Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[jrad6515]

Since jrad ran away (but still lurking as I see his voting), would you like to join me on doing actual science on climate data? I’ve got data sets in Tableau and we can validate or invalidate studies that you find suspect.

Drawing regression lines in Excel might get one a passing grade in 9th grade science, but I am interested in real analysis here.

Without doing the work, one really can’t claim to know better than those who have.

I would be interested in serious debate on any specific scientific topic pertaining to AGW but I'm out as soon as I receive the first ad hominem attack or condescending insult. It has been my experience here and elsewhere that that will occur within the first 1 or 2 serious data-centric posts that I make. So if you want to start a scientific discussion go ahead but if I suddenly disappear you will know why. I have better things to do than trade insults with self-righteous or close-minded folks.

 

[jrad6515]

Your exaggerations make it difficult to have actual discourse.

There were a couple of papers in the 70s which hypothesized that we were headed into the next ice age, in 1000 years or so.

You mean in addition to the nearly 300 papers referenced here that hypothesized incipient global cooling, imminent or otherwise back in the 70's?:

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs

I was studying life sciences in the mid 70's and there most definitely was a consensus favoring global cooling at the time. I bought it and was wrong. Even NASA and the CIA were on board. They were wrong too. I think the same thing is going on now with all the AGW hysteria. Unfortunately we won't know for another thousand years or so what the right answer is.

 

[nwdiver]

I would be interested in serious debate on any specific scientific topic pertaining to AGW but I'm out as soon as I receive the first ad hominem attack or condescending insult. It has been my experience here and elsewhere that that will occur within the first 1 or 2 serious data-centric posts that I make. So if you want to start a scientific discussion go ahead but if I suddenly disappear you will know why. I have better things to do than trade insults with self-righteous or close-minded folks.

The thesis of AGW is simple. The increased radiative balance due to increased CO2 is causing the globe to warm. Reduce CO2 you reduce warming. CO2 emissions are still increasing.

The thesis for Global Cooling was simple. The decreased radiative balance due to increasing SO2 is causing the globe to cool. Reduce SO2 and you reduce cooling. We reduced our SO2 emissions.

How does any of that opposed reality????

 

[S'toon]

October was a hot month. Just how hot? According to data released Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), last month was the second hottest October ever recorded since 1880 when data collection began.

So far, 2018 has been the fourth hottest year on record.

According to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, October 2018 marks the 42nd consecutive October, and the “406th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.”

In fact, no record cold temperatures were seen anywhere in the world last month, according to NOAA. Instead, record warm temperatures were seen everywhere from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans to Alaska, Russia, Australia, and central Africa.

<snip>

Full article at:
https://thinkprogress.org/global-te...average-for-406-months-in-a-row-5d32b5faba51/

 

[Chopr147]

Without doing the work, one really can’t claim to know better than those who have.

Never did. That's why I said "disagree"

Your exaggerations make it difficult to have actual discourse.

Not an exaggeration. It was talked about, opined about and networks then ran stories often in the 70's

BUT, do not have the time, patience or desire to have this argument, yet again.

I'm not looking to change minds here but at least I was not called several insulting names.......yet, so thank you.

 

[JRP3]

Your basic premise seems to be that since one possible outcome did not happen all projections must be wrong. It's also been explained to you exactly what happened to change that specific outcome from happening. Are you incapable of understanding why that occurred?

 

[S'toon]

Concentrations of key gases in the atmosphere that are driving up global temperatures reached a new high in 2017.

In their annual greenhouse gas bulletin, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says there is no sign of reversal in this rising trend.

Carbon dioxide levels reached 405 parts per million (ppm) in 2017, a level not seen in 3-5 million years.

Researchers also note the resurgence of a banned gas called CFC-11.

Concentrations differ from emissions in that they represent what remains in the atmosphere after some of the gases are absorbed by the seas, land and trees.

Since 1990 the warming impact of these long lived gases on the climate has increased by 41%.

2017 continues the rise in concentrations of CO2 which are now 46% greater than the levels in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution.

The increase from 2016 to 2017 was smaller than the rise from 2015 to 2016, but is close to the average growth rate seen over the last decade.

The scientists at the WMO believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now hasn't been seen in a long, long time.

"The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5 million years ago, when the temperature was 2-3C warmer and sea level was 10-20 metres higher than now," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

<snip>

Full article at:
Greenhouse gas levels at new record high

 

[ohmman]

I would be interested in serious debate on any specific scientific topic pertaining to AGW but I'm out as soon as I receive the first ad hominem attack or condescending insult. It has been my experience here and elsewhere that that will occur within the first 1 or 2 serious data-centric posts that I make. So if you want to start a scientific discussion go ahead but if I suddenly disappear you will know why. I have better things to do than trade insults with self-righteous or close-minded folks.

I made a courteous offer earlier in this thread. I did my research, downloaded data sets, and prepared everything for collaborative work. You bailed.

If you're interested, I still have the data sets available (and more) and I'm happy to work with you. Perhaps you can start by telling us how you account for instrumentation bias in your readings.

 

[ohmman]

NOAA's October Climate Report has some interesting points about the global climate, including:

• October 2018 was the second hottest October on record.
• The 10 warmest October global land and ocean surface temperatures have occurred since 2003, with the last five years (2014-2018) comprising the five warmest Octobers on record.
• YTD global land and ocean temperatures are the fourth highest on record.

Assessing the Global Climate in October 2018

<edit to note that this is the source for the piece that @S'toon posted above>

 

[nwdiver]

New climate assessment is out. The Cheeto-in-chief can deny reality but he can't change it.

Prediction: People that accept reality will keep accepting reality. People that believe the earth is flat will keep believing the earth is flat. Humanity is pathetic. Nothing changes.......

 

[JRP3]

Humanity is pathetic.

Actually only a minority percentage: Americans Who Accept Climate Change Outnumber Those Who Don’t 5 to 1

 

[nwdiver]

Actually only a minority percentage: Americans Who Accept Climate Change Outnumber Those Who Don’t 5 to 1

'Accepting' it but being unwilling to do anything about it is effectively the same as denial.....

 

[JRP3]

No, easier to motivate them when more accessible options arrive if they aren't fundamentally in denial of the basic concept.

 

[nwdiver]

No, easier to motivate them when more accessible options arrive if they aren't fundamentally in denial of the basic concept.

Agreed... unfortunately by the time we have options that cost nothing and take no effort it will be too late. People suck.

 

[SDRick]

Agreed... unfortunately by the time we have options that cost nothing and take no effort it will be too late. People suck.

Too late for what?

Yes, I agree, people suck, but it is better than the alternative.
(I say this in the same vein as I would say "getting old sucks, but it beats the alternative".

 

[Merrill]

I think he means for the future generations, I’m to old so probably will not be around to see what it might be like to live on this planet.

 

[Unpilot]

It is interesting to ponder how much responsibility one feels to future generations. I have a son who I feel responsible for. He may or may not have children if he does and I live to see my grandchildren I assume I will feel some responsibility for them. How far into the future does one go?

If we accept that our actions has consequences for those who follow it stands to reason we should take actions to at the very least not makes life harder for them.

 

[alloverx]

I heard someone say the best thing to do for the environment is not to have children.

 

[SageBrush]

Too late for what?

Too late to hold climate change to anywhere near 2C warming.

 

[jrad6515]

I made a courteous offer earlier in this thread. I did my research, downloaded data sets, and prepared everything for collaborative work. You bailed.

If you're interested, I still have the data sets available (and more) and I'm happy to work with you. Perhaps you can start by telling us how you account for instrumentation bias in your readings.

For sure there are some instrumentation biases in the data that are not that big. They were also present before the big global cooling scare in the 70's. They pale in comparison to the warming biases in climate station data due to poor siting and UHI effects. Whatever the case, virtually all of the warming over the last century is man-made - i.e. scientists fiddling with the data. The govt's unmanipulated raw data, which I have posted, shows virtually no warming since the late 1800's. CO2 of course has increased significantly during this period of little/no warming.

Here is a great summary of the corrupt data tampering by NASA/NOAA in recent years:

History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog