HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Military/History Related Hobbies > Research, Reference and Historical Study > Science

Notices and Announcements

Science Discussions about hard science.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 08 Feb 15, 23:23
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,955
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
Sorry in advance for long post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SRV Ron View Post
So, what is causing the melting? People from Earth inhabiting Mars? Where is your proof that Mars has no atmosphere given that dust storms are commonly observed by both telescopes and robotic rovers on the surface? Since Mars has no known volcanic activity to cause melting, how is it possible that changes in solar radiation have no effect on the Martian ice cap, made up of mostly those so called Greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide in the form of dry ice?

Latest from Drudge Report. He only reports the news by posting the sources. He doesn't write the stories.
Official records systematically 'adjusted' to show heating...
Meteorologist: 'In the business world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data'...


PAPER: 'GLOBAL WARMING' BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER


Excuse me, allow me to rephrase my statement: "Mars is not Earth: it has only a very thin atmosphere to protect it from the Sun. The effects of solar radiation are therefore much more strongly felt there, and even then so-called "sun cycles" involving the discharge of additional radiation are not the cause of the Martian ice-melt."

In the past, Mars had a much thicker atmosphere, but owing to its smaller core and weaker magnetic field, that atmosphere has been blown away by the Sun over time to a mere shell of what it once was.

Again, the quote itself has the ice-melt being caused by perturbations in the orbit of Mars, which would bring it closer to the sun, causing the melt.
Here is a link going into further depth on this issue: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm

As for the rest of your points:

1. The claim that climate data has been manipulated by NASA or any other organization is complete and utter BS. Even Politifact decided to weigh in on this one (even addressing the 'fudged graphs' in your links).

Here is Politifact's statement (Green= my edit, Blue= highlighted for emphasis):

Quote:
On climate change, Gallup pollsters say Americans divide into three groups -- the "Concerned Believers," the "Mixed Middle," and the "Cool Skeptics." Believers have a slender plurality at 39 percent but skeptics make up a solid 25 percent. They think there’s little to worry about and that media reports on the topic are exaggerated.

Fox News host Steve Doocy gave the doubters some ammunition on June 24, 2014. In a segment on Fox and Friends called "News by the Numbers," Doocy drew viewers’ attention to the year 1934.

"That's the hottest year on record in the United States," Doocy said. "At least until NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming. The 1930s were by far the hottest decade in the United States."

A reader wondered if NASA really did cook the books (we love reader suggestions!), so we are checking Doocy’s claim about fudging the numbers.

We asked Fox News for their source and while they didn’t respond, a number of conservative news outlets have made much in recent days of a blog post from a man who writes under the pseudonym Steven Goddard. Goddard charged that until 2000, NASA reported that in the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 and that the country has been cooling since then.

"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered U.S. climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer," Goddard wrote.

He provided this animated chart to prove his point (the chart marked "a" is the old version):

The charts don't show up here, but they are the same as those in your second link. If you don't take my word for it, here is the link to this site: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-global-warmi/

Climate science experts say not so fast

Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.

As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.

Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.

"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time."

Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.

"Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight," Schmidt said.

In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.

Comparing apples to apples

Better instruments and more consistent methods have allowed scientists to collect more reliable data. But for climate studies, long-term trends are key and the challenge has been how to make the best use of the older readings.

In the mid 1980s, the government settled on a list of about 1,200 stations across the country to track temperature trends. Around 1990, climatologists began delivering computer programs to factor in the artificial changes that systematically pushed the readings one way or the other. Over time, they accounted for the impacts of equipment, location, the time of day of measurements and urbanization (more asphalt leads to higher surface temperatures).

There is no question that running the raw data through these programs changes the graphs of average temperatures. However, multiple researchers from a variety of institutions have fed into this process and come up with their own computer models. Results from different teams largely match up.

John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government analysis of temperature trends.

"It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves," Nielsen-Gammon said. If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process."

All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.


Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.

"Goddard's results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data," Serreze said.

Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote.

Our ruling

Doocy with Fox News said NASA scientists fudged the numbers to overstate the extent of global warming. This exaggerated the thrust in the underlying blog post. It accused government scientists of altering the U.S. temperature record, not the record for the entire earth.

As for what the blog said, we found that experts across the spectrum found fundamental flaws in its analytic methods. By relying on raw data, it ignored that the number and location of weather stations and the methods of measuring temperatures across the United States have changed greatly over the past 80 years.

The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results. The bare bones approach used in the blog post provides no solution to the issues of weaknesses in the raw data.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
More propaganda from the mouthpieces of big business.


2. Just because one spot is having a cold winter, does not mean the entire notion of Global Warming is suddenly debunked. Not only does this run counter to the "Global" in Global Warming, it is one data point among a collection. In addition, Global Warming can also be responsible for eccentric weather patterns owing to the changing temperatures in the ocean currents. So citing one's experience with recent cold weather does not instantly disprove man-made climate change!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09 Feb 15, 00:47
Pirate-Drakk's Avatar
Pirate-Drakk Pirate-Drakk is offline
Major General
Pirate
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive Summer Campaign 
Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Real Name: S. Krause
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: East Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 2,671
Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300] Pirate-Drakk is on a distinguished road [300]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
"Again, the quote itself has the ice-melt being caused by perturbations in the orbit of Mars, which would bring it closer to the sun, causing the melt.
Here is a link going into further depth on this issue: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm"
I'll let Doc debunk the rest of your post but because I happen to know a few things about outer space I will comment on this statement.

The orbits of Mars and Earth have not changed significantly for many millions of years.

How much energy does it take to move a planet and how do you apply that force? Solar wind? Maybe in a million years but not in three or ten. Ridiculous statement.


From the quoted article:
"...we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth."

This statement is also incorrect. Our ability to accurately monitor the Solar Flux over the entire surface of the Earth is limited to a few discrete sampling locations that are assumed to be representative for the entire globe. Huge assumption. Just correcting those numbers for the atmosphere is error prone as we don't have good data on the atmospheres vertical profile except at discrete locations where it is occasionally measured by a weather balloon.

These locations are not the same in most cases so "estimates" and "fudge factors" dominate the data. Satellites help but they also have limitations.


Therefore, the statement above is pretty much BS. This was even more true 30 years ago when the whole global warming fad began.

The Sun dominates the global climate. It's as simple as night and day and summer and winter. Those temperature variations are huge compared to "global warming/cooling" changes of a few degrees. Think about it....
__________________
Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

Last edited by Pirate-Drakk; 09 Feb 15 at 00:53..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09 Feb 15, 10:20
Mountain Man's Avatar
Mountain Man Mountain Man is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado Rocky Mts, USA
Posts: 68,787
Mountain Man has disabled reputation
Climatology has as much credibility as Scientology, period.

And since none of us can do anything at all about it, is has just as little relevance.
__________________
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09 Feb 15, 10:23
OpanaPointer's Avatar
OpanaPointer OpanaPointer is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 11,682
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09 Feb 15, 10:40
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,955
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
Climatology has as much credibility as Scientology, period.

And since none of us can do anything at all about it, is has just as little relevance.
Climatology: the scientific study of climate. Those who study the climate are not credible? It is impossible to study the climate of planet Earth?

As for humans being incapable of changing the climate: global warming aside, what about nuclear winter?

Plant life affects the amount of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere. Could not humans, with their massive industry, not also make a 'contribution?'

Did you ever hear this argument: the Mongol Empire, through clearing large portions of Eurasia of human civilization, allowed widespread reforestation to occur and therefore cooled the planet? (Essentially the opposite effect of what scientists are saying is occurring with the Rain Forests today, and what happened in the Americas when settlers cleared the forests for farmland.)

The Mongols, so the argument goes, allowed enough vegetation to regrow that 700 million tons of Carbon were sucked from the atmosphere (or about the same amount the world produces from gasoline combustion on a yearly basis).

Since I know I'm going to get called out on this, here is the link: http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0120-hance_mongols.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #21  
Old 09 Feb 15, 10:50
OpanaPointer's Avatar
OpanaPointer OpanaPointer is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 11,682
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
It's all about the money for some folks.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09 Feb 15, 11:10
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is offline
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,592
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
Climatology: the scientific study of climate. Those who study the climate are not credible? It is impossible to study the climate of planet Earth?
He is the poster child for the Ignore List feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian
As for humans being incapable of changing the climate: global warming aside, what about nuclear winter?
We haven't actually done that yet.

Humans absolutely do play some role in climate change. Land use changes, aerosol emissions and greenhouse gas emissions all play some unquantifiable role in climate change. However, the fact is that recently observed climate changes do not deviate from the natural climate variability of the past 10,000 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian
Plant life affects the amount of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere. Could not humans, with their massive industry, not also make a 'contribution?'
It can. However, the sum total of all anthropogenic carbon emissions is far less than the margin of error in estimating the natural carbon cycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian
Did you ever hear this argument: the Mongol Empire, through clearing large portions of Eurasia of human civilization, allowed widespread reforestation to occur and therefore cooled the planet? (Essentially the opposite effect of what scientists are saying is occurring with the Rain Forests today, and what happened in the Americas when settlers cleared the forests for farmland.)

The Mongols, so the argument goes, allowed enough vegetation to regrow that 700 million tons of Carbon were sucked from the atmosphere (or about the same amount the world produces from gasoline combustion on a yearly basis).

Since I know I'm going to get called out on this, here is the link: http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0120-hance_mongols.html
Sounds like Ruddiman, 2003.

Way back when Al Gore invented Gorebal Warming, the climate sensitivity was assumed to be about 4.5° C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. This model failed. Since then it has been assumed to be around 3° C per doubling. These models all failed.

Dozens of recent papers have demonstrated from empirical data that the sensitivity is between 0.5° and 2° C.

A climate sensitivity of 2° C means that we don't really have to do anything to avert a disaster that will or won't happen sometime in the future, irrespective of what we do today, tomorrow or 100 years from now.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09 Feb 15, 12:23
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,955
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
If someone wishes to block me, that is their decision. I will not be offended.

As for the temperature ranges measured over the past decades, the point is not that they are 'higher than ever before,' it is that the rate at which the temperature is increasing is abnormal relative to the climate cycles of the past: what in the past took much longer, now occurs in a few decades.

Of course the earth has been much warmer in the past. Millions of years ago, the planet had a hotter climate, and possessed far more 'greenhouse gasses' than it does now. However, the life on that planet was also far different. The environment would not be as hospitable to the life that exists now.

As I posted earlier, we are in a 'warm period' between ice age glacial retreats. In about 10,000 to 15,000 years, the glaciers will return, no matter what we do short of altering the Earth's orbit. However, by continuing on our destructive course, we:

-Expose ourselves to more solar radiation (ozone depletion)

-Inflict massive damage on the biosphere, and harm countless other species

-Increase pollutants in the environment, which will eventually make their way back to our own bodies

-Lead to more extreme weather patterns influenced by the warmer temperature

-Acidify the oceans, and over time actually cause global cooling due to decreased sea turnover and consequent weakened currents.

Also, I want to thank everyone here for the intelligent and reasonable posts thus far. A lot of threads I have previously seen on this topic all too often would have degenerate into pointless flame wars by now. At least here, we seem to be above such behavior. Let's keep up this civilized debate
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09 Feb 15, 13:09
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is offline
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,592
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
If someone wishes to block me, that is their decision. I will not be offended.
I was suggesting that you would be missing nothing if you blocked him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheBarbarian
As for the temperature ranges measured over the past decades, the point is not that they are 'higher than ever before,' it is that the rate at which the temperature is increasing is abnormal relative to the climate cycles of the past: what in the past took much longer, now occurs in a few decades.

Of course the earth has been much warmer in the past. Millions of years ago, the planet had a hotter climate, and possessed far more 'greenhouse gasses' than it does now. However, the life on that planet was also far different. The environment would not be as hospitable to the life that exists now.

As I posted earlier, we are in a 'warm period' between ice age glacial retreats. In about 10,000 to 15,000 years, the glaciers will return, no matter what we do short of altering the Earth's orbit. However, by continuing on our destructive course, we:

-Expose ourselves to more solar radiation (ozone depletion)

-Inflict massive damage on the biosphere, and harm countless other species

-Increase pollutants in the environment, which will eventually make their way back to our own bodies

-Lead to more extreme weather patterns influenced by the warmer temperature

-Acidify the oceans, and over time actually cause global cooling due to decreased sea turnover and consequent weakened currents.

Also, I want to thank everyone here for the intelligent and reasonable posts thus far. A lot of threads I have previously seen on this topic all too often would have degenerate into pointless flame wars by now. At least here, we seem to be above such behavior. Let's keep up this civilized debate
The rate of warming since ~1978 was no different than the rate of warming from ~1910 to 1945...




The recent warming was totally nonanomalous relative to changes of the prior 2,000 years...



Which were unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations...



For further reading...

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...&postcount=456

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...2&postcount=21

Last edited by The Doctor; 09 Feb 15 at 13:18..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09 Feb 15, 14:11
Savez's Avatar
Savez Savez is offline
General
United_States
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gallant
Posts: 5,029
Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300] Savez is on a distinguished road [300]
And once again, global warming is and remains a myth.
__________________
They defend [the war's] integrity from the evasions of those who insist that the South fought for something other than slavery; they protect it from those who emphasize the North's narrow self-interest. Such myths may be comforting.
Edward Ayers
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09 Feb 15, 15:48
OpanaPointer's Avatar
OpanaPointer OpanaPointer is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 11,682
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800] OpanaPointer gives and gets respect [800]
I'll check back in a hundred years and see who's right.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09 Feb 15, 16:06
Scupio's Avatar
Scupio Scupio is offline
Captain
UK
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 773
Scupio is on the path to success [1-99] Scupio is on the path to success [1-99] Scupio is on the path to success [1-99] Scupio is on the path to success [1-99] Scupio is on the path to success [1-99] Scupio is on the path to success [1-99] Scupio is on the path to success [1-99]
I don't care about whether is or is not global warming. I am interested in the history not the science.

Doc - I am interested in your second graph Ljungvist graph for the "migration period" and correlation with movement of peoples in the collapsing Roman Empire.

So I looked up HADCRUT3 as well - and came across this graph from UK Met Office (contributor to HADCRUT). Seems that there has been an increase over the last 150 years (1 to 2 degrees) as shown below:
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09 Feb 15, 17:23
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is offline
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,592
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scupio View Post
I don't care about whether is or is not global warming. I am interested in the history not the science.

Doc - I am interested in your second graph Ljungvist graph for the "migration period" and correlation with movement of peoples in the collapsing Roman Empire.
My recollection is that they correlate fairly well. FWIW, F. C. Ljungqvist is a Medieval historian. He published his first climate reconstruction while working on his PhD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scupio
So I looked up HADCRUT3 as well - and came across this graph from UK Met Office (contributor to HADCRUT). Seems that there has been an increase over the last 150 years (1 to 2 degrees) as shown below:[IMG...IMG]
The graph is only for the Northern Hemisphere.

HadCRUT3 & 4 are very similar. The UK Met Office provides the sea surface temperature reconstruction (HadSST) and the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit provides the land reconstruction (CRUTEM).



The slopes for the early and late 20th century warming periods are nearly identical...



This is consistent with a low amplitude ~60-yr climate cycle convolved with a higher amplitude millennial scale climate cycle...
The Late Holocene climate has been characterized by millennial scale cycle with a period of ~1,000 years and amplitude of ~0.5 °C.



Figures 7 & 8. Both Moberg and Ljungqvist clearly demonstrate the millennial scale climate cycle.


These cycles even have names…


Figure 9. Ljungqvist with climatic period nomenclature.


These cycles have been long recognized by Quaternary geologists…


Figure 10. The millennial scale climate cycle can clearly be traced back to the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the onset of the Neoglaciation.


Fourier analysis of the GISP2 ice core clearly demonstrates that the millennial scale climate cycle is the dominant signal in the Holocene (Davis & Bohling, 2001). It is pervasive throughout the Holocene (Bond et al., 1997).


Figure 11. The Holocene climate has been dominated by a millennial scale climate cycle.


The industrial era climate has not changed in any manner inconsistent with the well-established natural millennial scale cycle. Assuming that the ice core CO2 is reliable, the modern rise in CO2 has had little, if any effect on climate…


Figure 12. Why would CO2 suddenly start driving climate change in the 19th century?



Last edited by The Doctor; 09 Feb 15 at 17:42..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09 Feb 15, 17:23
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is offline
General of the Forums
Pirate
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 46,592
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Continued...

While the climate may have warmed by 0.2 to 0.4 °C more than what might be expected to occur in a 100% natural warming phase of the millennial cycle, all of the apparent excess warming may very well be due to resolution differences between the instrumental and proxy data…


Figure 13. Ljungqvist demonstrates that the modern warming has not unambiguously exceeded the range of natural variability. The bold black dashed line is the instrumental record. I added The red lines to highlight the margin of error.


According to Ljungqvist…
The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1-300, reaching up to the 1961-1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300-800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300-1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961-1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself.
[...]
The proxy reconstruction itself does not show such an unprecedented warming but we must consider that only a few records used in the reconstruction extend into the 1990s. Nevertheless, a very cautious interpretation of the level of warmth since AD 1990 compared to that of the peak warming during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period is strongly suggested.
[...]
The amplitude of the temperature variability on multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed here should presumably be considered to be the minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.
Ljungqvist is recommending caution in comparing the modern instrumental record to the older proxy reconstructions because the proxy data are of much lower resolution. The proxy data are showing the “minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.” The instrumental data are depicting something closer to actual variability. Even then, the instrumental record doesn’t exceed the margin of error for the proxy data during the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. With a great deal of confidence, perhaps even 67%, it can be concluded that at least half, perhaps all, of the modern warming is the result of quasi-periodic natural climate fluctuations (AKA cycles).

[...]

The Gorebots assume that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is 3 +/- 1.5 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 (280 to 560 ppmv).

James Hansen's infamous and spectacularly wrong 1988 climate model used 4.5 °C...



Figure 15. Hansen’s 1988 falsification of AGW.


~3.0 °C hasn’t worked out so well either…


Figure 16. Hansen’s falsification of AGW has been reconfirmed at least 102 times. Einstein was apparently wrong when he said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Of course, Einstein was unaware of Trenberth’s reversal of the null hypothesis… So, we’ll give him a pass.





All of the recent observation-derived climate sensitivity estimates put the total warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 between 0.5 and 2.0 °C.If I cross plot the high resolution DE-08 ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica against Moberg, I get an ECS of about 1.9 °C with a fairly good correlation. The earlier (deeper and lower resolution) ice cores are poorly correlated with temperatures at millennial scale resolution (see this post for more details).


Figure 17. A cross plot of the Moberg reconstruction against the DE-08 ice core CO2 yields an ECS of ~1.9 °C.


However, this assumes that all of the warming is anthropogenic… At least half of the warming is highly likely to be natural, yielding an ECS of about 1 °C (the assumed radiative forcing with neutral feedbacks). If at least half of the rise in CO2 is natural, as demonstrated by plant stomata, then the total anthropogenic component is about 0.5 °C. There simply is no scientific basis to predict more than 2 °C of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (280 to 560 ppmv). Therefore there is no scientific basis to forecast any effects from more than 2 °C of warming…



Figure 18. Move along… There’s nothing to see here.

[...]

The Little Ice Age was quite possibly the coldest phase of the Holocene since the 8.2 KYA Cooling Event. The LIA was characterized by maximum glacial advances and the most extensive sea ice coverage since the onset of the Neoglaciation (end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum).


Figure 19. The Little Ice Age.may have been the coldest climatic period of the past 8,200 years.


While volcanic forcing may have played a role in the coldness of the LIA, it was clearly a.cyclical cooling event. Much, if not all, of the warming since the late 16th century is clearly part of a millennial climate cycle.

[...]

All of the “global warming” from ~1600 AD through 2000 AD barely brought the climate back to “normal.”

[...]

See: A Geological Perspective on Lovejoy’s 99% Solution for full article.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09 Feb 15, 18:42
BobTheBarbarian's Avatar
BobTheBarbarian BobTheBarbarian is offline
Colonel
United_States
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,955
BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200] BobTheBarbarian is walking in the light [200]
Not so fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor
Figure 11. The Holocene climate has been dominated by a millennial scale climate cycle.


The industrial era climate has not changed in any manner inconsistent with the well-established natural millennial scale cycle. Assuming that the ice core CO2 is reliable, the modern rise in CO2 has had little, if any effect on climate…
The current, post industrial revolution temperature increase IS an anomaly relative to the 'recent' historical climate cycles. While the temperature itself is not abnormal relative to past peaks, the rate at which we have arrived here is.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page3.php

From your previous posts, you are undoubtedly familiar with the method of sampling the contents of air bubbles in extracted ice cores in order to determine the makeup of the atmosphere throughout history. From these ice cores, we have obtained roughly ~800,000 years of atmospheric data from the late Calambrian stage all the way to the time of Christ. The resulting graph appears as follows:



Nothing unusual here, right? A fairly regular pattern of climate cycles can be easily observed.

Now for more recent times:



Notice the sudden spike in temperature reading starting at about 1900. This is where we come in. The temperature spike, as can be observed, is close to vertical as the graph nears the year 2000.

Quote:
As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
If nothing is done, it will only get faster:
Quote:
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
Even the graph displaying the warming trends of the 20th century contains a telling bit of information:



Starting at around 1940 AD, the rise in temperature was suddenly interrupted, and would not pick up again until almost two decades later. Only something as dramatic as the widespread halting of greenhouse gas production (say, from a mysterious 'shutdown' of a large portion of human industry and infrastructure) could have produced this result.

Now, what happened to human civilization starting at around 1940 AD?

Then there's still the matter of the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. All joking aside, if manmade climate change were so easily debunked, then why have the major industrial powers behaved, and why do they continue to behave, in a manner that is fundamentally detrimental to industry? Factories demolished, oil and natural gas projects curtailed, investment in alternative energy, et cetera...

One would think that if manmade climate change is a myth or hoax, then it would have stayed on the scientific fringe, instead of having a significant impact on the energy and industrial sectors of the economies of not only Europe and the United States, but also nations such as China, which is often at odds with the US over a number of issues.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-warming/?_r=0

China destroys factories to cut down on air pollution:

http://nypost.com/2014/03/06/china-d...-on-pollution/

The loss of the factories resulted in nearly 4,000 workers getting laid off.
So climate change is nothing to worry about? The rest of the world doesn't think so. The only ones who would benefit from denial of manmade climate change would be the major corporations, specifically those dealing in fossil fuels, that lose revenue and run into countless jungles of red tape because of increased environmental restrictions. Even so, cutting down on pollutants and taking better care of the environment would make for a better planet regardless of the global warming "debate."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:45.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.