Looks like FieroBear is, as usual, calling this BS without bothering to look at what the study claims.
If he did he might have noticed this from the author......
quote
“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” said study lead author, Yair Rosenthal, a climate scientist at Rutgers University.
The first NODC graph is consistent with the right end of the first graph, but the second graph is even more interesting. Notice the rise in mean temp which is at maximum 0.4 degrees C.
This is hardly 15 x the normal fluctuation rate, and well short of extreme Global Warming.
We also know that the oceans have been warming gradually since the last ice age. This appears to be part of that.
Arn
Newf, how about my post? How about reading more of the story?
Just like all those scientists who did scientific studies (with DATA) that you discredit for no good reason?
No, I have presented refutations of their work as well, especially when they hide inconvenient data or just adjust it until they get the results they want rather than what the data actually shows.
The are the government's charts, not a blogger or an estimate. They get this data from buoys they post out in the ocean and satellite feeds.
As I have posted before from reputable sources, the ocean mean rise has been less than an inch since the start of this thread and the government's own data shows the temperature has gone up less than a celsius degree
The are the government's charts, not a blogger or an estimate. They get this data from buoys they post out in the ocean and satellite feeds.
As I have posted before from reputable sources, the ocean mean rise has been less than an inch since the start of this thread and the government's own data shows the temperature has gone up less than a celsius degree
Arn
OK so your contention is that the Government are suppling true date but it is not giving the same results as the study Rinsleberg referenced?
What I am saying is that the NODA is, in theory supposed to be the back up for Obama's administration's assertion that Global Warming is the greatest threat to mankind. Their own data does not support this. If you care to look at it.
I don't claim to have my own proof I only said that it's being studied by actual experts not people who think they know more about such a complex subject but never fail to show their ignorance.
Again I'll trust the expert researchers and not the internet blogger.
I gave you an expert mathematicians analysis of the data. By your standard, you must accept it unless you have proof he's wrong. Until then, YOU are wrong.
What I am saying is that the NODA is, in theory supposed to be the back up for Obama's administration's assertion that Global Warming is the greatest threat to mankind. Their own data does not support this. If you care to look at it.
Arn
Do you mean NOAA? And are you now claiming they have changed their position for the current Government in Washington? Seriously how deep down this rabbit hole are you going???
I gave you an expert mathematicians analysis of the data. By your standard, you must accept it unless you have proof he's wrong. Until then, YOU are wrong.
Sorry my standard is to read and learn but ultimately it has led me to trust the majority of Scientists and experts in the field of Climate research. Steve McIntyre or anyone else disagreeing doesn't make it true or untrue.
You are not showing a bias by me with your statements you are only showing your own. Nice try though.
Who can follow you? You have used the acronyms NOAA, NODA, NODC?? Then you tie whichever one you are citing as being as being some kind of back up for the Obama administration. Tinfoil hat stuff right there IMO.
I'm trying to nail down what you are claiming. You seem to be stating that the study that Rinslebergs article referenced is in disagreement with the data from NOAA. DId you confirm the criteria for the graphs you are showing were the same??
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-12-2013).]
Sorry my standard is to read and learn but ultimately it has led me to trust the majority of Scientists and experts in the field of Climate research. Steve McIntyre or anyone else disagreeing doesn't make it true or untrue.
You are not showing a bias by me with your statements you are only showing your own. Nice try though.
This proves you have a closed mind, and haven't leaned anything.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-12-2013).]
This proves you have a closed mind, and haven't leaned anything.
Actually I would contend quite the opposite is true, I've learned quite a bit and am always open to changing my mind. If the 95% of the scientists and experts changed their opinion due to new factors or information I would tend to believe them. I have learned a lot but don't consider myself an expert on Climate Change, I don't have the time nor inclination to become one.
As I've learned with many complex issues the more you learn the more you learn there is to know.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-13-2013).]
I can see where this thread is going to end with everybody finally coming to the same conclusion, forced to face facts rather than personal opinion. Or maybe not. Personally I haven't made up my mind yet, but in my foolish way I give more weight to science.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-13-2013).]
No, I have presented refutations of their work as well, especially when they hide inconvenient data or just adjust it until they get the results they want rather than what the data actually shows. .. This proves you have a closed mind, and haven't leaned[sic] anything.
Repeated for irony. You have such a ridiculous double standard and you fail to notice it.
This pretty much sums up your closed-minded position (from page 3):
Remember this graph you posted as evidence, how a time-lagged sunspot even though it falls apart with even the most basic scrutiny? How it has no scientific backing? Sounds a lot like they are "just getting the results they want", doesn't it?
Or when you posted this "evidence" that AMO/PDO is causing the warming? Sounds like they are "just getting the results they want", even though it isn't scientifically valid, right?
It doesn't take a genius to know a ~30 year cycle cannot influence long term climate. It CAN, however, skew short term results like this legendary 15-year warming hiatus.
This is just two examples found early in this thread, there are plenty more.
Maso. Your post is completely full of holes. Each one of those graphs has the data set shown in the graph. don't argue with me, argue with the data.
Also, you think you have some kind of point about short term trends, but that hasn't stopped the warmists from doing the same thing when they think it supports their theory and you have NO CRITICISM when they do that. You are being hypocritical, ans so are they. Short term trends mean nothing...unless it shows global warming. Individual weather events mean nothing...unless it proves warming. So spare me that crap. Either present proof or don't waste my time with this crap.
Maso. Your post is completely full of holes. Each one of those graphs has the data set shown in the graph. don't argue with me, argue with the data.
That's what I'm getting at. The data is completely invalid. How could sunspots (with a 21 year cycle) affect climate on Earth 6 years later, for 10 years? It makes no sense. That's my point, you are not critical of the data that supports your view. It's a double standard.
quote
Also, you think you have some kind of point about short term trends, but that hasn't stopped the warmists from doing the same thing when they think it supports their theory and you have NO CRITICISM when they do that. You are being hypocritical, ans so are they.
When have I said anything about short term warming meaning anything? You're right, short term trends are useless in either direction and shouldn't be a basis for any argument.
We've talked about this a bunch of times. Trends are formed that are longer than the influence of natural cycles, most of which are less than 30 years long. That means any data that is less than 30 years can be biased because of such a cycle.
Maso, your graphs are a little misleading due to the scale they use
Your temperature graph is way out of date. It shows, over about 17 years there is only 0.325 degrees variation. That is not extreme or critical. However it is worth noting this is the time period which immediately precedes the 17 year period being discussed where we have had no net average temp increase
Your second graph is equallly out of date but I really don't get the jist of your arguement from that data
The solar minimum occured in 2009. It has remained low since then, but not as low, so the 6 year lag from 2009 will be 2015.
LOL they are not invalid at all. They are just out of date and exaggerated for emphasis and posted by somebody this time, who doesn't understand what he is posting.
Before somebody brings up the Philippine tragedy and Global Warming, the reason they get hit so hard is the flow of the Pacific.
Notice in the Pacific how the southern hemisphere moves counter clock wise and the northern hemisphere moves clock wise This results in the water meeting at the equator and having an extended run at the equator until it reaches the far east.
This is the hottest ocean water on the planet by the time it gets there, and it generates some real duezies of storms. It is similar to the effect of the water moving into the Caribbean but on a much larger scale
Enter changes that affect the west coast of North America in cycles. The poor Philipines really got it this time. My heart goes out to them.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: That's what I'm getting at. The data is completely invalid. How could sunspots (with a 21 year cycle) affect climate on Earth 6 years later, for 10 years? It makes no sense. That's my point, you are not critical of the data that supports your view. It's a double standard..
It will make sense if you realize the following...
Heating and Cooling the Earth If June 21 is the longest day, the day when we receive the most sunshine, why is it regarded as the beginning of summer and not its peak? Put another way, why is August hotter than June in the northern hemisphere? And similarly, why is December 21, the day of least sunshine, the beginning of winter, and why is February generally colder than December?
Consider the surface of the Earth, especially the oceans, which heat up and cool down rather slowly. It takes time for the long days to have an effect. In June the oceans are still somewhat cool from the winter and that delays the peak heat by about a month and a half. Similarly, in December the water still holds warmth from the summer, and the coldest days are usually a month and a half or so later, in February. It takes a few weeks for the changing seasons to have an effect on the average temperature of a particular region on the planet.
A similar process seems to happen with the various cycles of the sun. Sunspots and other solar cycles and a 30 year AMO/PDO hot and cold cycle, which is what this graph is about, including the possible lag...
quote
When have I said anything about short term warming meaning anything? You're right, short term trends are useless in either direction and shouldn't be a basis for any argument.
Warming advocates have made that argument. When it supports their theory, no period is too short or too long. When it may disprove their theory, no cycle seems to matter. When individual weather events, like a flood, drought or heat wave happen, suddenly "weather IS climate." That's what I was talking about.
Far from disappearing, Antarctic ice levels reached a record high on Sept. 22. Climate alarmists are now being forced to reconcile this evidence with their unquestioning belief in global warming.
The Washington Post’s Jason Samenow reported the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s findings that Antarctic ice had reached record levels. The previous record was set in 2012.
In the same article, Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington climate scientist, simply could not understand how this was possible: “Why would sea ice be increasing?” Despite this, Zhang contended that “[t]he overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming.”
The rising Antarctic ice levels must have come as a shock to former Vice President Al Gore who blamed Antarctic ice melting on global warming in his 2006 book “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore quoted scientist John Mercer: “One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic peninsula.”
Despite this increase in Antarctic sea ice, the media continue to hype climate change and its effects on the South Pole. On Nov. 6, CBS “Evening News” ran a story highlighting rising carbon dioxide levels in Antarctica. Correspondent John Blackstone stated that Antarctic “CO2 levels have continued the steady rise that began in 1958,” asserting that “high levels of carbon dioxide can create a warming blanket around the Earth.”
But if the Antarctic is suffering from rising CO2 levels and global warming, how can it be simultaneously gaining ice?
Climate scientists tried to explain away this glaring paradox. Zhang argued that stronger Antarctic winds are to blame, although he admitted “I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger.” Other scientists have pointed to ozone depletion, but a recent study in the Journal of Climate argued that ozone depletion would reduce sea ice levels.
Of course, the obvious answer is that Antarctic temperatures aren’t actually rising. On June 10, the New York Times reported that “[t]he rise in the surface temperature of the earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”
The broadcast networks paid no attention to this lull, instead repeatedly promoting climate change alarmism. CBS correspondent Mark Phillips acknowledged that global temperatures were not rising, but dismissed this fact as “ammunition” for climate skeptics on Sept. 26’s “Evening News,” saying that “another inconvenient truth has emerged on the way to the apocalypse.”
Antarctica Not Melting: Ice Levels At Record High Climate change alarmists struggle to understand how ice can increase with global warming. http://mrc.org/articles/ant...e-levels-record-high [QUOTE]Far from disappearing, Antarctic ice levels reached a record high on Sept. 22. Climate alarmists are now being forced to reconcile this evidence with their unquestioning belief in global warming.
The Washington Post’s Jason Samenow reported the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s findings that Antarctic ice had reached record levels. The previous record was set in 2012.
In the same article, Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington climate scientist, simply could not understand how this was possible: “Why would sea ice be increasing?” Despite this, Zhang contended that “[t]he overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming.”
The rising Antarctic ice levels must have come as a shock to former Vice President Al Gore who blamed Antarctic ice melting on global warming in his 2006 book “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore quoted scientist John Mercer: “One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic peninsula.”
Despite this increase in Antarctic sea ice, the media continue to hype climate change and its effects on the South Pole. On Nov. 6, CBS “Evening News” ran a story highlighting rising carbon dioxide levels in Antarctica. Correspondent John Blackstone stated that Antarctic “CO2 levels have continued the steady rise that began in 1958,” asserting that “high levels of carbon dioxide can create a warming blanket around the Earth.”
But if the Antarctic is suffering from rising CO2 levels and global warming, how can it be simultaneously gaining ice?
Climate scientists tried to explain away this glaring paradox. Zhang argued that stronger Antarctic winds are to blame, although he admitted “I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger.” Other scientists have pointed to ozone depletion, but a recent study in the Journal of Climate argued that ozone depletion would reduce sea ice levels.
Of course, the obvious answer is that Antarctic temperatures aren’t actually rising. On June 10, the New York Times reported that “[t]he rise in the surface temperature of the earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”
The broadcast networks paid no attention to this lull, instead repeatedly promoting climate change alarmism. CBS correspondent Mark Phillips acknowledged that global temperatures were not rising, but dismissed this fact as “ammunition” for climate skeptics on Sept. 26’s “Evening News,” saying that “another inconvenient truth has emerged on the way to the apocalypse.”
[/QUOTE]
Instead of just reading articles from right wing sites you might want to look at what the science is saying.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-14-2013).]
Instead of just reading articles from right wing sites you might want to look at what the science is saying.
Like I've said, over the course of this thread, many valic scientic facts have been posted by fierobear from reliable scientific sources, but ignored or dismissed by GW proponents.
It is clear that with the huge propoganda machine blasting the media with scaremongering, falsified data, and errant projections, the "deniers" are actually the free thinkers and the apologizers for the Al Gores of the world are the sheep who don't understand the world around them and rely on politicians and charletans like Suzuki to tell them what to think.
As I look out my window on the snow covered lawn today, I find the climate has not changed other than its usual variations. While the Arctic ice was melting, the Antarctic ice was forming the largest ice record in its recorded history. The Arctic ice is now 60% ahead of its recovery schedule and this has nothing to do with computer projections, or subject to opinion
Some guys discuss this issue like the IPCC fraudulent representations don't exist or don't matter. They discuss it like Suzuki, Gore and Obama have to be right regardless of the facts around them.
I give fierobear full credit for posting correct scientific information and taking time to explain the science.
If we look at the net rise in ocean levels, the 17 year "pause" and the lack of other forecasted world events, we can only conclude one thing. The GW propoganda was correctly identified by fierobear when he started this thread. The effort to educate our members about the falsehood of anthropogenic global warming is a good and worthy effort.
Therein lies a fatal flaw. Physical reality is not determined by popular opinion. The universe is what it is, regardless of what we might want it to be. At its best, science seeks to discover and understand that reality. That's why I'll choose scientific consensus over political opinion every time. Science can support or refute a political position, but it doesn't work the other way around; political opinion does not affect physical reality one bit.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-14-2013).]
Therein lies a fatal flaw. Physical reality is not determined by popular opinion. The universe is what it is, regardless of what we might want it to be. At its best, science seeks to discover and understand that reality. That's why I'll choose scientific consensus over political opinion every time. Science can support or refute a political position, but it doesn't work the other way around; political opinion does not affect scientific reality one bit.
Therein lies a fatal flaw. Physical reality is not determined by popular opinion. The universe is what it is, regardless of what we might want it to be. At its best, science seeks to discover and understand that reality. That's why I'll choose scientific consensus over political opinion every time. Science can support or refute a political position, but it doesn't work the other way around; political opinion does not affect physical reality one bit.
"Scientific consensus" is nothing more than popular opinion elevated by an aire of authority. It is meaningless. it doesn't matter how many scientists agree or disagree. A theory is either right or wrong, proven or unproven, falsifiable or not. The concept of scientific consensus was placed on global warming by politicians and others who rely on such consensus to win popular votes or convince majorities. It doesn't work in science, because physics doesn't answer to voting.
"Scientific consensus" is nothing more than popular opinion elevated by an aire of authority. It is meaningless.
No. Once again, you either misunderstand the scientific method completely, or you cynically choose to misrepresent it for your own purposes. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I'll go with the latter.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
the consensus of the scientific community in 1490 was that the earth was flat.
No. By 1490 scientific consensus strongly favored a spherical Earth. It was "common sense" and Church doctrine that still clung to the idea that it was flat.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-14-2013).]
. No. Once again, you either misunderstand the scientific method completely, or you simply choose to misrepresent it for your own purposes. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I'll go with the latter.
No, Marvin, it is YOU who misunderstand the scientific method, and the proof is that you would suggest a consensus in science has any meaning whatsoever. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree or disagree. Let's say there are 2500 climate scientists, as the IPCC likes to suggest. ONE scientist can publish a new paper that makes the other 2499 wrong, even if they maintain their consensus. THATS how science works. I can't believe you'd seriously suggest otherwise.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-14-2013).]
That's what science does. When confronted with irrefutable facts it reexamines and comes up with new theories and hypothesis. Popular opinion on the other hand will usually reject anything that doesn't agree with its preconceived notions.
No. By 1490 scientific consensus strongly favored a spherical Earth. It was "common sense" and Church doctrine that still clung to the idea that it was flat.
While there was belief in a spherical earth as early as Augustine in the first millenium, however, this was refuted later and at the time of Columbus the consensus was that the earth was a disk.
wikipedia states this
quote
However Tattersall shows that in many vernacular works in 12th- and 13th-century French texts the Earth was considered "round like a table" rather than "round like an apple". "In virtually all the examples quoted...from epics and from non-'historical' romances (that is, works of a less learned character) the actual form of words used suggests strongly a circle rather than a sphere.[110] Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth.
The predominence of the flat disk theory is evident throughout the Middle Ages
As usual, the people with the truth were a minority and had to fight for their belief
Interesting, study finds zero pause in global warming.
This study finds that HadCRU's dataset has strong cooling bias due no samples from Africa, Arctic, and Antarctic where warming is unprecedented.
"The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years." Source.
Study shows average temperatures during last 100 years in the Arctic are higher than the past 44,000 years, and perhaps 120,000 years.
“The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is,” said said CU-Boulder geological sciences Professor Gifford Miller, also a fellow at CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” Source.
