Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    What I'm arguing is that in most cases a disaster is more of a social phenomenon than a natural one.

    If a tornado rips up a field or a tsunami hits uninhabited coastline, it isn't a disaster, its just a curiosity. When that same event hits a heavily populated area, NOW it is a disaster.

    Even if we were to agree that the climate isn't undergoing any significant change and we will stay at the status quo for the foreseeable future, the rate of climate and weather related disasters will continue to increase as the world becomes more populated and infrastructure becomes ever more widespread. Whatever the controversy surrounding climate science, there is no doubt that the planet's population is growing, infrastructure is expanding, and the world is becoming increasingly interconnected.

    A mud and grass hut that washes away in a flood might wipe out a month's worth of effort by a family, while a flood that destroys a couple refineries suddenly has a regional impact that lasts for years.

    The climate doesn't have to change in order for its effects to become increasingly important as time marches forward. Funding to figure out how the climate operates in order to mitigate negative effects will continue to become ever more important whether the climate changes or not.
    Uh-huh. When the advocacy and lobbyist money dries up, so does the funding. Welcome to the real world.

    Comment


    • Plus there's the added bonus of me being right about everything.

      Told ya. :)

      -dale

      Comment


      • And...right on cue...

        The plaintive calls about global warming and loss of polar bear habitats, the stern warnings about rising seas and flooded coastlines - this is what the public hears about. Then there’s this pesky, inconvenient truth they don’t hear about: $1.5 trillion.

        “Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policymaking, notes Don Jergler, an analyst for Insurance Journal, an industry publication.

        “The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal,” he writes.

        “The San Diego, Calif.-based publication includes within that industry nine segments and 38 sub-segments. This encompasses sectors like renewables, green building and hybrid vehicles.

        And the talkers, creatives and handlers too.

        “That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.,” Mr. Jergler says.
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...on-global-bus/

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
          Or, as I like to say:

          Click image for larger version

Name:	consultingdemotivator_grande.jpeg
Views:	2
Size:	68.4 KB
ID:	1467516
          "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            How dare you fail to predict the future!
            What about predicting the past? Global warming computer models cannot predict the present and the past when fed with historical data. But we are supposed to take their results as if they were the gospel.

            I don't mind if they cannot predict the future. But don't predict the future and tell me to believe them when I can find dozens of examples of their failures. Would you believe a stock analyst or a sports analyst and place your bet accordingly, if he fails more often than not?

            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            I won't fault scientists for failing, that is literally their job. Someone comes up with a plausible hypothesis and then scientists try their damndest to disprove it until either someone succeeds and it is disproven, or nobody can convincingly debunk it, and it becomes an accepted theory.
            Global warming is easily disproven. Just give me the raw numbers of all temperatures gathered over the entire world over the last 30 years. Can't find them? I'm not surprised. All the data that we are "allowed" to have are the "adjusted" data. Why not give us the raw data and the method/reasoning of the adjustment, and let us figure them?

            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            When the guy on the news says that science has proven that "blah blah blah" what that actually means is someone came up with an idea or model that appears to explain things well and nobody has been able to disprove it yet.
            Global warming has been disproven. The reason why it's still accepted is because it's no longer "science." It's faith. You cannot disprove faith.

            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            Something as complex as modeling the climate for an entire planet is bound to have guys making errors with data, models, theories, the whole bit. There will never be an objective truth, just "to the best of our knowledge" at any given time.
            Then say it. Don't tell me "the science is settled." Study it.

            Science is wrong more often than not. I'll give you some recent examples.

            Years ago, some "scientists" believed that saturated fat is bad for humans. Yes, everything in excess is bad for humans. But they took it over the top. Guide lines were set up so people consumed less saturated fat by government fiat. Processed foods were made with partially hydrogenated polyunsaturated fat instead of saturated animal fat. Hell, anything is better than saturated animal fat, right? Let's ditch that butter and use margarine.

            Hold on a second. Some new "scientists" came up with some new data showing partially hydrogenated polyunsaturated fat is worse than animal fat. It's "trans fat." Government actually banned this stuff!

            What we thought was the gospel truth turns out to be wrong! How can that be? Maybe the Koch brothers funded the research to show us how bad "trans fat" is....

            Another good example is breast milk. Right after WW2, "scientists" told the world that "scientifically formulated" baby formula was superior to breast milk. We started to provide this stuff all over the world. Fast forward 50 years. Now everyone tells you how good breast milk is compared to that "artificial crap" for newborns.

            I like science, but I don't take anything at face value. I am a skeptic. When we start to believe "science" because it's "science," then it is no longer "science." It's faith.
            Last edited by gunnut; 24 Aug 15,, 23:00.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • Science Challenges Claim That Global Warming Took a Hiatus

              NOAA's reanalysis shows no slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years, undercutting a favorite argument of climate change skeptics.
              http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...e-denier-NOAA/




              In the new report, the NOAA team took into account that there are far more temperature-reading buoys deployed in the world's seas today than decades ago. The buoy readings over time have been found to be more accurate, so the buoys are given more weight in the new data set.

              Also, the team corrected for a mistaken assumption that commercial ships since World War II measured ocean temperatures through ship engine intakes. NOAA's team now says many ships still measure ocean temperature the old-fashioned way—by lowering buckets into the water, much as young Benjamin Franklin did when he tried to chart the Gulf Stream on his trans-Atlantic journeys.

              Adjustments to all of these anomalies in temperature gathering add up to what scientists believe is a more accurate picture—and one that shows consistent, unrelenting warming, the NOAA researchers say.

              "A big part of our job is accounting for the fact that most of the observation systems we have were never put out there to monitor climate to begin with," Vose says. "They were looking at weather for aviation or agriculture, and the ocean monitoring was for ships that were interested in currents, not climate." Addressing all of these potential biases is "a neat challenge," he said.
              Global Warming 101

              WATCH: Global warming could do more than just melt polar ice. It could change our maps, and displace people from cities and tropical islands.

              Interestingly, NOAA's corrections and reanalysis result in less global warming since the 1880s than the agency's uncorrected data showed: about 1.65 degrees Fahrenheit (0.92 Celsius) instead of 2.07 degrees Fahrenheit (1.15 Celsius). That's because the recalculations make temperatures higher in earlier years.

              Vose says the research trying to explain the hiatus was not wasted. Studies examining ocean circulation and heat absorption, reduced solar activity, increased sulfur dioxide, and other factors that can cause cooling add valuable information and in "no way" conflict with the new data, he says.

              "If those forces had not been in action, we might be seeing even larger temperature increases," he says.

              etc. etc. etc.


              What say you, Gunnut?
              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

              Comment


              • Considering the "consensus" scientists don't agree with the above there's not much need to say anything. Considering they can't agree on what's actually happened in the last 15-20 years, to Gunnut's point, why should we lend any credence to claims of what will happen in the next 50-100 years, much less spend trillions of dollars on it?

                http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6249/691.full

                Karl et al. recently argued that there has been no slowdown in the rise of GMST and hence no hiatus (3). The authors compared slightly revised and improved GMST estimates after 2000 with the 1950–1999 period, concluding that there was hardly any change in the rate of increase. Their start date of 1950 is problematic, however. An earlier hiatus, which some now call the big hiatus, lasted from about 1943 to 1975 (see the figure); including the 1950–1975 period thus artificially lowers the rate of increase for the 1950–1999 comparison interval. The perception of whether or not there was a hiatus depends on how the temperature record is partitioned.

                Another reason to think there had been a hiatus in the rise of GMST comes from comparing model expectations and observations. Human activities are causing increases in heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (4). These increases are expected to cause rising atmospheric temperatures. Atmospheric aerosols, mostly from fossil fuel combustion, are expected to reduce this rise to some extent. The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.









                etc. etc. etc.


                What say you, Gunnut?[/QUOTE]
                Last edited by Wooglin; 25 Aug 15,, 02:43.

                Comment


                • Wooglin:

                  One of the things in the NOAA findings struck me as odd, namely that NOAA's conclusion, that the so-called "hiatus" was non-existent, was based on temperature data collected from newer measuring devices. Were these same devices used to measure temperatures in the preceding period? Apparently, they weren't, which would seem to put NOAA's conclusion in doubt. Is that a fair observation? NOAA even seems to say so themselves.

                  Again, from Nat Geo:

                  In the new report, the NOAA team took into account that there are far more temperature-reading buoys deployed in the world's seas today than decades ago. The buoy readings over time have been found to be more accurate, so the buoys are given more weight in the new data set.

                  Also, the team corrected for a mistaken assumption that commercial ships since World War II measured ocean temperatures through ship engine intakes. NOAA's team now says many ships still measure ocean temperature the old-fashioned way—by lowering buckets into the water, much as young Benjamin Franklin did when he tried to chart the Gulf Stream on his trans-Atlantic journeys.

                  Adjustments to all of these anomalies in temperature gathering add up to what scientists believe is a more accurate picture—and one that shows consistent, unrelenting warming, the NOAA researchers say.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                    Wooglin:

                    One of the things in the NOAA findings struck me as odd, namely that NOAA's conclusion, that the so-called "hiatus" was non-existent, was based on temperature data collected from newer measuring devices. Were these same devices used to measure temperatures in the preceding period? Apparently, they weren't, which would seem to put NOAA's conclusion in doubt. Is that a fair observation? NOAA even seems to say so themselves.

                    Again, from Nat Geo:
                    That sounds about right. They don't specifically name it in the paper, but the ARGO network is the system of buoys they started deploying around 2000. What's odd to me is the system was under much scrutiny because it showed little to no warming, which would make sense since there was little to no warming at the time. Now that they can get it to show warming it's a "more accurate picture". Honestly, all it is is adjustments to data until they get the "right" answer. The fact is, in many datasets the "hiatus" still shows and continues. Those pesky satellites just won't play ball.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                      That sounds about right. They don't specifically name it in the paper, but the ARGO network is the system of buoys they started deploying around 2000. What's odd to me is the system was under much scrutiny because it showed little to no warming, which would make sense since there was little to no warming at the time. Now that they can get it to show warming it's a "more accurate picture". Honestly, all it is is adjustments to data until they get the "right" answer. The fact is, in many datasets the "hiatus" still shows and continues. Those pesky satellites just won't play ball.
                      That's what confusing to neophytes like me: there's so much data clash that there's no way a "show me" person can know who's right. But what worries me is that government is moving ahead full steam on the assumption one side is right. It seems to be following the old saying, "it is better to err on the side of trust, than on distrust."
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                        That's what confusing to neophytes like me: there's so much data clash that there's no way a "show me" person can know who's right. But what worries me is that government is moving ahead full steam on the assumption one side is right. It seems to be following the old saying, "it is better to err on the side of trust, than on distrust."
                        Doesn't that sound like "faith" to you?

                        I have no problem if those who believe in global warming call it what it is, faith.

                        The problem I have is those who call their faith "science" and then ridicules those who challenge their faith.

                        Science is to be challenged. Faith is settled.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • Click image for larger version

Name:	_85309870_threestorms_vir_2015242.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	64.6 KB
ID:	1467567
                          Three category four storms seen together in the Pacific for the first time

                          Current El Nino climate event 'among the strongest'

                          The current El Nino weather phenomenon could be one of the strongest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

                          The event occurs when the waters of the Pacific become exceptionally warm and distort weather patterns around the world.

                          Researchers say parts of the Pacific are likely to be 2C warmer than usual.

                          The WMO says that this year's event is strengthening and will peak by the end of this year.

                          The strongest El Nino on record was in 1997-98, but there were events that were significantly above the norm in 1972-73 and again ten years later in 1982-83.

                          Scientists say that the event now underway is sending sea temperatures in parts of the Pacific to levels not seen since the late 1990s.

                          In a statement the WMO said that this El Nino was gathering strength.

                          "Models and expert opinion suggest that surface water temperatures in the east-central tropical Pacific Ocean are likely to exceed 2C above average, potentially placing this El Nino event among the four strongest events since 1950," it said.

                          The WMO says that patterns of cloudiness and rainfall near the international dateline developed during the second quarter of this year and have been well maintained.

                          These patterns are considered essential in triggering El Nino's global climate impacts which are more likely to be felt over the next six to eight months.

                          "Compared to the last major El Nino event in 1997-1998, there is much more information available," said Maxx Dilley from WMO.

                          "We have better models and are much more prepared."

                          "It is a test case for the early warning systems and climate information systems of WMO members and we are hoping that will be of assistance to some of the affected countries," said Mr Dilley

                          The phenomenon can alter established weather patterns in different parts of the world, bringing severe drought to parts of Asia while at the same time bringing heavy flooding to some parts of North America.

                          It can increase flooding in the Horn of Africa while making Southern Africa drier.

                          The events are likely to lead to a decrease in storm events in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico and an increase in storminess in the eastern Pacific.

                          This El Nino has also impacted the South Asian monsoon.

                          "We are seeing that the Indian monsoon right now is almost 12% below normal. There is only a month left of the summer monsoon season making it difficult to recover," said WMO's El Nino expert Rupa Kumar Kolli.

                          "That was the kind of early warning information we can extract from the El Nino signal and it helps policy makers to prepare," he said.

                          Currently, the Pacific is seeing a surge of hurricane activity, with three category four strength tropical storms swirling around the Hawaiian islands.

                          Researchers say that these hurricanes can disrupt the predominant easterly trade winds that are found along the equator. This disruption allows more heat to build up in the eastern part of the Pacific, adding more fuel to stormy conditions.

                          But researchers cautioned that the scale of impacts, especially in the northern hemisphere, is very hard to read because there is also an Arctic warming effect seen in the Atlantic jet stream.

                          "The truth is we don't know what will happen. Will the two patterns reinforce each other? Will they cancel each other? Are they going to act in sequence? Are they going to be regional? We really don't know," David Carlson, the director of the World Climate Research Programme, told news agencies.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]40146[/ATTACH]
                            Three category four storms seen together in the Pacific for the first time

                            Current El Nino climate event 'among the strongest'
                            This time next year when the latest "warmest year evah!" meme and the "there was no hiatus" claim is being fed to the media, this el nino event will have been conveniently forgotten.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]40146[/ATTACH]
                              Three category four storms seen together in the Pacific for the first time
                              First time since...? Ever?

                              The strongest El Nino on record was in 1997-98, but there were events that were significantly above the norm in 1972-73 and again ten years later in 1982-83.

                              Scientists say that the event now underway is sending sea temperatures in parts of the Pacific to levels not seen since the late 1990s.
                              So....this current El Nino isn't even the strongest. The one from merely 18 years ago was stronger. There were comparable ones 30 years ago and 40 years ago. Seems like the norm to me.

                              Again, I ask, what happened to the prediction of bigger, more powerful, and more frequent hurricanes in the Atlantic after a historic 2005 storm season? We just sweep that under the rug and make new predictions? What happens when your stock broker does that to you year after year?
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • One question. Are they (international/US organisations) measuring water temperature to prove Global warming? If the ocean's temperature increase then Global warming is happening otherwise not? (Most of the datasets here are confusing)
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X