Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions?

[Vepres]

These are the same people that said we were headed for an ice age in the 1970s.

To even suggest that the news fad of "ice age coming soon" in the 1970's reached even a fraction of the level of scientific consensus that global warming has today is more than just laughable.

32,000 Scientists disagree with you.

Haha, Oregon Petition.  One of the most well-known jokes...in fact, I'm surprised anyone has heard of it other than in the context that it's completely invalid.
The reason it's invalid is because the vast majority of the signatories aren't climatologists.  They're veteranarians, chemists, and the like, and only 200 of that 32,000 are climate scientists.  That's a small fraction of the number of climatologists out there.

StatesRights does have a point. If the scientific community views global warming as fact, than why can't they answer these questions.

By the way, if the world is warming, why was the average temperature steady or even declining slightly the past decade?

I'm not a denier, I think a healthy level of skepticism is necessary.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It is a question I'd like to see Harry answer.  Why has the earth cooled in the past 10 years?

No matter how much NOAA cooks the numbers on the surface record, the planet has still been in a cooling trend for the past 7 years.

Remember... 7 years was about the length of time it took for scientists to go from "we're headed towards an ice age" to "the greenhouse effect could be devastating"

[??????????]

Sunspots and flares. Really, is it that hard?

[7,052,770]

It is a question I'd like to see Harry answer.  Why has the earth cooled in the past 10 years?

No matter how much NOAA cooks the numbers on the surface record, the planet has still been in a cooling trend for the past 7 years.

Remember... 7 years was about the length of time it took for scientists to go from "we're headed towards an ice age" to "the greenhouse effect could be devastating"

I'm not an expert on climatology, and neither is anyone else on this forum.  However when there is such a profound agreement by the people who are experts, you have to trust it.

All your numbers and charts are nice, but you ruin all of your credibility when you actually try to suggest that the 70's media fad of "omg ice age!" had even a fraction of the scientific consensus behind it that the fact of global warming has.

Sunspots and flares. Really, is it that hard?

Why do you reject the consensus of scientific opinion in favor of something that few if any climatologists believe to be the cause?

[??????????]

Because I don't believe the lies of filthy environazis who are attempting a power grab.

[7,052,770]

Because I don't believe the lies of filthy environazis who are attempting a power grab.

1.  Have "environazis" completely taken over the climatology field?  If so, that's amazing.
2.  Explain to me how this "power grab" will work, because it seems pretty far-fetched.

[??????????]

Because I don't believe the lies of filthy environazis who are attempting a power grab.

1.  Have "environazis" completely taken over the climatology field?  If so, that's amazing.
2.  Explain to me how this "power grab" will work, because it seems pretty far-fetched.

Ever heard of the Energy bill just passed by the house?

[7,052,770]

Because I don't believe the lies of filthy environazis who are attempting a power grab.

1.  Have "environazis" completely taken over the climatology field?  If so, that's amazing.
2.  Explain to me how this "power grab" will work, because it seems pretty far-fetched.

Ever heard of the Energy bill just passed by the house?

I'm afraid I don't follow how it becomes an "environazi power grab," nor do I understand how these "environazis" have completely taken over the field of climatology to the point where virtually every climatologist is in agreement with them...

[Ban my account ffs!]

It is a question I'd like to see Harry answer.  Why has the earth cooled in the past 10 years?

No matter how much NOAA cooks the numbers on the surface record, the planet has still been in a cooling trend for the past 7 years.

Remember... 7 years was about the length of time it took for scientists to go from "we're headed towards an ice age" to "the greenhouse effect could be devastating"

I'm not an expert on climatology, and neither is anyone else on this forum.  However when there is such a profound agreement by the people who are experts, you have to trust it.

All your numbers and charts are nice, but you ruin all of your credibility when you actually try to suggest that the 70's media fad of "omg ice age!" had even a fraction of the scientific consensus behind it that the fact of global warming has.

Sunspots and flares. Really, is it that hard?

Why do you reject the consensus of scientific opinion in favor of something that few if any climatologists believe to be the cause?

How can you trust the consensus of scientists when they have not addressed the question at hand?

How about rather than using ad hominem attacks, you debate the issue.  If you can't be a big boy and debate it, then please keep your mouth shut.  You have a really stuck up militant liberal attitude when it comes to this issue... and I've seen you throw out a lot of loaded rhetoric as well as dismissals of well researched climate information and yet you offer almost nothing to the debate in return.

As far as the "ice age hype"... I merely brought it up because at the time, nobody knew much of anything about the Greenhouse theory or the greenhouse effect, and at the time, the planet was cooling and had been for 30 years.  Within 7 years, however, the trend had turned around strongly and with the record high temps for the planet in 1980 and 1981, talk of the Greenhouse effect came into the national spotlight.

It was mostly to point out that while you may not think 7-10 years of cooling (which the planet has cooled in the past 7-10 years) is really worth anything in the grand scheme of things, it has got a lot of scientists thinking that natural climate cycles have a stronger effect than previously thought.  It's not just all Co2 all the time like Al Gore would have you believe.

So, how about rather than trusting the politicians and their claims of "scientific consensus", you trust the scientists that are researching the climate.

[7,052,770]

I already proved on this thread that there is a scientific consensus, but I'll quote the post on the offchance that you didn't just ignore it:

Regardless of the opinion of one man who founded a TV station, I'll trust the opinon of 97.4% of climatologists (cite) than a few conservative political talk show hosts on this issue...

[Ban my account ffs!]

I already proved on this thread that there is a scientific consensus, but I'll quote the post on the offchance that you didn't just ignore it:

Regardless of the opinion of one man who founded a TV station, I'll trust the opinon of 97.4% of climatologists (cite) than a few conservative political talk show hosts on this issue...

The consensus is simply that humans play a major role in climate change.  88% of climatologists and 97% of climatologists who actively publish on climatology agree that the planet has been warming and that humans are a significant cause of that warming.

It says nothing of discounting natural variability.

What you are doing, Harry, is taking the position of Al Gore and then asserting that that is the consensus, when it isn't.

If somebody were to ask me "do you agree that the planet has been warming and that humans have played a significant role in that warming?"  I'd agree.  If someone asked me "Do you agree with people like Al Gore and Jim Hanson who believe that nearly all of the climate change over the past 1000 years has been driven by CO2 levels and that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic warming of the planet, resulting int he deaths of milliosn of people, mass extinction, the inundation of coastal areas, and the desertification of vast swaths of the planet?"

I'd resoundingly say no.

[7,052,770]

Snow, you and I are on close to the same page on this issue (although I know better than to take my untrained eye on all those flashy charts other untrained people made).

However, on this thread I (we?) are arguing with people like States who entirely deny the existence of climate change altogether.

[??????????]

However, on this thread I (we?) are arguing with people like States who entirely deny the existence of climate change altogether.

Man made change, yes. And who cares if the earth "heats up" a little bit, which it hasn't actually done for 11 years. The earth has been MUCH warmer then it is now and humanity thrived. So quite pushing an agenda and costing Americans money...oh that's right...you're attitude is "Let them eat cake".

[Ban my account ffs!]

The growth in the difference between satellite temperature measures of the globe and the NOAA surface station data continues to grow.

Both the satellite measurements, which measure the entire surface of the earth but only have records dating back to 1979, showed June 2009 to be virtually at the 1979-2000 average.  The NOAA dataset will show that June 2009 was the 2nd warmest June on record for the globe in 130 years.

here is a graph of the temperature differences between the satellite measurements and two key surface station measurements since 1979.  Notice the huge growth, which accounts for the vast majority of the "warming" over the past 30 years.


And here are two global plots showing the surface station anomalies from 1978 and 2008.  Notice the vast swaths that were covered in 1978 that have since been decommissioned.  Instead, these areas are "filled in" by computer models using the data from the remaining stations, which are often in highly developing urban areas.
1978

2008


Virtually all of Canada has dropped out, large sections of Siberia, most of Africa and Australia

On top of losing nearly 3/4ths of our surface stations since 1990 (when the huge warming really began), the number of missing months has increased 10 fold.  Again, data from 'surrounding' (I put quotes on that because the surrounding stations are getting fewer and farer between) is used to 'fill in the missing data'.

There is no correction for urbanization despite a multitude of studies proving the Urban Heat Island effect (NOAA claims one study that disproved the Urban Heat Island theory as the reason they don't adjust the data, and that study has since been debunked).  Keep in mind that hte world population has grown from 1.5 to 6.7 billion during the period of record and the number of rural stations has fallen by 80%.

Here is the global satellite temp data compared to Co2 concentrations since 2002.



It's not a whole lot, but I am fast losing any faith I have in our weather observations.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd also like to add this:

This graph shows the difference between the raw temperature data collected and what the final numbers are once NOAA has 'adjusted' them.  Notice the difference was near zero but began to grow after WWII before peaking.

Not only are they not adjusting data downward due to the urban heat island effect, they are adjusting it upward!


The global warming trend has been hugely exaggerated by scientists adjusting the data upward to create a warming trend.

[Coburn In 2012]

It's difficult to answer because Gorebull warming is a crock of sh**t.

Exactly.  People need to keep a few things in mind with this nonsense.

Firstly - Algore is a hypocrite.  He tells people to reduce thier cabron footprint by using less energy.  And then he lives in a massive mansion and uses more electricity than almost all of us.  and he jets around the world on his own private jet.  What a ass.

2 -- Thousands of scientists have disproved gorebull warming as a hoax.  the only reason they dont get recognized by the media is because the media is leftist and picks and chooses its scientists.  if the scientists choose the liberal way, the media puts them on the air and makes it seem like ALL scientists beleive in gorebull warming.

 and third --  This past winter was extremely cold.  Bitter cold.  Ice storms heavy snow.  I thought the planet was warming up.  Even this summer has been normal not overly hot.  What happened to the big climate change Algore? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Ban my account ffs!]

You're so predictable, Coburn.  Have you ever had an original thought in your life or do you just keep sending bullsh**t through your blowhole hoping somebody will catch some?

[JSojourner]

You're so predictable, Coburn.  Have you ever had an original thought in your life ?

My guess would be no.

People say Coburn is a fake or a troll and chances are, he is.  But I have to say -- every one of his posts sounds like a warmed-over Rush Limbaugh radio broadcast. If he is real, I would guess he writes down whatever he hears on O'Reilly or Limbaugh or whatever...and just vomits it out here.  (And God knows where else.)

[J. J.]

1. Using the most reliable temperature data (1880-present) for mean global temperatures, the 20 warmest years were 1983, 1987, 1988,  1990, 1991, and 1994-2008. 2005 was the warmest. If this question is cherry picking 1998 and asking why that's the 2nd warmest year, that's retarded.

And 2006-09 wasn't/hasn't been.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question is, what type of interference?  Heat islands around the places where the data was collected?  Methane (and that is the scary one)?  CO₂?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they don't prove it either.

There is some fairly good evidence of long term climate change, but how great is it, and how much of it is due to human action?

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is all too much for me.  I don't know if I'm going off the deep end or what.. but ever since the June 2009 global temp data came out, I've been completely baffled.

The satellite data showed no positive temperature anomaly for the entire lower troposphere for June, while the surface data, once crunched and adjusted, showed the 2nd warmest June on record.

Up until last fall, the NOAA surface data was compiled of surface stations with algorithms in place to fill in non-covered land areas.  The ocean temperatures were measured by satellites and tied into the data, since they could give the best picture since our ocean measurements can be so few and far between.

In the fall, however, NOAA decided that the satellite data had a cold bias, and decided to use its few water surface measurements and fill in the vast majority of the rest with the same process they use to fill in uncovered land areas.

Guess what happened?  Just take a wild guess.

You got it.  Suddenly, the oceans had warmed to record levels!  All over night!

And so of course NOAA has been tooting its horn over how warm the oceans are now.. and yet when you see any SST map and compare it to what they put out with their scant raw data and fancy algorithms and guesswork, you see a striking difference.

Here is the most recent global sea surface temperature map provided by the satellites:
Notice lots of cool water in the southern hemisphere, the north Atlantic, and the north Pacific.


Now look at the NOAA map for June

[WillK]

"Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions?"

Are they simple questions?
Is it really difficult to get answers or merely to get answers you find politically/ideologically satisfying?

[WillK]

Because I don't believe the lies of filthy environazis who are attempting a power grab.

You'd much rather believe the lies of those attempting to maintain power and keep you a knee-jerk ditto-head. 

[John Dibble]

While I can appreciate the scientific and level-headed approach to the issue, snowguy, I have to point out that 30 years is about as significant as dust in the planet's history.  We haven't been around for very long and a large increase to us over a long time may in fact be an insignificant increase over an even more insignificant period of time.  I am of the belief that we as humans have grossly over-estimated our worth and power over the earth.  If we look at carbon in the atmosphere in the context of the world and not just humans, we've emitted nothing of note.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure Snowguy would either. None of the data he's presented really contradicts this - if anything it would support this idea. His main deal is just showing that a lot of the data that people are using to make claims about global warming is erroneous and possibly even outright biased.

[Lahbas]

Sun Spots.

[Ban my account ffs!]

While I can appreciate the scientific and level-headed approach to the issue, snowguy, I have to point out that 30 years is about as significant as dust in the planet's history.  We haven't been around for very long and a large increase to us over a long time may in fact be an insignificant increase over an even more insignificant period of time.  I am of the belief that we as humans have grossly over-estimated our worth and power over the earth.  If we look at carbon in the atmosphere in the context of the world and not just humans, we've emitted nothing of note.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure Snowguy would either. None of the data he's presented really contradicts this - if anything it would support this idea. His main deal is just showing that a lot of the data that people are using to make claims about global warming is erroneous and possibly even outright biased.

Right, my post was poorly worded.  It sounded like I was calling him out on it, but what I meant for that to say was that in addition to his points I find the most important to be about the time periods we use.  Then I just went rambling on.  I apologize for any confusion, haha.

I agree with the spirit of that argument, but there is also science proving that the earth has gone from warm interglacial conditions to ice age conditions in as little as a decade.  That's why the climatologists get all worked up.  They're afraid we could trigger something that would cause a sudden warming or cooling of the planet in a very very short period of time that would significantly alter life on the planet as we know it.