Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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 04-21-2022, 01:06 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747

Advertisements

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...imate-2021.pdf

An evaluation of The State of the Climate from The Global Warming Policy Foundation (from Norway).

Summary-- No evidence of changing storm activity or of snow cover....Minimal sea level change (+1mm/yr)...Small rise in world temps poorly correlated with markedly rising co2 levels, but well corrleated with ocean temp cycles...Arctic sea ice cycles recovering from a low in 2016-- correlates with ocean cycles.

To those who think co2 is so important-- turn to pp 23-25. Pay particular attention to the Figure 20- graphing changes in sea and air temps and co2 levels-- co2 changes lag behind temp changes by 3-4 months. Oceans determine changes in co2 levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2022, 05:16 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,202 posts, read 107,842,460 times
Reputation: 116113
Your so-called "source" isn't Norwegian at all. It's based in the UK, and is a climate change denial lobby group.
Quote:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a lobby group in the United Kingdom whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, have been characterized as practising climate change denial.
Norway would never deny human-caused climate change. They've been monitoring the slowing of the Gulf Stream for decades, very nervously, as the Greenland ice sheet continues to melt at an accelerated pace. When the Gulf Stream grinds to a halt is when Norway will get plunged into another mini-Ice Age.

You must think we were born yesterday, OP, to expect us to swallow your heavily biased info.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 04:48 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Your so-called "source" isn't Norwegian at all. It's based in the UK, and is a climate change denial lobby group.


Norway would never deny human-caused climate change. They've been monitoring the slowing of the Gulf Stream for decades, very nervously, as the Greenland ice sheet continues to melt at an accelerated pace. When the Gulf Stream grinds to a halt is when Norway will get plunged into another mini-Ice Age.

You must think we were born yesterday, OP, to expect us to swallow your heavily biased info.
a) Please discuss the science, not the author of the report. It's either right or wrong depending on its own merits, not on who wrote it.

2) The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, due to geothermal heating, not atmospheric temps.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...rns/ar-AAU8uxI Try to stay informed before forming opinions.

C) You're right about the Gulf Stream and climate. That's exactly the conclusion of the report in the first post.
Both world temps and co2 levels are determined by oceanographic factors, not anthropogenic activities.

After 52 years of Earth Day, can you say you live any differently, dress any differently, garden any differently, eat any differently now than you did 52 yrs ago due to "climate change?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 08:38 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
I did read the pages in the reference in the first post and want to point out that the summary conclusions were made up by GLM and are not from that reference.


First, consider sea level rise. What is actually in that paper are a discussion of both Satellite and tidal measurements. Both measurements are valid but you have to consider that tidal measurements are affected by the land itself rising or falling. Satellite measurements are done over the vast expanse of the ocean.

The satellite data (from the paper) is showing 3.3 mm per year increase. That is 1.3 inches rise in the ocean every 10 years.

Regarding tidal measurements - quote from the link

Quote:
Few places on Earth are completely stable,
and most tide gauges are located at sites exposed to tectonic uplift or sinking (the vertical
change of the land surface).
Quote:
Data from tide-gauges all over the world
suggest an average global sea-level rise of
1–2mm/year
Also interesting

Quote:
Both
Norway and Denmark were totally or partly covered by the European Ice Sheet 20–25,000 years
ago. Even today, the effect of this ice load is
clearly seen in the fact that southern Norway experiences an ongoing isostatic land rise of several millimetres per year
Interesting example in that paper. The weight of the ice sheet from 20-25K years ago compressed the land and now with the ice sheet gone, the land is RISING. If you are are doing tidal measurements and the land is rising, this appears as LESS sea level rise than has actually occurred.

The paper talks about both satellite and tidal data as they are both important.

Compare what is actually in the paper to the quote from GLM
Quote:
Minimal sea level change (+1mm/yr)
You need to fact check post like this..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 08:43 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,202 posts, read 107,842,460 times
Reputation: 116113
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
a) Please discuss the science, not the author of the report. It's either right or wrong depending on its own merits, not on who wrote it.

2) The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, due to geothermal heating, not atmospheric temps.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...rns/ar-AAU8uxI Try to stay informed before forming opinions.
The Greenland Ice Sheet is melting due to pollution accumulating on its surface, which causes differential melting, resulting in a Swiss cheese effect that sends meltwater down through the sheet, increasing the amount of water destabilizing and moving the sheet from underneath. This was captured on time-lapse film and included in a feature documentary a couple of decades ago, perhaps even in the late 90's. Of course, increased temps at the surface increase the melt rate at which the process is taking place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 09:33 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
Also from GLM (and why you need to fact check)
Quote:
To those who think co2 is so important-- turn to pp 23-25. Pay particular attention to the Figure 20- graphing changes in sea and air temps and co2 levels-- co2 changes lag behind temp changes by 3-4 months. Oceans determine changes in co2 levels
Figure 20 is interesting but I could not find any reference of where that data came from or who put the graph together. The author of the paper in the first link does have a credibility issue https://www.desmog.com/2017/03/31/lo...cause-science/

Quote:
The author of the GWPF report, Ole Humlum, is a geologist on the fringes of climate science. Back in 2011, Humlum wrongly predicted that northern Europe and the “European part of the Arctic” would experience “some cooling for the coming 5-7 years”.

Dr Humlum did not respond to DeSmog UK’s repeated requests for comment, asking whether the GWPF report had been peer-reviewed, and whether he had received any payment for the work.
FYI, oceans of course have some impact on CO2 levels but there is a "little" problem to consider. From this link https://www.noaa.gov/education/resou...0more%20acidic.

Quote:
Because of human-driven increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there is more CO2 dissolving into the ocean. The ocean’s average pH is now around 8.1offsite link, which is basic (or alkaline), but as the ocean continues to absorb more CO2, the pH decreases and the ocean becomes more acidic.
Hmm... the ocean is becoming MORE acidic because of MORE CO2 dissolving in the ocean.. yet somehow the ocean is being blamed on releasing CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere cant be comming from the ocean.

FYI, here is an actual scientific paper on the subject of the correlation between temperature rise and CO2 rise https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

Quote:
The values in Table 1 clearly confirm that the total greenhouse gases (GHG), especially the CO2, are the main drivers of the changing global surface air temperature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 11:26 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,251 posts, read 5,123,089 times
Reputation: 17747
Correlation of co2 & temps-- asked here before-- how do expalin the record from 1945- 1985?...Falling temps & rising co2.


Sea level rise-- error bars? https://www.nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/l...sea-level-rise

A moving surface, a moving gravitational field, a variable orbit and you think a measured rise of 1mm/yr is accurate to a believable degree?...and it doesn't take into account the rising tectonic plates. We've discussed this before, Walt. You have it backwards-- satellites ay there's a rise, while stationary tidal gauges say it;s rising some places and falling in others.....The real point here is that because we are not completely out of the current Ice Age (there's still permanent polar ice & glaciers), we expect the sea levels to rise...

The question is do we need to do anything about it?

I repeat the question-- in the past 53 yrs since the first Earth Day, how has "environmental change" affected anybody's life? ...The environment is always changing-- at geologic rates--and it has nothing to do with anthropogenic causes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 11:45 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
GLM, did you actually read your link? I did, it describes the science involved in making the satellite measurement accurate.

As to all the other stuff your wrote, well.. I see no reference at all as to why that matters. See my first post on how accurate I take your post like this. Post a reference (even if its watt up with that - the one where the author came to the conclusion that a tidal gauge on some island was more accurate than satellites LOL).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 11:52 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Correlation of co2 & temps-- asked here before-- how do expalin the record from 1945- 1985?...Falling temps & rising co2.
Can you find a scientific paper that concludes this matters? Or this just some question you made up?

Im not going to waste time doing a research on this (unless you provide a reference that this is important at all). No reference here on my part but this seems obvious that the climate has always and is now a combination of natural variations plus CO2 and other human caused impacts. Before the CO2 concentration got high enough, you would see more natural variations. But as CO2 levels get high enough, that begins to drive the curve. Exactly what you see. Anyhow, please show some reference where someone credible thinks your question is important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2022, 12:03 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,309 times
Reputation: 1710
FYI, one more note about the figure 20 referenced in your first post.

This graph says its a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature records.

Well.. I did pay a little more attention to that graph. As mentioned before, no reference of where the graph came from but there is a little trick involved.

All the data in there is not actual temperature or CO2 data. Its actualy the difference between the present 12 months ave MINUS the previous 12 months ave.

Ie, its actually the first derivative of the actual data. It represents the "rate of change" in the data. What this means.. Im not sure but it resembles someone manipulating data to finally show the results they want.

What we really want to know is what the graph title says.. a correlation between CO2 and temperature records. NOT the rate of change of the factors. Smells like BS to me.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-22-2022 at 12:05 PM.. Reason: l
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 > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top