Any doubts about Climate Change?

**kingwilly** · 18-10-2016, 06:10 AM

How the fuck is this thread still going? It's like the 9/11 conspiracy thread... just let the nutters mutter. No normal person believes it.

**S Landreth** · 18-10-2016, 12:14 PM

NASA’s September 2016 number

NASA Analysis Finds Warmest September on Record By Narrow Margin - September 2016 was the warmest September in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

__________

NOAA’s September 2016 ranking,…..

__________

September 2016 - JMA

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in September 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.42°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.74°C above the 20th century average), and was the 2nd warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.64°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015 (+0.51°C), 2nd. 2016 (+0.42°C), 3rd. 2014 (+0.35°C), 4th. 2013 (+0.26°C), 5th. 2012 (+0.25°C)

____________

This is going to be a lengthy post because it is a review of a new study that purposely debunks two favorite science deniers myths.

A new study has just appeared in the Journal of Climate which deals with an issue commonly raised by those who deny that human-caused climate change is a serious risk. As I have written many times, we know humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change. We know this for many reasons.

First, we know that certain gases trap heat; this fact is indisputable. Second, we know that humans have significantly increased the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Again, this is indisputable. Third, we know the Earth is warming (again indisputable). We know the Earth warms because we are actually measuring the warming rate in multiple different ways. Those measurements are in good agreement with each other.

Of course there is other evidence too. For instance, ice loss across the globe is widespread: in the Arctic, the Antarctic ice shelves, Greenland, and from land glaciers. Sea levels are rising as warm water expands in volume and as melt waters flow into the ocean. We are also seeing changes of weather patterns and climatic zones shift. The point is, there is a whole body of evidence that proves the climate is changing and the change is caused largely by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Over the years, contrarians have looked for evidence that the climate either isn’t changing or the change is not as fast as predicted. Their findings have often been used in the media to suggest that human-caused climate change was not something to worry about. But we’ve seen, over and over and over again, that these contrarian arguments don’t hold up.

Repeatedly, mainstream scientists have taken these claims seriously and discovered they were just plain wrong. In some cases, the contrarians have made simple arithmetic errors (like mixing up a negative and positive sign in their equations), while in others, they have made more fundamental errors. But regardless, they have been wrong time after time. But whenever they are found to be wrong, they just go and find some new piece of evidence that once again calls into doubt our understanding of the human-climate link.

One contrarian argument has appeared repeatedly over the past few years, even at a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce held by Ted Cruz in 2015. The claim was by well-known contrarian John Christy. Christy claimed that the mid-troposphere temperatures (temperatures in approximately the middle of the atmosphere) are rising three times faster in climate models when compared with measurements. Another related claim is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the troposphere (lower part of the atmosphere) for 18 years.

Now, both of these facts, even if they were true, would not prove much. We know the Earth is warming because of measurements in oceans, underground, and at the Earth’s surface. But it would open a question as to why the atmosphere is behaving differently.

The recent paper just published looked at these two claims. The authors found errors in the analysis that, when corrected, debunked the contrarian claims. Let me explain some of the science.

First, these atmospheric temperatures are measured by satellites which can “see” the temperature of gases in the atmosphere. It works differently from a thermometer but regardless, such measurements are possible. These measurements have a lot of uncertainty.

First of all, as the Earth warms from greenhouse gases, the upper part of the atmosphere should cool down. A simplistic but appropriate description is that greenhouse gases hold the heat down toward the Earth, making the upper atmosphere cooler. Since the satellites see both the upper and lower parts of the atmosphere, the cooling upper region may contaminate the measurements of the warming lower part of the atmosphere.

A second source of uncertainty is that the satellites themselves are not perfect. When satellites are launched, they orbit the Earth for a number of years until they are replaced by new satellites. The data, which goes back to 1979, is actually stitched together from multiple satellites in sequence. No two satellites are completely identical – sort of like no two thermometers will give exactly the same temperature. These differences have to be rectified and are another source of error.

Additionally, the satellites change while they are in orbit, in particular they lose altitude and their orbiting time drifts (the time they pass certain global locations drifts later and later in the day). Both of these facts contaminate the measurements and must be accounted for. There are other accuracy issues as well that space doesn’t permit discussion, but you get the point.

So, this recent paper did a few things. First, they took the contrarian argument that the mid-troposphere temperatures have been rising at only 1/3 the rate predicted by models. They found that Christy’s team neglected the contamination of the cooling in the upper stratosphere. When they applied this correction, they found that Christy’s claim was incorrect. Differences between modeled and observed warming rates were much smaller, and had known explanations.

Next, the authors asked whether it is true that there has been no warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) in the past 18 years. They found that for five of the six groups that provide satellite temperature analysis, this claim was also incorrect.

Finally, they asked whether it is true that the temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are in disagreement in models and measurements. Their result is that when temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are compared, one of three satellite records is in close agreement with the climate models.

While this paper largely debunks the most current contrarian mainstay, it doesn’t answer all of our questions. For instance, exactly how accurate are these satellite measurements and how can they be made better? Do the models capture all of the thermal processes which are occurring, especially in the middle and upper layer of the atmosphere? Why does there appear to be a small difference in the satellites and the model predictions in the middle of the atmosphere? Is this difference important?

These questions can be answered, but a prerequisite is a continuation of high-quality data from satellites. This means a continued commitment to launching new measurement satellites as the current fleet ages.

____________

Goodbye, HFCs: the world just took one of the biggest steps yet to fight global warming

Climate change will never get solved in a single flourish. If the world’s nations are ever going to stop the planet from warming unbearably, they’ll have do so step by step, pushing down emissions across a dizzying variety of sectors and sources.

On Saturday, the world quietly took one of those steps — and it was a crucial one. In fact, this was one of the single biggest measures ever taken to address global warming.

At a United Nations conference in Rwanda, 197 nations agreed to drastically reduce their use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), an obscure but extremely powerful greenhouse gas used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and foams.

____________

PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume

____________

Originally Posted by pulvarien

the latest pew research poll

There is still work to be done (see above) but the awareness campaign seems to be working (from the low of the 2010).

_____________

Originally Posted by kingwilly

CO2 is a trace level gas, 50% increase or 100% sounds big, but tell me what percentage of the atmosphere it is?
It's just silly to blame one trace level gas in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Global warming is not the issue

Originally Posted by pulvarien

the sun is shining

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by blue

Am I thick...

For you science deniers, from Michael Mann who (with his story) inspired me to start this thread. Stefan Rahmstorf also shows up in the video.

you science deniers will see this video from time to time. I don’t have the time nor the patience to debunk all of the crazy (non-peer reviewed) babblings/cherry picked articles (see Pew response above)/regurgitated same old debunked tired myths with different titles that show up here and will respond to your posts with the video (above) for the most part.

**Mr Earl** · 18-10-2016, 01:24 PM

Destruction of the planet's environment is the issue. Shape shifting global warming alarmism does not focus on the real problems.

Which are:

The subsidized meat industry.

Petro/plastics/automobile industries.

Corporate agriculture industries.

The whole climate change alarmism serves as a distraction from the real issues.

Heaven forbid, anyone feel uncomfortable eating a steak, or driving a car!

**harrybarracuda** · 18-10-2016, 01:58 PM

You're right Kingwilly, any time there is a sensible scientific post, it's immediately followed by some ranting, dribbling lunatic spouting emotive shite.

**Hugh Cow** · 18-10-2016, 04:08 PM

If we cannot agree whether climate change is natural or man made, we can agree that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also agree that most of that increase is due to man made pollution. We should also be able to agree that regardless of our beliefs on the causes of climate change, reducing pollution which causes CO2 is a good thing. So lets concentrate on ways to reduce carbon pollution and let the science take care of itself.

**Mr Earl** · 18-10-2016, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

If we cannot agree whether climate change is natural or man made, we can agree that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also agree that most of that increase is due to man made pollution. We should also be able to agree that regardless of our beliefs on the causes of climate change, reducing pollution which causes CO2 is a good thing. So lets concentrate on ways to reduce carbon pollution and let the science take care of itself.

The real problem is how the alarmists just quibble and equivocate, without really doing anything significant to change things.

You hear nothing from the media about zero emmissions or how eating less meat would help.
Precious little is talked about renewables like hemp, bamboo, as replacements of plastics and steel.

Why you might ask?

Because the mega corporate interests own the media and hence control the narrative.

It serves them well to put forth the contentious global warming/ climate change debate, when the reality is there are some rather incontestable issues(mentioned above) they would rather not address.

**Norton** · 18-10-2016, 04:54 PM

Climate change or not fossil fuels are finite so only makes sense to find alternatives. 110 years ain't really that long.

"There are an estimated 892 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 110 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 52 and 54 years at current production levels."

Where is coal found? | World Coal Association

**pulvarien** · 18-10-2016, 08:43 PM

OHOH greenies cover your eyes now. At the annual GWPF lecture it was announced that the world has experienced a global greening increase of 14% in the last 30 years. Largely due to Drum roll please, CO2 increase.

This can all be read at thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening.

This has been presented, checked and rechecked. Supported bye dozens of scientists, using satellites a 14 % increase in green cover all over the earth in all terrains all areas. Snow cover over 30 years no change, Cyclones no change, drought down, arctic sea ice down, Antarctic sea ice up, deaths from extreme weather on a massive downward trend.

The argument is over folks the greens have lied, the truth is out, co2 is extremely good for the environment, the world is greening in spite of the greens.

And if that address isn't good enough you can find the article on breitbart.co London section. Titled the royal society climate change lecture the greenies tried to nix.
Yes the greens are actually trying to destroy the environment not fix it, the greens like ive been saying have been taken over bye the extreme left and are the enemy.

**harrybarracuda** · 18-10-2016, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

OHOH greenies cover your eyes now. At the annual GWPF lecture it was announced that the world has experienced a global greening increase of 14% in the last 30 years. Largely due to Drum roll please, CO2 increase.

Another wind and piss "think tank" that just happens to have shared its chairman with the Heartland Institute ... yes, we're back to serial global polluters the Koch brothers.

And fucking morons like you believe every word, because you're too stupid to understand the science (and their lack of it).

Nothing to cover up, only a fucking idiot would swallow that horseshit.

**pulvarien** · 18-10-2016, 09:08 PM

You can tell hard core leftards bye what they do. The 14% green coverage increase in the world in the last 30 years coincides exactly with the 30 years of the global warming scare. And its all due to co2. The Greenmunists are scared. This may be the culminating battle their Stalingrad. The world may now see the corner turned and be saved from the Khmergreen.

They will not go down without a fight, deny deny deny, doesn't do away with the facts.

**harrybarracuda** · 18-10-2016, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

You can tell hard core leftards bye what they do. The 14% green coverage increase in the world in the last 30 years coincides exactly with the 30 years of the global warming scare. And its all due to co2. The Greenmunists are scared. This may be the culminating battle their Stalingrad. The world may now see the corner turned and be saved from the Khmergreen.

They will not go down without a fight, deny deny deny, doesn't do away with the facts.

Repeating the same Koch-funded bollocks is just that, bollocks.

And you're still a gullible fucking idiot.

**pulvarien** · 19-10-2016, 01:56 AM

You can almost smell the fear off them as they try to hide the truth from the masses once again.

**blue** · 19-10-2016, 02:10 AM

**pulvarien** · 19-10-2016, 03:38 AM

The circle of life animals breath in oxygen out co2, plants breathe in co2 out oxygen. The circle of life.

**Hugh Cow** · 19-10-2016, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The real problem is how the alarmists just quibble and equivocate, without really doing anything significant to change things.

They have just finished another talkfest on refrigeration gases. CFCs are basically only available in developing countries. HCFCs are phased out or nearly so in the west. HFCs such as R134a which is in most car a/c systems domestic refrigerators and some commercial refrigeration systems will eventually replaced with low GWP HFOs at this stage. In any case they are credited with about 1% of total CO2 output. This will have virtually no impact but it is the low hanging fruit. The use of statistics should be used with caution. Australia is the biggest emitter per capita, but close to the smallest per square kilometre. This of course is somewhat irrelevant. Australia emits roughly 1% of the worlds CO2 output so whatever Australia does will have virtually no impact on the global CO2 level. This does not mean Australia should do nothing. But without China, India and the USA and to a lesser extent the EU making severe cuts to their emissions the global impact will be next to nothing.This is not possible without some lifestyle changes. I will not double up on Mr Earl's suggestions, a lot of which will need to be seriously considered together with nuclear fuel generation, if we are going to control planet wide pollution.

**harrybarracuda** · 19-10-2016, 11:00 AM

Well from what I can see, manufacturers have seen this coming for a long time and have already developed alternatives.

So basically they've milked it for as long as they can.

Which is why we need regulation.

**Takeovers** · 19-10-2016, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

he circle of life animals breath in oxygen out co2, plants breathe in co2 out oxygen. The circle of life.

Right, that works well. But then humans came along and started burning gargantuan amounts of coal and carbo hydrates.

**Mr Earl** · 19-10-2016, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Which is why we need regulation.

Are you fucking retarded? Government is largely part of the fucking problem.

Big government is big corporate control.. wake the fuck up!

**harrybarracuda** · 19-10-2016, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Which is why we need regulation.

Are you fucking retarded? Government is largely part of the fucking problem.

Big government is big corporate control.. wake the fuck up!

Yes it is if you're fucking dumb enough to vote Republican you teabagger dickhead.

**pulvarien** · 19-10-2016, 08:43 PM

On the site gwpf.com is an interesting article bye the institute for competition at the university of dusseldorf. The article is about how much it is really going to cost for Germany to switch from gas and coal to renewables. Oh the picture isn't pretty. By 2025 Germany will have spent 520 billion euros, or each family 25000 euros and it will hit 1 trillion bye 2030. And guess what its the gift that never stops giving, it will keep sucking money out of the german economy forever at a shocking rate.

In other words the leftwing greenkhmers will have damaged Germanys economy so much that most manufacturing will have been forced to leave for the 3rd world where pollution is ignored and polluting businesses welcomed. World pollution wont go down but up overall, except Germany will begin to look more like a park, no jobs, no future of course but a nice park. The jobs will all have been sent to the 3rd world along with the pollution they create which is the greemunists plan all along, to weaken the west.

The article is detailed read it.

**Mr Earl** · 20-10-2016, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yes it is if you're fucking dumb enough to vote Republican you teabagger dickhead.

Regulate this;

**Jesus Jones** · 20-10-2016, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

How the fuck is this thread still going? It's like the 9/11 conspiracy thread... just let the nutters mutter. No normal person believes it.

"No normal person believes it".The man-man scare mongering while pushing consumerism to max bullshit. Is that what you're saying?

**harrybarracuda** · 20-10-2016, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yes it is if you're fucking dumb enough to vote Republican you teabagger dickhead.

Regulate this;

Kiss this.

**Chico** · 20-10-2016, 07:04 PM

Al Gore wealth 2001 $2 million, 2016 $ 100 million, those fake GreenTech companies he invested in through numerous grants and loans.

**Cold Pizza** · 20-10-2016, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Chico

Al Gore wealth 2001 $2 million, 2016 $ 100 million, those fake GreenTech companies he invested in through numerous grants and loans.

Chico, welcome.

Glad you're here.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions