More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[fedor50]

What heresy...are you crazy? What would make you our primary energy source could possibly drive the climate here? That's just crazy talk. Seek help immediately.

Pale Rider, I would love to prove to you why most scientists accept as FACT that climate change is definitely happening. Most of what you say and post is just conspiracy theory trying to deny the very simple FACT that climate change and global warming is MAN-MADE.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Pale Rider, I would love to prove to you why most scientists accept as FACT that climate change is definitely happening. Most of what you say and post is just conspiracy theory trying to deny the very simple FACT that climate change and global warming is MAN-MADE.

Yes climate change is occurring, however, to blame a natural cycle of events solely on the actions of man is to allow ones self to be deceived:

http://www.all-recycling-facts.com/natural-causes-of-global-warming.html

 

[dogtowner]

This should be fun. Fedor, you have the floor.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

This should be fun. Fedor, you have the floor.

Been there, done that. Not interesting anymore.

 

[Lagboltz]

Been there, done that. Not interesting anymore.

Unless you enjoy talking to a drone who only repeats sound-bites.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

And they say it isn't happening:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...elt-ice-shelves-antarctic-peninsula-larsen-c/

"The wind had scoured this snow off the surfaces of glaciers as it accelerated down the east side of the Peninsula’s mountains. When the winds finally let up, Pettit emerged from her tent to find the snow mushy beneath her boots.

The temperature had topped 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Training her binoculars on the lower reaches of Starbuck Glacier, six miles to the east, she saw that it had taken on a bluish tint: The wind had melted enough snow to form hundreds of ponds on the glacier’s surface. It was just the sort of observation that Pettit and three other researchers had come here looking for. (See a time line of Antarctic expeditions.)

After studying Antarctica’s warming climate for decades, scientists are making a surprising discovery: In some places, much of that abnormal warmth is invading in the form of powerful, downhill winds called föhn (pronounced “fone”) winds. Pettit, a glaciologist from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and a National Geographic explorer, now suspects that these winds contributed to a series of dramatic glacial collapses that have been steadily redrawing the map on the east side of the Antarctic Peninsula for the last 30 years. Föhn winds may have escaped scientists’ notice because they don’t just blow during summer—some of their most impressive heat waves actually strike in the dead of winter, eroding glaciers at a time of year that no one thought possible."

For further reading:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-destabilize-with-intense-unbalanced-melting

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, I would love to prove to you why most scientists accept as FACT that climate change is definitely happening. Most of what you say and post is just conspiracy theory trying to deny the very simple FACT that climate change and global warming is MAN-MADE.

I would say that all scientists accept climate change as a fact..I certainly do...it is observable, measurable, and quantifiable...The climate has always changed and will continue to do so.

The proposition, that man is altering the global climate is bullshit, but if you believe it to be otherwise, I would challenge you to at least begin to support your position by providing a single piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the manmade climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

I have been asking for more than two decades for such a piece of evidence and have yet to see the first one...it has been interesting, however, to see what passes for evidence of man made climate change in the minds of those who believe..and it has revealed how so many people came to be duped.

My bet, is that if you attempt to provide a piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis, it will, in fact, be an observed piece of evidence that the climate is changing, with an assumption that man is causing it tacked on...or a claim that man is causing climate change with a piece of evidence that the climate is changing...what you won't provide is observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate over natural variability because no such evidence exists......anywhere.

 

[palerider]

And they say it isn't happening:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...elt-ice-shelves-antarctic-peninsula-larsen-c/

"The wind had scoured this snow off the surfaces of glaciers as it accelerated down the east side of the Peninsula’s mountains. When the winds finally let up, Pettit emerged from her tent to find the snow mushy beneath her boots.

The temperature had topped 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Training her binoculars on the lower reaches of Starbuck Glacier, six miles to the east, she saw that it had taken on a bluish tint: The wind had melted enough snow to form hundreds of ponds on the glacier’s surface. It was just the sort of observation that Pettit and three other researchers had come here looking for. (See a time line of Antarctic expeditions.)

After studying Antarctica’s warming climate for decades, scientists are making a surprising discovery: In some places, much of that abnormal warmth is invading in the form of powerful, downhill winds called föhn (pronounced “fone”) winds. Pettit, a glaciologist from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and a National Geographic explorer, now suspects that these winds contributed to a series of dramatic glacial collapses that have been steadily redrawing the map on the east side of the Antarctic Peninsula for the last 30 years. Föhn winds may have escaped scientists’ notice because they don’t just blow during summer—some of their most impressive heat waves actually strike in the dead of winter, eroding glaciers at a time of year that no one thought possible."

For further reading:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-destabilize-with-intense-unbalanced-melting

Same old bullshit...the claims of a warming antarctic are based on some terribly flawed science. Most of the claims come from a paper by Steig et al...."warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since 1957 International Geophysical Year. It was published in Nature..Jan 2009.

Prominently featured was some terribly flawed "Mannian" mathematics from the king of making trends (hockey sticks) out of noisy data. The paper was, by the way proven wrong by not one but 3 prominent skeptics..but that didn't make the news. Aside from that, now Mother Nature herself has proven the paper wrong. The whole paper by Steig et al arose from temperature data on the Antarctic Peninsula and mikey mann managed to spread that one bit of warming across the entire continent to make it appear that the entire continent was getting warmer.

All of the news of the warming Antarctic, including that bit of fiction you posted above was on the peninsula...it was the only place on the whole continent that suited the warmer agenda...They reported with bright eyes about glacial breakups, and melting while failing to mention that the continent as a whole was most certainly not warming...and had in fact, been trending cooler for quite some time.

Now a new study shows that that little warm blip has come to an abrupt end, just as it started.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716327152

Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphere M. Oliva et al.


Abstract

The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend of 0.54 °C/decade during 1951–2011 recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. While that study focuses on the period 1979–2014, averaging the data over the entire AP region, we here update and re-assess the spatially-distributed temperature trends and inter-decadal variability from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the AP region. We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.

Here are some other papers on Antarctica finding that there has been no continent scale warming trend in Antarctica over the past century:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3230-4

Spatial patterns of recent Antarctic surface temperature trends and the importance of natural variability: lessons from multiple reconstructions and the CMIP5 models

“[We] conclude that there is little evidence of anthropogenic SAM-induced driving of the recent temperature trends … compelling evidence pointing to natural climate variability as a key contributor to the recent warming of West Antarctica and of the Peninsula“


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/full/nature18645.html

Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability

“The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer.”


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html

Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate

“Most observed trends [over the 36-year satellite data] are not unusual when compared with Antarctic palaeoclimate records of the past two centuries. … [C]limate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with the observed trends. This suggests that natural variability overwhelms the forced response in the observations“


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0013.1

An Exceptional Summer during the South Pole Race of 1911-1912

“At their peak on 6 December 1911, the temperatures measured by Amundsen exceeded -16°C, which represents an anomaly relative to our estimate from ERA-Int climatology [long-term temperature and pressure record] of more than 10°C. … Amundsen’s sledging temperature measurements during this time are much warmer than the hourly and daily mean observations collected at the South Pole station since 1957, even when accounting for the average differences in temperature between Amundsen’s location and the South Pole, which is often colder than nearby areas due to pooling of cold air in the slightly lower elevation (Comiso 2000).”


And I could go on ad nauseum...the catastrophic reporting done by climate science...and its willing partners in the mainstream media is almost entirely based on cherry picking, misdirection, misunderstanding...and the knowledge that there is a vast number of useful idiots out there who will simply accept, not bother to do any research on their own, and spread the BS far and wide at every opportunity.

 

[fedor50]

I would say that all scientists accept climate change as a fact..I certainly do...it is observable, measurable, and quantifiable...The climate has always changed and will continue to do so.

Great so you at least agree with this. Let us continue...

The proposition, that man is altering the global climate is bullshit, but if you believe it to be otherwise, I would challenge you to at least begin to support your position by providing a single piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the manmade climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

Global climate is bullshit? Really Pale Rider? You want ACTUAL evidence that global warming is REALLY happening and man is causing it?

OK, here you go, irrefutable proof and FACTS that global warming is undeniably happening and men is DEFINITELY causing it:

Here is my supporting evidence. Feel free to dispute.

Here's a fun report. It's about the 900 page Climate Change report that the Chinese government put out last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/asia/china-climate-change-global-warming.html

RISING TEMPERATURES

Average temperatures across China have been rising faster than the global average, and that trend is likely to continue, the report says. From 1909 to 2011, average temperatures across China rose between 0.9 and 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.6 and 2.7 Fahrenheit). Governments have set a goal of trying to limit future temperature rises in this century to within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. But even if that global goal is met, temperature rises across China will be substantially higher: 2.7 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (4.9 to 5.2 Fahrenheit), the report says.

PRECIPITATION AND WATER

Although global warming sometimes conjures images of parched deserts, the consequences for rain and snowfall across China are more complicated, as they are for many other parts of the world. Warmer air absorbs more moisture that, sooner or later, is released as precipitation. The effects on precipitation across China are likely to vary widely, and scientists are still working on finer-grained models of likely change. In parts of northern, northwestern and southern China, rain and snowfall have decreased in recent decades, while in other regions, especially out west, precipitation has increased.

Over this century, the report says, China’s total precipitation could increase 2 percent to 5 percent. But increased evaporation due to higher temperatures can mean that soil and waterways retain less of that water. “Over all, climate change may further intensify the occurrence of floods and droughts,” the report says. “This will pose even more severe challenges for management of water resources.”

AGRICULTURE

The Chinese government has made national food self-sufficiency a priority, fearing that reliance on foreign markets could make the country economically and politically vulnerable. So there is a great deal of research in China on the effects of global warming on agriculture, but also considerable uncertainty. Warmer weather could extend the growing season for some crops, especially in northeast China. But farmers will also have to cope with increased pests, less reliable rain and irrigation, and hotter summers.

Over all, climate change will cause earlier and shorter growing seasons, a proliferation of diseases and pests, and intensifying hazards. That does not mean that China will inevitably face famine, the report stresses, but adaptation in crop varieties and in farming and irrigation technology will be needed to cope with these stresses.

HIGHER SEA LEVELS

Across the planet, sea levels have been rising because of melting polar caps and the accumulated heat that is expanding oceans. But the effects are not uniform. Some parts of the planet experience higher rises than others, reflecting the effects of ocean currents, winds and the gravitational influence of polar ice masses. And China, the report says, is in a part of the world where sea level rises have been relatively high and are likely to remain that way. From 1980 to 2012, China’s coastal seas rose an average of 2.9 millimeters, or 0.11 inch, a year, higher than the global average. Forecasting how fast future rises will be is difficult, partly because much rests on the future of the polar ice sheets.

In the next 30 years, the East China Sea off Shanghai could rise between 7.5 and 14.5 centimeters, or 3 and 5.7 inches. The rises will force back the coastline and expose low-lying areas to worse damage from storms and typhoons, which whip up surges of water, as well as inundations of saltwater into waterways and farmland. Each rise of one centimeter in sea level could push the coastline back more than 10 meters, or 32.8 feet, the report says. It calls for much greater investment in sea walls and other protections.

Here are the results from several surveys of scientists over the course of several years.

Here is the list of surveys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Skeptical Science analyzed over 12,000 studies published on climate change and found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...sessionid=4DADD4430CC221139C870CF37FE51D20.c1


Here's another study. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

Here's a nifty graph

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full

This isn't just some thing Al Gore made up.

The Climate Change Summit in Paris was one of the biggest gatherings of world leaders and government reps of all time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/europe/obama-climate-conference-cop21.html

The rest of the world is well aware that climate change is legit. The only people that disagree are a few outliers that happen to influence a lot of really stupid Republicans.

The climate has changed in the past. Numerous times. However, it has never been such a significant change in such a short amount of time without some sort of catastrophic influence (i.e. meteor that wiped out dinosaurs, giant volcanic eruption, etc).

I have been asking for more than two decades for such a piece of evidence and have yet to see the first one...it has been interesting, however, to see what passes for evidence of man made climate change in the minds of those who believe..and it has revealed how so many people came to be duped

Ask and you shall receive. Now YOU have been shown the light and error of your ways when it comes to global warming, climate change, and why MEN ARE causing it. You can lead a horse to water but...

 

[The Scotsman]

You can lead a horse to water but...

To continue your metaphor I guess it depends on the water on offer and those leading you to it. Quoting newspaper articles or indeed climate reports is like choosing television programs - it depends upon your perspective and the idiosyncrasies of the human psyche. There is a lot of work being undertaken by many people but how much "science" and is the "science" motivated to funding, power, status or all of these? For example, how does one negotiate the myriad pathways of the various "models" on offer - should I stick to the conclusions of the CMIP5 climate models or should I argue they are forced? If they are forced then how do I dissassmble the data sets and algorythms upon which the models are structured and how do I eliminate the programmed bias or do I just strip out and take the GFDL? There are many on offer. Peer reviewing these models is another matter entirely and depends upon the people undertaking the review, their ability their field of research or expertise and unfortunately their innate bias - which takes us back to the your orginal metaphor being who is leading you and to what end.

The only people that disagree are a few outliers that happen to influence a lot of really stupid Republicans.

A somewhat interesting interpretation of a complex issue. For example if you are considering energy budget and climate sensitivity models would you accept Armour's paper or question its methodology and if you question it are you stupid? I think calling people stupid because they don't agree with your conclusions or your innate bias is... well... rather stupid.

 

[The Scotsman]

irrefutable proof and FACTS that global warming is undeniably happening and men is DEFINITELY causing it

It may be interesting to explore and decouple some of the "facts" regarding climate science and popular "beliefs". The work being undertaken by scientists who are actively conducting research into climate science can only agree on 3 facts - by facts I mean something that has actually occurred and is verifiable. Unfortunately, the facts are quite simple;

• Average global surface temperatures have increased in the past 100 plus years.
• CO2 has an infrared emission spectra.
• CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by humans.

That’s really about it when it comes to verifiable facts on the main topics of climate science!

Everything else is popular belief or theory and contending that planetary warming is caused by humans is simply an hypothesis.

 

[Openmind]

It may be interesting to explore and decouple some of the "facts" regarding climate science and popular "beliefs". The work being undertaken by scientists who are actively conducting research into climate science can only agree on 3 facts - by facts I mean something that has actually occurred and is verifiable. Unfortunately, the facts are quite simple;

• Average global surface temperatures have increased in the past 100 plus years.
• CO2 has an infrared emission spectra.
• CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by humans.

That’s really about it when it comes to verifiable facts on the main topics of climate science!

Everything else is popular belief or theory and contending that planetary warming is caused by humans is simply an hypothesis.

Well, it seems that the three facts you acknowledge and posted definitely state that human consumption of excessive CO2 producing life style DO largely (at the least) contribute to global warming. . .so why is this merely an hypothesis?

 

[The Scotsman]

so why is this merely an hypothesis?

Simply, because you've taken two dissimilar facts in order to prove a hypothesis -
1- The planet has warmed.
2 -CO2 has been added by Humans
Post hoc ergo propter hoc humans caused the planet to warm....!!??
All of it, some of it or none of it - does the atmosperic CO2 level even matter - is it even relevent!!
Now comes the science the modelling the politicisation the arguing of facts versus popular belief of the herd etc. etc.

 

[dogtowner]

Simply, because you've taken two dissimilar facts in order to prove a hypothesis -
1- The planet has warmed.
2 -CO2 has been added by Humans
Post hoc ergo propter hoc humans caused the planet to warm....!!??
All of it, some of it or none of it - does the atmosperic CO2 level even matter - is it even relevent!!
Now comes the science the modelling the politicisation the arguing of facts versus popular belief of the herd etc. etc.

Has anything else changed in the time frames ? Why yes it has and in a measurable way and, oddly enough following a rather consistant cycle over tens of thousands of years.

 

[dogtowner]

And I see the Danes just noted a drop in global Temps ! Oh my...