Global Warming

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Your second paragraph perplexes me a lot. So destroying the environment is good as long as it's a lesser of two evils approach? To me it just keeps setting up the argument you mentioned in your first paragraph, it's just an end around that countries and businesses will continue to use.

 

See here is the issue. You both are agreeing on wanting the same thing but rubbing at the philosophy of it all. High speed rail would make everyone one happy. You mentioned the improved rail system for freight, great point. Semis cause traffic jams, big polluters, drive us gas prices, and ruin roads. So who gives a **** if you believe in global warming or it if those that do improve our country and environment? Also, just you recycling doesn't do much much if everyone did that changes things.

[Soko 128]

See here is the issue. You both are agreeing on wanting the same thing but rubbing at the philosophy of it all. High speed rail would make everyone one happy. You mentioned the improved rail system for freight, great point. Semis cause traffic jams, big polluters, drive us gas prices, and ruin roads. So who gives a **** if you believe in global warming or it if those that do improve our country and environment? Also, just you recycling doesn't do much much if everyone did that changes things.

 

 

I agree. It should not be partisan issue. It is beyond frustrating how politicians cannot even agree on the time of day now, every thing is battle stations in case you are shown to be weak and voting against party lines.

 

 

This stuff makes sense. Stop arguing and get something done.

[Franco 0]

They might suggest that, but it isn't what is happening.

 

US Hurricane Landfalls by Decade

1850 - 16

1860 - 15

1870 - 19

1880 - 27

1890 - 21

1900 - 18

1910 - 21

1920 - 15

1930 - 17

1940 - 23

1950 - 18

1960 - 15

1970 - 12

1980 - 16

1990 - 14

2000 - 18

2010+ - 3

 

By this data, the decade of the 2000's, which everyone says was so active, is actually the 7th most active decade since 1850. Hmm. That's odd.

 

But that is ok, the storms are more powerful now. Well, maybe not.

 

Cat 4/5 Hurricanes making landfall by decade

 

1850 - 1

1860 - 0

1870 - 0

1880 - 1

1890 - 2

1900 - 1

1910 - 3

1920 - 2

1930 - 2

1940 - 1

1950 - 2

1960 - 3

1970 - 0

1980 - 1

1990 - 1

2000 - 1

2010+ - 0

 

So if anything, there are fewer strong storms now then there were in the early part of the century. That is odd.

 

Now, I won't dispute there are more recorded storms now. But is that because there are more storms, or better recording of storms?

 

Coincidentally, dedicated weather satellites and radar systems were installed in the Atlantic basin and US area in the 60's and 70's. A dedicated Hurricane service in the 90's. Not shockingly, since then there has been a rise of named storms.

 

Is that because there are now more storms, and just fewer happen to make landfall, lucky us, or there has always been the same amount, but now we can track the ones that never come near land much better and get a more accurate count? That would make sense to me.

 

Further, more people are living near the coasts and there is much better media access all around the world to these events. The Hurricane that just nailed the Phillipines? It was tied for the 21st most powerful on record in the Pacific area it was in. Unluckily, it hit a third world country and devastated it, but it wasn't some unbeforeseen superstorm.

 

Now, I am sure there is a reason there are actually fewer landfalls now then there was and fewer Cat 4/5 storms now then in the early 1900's, despite scientists suggesting otherwise.

 

Interestingly, one of the points made about the flat temperature rise over the last 15 years is that much of the heat has been absorbed in the oceans, where temperature monitoring isn't as prevelant. But if that was really the case, wouldn't warmer temperatures correlate to more storms? Which isn't happening.

 

Yes, 2005 was the most active year on record. But #2 came in the in 1933. Most Major Hurricanes in any year? 1950. The records are all over the map in this regard, they aren't all since 1990 or something.

 

 

sighhh....this old talking point...a few things:

 

- YES, there is shaky evidence that climate change is tied to FREQUENCY of hurricanes, and ACTUALLY basic physics shows a decrease in hurricanes but an INCREASE in severity of those hurricanes...and data shows that the hurricanes that do appear around the world (funny how you just take US landfalls) have actually been more severe

 

Why do frequency of hurricanes actually decrease as temps go up you ask? Hurricanes form because of an inbalance between the upper Troposphere and the lower parts of the atmosphere (blanking on the name)...as the Upper Troposphere heats up, this inbalance decreases which equals less hurricanes....

 

Now for the severity...as the air heats up, it's able to trap more moisture....more moisture means, more precipitation and larger storms

[Franco 0]

What trends again? The fact there has been no warming in decades?

 

 

 

But it's cool that you use climate.nasa.gov as your source. Being an entity that stands to make a great deal of money to continue the myth of man-made global warming. They stop collecting checks and their careers are over if it is proved as not true...

 

It's not correlated to anything. Your flimsy science exists on a sample size of roughly 70-80 years and extrapolated over the history of the planet.

 

WOW...Piratey, I expected so much more from you, but to go full on conspiracy theory is nuts

 

Understand that this is NOT how checks are distributed. First off, climate scientists are no longer studying if Climate Change is real, it has already been established

 

What they are now studying is what we can do about it, and just how bad it's going to get

[Franco 0]

The University of Michigan is calling. They want you to come back.... You should read Freakonomics if you really want to be educated about correlations. Just because CO2 goes up doesn't mean the warming trend (if there is one) is related. Just because the Notre Dame wins a football game and it rains that night doesn't mean a Notre Dame win equals rain. You sound like a primitive when you speak like that. Are you going to worship a windmill one day?

 

Let's take this beat by beat

 

I aplogize if you try to explain you assertions in a later post, but I'm going through this now...I notice you didn't come forth with any data of your own that shows that CO2 isn't related to the rise in temperatures

 

This global warming sh*t is a scam from liberals who have all their money in green stocks. Or, from scientists who are more in it for the fame and money than the actual science. When you cite climate "science," you're citing lies and coverups, because every piece of data that calls the theory into question is thrown away. Don't point fingers at the newspapers as a red herring. That has no relevance to the fact that the accumulation of data that is being leaked out points to this whole thing being a sham.

 

Sigh....just like with piratey...going the conspiracy route...how about the oil industry? they have the most to gain from us continuing to use fossil fuels, moreso than scientists have to gain from us believing in climate change (BILLIONS per company compared to MILLIONS in grants scattered across thousands of climate scientists)

 

Also, you're misleading everyone when you say the trend has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. In fact, there has been a push since then to stop global cooling. So, tell me how that trend works. Further, your data points are screwed up, because the monitoring stations are often sitting in the middle of a city where the temperature is naturally higher due to being in the concrete jungle, yet you don't see these "scientists" accounting for those differences.

Where are your sources on this global cooling? And scientists account for data stations being in the middle of the city..it's called the Urban heat island effect and YES, they account for this in their data sets

 

In terms of climate change and global heating or cooling, you should look to the stars, because the biggest factor is likely sunspots. Also, don't forget that there was a study in the spring saying that the rise in CO2 is actually showing a trend that sunlight is being reflected and the CO2 is acting as a cooling agent.

 

Nope, we're actually on a downward trend in sunspots and are actually in the middle of the longest solar minimum in recent generations

Edited December 18, 2015 by Franco

[Franco 0]

Right, so why would an increase in temperature or CO2 now be immediately linked to a human cause? Something like 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is released by humans, 97% is naturally released.

 

Just because something is small doesn't mean it can't have a significant effect

 

Scientists are not concerned with the overall makeup of the atmosphere...they're concerned about the balance...We can calculate the energy absorption and release of the planet and we are currently trapping in more energy (i.e. heat) than we are releasing because we are causing an imbalance in CO2 levels relative to our environment

 

Think of it like a drain plug...it's a tiny hole but even when your faucet is on full blast, it can get rid of all that water to prevent your tub from overflowing...but if you start blocking it and thus create an inflow/outflow inbalance, the tub will start to fill with water

[Franco 0]

Global temperatures continue to rise, but Michigan, Australia, and England are colder than average. I guess global warming must be a farce. Come on guys, a few data points don't make a trend...

 

This was my favorite line:

France/England

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-03/europe-faces-december-cold-spell-with-gas-reserves-at-5-year-low.html

 

 

Record cold and snowfall in the middle east

http://earthsky.org/earth/rare-snow-storm-hits-middle-east

 

 

Antarctica sets record cold

 

 

 

China is getting extreme cold temperatures, well below the average

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1385068/elderly-people-admitted-hospital-cold-weather-continues-envelop-hong

 

 

But dammit! It's hot in Siberia!

 

 

 

the thing about climate change is it's not the the world is going to be warm all the time...there are natural fluctuations. Climate change causes more extremes...colder places will get colder during winter months, and hot places get hotter during hotter months

 

The heating of the atmosphere interferes with Earth's natural circulation which brings in warm air from the equator all the way to Great Britain...because this is being shut down, warm air is no longer going to Great Britain, causing colder than normal temperatures

[Franco 0]

How can you prove or disprove a moving target?

 

In the 70s, it was the coming Ice Age.

 

In the 90s, it was global warming.

 

Now it is climate change and more extreme weather.. How do you prove whether or not it is man made, when man can't even decide which direction it is going?

 

No it wasn't a coming of the Ice Age...if you look at the peer-reviewed studies during that time, there were only a handful of papers claiming an ice age with an OVERHWHELMING majority saying the earth is still heating up...just because Time magazine ran a piece on "the coming of the ice age" doesn't give that hypothesis credence

 

And in any case, that's the way science works...it sifts through data and pieces things together...sometimes, it makes mistakes, or we change our assertions, but that's actually a good thing, because we change our assertions BASED ON EVIDENCE

 

Science admits its mistakes and learns from it...why is that a bad thing? Now, you will never find another legitimate peer-reviewed paper claiming that the earth is cooling, anymore..why? because science learns from its mistakes

Edited December 17, 2015 by Franco

[jessemoore97 1,287]

No it wasn't a coming of the Ice Age...if you look at the peer-reviewed studies during that time, there were only a handful of papers claiming an ice age with an OVERHWHELMING majority saying the earth is still heating up...just because Time magazine ran a piece on "the coming of the ice age" doesn't give that hypothesis credence

 

And in any case, that's the way science works...it sifts through data and pieces things together...sometimes, it makes mistakes, or we change our assertions, but that's actually a good thing, because we change our assertions BASED ON EVIDENCE

 

Science admits its mistakes and learns from it...why is that a bad thing? Now, you will never find another legitimate peer-reviewed paper claiming that the earth is cooling, anymore..why? because science learns from its mistakes

 

Yes learning from its mistakes also means going back and changing the numbers from historical records to help fit with the current computer model predictions. So cooking the books so to speak to help make the current theories more "credible". Instead of doing this why not figure out why the climate models etc aren't fitting the bill compared to previous records.

[Franco 0]

Yes learning from its mistakes also means going back and changing the numbers from historical records to help fit with the current computer model predictions. So cooking the books so to speak to help make the current theories more "credible". Instead of doing this why not figure out why the climate models etc aren't fitting the bill compared to previous records.

 

How do you know they do this? Do you have evidence or are you just talking out of your a55?

 

They don't change the numbers to try to cover up anything...the correct data sets supersede any past data sets that are deemed incorrect...that's not cooking the books

 

Isn't that the nature of humans? Trial and error...you do something; if it doesn't work, you change your approach. If you find something that works better, or if you find your original methods to be incorrect, you find out why it was wrong and correct them

 

I honestly do not understand the ignorance on this board regarding the scientific method

Edited December 18, 2015 by Franco

[jessemoore97 1,287]

How do you know they do this? Do you have evidence or are you just talking out of your a55?

 

They don't change the numbers to try to cover up anything...the correct data sets supersede any past data sets that are deemed incorrect...that's not cooking the books

 

Isn't that the nature of humans? Trial and error...you do something; if it doesn't work, you change your approach. If you find something that works better, or if you find your original methods to be incorrect, you find out why it was wrong and correct them

 

I honestly do not understand the ignorance on this board regarding the scientific method

 

There was a very informative and interesting link on NDNation from a Senate hearing about climate change just within the past week, or at least I read it there a week ago. It was a lengthy testimony to the committee that brought up a lot of thought provoking topics about climate change and included a number of points addressing intentional restructuring of past historical records, by NASA among others, to make those records fall into current models and opinions of the subject. Part of the argument was that you cannot and should not change those known facts because they don't fit or fall in line with current models and thinking. You cannot fudge the numbers to make things fit, you need to find out why they don't fit instead of changing them to show that they coincided with current models all along. It's disingenuous, dishonest, and outright lazy on the part of alleged scientific researchers who can't explain why the numbers don't match lock-step with the agenda they are putting forth. Instead they decide to alter them instead to make it more compatible.

 

If I can find the link I'll try and post it. The post was under their Political board fwiw.

[jessemoore97 1,287]

Here's one part:

 

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curry-senate-testimony-2015.pdf

 

and another from same hearing:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/mark-steyns-illuminating-and-entertaining-testimony-to-the-cruz-hearing-on-climate-today/

 

Long reads, but eye opening and thought provoking none the less.

[Franco 0]

There was a very informative and interesting link on NDNation from a Senate hearing about climate change just within the past week, or at least I read it there a week ago. It was a lengthy testimony to the committee that brought up a lot of thought provoking topics about climate change and included a number of points addressing intentional restructuring of past historical records, by NASA among others, to make those records fall into current models and opinions of the subject. Part of the argument was that you cannot and should not change those known facts because they don't fit or fall in line with current models and thinking. You cannot fudge the numbers to make things fit, you need to find out why they don't fit instead of changing them to show that they coincided with current models all along. It's disingenuous, dishonest, and outright lazy on the part of alleged scientific researchers who can't explain why the numbers don't match lock-step with the agenda they are putting forth. Instead they decide to alter them instead to make it more compatible.

 

If I can find the link I'll try and post it. The post was under their Political board fwiw.

 

You don't have to..I'm VERY aware of that "controversy"

 

Again...just a bunch of misinformation:

 

First off...the raw and unadjusted data is available to anyone http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn it's not like they're trying to hide it from anyone

 

NASA and NOAA gather their data sets from thousands of stations around the world. As time goes on, these stations can go through changes such as changes in how monitoring is done, improvements in monitoring technology, and even buildings that get built or taken down. Buildings can cast shadows, change wind patterns, etc...An example of monitoring changes was when most US stations changed their thermometers which affected their minimum and maximum readings

 

Additionally, the time when temperature readings were usually gathered sometimes changes...stations taking their readings in the mornings that changed to the afternoon, etc...

 

These issues are some of the reasons why we adjust our readings. To create a consistent data set that can be compared over time as the landscape of our cities change

 

Again, people take a non-issue that has a perfectly logical explanation and turn it into a conspiracy theory. All people have to do is read into WHY NASA and NOAA adjusted the temperature readings

 

Here's one part:

 

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curry-senate-testimony-2015.pdf

 

and another from same hearing:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/mark-steyns-illuminating-and-entertaining-testimony-to-the-cruz-hearing-on-climate-today/

 

Long reads, but eye opening and thought provoking none the less.

 

So you source blogs that have a reputation for misinformation? Source actual data sets and actual peer-reviewed studies...I explain the reason for the temperature adjustments above

 

These blogs are equally misinformed and don't even bother to go into the actual research behind their assertions

Edited December 18, 2015 by Franco

[Rocknes Shadow 0]

That was an epic rant... I love rants and whole-heartedly agree with your opinion.

 

Jez - yeah liberals make so much money on this...compared to the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against, who make billions upon billions protecting fossil fuel producers like Saudi Arabia that barely protect themselves.

 

The only thing worse than a neo-liberal apologist, is a neo-conversative s--- head. Watching the Republican debates tells me everything I need to know about those claiming to be conservative while - promoting world-wide military policing actions, driving up the national deficit (see GW Bush), championing simplistic, illegal reactions (ban all Muslims...) instead of actually proposing meaningful, thoughtful, commonsense solutions.

[jimbo 377]

You don't have to..I'm VERY aware of that "controversy"

 

Again...just a bunch of misinformation:

 

First off...the raw and unadjusted data is available to anyone http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn it's not like they're trying to hide it from anyone

 

NASA and NOAA gather their data sets from thousands of stations around the world. As time goes on, these stations can go through changes such as changes in how monitoring is done, improvements in monitoring technology, and even buildings that get built or taken down. Buildings can cast shadows, change wind patterns, etc...An example of monitoring changes was when most US stations changed their thermometers which affected their minimum and maximum readings

 

Additionally, the time when temperature readings were usually gathered sometimes changes...stations taking their readings in the mornings that changed to the afternoon, etc...

 

These issues are some of the reasons why we adjust our readings. To create a consistent data set that can be compared over time as the landscape of our cities change

 

Again, people take a non-issue that has a perfectly logical explanation and turn it into a conspiracy theory. All people have to do is read into WHY NASA and NOAA adjusted the temperature readings

 

 

 

So you source blogs that have a reputation for misinformation? Source actual data sets and actual peer-reviewed studies...I explain the reason for the temperature adjustments above

 

These blogs are equally misinformed and don't even bother to go into the actual research behind their assertions

 

Franco, obviously you are very well versed in this subject. I applaud you.:clap: