Jump to content

Great way to mislead the public about global warming..


59 replies to this topic

#21
thundersleet

  • Members
  • 7,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Queens, NY

View PostFreezingDrizzle, on 11 April 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Solely for sake of discussion, global warming is far preferable to global cooling. A mere 10,000 years ago there was an ice sheet down to central NJ.

Be careful what you wish for FD, especially with your location near the Raritan Bay. I don't think you'd like to get flooded by the Atlantic Ocean either.
Carlisle, PA is about 20 miles west-southwest of Harrisburg

J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets!
Let's go Mets!

#22
FreezingDrizzle

  • Members
  • 9,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:200 yds. from Raritan Bay, elevation 37' --
  • Perth_Amboy
  • NJ

View Postthundersleet, on 12 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Be careful what you wish for FD, especially with your location near the Raritan Bay. I don't think you'd like to get flooded by the Atlantic Ocean either.
I didn't "wish" for anything.

#23
NittanyLion

    Mike- NWS BTV

  • Meteorologists
  • 8,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colchester, VT

View PostNittanyLion, on 28 March 2013 - 12:08 AM, said:

If it is a completely natural cycle, we should now be cooling, as the last natural warming cycle ended in the 1990's. The natural cooling cycle should have begun around 2000 (per solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, etc...), and we should slowly be headed for a "Little Ice Age". Thus, if we don't see any cooling in the next decade or so, I would strongly argue against it being completely natural.

Speaking to this point (through 2000 anyway):

Posted Image

Also, when you hear "normal" now, remember its actually warmer than the "normals" used previously before 2011.

Posted Image
Mike
NWS Meteorologist
South Burlington, VT
Elevation: 332 ft
Snowfall 2014-2015: 83.4"

Colchester, VT
Elevation: 311 ft

The views expressed in this post are solely mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Weather Service.

#24
gpsnavigator

  • Members
  • 1,747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morris County, NJ
President Obama hit hard on this issue today in a speech, even remarking at one point "I don't have a lot of patience for people who deny this issue", and "We don't have time for a meeting of the flat earth society". Irregardless of anyone's views on Obama, you have to admit those were pretty powerful lines.
-GPSNav
Home: Rockaway, NJ - Morris County -- Elevation 745 feet
Work: Newton, NJ - Sussex County -- Elevation 570 feet
Interests: weather, hiking, kayaking, math, science, current events, classic cars, and craft beer

#25
NittanyLion

    Mike- NWS BTV

  • Meteorologists
  • 8,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colchester, VT
Even if someone doesn't believe in "global warming", you'd think they want to lower pollution anyway?
Mike
NWS Meteorologist
South Burlington, VT
Elevation: 332 ft
Snowfall 2014-2015: 83.4"

Colchester, VT
Elevation: 311 ft

The views expressed in this post are solely mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Weather Service.

#26
GameOfLove

  • Members
  • 3,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newburgh, New York
  • Newburgh
  • NY

View PostNittanyLion, on 26 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

Even if someone doesn't believe in "global warming", you'd think they want to lower pollution anyway?

Exactly. This is what I don't understand. Those who say global warming is a "fraud" don't they want to leave the next generation and the next a cleaner planet? Really, if anything, global warming is a wake up call to how much waste we as human generate and pollute the earth.

http://mediamatters....rming-te/194560
http://mediamatters....s-climat/194613
http://mediamatters....e-obamas/194607
Location: Newburgh, New York
Hudson Valley Region
Elevation: 285 ft


Flickr Account:
http://www.flickr.co...os/springhudson

#27
weatherbowl

  • Members
  • 10,451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Nassau County
  • Levittown
  • NY
I don't think there is anyone that likes or wants pollution. The conflict comes in when you make choices of lowering pollution but at what cost.
Eastern Nassau County, Long Island

#28
NittanyLion

    Mike- NWS BTV

  • Meteorologists
  • 8,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colchester, VT

View Postweatherbowl, on 27 June 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I don't think there is anyone that likes or wants pollution. The conflict comes in when you make choices of lowering pollution but at what cost.

IMO it should be done at just about any cost.
Mike
NWS Meteorologist
South Burlington, VT
Elevation: 332 ft
Snowfall 2014-2015: 83.4"

Colchester, VT
Elevation: 311 ft

The views expressed in this post are solely mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Weather Service.

#29
icehater

  • Members
  • 23,215 posts
  • Location:Northern Monmouth county
I think the authors of the link below have captured the problem well. The fact that proponents oppose nuclear energy is a big part of the problem and tells me they want to point out a problem but not do anything to solve it or they somehow unrealistically expect the whole planet to downsize energy use in cohesion. There are no rewards without some risk. I still think a lot of this is a natural earth cycle but clearly man has to be doing something to aid it. But saying something is happening or not happening because of global warming is getting us nowhere. Scare tactics never work. And the whole payoff system makes everyone skeptical of true intentions and proper procedures to slow it all down. .

I didn't realize Showtime has a 9 part speciial starting Sunday night. That looks to be really interesting. See the second link.

http://www.nytimes.c...=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.sho.com/s...ngerously/about

Trailer:

http://www.bing.com/...C5581A80B0EE508
Monmouth county NJ

#30
wishcast_hater

    No Curvature

  • Members
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dutchess County
  • Lagrangeville
  • NY
Those who deny global warming (myself included) have no problem with pollution control within reasonable limits BUT this is an agenda who's only solution is to throw tax dollars at it to solve the problem.

Give up meat, coal, oil, economic growth and national sovereignty - orders new IPCC climate report
by James Delingpole 14 Apr 2014,
The United Nations (UN) has delivered its latest verdict on the measures necessary to save the world from global warming and the news is as grim as it is predictable and wearisomely familiar:


More regulation from "experts", technocrats and bureaucrats at supranational organisations, such as the one whose initials begin with U and end with N.

More taxpayer subsidies for expensive, inefficient renewable energy.

More nuclear power (with shale gas used as a transitional fuel to replace coal).

The abandonment of fossil fuels.

Less meat consumption.

A single, globally-regulated price for carbon dioxide.

More local-government-enforced walking, cycling and public transportation.

More back-door wealth redistribution from the West to the developing world in the name of "sustainability"

All at a cost to the global economy of up to 3.7 per cent of GDP by 2030, provided we act now.

These are the recommendations of Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be officially announced in Berlin on Monday.

The report notes that almost half of the rise in post-industrial anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 levels since 1750 occurred during the last forty years. Therefore, it argues, a dramatic decarbonization of the world economy - including more renewable energy and less fossil fuel - must begin immediately if global warming is to be kept below 2 degrees C by the end of the century.

This action will set back economic growth, involve significant "behavioural change" and "devalue fossil fuel assets", the report admits. But only with "major institutional and technological changes" can the world avert an even greater threat. If no action is taken, it warns, temperatures may rise by as much as 4.8 degrees C by 2100.

"There is a clear message from science: to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system we need to move away from business as usual," said Germany's Otmar Edenhofer, one of the three co-chairs of the report.

However, Edenhofer's claim sits somewhat at odds with the evidence produced in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report's two earlier sections.

The Working Group I report, released in September last year, admitted that there has been an inexplicable pause in global warming since 1997, which none of its computer models predicted. (In other words, the entire basis of man-made-global warming theory - which underpins Working Group III's demands for "decarbonisation" - may depend on a flawed assumption, unsupported by real-world evidence).

The Working Group II report, released last month, said that the cost of "global warming" may not be nearly so great as earlier, hysterical reports had claimed: perhaps as little as 0.2 per cent of GDP by the end of the century. Even if you take the report's upper estimate of the economic costs of global warming - 2.0 per cent of GDP - that still means that it will take less than one year's economic growth to wipe out ALL the economic damage that global warming can muster.

This makes a mockery of the suggestion by Working Group III that in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees C by the end of the century, nearly 4 per cent of GDP must be spent on decarbonization measures. Clearly - if Working Group II is correct - it would be much cheaper and less economically damaging to do nothing.

"The report is written in extreme language, of course it is, because that is what the IPCC does," said Benny Peiser of the independent, London-based think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "But what is unusual about this one is its support for nuclear energy and shale gas - for which the greens will hate it."

He added: "Not that any of this matters. The IPCC is longer taken seriously by governments around the world and decarbonization has ceased to be one of their major priorities. Thanks to the crisis in the Ukraine and the state of the global economy, they are now much more interested in energy security and economic competitiveness than they are in 'combating climate change.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is 'Nonsense'

A prominent scientist and former NASA researcher has added his voice to those who challenge the "scientific fact" that manmade carbon emissions are causing global warming.

Dr. Leslie Woodcock is a professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester in England, with a Ph.D. from the University of London, and served as a senior research consultant at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Laboratory in Ohio.

In an interview with Britain's Yorkshire Evening Post, Woodcock declared: "The theory of 'manmade climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

"The theory is that CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel causes 'global warming.' In fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere [than carbon dioxide].

"Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it's the gas of life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion. I understand why people defend it when they have spent so long believing in it."

Woodcock is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of the journal Molecular Simulation, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a former guest scientist at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

He went on to say: "If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It's an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.

"The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years. If there are extremes, it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's not permanent and it's not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.

"It's become almost an industry, as a consequence of this professional misconduct by government advisers around the world."

But he added: "You can't blame ordinary people with little or no science education for wanting to be seen to be good citizens who care about their grandchildren's future and the environment."



Man made global warming: The Religion For Those Educated Beyond Their Intelligence
Earth is not a spinning ball
Flat Earth Infrared Camera - Hundred of miles with no curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RJhRNWCMo&t=608s
2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Can't have + Pressure against a vaccuum: https://www.youtube....suvdGYCY&t=500s
Astronauts on wires / Chromakey Technology: https://www.youtube....h?v=x6XeELc3QH8
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLltxIX4B8_URNUzDE2sXctnUAEXgEDDGn
http://www.atlantean...nning-ball.html
https://flatearthsci...t-earth-proofs/

#31
gpsnavigator

  • Members
  • 1,747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morris County, NJ
I'm certainly not going to champion for everything the UN puts out, but an acknowledgement of the issue and a rational discussion would be a good start. And not just climate change, but resource management, pollution issues, trash disposal, clean water, etc. We live in a world of 7 billion+ people, and without adequate resource protection, that's an issue that will soon catch up to us all. Yes, it will cost money, money that would be much better spent as opposed to spending it on wars and excess buerocracy in the government.

Regarding: the NASA scientist. 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is real and man made. There may be differing opinions within that 97% of the expected impacts and time frames of warming, and the climate tolerances. But the overall consensus is that the issue exists. That means 3% of them don't believe it. If 3% of doctors believed that cigarette smoking is harmless, would you be comfortable with that?
-GPSNav
Home: Rockaway, NJ - Morris County -- Elevation 745 feet
Work: Newton, NJ - Sussex County -- Elevation 570 feet
Interests: weather, hiking, kayaking, math, science, current events, classic cars, and craft beer

#32
weatherbowl

  • Members
  • 10,451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Nassau County
  • Levittown
  • NY
A new report coming out about global warming (which seems to have been changed to climate change) has all the terrible rhetoric of past reports. Now I'm not saying they are wrong, only time will tell. I just find it interesting that climate change has nothing good about it, or at least nobody ever mentions it. Won't climate change bring better climate to many areas, or, is everything about it a disaster as many of the climate change advocates seem to dwell on.
Eastern Nassau County, Long Island

#33
NittanyLion

    Mike- NWS BTV

  • Meteorologists
  • 8,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colchester, VT
Tied for the hottest April on record.

http://www.huffingto..._n_5360948.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Once again, the world hit record heat levels. The average global temperature last month tied the hottest April on record four years ago.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday say last month's average temperature was 58.1 degrees Fahrenheit (14.5 degrees Celsius). That was 1.39 degrees F (0.77 C) warmer than the average last century.

The last time the globe's monthly temperature was cooler than normal was February 1985.

NOAA scientist Jessica Blunden said April's heat was driven especially by Siberia and Eurasia. She said the United States and Canada were the few exceptions. Canada was a bit cooler than normal and the United States was a tad warmer than normal.

Mike
NWS Meteorologist
South Burlington, VT
Elevation: 332 ft
Snowfall 2014-2015: 83.4"

Colchester, VT
Elevation: 311 ft

The views expressed in this post are solely mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Weather Service.

#34
weatherbowl

  • Members
  • 10,451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Nassau County
  • Levittown
  • NY
This is

View PostNittanyLion, on 22 May 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Tied for the hottest April on record.

http://www.huffingto..._n_5360948.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Once again, the world hit record heat levels. The average global temperature last month tied the hottest April on record four years ago.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday say last month's average temperature was 58.1 degrees Fahrenheit (14.5 degrees Celsius). That was 1.39 degrees F (0.77 C) warmer than the average last century.
The last time the globe's monthly temperature was cooler than normal was February 1985.
NOAA scientist Jessica Blunden said April's heat was driven especially by Siberia and Eurasia. She said the United States and Canada were the few exceptions. Canada was a bit cooler than normal and the United States was a tad warmer than normal.

This is what I don't get, I have read in numerous places that the earths temperature has basically been unchanged for the last 17 years. So somebody is not being honest. I don't know who it is, but personally, I think the powers that be will make the stats say what they want them to say and I am talking about those who believe in global warming and those that don't.
Eastern Nassau County, Long Island

#35
satellite_eyes

  • Moderators
  • 7,812 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Mill, SC (Home) & Charlotte, NC (Work)
Defintiely hear a lot of conflicting stats out there.
Lake Hopatcong, NJ (NW Morris County)
Elevation 1150' - Average Snow: 50"

Snow Stats (as of 3/31/15)
2014-2015 Winter - 67.0" Min Temp -6
2013-2014 Winter - 66.1" Min Temp -5
2012-2013 Winter - 53.4" Min Temp +1
2011-2012 Winter - 26.9" Min Temp +5
2010-2011 Winter - 62.3" Min Temp -6

#36
snowshoe

  • Members
  • 3,883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wantage NJ (Northwest Sussex County)
  • Wantage
  • NJ
Im on the side of Ice. The Earth has been going through changes for so long, using stats from the last 100 years cant be compared. 100 years is such a short amount of time. Think about it, North Jersey had two ice ages. The ice flows down to a point then recedes so far. Then the second brought ice back down and then receded. As of today it still recededs. Areas are losing land do to rising waters but people forget land is also still being formed at the same time. The Adirondacks are still rising, coast lines are being reshaped. The strongest species will survive. Volcano eruptions produce tons of pollution.
Im all for protecting the environment. The pollution was a lot worst during the industrial revolution then it is today. Rivers are cleaner etc..... If people were that concerned about the environment then lets stop buying the crap we buy. Start making quality products that will last. Back in the day we had one TV per house. If the TV broke we got it fixed. Now we have multiple tv's, computers that have to be replaced every year it seems. We waste more today then we did 20+ years ago. Everything is disposable today. It breaks we replace rather then repair. If the govt is that concerned then start with what we buy everyday. Do we need individual water bottles that you just throw away. I have used the same Nalgene bottle at work for the last 9 years. Since when did the government ever care about us or the environment................................. its a scam
Location: Wantage NJ (Northwest Sussex County)
Total snow for 2018-2019 season 36.7 inches
Total snow for 2017-2018 season 64.2 inches
Total snow for 2016-2017 season 62.1 inches
Total snow for 2015-2016 season 12 inches (Least amount ever recorded for my area)
Total snow for 2014-2015 season: 56.3 inches
Total snow for 2013-2014 season: 60.1 inches
Total snow for 2012-2013 season: 50.6 inches
Total snow for 2011-2012 season: 24 inches
Total snow for 2010-2011 season: 50.8 inches
Total snow for 2009-2010 season: 69.5 inches
Total snow for 2008-2009 season: 42.6 inches
Total snow for 2007-2008 season: 52.3 inches
Average 60 Inches

#37
gpsnavigator

  • Members
  • 1,747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morris County, NJ

View Postweatherbowl, on 22 May 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

This is what I don't get, I have read in numerous places that the earths temperature has basically been unchanged for the last 17 years. So somebody is not being honest. I don't know who it is, but personally, I think the powers that be will make the stats say what they want them to say and I am talking about those who believe in global warming and those that don't.

From a mathematical standpoint, this happens because anyone at any point can choose their own custom time periods to create the narrative that fits their belief system. This is a classic example of how mathematics can be used to esentially tell a lie even if the numbers appear correct on the surface (isn't this what the VA has just been caught doing?) But let's stick to climate:

Using linear trending and raw monthly anomaly data from NOAA for land and ocean, I did some of my own data manipulation in Excel. I started out by trending the data from 1901 - Feb 2014 (113 years of data). The output value for slope of the trend line over one hundred years is 0.84, which means +0.84C of warming per century, which is in line with what has been reported from trustworthy sources for this same time frame. Then, using 1980 - Feb 2014, the same trending analysis reports a slope of 1.44 over a hundred years, corresponding to +1.44C of warming per century, in line with claims that global warming has accelerated since 1980.

Then I wanted to investigate the claim of unchanged temperatures over the last 15 or so years. So I trended out the temperature anomaly data from 1998 - Feb 2014, producing a slope of +0.36C per century. Judging by the scatter plot for that time frame, there does appear to be a bit of a slower increase in temperatures for that time frame (but still an increase). But here's the catch. If I go back only two more years and start at 1996, I'm right back to the slope of +0.84C. The reason this happens is because there is a rather large spike in the data from 1996-1998.

For fun, here are some other cherry picked times:

2000 - Feb 2014 comes out to +0.36C (same as 1998 - Feb 2014)
Jan 2010 - Dec 2012 actually creates global cooling for the skeptics. Slope is -3.6C per century.
Jan 2012 - Dec 2013 gives a slope of +7.2C per century, a good one for the most aggressive alarmist arguments.

So hopefully I've made a point for folks to ponder. My personal belief is that anthropogenic global warming exists and has been going on for more than a century, due to CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases (similar trends are evident in the datasets tracking CO2 concentrations over time). Most climate scientists (97%) agree AGW is real, although they may still have some differences of opinion on the long-term impacts to the planet.

As far as the recent slowdown, I have heard that natural variation could play a role (solar activity, el Nino?). Some have suggested that if this cycle were purely natural, the planet should actually have cooled off over the last 15 years. Also climate sensitivity (see last sentence of paragraph above). This is the science part, and while I'm pretty well read on the topic, maybe Nittany can back me up on this one.

One last point: If you consider the rate of increase in the temperature over the last century, it's risen much faster than at any point in the past thousands of years as determined by proxy data from ice core samples and tree rings. Temperature fluctuations have always occurred naturally, but not at the rate we are seeing today. Same for CO2 concentrations.

Raw data source for trends:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...s.php#anomalies


An interesting tid bit about creating false trends:

http://www.skeptical...aphics.php?g=47

Enjoy-
GPSNav
-GPSNav
Home: Rockaway, NJ - Morris County -- Elevation 745 feet
Work: Newton, NJ - Sussex County -- Elevation 570 feet
Interests: weather, hiking, kayaking, math, science, current events, classic cars, and craft beer

#38
NittanyLion

    Mike- NWS BTV

  • Meteorologists
  • 8,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colchester, VT

View Postgpsnavigator, on 31 May 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

From a mathematical standpoint, this happens because anyone at any point can choose their own custom time periods to create the narrative that fits their belief system. his is a classic example of how mathematics can be used to esentially tell a lie even if the numbers appear correct on the surface (isn't this what the VA has just been caught doing?) But let's stick to climate:

Using linear trending and raw monthly anomaly data from NOAA for land and ocean, I did some of my own data manipulation in Excel. I started out by trending the data from 1901 - Feb 2014 (113 years of data). The output value for slope of the trend line over one hundred years is 0.84, which means +0.84C of warming per century, which is in line with what has been reported from trustworthy sources for this same time frame. Then, using 1980 - Feb 2014, the same trending analysis reports a slope of 1.44 over a hundred years, corresponding to +1.44C of warming per century, in line with claims that global warming has accelerated since 1980.

Then I wanted to investigate the claim of unchanged temperatures over the last 15 or so years. So I trended out the temperature anomaly data from 1998 - Feb 2014, producing a slope of +0.36C per century. Judging by the scatter plot for that time frame, there does appear to be a bit of a slower increase in temperatures for that time frame (but still an increase). But here's the catch. If I go back only two more years and start at 1996, I'm right back to the slope of +0.84C. The reason this happens is because there is a rather large spike in the data from 1996-1998.

For fun, here are some other cherry picked times:

2000 - Feb 2014 comes out to +0.36C (same as 1998 - Feb 2014)
Jan 2010 - Dec 2012 actually creates global cooling for the skeptics. Slope is -3.6C per century.
Jan 2012 - Dec 2013 gives a slope of +7.2C per century, a good one for the most aggressive alarmist arguments.

So hopefully I've made a point for folks to ponder. My personal belief is that anthropogenic global warming exists and has been going on for more than a century, due to CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases (similar trends are evident in the datasets tracking CO2 concentrations over time). Most climate scientists (97%) agree AGW is real, although they may still have some differences of opinion on the long-term impacts to the planet.

As far as the recent slowdown, I have heard that natural variation could play a role (solar activity, el Nino?). Some have suggested that if this cycle were purely natural, the planet should actually have cooled off over the last 15 years. Also climate sensitivity (see last sentence of paragraph above). This is the science part, and while I'm pretty well read on the topic, maybe Nittany can back me up on this one.

One last point: If you consider the rate of increase in the temperature over the last century, it's risen much faster than at any point in the past thousands of years as determined by proxy data from ice core samples and tree rings. Temperature fluctuations have always occurred naturally, but not at the rate we are seeing today. Same for CO2 concentrations.

Raw data source for trends:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...s.php#anomalies


An interesting tid bit about creating false trends:

http://www.skeptical...aphics.php?g=47

Enjoy-
GPSNav

Correct, if it is purely natural, we should now be in a cooling phase, as the last natural warming cycle ended in the 1990's. The natural cooling cycle should have begun around 2000 (per solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, etc...), and we should slowly be headed for a "Little Ice Age". Thus, if we don't see any cooling in the next decade or so, it would strongly argue against it being completely natural.

It makes since if AGW is real that the greatest rises occurred in the 1990's as you may have had two forces increasing the warm (anthropogenic forces and natural forces). Now if the Earth is naturally cooling, but still feeling the effects of anthropogenic warming, you're seeing a less aggressive warming.
Mike
NWS Meteorologist
South Burlington, VT
Elevation: 332 ft
Snowfall 2014-2015: 83.4"

Colchester, VT
Elevation: 311 ft

The views expressed in this post are solely mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Weather Service.

#39
NittanyLion

    Mike- NWS BTV

  • Meteorologists
  • 8,930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colchester, VT
Posted Image
Mike
NWS Meteorologist
South Burlington, VT
Elevation: 332 ft
Snowfall 2014-2015: 83.4"

Colchester, VT
Elevation: 311 ft

The views expressed in this post are solely mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Weather Service.

#40
weatherbowl

  • Members
  • 10,451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Nassau County
  • Levittown
  • NY

View Postgpsnavigator, on 31 May 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

From a mathematical standpoint, this happens because anyone at any point can choose their own custom time periods to create the narrative that fits their belief system. his is a classic example of how mathematics can be used to esentially tell a lie even if the numbers appear correct on the surface (isn't this what the VA has just been caught doing?) But let's stick to climate:

Using linear trending and raw monthly anomaly data from NOAA for land and ocean, I did some of my own data manipulation in Excel. I started out by trending the data from 1901 - Feb 2014 (113 years of data). The output value for slope of the trend line over one hundred years is 0.84, which means +0.84C of warming per century, which is in line with what has been reported from trustworthy sources for this same time frame. Then, using 1980 - Feb 2014, the same trending analysis reports a slope of 1.44 over a hundred years, corresponding to +1.44C of warming per century, in line with claims that global warming has accelerated since 1980.

Then I wanted to investigate the claim of unchanged temperatures over the last 15 or so years. So I trended out the temperature anomaly data from 1998 - Feb 2014, producing a slope of +0.36C per century. Judging by the scatter plot for that time frame, there does appear to be a bit of a slower increase in temperatures for that time frame (but still an increase). But here's the catch. If I go back only two more years and start at 1996, I'm right back to the slope of +0.84C. The reason this happens is because there is a rather large spike in the data from 1996-1998.

For fun, here are some other cherry picked times:

2000 - Feb 2014 comes out to +0.36C (same as 1998 - Feb 2014)
Jan 2010 - Dec 2012 actually creates global cooling for the skeptics. Slope is -3.6C per century.
Jan 2012 - Dec 2013 gives a slope of +7.2C per century, a good one for the most aggressive alarmist arguments.

So hopefully I've made a point for folks to ponder. My personal belief is that anthropogenic global warming exists and has been going on for more than a century, due to CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases (similar trends are evident in the datasets tracking CO2 concentrations over time). Most climate scientists (97%) agree AGW is real, although they may still have some differences of opinion on the long-term impacts to the planet.

As far as the recent slowdown, I have heard that natural variation could play a role (solar activity, el Nino?). Some have suggested that if this cycle were purely natural, the planet should actually have cooled off over the last 15 years. Also climate sensitivity (see last sentence of paragraph above). This is the science part, and while I'm pretty well read on the topic, maybe Nittany can back me up on this one.

One last point: If you consider the rate of increase in the temperature over the last century, it's risen much faster than at any point in the past thousands of years as determined by proxy data from ice core samples and tree rings. Temperature fluctuations have always occurred naturally, but not at the rate we are seeing today. Same for CO2 concentrations.

Raw data source for trends:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...s.php#anomalies


An interesting tid bit about creating false trends:

http://www.skeptical...aphics.php?g=47

Enjoy-
GPSNav

Nice job gpsnavigator, informative. It appears the earth has slowed its warming the past 17 years but only time will tell if this will continue. I have wondered, like NIttany mentioned, is this a cooling period for the earth that is natural but not as severe due to global warming. Time will tell.
Eastern Nassau County, Long Island





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users