The data on the NOAA chart for 2012 is said to be preliminary. While October was cooler than last year, for example - it is still a very warm year overall. Last year the ground around here only froze up on December 12th, this year it is close to freezing up in the next week or so. This is still *much* later than at any time in my lifetime. Last year the ground only stayed frozen for two ~5-day periods plus a couple of other 1-2 day periods. Most lakes and ponds *never* froze solid - only thin crusts around some of the edges.
100 years ago, there was a hefty ice harvest by December or January; and often a second ice harvest later in the winter. If we still depended on ice chests, we would be up a creek...
The data for all of NOAA's documents says preliminary, even those several years old. Could you post the direct link to where you found that graph, I tried tracing it down but it took me to facebook.
You keep arguing like I am denying the existance of global warming itself, at no point have I said it isn't happening.
James, my father works with an ex-climate scientist, who was fired for not agreeing. (at least that his story)
Yeah, those last five words say it all :-)
Quote:
Also the climate gate emails, I had read a couple of them where Mann himself was saying to limit data to certain people because he was unsure what side they were on.
Scientists are people, but not all people are scientists. Besides, we were talking about CORE DATA, which is and has been freely available, not the in-process work of researchers, which usually doesn't get shared with anyone outside the group until publication, if then - in any field. I've read a number of papers in my areas (not climate science) that I would have liked to get more information on, but couldn't.
You keep arguing like I am denying the existance of global warming itself, at no point have I said it isn't happening.
Which is why your arguments are, quite honestly, verging on the ridiculous. We have an observed phenomenon, the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activity. We used science to predict, long before it happened, that this increase would cause warming. You admit that the warming is happening, just as predicted, yet you try to claim that it's caused by something else entirely. Why?
To make it even more ridiculously obvious that the denialist community in general just isn't at all interested in science, they attribute this warming (when they don't claim it isn't happening at all) on changes in everything from solar output to cosmic rays, all of which have been shown not to have changed.
Which is why your arguments are, quite honestly, verging on the ridiculous. We have an observed phenomenon, the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activity. We used science to predict, long before it happened, that this increase would cause warming. You admit that the warming is happening, just as predicted, yet you try to claim that it's caused by something else entirely. Why?
To make it even more ridiculously obvious that the denialist community in general just isn't at all interested in science, they attribute this warming (when they don't claim it isn't happening at all) on changes in everything from solar output to cosmic rays, all of which have been shown not to have changed.
Baloney, I have linked NASA doccuments confirming that yes solar output has increased. The IPCC has even acnowledged that solar output has increased. I have calculated the energy from solar forcing to within the IPCC error bounds ON THIS THREAD. I haven't ever even said that CO2 doesn't cause warming. The only thing I have argued is how much is natural and how much is caused by us. To listen to you we are responsible for 100% of the warming, but I don't know of any climate scientist who make that claim.
Heck I even supported changing away form oil, but for other reasons and said so ON THIS THREAD. You two ignore 90% of what I have to say and then argue whatever point meets your fancy.
I am still waiting on Neil to give the link to that one chart that I called him out on, I have a strong susspicion that it was fabricated (possibly without his knowlege) and posted as factual.
I mostly kept arguing the science, all I got back was propaganda and politics, why?
There have been NINE investigations of the hacked emails, and ALL of them concluded that none of the science was compromised.
What I want to know is whether the email hacking itself was a crime; and if it is related to the phone hacking scandal?
The solar increase is very recent (related to the upswing of the sunspot cycle?) but the minimum we just came through was extremely low and even with that, we saw a temperature increase.
I'm sure that the complex modeling they are doing includes the output of the sun; and everything else that it should, as well. I mean really - we now have the sun very closely and directly monitored - would they make such an obvious mistake, and get away with it?
As I posted earlier, the NOAA chart says specifically that the data shown for 2012 is preliminary. Here is the original source page (I found it via <350.org on Facebook):
You should Google Dr. Richard Alley and watch his Congressional testimony. He explains a lot of things very well, and he counters the Cato Institute's man, point for point. Cato Institute is largely funded by the Koch brothers, and probably other big oil interests, so they are the folks with the suspicious bias, and a very strong financial interest to protect.
Baloney, I have linked NASA doccuments confirming that yes solar output has increased.
I'm puzzled at how you manage to do that, since actual measurements reported by NASA show that measured solar output has actually decreased over the period that we've had measurements available. See e.g. NASA GISS: Science Brief: Earth's Energy Imbalance
I'll even attach an excerpted graph, for convenience. Note that the recent increase in output is just that: recent, a part of the normal solar cycle, and starting from the lowest output recorded. Also note that the total variation over the whole solar cycle is about 0.02%.
Quote:
I mostly kept arguing the science, all I got back was propaganda and politics, why?
Because your "science" seems to be pseudoscience, that's why. It's like trying to discuss evolution when you keep bringing in creation science. Then there's the fact that what I consider to be reasonable forecasts of the future seem to turn into your propaganda & politics. I mean, who is it that keeps bringing in politics, and one particular has-been politician in particular, if not the denialists?
All of them play down how much warming the sun is responsible, but if you look back where I calculated the solar influence without feedbacks to the CO2 influence with feedbacks. Yes solar activity did decrease to a relatively low solar minimum, but we are now into the next solar maximum, which if you look at my first link you will see it is shaping up to be warmer on average than the last solar maximum (which set record temperatures).
From a several pages back.
Neil, remember I said that video was accurate, it was biased, in that it was only willing to point out the deniers side, making it seem as though they are the only ones involved in discrediting people, science, the facts. I had even commented before when commenting on one of suspects post that its usually only that easy when dealing with deniers.
At least the first email "climate gate" was an accident by the univercity when they went to archive it they put it on the wrong server or something like that. The others I don't know. If it was hacking then yes it would be illegal, but either way the truth is Mann was involved in limiting what information was available to those who didn't agree.
In addition to the satelites they also use airborn radar systems to do higher detail measurements.
"Lord" Monckton (who is not a lord, but claims to be - and he says he was a science adviser to Thatcher, but he was not) says he has a cure for AIDS, and the common cold, and he is a birther. He is a journalist (supposedly) and he own(ed) a shirt shop.
As the Frontline program showed that Dr. (Small?) has doubted at least three other things in the past, and all of those turned out to be true. And the fellow from the Cato Institute knows who signs his checks.
Most all the Congressmen who deny anthropogenic climate change believe that the earth is just 9,000 years old - or that there is a controversy about how old the earth is, and/or they don't believe in evolution, and/or they believe that a woman who is "legitimately raped" can prevent the pregnancy by shutting down her body. Todd Akin was on the House science committee...
Over 97% of all climate scientists agree with the conclusion that humans burning fossil fuel is what is largely driving the current changes in the climate. Most if not all of the predictions about the future that we have now seen data - were too conservative. We have seen more and faster warming, melting, ocean rise, and as the permafrost study I referred to above shows that the methane and carbon dioxide from the melting tundra (permafrost it ain't!) is going to add ~39% more carbon; when they thought earlier that it would be negligible.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
