Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,263
#4,263
Sandvol said:
++
Click to expand...
OZED130928.jpg
 
#4,270
#4,270
BartW said:
Miami says hi

My cartoon should have gone back to the 1800s for the likes of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius.
Click to expand...

Should have gone back further than that so it can illustrate how climate changes all the time, without the help of man. This is a concept you have yet to grasp. Mini ice age, warming periods, sea level rising and falling all without those burning fossil fuels...
Wasn't the arctic supposed to have ice-free summers by now or real soon? Lol. Just admit that you and your worshipped climate scientists have absolutely no idea about the subject so you can move on and live happily. I'm worried about your stress. I'm here for you.
 
#4,271
#4,271
BartW said:
I post news pretty regularly. No, news articles are not peer-reviewed scientific research. They do cite peer-reviewed scientific research.

The basic physical argument is not opinion. It’s so simple it honestly doesn’t even require citation.

SST and water vapor are simple measurables. The part about ~half being due to climate change is off-the-cuff, granted. It’s impossible to comment on current events in real time through peer-reviewed outlets though. So are scientists not allowed to talk news?

I wonder why they’re attacking UCS. My article cited the NCA. As you can see the NCA chapter’s first figures go back to 1900. Your blog’s figure has a different focus and uses a different metric -- it and the NCA’s just both start in 1958. I think that particular figure started in 1958 because that was ‘the past 50 years’ at the time of the figure’s assembly. You can follow the NCA citation to its original context, p.32. I don’t know the origin of your blog’s figure as it links elsewhere. Maybe it was because most of the CO2 and temperature increase has been since the ‘50s? I don’t suspect anything nefarious.

I don’t require peer-reviewed posts. But if someone does cite peer-reviewed research, I expect them to provide proper context and not horrifically misrepresent the author’s position (*cough* SandVol)

That’s not at all what it said.

No

Just no

Red herring. All else being equal, increasing temperature increases absolute humidity. That is the point.

Like my article noted, super cold winters typically have less precipitation. Likewise, colder climates generally have little precipitation.

Geography certainly affects weather and climate, especially relief and water bodies. This nor’easter was an example of that: polar air mass from land meets tropical moisture from sea.

Why do you think different regions have different climate predictions? That gets at the heart of the difference between ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’.

Agreed

You misunderstand. The article does not state that global warming caused this blizzard (it explicitly makes that distinction); it’s just saying that the observation is consistent with climate predictions.

There is tons of peer-reviewed research on AGW’s impact on the hydrologic cycle. Here’s the first hit from a quick google scholar. Check the citation web. You will find dozens, hundreds of articles on the topic. Follow the NCA’s citation web. The basic physical argument is non-controversial. It’s just counter-intuitive that global warming can cause heavier snowfall.
Click to expand...

The Climate Progress article states on several occasions that this storm was stronger than it otherwise would have been because of Climate Change.

To make that point it quotes a scientist who off the cuff attributes half of the effect to climate change.

It cites a chart that looks at change in participation since 1958 (hence why I posted the rebuttal questioning why start with 1958).

The conclusions of the article are built upon selective use of studies and stretching basic relationships ("the most robust finding in physics" type stuff) to explain why this storm and all future storms should be impacted by climate change.

Likewise, the Bill Nye article makes the same basic claim.

My larger point is NOT that the storm disproves climate change - it is that climate change evangelists themselves point to individual weather events as PROOF of climate change just as skeptics point to individual weather events as PROOF that climate change is bogus.

Both sides are wrong when doing so.

This is the opening of the article

Another epic blizzard is bearing down on New England. There is a “big part” played by “human-induced climate change,” especially warming-fueled ocean temperatures, according to Dr. Kevin Trenberth, former head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
I asked Dr. Trenberth to comment on the role climate change has on this latest storm, which is forecast to set records. He explained:
The number 1 cause of this is that it is winter. In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing. At present sea surface temperatures are more the 2F above normal over huge expanses (1000 miles) off the east coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10% higher as a result. About half of this can be attributed to climate change.
Click to expand...

All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”
Click to expand...

The latest science means the deniers will continue to have increasingly intense extreme “snowmageddons” in colder regions like New England, especially in midwinter, to mislead the public for decades to come.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the articles is saying all future intense storms will be linked to climate change. I can only guess that future mild storms will be ignored by both sides.

As context for the 100th time - I'm not a denier of climate change. I do prefer to see some balance in the debate though and articles like the Climate Progress don't help.
 
Last edited:
#4,273
#4,273
BartW said:
There’s A Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know

pew-aaas-science-report.png
Click to expand...

Several of these are not "facts vs what the public believes".

For example, using animals for research is not a scientific fact or finding - it is a moral/ethical decision on which the public and scientists disagree.

Likewise the question about childhood vaccines being required is a policy decision; not a science fact. A better question would be to ask about safety, not whether or not society "should" require some treatment.

This second issue permeates the whole energy section.

With this type of research it's easy to see why skeptics are skeptical. When scientists become policy makers we have to question basis for policy and recognize that policy is more nuanced and has more externalities than simply addressing the concern of the scientist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top