Do you believe in "global warming?" - Page 137 - Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums
 318Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #2041 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-12-2015, 08:49 AM
Born Again Boarder
Gold Subscriber
 
Anfanuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spicewood, Texas (in the boonies)
Posts: 6,995
Garage
Send a message via Skype™ to Anfanuts
Oh that's right. there are two similar threads. B
Anfanuts is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2042 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-12-2015, 12:04 PM
Registered User
 
ARwrench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Transplanted from Holland to The Armpit of New Jersey
Posts: 2,310
Garage



“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
Oo--V--oO There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Mental Illness".
ARwrench is offline  
post #2043 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-22-2015, 10:32 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARwrench View Post
Uh, you do realize that nearly everything said in that video is wildly inaccurate, right?

Meanwhile, back in reality:

"The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York."

https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/janu...-modern-record


1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2044 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-22-2015, 10:42 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post
Shows the growing disparity between "model" projections of rising global temperature and actual temps.
That is known to be inaccurate in multiple ways as already shown elsewhere on the forum yet is posted here without any reflection of the know issues, now that is interesting.

The model assumptions are not listed in what is posted there and the actual models being shown are not legible.

Meanwhile - back to reality:

"These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend pattern"



http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2310.html

1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
post #2045 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-22-2015, 10:45 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post
Decided to post in this thread which has been relatively free from hostile posting of government dogma....
Ha, funny. More likely that it is being shown actual science that shows the issues with your assertions that contributed to that.

Will be interesting to see what happens when actual science on climate science is introduced here as well.

1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
post #2046 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-22-2015, 10:52 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post
Actual climate change is predictable. In the 1990s solar physicists, Penn and Livingstone, published that the sun's activity would diminish. Solar cycle # 23 set a minimum that was the lowest since 1913 and the maximum on # 24 is the weakest since 1900.
That assertion is counter to the actual evidence that while the sun has been flat to slightly cooled we've warmed. Under your logic we'd have to cooled, which we have not, thereby showing your assertion to be incorrect.

Since:

"The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York."


https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/janu...-modern-record

Quote:
Originally Posted by subtle
With this, temperature of the atmosphere has "flat-lined" for 18 years, or half of the period that satellites have been recording temperature.
That assertion is not supported by the actual science:

"The RSS merged lower stratospheric temperature data product is called TLS, or temperature lower stratosphere. Unlike the troposphere, which warmed slowly over this period, the lower stratosphere has been cooling due to both decreases in stratospheric ozone caused by CFC’s, and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases causes by human activity."


1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
post #2047 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-22-2015, 10:53 AM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
Subtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, B C
Posts: 6,243
TD

Your passion to get your beliefs posted has shut down our other "Warming" thread.

I won't play your hostile game.

Done my best, the rest is in the hands of Mother Nature.
ARwrench likes this.

Bob,
Avatar is the 68 Super, bought new.
Subtle is offline  
post #2048 of 2918 (permalink) Old 07-22-2015, 10:59 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post
Your passion to get your beliefs posted has shut down our other "Warming" thread.
Uh, no - that was more likely the result of people resorting to posting masturbation videos etc when shown science that conflicted with their personal beliefs.[/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post
I won't play your hostile game.
It is hard to understand how posting actual science on the matter of climate science is "hostile". Quite confusing....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post

Done my best, the rest is in the hands of Mother Nature.
Here is what Mother Nature is doing:


1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
post #2049 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-11-2015, 02:32 PM
Sig
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 489
Looking at this in the bigger scheme of things we know that Earth temperatures have never been constant for extended periods over the last few millions of years, so it seems naive to think they will stay where they are today for ever.

Nevertheless, as a matter of principle (or rather ethics) I believe it's wrong to waste natural ressources and to ignore the impact of our way of life on our environment. In this respect it hardly matters if manmade global warming exists or not.

Temperature of Planet Earth - Gerg's Net
Attached Images
 
Sig is offline  
post #2050 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-11-2015, 03:14 PM
Registered User
 
beeton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Beeton, Ontario
Posts: 863
Let's not over-complicate the message, It is a simple one:
Cow farts are not warming the world.
Pollution is an issue in that we breath the stuff but overall, the amount of co2 we put out pales compared to what nature burps up. Not to say we shouldn't cut back, just that the message has been hijacked by profiteers. Why is it that when oil prices are halved, the gas prices are not? It's called "supply and demand". We (in Canada) pay $1.15 per liter (about $4.50 cdn per gallon) because the oil companies know we do not have a choice. Same goes for Americans. We can ***** all we want and the prices will be softened for a week or two but once we settle in to paying higher prices, that's where they seem to stay. Same goes for "carbon credits". They will be implemented to "save the world" and if we *****, we are called "polluters". The folks in charge know well enough that resistance can be countered with "timely" news stories of environmental damage and we will mostly fall in-line. It's not easy keeping your opinion when you go against the grain these days as the media is massed against anyone or any group that does not wave the rally-flag around an issue.
Greenhouse credits, carbon credits, will not clean up anything. It will become a new currency. Companies will be "shorted" or "longed" on their ability to meet credit deadlines and the rich will become richer.
Money will be funneled to "developing" nations to help, a good thing, and what isn't siphoned off into the pockets of politicians and business interests will trickle down but after all that, poor kids in India and other countries will still be smashing used pc boards on rocks with mallets to extract metals and material.
Most big business is run by greed, not the need to fulfill an obligation to those that use the product. (talking about IMF policies here and other multi-nationals, not mom and pop shops).

As for nature, icebergs are melting mainly from the bottom up.

In the 1400 bc era, there were just a handful of folks on the planet and they did not have instant messaging. A village could be swallowed up by a sudden crack in the Earth and the next village wouldn't have noticed until market day.

There is a reason why every major society on every continent has similar stories and all of them seemed to be written (or whatever type of record keeping was used by those peoples... writing, hieroglyphics, cuneiform, etc.) at about the same time. All speak of similar events and upheavals. The descriptions are uncomfortably similar.

If all you know about history is what you gleaned from Turner Classic movies, time to read. And no, the main-stream media, being more interested in the latest Kardashian *** pimple saga will not keep you informed on anything important....nor should you believe everything you find on "gooftube".

Last edited by beeton; 08-11-2015 at 03:16 PM. Reason: typo
beeton is offline  
post #2051 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-11-2015, 04:01 PM
Registered User
 
msiert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,900
A good source for climate change information and all the climate engineering going on, I found it quite eye opening.

Geoengineering Watch | Exposing the climate engineering/geoengineering cover-up

Darkside Member

Last edited by msiert; 08-11-2015 at 04:37 PM.
msiert is offline  
post #2052 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-11-2015, 06:40 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by beeton View Post
...Cow farts are not warming the world.
Ah yes, the "we're too small to making a difference" standard argument with a straw man added for extra credit.

There are some issues with your assertions and inference.

1) Cows farts (you words not mine) are mainly a methane problem.

2) The scale of CO2 release is massive - in the trillions of tons
. Frankly it would be ludicrous to assume that nothing would happen at that scale.



Shell, Unilever Seek 1 Trillion-Ton Limit on CO2 Output - Bloomberg Business

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeton View Post
...the amount of co2 we put out pales compared to what nature burps up.
That misses the point -

"Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.

Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense - Scientific American

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeton View Post
As for nature, icebergs are melting mainly from the bottom up.
Yes, because the oceans are warming as has been already documented here.

1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
post #2053 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-11-2015, 06:44 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by msiert View Post
A good source for climate change information and all the climate engineering going on...[/url]
Hmm, that is an interesting site, appears to be conspiracy theory oriented perhaps?

Interesting that they did say this - "One more factor that is extremely important to consider, it appears that all the climate data/temperature records are being radically falsified to the down side. In the areas we have investigated, the “official reading” for a given day is routinely 3, 4, or even 5 degrees below what actually occurred on the ground."

Global Cooling or Global Warming, Which is it? » Global Cooling or Global Warming, Which is it? | Geoengineering Watch

1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
post #2054 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-11-2015, 06:46 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
Forbes (yes Forbes) on the myth that warming "stopped" in 1998 - which is often repeated here.

"The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth. Here is a tiny sample of the false claims...


“Current pause in global warming”
“lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
“There is no credible (statistically significant) data that says global warming is occurring”
“fifteen years of warming, then fifteen of cooling”
“The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.”
“Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.”

I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming – an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences....

The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers."

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data - Forbes

1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
post #2055 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-12-2015, 10:56 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,041
More common, and already debunked, climate change denial "arguements";

"The alleged "hockey stick" graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a "medieval warm period" around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth.

It is hard to know which is greater: contrarians' overstatement of the flaws in the historical temperature reconstruction from 1998 by Michael E. Mann and his colleagues, or the ultimate insignificance of their argument to the case for climate change.

First, there is not simply one hockey-stick reconstruction of historical temperatures using one set of proxy data. Similar evidence for sharply increasing temperatures over the past couple of centuries has turned up independently while looking at ice cores, tree rings and other proxies for direct measurements, from many locations. Notwithstanding their differences, they corroborate that Earth has been getting sharply warmer.

A 2006 National Research Council review of the evidence concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries"—which is the section of the graph most relevant to current climate trends. The report placed less faith in the reconstructions back to 900 A.D., although it still viewed them as "plausible." Medieval warm periods in Europe and Asia with temperatures comparable to those seen in the 20th century were therefore similarly plausible but might have been local phenomena: the report noted "the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain." And a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today.

After the NRC review was released, another analysis by four statisticians, called the Wegman report, which was not formally peer reviewed, was more critical of the hockey stick paper. But correction of the errors it pointed out did not substantially change the shape of the hockey stick graph. In 2008 Mann and his colleagues issued an updated version of the temperature reconstruction that echoed their earlier findings.

But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted... What of it? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead.

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense - Scientific American

1966 Giulia Sprint $500 junk yard find. I probably overpaid...
1971 1750 Spider basket case , 1972 GTV 2.0 L
tdskip is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome