No postings on this topic for a few days. There is a new paper out that challenges the theory of no warming for the last 15 years. I read about it on google news and they referenced a paid news site. Reading the article I don't think that it will change any deniers viewpoint. This subject is pretty much like politics and religion. People seem to have their minds made up and are not interested in any thing that doesn't fit with their conceptions. I'm an exception. I've changed my politics and religion almost 180 degrees and may do so again if I'm confronted with new evidence. Not that I'm such an exceptional person, but I think that I am a minority. Not the first time I've swum against the current.
No postings on this topic for a few days. There is a new paper out that challenges the theory of no warming for the last 15 years. I read about it on google news and they referenced a paid news site. Reading the article I don't think that it will change any deniers viewpoint. This subject is pretty much like politics and religion. People seem to have their minds made up and are not interested in any thing that doesn't fit with their conceptions. I'm an exception. I've changed my politics and religion almost 180 degrees and may do so again if I'm confronted with new evidence. Not that I'm such an exceptional person, but I think that I am a minority. Not the first time I've swum against the current.
Maybe I'm wrong but we seem to be divided into two main groups. Denier and believer. Although I fall on the believer side I'm always watching to see what the latest is and willing to switch sides. I would love to find out that the global warming theory is completely wrong and that we all could continue on with our lives as we have with no concern. I'm inclined to believe that the chances of that are slim, but I would welcome it. The other thing that weighs my viewpoint is that fossil fuels are depicted as the main reason for mans influence and I know that fossil fuel will not always be an economical alternative anyway and although we can't just shut the spigot I'm all in favor of preparing for the time when it more energy to get the oil out of the ground than than we get by burning it. Just like ethanol so far.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 06-05-2015).]
Maybe I'm wrong but we seem to be divided into two main groups. Denier and believer. Although I fall on the believer side I'm always watching to see what the latest is and willing to switch sides. I would love to find out that the global warming theory is completely wrong and that we all could continue on with our lives as we have with no concern. I'm inclined to believe that the chances of that are slim, but I would welcome it. The other thing that weighs my viewpoint is that fossil fuels are depicted as the main reason for mans influence and I know that fossil fuel will not always be an economical alternative anyway and although we can't just shut the spigot I'm all in favor of preparing for the time when it more energy to get the oil out of the ground than than we get by burning it. Just like ethanol so far.
Denier and believer are terms that Democrats use.... my terms are Realist, and Propagandist.
The REALITY for me is... the sea levels in Florida have gone down over the past decade, to the point where I no longer have to carry flood insurance. There is a 0.03% chance (according to FEMA) that my home will flood during a CAT 4 hurricane, and I'm 10 minutes from the beach, in Florida. There is more ice in the South Pole than at any time in recorded history, and we now have more ice NOW in the North Pole than what we had in 1979.
But let's just assume for a fact that you don't agree with me, and that's totally cool.
The reality for me is that Global Warming and Climate Change has been nothing but a propaganda tool by Democrats to enact wealth re-distribution. It has NOT succeeded yet, so you haven't fully seen what their plans are, but the carbon credits formula would have forced US companies to basically give money to China and India... just because. All while they get to continue to pollute.
The REALITY is... only 35% of the cities in the United States have any kind of recycling program. Our landfills are far more toxic and dangerous to America than global warming is, yet you don't see any kind of huge push by the Administration to fix this. This could be a simple thing... take 1/4th of the money we spend on Global Warming propaganda and programs, and put it towards recycling, and even if you could get an 80% buy in rate to cities across America, we would drastically reduce our landfills and we would be saving tons and tons of materials (glass, plastics, cardboard, etc...)
The Democrat politicians aren't REALLY interested in preventing so called global warming, they just want to use it as a tool to enact regulation and wealth redistribution that keeps people like Soros and Buffett at the top (IE: the 1%) while destroying the top 10% (their competition).
This was never about saving the planet, it was about corruption and socialism.
No postings on this topic for a few days. There is a new paper out that challenges the theory of no warming for the last 15 years. I read about it on google news and they referenced a paid news site. Reading the article I don't think that it will change any deniers viewpoint. This subject is pretty much like politics and religion. People seem to have their minds made up and are not interested in any thing that doesn't fit with their conceptions. I'm an exception. I've changed my politics and religion almost 180 degrees and may do so again if I'm confronted with new evidence. Not that I'm such an exceptional person, but I think that I am a minority. Not the first time I've swum against the current.
Yep, they now say they had some erroneous interpretations of the readings that skewed their data. If the data doesn't change the outcome you want--just go back and change the data.
C'mon folks--THINK! This is serious--people are laughing at us!! There's GOT to be some way to make these ocean readings show what we want them to--so THINK!!! WHAT, can we change or adjust to compensate for the problems that's causing us all this embarrassment?
(raises hand) "I know--I know--we'll just say we made a mistake and the readings really weren't what we said they were, and we'll give 'em new readings. People will buy right into that--look at what Jonathon Gruber said about Obamacare--and you know what? He was right."
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-05-2015).]
I agree with you 82-TA. Carbon credits is a hoax. Recycling makes sense on a few levels. We don't fill our landfills. We use less resources and we save energy too. I don't agree with you on Buffet. His coal and oil trains roll by my place all day long every day. He's making big money off of fossil fuel. I don't know what Soros is up to.
This was never about saving the planet, it was about corruption and socialism.
The planet, is fine. It's been in much worse shape than this and it will be again, and it will survive. The odd species call Humanoid--maybe not, but the planet itself will little care nor long remember we were even here.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The REALITY is... only 35% of the cities in the United States have any kind of recycling program. Our landfills are far more toxic and dangerous to America than global warming is, yet you don't see any kind of huge push by the Administration to fix this. This could be a simple thing... take 1/4th of the money we spend on Global Warming propaganda and programs, and put it towards recycling, and even if you could get an 80% buy in rate to cities across America, we would drastically reduce our landfills and we would be saving tons and tons of materials (glass, plastics, cardboard, etc...)
Exactly, the tragedy of global warming fraud is the waste management issues we have forgotten. Clean water is already a concern for many Americans who are afraid to drink out of the tap(wether it's actually harmful or not). We have pharmaceuticals in our waterways that we aren't equipped to treat on a large enough scale and it will only get worse. Wake up and realize you can't poop where you eat.
I agree with you 82-TA. Carbon credits is a hoax. Recycling makes sense on a few levels. We don't fill our landfills. We use less resources and we save energy too.
If it were only abour recycling and conservation it would have been much more easily accepted. Instead its about wealth and resource redistribution.
Originally posted by maryjane: If the data doesn't change the outcome you want--just go back and change the data.
Your post is the definition of FUD. Which I understand, that's much easier than disagreeing with the scientific reasons. For that, the gif at the end of your post certainly applies, but probably not the way you intended.
You had the same knee jerk reaction that absolutely fails to address any scientific argument that Anthony Watts did, imagine that:
quote
Dear Dr. Peterson,
This latest paper, Karl et al. 2015 is an embarrassment to science. It epitomizes president Eisenhower’s second warning in his farewell address about science and politics becoming hopelessly intertwined, and thus corrupted.
In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that “I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent, but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way”.
After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.
This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today.
How sad for you all. Anthony Watts
(Can anyone guess why it's Mr. Watts?)
quote
Dear Mr. Watts,
As you might imagine, my views about our paper and our motives are somewhat different than yours. To explain why, I should start by explaining my views on what science is and how it works.
Here youtube.com/watch?v=GksJ3QteNF0 is a 14 minute TEDxAsheville talk I gave in January on What is Science. While I can't do justice to a 14 minute talk in a single sentence, the bottom line is that science is the result of tests.
So let me give you two examples from our paper. One of the new adjustments we are applying is extending the corrections to ship data, based on information derived from night marine air temperatures, up to the present (we had previously stopped in the 1940s). As we write in the article's on-line supplement, "This correction cools the ship data a bit more in 1998-2000 than it does in the later years, which thereby adds to the warming trend. To evaluate the robustness of this correction, trends of the corrected and uncorrected ship data were compared to co-located buoy data without the offset added. As the buoy data did not include the offset the buoy data are independent of the ship data. The trend of uncorrected ship minus buoy data was -0.066°C dec-1 while the trend in corrected ship minus buoy data was -0.002°C dec-1. This close agreement in the trend of the corrected ship data indicates that these time dependent ship adjustments did indeed correct an artifact in ship data impacting the trend over this hiatus period."
The second example I will pose as a question. We tested the difference between buoys and ships by comparing all the co-located ship and buoy data available in the entire world. The result was that buoy data averaged 0.12 degrees C colder than the ships. We also know that the number of buoys has dramatically increased over the last several decades. Adding more colder observations in recent years can't help but add a cool bias to the raw data. What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? The resulting trend would be the same whether we added 0.12 C to all buoy data or subtracted 0.12 C from all ship data.
You are, of course, welcome to share this with your readers (or not), as you deem appropriate.
Well sure. buying and selling is usually resource redistribution and often results in wealth.
Your point doesnt fit the scenario though. Taxing and redistributing is nothing like real market money exhange. You yourself agreed carbon credits are a hoax.
I'm saying this: "Recycling makes sense on a few levels. We don't fill our landfills. We use less resources and we save energy too." is not being argued.
If you are saying people can profit from spreading peoples money areound then sure, ya.
Looks like the pope is looking to cash in on this whole 'global warming' thing. How many Ferrari's do you think he'll buy?
"He doesn’t want to be your grandfather’s pope. He wants to be a modern pope. All he needs is dreadlocks and a dog with a bandanna and he could be on Occupy Wall Street” - Gutfeld
Although I am an agnostic I've always known that just because you are religious doesn't mean you are a bad person. Although I've always thought the catholic church was a bit hypocritical with its concentration of church wealth this man seems more like Jesus than any in my memory.
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all. NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.
A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?
The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:
“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”
“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”
“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”
“New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’”
The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.
To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.
The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.
Originally posted by avengador1: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
This is just so silly.
They’re combining sea ice data from both the poles and claiming there hasn’t been any ‘polar ice’ retreat. Factually inaccurate and deliberately misleading. But what more do you expect from the deniers and Heartland.
Originally posted by avengador1: As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent
Look how quickly wishful thinking becomes sweeping truth with absolutely zero evidence whatsoever.
Lots of irony here too. Deniers always pick around 1998 to start their temperature graphs due to abnormally high temperatures that year.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-29-2015).]
Anyone who talks climate and Al Gore is like the parking lot know-it-all who wants me to pop the hood to see the engine in the Fiero. It’s just so embarrassing for you.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Manhattan is not inundated,
Who predicted Manhattan would be inundated RIGHT NOW? I won’t hold my breath because you don’t believe in sources, you just make up nonsense.
...and in related news, several ancient ports all over the world are found to be at times several km's inland from the coast - does this not indicated the water level was higher in the past then it is now?
Also could this New York city flooding possibly a case of plate tectonics in the area are sinking?
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...and in related news, several ancient ports all over the world are found to be at times several km's inland from the coast - does this not indicated the water level was higher in the past then it is now?
Took a couple angles with this, but after rethinking and searching I've found zero evidence that suggests sea levels were higher in the recent past than they currently are. Link?
...and in related news, several ancient ports all over the world are found to be at times several km's inland from the coast - does this not indicated the water level was higher in the past then it is now?
Also could this New York city flooding possibly a case of plate tectonics in the area are sinking?
Have to look at each such example on a case by case basis. First thought that comes to my mind is the process of sedimentation building up alluvial flood plains where rivers flow into the sea. That has caused seaport cities and towns to be abandoned (in ancient times) as this sedimentation process effectively transformed ports and harbors into dry land.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-29-2015).]
If you consult NOAA instead of the Washington Post, you'll see that Antarctic Ice is not diminishing at all, and is still on a record high track this season
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If you consult NOAA instead of the Washington Post
This is just a gift.
But before we get started, just avoiding topics that are inconvenient isn't going to make them go away Arn: You avoided the possible reasons for Antarctic sea ice growth. You avoided the collapsing Arctic. You avoided the increasing flooding threat to Manhattan. You avoided disclosing who the source is you claim predicted Manhattan would be underwater RIGHT NOW. You avoided disclosing who the source is you claim predicted the Maldives would be underwater RIGHT NOW. You avoided the fact 2014 is the hottest year on record among several reliable and robust datasets.
To start, you cited the Washington Post on Antarctica, not me. I cited them in my reply on other related topics to show you they don't agree with you at all and that's including the article you cited on your own. Now you want to defer to NOAA who also doesn't agree with you? Too funny.
The best part is your graph doesn't come from NOAA. It comes from NSIDC. You don't know what your data means and you also don't know where it comes from.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: , you'll see that Antarctic Ice is not diminishing at all, and is still on a record high track this season
No one disputes the Antarctic SEA ICE is growing.
Worth mentioning, you disputed the significance of the Arctic melt being “only” 2 standard deviations from average. Now the Antarctic is about 2 standard deviations above average and you’re exploiting it into a denier talking point without addressing the possible reasons for the growth. And I get why you avoid the reasons for growth, they're just inconvenient.
The article you cited discusses a study on the Antarctic growth found changing winds can account for 80% of the growth. If only there was a term to describe long term changes in weather patterns like… climate change.
From the study YOU cited at the Washington Post: “Climate changes observed in the Antarctic include the significant poleward intensification of the westerly winds over the Southern Ocean (SO) since the 1970s (Hurrell and van Loon 1994; Thompson and Solomon 2002).”
Yet despite gains in the Antarctic, due to the massive loses occurring in the Arctic the planet is still losing sea ice globally: Source.
Switching focus to glacier ice, not sea ice, you'll find there's widespread melting occurring in Antarctica due to warming oceans and atmosphere. From NSIDC: "Ice sheets weaken either because of warming waters, as seen in Pine Island Bay, or because of a warming atmosphere, which is apparent in the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula. This area used to be stable, but atmospheric temperatures in the Peninsula crossed a tipping point. Now summer temperatures stay above freezing long enough for melt ponds to form over broad areas on the ice shelves, a key part of the mechanism of their disintegration." Source.
Standing by for rambling about Al Gore, polar bears, and get awf mah lawn.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-30-2015).]
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Took a couple angles with this, but after rethinking and searching I've found zero evidence that suggests sea levels were higher in the recent past than they currently are. Link?
Not a link to show that sea levels are higher, but some ancient ports that are inland:
Port of Ephesus Ur of the Chaldees
Plus there is this map of upper Egypt that shows more water caverage than today:
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Not a link to show that sea levels are higher, but some ancient ports that are inland:
Port of Ephesus Ur of the Chaldees
Where'd you find your map?
rinselberg right on the money: "The port of Ephesus has silted up over the years and Ephesus is now about 6 miles inland from the coast." Source.
"Twice in its history, during its 1st and 3rd dynasties, Ur was “capital of the world.” Doubtless the end came when the Euphrates, which originally flowed along the western side of the city in a bed several feet above the level of the plain, broke through its banks and ultimately assumed its present course 19 km (12 mi) to the east." Source.
I have only anecdotal evidence on the weather here in Florida from living here 60 years. As a school kid living in Orlando I remember that it rarely failed to rain in the summertime between 2 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. For the past 20 years or so this has not been the case, it goes days and days now with no afternoon showers. The afternoon showers and the clouds had a tremendous cooling affect back then. Now the sun really heats everything up because of the lack of clouds and rain on many days. I have seen more and more parking lots built over the years with their retention ponds. My theory is that all the retention ponds combined with the recharge area covered up by parking lots, buildings and highways has interfered with the rain cycle that we used to have. This has resulted in higher temperatures and a lower water table. I wish I had some aerial pictures of Central Florida to post taken in the 60's versus pictures taken now, you would see the vast retreat of lake levels, with some lakes completely gone. There is no way that a retention pond is going to recharge the aquifer as well as the 100 acres that was covered up by a parking lot and building.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Denier and believer are terms that Democrats use.... my terms are Realist, and Propagandist.
The REALITY for me is... the sea levels in Florida have gone down over the past decade, to the point where I no longer have to carry flood insurance. There is a 0.03% chance (according to FEMA) that my home will flood during a CAT 4 hurricane, and I'm 10 minutes from the beach, in Florida. There is more ice in the South Pole than at any time in recorded history, and we now have more ice NOW in the North Pole than what we had in 1979.
Flat. Out. False. A lie. There is less ice in the arctic than there was in 1979. You guys are habitual in your BS.
Second, your flood insurance removal has more to do with several class actions lawsuits brought against lending institutions who were caught giving kickbacks to have houses pushed into flood zones so they could wrongly charge insurance premiums for people who didn't need to carry the insurance.
The first plot (from RandomTask) is Arctic sea ice.
The second plot (from Arn) is global sea ice. Arctic and Antarctic combined.
I am aware of the recent trend of more ice surface area, offshore, in the ocean that completely surrounds Antarctica, but I think it is related to the concurrent trend of decreasing volume of land ice on the Antarctic continent itself.
In any case, if one is considering what the climate will be like for the Northern Hemisphere, as the current century goes by, it will be largely shaped by conditions in the Arctic, and not much affected at all by what is going on in and around Antarctica.
That article is nothing but headline click bait. First, the scientist (Dr. Zharkova) studies the Sun, not their planetary effects. She just say’s that solar output will reduce to levels experienced during the last ice age, NOTHING about how it will affect our planet. What do all the deniers say? “We’re heading towards an ice age!”
And yesterday, I emailed Dr. Zharkova and got a response.
Straight from the scientist in that article.
quote
What we can say from our research that the solar activity will be reduced dramatically in cycle 26. In fact the upcoming Maunder minimum will be not as prolonged as the previous one which lasted for 5 solar cycles, but will last for about 3 cycles only.
The time will show soon enough how the sun will affect the Earth and whether the solar activity supersedes any other effects of global warming reported so far.
So she admits global warming is a phenomenon. . . the very scientist you guys are mis-representing as stating we’re headed for another ice age.
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 07-14-2015).]
