Global Warming a fake?

[chrisrich]

Also do measurements of temperature in global warming figures rule out urban temperature increases due to asphalts high absorption of light and heat?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Also do measurements of temperature in global warming figures rule out urban temperature increases due to asphalts high absorption of light and heat?

Sorry facts like that just don't matter in discussions of global warming...You notice there's no initiative as of yet to get us to paint our roof a heat reflective color.....no mission to paint the roadways and parking lots with heat reflective materials

 

It seems anyway:shrug:

 

Also rarely if ever brought up CO2 from human respiration (perhaps we should stop breeding like bunnies for a couple of decades), heat introduced into the environment by our attempts to stay entertained, clean and warm or cool, heat generated by the several billion bodies and mounting that make up the human race, the increased heat received because we are a little bit closer to the sun every year (there is no such thing as perpetual motion according to the scientific types therefore we are most definitely slowing in our orbit of the sun and therefore falling closer as centrifugal force weakens (because we are going round slower) and is overpowered ever so slightly by the suns gravity) etc.etc.

[lemit]

There seems to be a warming trend, about [math]1\degree F[/math] per century, since the last ice age, seas have been rising since then, too. As for short term forecasts, it will warm, cool or stay about the same. If the climate stays about the same, it will do so extraordinarily fast. I'm not sure these forecasts can be made for a system as complex and chaotic as climate.

 

Brian,

 

You've been asked about this before, but you haven't responded. Where did you get the "[math]1\degree F[/math] per century" citation? That's pretty impressive. I've said before that I didn't see GW in some of the math people are throwing around. I'd like to be able to cite that. Could you tell me where you got it?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[Essay]

Anyone know where to find the source of these figures?

 

Found in this discussion Who is SSRC? And what is Relational Cycle Theory? - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

 

Yes, I know the citation for that part of the graph (that is covered by the red and blue lines) for solar-cycle LENGTH and Temp. Anomoly vs. the decades from 1860 up to the end of solar-cycle #21 (~1985/86).

It's listed on page 507 of my ecology and environmental science textbook.

 

I think the proper citation for this graph posted above, would be "bautforum.com" or simply "some denialist's desktop" as this clearly is a composite of several otherwise valid scientific graphs. Just the title should give it away as bogus (unless they really do mean "Causes" [plural] of Climate Change, and are trying to suggest that both solar influences and CO2 levels contribute to climate change). I'm assuming they mean "Cause [singular] of Climate Change" ...y'know, as being closely linked to solar-cycle length, but not to carbon dioxide; a typical denialist strategy.

 

The composite juxtaposes two different patterns giving the appearance of a lack of correlation; and worst of all, it superimposes -and equates as directly proportional- two scales that are only loosely linked in the physical world.

 

It's very misleading to compare only those twelve decades, as it doesn't show the longer-term correlation between CO2 and temperature anomoly; nor does it show the huge divergence between solar-cycle length and temp. anomoly during the past two solar cycles, or the much closer correlation between CO2 and temperature anomoly measured over the past 40 years...

...almost as if the CO2 influence was overriding the cycle-length influence.

 

Aren't we sitting at over 13 years for the length of the most recent solar cycle?

Wouldn't that put us at about a minus one degree anomoly - if temp. only followed the cycle length?

...and yet this past solar cycle has been the hottest on record....

===

 

There is enough truth in the graph (as two valid, yet unrelated plots) that it could easily trick anyone who is trying to learn "the truth" about global warming. After all, it'd be real nice to have a scale that converts CO2(ppmv) directly into temperature, as that graph seems to manage.

 

Please don't propagate that composite, misleading (bogus) graph around to any sites that aren't science or math oriented. It looks good enough to be taken as valid by media outlets or any generally well-educated people browsing the web; but it's intentionally (imho) misleading.

[Essay]

Also do measurements of temperature in global warming figures rule out urban temperature increases due to asphalts high absorption of light and heat?

Yes.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisrich View Post

Also do measurements of temperature in global warming figures rule out urban temperature increases due to asphalts high absorption of light and heat?

Essay-Yes.

How sad is it to be part of the few that realize for all of the hooplah surrounding global warming few actually G.A.S. enough to look at the whole picture rather than the skewed mass media view which focuses on a singular agenda (killing off big oil) rather than a well rounded solution to the problem which addresses all causes of global warming no matter how unpopular or unpleasent to deal with. (Ie. refraining from breeding, deforestation, purchasing gas guzzlers, disposable goods instead of using non-disposable (reusable jars, diapers, razors etc.) , home sharing, etc.

[Essay]

How sad is it to be part of the few that realize for all of the hooplah surrounding global warming few actually G.A.S. enough to look at the whole picture rather than the skewed mass media view which focuses on a singular agenda (killing off big oil) rather than a well rounded solution to the problem which addresses all causes of global warming no matter how unpopular or unpleasent to deal with. (Ie. refraining from breeding, deforestation, purchasing gas guzzlers, disposable goods instead of using non-disposable (reusable jars, diapers, razors etc.) , home sharing, etc.

Yes

 

~ :shrug:

 

p.s. ...any comment on my critique of the graph above?

[REASON]

p.s. ...any comment on my critique of the graph above?

 

Good explanation. Thanks. :shrug:

 

Good call on the title too. Not very scientific, is it?

[C1ay]

Let's use the IPCC's own questionable figures....

 

:phones: Still the wrong answer. I didn't ask you to support or refute someone else's claim like the IPCC. Back up your own claim or withdraw it.

[BrianG]

Still the wrong answer. I didn't ask you to support or refute someone else's claim like the IPCC. Back up your own claim or withdraw it.

 

I made the claim “The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate.” What is a “better climate”? I like warm weather, some people like cold. I like climate change, I love to travel to different places and climates. Better isn’t a quantitative claim.

 

I’ve backed up the most optimistic outlook for prototype, untried, untested climate mitigation by CO2 emission restrictions might stop [math]4/celcius[/math] warming. I’ve backed up restricting a commodities production or use causes price increases, which I call economic hardship.

 

You don't accept the IPCC's figures? Where do you want me to find the "back up" that will satisfy you, if the IPCC isn’t acceptable?

 

I hate using the IPCC's report; it's a political gang whose mandate is to create policy based on man made climate change, not climate change in general. It has an inherent scientific and political bias. You make me get in the dirt and use the IPCC's own report, and you want more?

 

How is my answer wrong? If you know the answer, tell us; is Global Warming Fake, and then we can all move on.

[BrianG]

...and, of course, it is proven. It's just the numbnuts denialists who believe its not proven.

What, exactly, was your point in that post?

 

 

How is man made climate change proven? Has there ever been an experimental test of climate change mitigation? Why do you use the term " numbnuts denialists" to describe those of us who share a contrary view? Can you back up any of these things?

[lemit]

Let's use the IPCC's own questionable figures:: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf

 

I've demonstrated that restricting fossil fuel use produces higher prices, that's economic hardship for consumers, not producers. So, if you are OPEC or own plenty of fossil fuel, this doesn't apply to you, there is no hardship and I recall this part of the claim even though the IPCC seems to predict reduced GDP for fossil fuel exporting nations. See page 12, SPM.4 for anticipated reductions in GDP with various [ce]CO2[/ce] stabilization goals. The IPCC predicts GDP loss from 2.5% to a gain of 0.6% by 2030.

 

See page 17 for the theoretical temperature equilibrium. This [ce]CO2[/ce] limitation scheme has never been tried or tested in the real world. If you want to take the IPCC model on faith, then you might expect to see a maximum reduction of [math]4\celsius[/math] by 2100, with even the most severe [ce]CO2[/ce] regime.

 

None of these temperature guesses or "stabilized" [ce]CO2[/ce] predictions have been tested in the real world. This is all theory, no field experimental evidence. If anyone believes this is based on real world empirical tests, I withdraw my claim and instead offer a bridge that I really need to sell because my grandmother needs an operation.

 

It's kind of difficult to do real-world tests on the environment with reproducible results. For that matter, I'd want to see wind-tunnel tests on that bridge before I bought it.

 

In short, there's a reason tests are run in laboratories.

 

--lemit

[Donk]

I made the claim “The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate.”

<snip>

How is my answer wrong? If you know the answer, tell us; is Global Warming Fake, and then we can all move on.

1998 was an exceptionally warm year. Since then, global air temperatures have been more-or-less on a plateau. A very warm plateau. Air temperatures haven't risen much, but glaciers are melting, ice caps are shrinking, sea temperatures are rising. So no, global warming is NOT fake.

 

A while ago you sneered that we should apply economic theory. Ever heard of Supply and Demand? If demand outstrips supply, prices go up. If supply outstrips demand, prices go down. How, then, can you claim that if we use less fossil fuel the price will rise? I don't normally use insult, but I'd say that the description "numbnuts denialist" is spot-on :phones:

[Cedars]

Anyone know where to find the source of these figures?

 

Who is SSRC? And what is Relational Cycle Theory? - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

 

Temp / sunspots appears to be from this 1991 paper in Science with C02 added by someone else.

 

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf

 

I did not take the time to compare the co2 graph with other sources for accuracy.

 

Also do measurements of temperature in global warming figures rule out urban temperature increases due to asphalts high absorption of light and heat?

There is debate on whether the adjustments made to US temp records accurately gage UHI (and other things). This is mentioned in one of the climategate emails from October 2009:

 

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

 

There are other skeptic sites which question the adjustments made for UHI, station altitudes, station moves, older records, missing records, etc. Reading a bit about these issues, I have to agree that the skeptics have some legitimate questions.

 

This is also currently under discussion in Australia and New Zealand.

[BrianG]

...

A while ago you sneered that we should apply economic theory. Ever heard of Supply and Demand? If demand outstrips supply, prices go up. If supply outstrips demand, prices go down. How, then, can you claim that if we use less fossil fuel the price will rise? I don't normally use insult, but I'd say that the description "numbnuts denialist" is spot-on :phones:

 

This is so, if some other source replaces fossil fuel. On the other hand, if fossil fuel production and use is restricted, this yields the same price effects as the restrictions on drugs or tobacco, less production, higher price. If you think bathtub gin was a big problem in the 20's, wait until your neighbors start making bathtub gasoline.

[BrianG]

Brian,

 

You've been asked about this before, but you haven't responded. Where did you get the "[math]1\degree F[/math] per century" citation? That's pretty impressive. I've said before that I didn't see GW in some of the math people are throwing around. I'd like to be able to cite that. Could you tell me where you got it?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

 

lemit, I'll withdraw my claim, temperature trends are problematic, just be careful picking the start and end points and you can get any trend you like.

 

It's been warming since the end of the last ice age is a claim I'll stand by.

[Essay]

It's been warming since the end of the last ice age is a claim I'll stand by.

 

 

from: temperature

 

It is the usual pattern that the abrupt (1-3 thousand years) and intense warming, that signals the end of a glaciation, is followed by a gradual decline in tempertures until the next glaciation begins. I think you'll see how, for the past 7 thousand years civilization has been unsuccessfully fighting that trend (a gradual decline in tempertures). The graph does not show how we have recently had great success in fighting that natural trend.

 

But to say that it's "been warming since the end of the last ice age" shows a couple of holes in your understanding of how climate works. First there is the confusion between "ice ages" and glaciations, but I assume you meant "the last glaciation," and then there are the facts about how temperature has changed since civilization began after the last big warming that ended "the last ice age."