Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...zB&ocid=SMSDHP

    Another useless study from true believers.

    The paper's authors are:

    Elfaith A. B. Eltahir, a professor at MIT of late. How the mighty have fallen...

    This guy's background is pretty thin. His doctorate is in civil and environmental engineering. He worked of late for NASA for a bit on climate change (guess who pushed them into that...).
    Most of his awards are from the University of Khartoum in Sudan...

    The paper's co-author is Jeremy S. Pal a civil engineer. He's on the IPCC and contributes to their schlock regularly. Previously he was at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (I wonder what a civil engineer could contribute to theoretical physics... ) a UN run agency / group in Trieste Italy.

    So, two nobodies, one of whom is the commensurate insider for Gorebal Warming, write a paper. Nothing to see here.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      "After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/#ixzz3piuH4wNa"

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/sa...lobal-warming/
      All of the global warming in the satellite record occurred between 1992 and 1998.

      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        "After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/#ixzz3piuH4wNa"

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/sa...lobal-warming/
        Perhaps time to review a few basics on Climate ...

        1) Climate is not a "thermostat" that can be set and maintained at a constant "ideal"* setting of warmth, humidity, general conditions, etc. (* = assumes enough consensus can be reached on what is ideal ~ seems to be main linchpin of current debate)...

        Climate is a Dynamic System that is in constant flux, with trends that can be measured not in years, only vaguely in decades, and most generally in centuries (or larger); baring some MAJOR Extra Factor.

        MAJOR Extra Factory can bring us to the border of Cataclysmic Events, which some here seem loath to consider, or factor.

        Then again, consensus on definition of terms is the first arena for settlement, and we appear to be a ways from that ...

        2) Climate Dynamics are a Matrix of Earthly Conditions (Geology, Hydrosphere, Biosphere, Human-Sphere, etc.) plus External Influences, primarily energy output of the Sun, plus gravitational influences of other bodies, in Earth's case mostly the Moon.

        Fluctuations of the energy output of the Sun affect energy available on Earth's surface, where 99+% of life is FLORA, and uses a proportional amount of that radiated Solar Energy. We Fauna, 1%ers, gain much from the Flora consumption and effects, without Flora we would not be able to exist.

        3) Human-Sphere influences should be focused on enhancing the Habitability of the planet/Earth. Hence we should consider if less than twice bare minimum of CO2 for Flora is, or worse, just bare minimum; is ideal stewardship of this World's biosphere potential; let alone grow-able/sustainable investment in the future survival of we "greedy" 1%ers~Fauna.

        Considering how those engaged in 'Greenhouse Agriculture' often pump up the ambient CO2 levels in those greenhouses to several times the average of @400ppmv, perhaps the biosphere~"greenhouse" of Earth should also be held to a slightly higher CO2 & H2O percentage than currently exists. Considering that most Flora would flourish in a Global Climate that is a couple/few degrees C. warmer, and with CO2 at 2-3 times minimum, and corresponding weather(precipitation) adjustments. This would result in greater "crop" production (human population support), greater carbon cycling by Flora, larger survival 'cushion' for Fauna, and an enhanced Biosphere for our World.



        [Imagine where the "Middle East" would be if the past seven decades of "petrodollar$" hand been invested in land reclamation(flora planting), irrigation, sanitation and other environmental/biosphere improvements; versus buying weapon$ and Hate to Israel, the West, and we Infidels in general. ]
        Last edited by G David Bock; 27 Oct 15, 16:12.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • "Perhaps time to review a few basics on Climate ..."

          Why?
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • Agency won't give Congressional investigation internal documents
            EXCERPT:

            The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.

            Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.
            At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report.

            Skeptics of climate change, including Smith, have cited the pause to insist that increased greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, are not heating up the globe.

            Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, vehemently disagreed with the study’s findings. He issued a subpoena for communications among the scientists and some data, leading to charges from Democrats that he was trying to intimidate the researchers.

            Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted.
            NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.
            http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...imate-research


            Not sure where anything "confidential" should play, unless there are shenanigans.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              Agency won't give Congressional investigation internal documents

              Not sure where anything "confidential" should play, unless there are shenanigans.
              I will take a wait and see on this specific case as I'm not sure if they are only refusing requests for "private" communications. I also don't know what the law says about government employees and their internal communications. I know I was told when I worked for the state that all my Email and my computer itself were considered in the public domain with the exception of those documents that had the potential to be used for biding abuses.

              Since AGW seems to hinge on computer models the only way that the science can be challenged is if the models are made public. Any theory that lacks supporting documentation it would seem would be dismissed out of hand by the scientific community. Have the computer models been made public?
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                I will take a wait and see on this specific case as I'm not sure if they are only refusing requests for "private" communications. I also don't know what the law says about government employees and their internal communications. I know I was told when I worked for the state that all my Email and my computer itself were considered in the public domain with the exception of those documents that had the potential to be used for biding abuses.

                Since AGW seems to hinge on computer models the only way that the science can be challenged is if the models are made public. Any theory that lacks supporting documentation it would seem would be dismissed out of hand by the scientific community. Have the computer models been made public?
                This particular case deals with the actual temperature data. NOAA's Thomas Karl "erased" the pause, kind of like how Michael Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in his original "hockey stick." Mann's fraud was published just in time to be featured in IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001). Mann's hockey stick, the initial errant correlation of temperature and CO2 in Antarctic ice cores and the hellacious El Niño of 1998-1997 made me a temporary believer in AGW.

                Karl's fraud was published right before Maobama rolled out his moronic Clean Power Plan. Karl heads NOAA's Enviromarxist Information Centers (formerly the NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), NGDC (National Geophysical Data Center) and NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center)...
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Troubled by their inability to explain the 18-yr pause in global warming, NOAA's new National Centers for Environmental Information simply erased it from the temperature records and claimed it never happened. Congress, under its oversight authority, decided to investigate...
                US science agency refuses request for climate records
                House of Representatives committee are demanding documents related to study that refuted global warming ‘hiatus’.


                Jeff Tollefson

                The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has refused to comply with lawmakers' attempt to subpoena internal communications related to a recent climate-change study by its scientists.

                The analysis, published in Science in June1, used NOAA's temperature records to determine that global warming has continued apace in the early 21st century.

                Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who leads the House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee, asked NOAA in July for the data used in the study and for any internal communications related to it. NOAA has provided the committee with the publicly available data and has briefed committee staff on the research, but the agency has not turned over the communications.

                [...]

                In response to queries from Nature, Smith released a statement accusing NOAA of rigging its temperature records and stonewalling the House committee.

                “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,” Smith said. “The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”

                NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton denies the accusations. She notes that the agency's study was peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, and has provided the committee with temperature data and briefings on the research.

                “We stand behind our scientists, who conduct their work in an objective manner,” Clayton says. "We have provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue."

                Temperatures rise

                The NOAA study, led by Thomas Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, corrected biases in the agency's global temperature record.

                [...]

                http://www.nature.com/news/us-scienc...ecords-1.18660


                Karl et al., 2015 did this to the data...



                This blatant fudging of the data drawn criticism from some mainstream climate scientists.

                Karl runs the National Centers for Environmental Information, which used to actually be 3 separate scientific entities: NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), NGDC (National Geophysical Data Center) and NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center). A "data center' collates and analyzes data. An "information center" disseminates information - AKA propaganda center... part & parcel of the Maobama Maladministration's legacy.

                Adjusting past data to make the 1930's cooler can reasonably be explained through data homogenization requirements. Adjusting the late-1990's to make them cooler relative to the early 2000's is nothing less than fraud.

                Karl et al., 2015 is almost as laughable as NASA-GISS' top climate "scientist's" comments on it...
                Gavin says the funniest things!

                David Middleton / 1 week ago June 6, 2015

                Guest post by David Middleton
                NOAA temperature record updates and the ‘hiatus’


                — gavin @ 4 June 2015


                In a new paper in Science Express, Karl et al. describe the impacts of two significant updates to the NOAA NCEI (née NCDC) global temperature series. The two updates are: 1) the adoption of ERSST v4 for the ocean temperatures (incorporating a number of corrections for biases for different methods), and 2) the use of the larger International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) weather station database, instead of GHCN. This kind of update happens all the time as datasets expand through data-recovery efforts and increasing digitization, and as biases in the raw measurements are better understood. However, this update is going to be bigger news than normal because of the claim that the ‘hiatus’ is no more. To understand why this is perhaps less dramatic than it might seem, it’s worth stepping back to see a little context…


                Global temperature anomaly estimates are a product, not a measurement

                The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. We do not have direct measurements of the global mean anomaly, rather we have a large database of raw measurements at individual locations over a long period of time, but with an uneven spatial distribution, many missing data points, and a large number of non-climatic biases varying in time and space. To convert that into a useful time-varying global mean needs a statistical model, good understanding of the data problems and enough redundancy to characterise the uncertainties. Fortunately, there have been multiple approaches to this in recent years (GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, Berkeley Earth, and NOAA NCEI), all of which basically give the same picture.

                […]

                The ‘hiatus’ is so fragile that even those small changes make it disappear

                […]

                – See more at:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/#sthash.B1t4pbWO.dpuf
                If “the ‘hiatus’ is so fragile that even those small changes make it disappear,” the underlying trend must also be so fragile that small data fudges are the difference between hiatus and the road to AGW calamity.


                In the meantime…





                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...zB&ocid=SMSDHP

                  Another useless study from true believers.

                  The paper's authors are:

                  Elfaith A. B. Eltahir, a professor at MIT of late. How the mighty have fallen...

                  This guy's background is pretty thin. His doctorate is in civil and environmental engineering. He worked of late for NASA for a bit on climate change (guess who pushed them into that...).
                  Most of his awards are from the University of Khartoum in Sudan...

                  The paper's co-author is Jeremy S. Pal a civil engineer. He's on the IPCC and contributes to their schlock regularly. Previously he was at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (I wonder what a civil engineer could contribute to theoretical physics... ) a UN run agency / group in Trieste Italy.

                  So, two nobodies, one of whom is the commensurate insider for Gorebal Warming, write a paper. Nothing to see here.
                  Attacking the messengers rather than the message? It'd be more appropriate to wait and see if they are right before passing judgement.
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    Attacking the messengers rather than the message? It'd be more appropriate to wait and see if they are right before passing judgement.
                    "Wait and see if they are right?"
                    WASHINGTON — If carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current pace, by the end of century parts of the Persian Gulf will sometimes be just too hot for the human body to tolerate, a new study says.

                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...zB&ocid=SMSDHP

                      Another useless study from true believers.

                      The paper's authors are:

                      Elfaith A. B. Eltahir, a professor at MIT of late. How the mighty have fallen...

                      This guy's background is pretty thin. His doctorate is in civil and environmental engineering. He worked of late for NASA for a bit on climate change (guess who pushed them into that...).
                      Most of his awards are from the University of Khartoum in Sudan...

                      The paper's co-author is Jeremy S. Pal a civil engineer. He's on the IPCC and contributes to their schlock regularly. Previously he was at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (I wonder what a civil engineer could contribute to theoretical physics... ) a UN run agency / group in Trieste Italy.

                      So, two nobodies, one of whom is the commensurate insider for Gorebal Warming, write a paper. Nothing to see here.
                      Repeating the same mantra might make it seem "useless" (and in many ways it is) but what irks me is a somewhat vague summary in the OP/article with link to the actual 'Paper'. That paper/work, funded by taxpayer'$ dollar$ is in a science journal that requires one to pay again to view it.

                      Seems to me, if you make your living off the guv'mint, your work should be freely accessible to the citizens whom paid you!

                      My second beef is we get the same, single solution to an unproven problem, namely reduce carbon~greenhouse emissions. Again, supposedly 0.04% of the atmosphere content impacts the other 99.96%

                      More seriously, little to no consideration of alternate solutions, such as increasing global Flora to absorb~recycle the slight increased emissions. (Espcally in a part of the world that is way over-armed, over-violent, and should be putting more of it's petro-dollar$ into environmental improvements, planting flora, irrigation, desert reclamation, etc.)
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                      Present Current Events are the Future's History

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        "Perhaps time to review a few basics on Climate ..."

                        Why?
                        1) Don't take or consider my post "personal". Often someone posts something that provides a segue into other and related material/topics and I'll use their post for that purpose, such as yours.

                        2) In many complex and important subjects, never hurts to refresh the basics and refocus the perspective. I did this to open the discussion towards my #3) in that post and the paragraphs that followed.

                        Many are rushing towards immediate solutions to a yet unproven problem with no consideration of what goal or end results are desired. No grasp of "The Big Picture".

                        PPP

                        (**** Poor Planning)
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                        Present Current Events are the Future's History

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          Repeating the same mantra might make it seem "useless" (and in many ways it is) but what irks me is a somewhat vague summary in the OP/article with link to the actual 'Paper'. That paper/work, funded by taxpayer'$ dollar$ is in a science journal that requires one to pay again to view it.
                          This is one of my actual issue's with climate change opinions. It's far too political and not scientific enough.

                          Anyone who states that they know about our planets environment is almost certainly wrong, but perhaps incredibly insightful.

                          Unfortunately, none of the people posting on this thread, at present, are close to the truth. Unfortunately that includes me.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • Hey if you guys have time could you tell me where I can find a graph of co2's effect on warming. As I understand it the effect of co2 on warming falls off above a certain concentration.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              1) Don't take or consider my post "personal". Often someone posts something that provides a segue into other and related material/topics and I'll use their post for that purpose, such as yours.

                              2) In many complex and important subjects, never hurts to refresh the basics and refocus the perspective. I did this to open the discussion towards my #3) in that post and the paragraphs that followed.

                              Many are rushing towards immediate solutions to a yet unproven problem with no consideration of what goal or end results are desired. No grasp of "The Big Picture".

                              PPP

                              (**** Poor Planning)
                              I wasn't taking it personal but we tend to skip over some of the points in the preceding post and go back to some other topic.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                                Hey if you guys have time could you tell me where I can find a graph of co2's effect on warming. As I understand it the effect of co2 on warming falls off above a certain concentration.
                                The function is logarithmic. A geometric rise in CO2 yields a linear increase in radiative forcing (RF) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)...



                                http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/...oring-numbers/

                                There actually is a scientific consensus regarding CO2 vs RF at the TOA. The disagreement is in how changes in RF at the TOA translate into atmospheric temperatures. All other factors held equal, each doubling of CO2 should yield a 1 °C increase in average surface temperature. However, all other factors are never held equal.

                                The Gorebots say that all other factors add up to strongly positive feedback; which will yield ~3 °C of warming per doubling.

                                Actual observations prove that all other factors add up to negative to weakly positive feedback; which will yield 0.5 to 2.0 °C of warming per doubling. Anything less than 2 °C per doubling is insignificant.

                                The US government already has all of the data they need to "stick a fork" in AGW...
                                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post

                                First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface

                                Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations

                                Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

                                [...]

                                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/2...n-co2-forcing/

                                What was observed? A ~20 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 correlated with a 0.2 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface.

                                Total insolation at the Earth’s surface ranges from 40 to 340 W/m^2 per year.

                                Assuming a linear relationship of .01 W/m^2 per 1 ppmv CO2... A doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv will increase radiative forcing by 2.8 W/m^2. This is about 2/3 of the IPCC's estimate.

                                The total warming since 1850 has been about 0.7°C. Over the same period, CO2 increased by about 120 ppmv (~1.2 W/m^2).
                                0.7°C ÷ 1.2 W/m^2 = 0.6°C/Wm^-2
                                0.7°C ÷ 120 ppmv CO2 = 0.006°C/ppmv CO2

                                This means that a doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 can lead to a maximum warming of 1.68°C... less than half of the so-called consensus estimate.

                                Since my "back of the envelope" calculations assumed a linear, rather than logarithmic, relationship and that all of the warming since 1850 was GHG-driven, the actual climate sensitivity can be no more than half of my estimate... ~0.8°C per doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2.

                                This essentially means that the human impact on climate change is insignificant.

                                If LBNL releases their data, I'll gin up some graphs. Any bets on when or if they make the data public?
                                Last edited by The Doctor; 30 Oct 15, 04:40.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X