• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another case of cherry picking.

The correct graph to judge temperature is the UAH, RSS, GISS and HADCRUT land temperatures. Even the highly manipulated GISS and HADCRUT graphs show no rise in temperature since 1998.

Umm you do realize that is OCEAN HEAT GRAPH....so you claim NOAA et al in in on some conspiracy....or is it elves down there heating the ocean.

The only cherry picking is you using 1998 as a baseline and even then you cannot produce a single bit of science to back your nonsense...

first it's the sun, then it's not happening, what next ...Elvis ...:rolleyes:
 
Still waiting for a reply to these facts..

These facts are indisputable along with the fact that CO2 has risen at least 10% since 1998 but the climate refuses to respond upwardly...one would say any CO2 effect is minimal?


Still waiting for a reply to:

Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1998. So says NASA and NOAA at any rate. What do you make of that?



While you're at it, perhaps you can take a crack at my query from post #2069, which I'll repeat below.

Here is my question for those who wish to assert climate change/global warming is not being driven primarily by humanity's carbon emissions: How do you explain away the great amount of scientific evidence (some of which has been directly cited in this thread)?

Are all the scientists and climatologists from around the world presenting evidence in favour of AGW simply wrong? Or are they deliberately presenting false evidence? If so, for what purpose?

Seems to me AGW naysayers have but two choices: (1) Claim all the decades of published evidence indicating AGW is simply wrong, in which case they have to explain how all those researchers got it wrong and continue to get it wrong; or (2) assert it is some sort of global organized conspiracy to present false or misleading evidence for the purposes of... well, doing something nefarious one presumes.

So which is it going to be?
 
Last edited:
There have been episodes in the past of ice loss in the Arctic, a more negative AO/NAO is one driver responsible. Solar changes affect the polar vortex which are easily verifiable by looking at the long term AO/NAO record.

The temperature is not rising so any changes in the Arctic are not temperature driven.
 
Snort .....

The temperature is not rising so any changes in the Arctic are not temperature driven.

That is factually incorrect....
Temperatures in the Arctic are warming 4 x faster than elsewhere

Missing Heat' Discovery Prompts New Estimate of Global Warming: Arctic Warming Fast
Nov. 13, 2013 — An interdisciplinary team of researchers say they have found 'missing heat' in the climate system, casting doubt on suggestions that global warming has slowed or stopped over the past decade.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113092217.htm

and you dodge this....

heat_content2000m.png


Why is the ocean getting warmer even very deep

BTK13Fig1.jpg


graphs courtesy realclimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-3/

do you think if you keep repeating unsupported nonsense you will convince anyone that AGW is not real????

wishful that...
 
Last edited:
Umm you do realize that is OCEAN HEAT GRAPH....so you claim NOAA et al in in on some conspiracy....or is it elves down there heating the ocean.

The only cherry picking is you using 1998 as a baseline and even then you cannot produce a single bit of science to back your nonsense...

first it's the sun, then it's not happening, what next ...Elvis ...:rolleyes:

The ocean heat graph is the wrong graph to use. Oceans go through 30 year cycles and detract from any overall heating of the atmosphere.

Climate is driven by ocean cycles and solar cycles and ultimately by orbit shape over the longer term. It has been much hotter in the past and yes we may be making a very small difference (mainly thru UHI effect). To lump the majority of climate change to man is simply not logical and goes against the historical and modern data.
 
There have been episodes in the past of ice loss in the Arctic, a more negative AO/NAO is one driver responsible. Solar changes affect the polar vortex which are easily verifiable by looking at the long term AO/NAO record.

the natural variables are within the AGW signature....like your sun....they are not of a magnitude to explain the changes in the Arctic.
 
Temperatures since 1998. Even if you isolate the 1998 El Nino the record shows no rise. There was a rise from 1980 to 1998 which is ocean and solar driven.


So why start with 1998? Why not 1997? Or 1999? Or 1990? Once again: nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1998.
 
So why start with 1998? Why not 1997? Or 1999? Or 1990? Once again: nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1998.

Warmist propaganda, the temperature record is on a 17 year plateau. It has not risen in that time but CO2 has risen at least 10%. Natural cycles are over riding any effect that man has on the climate.

The models are wrong, its time to face the facts.
 
Temperatures since 1998. Even if you isolate the 1998 El Nino the record shows no rise. There was a rise from 1980 to 1998 which is ocean and solar driven.

Ocean driven??? :dl:

the ocean is not a driver....answer the question about where the heat is coming from to increase the ocean temperature???

Moving heat around inside the box is just foolishness.

Globally it's getting warmer because there is less radiation of IR to space.

Perhaps you could also explain why the stratosphere is colder while you are at the ocean bit.

A colder stratosphere is a clear signature of increased IR trapping due to CO2.

A human-caused climate change signal emerges from the noise
Anne M Stark, LLNL, (925) 422-9799, [email protected] 11/29/2012

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- By comparing simulations from 20 different computer models to satellite observations, Lawrence Livermore climate scientists and colleagues from 16 other organizations have found that tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes are clearly related to human activities. See simulation (.mov)

The team looked at geographical patterns of atmospheric temperature change over the period of satellite observations. The team's goal of the study was to determine whether previous findings of a "discernible human influence" on tropospheric and stratospheric temperature were sensitive to current uncertainties in climate models and satellite data.

The troposphere is the lowest portion of earth's atmosphere. The stratosphere sits just above the troposphere, between 6 and 30 miles above earth's surface.

The satellite temperature data sets were produced by three different research groups, and rely on measurements of the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules. Each group made different choices in processing these raw measurements, and in accounting for such complex effects as drifts in satellite orbits and in instrument calibrations.

The new climate model simulations analyzed by the team will form the scientific backbone of the upcoming 5th assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is due out in 2014.

In both satellite observations and the computer model simulations of historical climate change, the lower stratosphere cools markedly over the past 33 years. This cooling is primarily a response to the human-caused depletion of stratospheric ozone. The observations and model simulations also show a common pattern of large-scale warming of the lower troposphere, with largest warming over the Arctic, and muted warming (or even cooling) over Antarctica. Tropospheric warming is mainly driven by human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases.

more

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Nov/NR-12-11-05.html
 
I think we're using "Goddard's assertion" to mean two different things. You use it to mean "global warming is not happening".

Ah, Randi's million dollar prize is safe,...but, more importantly, you stated that the contradiction which Goddard presented was valid, I simply asked you to explain why you felt that what Goddard presented was a valid contradiction? Did you independently investigate the evidence he claimed supported his assertions? Did you look the larger context of the quoted statements within the actual full articles? Did you research to see if there was any published science in support of, or refuting/modifying those papers? Did you consider and weigh all of the available evidences and then come to a decision that Goddard was making an objective and valid observation?

If not, why not?

I use it to mean "Time magazine said something that appears on the face of it ridiculous and requires explanation". The former is a conclusion Goddard drew that I am not prepared to draw myself, because I believe there is only evidence for the latter. The latter is also trivially true. Or do you not believe that Time magazine did this?

What I am saying, is that what authors paid and published by Time magazine write, is largely irrelevant to a discussion about climate science, slightly (but only just) more important might be what Goddard thinks about climate science. What is ultimately the most important thing in this discussion, however, is what you understand and don't understand about climate science and what you have done to gain what understandings you do have.


Um... is not my presence in this forum, asking people who claim to know something about it, my attempt at making exactly that investigation?

Not really, this is an internet forum, it might be a place to learn a bit about resources that others have gained knowledge from, but neither discussion forums nor blogs are good places to try and learn science, especially when that science has a potentially controversial political aspect imposed upon it.
 
Ocean driven??? :dl:

the ocean is not a driver....answer the question about where the heat is coming from to increase the ocean temperature???

Moving heat around inside the box is just foolishness.

Globally it's getting warmer because there is less radiation of IR to space.

Perhaps you could also explain why the stratosphere is colder while you are at the ocean bit.

A colder stratosphere is a clear signature of increased IR trapping due to CO2.

You are obviously not aware of the ENSO system. Simple fact: La Nina cools the planet while El Nino warms. A cool PDO cycle (30 years) encourages more La Nina and vice versa. Its about spatial movements of ocean SST's that influence ENSO.

The Stratosphere temperatures are modulated by ozone which are modulated by solar EUV.
 
You can disagree if you like. But don't accuse me of actively doing what I'm trying to warn you that other people will do. I live in the right-wing world, people there are conditioned to see AGW activists' uses of individual weather events as reasons for ridicule. Context becomes very quickly irrelevant when the knee-jerk response is "heh heh heh, I thought you said weather isn't climate?"

Until the "right-wing world" learns that physics trumps individual preferences and druthers there is little that any who disagree with them on anything can do to change, or open, their minds. Change comes from within, it cannot be forced upon, or tricked into, people.
 
I do not see a AGW signal in the Stratosphere.


[qimg]http://www.theozonehole.com/images/ozone_temperature_graph.gif[/qimg]

I don't believe I know theozonehole, I'll check it out a bit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom