-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You still don't understand that the global mean temperature anomaly is based on the years used to base the average. If you use a different set of years from another set, this will produce different numbers for the anomaly. This is what I've been trying to get through to you, and you can't grasp it. Many data sets use the 1981-2010 30-year range to define the climate normal. Some are updating to 1991-2020 to determine the climate normal. Spencer and Christy just updated to the new climate range. But depending on your research, you can choose any set of years to study and examine the departure from the "normal" that you defined. The Danish Meteorological Institute uses 1958-2002 to define the Arctic temperature mean.
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Danmarks Meteorologiske Instituts hjemmeside for marin informationocean.dmi.dk
??? No... if that were true then they wouldn't have roughly the same value in 1979 and they would have the same slope. They have the same value in 1979 then diverge... => it's not just that they have a different definition of 'normal'. They're different datasets.
Regardless.... you're trying to suggest that there's ~no warming... yes? Ok... if there's no warming then why are sea levels rising? Yeah.... we're 'still in the Holocene interglacial period according to Greenland ice core data' blah, blah, blah... what physical mechanism is causing sea levels to rise if there is no warming? How can sea levels be rising as much as they are if not due to thermal expansion? How can there be enough thermal expansion to cause sea levels to rise if there's ~no warming?
Last edited:
I saw a great climate change debate between Dr. Gerald North of Texas A&M University and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT back in 2010. I got my schooling in forcing and feedback by attending that debate. The doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a temperature increase of 1 deg. C. That is the forcing. The feedback is what the extra water vapor in the atmosphere does after the temperature rise. And this is where the scientific debate on climate change is all about. The global warming alarmists claim the water vapor will absorb more IR radiation from the earth, thus warming the earth more with a positive feedback. The increasing water vapor leads to more heat trapping, which leads to more water vapor, and on and on. Dr. Lindzen countered this idea with the fact that greater water vapor content leads to more clouds, which increases the albedo of the earth, thus reflecting sunlight back out into space. This is a negative feedback. Lindzen pointed out that if this positive feedback idea exists in nature, we never would have survived when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was considerably higher than what it is today.
I don't need any lectures from my fellow Tesla owners about human-caused global warming, because there is very little of it.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Works in both directions. What's warmer? A clear night or a cloudy night? The consensus is that cloud feedback is almost certainly positive not negative overall.
So you acknowledge that CO2 DOES have a warming effect? What is the 1C based on? Seems pretty clear that climate sensitivity is significantly higher that 1C for a doubling of CO2. 180ppm => 280ppm is ~7C. There are other feedbacks in addition to water vapor such as albedo.
And when was CO2 concentration higher that it is today? It's higher now than it has been in ~10M years.
If you can show Dr. Spencer used a different data set from the one he claimed he used, he would be fired from UAH. Every atmospheric scientist in America and the world would feast on Spencer if he did that. Spencer gets his funding from NASA, NOAA, and DOE. They would all withhold funds from UAH if Spencer pulled a stunt like that. So go ahead. Get on Spencer's web page and tell everybody how he faked a data set. Use that goofy little red line graph of yours. See how far you will go with that.
You also said that others have called out Spencer's shoddy work. Who - you??!! NASA, NOAA, and DOE sure as heck don't agree with you!
What is cooler - a cloudy day or clear day? What do you consider to be a greater source of heat - the earth or the sun?
How Humidity Affects Heating and Cooling - Energy Forums
Humidity greatly affects the cost of heating and cooling. Learn why. Get tips to improve comfort and save money on energy whether humidity is high or low.
energyforums.net
Oh, it does not feel that much hotter, says the frog. LOL
Oh, look, statement from NASA. No reference to the good dr. They need to revoke his award.
LOL
Clouds and Global Warming
High, cold clouds radiate less thermal energy to space than low, warm clouds.
For those who are unable to comprehend clouds, NASA has a good kids page explaining it all.
How Do Clouds Affect Earth’s Climate?
In general, clouds help Earth cool off — but that isn’t the whole story. Read on to learn more about how clouds affect climate!
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
LOL! So.... you think 0.4C = 0.8C? If he's using the correct number for the 2018 anomaly.... why not just show me the correct number for the 2018 anomaly? What's the ERSSTv5 anomaly for 2018? Is it 0.4C or 0.8C? Nobody cared enough to fix an ovvious typo.... clearly no one cares about the accuracy of his nonsense...
Spencer hasn't been on the any government payroll since ~2007. They have no reason to care about what he does.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Like I said... works both way. Clouds 'burn off' during the day, not so much at night and the remaining humidity still traps heat just fine.
Every reputable organization has concluded that H2O has a net warming effect. Water vapor is a positive feedback. It's responsible for >50% of the positive climate forcing and more CO2 in the atmosphere means more H2O in the atmosphere.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
While true I think the point being made is if the surrounding sea ice collapses that will allow the land based ice it surrounds to start flowing into the sea.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Funny how just a few posts previous you were saying CO2 does not increase temperatures and that it follows temperature increases. You don't even agree with yourself.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
There's legitimate debate surrounding how much of a positive forcing effect water vapor has but not over whether this IS a positive forcing effect.
NASA will not revoke the awards given to Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer because their contributions to science overwhelms what you little pipsqueaks say about them.Oh, look, statement from NASA. No reference to the good dr. They need to revoke his award.
LOL
Clouds and Global Warming
High, cold clouds radiate less thermal energy to space than low, warm clouds.earthobservatory.nasa.gov
For those who are unable to comprehend clouds, NASA has a good kids page explaining it all.
How Do Clouds Affect Earth’s Climate?
In general, clouds help Earth cool off — but that isn’t the whole story. Read on to learn more about how clouds affect climate!climatekids.nasa.gov
NASA, DOE, and NOAA funds UAH research. Spencer works for UAH. Your attempts to discredit Spencer are becoming fainter and fainter.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Why can't you find ERSSTv5 data the actually matches Spencers overlay of ERSSTv5 data?
Similar threads
- Article
