[_ Old Earth _] Climate change

[brewmama]

Global warming is also causing warmer spring weather to arrive earlier than it used to. Overall, spring weather is already arriving 10 days earlier than it used to. A recent study estimated that the median onset of plant growth in spring will happen three weeks earlier over the next century, as a result of rising global temperatures. In California's Sierra Nevada, the onset of spring has already been happening three weeks earlier than historical records, with an immense amount of variability—meaning it is hard to plan for the average earlier spring onset.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html

I see where you get most of your info.
The UCS was started in 1969 as an anti-nuclear weapon organization, but switched its focus to global warming when the Soviet Union collapsed and it became clear that large amounts of funds were available from the left-wing foundations (Pew Trusts, Joyce Foundation, MacArthur Foundation…)

For more information on the UCS see:http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1186063502.pdf

And details about their funding:http://activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists

 

[brewmama]

That's the irony. If you abandon long-term data, you can't measure climate at all. And your short-term fixation falls apart with the fact that 2010 was hotter in Alabama than anything else on record. If things have been cooling for years, one wouldn't have record temps in this decade. But there it is.
Yer makin' it easy, kid.

I see you STILL haven't bothered to address the actual claim about long-term data the way it has been measured (not allowing for falsely increased nighttime temps) instead of actually more correct long-term data. You just keep relying on the fallacious long-term data and falsely say that the link "abandons long-term data". You're hopeless.

 

[Barbarian]

I see where you get most of your info.

Various journals. Just as you get yours from politicians and popular magazines, I get mine from journals of climatology. It's why you keep running into walls; if you'd go to the source, you'd do a lot better.

I see you STILL haven't bothered to address the actual claim about long-term data the way it has been measured (not allowing for falsely increased nighttime temps)

You're jumping around from study to study. They're jerking you around by switching back and forth between surface temperature and higher atmospheric temperatures. The "falsely increased nighttime" scam worked like this:

Balloon data came from temperature sensors sent aloft to get information from lower tropospheric conditions. At some point, scientists realized that radiation, striking the sensors, was giving higher results than actually existed. So they started shading the sensors to remove that effect. Not surprisingly, the raw data shows a drop in temperatures. This effect never happened for those sent up at night, and so there was no cooling correction for those. Which lead the deniers to suppose that evil scientists were falsely inflating nighttime temps. There's a simpler explanation. I'm sure you would realize what it is, if you thought about it.

You're not quite hopeless, but you've got a lot of learning to do.

 

[Barbarian]

Atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles are important for weather prediction, but climate change has increased the interest in upper-air observations asking for very high-quality reference measurements. This paper discusses an experimental approach to determine the radiation-induced error on radiosonde air temperature measurements. On the one hand, solar shortwave and thermal longwave radiation profiles were accurately measured during radiosonde ascents from the surface to 35-km altitude. On the other hand, air temperature was measured with several thermocouples on the same flight, simultaneously under sun-shaded and unshaded conditions. The radiation experiments reveal that thermal radiation errors on the very thin thermocouple of the Meteolabor SRS-C34 radiosonde are similar during night- and daytime. They produce a radiative cooling in the lower troposphere and the upper stratosphere, but a radiative heating in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Air temperature experiments with several thermocouples, however, show that solar radiation produces a radiative heating of about +0.2°C near the surface, which linearly increases to about +1°C at 32 km (~10 hPa). The new solar radiation error profile was then applied to SRS-C34 measurements made during the Eighth WMO Intercomparison of High Quality Radiosonde Systems, held in Yangjiang, China, in July 2010. The effects of thermal and solar radiation errors are finally shown in contrast to the 10 other internationally used radiosonde systems, which were flown during this international campaign.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00047.1

 

[brewmama]

Various journals. Just as you get yours from politicians and popular magazines, I get mine from journals of climatology. It's why you keep running into walls; if you'd go to the source, you'd do a lot better.



You're jumping around from study to study. They're jerking you around by switching back and forth between surface temperature and higher atmospheric temperatures. The "falsely increased nighttime" scam worked like this:

Balloon data came from temperature sensors sent aloft to get information from lower tropospheric conditions. At some point, scientists realized that radiation, striking the sensors, was giving higher results than actually existed. So they started shading the sensors to remove that effect. Not surprisingly, the raw data shows a drop in temperatures. This effect never happened for those sent up at night, and so there was no cooling correction for those. Which lead the deniers to suppose that evil scientists were falsely inflating nighttime temps. There's a simpler explanation. I'm sure you would realize what it is, if you thought about it.

You're not quite hopeless, but you've got a lot of learning to do.

Once again, irrelevant to the subject. Nothing to do with balloon data. Good effort on trying though. If only you could stick to the point.

 

[Barbarian]

As I showed you, they're switching back and forth with data from unrelated cases. Why not just lay out the data here, show me what you think it says, and then we can put an end to this?

Just post what you think is impressive,and we'll take a look.

Assuming you understand it well enough to tell us about it. I'm intrigued to see what you come up with, here. Go for it.

 

[brewmama]

i seriously doubt we'll put an end to this, since the opposition to climate change dogma grows by leaps and bounds every day. I certainly don't mind discussing it though. You could start by actually addressing what I've already posted.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian makes a suggestion:
Just post what you think is impressive,and we'll take a look.

Assuming you understand it well enough to tell us about it. I'm intrigued to see what you come up with, here. Go for it.

(ain't gonna happen)

i seriously doubt we'll put an end to this, since the opposition to climate change dogma grows by leaps and bounds every day.

Didn't think you understood it. If you don't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think it's right?

I certainly don't mind discussing it though.

Great. Explain to us what you find most compelling and present the data to support it.

But, given that you ducked the last request, it doesn't look very likely that you will.

 

[Eugene]

.
Dear brethren, snarky remarks are increasing of a subject not even agreed about among science. Please do not make me close the thread, and/or deny access to the Christianity - Science forums for a limited time.

Please consider this in all your posts, and attempt to include data for all information submitted. Thanks.
.

 

[brewmama]

Barbarian makes a suggestion:
Just post what you think is impressive,and we'll take a look.

Assuming you understand it well enough to tell us about it. I'm intrigued to see what you come up with, here. Go for it.

(ain't gonna happen)



Didn't think you understood it. If you don't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think it's right?



Great. Explain to us what you find most compelling and present the data to support it.

But, given that you ducked the last request, it doesn't look very likely that you will.

Why don't you start by explaining why your comments contradict themselves so much?

"The high plains are going to get drier, and a lot of grazing land will become arid."
" in the U.S. where a short-term wet period and greed caused the Dust Bowl.
And yes, starvation and poverty followed. We did those to ourselves. The American high plains are trending that way again."
vs

"In the U.S., the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest one percent of storms has increased nationally over the last half century—with the largest increases in the Northeast, Great Plains, Midwest, and Southeast. The Third National Climate Assessment shows that some regions of the country have seen as much as a 71 percent increase in the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest storms between 1958 and 2012.

"As you learned, more snow is a consequence of warmer winters."

"Look for more snow each year. Warm seas mean more water in the air, and warmer temps mean more snowfall."
"In the U.S., the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest one percent of storms has increased nationally over the last half century—with the largest increases in the Northeast, Great Plains, Midwest, and Southeast. The Third National Climate Assessment shows that some regions of the country have seen as much as a 71 percent increase in the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest storms between 1958 and 2012."

 

[Barbarian]

Why don't you start by explaining why your comments contradict themselves so much?

"The high plains are going to get drier, and a lot of grazing land will become arid."
" in the U.S. where a short-term wet period and greed caused the Dust Bowl.
And yes, starvation and poverty followed. We did those to ourselves. The American high plains are trending that way again."
vs

"In the U.S., the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest one percent of storms has increased nationally over the last half century—with the largest increases in the Northeast, Great Plains, Midwest, and Southeast.

I highlighted the part that you missed. A few heavy storms aren't enough to counteract the climate. And it's not just theory; it has actually been observed that

In 1934 to 1936, three record drought years were marked for the nation. In 1936, a more severe storm spread out of the plains and across most of the nation. The drought years were accompanied with record breaking heavy rains, blizzards, tornadoes and floods. In September 1930, it rained over five inches in a very short time in the Oklahoma Panhandle. The flooding in Cimarron County was accompanied by a dirt storm which damaged several small buildings and graineries. Later that year, the regions were whipped again by a strong dirt storm from the southwest until the winds gave way to a blizzard from the north.
http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/dustbowl.htm

In spite of a crippling drought that dried up the land and made it impossible to raise crops, there were a few really massive rainstorms/snowfalls which didn't do anything to alleviate the drought. If this seems puzzling, then you need to do some reading about climate and how warmer climate makes things less stable. And yes, as you see from the Dust Bowl, that includes a few really heavy precipitation events.

And here's the precipitation map:

Notice where the precipitation increases have been lowest. Great Plains, particularly in the central and southern Great Plains. It makes sense, although I can see how it could be puzzling at first glance.

 

[brewmama]

So basically what you are saying is that what today would be called "extremist events" and portents of catastrophe occurred in the 1930s, well before CO2 was at the level supposedly causing similar events. Yet we are supposed to believe that now, less severe events ARE caused by CO2 levels, and nothing but CO2 levels.

 

[Mike S]

So basically what you are saying is that what today would be called "extremist events" and portents of catastrophe occurred in the 1930s, well before CO2 was at the level supposedly causing similar events. Yet we are supposed to believe that now, less severe events ARE caused by CO2 levels, and nothing but CO2 levels.

Yep.

The problem here is that the AGW crowd looks at a period of only about 150 years of temperature records out of earth's 4,500,000,000 years history.

 

[brewmama]

And lest the claim that it is the temperature being higher now than in the 30s should come up, let's look at how the gatekeepers operate:

The next blink comparator shows changes in the US temperature record from GISS. It alternates between their 1999 graph and the 2012 version of the same graph. The past is cooled and the present is warmed.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

The habit of scientists to use graphs only showing temp anomaly rather than actual temps will be discussed later, after I find a way to convert books to links. Suffice it to say that actual temp graphs show nothing to cause panicked alarm, or even much of a change. Anomaly graphs look much scarier. ( And I do realize that a much smaller template may be needed for observation, just not as a scare tactic for journalists to use)

 

[Eugene]

The habit of scientists to use graphs only showing temp anomaly rather than actual temps

Have you also noticed that scientists with all the actual practice they have cannot continually forecast a reliable weather pattern? In that scenario is it possible they haven't nailed down climate change? I believe in your thought of inconsistency, but my thought is a possible lack of expertise with backing by those that are in this for gain. Do you realize that many believe what politicians say, and they're also getting in on the act. Are you ready to believe, begin riding around in a Flintstone's car, and maybe even killing all cattle for clean air? I certainly know I wouldn't want to live around a Colorado Feedlot.

 

[Barbarian]

So basically what you are saying is that what today would be called "extremist events"

No, I'm pointing out that the models accurately predict what happens in a warming climate. Weather becomes more extreme and predictable. As you now see, increased snowfall in winter is a prediction of warming, and in fact, this is what was observed during the regional climate warming caused by humans in the Dust Bowl.

Yet we are supposed to believe that now, less severe events ARE caused by CO2 levels

Yep. But also by increased methane, which although a much smaller part of the increase, is a more potent greenhouse gas.

and nothing but CO2 levels.

That was your invention, and not part of climate science. Are you beginning to suspect that it might be good to know what it's all about?

 

[Barbarian]

Have you also noticed that scientists with all the actual practice they have cannot continually forecast a reliable weather pattern?

Weather is tougher to call than climate, for the same reason it's easier to say what percentage of Americans will chose chocolate ice cream than to say what percentage of the five people in line at Baskin-Robbins will do so. For reasons that are obvious, I think.

In that scenario is it possible they haven't nailed down climate change?

The present warming was called accurately about 20 years in advance. So they evidence suggests we're doing rather well at that.

I believe in your thought of inconsistency, but my thought is a possible lack of expertise with backing by those that are in this for gain.

The money is in denial. A lot of cash was being offered by politicians and denier groups to any scientist willing to sell his integrity. And a few took it. I could show you that again, but it's been pretty well publicized.

 

[Barbarian]

And lest the claim that it is the temperature being higher now than in the 30s should come up, let's look at how the gatekeepers operate:

(sudden switch from global temps to United States only)

The reason deniers go to the US charts, is that the Dust Bowl climate change greatly warmed the western United States in the 30s. World temps were only slightly affected by this man-made regional warming. That graph just made the point sharper. Man-made warming has begun to override natural cycles. The Dust Bowl was just the start.

The actual world temps are:

However, if you do a regression analysis to find a trend on the US data, you'll find that there's still a small warming effect, even with the Dust Bowl anomaly. Again, it merely make my point.

 

[Eugene]

The present warming was called accurately about 20 years in advance. So they evidence suggests we're doing rather well at that.

Thanks for your reply. I reckon I didn't hear the warning, continued driving my gas guzzler, eating steak, and enjoying retirement to the utmost. Where do you think, and you may know, but where do these so-called prognosticators of doom receive funding for their work as it were? selling books to any that will pay attention? Is Walter Mondale involved, and are prophesies of Nuclear Winter remaining to precede Global Warming? Brother Barbarian, I do hope you realize I'm just pulling your leg a bit, and really hope they're all wrong; I haven't went into survival mode yet.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2006/08/climate_of_fear_from_nuclear_w.html
Blessings in Jesus' name.

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks for your reply. I reckon I didn't hear the warning, continued driving my gas guzzler, eating steak, and enjoying retirement to the utmost. Where do you think, and you may know, but where do these so-called prognosticators of doom receive funding for their work as it were?

At the time, Hanson was working for NASA. Later, Bush would appoint a manager there who in response to lobbyists, would try to force scientists to change their research findings to match denier claims. He got away with that, but later it turned out that he had falsified his credentials, and so lost his job.

Still, political pressure on scientist to cover up the evidence for warming was severe in those years.

The world won't end. I suspect that Mike S. is right that eventually, we'll find a technological way out of this. I hope it's before too much pain ensues.