More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Ron Scarboro

Member
GT40s Supporter
Larry,
So you don’t dispute manmafe global warming, just don’t think it is on the US to solve the problem?

I’m just trying to understand folks positions. So much of this thread is just declarative statement w/o and position taken.

Thanks,

Ron
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Larry,
So you don’t dispute manmafe global warming, just don’t think it is on the US to solve the problem?
Just as a general principle, I'm tired of THE WHOLE WORLD automatically believing/insisting EVERY PROBLEM on the planet is somehow the USA's problem to solve.

My position is MMGW/CC is a theory - not proven FACT. What IS FACT is within the "95%+ of "scientists" who've "agreed it's happening" are the very "scientists" who've declared all the debate on the topic is OVER!!! Science N-E-V-E-R declares that to be the case! Science ALWAYS welcomes challenges to the status quo.

Given all the instances wherein the MMGW/CC "scientists" have been caught 'fudging'/'adjusting'/'correcting' their facts/figures/data/research in order to 'confirm'/'support'/'verify' their various claims, I'm not too inclined to go along with their whole dog and pony show. The number of "catastrophic predictions" they've made that have failed to materialize is just as damning.

In any event, even if the whole MMGW/CC scam were to be proven TRUE...unless ALL 'polluter nations' were subject to the SAME 'corrective measures', we may as well be trying to empty the Pacific Ocean with a spoon.

...and all in the "hope" that the TRILLIONS of dollars spent will result in lowering the Earth's temp 1/4th of a degree-or-so within the next 100 years...give or take. Now, really..................does that seem at all worth it???
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
The US was the leader in energy consumption and industrial era impacts on the environment for decades before other countries became sufficiently developed to do the same themselves, I would say that is one reason we own an obligation to contribute to fixing it.
As I said:

"Just as a general principle, I'm tired of THE WHOLE WORLD automatically believing/insisting EVERY PROBLEM on the planet is somehow the USA's problem to solve."
 

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11...-warming-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-too-high/
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11...-warming-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-too-high/
Bob,

The thing I have learnt today, (and it’s just my opinion,) is that for some of the hoax believers, if your information source is from those that support the theory of global warming then it is manipulated, false, data that must be dismissed. However, if your information source is from those that support the theory of global warming being a hoax, then even if it has been manipulated, it is accurate, and therefore the gospel truth.

I must admit I had never heard of The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
so I did a bit of research on Bob’s assertion that “HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama”.

Well shiver me timbers, and cor blimey Mary Poppins The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Manipulate their data.

From a website I found on the subject.

The problem is, their results don’t agree with NOAA. In particular, the UAH team, led by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer (who have discounted the importance and occurrence of climate change for years) present results that differ quite a bit from the others. In fact, in the new current paper on the subject, it is stated that “Despite using the same basic radiometer measurements, tropical TMT trend differences between these groups differ by a factor of three.”

An important aspect to this issue is that for many reasons, it is expected that the tropospheric temperatures in the tropics will warm more than surface temperatures. This is called “tropospheric amplification.” According to two satellite groups, there is in fact such amplification. According to the UAH team, there is no amplification.

Now if you have got this far here is the important bit. The presence or absence of amplification is often used by some skeptics to discount the importance of global warming.

As the authors state in the new paper, their new results agree with the two groups that show more warming. They disagree with UAH. As the authors state, In general, our trends corrected with a GCM and trends corrected with our observationally derived diurnal cycle correction are similar to trends from NOAA and RSS ... the UAH ocean trend is notably lower than trends from the other datasets.

So, how do the trends compare? Well the lowest trend, in degrees Celsius heating per decade are from UAH and they equal 0.029 for the 1979–2012 period for the mid-troposphere region between 20° South and 20° North. The new results are almost 4 times higher at 0.114°C per decade. The results using a diurnal correction from a climate model are in close agreement with the new findings (0.124°C per decade). As additional support, the NOAA and RSS values are also close to the corrected results. The simple fact is, UAH is an outlier.

The results from RSS, NOAA, and the new study all show tropical amplification and are in agreement with the expected amplification from climate models. They state, “There is no significant discrepancy between observations and models for lapse rate change between the surface and the full troposphere.

”To summarize the amplification factor, the new study obtains a value of 1.4. If the diurnal cycle is eliminated using climate models, the result is 1.49. According to NOAA and RSS, the values are 1.31 and 1.10, respectively. Again, UAH is the outlier with an amplification factor of 0.56.

In short, the conclusion of the new paper is, the Earth is warming, the warming is amplified in the troposphere, and those who claim otherwise are unlikely to be correct.
 
Bob,

The thing I have learnt today, (and it’s just my opinion,) is that for some of the hoax believers, if your information source is from those that support the theory of global warming then it is manipulated, false, data that must be dismissed. However, if your information source is from those that support the theory of global warming being a hoax, then even if it has been manipulated, it is accurate, and therefore the gospel truth.

I must admit I had never heard of The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
so I did a bit of research on Bob’s assertion that “HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama”.

Well shiver me timbers, and cor blimey Mary Poppins The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Manipulate their data.

From a website I found on the subject.

The problem is, their results don’t agree with NOAA. In particular, the UAH team, led by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer (who have discounted the importance and occurrence of climate change for years) present results that differ quite a bit from the others. In fact, in the new current paper on the subject, it is stated that “Despite using the same basic radiometer measurements, tropical TMT trend differences between these groups differ by a factor of three.”

An important aspect to this issue is that for many reasons, it is expected that the tropospheric temperatures in the tropics will warm more than surface temperatures. This is called “tropospheric amplification.” According to two satellite groups, there is in fact such amplification. According to the UAH team, there is no amplification.

Now if you have got this far here is the important bit. The presence or absence of amplification is often used by some skeptics to discount the importance of global warming.

As the authors state in the new paper, their new results agree with the two groups that show more warming. They disagree with UAH. As the authors state, In general, our trends corrected with a GCM and trends corrected with our observationally derived diurnal cycle correction are similar to trends from NOAA and RSS ... the UAH ocean trend is notably lower than trends from the other datasets.

So, how do the trends compare? Well the lowest trend, in degrees Celsius heating per decade are from UAH and they equal 0.029 for the 1979–2012 period for the mid-troposphere region between 20° South and 20° North. The new results are almost 4 times higher at 0.114°C per decade. The results using a diurnal correction from a climate model are in close agreement with the new findings (0.124°C per decade). As additional support, the NOAA and RSS values are also close to the corrected results. The simple fact is, UAH is an outlier.

The results from RSS, NOAA, and the new study all show tropical amplification and are in agreement with the expected amplification from climate models. They state, “There is no significant discrepancy between observations and models for lapse rate change between the surface and the full troposphere.

”To summarize the amplification factor, the new study obtains a value of 1.4. If the diurnal cycle is eliminated using climate models, the result is 1.49. According to NOAA and RSS, the values are 1.31 and 1.10, respectively. Again, UAH is the outlier with an amplification factor of 0.56.

In short, the conclusion of the new paper is, the Earth is warming, the warming is amplified in the troposphere, and those who claim otherwise are unlikely to be correct.
All Marxists are elitist snobs. For some reason, having a British accent seems to accelerate the obnoxious factor.
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
All Marxists are elitist snobs. For some reason, having a British accent seems to accelerate the obnoxious factor.
Not sure what your point is, but luckily for me I am not a Marxist, and you have no idea what my accent is, phew deep joy!!! As some say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit I may not even be an elitist snob :) and although some think I am obnoxious, some don't.
 
Last edited:

Mike Pass

Member
GT40s Supporter
I don't care what they say Nick - I think your are alright!

PS. Global warming or ice age? I'll take the warm option.

PPS. Is it not ironic that the carbon dioxide level in the Devonian was so extremely high so that the plants and animals flourished in the very warm conditions to such an extent that we have this to thank for the oil and coal that we now burn to kick the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere?

PPPS. You do realise that 50 percent of people are below average.

PPPPS. We will all be dead in 100years and some of us sooner than that!

Klaatu Barada Nikto

Mike
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
I don't care what they say Nick - I think your are alright!

Mike
Hey Mike, that's my saying, hoisted on my own petard :) “'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"

Think we need to get back to talking GT40's (other interesting cars are available).
 
Last edited:

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
The last few posts are a great example of point, counterpoint, in which examination of the other party's statements bring incremental clarity to the larger debate, and thus, in a rational and enlightened society, bring all closer to what is the best picture of the truth, as best as our science can determine. Humans unfortunately (some more than others) have an overpowering desire to seek/repeat information that only supports their beliefs, regardless of validity. Seeking "comforting" data is always preferred to realizing the uncomfortable has more validity.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Humans unfortunately (some more than others) have an overpowering desire to seek/repeat information that only supports their beliefs, regardless of validity. Seeking "comforting" data is always preferred to realizing the uncomfortable has more validity.
Which would go a long way toward explaining WHY MMGW/CC "scientists" have declared all debate on the subject OVER...wouldn't it. ;-)
 

Germany has spent an estimated 189 billion euros, or about $222 billion, since 2000 on renewable energy subsidies. But emissions have been stuck at roughly 2009 levels, and rose last year, as coal-fired plants fill a void left by Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear power. That has raised questions — and anger — over a program meant to make the country’s power sector greener.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
The German situation is likely the same one for all countries that have aggressive visions for future renewable injection. 2009 had a significantly large drop in part due to the economy during that time, yet 2018 showed an overall reduction from 2009 of 4.5%, with the trend continuing in a good direction. A 30%+ drop in carbon emissions since 1990 is pretty good by any standard. No one claimed that becoming fossil fuel independent was going to be easy (but neither is continued reliance on fossil fuels). Germany sees this realistically, but continues to do what it can to proceed forward with their original goals, which is to be commended.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets
 
Thought I’d give a little red tofu-meat for our Marxist friends here!


We will simply have to throw the kitchen sink at this. Policy tweaks such as a carbon tax won’t do it. We need to fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship to ownership, work and capital. The impact of a dramatic reconfiguration of the industrial economy require similarly large changes to the welfare state. Basic incomes, large-scale public works programmes, everything has to be on the table to ensure that the oncoming system shocks do not leave vast swathes of the global population starving and destitute. Perhaps even more fundamentally, we cannot continue to treat the welfare system as a tool for disciplining the supposedly idle underclasses. Our system must be reformed with a more humane view of worklessness, poverty and migration than we have now.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
Trying to understand why this should go to "our Marxist" friends. The quote is a very profound as well as realistic for any economic model given the dire nature of global warming. And if you're concerned about the end of capitalism (as we know it today), just watch what happens when the wealth gap in this country continues to widen, more legislation is enacted benefiting only the 1/2 of 1%, while hurting the the other 99.5%, and we have another big economic downturn where even fewer will make it out okay. At that point, it won't matter what the climate is doing. What climate change will do is bring that "event" around sooner than later. America did some pretty amazing things when tax rates were a lot higher than today, when only a single income provided a pretty reasonable means of living, and when income inequality existed, but wasn't at the unbelievably bloated values seen today, and getting worse.
 
Trying to understand why this should go to "our Marxist" friends. The quote is a very profound as well as realistic for any economic model given the dire nature of global warming. And if you're concerned about the end of capitalism (as we know it today), just watch what happens when the wealth gap in this country continues to widen, more legislation is enacted benefiting only the 1/2 of 1%, while hurting the the other 99.5%, and we have another big economic downturn where even fewer will make it out okay. At that point, it won't matter what the climate is doing. What climate change will do is bring that "event" around sooner than later. America did some pretty amazing things when tax rates were a lot higher than today, when only a single income provided a pretty reasonable means of living, and when income inequality existed, but wasn't at the unbelievably bloated values seen today, and getting worse.
There it is, in black and white. Warmers want to eliminate the engine that has fueled economic growth, and therefore the living standard of all, with one world control over the world’s economy, plunging us back to feudal times of shared misery for all but the elite.
 
  • 2/10/2015
“Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.”

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
 
Top