What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Speaking of Lindzen, I thought this piece was fair.
You miss the point Jafo, some people just like to argue for the giggles....
THIS, so much of this. Good to see some aged intelligence on here.
No, we live in a world of control, as it has always been. The internet is no exception. Look up who funds these scientists, sites, and who ultimately benefits from them.
NO one, is claiming humans are not impacting the earth, that is stupid. What we all are saying is that the DATA has been LIED about. We have looked at the "adjusted" models, the "accurate" temperatures, and grant money science...
We simply see the puppet strings and you don't.
Well just to say that in the scientific community their is no debate about weather or not global warming is happening. It's 97% for and 3% against. Their is no debate to speak of, no controversy, the reason simple because the evidence that has been accumulating has pointed to that direction.
Far back in the early days their was debate about if it was getting hotter or cooler at that time there was a debate. However the continue accumulation of data and evidence has made the sufficient demonstrations of global warming be the trend.
Now you are seriously saying you know better then 97% of the scientist that did work on global warming, or that you will believe the work of the scientist that cannot get their work pass the peer review system because it is faulty in nature and that is what you will use to base your opinion on? Do you even under how science arrives at a conclusion?
Just to help you out here a caricature of what the peer review system is. When you submit a paper you better make damn sure you did it right or it will not stand up and could end your career.
Most people don't debate the fact that the average temp of the planet is rising.
However, the cause of global warming is what is in question and if you go outside the United States the debate is still going strong.
Now you sound like a conspiracy theorist the believe that the government is so good at hiding the truth. Well at least government has to be good at something at some point. I on the other always believed it to be good at being inept at everything it does. It's the reason that when ever a governments tries to control people it always results to force and not liberty. Under liberty their machinations would be to easy to spot.
WHAT?!....... What rock you been living under? The only place the debate is still really going on is in the US media. Outside the Us their might be the odd denier here and there but their quickly get their arguments refuted and have no way to redeem their claims. Only on US media channels can I still see a debate or controversy going on.
Nope....we remove people who "just like to argue for the giggles".
We call them 'trolls'.
What we prefer is "Intelligent" debate ...
I must say "warmists", really? It's not even a word ..... ...
That was a very GOOD article! Thanks for sharing it.
Hey EadTaes, educate yourself on a real scientist that stand up to pressure do. Read that article and then tell me what you think...
Oh, and since you seem to like pictures, how do you answer these two?
First is the raw data sheet...
And here is the summation...
So, what does that trend show, hmmm?
.
I'm not claiming I like to debate for the giggles, I'm just saying some people do
And I had started this topic WAY back in 2009, and find it curious that after I let my thread die, here is another to take its place.
For the Lindzen article I am still in the process of checking it over so won't make a statement over it.
As for the charts one of them only takes into consideration the extreme events which shows a slight increase and the other talks about global changes but stops but only covers 1989 to 2004. additionally you have failed to provide were those charts came from. A chart with no source and context is pretty much worthless.
EDIT: especially that second chart looks awe fully flawed. First the climate projected model is constant, which means he's work on the basis of the planet staying at the same temperature? If he wanted to debunk warming he would have to grade that line along the projected course of temperature increase we should be seeing. Second comes in the Zero trend line. What does he mean by that? By that line he would seem to imply the worlds average temperature would be near 0 Celsius. That would sorta imply that eh is saying that year round the earth is 50% below 0. Or does he make his 0 line be equivalent to 15 Celsius as indicated to me the global temperature of the earth in 2008 by NASA, http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/. And if you look at the charts and compare them they don't make any sense, one is up to 2010 the other only goes to 2004 if you try to compare the first one tot he 2nd one you see then ont he first in 2004 their is a dip but in 2005-06 it climbs back up something he 2nd chart total fails to shows. Seem more like wilful manipulation of data there. Would need to finish the 2nd chart fully all the way to 2010. The 2 charts also seem to contradict them selves, without the article going with them and the hard data to look at this doesn't look good at all, so far he would fail the peer review for having botched up his work.
Why 'curious'? Are you saying only you have the right/authority/intelligence/permission to post a thread on the topic?
More than once I have mentioned it's the 'biggest thing' since creationism ... so every man and his dog will have an urge to vent his spleen and/or pontificate on the subject...
.....and Climate Change as an 'issue' has been around a wee bit longer than 'way back in 2009' ...
Ooops, I usually try to include my source, sorry bout that...
Here it is. MastorResource
The two picts have this text as well...
Figure 1. Global temperature anomalies from September 1989 through August 2009 as contained in five different data compilations. The GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), NCDC (National Climate Data Center), and CRU (Climate Research Unit) data are all compiled from surface records, while the RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (University of Alabama-Huntsville) data are compiled from satellite observations of the lower atmosphere.
And
Figure 2. Cherry-Pickers Guide to Global Temperature Trends. Each point on the chart represents the trend beginning in September of the year indicated along the x-axis and ending in August 2009. The trends which are statistically significant (p<0.05) are indicated by filled circles. The zero line (no trend) is indicated by the thin black horizontal line, and the climate model average projected trend is indicated by the thick red horizontal line.
A rather interesting site, I must say.
@Jafo
"Curious" as in the topic simply will not be agreed upon. I've got no care who posts and when, I'm just curious why the large amount of attention. Thats all.
Personally I think it's due to humans and their free will to not be told what to do... same as evolution really. Only thats more not be told who you are... Meh, same attitude really.
Just edited my post above while you post this.
EDIT:
Are you absolutely sure that is the text that is supposed to go with the 2nd chart because if so it's a major fail. His chart grade years and and stops in 2004, his text talk about it ending in the month of September in 2009. If you submitted that to a college science teacher he would probably fail you for that. And no one would take you seriously because clearly your work is shotty at best.
Reading quickly in on the MastorResource link I am almost quite literally rolling on the floor laughing, for 2 reasons.
1: he tried to demonstrate that by cherry picking data only until 2004 he can show a chart that will indicate the earth is cooling, which has been the most common tactic used by global warming deniers.
2: But then he goes on to talking that his chart plots the temperature variance all the way into 2009 which it CLEARLY does not.
But if you look at the first chart and try to eyeball it as much as you can (not gonna bother going over the data from the 5 sources) you would notice that the temperature would it have been charted all the way to 2009 like he claims it to be would be right back to were his chart started in 1989 if not higher.
To me this guy sound like her believe in global warming and tried to demonstrate to other people who do not understand the science how global warming deniers cherry pick data to try and indicate that the planet is cooling and not warming but then totally fails him self at science by talking about shit that is irrelevant and totally not plotted on his chart.
All in all that article is a clear demonstration of bad science and failing at it. You should dismiss the article completely, even his claims of cherry picking hold no more ground now after such a fail.
Back to reading on Lindzen, at least so far he he seems more credible for now but I still haven't seen his evidence only read his claims.
For the Lindzen article it provides no evidence, the article only has claims and all of his papers are pay to read 40$ or so and I cannot find any actual data that he has based his claims on. He copy-written his shit so hard i can't find any leaks.
Although I could not find Lindzen work to check it out for my self I did find and detailed article refuting him that has read his papers and contradicted and proved him wrong. I have just started reading the article but here is the link a a snippet that I found interesting. Of course the whole thing needs to read.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
In my extensive research into Richard Lindzen's climate papers and talks, I've never been able to find an instance where he predicted how global temperatures would change in the future, other than to say in 1989,
"I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,"
The natural variability of the Earth's climate rarely causes more than 0.2°C global surface warming over the span of a few decades to a century, yet we've already seen 0.8°C warming over the past century and 0.5°C over the past 3 decades, with much more to come over the next century. Based on his comments in that 1989 talk, I pieced togetherwhat Lindzen's global temperature prediction might have looked like, had he made one, and compared it to the prediction made by prominent NASA climate scientist James Hansen in a 1988 paper (like Lindzen, Hansen is now retired).
Comparison of the observed NASA temperature record (black) with temperature predictions from Dr. James Hansen's 1988 modeling study (red), and with my reconstructed temperature prediction by Dr. Richard Lindzen based on statements from his talk at MIT in 1989 (blue). Hansen's Scenario B projection has been adjusted to reflect the actual observed greenhouse gas concentrations since 1988.
Oh I just went and read a quote under the first picture of the article.
The Weekly Standard's Lindzen article was puffier than a drag from a cigarette – which Lindzen also denies cause cancer. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
Apparently he is also a biomedical scientist. This starts to lift questions about Richard Lindzen motives. Nothing of significant proof but it sure doesn't help his case.
Here is what MastorResources tried to inform you of but fail so horribly hard in doing it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).
Now we are connecting the dots? I should have paid more attention in kindergarten....
I seek not to provide evidence, convincing or otherwise. I have been on the planet 60 years and have lived in both hemispheres. I have witnessed extremes of both hot and cold in both hemispheres... unseasonal weather, if you will, that so-called experts try to explain as being something other than a natural event that has happened millions of times all over the planet for centuries... long before the population explosion, the Industrial Revolution and global deforestation. The Bible, which is not just a religious tome, but a historical record, records many weather phenomena such as the ones were are experiencing no, as did Greek, Roman and Ancient Chinese writings, so it is nothing new.
I'm not saying that mankind should not clean up its act. Far from it! I have also witnessed some pretty foul acts by industry that desecrate the environment, so I am not opposed to cleaner, healthier practices. However, I do not see why I should pay dearly for decades of industrial neglect just because some industrialists have arguably grown a concience and suddenly care. Bullshit! And who else has the money to pay for scientists to 'factually' corroborate their 'concerns'.
When I say it is scare mongering, it is precisely that... a 'scientifically proven' way of parting you and I from our money. And pray tell me, if you can, if these industrialists, politicians and other vested parties actually cared about the planet, then why didn't they put into place cleaner, safer practices decades ago when it became obvious that pollution was unhealthy for everyone/everything? Why wait 'til now.. when science can be used to pave the way to amass even greater profit? Simple! They've waited until a large percentage of people who'd know better are dead, have Alzheimers or are too darned old to care.
That leaves the SNAPs [Sensitive New Age People] EMOs and the gullible young who haven't lived long enough to have gathered and real worldly wisdom. These are the targets of this global warming travesty and they've swallowed it hook, line and sinker because it's easier than looking beyong what they're being force fed.
As for wild guesses about volcanoes and earthquakes, both of which can cause the elements to heat up, has your head been, um, in the sand this last few years of have you been in a coma or something? Iceland, Japan, Indonesia have all experienced major seismic disruptions over the last few years, and you think none of this has contributed to climactic change?
As for conspiracy theories regarding 'the rich', there has always been the rich entreprenurial type who seeks to line his/her pockets with the cash of lesser folk [the average Joe] so there's nothing new about that.... and there's no 'conspiracy theory' about it.
And my rant? It's calling a spade a spade.
People who are old are still humans. We all see patterns and cycles everywhere, especially in the Netherlands, where we even see bi-cycles. The thing is, by the time you're 50 or 60, the temperature has risen only 0.5 degrees. JUST HALF A DEGREE. That's just not enough to see any major differences. And then there are also the ocean oscillations that act on a timescale of 60 years and other shorter period oscillations from the sun, and the occasional volcano which all help to blur the picture you have of the time period you live in.
The researchers aren't concerned with the now: they aim for a 2 degree rise which is 1 degree higher than we have now. And they aren't concerned about what happens in 50 years, because not much happens.
They are worried about what will happen in the distant future, if humankind goes on with business as usual for 100 years or more.
I've written earlier in this topic, that this is the kind of thinking that will make it very hard to convince people, now or in the distant future. Every one person that lives on this planet, is used to the conditions during his childhood and for that person it is the new normal. Then 60 years pass and temperatures rise 0.5 degrees (or maybe a little more, like 0.8 degrees). Now... what kind of changes will such a person see? Hardly any. And it doesn't matter whether you're born now, under a global average temperature of 18 degrees, or in 300 years from now under a global temperature of 24 degrees.
Look out!!!!! Starkers is experiencing 'climactic' change.....
.....now we're in for it....
[hint....one too many 'c's].... ...
Indeed...but your efforts to lay false trails are doomed from the outset, sir! Next you'll be blaming the poor whales!
Since we're into graphs.
I feel differently. I feel that someone coming into a 75 page thread should probably read some of it or educate themselves a bit on the topic before giving their opinion. I'm not terribly interested in convincing him of anything. All of the evidence and information on the topic is readily available to anyone with an internet connection. I'm more interested in hearing specific criticisms of what is already a large consensus on the evidence.
As is your prerogative. But it's an open forum. Your feelings about how 'prepared' one should be to make comments in a thread, or about the substance of such comments, aren't determinative.
Only Jafo is determinative.
No disrespect, honestly, but your personal age, travel history, the Bible, and gut feelings aren't relevant to the topic of climate change. I do agree with you that it is entirely plausible, human nature what it is, that people could try to co-opt the science for their own political or economic ends, but there is no evidence that the science itself is corrupted (and no, "Climategate" and related bs is not evidence of this). So in other words, I do not dispute the accuracy of the science at this point as far as the reality of what is happening, but I don't necessarily agree with or trust all of the efforts involved in "what to do about it". Two separate (but related ofc) issues.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
