Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Fishbone Jones]

:goodpost:

 

[NavyShooter]

I will note that there have been many reports of late from the frozen battlefields of WWI in Italy.  These reports indicate that the bodies and weapons and equipment are being discovered because the ice and snow in the mountains is melting.

That means that the ice and snow is melting BACK TO THE LEVEL IT WAS AT 100 YEARS AGO. 

Is it global warming that's causing this?

Is it climate change?

Does the earth have a cyclical pattern of warming/cooling that is coming back around?

I'm a skeptic, because from what I gather one of the premises of climate 'science' is that the impact of solar radiance from the sun is not factored in....and heavens to betsy, don't ever question because that means you are denying the science.

 

[YZT580]

Of course climate changes.  There is no such thing as status quo in life and it is sheer arrogance to imagine that a puny little man can possibly alter the course of any change: definitely we can act on a small subset i.e. exterminating a single species such as the dodo or a micro-climate region by clear cutting or diverting water away.  Mt. St Helen's inserted more CO2 into the atmosphere than an entire years worth of burning coal.  Our politicians have a serious problem with reality that stems from their desire to control.

 

[Remius]

I'm a skeptic, because from what I gather one of the premises of climate 'science' is that the impact of solar radiance from the sun is not factored in....and heavens to betsy, don't ever question because that means you are denying the science.

Well there is a reason for that.  Solar Radiance hasn't increased in a while so that is a factor that can actually be ruled out if one is looking for a reason why the Earth might warming.

The actual science explanation can be found here by the organisation that monitors solar radiance if you are able to understand most of the gobbledikook:  http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

I'm not debating the merits of climate change one way or the other, just the point about why Solar radiance isn't a considered a factor.

 

[Loachman]

"It is important to note that the model is an independent source of information for comparisons and as long as it is not used over solar cycle time scales it provides a reliable time series for time scales of less than a year."

There has been no appreciable global warming for almost two decades, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases (yet is still a small fraction of the atmospheric composition).

Solar radiance is not a factor? Shut the sun off for a while and see. We could have 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere, and the globe would be much colder than it is.

When the sun sets in the evening, temperatures generally cool, and rise again when the sun rises (air mass temperatures vary, yes, but weather is the result of solar heating).

What bigger factor is there than solar radiance?

Our climate warms and cools in step with solar cycles. There is no bigger influence.

 

[Remius]

"It is important to note that the model is an independent source of information for comparisons and as long as it is not used over solar cycle time scales it provides a reliable time series for time scales of less than a year."

There has been no appreciable global warming for almost two decades, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases (yet is still a small fraction of the atmospheric composition).

Solar radiance is not a factor? Shut the sun off for a while and see. We could have 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere, and the globe would be much colder than it is.

When the sun sets in the evening, temperatures generally cool, and rise again when the sun rises (air mass temperatures vary, yes, but weather is the result of solar heating).

What bigger factor is there than solar radiance?

Our climate warms and cools in step with solar cycles. There is no bigger influence.

I think you misunderstand.  It is a factor in that it keeps the planet warm or cold depending on where the planet might be as it circles the sun and when it spins on itself to face the sun or not  but solar radiance is essentially the heat from the sun. It is shown by those measurements except there hasn't been any spike or increase one way or another.  Thus if you want to explain why the planet might be getting hotter it isn't solar radiance or an increase in it because there hasn't been any.  That's why it isn't a factor that can explain climate change or specifically why the earth might be getting warmer in the last little while.  think of solar radiance as though the sun is space heater set to a certain temperature.  The closer or further you are will change your temperature but the heat radiating from it remains constant.  The study is just showing no increase in heat from the sun for a few decades now.

Solar cycles have roughly 11 year cycles and while it has been proven to have a small effect on climate change it doesn't explain why temperatures are much higher despite a decrease in solar activity in comparison to a century ago when solar activity was more intense.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Without getting into a (useless, as sceptics are sceptics as a unchangeable position, where climate change is concerned) debate on "global warming" or the "man-made" nature of it, I can attest to one thing: Every farmer in Canada will tell you that the climate IS changing and has been very noticeably modified in the past 15 years. I suspect that in a near (for agriculture) future, even the prairies will be able to start harvesting winter wheat.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

What we have here is just a collection of ex-MWOs that are just finally excited that they've agreed on something. They've figured it out, obviously the scientists are wrong because one spot in Greenland saw more ice and it was cold here last week.

It's willful blindness to the evidence that's plain to see and the experts (but I mean, obviously the experts are wrong/in the pocket of solar panel companies right?)

Good job cracking the case! Now sit back and tend to your November gardens.

 

[YZT580]

What we have here is just a collection of ex-MWOs that are just finally excited that they've agreed on something. They've figured it out, obviously the scientists are wrong because one spot in Greenland saw more ice and it was cold here last week.

It's willful blindness to the evidence that's plain to see and the experts (but I mean, obviously the experts are wrong/in the pocket of solar panel companies right?)he

Good job cracking the case! Now sit back and tend to your November gardens.

So if CO2 is the driving factor in the current changes explain why the early middle ages were warm enough to make both Greenland and Iceland (not to mention northern Newfoundland) appear attractive to Eric and his cronies. At the same time, the northwest passage was sufficiently clear that a significantly large Chinese fleet supposedly navigated successfully from west to east without significant difficulty.
There was certainly no increase in CO2 levels at that time.  Then explain further why your experts are more correct than my experts who provide the flip side of the argument.  When you have provided those explanations please explain why being warmer is so bad that we must expend countless millions to try and slow the rate of increase: what's wrong with harvesting winter wheat in Estevan? 

I just finished reading an article on the re-capture of Mosul.  The city has been almost totally destroyed with thousands of residents either displaced or dead but Iraq has defeated ISIS.  The point being that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  The operation was a total success but unfortunately, the patient died.  So too are the solutions to global warming (assuming your experts are correct and it is even happening because of CO2)

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

So if CO2 is the driving factor in the current changes explain why the early middle ages were warm enough to make both Greenland and Iceland (not to mention northern Newfoundland) appear attractive to Eric and his cronies. At the same time, the northwest passage was sufficiently clear that a significantly large Chinese fleet supposedly navigated successfully from west to east without significant difficulty.
There was certainly no increase in CO2 levels at that time.  Then explain further why your experts are more correct than my experts who provide the flip side of the argument.  When you have provided those explanations please explain why being warmer is so bad that we must expend countless millions to try and slow the rate of increase: what's wrong with harvesting winter wheat in Estevan? 

I just finished reading an article on the re-capture of Mosul.  The city has been almost totally destroyed with thousands of residents either displaced or dead but Iraq has defeated ISIS.  The point being that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  The operation was a total success but unfortunately, the patient died.  So too are the solutions to global warming (assuming your experts are correct and it is even happening because of CO2)

I'm going to need a reference/citation on the chinese fleet through the northwest passage  :rofl:

 

[Loachman]

think of solar radiance as though the sun is space heater set to a certain temperature.  The closer or further you are will change your temperature but the heat radiating from it remains constant.

The sun is not set to a certain temperature, however, and its output does not remain constant.

The study is just showing no increase in heat from the sun for a few decades now.

And there has been no measurable warming for about two decades.

Coincidence?

Solar cycles have roughly 11 year cycles and while it has been proven to have a small effect on climate change it doesn't explain why temperatures are much higher despite a decrease in solar activity in comparison to a century ago when solar activity was more intense.

There are longer cycles as well, although these do not yet seem to be well-understood (and the same is true of all climate-related matters - the "science" is far from "settled").

The Sunspot Cycle
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

"The Maunder Minimum

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."

The Weakest Solar Cycle in 100 Years
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-100-years/

Waiting For The Next Sunspot Cycle: 2019-2030
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/waiting-for-the-next-suns_b_11812282.html

"Forecasters are already starting to make predictions for what might be in store as our sun winds down its current sunspot cycle in a few years. Are we in for a very intense cycle of solar activity, or the beginning of a century-long absence of sunspots and a rise in colder climates?"

"The bad news is that some studies show sunspot magnetic field strengths have been declining since 2000 and are already close to the minimum needed to sustain sunspots on the solar surface. This is also supported by independent work in 2015 published in the journal Nature. By Cycle 25 or 26, magnetic fields may be too weak to punch through the solar surface and form recognizable sunspots at all, spelling the end of the sunspot cycle phenomenon, and the start of another Maunder Minimum cooling period perhaps lasting until 2100."

And those "hottest" claims...

2016 Global Temperature: The Pause Never Went Away - 'Hottest' Claims Within Margin of Error
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/19/2016-global-temperature-the-pause-never-went-away-hottest-claims-within-margin-of-error/

"Above graph shows the 2016 temperature without the El Nino contribution, as calculated by the Met Office. 2015 – a year with an equally strong El Nino effect – is interpolated. It shows that the pause hasn’t gone away. It has simply been interrupted by two very strong El Nino years. By removing this temporary El Nino contribution from the Met Office’s 2016 data, it becomes obvious that global average temperatures would be essentially identical to where they were in 2014. Without the El Nino 2016 would have been statistically in the same region as the previous 15 years.
According to NOAA 2016 was 0.07°F warmer than 2015, which is 0.04°C. Considering the error in the annual temperature is +/- 0.1°C this makes 2016 statistically indistinguishable from 2015, making any claim of a record using NOAA data specious."

Observational Errors and Global Average Temperature Statistics
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/temperaturerrors.htm

Why NYT Hid The Numbers For The 'Hottest Year On Record'
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/

"They should have been in the first paragraph, but at least they’re in the third paragraph: “This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C—within the 0.1C margin of error—but….” There’s stuff after the “but,” but it’s just somebody’s evaluation. Even this report can’t give us a straight fact and leave it alone.

For the benefit of science reporters and other people who are unfamiliar with the scientific method, let me point out that the margin of error for these measurements is plus or minus one tenth of a degree Celsius. The temperature difference that is supposedly being measured is one one-hundredth of a degree - one tenth the size of the margin of error. To go back to sports reporting, that’s like saying that the football is on the 10-yard line - give or take a hundred yards."

Climate Change, Statistical Significance, and Science
http://www.senseaboutscienceusa.org/climate-change-statistical-significance-and-science/

Deceptive Temperature Record Claims
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

"But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.

"So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.

"Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest."

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz4lVcK2T6f

"Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged 'record' amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous 'warmest year', of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much."

It's not "hotter" than last year, or the year before, or the year before that. It's not even "warmer", by any noticeable amount, or even luke-warmer. This is merely withholding inconvenient information - like actual numbers - and carefully selecting words to frighten and deceive.

There are so many different data sets being bandied about, and so many interpretations, and so many agendae. Regardless, none of the dire predictions of the alarmists have come to pass, and history records previous warm and cold periods, and shows that the warm periods were far more conducive to human and other life than the cold ones.

There are indications of another Maunder Minimum cold period on its way, too, but that cannot be predicted with much more accuracy than death by sunlight.

Without getting into a (useless, as sceptics are sceptics as a unchangeable position, where climate change is concerned)

And the dogmatic believers hold equally-unchangeable positions.

Science, however, relies on sceptics in order to advance. If nobody ever questioned "accepted truth", we'd still be stuck in the stone age.

I question pretty much everything.

Every farmer in Canada will tell you that the climate IS changing and has been very noticeably modified in the past 15 years. I suspect that in a near (for agriculture) future, even the prairies will be able to start harvesting winter wheat.

Changes do not occur simultaneously around the planet. Arctic ice losses have been matched by Antarctic ice gains. Winters are generally warmer and shorter in Canada than in the seventies - noticeably so. There have been a few El Ninos/El Ninas during the past few years that influence our climate.

What we have here is just a collection of ex-MWOs

Sorry. I do not conform to your model.

obviously the scientists are wrong because one spot in Greenland saw more ice and it was cold here last week.

Some scientists are wrong, and some scientists are right, to various degrees. Not all are pushing the warmista faith.

There is still far too little understanding of any of the variables that influence either long- or short-term climate fluctuations, and that is the only certainty at present.

I do look at all sides of the argument, plus history, plus current events. I see the previous warm periods that cannot be explained by human activity yet match with solar cycles. I see the failure of alarmist models to reflect actual conditions.

It's willful blindness to the evidence that's plain to see and the experts (but I mean, obviously the experts are wrong/in the pocket of solar panel companies right?)

It's willful blindness to only look at one side and religiously follow the loudest and scariest without question. No scientist works for free. All need to court research grants. There is much money being poured into the warmista side by those who stand to profit, as this has become a huge wealth-redistribution programme. Al Gore, David Suzuki, Leonardo di Caprio and their ilk are getting richer by pushing this fraud.

 

[Loachman]

I'm going to need a reference/citation on the chinese fleet through the northwest passage  :rofl:

I'd never heard of it either, but:

http://www.gavinmenzies.net/Evidence/31-annexes-30-31-32-evidence-of-chinese-fleets-to-northern-europe-%E2%80%93-vice-admiral-chou-wen/

http://www.economist.com/node/5381851

Yet maybe not:

http://www.1421exposed.com/html/1421_and_all_that_junk.html

Somewhat related:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/climate-craziness-of-the-week-nw-passage-open-first-time-in-history-and-all-that/

 

[George Wallace]

All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?

 

[Loachman]

Trump/Harper/The Russians/Carbon Dioxide.

 

[GAP]

All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?

move to Saturn, but don't touch the rings!!

 

[larry Strong]

I'm going to need a reference/citation on the chinese fleet through the northwest passage  :rofl:

http://www.economist.com/node/5381851


Cheers
Larry

 

[YZT580]

All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?

Our last act will be to have one final laugh at the idiots who were concerned about CO2 raising the temperature by 2 C over the course of an entire century.  There are far greater things to worry about

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I have 2 issues with the current "climate change" hypers.

1.  No one ever talks about the benefits of what the planet looked like when it was warmer in terms of agricultural productivity.

2.  No one ever talks about the opportunity cost of NOT reallocating more of our "environmental budget" to preserve critical areas from deforestation, to halting airborne heavy and water borne heavy metals, or to cleaning up the massive pollution in our oceans and lakes.  To me this makes it certain that this so-called environmental movement has been co-opted by i.  The industrial corporations producing the technology used to reduce CO2, ii. Governments who are willing to jump on the bandwagon in order to create a new tax revenue source.

Until I see changes to these two key issues, I am firmly in the camp that this is a dog and pony show that is all about money, and has nothing to do with what's really best for our planet and those that are buying in, despite their best intentions, are making things worse rather than better  as forests are still being clear cut, the oceans are still being raped, and these people are out rallying about a harmless gas that can be easily filtered out by zero-costs plants and trees.

Sad....


Matthew. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Stumbled across this article today, which raises the question about the economics and sustainability of replacing current power generation with so-called green projects:


Monumental, unsustainable environmental impacts

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage


I make no warranty as to the veracity of the figures, or the soundness of the argument. Of course neither do I maintain that there is no bias at work, but the article does raise some valid questions. For example, is it reasonable to grow fuel crops on land that should be used for food crops?

 

[Loachman]

https://realclimatescience.com/