Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,126
#5,126
Mtntrout said:
Can you explain why the document I linked from 1979 from the National Academy of Sciences contradicts your assertions?

EDIT: And the guy who predicted an ice-free north pole in 2000 did so in 1972. Why would he do that, if the consensus was cooling?
Click to expand...

Are you implying the scientific community couldn't come to a consensus on the affects of climate change?

And this is different now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,127
#5,127
Mtntrout said:
I've provided primary scientific sources. You've got newspaper clippings. I even linked an article where a guy traced back the cited paper and showed that it didn't warn about cooling at all and was misrepresented.

If a report from the National Academy of Sciences doesn't hold as much merit in your eyes as a newspaper clipping, I can see why you don't accept climate change.
Click to expand...

My primary scientific source trumps your source.
 

Attachments

  • iceage.gif
    iceage.gif
    23 KB · Views: 3
#5,128
#5,128
It always amazes me that some people actually believe there's a global conspiracy among scientists about the nature of climate change. Or, if it isn't that, then it has to be global incompetence from the scientific community. I find either notion incredibly perplexing, because I am neither a conspiracy theorist, nor do I hold the scientific community in such contempt. I feel for the guys in here trying to convey reason to the Sandys of this thread, but I can't help but think now that some people cannot be helped once their mind is set on something.

:popcorn:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,129
#5,129
Mtntrout said:
Scientific theory is not the same as "theory" in the common vernacular. By definition, a scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. A theory is discarded or updated when new observations conflict with the theory. Saying they "aren't correct" is not really understanding what a scientific theory is.

It isn't your fault, the word gets misused all the time even by some scientists. But you can look this up.
Click to expand...

Deflecting!!!!!
 
#5,131
#5,131
It is ironical how back then warming was considered a good thing.

T]he weather in the first part of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millenium, and, partly as a result, the world's population has more than doubled. Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation, the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no signs of reversal. Specific areas, of course, may experience changes markedly different from the average. During the warming period, temperatures in parts of Norway rose five times more than the hemisphere average, and since the cooling trend began again, Iceland's temperature has dropped nearly 2.0 degrees, threatening continued existence of some crops.


Sure blows Hansen's GISS data all to hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,132
#5,132
Sandvol said:
My primary scientific source trumps your source.
Click to expand...

This paper is one of the seminal papers concerning global dimming, a real phenomenon in which the amount of visible light reaching the Earth's surface has been reduced due to increased particulate matter from humans. At the time of the writing of that paper, trends and models seemed to suggest that this could be a serious problem, more so than warming. Since that time, the size of particles created by human activities has reduced for many reasons relating to changing technology, as well as the Clean Air Act similar laws internationally that reduced the production of sulphate aerosols. If we used "dirtier" coal and lower grades of gasoline then we could indeed reduce global warming in the short term, but would be trading for increased acid rain and acid deposition.

In regards to greenhouse gasses, the paper, even in 1971, discusses the warming that will be caused by accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere. It did not foresee the reduction in particulate matter size due to a change in human behavior.

TL;DR: This paper does not support your position of global cooling consensus, nor does it say what you think it says. It actually undermines positions of a)humans do not impact climate b)global warming is a myth and c) there was a consensus on global cooling. I don't believe you've read it.

Do you think the 1971 model you are citing is superior than the ones today? Even when it has data that is no longer relevant as we no longer release particulate matter of the same size when burning fossil fuels?

Even if it were a doom and gloom paper about an impending "ice age," do you think one paper vs now 4 from me indicates a consensus in your favor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,133
#5,133
Sandvol said:
Sure blows Hansen's GISS data all to hell.
Click to expand...

Not at all, if one knows how to read a graph. There was a cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's. It's right there on the graphed data:

509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.gif


Keep looking for bogeymen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,140
#5,140
So in your opinion, 2005 to 2014 is all the matters for climate? That we are trending slightly down is more important than us being .4 C higher than the century average, or that all of these years are hotter than any from the mid 90's back to the 1880's-- in your opinion-- indicates no global warming? Is that your take?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,142
#5,142
VolNSkins, could you link me to where that graph is on the site? Or the data set? When I google image search for it all that comes up is sites other than NOAA, like patriotpost.us and wattsupwiththat. Shouldn't be a problem since you got it from NOAA, right? Help me out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,143
#5,143
Mtntrout said:
VolNSkins, could you link me to where that graph is on the site? Or the data set? When I google image search for it all that comes up is sites other than NOAA, like patriotpost.us and wattsupwiththat. Shouldn't be a problem since you got it from NOAA, right? Help me out.
Click to expand...

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime
 
#5,148
#5,148
McDad said:
These aren't agenda driven questions if that's what you mean. You and I believe differently and I doubt neither will be persuaded by the other.

But I am interested in how you think. What your perspective is and how it has been shaped. I'd rather be making bad puns and cracking jokes but there has been little material in this forum lately for that stuff.

If you wouldn't have stabilized the earth's temp at the last ice age, would you also have not during the warmest era in earth's long history?
Click to expand...
Nope, wouldn't have done it then either. I really like the present climate that has allowed human civilization to flourish.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top