Topic: The Warming Climate

[ocala]

 

[Jáchym]

I always enjoy the debate in this thread

[hankster]

From the National Review, The only Climate Change chart you need to see!
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[hankster]

The same info with better scaling
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[Jáchym]

Thanks for sharing,  an obvious trend upwards

[Mattk]

Well NASA has already been caught out fiddling the Iceland temperature records, thought they were so clever nobody would ever notice but they were busted big time. What NASA did was create warming where there is none and what they are actually doing has absolutely nothing to do with science, it's called fraud. 

[ValentineWeather]

This link is from Lake Powell science center on paleoclimate. http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm

They point out ocean currents play a big role.

[ocala]

Good link Randy.
Some interesting stuff in there.

[ValentineWeather]

Good link Randy.
Some interesting stuff in there.

Yes some interesting stuff I learned also. I've been in the science center a few times the area of southern Utah is rich in history of our planet including fossil paradise.

They believe we will go into another ice age eventually. Quote: As long as the continent of Antarctica exists at the southern pole of our planet we probably will be repeatedly pulled back into glacial ice ages.

[Jáchym]

No-one here has ever said climate change was not affected by Sun cycles, ocean currents etc. And I also never said all studies (both for and against) climate change/global warming are accurate, properly conducted and using accurate data - this is never 100% so, no matter which field of science you look at.

[ValentineWeather]

But we do have these Al Gores and Leonardo DiCaprio's running around with their private jets spewing this doom and gloom hysteria man burning fossil fuel is the cause of global warming.
My point is those that study climate paleontology say its much more involved with many factors and nothing is going to stop climate change its been cycling millions of years without mans involvement.

[hankster]

Ah, but do those same people make a claim that man has an effect on those changes? They may or may not and those effects can make it more extreme or may even make it less extreme.

If man would have any effect, it would have only come since the industrial revolution and within that only in the last 70 years or so. Only during this time has man made drastic changed to the composition of the earth. Even without any proof of any effect, should we try to minimize these possible effects or just keep merrily going about our way continuing along to current path?

[hankster]

Now on to the subject of changing past data. If as we get smarter and as we get better equipment we get a better understanding of many subject. Through studying past events compared with the newer more accurate data we can know that past studies and data were not correct. Should we just ignore that past incorrect data or strive to correct it?

In fact many owners or Davis stations have upgraded to better more accurate temperature sensors. If through studying current more accurate data the error factor of the old data be figured out should a user correct that old data or should they just shrug their shoulders, say who cares, it is what it is and let the inaccurate data be used. Or should they go and try to correct that bad data?

Remember, at one time people thought the earth was flat. Through more study, better instruments and data, it was found that the earth is round. Should that new data have been ignored and we continue to believe the earth is flat just to keep the old data and satisfy those that believe it? I just bring up this old obvious example to show that old data has been changed for 1000s of years to reflect new realities.

[Jáchym]

You would be surprised how many people still believe it is flat

[Mattk]

So should only 10 years of so called "pristine weather recordings" with so called whiz bang sensors from deliberately "selected sites" be a trigger to homogenize relative recent history? 

[waiukuweather]

sunspot cycles/solar activity has been decreasing over the last couple of solar sunspot cycles,i.e the sun is going through a solar minimum, so the earth should be cooler than 'normal', but instead its steadily warming (and also there has been more La Nina episodes , which should also make the globe cooler)

[waiukuweather]

My point is those that study climate paleontology say its much more involved with many factors and nothing is going to stop climate change its been cycling millions of years without mans involvement.

but no one has said the climate does not change

you have cycles on top of cycles, short term, long term, etc
some reinforce each other, some cancel each other, etc

with global warming, those cycles are still there, but you have a background warming offset

NO I said the climate is changing

so people in this thread do acknowledge that the climate is currently warming
but some think its just a natural cycle

if it is a natural cycle, then it should go up and then down, ie a cycle
time will tell if the trend changes to cooling

if the globe is still warming 15 years from now, what will you say then?..that it just be a long term natural warmer cycle we are in..just will have to wait longer for it to peak?

[waiukuweather]

Interesting article here
http://theconversation.com/yes-we-can-do-sound-climate-science-even-though-its-projecting-the-future-75763

[gwwilk]

Interesting article here
http://theconversation.com/yes-we-can-do-sound-climate-science-even-though-its-projecting-the-future-75763

No model can accurately project such a complex system as our planetary environment a day into the future (as we see with our weather forecasts), much less a year, or two, or twenty (BTW, reputable climatologists will set 30 years as the minimum weather duration for determining climate, the NWS deceptive 'Climate Prediction Center' notwithstanding.)  The assumptions built into such models as these ALWAYS determine the results.  As usual, the emperor has no clothes.  Models can only be viewed as producing possible outcomes within the models' constraints, not predicting the future.  I think it's best not to base any decisions upon such a sandy foundation as what these models produce.

[waiukuweather]

but its not predicting the future
read the article again
also read the part about how projections have already come true

[Jáchym]

Just came back from a business trip to a conference 2 hours ago - one of the presentations talked about the climate models. One person asked how can we tell their accuracy. My colleague, a climatologist, who was presenting it, answered - we cant. But we have been doing this for about 15 years already and what we predicted 100% matched the reality in terms of rate of warming, increasing number of extremes, disasters etc.

[ValentineWeather]

So are these climate models as reliable as the forecast models? Forecast models are only looking at a few months out and can't get it right. 
Remember the headlines…'too big to fail' is one I'll never forget.
 
Massive El Nińo is now 'too big to fail,' scientist says - LA Times
Actually what happened  'too big to fail' EL NINO IS A BUST AS CALIFORNIA ENTERS 6TH YEAR OF DROUGHT, WEATHER EXPERTS SAY 

And then this one from last year with La Nina beginning.
Jun 6, 2016 La Nina is on the way — don't expect CA drought to lessen - CNBC.com
Actually what happened was a very wet season with Snowpack 173% Normal. Rainfall 172% Normal. 

[Jáchym]

Deliberately picking one example from one place at one time where it did not work....

Forecast models work totally differently and forecast exact weather. Climate models predict trends and long-term changes.

Long-term forecast - a few months
long-term prediction - decades

But it is all down to what you want to believe. If someone thinks it is in their economical benefit to do something then they will always try to find reasons to justify such (imho very short-sighted) decisions

[Jáchym]

I was waiting in a bank today and in the waiting room they had the National Geographic magazine from April 17.

One of the main articles was about global warming/climate change.

Very interesting read:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

Now you tell me why I should think that a highly prestigious international magazine would publish nonsense. Why 9 out of 10 scientists believe something, people who have first-hand information.

I know you are going to start again how data from some particular station sometime in the past was manipulated, how this and this person thinks otherwise, give links to some articles... but the problem is that you have to look at it as a whole. 10% of scientists might be sceptical. This is a large number of course, but it is nothing compared to the remaining 90%.

[waiukuweather]

and if the data is flawed and the assumptions were flawed, then how come model projections from 15 years ago are coming true?
(and so this is why a degree of faith can be placed in the model projections for the coming decades, yes?)
good read that link Jáchym