CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:57 am
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
And this is a lie.

Zipperfish wrote:

Originally, the deniers claimed there was no global warming (or, from some deniers, there was global cooling). As the evidence piled up to the point that even the deniers couldn't deny it with a straight face anymore, they switched to "well of course there's global warming, we never said there wasn't." Which is kind of where this paper is.


I've been telling Zip it's a lie for at least 7 years. There are all sorts of opinions on the fringes of both sides of this debate, but the basic point of the skeptic side has never been there was no warming. It has always been a question of "how much." The question of what they call "climate sensitivity" has always been at the core. 'How fast' would be a part of that.


Yes, you have been pretty much in line with the denier blog What's Up With That in that they are very careful not to deny global warming in theory, they just deny or lambaste every single manifestation of global warming. This is because the denier movement was never supposed to be a scientific refutation of global warming, it was supposed to be a disinformation campaign.

The basic denier stance is "There's no global warming, and if there is global warming it's not because of people and if it is because of people it's no big deal anyway."


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:00 pm
 


Image

..and the necessary recent temperature record.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63269
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:08 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Image

..and the necessary recent temperature record.


A-yuh. The current temperatures are skewed because the past temperatures have been estimated, adjusted, spindled, mutilated, and manipulated to make the present day look 'catastrophically' warmer than it really is.

One well documented example of this phenomenon:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... year-2000/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13495

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:13 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/study-satellites-show-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/

Quote:
Full title: STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.


[popcorn]



As with every climate denier article that gets posted here’s, the “scientists” in question are well known and widely criticized climate deniers affiliated with the Heartland Institute Why do these articles always leave that part out?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:24 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
A-yuh. The current temperatures are skewed because the past temperatures have been estimated, adjusted, spindled, mutilated, and manipulated to make the present day look 'catastrophically' warmer than it really is.

One well documented example of this phenomenon:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... year-2000/


Funny you didn't mention that in your original post, given that the UAH team removed what they interpret as "volcanic global cooling" from the temperature record.

Note also that the satellite temps, including UAH, are in that graph.

So, in summary, fail.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22795
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:49 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Yes, you have been pretty much in line with the denier blog What's Up With That in that they are very careful not to deny global warming in theory, they just deny or lambaste every single manifestation of global warming. This is because the denier movement was never supposed to be a scientific refutation of global warming, it was supposed to be a disinformation campaign.

The basic denier stance is "There's no global warming, and if there is global warming it's not because of people and if it is because of people it's no big deal anyway."


All that is, is opinion. Twisted, spin, smear and slur opinion. There's no science there. You and Bill...you tell us you're the Science guys, but we're still waiting to see some.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:14 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
All that is, is opinion. Twisted, spin, smear and slur opinion. There's no science there. You and Bill...you tell us you're the Science guys, but we're still waiting to see some.


The hypothesis was that increasing CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere would increase average global tropospheric temperatures. And that, by observation and measurement, is what happened and what is happening. That's science, baby. Unfortunately, the denier brigade wouldn't know science if it was a big fat hippopotamus in a pink tutu dancing on a table and singing "She Blinded Me With Science."


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27478
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:23 pm
 


And that's what a fight between a water-boy (Fibble) and someone who actually knows what they're talking about (Zippy) looks like, kids. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22795
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:27 pm
 


Maybe. Let's talk about that graph Zip's so proud of then. I admit. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

Here's what the two scientists behind the study suggest:

Quote:
“The idea behind this index is to determine what the temperature increase will be by the decade when anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing — which is dominated by CO2 — doubles what it was in about 1880,” Christy said. “We should reach that level — about 560 ppm of CO2 — in the latter half of this century.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said. “Again, this indicates the real atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than what has been forecast by climate models. This suggests the climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”


Zip's graph shows warming of about .9 celsius since 1880. From 1998 the graph is showing a 16 year plateau of no warming.

OK so the guys from UAH are predicting a rise of about 1.1 C from 1880 to sometime after 2050. 2050 is about 36 years after the measurements on the graph end. The computer modelers are predicting a rise of 2.3 C for the same period according to the quote.

So why is Zip so proud of the graph then? It appears to support what the guys from UAH are predicting more than the computer prophecies. The computer need 1.4 Degrees of warming in the next 34 years. That's more than the warming shown on the graph for the last 164 years. Half a degree more.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63269
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:30 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
The hypothesis was that increasing CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere would increase average global tropospheric temperatures. And that, by observation and measurement, is what happened and what is happening. That's science, baby. Unfortunately, the denier brigade wouldn't know science if it was a big fat hippopotamus in a pink tutu dancing on a table and singing "She Blinded Me With Science."


The problem is that the satellite measurements don't show this and the raw, unadjusted data from the surface stations don't show it, and the unadjusted historical data don't make the present look as warm as the adjusted data that adjust the Little Ice Age out of existence.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22795
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:34 pm
 


That's all true Bart, but I still think you might be missing something.

Zip's graph ends in 2014 which is before the most egregious, perhaps criminal rewriting of data happened. After that one happened you could no longer take land surface measurements seriously (Unless of course you have a name like Bill Nye, Al Gore or Beaver Feaver. :lol: )

In 2014 though, the data still might be close to credible. Zip's graph ends in 2014 and as far as I can see it doesn't show anything that contradicts what the UAH study suggests.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:19 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
The hypothesis was that increasing CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere would increase average global tropospheric temperatures. And that, by observation and measurement, is what happened and what is happening. That's science, baby. Unfortunately, the denier brigade wouldn't know science if it was a big fat hippopotamus in a pink tutu dancing on a table and singing "She Blinded Me With Science."


The problem is that the satellite measurements don't show this and the raw, unadjusted data from the surface stations don't show it, and the unadjusted historical data don't make the present look as warm as the adjusted data that adjust the Little Ice Age out of existence.


The problem is you don't know what you're talking about. The satellite records are readily available and all show a warming trend. The UAH records are included in the graph I posted.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.