climate change

[The Barbarian]

How do you know it was carbon dioxide doing the warming and not an increase in solar insulation?

For one thing, solar insolation (not "insulation") decreased drastically, and it only moderated the warming trend.

While it is true that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared in that band,, is every increase in carbon dioxide absorbed at the same linear rate???

So far. But there's not much CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to other greenhouse gases, so it's a long way from saturation.

Isn't there diminishing returns in absorbed heat for every increase in carbon dioxide?

So far, doesn't seem to have been. Anyway, the fact that rising CO2 and falling insolation resulted in moderate warming, indicates that CO2 is now a stronger force than changes in insolation.

 

[The Barbarian]

“The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,”

“In the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,”

“new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”

“such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Of course, the few scientists who thought so, were counting on anthropogenic particulates and acids to continue to rise exponentially. Instead, they declined. But as you now know, most climatologists, even in the 70s, thought that the Earth be getting warmer.

 

[The Barbarian]

http://http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_yltsorry. I'm trying to post the "global land ocean temperature index from GISS to visually show what I was talking about in the following post: This image posting on TOL seems to be impossible from an iphone

I can't get it to load. Something's wrong with that address.

 

[Stripe]

It is funny to watch how the deniers here refuse to learn the difference between weather and climate and the difference between peer reviewed scientific papers and sensationalist magazine and newspaper articles.

Rocketman: If you are so certain that scientists predicted cooling in the 70s. Why are you unable to present us with the scientific papers that predicted it? Why do we have to rely on newspaper clippings? You do understand the difference between a newspaper and a scientific journal? It is simply a historical fact that the number of scientific papers that predicted cooling were outnumbered by papers predicting warming in the 70s. And as you can see from the graph (which is based on a metastudy), the number of papers that predicted warming compared to cooling increased a lot from 74-80 (and that consensus has only increased after that):

(Source: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)

It is simply wrong to claim that most climate scientists predicted cooling in the 70s. And you have been presented with this fact (with reference to actual metastudies) and you continue to say the opposite (without reference to anything that even remotely resembles a scientific study). At this point, the only thing that you are demonstrating is your own dishonesty and will to lie to protect your point of view.

Reference scientific papers and data and show that you at least understand the difference between the concepts of local weather and global climate. Climate change deniers are no different from the idiots that argue against the theory of evolution. They have no real understanding of even the most basic concepts of the theory, because if they actually honestly studied it, they would be compelled to accept it and their bias does not allow for that.



This might be the dumbest contribution to the thread so far . You think this is an actual argument?
Even if it was, climate change does not predict that the earth will be destroyed, it predicts that the outcomes of this climate change will eventually lead to catastrophic changes that will affect millions upon millions of lives. That the so called "pro-life" right-wingers oppose the clear science that demonstrates climate change just shows how hollow their pro-life stance really is. They are only pro-life to the extent that it concerns issues that have no effects on themselves. You would rather see the livelihoods of millions of people be destroyed to avoid maybe paying a bit more taxes and change your overabundant lifestyles even a little bit. And you dare to invoke the word of God to defend that immoral behavior?

:mock: Sillyfile

 

[Selaphiel]

This is looking bad for the deniers. Not one single peer reviewed scientific article from a scientific journal (I'm starting to wonder whether the deniers even know what a scientific journal is) that predicts cooling. Trying to make up for it with conspiracy theories about Jews, newspaper articles and some books doesn't cut it.
I know there are some, point is that it was a minority position, the majority of climate scientists in the 70s predicted warming. Consensus has only increased after that.



I can link youtube videos as well.

Everyone over the age of 50 knows what happened in the 70's. We were told an Ice Age was coming.

Because your memories from the 70s trumps the need for actually demonstrating a scientific consensus by reference to scientific journals. WHERE ARE THE PEER REVIEWD SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES?

 

[The Barbarian]

Everyone over the age of 50 knows what happened in the 70's. We were told an Ice Age was coming.

I was in graduate school at the time. You don't know what you're talking about. And the data on the number of papers predicting warming clearly demonstrates the fact.

 

[tetelestai]

More evidence of man made global warming in Denver

Two records were set in Denver for November 12th

The high temperature was 6 degrees, breaking the 98 year old previous record set in 1916

The low temperature was -5 degrees, breaking the 132 year old record set in 1882

 

[The Barbarian]

More evidence of man made global warming in Denver

Two records were set in Denver for November 12th

The high temperature was 6 degrees, breaking the 98 year old previous record set in 1916

The low temperature was -5 degrees, breaking the 132 year old record set in 1882

Still confusing weather and climate, I see. Meantime, we just had the warmest October worldwide, since records have been kept:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Guess which of these records is more indicative of climate. Yep. Do you see why your weather anomalies aren't helping you at all?

 

[tetelestai]

Meantime, we just had the warmest October worldwide, since records have been kept:

That's really easy to accomplish when you lower the historical temperatures, and inflate the actual present temperatures.

If the NBA did what climatologists did, the NBA could make Wilt Chamberlin no longer hold the single game scoring record, and make Kobe Bryant hold the record.

All the NBA would have to do is change Wilt Chamberlin's 100 points scored in 1962 to 90 points, then change Kobe Bryant's 81 points scored in 2006 to 91 points, and BAM!!! Kobe Bryant now holds the all time record for most points scored in a single game.

See how easy that was?

We subtracted 10 from Chamberlin and added 10 to Kobe. This was based on models that are relevant to factors which simultaneously adjust speculation datasets from observing practices that occur over time in order to get a more accurate portrayal of quality control processes from advanced techniques which yield an updated summary of who penultimately scored points opposed to facilitates documentation which proceeded bypassed communication updates.

NBA Singe Game Scoring Record:

Kobe Bryant 91 points
Wilt Chamberlin 90 points

 

[CabinetMaker]

That's really easy to accomplish when you lower the historical temperatures, and inflate the actual present temperatures.

If the NBA did what climatologists did, the NBA could make Wilt Chamberlin no longer hold the single game scoring record, and make Kobe Bryant hold the record.

All the NBA would have to do is change Wilt Chamberlin's 100 points scored in 1962 to 90 points, then change Kobe Bryant's 81 points scored in 2006 to 91 points, and BAM!!! Kobe Bryant now holds the all time record for most points scored in a single game.

See how easy that was. All we did was subtract 10 from Chamberlin and add 10 to Kobe. This was based on models that are relevant to factors that adjust speculation in order to get a more accurate portrayal of who really scored more points.

NBA Singe Game Scoring Record:

Kobe Bryant 91 points
Wilt Chamberlin 90 points

When you lie, you can do things like that. But climatologists don't lie, the record data and analyze it. At least attempt to have the integrity to argue based on data and not your personal prejudices.

 

[The Barbarian]

Pretty much all he has left is "they are all lying."

Sad, really.

 

[tetelestai]

When you lie, you can do things like that. But climatologists don't lie, the record data and analyze it. At least attempt to have the integrity to argue based on data and not your personal prejudices.

They changed the temperatures from 1934, and 1998

They made 1934 colder, and 1998 warmer.

The following animation shows it by using two graphs from NOAA

 

[gcthomas]

They changed the temperatures from 1934, and 1998

They made 1934 colder, and 1998 warmer.

The following animation shows it by using two graphs from NOAA

Goddard who made that graph likes to use raw temperature data, without making adjustments for the stations getting moved, for cities growing around them, for changes in the thermometer technology. He also simply averaged the data for the US, without regard for the location distribution of the stations or the number and quality of the stations.

In short - he is a right wing, gun nut, conspiracy theorist, with delusions of scientific grandeur.

 

[The Barbarian]

And again, tet tries to equivocate U.S. records with global temperature records. And everyone understands why he's trying to do it.

 

[rexlunae]

Goddard who made that graph likes to use raw temperature data, without making adjustments for the stations getting moved, for cities growing around them, for changes in the thermometer technology.

...which, ironically, is something that denialists often claim that scientists don't take into account.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) reports that last month was the hottest October in more than 120 years of record-keeping — by far. This follows the hottest September, August, June, and March-May in JMA’s records! Projections by NOAA make clear 2014 is increasingly likely to be hottest year on record.

And these records occurred despite the fact we’re still waiting for the start of El Niño. It is usually the combination of the underlying long-term warming trend and the regional El Niño warming pattern that leads to new global temperature records.

The JMA is a World Meteorological Organization Regional Climate Center of excellence. NASA reported Friday very similar observations. In the NASA dataset, last month was tied for hottest October on record with 2005.

In this country, temperatures were quite hot in the West, and the fourth-warmest on record for the lower 48.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/14/3592424/hottest-october-on-record/

 

[tetelestai]

Goddard who made that graph likes to use raw temperature data

He used NOAA's charts.

Both charts are from NOAA.

In 2000, NOAA made 1934 cooler, and 1998 warmer.

If you use NOAA's charts before 2000, there is no hockey stick.

NOAA even tells us they adjusted the temperature for 1934.

 

[OCTOBER23]

The Climate is changing where I live.

My wife is all Hot and bothered with me

and so she gives me the Cold shoulder.

 

[tetelestai]

Projections by NOAA make clear 2014 is increasingly likely to be hottest year on record.

Record snowfall hits northern Japan

Man, and CO2 from fossil fuels have nothing to do with weather and/or climate change.

 

[The Barbarian]

And of course, increased snowfall as a result of warming was predicted by climate models in the 80s.

Simple feedback:
Warmer oceans, more humidity.
More humidity, more precipitation in winter.
And the models are again verified.

But something did catch scientists by surprise, recently:

Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially
Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier
Basin, West Antarctica
Ian Joughin, Benjamin E. Smith, Brooke Medley
SCIENCE
VOL 344 16 MAY 2014
Resting atop a deep marine basin, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has long been considered prone to instability. Using a numerical model, we investigated the sensitivity of Thwaites Glacier to ocean melt and whether its unstable retreat is already under way. Our model reproduces observed losses when forced with ocean melt comparable to estimates. Simulated losses are moderate
(<0.25 mm per year at sea level) over the 21st century but generally increase thereafter. Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has
begun. Less certain is the time scale, with the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.