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

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

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9075&page=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

CO₂ levels aren't the only variable in climate models.  For instance, particulate matter and SO₂ in the air, especially the upper atmosphere is also important as they increase reflectance and thereby cool the Earth.  Indeed, one of the proposed methods of cooling off the Earth is to deliberately introduce particulate matter.

Looking at only CO₂ and temperature levels and trying to draw conclusions is bad science, whether one is a believer or a skeptic in global warming.

[Vepres]

Because "global warming" is a political issue, not a scientific one.

It was an idea, not fact, until environmentalists realized they could use it to their advantage. We had one of our coldest, snowiest winters in Colorado just two years ago.

[Earth]

Because "global warming" is a political issue, not a scientific one.

It was an idea, not fact, until environmentalists realized they could use it to their advantage. We had one of our coldest, snowiest winters in Colorado just two years ago.

Is that anecdotal evidence masquerading as a replacement for scientific evidence?

"Look here, I take a shit in a toilet, so don't tell me Man is related to apes."

[Vepres]

Because "global warming" is a political issue, not a scientific one.

It was an idea, not fact, until environmentalists realized they could use it to their advantage. We had one of our coldest, snowiest winters in Colorado just two years ago.

Is that anecdotal evidence masquerading as a replacement for scientific evidence?

"Look here, I take a shit in a toilet, so don't tell me Man is related to apes."

I didn't deny global warming anywhere in there. I'm just saying that it is not yet, fact. It cannot be fact until some questions (like the ones above) are answered. Personally, I'm undecided but want to take action anyway.

And by the way, that cold winter was all across North America, I believe (may be wrong).

[Mechaman]

Because "global warming" is a political issue, not a scientific one.

It was an idea, not fact, until environmentalists realized they could use it to their advantage. We had one of our coldest, snowiest winters in Colorado just two years ago.

Is that anecdotal evidence masquerading as a replacement for scientific evidence?

"Look here, I take a shit in a toilet, so don't tell me Man is related to apes."

I didn't deny global warming anywhere in there. I'm just saying that it is not yet, fact. It cannot be fact until some questions (like the ones above) are answered. Personally, I'm undecided but want to take action anyway.

And by the way, that cold winter was all across North America, I believe (may be wrong).

I remember that winter. Hell, August 2006-May 2008 were the coldest years I ever remember living in Oklahoma. The winter of 2006-2007 especially, school was cancelled for a week because of an insane ice storm that left most of the state blacked out for a very long time. August 2006 was the coldest August I remember, I remember one day it was 58 degrees outside. We had so much rain during that time the Arkansas River actually looked like a river (in south Tulsa it usually looks like a large sandbar).
That isn't to say that Global Warming is false, but it isn't 100% proven either.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The first and third questions are pretty good.  The 2nd one is crap.

Scientists have found that much of the warming prior to 1975 was due to natural causes, namely, a big rise in solar irradiance beginning after 1915 and peaking in the late 1950s.

Solar irradiance then dipped during the '60s and then went back to its 1950s levels and has remained there since.  This has been the most intense sun we've seen in the past 1000 years, according to various data sources.

In this area, some explorers kept detailed records of weather while in the area in the early 19th century.  One well kept record actually recorded a climate that was somewhat warmer than modern day. 

The weather records began at Fort Snelling near Minneapolis in 1820.  Take a look at this graph and tell me there is a strong warming signal there.  The temperatures of the 1820s were about the same as the 1990s.  How can one explain the huge cooling trend from 1835-1875 despite rapidly rising CO2 emissions and urban development in the region?


If you look at the global satellite temps going back to 1979, they follow a similar pattern to Minneapolis.  There has been warming since 1975.. but nothing like the instrument records that NOAA uses.. which are known to be in bad locations near areas that have recently developed.  Noaa also tends to adjust new data upward even though they should be adjusting it downward to account for the Urban Heat Island effect.  Every time they adjust the data, the temps from the early 20th century go down and the temps from the late 20th century go up.  If you look at old data sets, the warming trend wasn't nearly as strong.

And over time, the deviation between the surface records and satellite records grows ever larger.  It seems NOAA is warming a lot faster than the planet is.

Still, with all that said, all indications point in the direction that the planet should have warmed only slightly after the 1970s before starting a cooling trend during the 1990s.  The planet has warmed more than known natural forces can account for (solar irradiance, ocean cycles, atmospheric cycles, etc.)  Even then, some of that unnatural warming has been caused by reductions of aerosols in the atmosphere, so to say that the planet has warmed 1˚F due to CO2 is a huge exaggeration.  Perhaps a fifth of that.

[JSojourner]

Because Al Gore invented the environment?

[Vepres]

Hasn't the average global temperature been static, or even declining slightly, for the past decade or so? I remember reading that somewhere.

Regardless, it's better to get pollutants out of the air, whether global warming is real or not.

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

Hasn't the average global temperature been static, or even declining slightly, for the past decade or so? I remember reading that somewhere.

Regardless, it's better to get pollutants out of the air, whether global warming is real or not.

CO2 isn't a pollutant. Water vapor is a bigger "pollutant". CO2 only makes up .038% of the atmosphere.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

2. It's pretty obviously caused by human interference

3. Imperfect models don't disprove climate change.

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

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.

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/weather/news/47481187.html

[opebo]

States, I couldn't care less if the world burns up in a ball of fire the day I die.  If you, with the daughters and whatnot, are unconcerned about global warming (or any other environmental degradation), more power to you.

[Rowan]

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

[Franzl]

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

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

[Rowan]

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

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

No, just the founder of the Weather Channel, among many other climatologists.

[7,052,770]

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

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

No, just the founder of the Weather Channel, among many other climatologists.

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!]

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

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

No, just the founder of the Weather Channel, among many other climatologists.

Who told you that?  Limbaugh?

[Joe Republic]

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

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

No, just the founder of the Weather Channel, among many other climatologists.

Frank Batten is a journalist with no academic background in climatology.

[Ebowed]

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

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

No, just the founder of the Weather Channel, among many other climatologists.

Frank Batten is a journalist with no academic background in climatology.

Okay, but he founded the Weather Channel, Joke Repuberty.  Dense much?

[Ban my account ffs!]

The evidence is pretty convincing that the U.S.'s surface temperature record is deeply flawed and biased towards a warming trend.

Here is a great example:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/

While we’ve taken some detours looking at some of the amazing things that have happened globally for temperature in January, with another detour to the sun, our www.surfacestations.org volunteers continue their mission.

This NOAA USHCN climate station of record #415018 in Lampasas, TX was found to be tucked between a building, and two parking lots, one with nearby vehicles. According to the surveyor, it is right next to the ACE Hardware store on the main street of town. While likely representative of the temperature for downtown Lampasas, one wonders how well it measures the climate of the region.

(notice all the asphalt and building which directs heat towards the thermometer.  This station used to be in a park, but was relocated to this location in 2000)

In her survey, volunteer surveyor Julie K. Stacy noted the proximity to the building and parking, which will certainly affect Tmin at night due to IR radiance. Daytime Tmax is likely affected by the large amount of asphalt and concrete in the area around the sensor. The main street of the town (28 ft from US 183) and the ACE Hardware parking lot are visible in this photo below:

Google Earth shows just how much asphalt and buildings there are around the sensor.


According to NCDC’s MMS database, the Lampasas climate station has been at this location since 10-01-2000.Previous location was an observer residence, which appears to have been a park-like location according to MMS location map. The sensor was apparently converted to the MMTS style seen in the photo in 1986, so the move did not include an equipment change. See the complete survey album here.

But the big surprise of just how bad this location is came from the NASA GISS plot of temperature. It clearly showed the results of the move to this location, causing a jump in temperature almost off the current graph scale. Note that before the move, the temperature trend of Lampasas was nearly flat from 1980-2000.


(notice the huge jump in temperatures after 2000 despite a flat trend beforehand.  NOAA claims that they adjust the data for such changes... so one would assume they would be cooling the new measurements by quite a bit after 2000 due to the obvious jump caused by the hotter asphalt.  The old place was in a green park where the Urban Heat Island effect wasn't as strong).

Here is the raw data (blue) put up against the adjusted data (red)

Rather than adjusting the new data down, they simply cooled down the oldest data and actually ADJUSTED UPWARD the new data, further adding to the huge warming trend.  NOAA claims this is accurate.



This is where our global warming is coming from.  I won't go all conspiracy theory and say they do it on purpose... but the amount of adjusting downward of older measurements and upward adjustment of newer measurements is where most of the warming trend has come from... the raw data shows a much slower warming trend.

It's no wonder that the difference between the surface data and the satellite measurements, which measure the temp all over the globe, are consistently getting bigger and bigger, with the surface data (officially used in all those global warming reports) getting continually warmer and warmer at a faster pace, even as urban development occurs around them and nearly 2/3rds of all stations have closed in the past 20 years.. mostly in rural areas.

So now the data is all coming from warmer urban stations, and NOAA simply fills in the areas not covered with these warmer anomalies.  It is striking how much the planet warmed up as the number of rural weather stations plummeted (mostly in Russia after the fall of the USSR).

[Vepres]

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

Is that your expert scientific opinion, hack?

No, just the founder of the Weather Channel, among many other climatologists.

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...

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

The world-wide climate is chaotic an complex, hard to predict or model. A climatologist is like an economist, their "predictions" are about as good as some random Joe on the street.

[7,052,770]

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.

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

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.

[7,052,770]

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.