two months have been cooler than last year, and the rest of the months have been warmer.

Well Swansont, I see what you are getting at. Global Temperature peaked in 1995-1996. Since then it has been getting lower or no movement. There has not been a temperature spike that has surpassed the 1995-96 year. I have given multiple links on multiple posts. As you told me about cherry picking. Those of you with the opposite view have put up a few links. Which were easily proven false. And even false claims :-/

 

So much information available to find the items of real value.I understand you are being objective. But as you and I both know objective only works if there is only a single set data stream. Which in all honesty is quite exhausting with this particular subject. I dont like data mining just to make a point with a erroneous subject such as Global Warming.

 

As such I concede. Besides. my time off comes to a end and im limited on my ability to post.

[John Cuthber]

Well Swansont, I see what you are getting at. Global Temperature peaked in 1995-1996. Since then it has been getting lower or no movement. There has not been a temperature spike that has surpassed the 1995-96 year. I have given multiple links on multiple posts. As you told me about cherry picking. Those of you with the opposite view have put up a few links. Which were easily proven false. And even false claims :-/

 

So much information available to find the items of real value.I understand you are being objective. But as you and I both know objective only works if there is only a single set data stream. Which in all honesty is quite exhausting with this particular subject. I dont like data mining just to make a point with a erroneous subject such as Global Warming.

 

As such I concede. Besides. my time off comes to a end and im limited on my ability to post.

OK, let's have yet another look at the data

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/28476-objective-global-warming/page-5

 

There's a glitch in '96.

Choosing it as your datum so you can say "Global Temperature peaked in 1995-1996. Since then it has been getting lower or no movement" is blatant cherry picking.

And, even when you cherry pick, you can't get round the fact that, since '96, most years have been warmer than the 20 years prior to that glitch.

At best, you might have shown that the warming has (for some reason) slowed down a bit-compared to a particularly hot year.

[swansont]

I was just looking at your data, since you were claiming it has cooled, given the number of cold records in the US. Yet it's warmer this year than last in most of the months and overall.

 

However, I don't see how you can possibly look at the graphs or data and claim that temperatures peaked in 1995-1996.

[iNow]

http://www.livescience.com/40019-global-warming-evidence-2007-report-compared-to-2013-infographic.html

[jduff]

This is my last post today.

 

While its nice that we all go back and forth on this debate. I read a article that I believe everyone should read as well. While I go off to workland this week. I will be contemplating the words of this article. I hope that those of you who are in the scientific field take notice as well. It is a very stong statement.

Here is the link http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/

 

Enjoy! Have a good day!

Edited September 30, 2013 by jduff

[John Cuthber]

It might be better if you didn't spend a lot of time contemplating a document which says

"as temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and dismisses the pause as unpredictable climate variability"

 

because the temperatures are not actually declining (unless you "coincidentally" choose to compare them to the highest value ever recorded).

[jduff]

It might be better if you didn't spend a lot of time contemplating a document which says

"as temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and dismisses the pause as unpredictable climate variability"

 

because the temperatures are not actually declining (unless you "coincidentally" choose to compare them to the highest value ever recorded).

Well John, they have. Perhaps less time with faulty global temperature models and more time solving things like irreversable pollution, or erosion would be a better solution!

[overtone]

The map of cold records there shows there was a cold snap over the midwest and east, and a hot flash over the rest of the country - it's about a 60/40 split, eyeball area. Of course, there are lots more weather stations and cities and such reporting cold records where there are more cities and such in the first place, if that's where the cold snap is, so a spike temp record count is not automatically informative.

 

There's nothign there indicating the duration of the heat vs cold anomalies - IIRC the heat waves lasted longer than the cold snaps SW at least.

 

I see Minnesota reporting several cold records - it was cool here for a bit, followed by a solid ten days of consecutive upper 90s with high humidity after Labor Day, really unusually miserable hot weather for this area, but no heat records on the map because there is no icon for duration and a midcontinent spot like this gets dramatic spikes in temps short term - it's hard to set a heat record here in the summer, with the Dust Bowl on the books (cool winters, hot summers, because it was dry in the summer. Wet summers don't get as hot, or at least they didn't used to).

 

Most of the warming trend here, btw, is visible in the failure to drop at night in the winter like it used to. As a result we get rain in January every winter now, where it used to be maybe one year in seven, rather than hot days in August. We got rain again this year - not visible on the record map there.

 

 

 

While its nice that we all go back and forth on this debate. I read a article that I believe everyone should read as well. While I go off to workland this week. I will be contemplating the words of this article. I hope that those of you who are in the scientific field take notice as well. It is a very stong statement.

I read it - seems to be mostly carefully phrased deception and innuendo, with what few factual claims are made apparently wrong, adn the whole an exercise in political pressure rather than a consideration of any scientific topic: Why are you posting such articles here? This is "objective global warming", not "how can I recommend diverting all the money to modeling by my pet scientists while implying the IPCC spends too much time modeling".

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

Here is the site where you can view the reports pdf. http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

This year so far has been cool.

According to the charts on that link the year so far has been warm - quite warm. At least in the lower troposphere, near record warmth. Edited October 1, 2013 by overtone

[jduff]

 

The map of cold records there shows there was a cold snap over the midwest and east, and a hot flash over the rest of the country - it's about a 60/40 split, eyeball area. Of course, there are lots more weather stations and cities and such reporting cold records where there are more cities and such in the first place, if that's where the cold snap is, so a spike temp record count is not automatically informative.

 

There's nothign there indicating the duration of the heat vs cold anomalies - IIRC the heat waves lasted longer than the cold snaps SW at least.

 

I see Minnesota reporting several cold records - it was cool here for a bit, followed by a solid ten days of consecutive upper 90s with high humidity after Labor Day, really unusually miserable hot weather for this area, but no heat records on the map because there is no icon for duration and a midcontinent spot like this gets dramatic spikes in temps short term - it's hard to set a heat record here in the summer, with the Dust Bowl on the books (cool winters, hot summers, because it was dry in the summer. Wet summers don't get as hot, or at least they didn't used to).

 

Most of the warming trend here, btw, is visible in the failure to drop at night in the winter like it used to. As a result we get rain in January every winter now, where it used to be maybe one year in seven, rather than hot days in August. We got rain again this year - not visible on the record map there.

 

 

 

Why are you posting such articles here? This is "objective global warming", not "how can I recommend diverting all the money to modeling by my pet scientists while implying the IPCC spends too much time modeling".

 

 

Because the IPCC is grossly misrepresenting, if not, straight out lying to meet its agenda. Which is not scientific nor "Objective". You can read the real deal here at FACTS VS FICTION: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/the-2013-ipcc-ar5-report-facts-vs-fictions/

 

Scientists who actually support the IPCC. Should have both tenure and whatever agenda given grants stripped away. As they are truly not scientists, but rather disguised agenda driven politicos!

 

Reference: http://www.nipccreport.org/archive/models.html

Edited October 6, 2013 by jduff

[John Cuthber]

The first page you cite there is just silly.

It says things like

"From the 2013 IPCC Report

This is a gross misrepresentation of data. The Antarctic ice sheet has not been losing mass—the East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains about 90% of the world’s fresh water, is not melting–it’s growing! The same is true for Antarctic shelf ice. The only part of Antarctica that may be losing ice is the West Antarctic Peninsula, which contains less than 10% of Antarctic ice."

But it ignores that fact that you can now sail to the North pole in Summer

 

So who is really doing the gross misrepresenting?.

It is true that the Antarctic ice is growing at the moment.

We know that, and we know why.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

so it doesn't in any way detract from the basic point.

But avoiding any reference to that explanation is grossly misrepresenting the truth.

[jduff]

The first page you cite there is just silly.

It says things like

"From the 2013 IPCC Report

This is a gross misrepresentation of data. The Antarctic ice sheet has not been losing mass—the East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains about 90% of the world’s fresh water, is not melting–it’s growing! The same is true for Antarctic shelf ice. The only part of Antarctica that may be losing ice is the West Antarctic Peninsula, which contains less than 10% of Antarctic ice."

But it ignores that fact that you can now sail to the North pole in Summer

 

So who is really doing the gross misrepresenting?.

It is true that the Antarctic ice is growing at the moment.

We know that, and we know why.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

so it doesn't in any way detract from the basic point.

But avoiding any reference to that explanation is grossly misrepresenting the truth.

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788 misrepresentation! Hmmm..

 

Also if you follow the commentary of the original article posted. There is further explanation.

Edited October 6, 2013 by jduff

[John Cuthber]

Thanks for pointing out the exact date (27 Aug) when it got too icy to pass through.

Up till then it was Summer and you could sail there.

Which is what I said.

So it's hardly misrepresentation- hype perhaps, since it's not quite the pole..

Of course, the details of when you can sail how far North will depend on the weather.

The point remains that there's less ice than there used to be.