U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Kennewick
22 posts, read 41,231 times
Reputation: 31

Advertisements

I see that some people think the Modern Warming epoch is unusual or unprecedented when factually it is not.Here from a post I made a while ago is an excerpt driving home the point that temperature data does not support the CAGW narrative:



Quote:
It is funny when you as usual fail to realize that even the latest warmist warming claims from the late 1990's still fail to show a AGW signature.Because the trend is still no higher than all the other ones.There is no acceleration in the most recent warming trends and below the IPCC's projected bottom level of warming for the first decade of .20C that was based on the AGW conjecture.
LINK

=====================================


Roger Harrabin of the BBC asked DR. Jones this question,


A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?


Selective Quote of his answer:

Quote:
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
LINK

=====================================

The MET office themselves admit it too that Modern Warming is not unusual and even wonders why it falls well below the IPCC's projections for the first decade of this century:

Quote:
“From 1997-2011 our data show a global temperature rise of 0.15C,” he said. “What’s more, our satellites have been taking this data since 1979, and over that period [the] global temperature has risen 0.46C, so the world has been getting warmer.”


Overall, then, the world has got slightly warmer since 1997. Perhaps the real question is: why has it warmed so much less than was predicted by the climate models?
LINK

=====================================

The point is that CO2 emissions from "fossil fuels" are not causing a terrible warming trend and that this warming epoch is now over since it is part of a decadal oscillating pattern now knows to be tied to the ENSO phenomenon.It has recently switched over to a cooling phase that will last around 25 or so years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2014, 01:19 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,861,573 times
Reputation: 7623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
I see that some people think the Modern Warming epoch is unusual or unprecedented when factually it is not.Here from a post I made a while ago is an excerpt driving home the point that temperature data does not support the CAGW narrative:



LINK

=====================================
Ummm quoting from another blog? Get real...


Quote:
Roger Harrabin of the BBC asked DR. Jones this question,


A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?


Selective Quote of his answer:



LINK

=====================================

The MET office themselves admit it too that Modern Warming is not unusual and even wonders why it falls well below the IPCC's projections for the first decade of this century:

LINK

=====================================

The point is that CO2 emissions from "fossil fuels" are not causing a terrible warming trend and that this warming epoch is now over since it is part of a decadal oscillating pattern now knows to be tied to the ENSO phenomenon.It has recently switched over to a cooling phase that will last around 25 or so years.
Wow! articles that are 4 years old, awesome...

Ye gods, how many threads have been created here on C-D on this particular topic?

Did you really need to regurgitate this again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Kennewick
22 posts, read 41,231 times
Reputation: 31


I quoted from a noted warmist scientist,From a noted warmist organization AND used their own data to make the case that there is nothing unusual going on temperature TREND wise of the last 150 years.

What you offered in return is ZERO counterpoint and some smarmy whine.

The chart was made by a blog yes but 100% based on the data provided by noted warmist Dr. Jones,as pointed out right in the chart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 02:24 PM
 
874 posts, read 1,350,187 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post


I quoted from a noted warmist scientist,From a noted warmist organization AND used their own data to make the case that there is nothing unusual going on temperature TREND wise of the last 150 years.

What you offered in return is ZERO counterpoint and some smarmy whine.

The chart was made by a blog yes but 100% based on the data provided by noted warmist Dr. Jones,as pointed out right in the chart.
Since 1958, CO2 concentration has increased while warming temperatures has increased as well. Some believe there is a correlation between the two. CO2 absorbs heat (solar energy) from the sun and since there is a much higher concentration of CO2 than 60 years ago, the earth is abnormally warmer than usual. Taking in account this information, the global warming induced by mankind has incidentally caused the northern pole (one thing we rely on to keep temperatures stable) to dissipate (melt) slowly. Of course, they melt and freeze back annually, yet satellite imaging shows the size of the north pole much small than the usual size.


(source: Environmental Science, 12th edition, Richard and Boorse, Dorothy)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Kennewick
22 posts, read 41,231 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidty223 View Post
Since 1958, CO2 concentration has increased while warming temperatures has increased as well. Some believe there is a correlation between the two. CO2 absorbs heat (solar energy) from the sun and since there is a much higher concentration of CO2 than 60 years ago, the earth is abnormally warmer than usual. Taking in account this information, the global warming induced by mankind has incidentally caused the northern pole (one thing we rely on to keep temperatures stable) to dissipate (melt) slowly. Of course, they melt and freeze back annually, yet satellite imaging shows the size of the north pole much small than the usual size.


(source: Environmental Science, 12th edition, Richard and Boorse, Dorothy)
Ha ha,

I love it when people try hard to deflect from what I am talking about,which is about temperature TRENDS of the last 150 years.

Still no counterpoint to what I wrote here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
10,835 posts, read 12,871,245 times
Reputation: 7073
Common Sense tells me that humans are having a detrimental effect on our planet and its weather.
I don't need stats or charts or quotes from bloggers.
Yes some of it is normal and natural but to simply believe that we aren't having any effect at all and this is completely the norm?!?! I don't get that thinking at all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2014, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Kennewick
22 posts, read 41,231 times
Reputation: 31
He he,

yet another counterpoint free reply to read.Seriously don't you have anything beyond feeble opinions to offer?

The Stats came from Dr. Jones,the chart is based on them. The MetOffice was quoted about temperature trends and stated they wonder why the warming trend was well below the IPCC's projections of the first decade.

Now warmists are fumbling all over the place with stupid explanations of the "Pause" that even prominent warmist scientists are admitting is real.

I have posted this a number of times in other places but first time here to what kind of honest thinker you warmists here might be because even prominent warmist Nick Stokes agrees with it:

Quote:
Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes moyhu.blogspot.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.

The details for several sets are below.

For UAH: Since January 1996: CI from -0.024 to 2.445
For RSS: Since November 1992: CI from -0.008 to 1.959
For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.005 to 1.345
For Hadsst3: Since January 1994: CI from -0.029 to 1.697
For GISS: Since June 1997: CI from -0.007 to 1.298
LINK

Here is the chart from the above link:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 10:24 AM
 
874 posts, read 1,350,187 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
Ha ha,

I love it when people try hard to deflect from what I am talking about,which is about temperature TRENDS of the last 150 years.

Still no counterpoint to what I wrote here.
You must not have read what I stated. Temperatures have been gradually rising since around 1958.

You seem agitated and angry so I'll leave you at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Kennewick
22 posts, read 41,231 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidty223 View Post
You must not have read what I stated. Temperatures have been gradually rising since around 1958.

You seem agitated and angry so I'll leave you at that.
Temperature has been rising gradually since the 1850's too,but the point that I made that amazingly eludes everyone here so far is the TRENDS.They are almost identical in each warming block since the 1850's.

The current "Modern warming" is no greater than the Minoan,Roman and Medieval warm epochs of the last 3,500 years.

Meanwhile there have been a lot of times where temperature changed radically and CO2 didn't through out this interglacial period.

This chart in the link is based on the ice core data:

LINK

There they show how little CO2 levels in the atmosphere changed very little while there were large temperature swings from warm to cool back to warm and so on for the last 10,000 + years.

It is funny that you neglect to see the significant temperature changes of the late 1800's with negligible CO2 changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Kennewick
22 posts, read 41,231 times
Reputation: 31
The link is bad in the previous post.Here is the correct one:

C3: Are Modern Temperatures "Unprecedented"? Greenland Ice Core Research Finds They're Not Even Close, U.S. Climate Agency
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top