Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BigOrangeTrain]

Are our farts causing the same amount of damage to the climate as cow farts? If so then will there be a fart tax? I mean we know that climate cannot be changed by anything other than us humans right? We know exactly what the global temps were millions of years ago right? We had the exact same technology to measure the temps back then as we do today. So there cannot be any mistakes.

 

[Sandvol]

They are not one guy's theory.

Why would it be ridiculous? Explain.

You got two likes for asking a dumb question-doesn't say too much about your fan club. Maybe you can look at this plot of large natural cycles and figure out why they would dominate short term climate.






Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature.



The second picture is the data inside the red box. Anyone can conclude that the short term cycles of a few thousand years are dominated by the long-term cycle.

 

[Sandvol]

can't see the image you link, says access forbidden.

1) 10 years isn't climate, that is why one uses back from 1880, or 1950, etc. Generally 30 years is considered the bare minimum for measuring climate.

2)No one claimed CO2 was a thermostat, and while humans tend to think of all things being linear, they're often not

3) it has gotten warmer anyway, so I don't know what your graph is based on but it isn't global temperature and I can't see it to hazard a guess as to what it is.

Given that it is only March of 2015, I don't see how you can have a chart for this year. Add to that 2014 being perhaps the warmest year ever, it seems incredibly unlikely there is a no warming in your chart. I'll have to wait and see if you can find another link I can view.

The Earth's temperature has fluctuated since day one. It has gotten warmer since when?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Global surface temperatures for the past 10 years, have not risen despite "massive" amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere

http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png

 

[Danl]

Global surface temperatures for the past 10 years, have not risen despite "massive" amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere

http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png

The chief meteorologist at Weatherbell is Joe Bastardi. Do you know who he is? If not, google is your friend.

 

[Mtntrout]

Hmmmm. I'll let the federal inspectors we deal with daily that their air temp numbers are trash.

Bring it up to them, they'll probably tell you they have some standardizing technique on where they take the measurements. Or they're wrong. Either way, I fully encourage you to look up microclimate effects or test this yourself. I'm not preaching gospel, this is observable.

 

[Mtntrout]

Are our farts causing the same amount of damage to the climate as cow farts? If so then will there be a fart tax? I mean we know that climate cannot be changed by anything other than us humans right? We know exactly what the global temps were millions of years ago right? We had the exact same technology to measure the temps back then as we do today. So there cannot be any mistakes.

I encourage you to research how we know the temperature in the distant past, how much methane comes from humans vs cattle vs rice (most come from rice production, we just can't tell billions of people to starve), and answer these questions for yourself.

Or you can just make juvenile jokes geared towards amusing the lowest common denominator. Whichever.

 

[Mtntrout]

The Earth's temperature has fluctuated since day one. It has gotten warmer since when?

This is akin to arguing that there has been traffic for decades, and there were some times where traffic was backed up for hours because of accidents, therefore traffic can't be worse today or tomorrow. It is an obvious logical fallacy.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

The chief meteorologist at Weatherbell is Joe Bastardi. Do you know who he is? If not, google is your friend.

I know exactly who he is and all the people at Weatherbell. The chart is theirs, the data you & I paid for as taxpayers and comes from a division of NOAA called NCEP. Google is your friend

 

[Mtntrout]

You got two likes for asking a dumb question-doesn't say too much about your fan club. Maybe you can look at this plot of large natural cycles and figure out why they would dominate short term climate.






Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature.



The second picture is the data inside the red box. Anyone can conclude that the short term cycles of a few thousand years are dominated by the long-term cycle.

1) I think the reference is supposed to be Petit et al. 2001. If you can share the article title, we can confirm.

2) If so, those illustrations are not from Petit et al, as in that article the "present" was not represented given the 200,000 year tick mark interval and the lines not reaching the edge of the graph. Also, temperature was never graphed at all.

Could you give me the name of the article for Petit et al. 2001? If it is "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", then it is 1999 and your graphs are not from that paper.

 

[Danl]

I know exactly who he is and all the people at Weatherbell. The chart is theirs, the data you & I paid for as taxpayers and comes from a division of NOAA called NCEP. Google is your friend

So then you know that Bastardi is an infamous denier of climate change and therefore an extremely biased individual. For instance:

Joe Bastardi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stance on global warming

Bastardi is an outspoken contrarian regarding human-induced global warming.[13][14] His views are sharply at odds with analyses by working scientists in the field.[15][16]

Bastardi has asserted that the world was likely warmer in the 1930s than today, as well as stating that human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans.[17] He frequently argues in his columns that extreme weather events occur naturally and that there is not enough evidence to state that such events are unusual.[18] Bastardi has stated he believes that over the next 30 years, the global average temperature will return to levels seen in the late 1970s due to a so-called "triple-crown of cooling" comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanism.[13]

Bastardi has also claimed that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics,[17] a misunderstanding of that gas's role in causing warming,[19] He has further explained:

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- Joe Bastardi, Fox Business, March 9, 2012.[20]

Physicist Richard A. Muller says Bastardi's explanation of CO2 is "completely wrong" and "even skeptics of global warming, if they know physics, would disagree with him."[15]

If you want to discuss a subject, maybe you shouldn't base your arguments on folks from so far out on the fringe. Anyone can find quotes from any number of whackos on both sides of an argument. Have you, personally, analyzed the data or are you merely looking for someone whose analysis fits with your preconceived notions?

 

[Mtntrout]

I know exactly who he is and all the people at Weatherbell. The chart is theirs, the data you & I paid for as taxpayers and comes from a division of NOAA called NCEP. Google is your friend

Why does NOAA, paid for by us taxpayers, have totally different graphs and findings? Don't tell me it is because they changed the data, because we already covered that and you can graph the raw data yourself and you won't get the figure that was posted from them.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Why does NOAA, paid for by us taxpayers, have totally different graphs and findings? Don't tell me it is because they changed the data, because we already covered that and you can graph the raw data yourself and you won't get the figure that was posted from them.

You are the climate expert. You find out

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

so then you know that bastardi is an infamous denier of climate change and therefore an extremely biased individual. For instance:

joe bastardi - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

stance on global warming

bastardi is an outspoken contrarian regarding human-induced global warming.[13][14] his views are sharply at odds with analyses by working scientists in the field.[15][16]

bastardi has asserted that the world was likely warmer in the 1930s than today, as well as stating that human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans.[17] he frequently argues in his columns that extreme weather events occur naturally and that there is not enough evidence to state that such events are unusual.[18] bastardi has stated he believes that over the next 30 years, the global average temperature will return to levels seen in the late 1970s due to a so-called "triple-crown of cooling" comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanism.[13]

bastardi has also claimed that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics,[17] a misunderstanding of that gas's role in causing warming,[19] he has further explained:

Co2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- joe bastardi, fox business, march 9, 2012.[20]

physicist richard a. Muller says bastardi's explanation of co2 is "completely wrong" and "even skeptics of global warming, if they know physics, would disagree with him."[15]

if you want to discuss a subject, maybe you shouldn't base your arguments on folks from so far out on the fringe. Anyone can find quotes from any number of whackos on both sides of an argument. Have you, personally, analyzed the data or are you merely looking for someone whose analysis fits with your preconceived notions?

tl/dr.

 

[Mtntrout]

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- Joe Bastardi, Fox Business, March 9, 2012.[20]

This is literally nonsense goobly guck. Someone tell Venus it literally cannot be so hot.

 

[Mtntrout]

You are the climate expert. You find out

I know why. Bastardi isn't being honest with the data. Go and graph the raw data he allegedly used yourself. Put it in excel. Try it.

 

[Sandvol]

1) I think the reference is supposed to be Petit et al. 2001. If you can share the article title, we can confirm.

2) If so, those illustrations are not from Petit et al, as in that article the "present" was not represented given the 200,000 year tick mark interval and the lines not reaching the edge of the graph. Also, temperature was never graphed at all.

Could you give me the name of the article for Petit et al. 2001? If it is "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", then it is 1999 and your graphs are not from that paper.

Petit, J.R., et al., 2001. Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2001-076. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

 

[Danl]

tl/dr.

Your boy, Bastardi, doesn't know what he's talking about and you know it.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I know why. Bastardi isn't being honest with the data. Go and graph the raw data he allegedly used yourself. Put it in excel. Try it.

You try it.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Your boy, Bastardi, doesn't know what he's talking about and you know it.

Yea right. You just don't like for what he says. He spent 35 years at Accuweather, how long have you worked at Accuweather? Shall we burn him at the stake since he is a denialist?

 

[Sandvol]

Your boy, Bastardi, doesn't know what he's talking about and you know it.

Well, then he's in the same boat as all the other climate scientists.

 

[Mtntrout]

Petit, J.R., et al., 2001. Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2001-076. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

From the published article for this data set (the 1999 article I already mentioned):

We adopt this glaciological timescale
(GT4), which gives an age of 423 kyr at 3,310 m, without further tuning
(Fig. 2). GT4 never differs by more than 2 kyr from EGTover the last climate
cycle and, in qualitative agreement with recent results49, makes termination
I slightly older (by ,700 yr). We note that it provides a reasonable age
for stage 7.5 (238 kyr) whereas Jouzel et al.13 had to modify EGT for the
second climate cycle by increasing the accumulation by 12% for ages
older than 110 kyr. GT4 never differs by more than 4 kyr from the orbitally
tuned timescale of Waelbroeck et al.50 (defined back to 225 kyr), which is
within the estimated uncertainty of this latter timescale. Overall, we have
good arguments11,50–52 to claim that the accuracy of GT4 should be better
than ±5 kyr for the past 110 kyr.

In other words, the time error bar for this record is more than 50 times larger than global warming. This study's scale is on a whole other level of time that isn't sensitive enough to pick up this geologically-speaking rapid warming.

 

[Mtntrout]

Yea right. You just don't like for what he says. He spent 35 years at Accuweather, how long have you worked at Accuweather? Shall we burn him at the stake since he is a denialist?

Wait, is working at accuweather some misguided attempt at an appeal to authority, while holding a position whose mantra has been to mock consensus and authority?


What sort of information or evidence would change your mind, volsnskins? Is there any rational way to change your mind, or is this purely an emotional issue for you?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Wait, is working at accuweather some misguided attempt at an appeal to authority, while holding a position whose mantra has been to mock consensus and authority?


What sort of information or evidence would change your mind, volsnskins? Is there any rational way to change your mind, or is this purely an emotional issue for you?

Give me a winter with no snow, like your heroes forecasted 10 years ago.

 

[Sandvol]

From the published article for this data set (the 1999 article I already mentioned):



In other words, the time error bar for this record is more than 50 times larger than global warming. This study's scale is on a whole other level of time that isn't sensitive enough to pick up this geologically-speaking rapid warming.

Never claimed that it did. You asked me to explain my statement how large natural climate cycles are the dominate cycles. I attempted to use this study to explain it to you.