Slashdot Mirror

So for the last 100 years, or 0.0000002 of known temperature information http://www.climate4you.com/ima... we have a local high. I hate to break it to you, but your sample size is completely meaningless, regardless if you get a +5 on slashdot or not.

The more environuts put out this crap, the more reasonable people with half a brain see them for what they are: chicken little idiots with zero science behind them. There is zero scientific evidence that humans are causing global warming, or that global warming is a thing as defined by the global warming alarmists. (Check out the global temperature over the last 500,000 years: http://www.climate4you.com/ima... here's a hint: those historic warm periods were not caused by man).

I have been to Phoenix a number of times over the last 40 years, and it has always been damn hot:

"On average, there are 107 days annually with a high of at least 100 F (38 C) including most days from late May through early October. Highs top 110 F (43 C) an average of 18 days during the year. On June 26, 1990, the temperature reached an all-time recorded high of 122 F (50 C)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The record high was 27 years ago, hardly justification for global warming alarmisim...

I am willing to bet any amount of money that within 5 years of a balancing the research funding of anthropogenic global warming (i.e. giving grant money to study AGW) with natural global warming research funding, the scientists will completely abandon AGW as even a theory because the facts and history just don't back it up. Further, they will stop fudging data and mathematical models and most will agree that we are in a localized natural warming period that is good for most humans (ice ages destroy crops/reduce arable farmland and kill millions through starvation and exposure, but never mind reality). The few thousand island peoples who are negatively affected by the natural temperature rise will have to adapt, just like we all have since time before history, but for most of the world population, global warming is good. Florida will have to build some seawalls, just like the Netherlands, but that amounts to just a few dollars more a year in taxes, it's hardly the apocalypse. However, as long as all the federal research money is for AGW, so will all the "scientists" who are on the take of that money and their research which was funded to justify it.

To start with, i don't think you have actually spent any time researching the issue, except for reading some articles.. Ie probably on the same level of understanding the issue as me and most people posting here...

View the temperature graph spanning the last 420000 years : http://www.climate4you.com/Glo... - from a google search, and we all know all data on the internet is true and peer-reviewed.. trust with care =)

Not saying we don't affect the climate and from that graph we are in the line for a warming of the planet.... And there is a lot of conflicting data if you compare long-term and short-term..

The time the human population has been spewing out greenhouse gasses is a blimp in the history of the earth so it makes it really difficult since we lack good data to analyze to start with.

But on the other hand... If we do nothing, and we are the reason it may cost us a crap-load... If we are the cause and do something it may cost a smaller crap-load.. Or it may also be that we are slowing the cooling of the earth and that may even be a good thing in the longer run too...
More data is needed to make any real determination of what is happening and why.

It's a big issue here is that we have two big groups where one says "We are the reason, only our theories are valid." and another group say "We are not the reason, only our theories are valid" makes it a big problem because it causes us to ignore valid points the other side may have that may bring us closer to a real understanding of what is happening.

It does not matter where the data comes from as long as it's valid data.. It just brings us closer to understanding the whole issue.

I do believe the global warming issue is more complex than just the amount of greenhouse gasses humans have released into the atmosphere.. And maybe it will cause us to go into a hot period faster..

Lets see how many "tolerant" progressives show how enlightened they are by down modding as Troll and then AC posting a very unpersuasive F-U to my post because they "feel" so strongly that they must be right. Just remember that ad homonym is the last bastion of a dying argument.

The entire CO2/anthropogenic global warming argument is a canard, and is only believed by the climate "scientists" whose jobs/grants depend on it and those without a degree in hard physical science or those who just believe whatever their told. The "all scientists believe global warming" bullshit came from a cherry picked poll with no scientific methodology and therefore no accuracy and they are following the Nazi path that a lie told long enough and loud enough will be believed. Truth is many climate scientists do not agree with global warming; I can point to dozens, and that is not an exhaustive list by any means, those are just people willing to be abused in the name of truth by the fascist global warming nuts. The rest of us would like to keep our day jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The reality is that plant growth on land/in oceans is limited by atmospheric/free CO2. Right now environuts are running around with their hair on fire because they say CO2 is at 400 PPM (parts per million) or 0.04%, which in and of its self is debatable (cities and power plants among others create localized plumes of elevated CO2, if your monitoring is anywhere near a plume, then you are measuring the plume instead of true ambient levels).

Here are a few facts: Every fossil fuel that is burned today was once living matter, either plant or animal (undisputed fact). Thus it was once part of the natural CO2 planetary cycle and at a time when life was flourishing. But somehow, re-adding that carbon to the planetary system after being trapped in coal or oil or natural gas deposits will throw the world out of balance and make the world too hot to be habitable? Completely irrational on the face of it.

More facts: The oceans contain 37.4T tons of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000B tons. The atmosphere contains 720B tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6B tons additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is ~0.0146% of the overall global exchange. A 1% change in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 change 71 times larger than anything we could produce. Anyone who thinks that natural interchanges like this don't vary over time by more than 0.015% is an idiot and no student of history. We know for a fact that the planet has been both much hotter and much cooler than current day.

http://www.climate4you.com/ima...
https://noconsensus.wordpress....

Fact: Climate models have been wrong for years:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

Fact: The globe has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, by a lot over the last 500,000 years:
http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

By claiming any scientist or study that doesn't agree with you is "industry sponsored" you are engaging in the logical fallacy "damning the source." It is irrelevant what the source is. If there is evidence of fraud in the work, then cite it (you cant). You have to look at the facts as they stand, regardless of the source. I am pretty sure that the only ones who have been found out committing fraud were the climate scientists at NASA.
http://principia-scientific.or...

Saying that it is what the majority of scientists believes is demonstrably false (see the link below) as well as a logical fallacy "appeal to majority logical fallacy."
http://www.naturalnews.com/052...

As a thermal engineer who has looked at this issue fairly rigorously, I have come to the following conclusions on the climate change debate. Before I begin, I caution the reader that, though you may not like the facts or the sources, I suggest you avoid the logical fallacy "Damning the Source." The facts are easily discoverable and if you want to have a serious opinion on the debate, you need to do your homework (or else you are what is known as a useful idiot).

1. The climate changes: Go look at the global temperatures for the last 500k years or so. It has been both cooler and warmer than it is now, without the burning of fossil fuels. The climate has been changing for millennia and we have survived. There has been no earth shattering apocalypse. From a physics perspective, the earth rejects heat to space as a function of the absolute temperature of the planted (~288K) to the fourth power. A small change in temperature significantly increases heat rejection, making it hard for multiplicative-order changes in the emissivity of the earth (what the global warming people worry about) to significantly change the amount of heat rejected, thus elevating the temperature.

http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

2. The global warming "scientists" are the same "scientists" who were running around in the 70s saying that the next ice age was upon us. The reality is they are not scientists as they do not practice the scientific method, as it is impossible on a global scale and a sample of one, and many of the thermal interactions that they put into their models have not been tested or proven using the scientific method, they are educated guesses at best. They are either researchers, physics modelers, or mathematicians, but they are not scientists by definition. The public in large part has caught on to this in practice if not in theory, which is why "scientists" are not that well respected these days. True scientists should form a guild or association to guard the name more jealously, just as engineers (applied science experts) do (you can be heavily fined or even imprisoned for impersonating a civil, mechanical or structural engineer, depending on the state). The climate charlatans should be banned from the title of scientist and forced to use one of the above.

3. The climate change models have been wildly wrong for the last 30 plus years. Go back and dig out some of the old models predictions. These have been wrong at every turn. They may be getting better, but only time will tell. Based on past performance, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially if billions of dollars or the health of the economy are on the line.

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/w...

4. The climate change debate is now deeply intertwined with emotions, politics and research grant money on one side, and businesses and the general population on the other side. It is being fueled by politicians who see an opportunity to vilify their opposition, moral narcissists/intellectual snobs who make themselves feel better by believing that they take the moral high road and/or are smarter than their fellow citizen (hint: statistically they are smarter than some, dumber than others) and PhD's who are too stupid to get out of the rain (i.e. no common sense) but need their grant money, so they feed the pro global warming politicians more models showing warming/doom and gloom/etc. to get the next grant. It is a vicious cycle, and until we defund public research into global warming, we will continue to have this incestuous loop. I am not advocating banning climate change research, only the tax payer funding of it as a weapon for one political group to use against another, especially when intellectual fraud has been proven and the past product of the research has been junk models that have been proven inaccurate over time.

And from wha

What data-set shows more warming that GISS? (BEST is land-only.)

Cowtan & Way says the hottest data-set that's already been adjusted upwards to the tune of 2C in some cases has a "cooling bias"? You'll forgive me if I don't accept the conclusions from a single study. (Their paper has been torn to shreds by critics.)

Skeptics did not create these graphs, but here's another one which shows that global sea ice extent is not unusually low :
http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

As you can see from the above, global sea ice has recovered in recent years and is fairly close to what it was in the 80's. Maybe you should look before you leap.

Antarctic sea ice was at all time record highs for much of 2014, while Arctic sea ice hit a record low in 2012. Overall they pretty much cancel each other out.

(And shouldn't your graph look more like this?? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n... )

http://www.climate4you.com/Sun...

On that graph, the solar irradiance varies from 1363 to 1368 since 1978 so under 1/2 of a percent.
That is indeed not really significant.

The sun activity cycle of 11 years is also very visible but it more in the range of 1/10 of a percent.

http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

Global sea ice is above average

Antarctic sea ice is well above average

Arctic sea ice is slightly below average

As to the "pause" being a statistical artifact, warming has in fact flattened for about fifteen years so far - despite CO2 being at record levels. We'll see how long it continues, we're right at solar maximum currently and looking at a long stretch of low solar activity ahead. So, the next 20-40 years should give us a true concrete idea of how a solar Grand Minimum effects the climate.

The real reason for this pause in global warming is the increased incidence of piracy since the 90s. Ramen!

It's not a peer-reviewed study, it's an informal systematic review.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Yeah, except that entire effort is a straw man of colossal proportions. "Climate deniers", really? What, do they deny the climate exists?

Many climate change skeptics accept the idea of greenhouse gasses and potential warming. What is contested is the severity of future warming, if any, and the certainty expressed by the IPCC when instead much is uncertain.

As to the "pause" being a statistical artifact, warming has in fact flattened for about fifteen years so far - despite CO2 being at record levels. We'll see how long it continues, we're right at solar maximum currently and looking at a long stretch of low solar activity ahead. So, the next 20-40 years should give us a true concrete idea of how a solar Grand Minimum effects the climate.

I understood what you meant, and it doesn't work that way. There are a myriad of very complex things that cause these changes. Obviously there's CO2 and methane. But you have volcanic activity, the sunspot cycle (which we continue to learn we don't necessarily understand), and just try to understand relationship of atmospheric temperatures and ocean currents. If you think you have that figured out then you can take a look at the impact of solar vs. cosmic winds. There was a story on /. recently that indicated that the cosmic winds are not as constant as was once believed. So it will have an impact on the heliosphere. I think it was last year that NASA discovered that more heat was bleeding off into space than was previously believed too.

The annual temperatures will be trending in some way or another over damn near any time frame. If you look at last couple of hundred years it's trending up. But it's still not nearly as hot as it's been since homo sapiens has been on this planet. Take a look at this graph Or do a Google search for temperature graphs for the earth yourself. That's where I got this one. Do you see equilibrium?

Mmmmm those cherries are so good, I see why you picked them:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global temperature trends
Care to admit why you picked 10 years and not 15 or 20?

If you grab a sample of 2 women and 2 men you may well find the women are taller, and you wont be able to say based on that sample if men or women are taller on average. But given 20 or 30 women and 20 or 30 men the answer becomes obvious.

So why does it appear that water vapour in the atmosphere (upper atmos) has been falling for the last 30 years even as global temperatures and CO2 have been increasing? Faults in the Data or in the Theory?
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm

a) 16 years is certainly not long enough to measure a climate trend. There is too much noise from natural variation. If you look at graphs of global temperature you see plenty of times where temperatures dipped on longer than a decadal time scale. The long term trend is still up. Climatologists generally use 30 year running means* to describe climate. That's probably a bit arbitrary, maybe 25 years would work but I think 20 years would be getting pretty iffy.

*By definition of the World Meteorological Organization the classical period for climate is 30 years.

b) Climate models are tested by hindcasting all the time, especially using period of detailed climate knowledge since the 1950's. And again, climate models are not even really attempting to predict the last 16 years in the detail you seem to demand. It's that 30 year climate period thing again.

Satellite temperature trends aren't that much different than surface trends.

c) While summer Arctic sea ice has declined by around 2.5 million km^2 Antarctic has only grown by around 0.3 million km^2. (ref.) I'd say that is a significant difference.

And short duration (less than a decade or two) cooling is not necessarily inconsistent with global warming because we don't have absolute knowledge of heat content of the oceans.

"not necessarily inconsistent" is the last refuge of scoundrels, I'm sure you'd agree :)

If you want to play the science game, let's hear what *is* inconsistent with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

A warm day in winter doesn't falsify seasons.

And 50, or even 100 years of global warming doesn't falsify natural climate change.

Sea level has been rising much more rapidly than expected.

Look at the graph again.

http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif

Sea level has been rising much as it has since we've left the Little Ice Age. What is so unexpected about that?

The obvious reason is that the oceans are warmer than we predicted.

Except they're not - they're missing heat:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

So yes, the models are falsified, and we build new models using what have learned (more rapid heat transfer to the oceans, slightly less mixing of surface with subsurface waters) and try to match the observations.

The problem with that is that you've presented individual implementations of your hypothesis as falsified, but not the *basis* for your hypothesis. With an infinite variety of ad hoc special pleadings available to create an infinite variety of individual implementations, you've set up a tautology that can never be falsified.

Your curve clearly ends with an artifact in both quantities plotted caused by the fact that it is averaging zeros from beyond the end. You can't smooth right up to the present!

Nope. The solar activity graph ends 5.5 years early because of the 11 year smoothing. No 0's were averaged beyond the end point. 11 year smoothing was chosen because of the roughly 11 year cycle.

...the earth cools during periods of low solar activity, which is, of course, when actual solar irradiance peaks! In other words, when the sun has no sunspots, it is actually slightly brighter and one would expect (if anything) warming,

Nope. Solar output is roughly 1366.5 Wm-2 during a solar maximum, and 1365.5 Wm-2 during a solar minimum. By the way, if you think that and extra 1 Wm-2 should cause the current warming then you must believe that the earth is very sensitive to forcings. Perhaps you are right. If you are arguing that there is some other mechanism that is not understood, then I'm not sure why you would lend it more credence than the greenhouse effect which is very well understood and has a physical basis that was well understood over 150 years ago. The following graph shows sunspots along with measured irradiance: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceAndSunspots.gif

you have no idea what temperature it "should" be with or without CO_2.

Inertia is a confounding factor no doubt, but not one that is lost on scientists

Extend the base of the very plot you built to 10000 BCE

I suspect you don't trust proxy's going back 1000 years let alone 10000. Your point about looking at too short a timespan is well taken. You should also consider that for the last 10000 years we have been at the height of an interglacial. The long term trend is down (back into a deep freeze). The medium term (century long) trends have previously matched up fairly well with solar activity. Over the last century this no longer seems to be the case (according to the literature)

But we'll see, very soon. The sun is rising what will probably be the lowest peak in over a century. The Earth has plenty of heat stored up from the heating phase, and of course there will be a lag and significant fluctuations as its chaotic head delivery system self-reorganizes, but by the end of this cycle, we will almost certainly have entered a cooling phase.

I hope you are right. If the literature is right then the next decade will be the hottest on record. My prediction is that skeptics will have dropped the solar output theory and will be claiming that changes in cloud cover is causing the warming (a theory that Dr Roy Spencer is already priming). I hate to have to wait another decade to find out. Predictions of imminent global cooling have been around for decades. I don't think another record hot decade will change that.

Look, past facts don't matter, they have a document which claims that we are causing it.

Which is based on, you know, facts.

They can totally ignore the cooling trend over the last ten years,

There isn't a cooling trend over the last 10 years. The only way you get a cooling trend is if you pick the trend start time precisely at the time of the 1998 super-El Nino.

In fact, if you continue the pre-1998 trend line through to today, there are more months which are warmer than the extrapolated trend than there are cooler (see here).

At best you can say that the recent warming has been modest, yet well within the range of natural variability and within the range of the variability predicted by the AOGCM models.

the major shift in sunspot activity which neatly explains other such periods,

There isn't a major shift in sunspot activity which neatly explains "other such periods". The solar irradiance trend has been nearly flat since 1950 (e.g., here), and so fails to explain the subsequent warming.

all because they have passed the point of reason and now it is a purely emotional issue.

Given statements like "In other words, they are the Christians proving their stand by using the Bible. However since these people refuse to see beyond their own narrow view you are the new form of heretic.", you're the one here who is being emotional. And your supposed "reason" is in direct contradiction with actual facts.

No, sorry, everything stated is true.
I dislike giving source sites as they radicals have away of destroying facts, but here you go:
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp183/kiwistonewall/2009x.jpg
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%202008%2008%20vs%201998-2006.gif

Jeez, the mantra continues.

Last year the earth cooled ALLOT
Arctic sea ice has been GROWING
The Green house gas argument is a number scam. (Ponzi anybody?)
And unless we get allot more sunspots soon, we be PRAYING for a little global warming.

On top of all that, the psuedo scientist out there call people that present these FACTS "Flat Earth'ers".

Wake up people, you are being taken for a ride.