Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 201
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 9 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
^^^^^^Heresy!!!! Al Gore invented the internet! Anything he says is right up there with the words of the Pope on the will of God!
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 202
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 5:47:57 PM

October 2, 1997
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.


Yes the study is dated 1997 and I would assume the past 2-decades being 1977-1997. Now compare that to the temperature graph at the BBC link in MSG#1. There is no flat spot in that study during those times, or the study referenced. So NASA has essentially said the data is wrong.

So there are disagreements in the data unless you want to disregard NASA as a bogus agency.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 203
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 7:03:02 PM

There is no flat spot in that study during those times, or the study referenced. So NASA has essentially said the data is wrong.

So there are disagreements in the data

Read more carefully and look at both graphs more closely. Nowhere does NASA [or anyone else] say that the data are wrong. Those graphs show the same data, at least in part, just on different scales. The "flat" spot is the near constant rate of increase seen at the right end of the graph provided in post 1. It's not visible in the graph you provide because the temperature scale is finer and the number of years is fewer. The graph shows a more or less steady increase, compared to previous decades, beginning about 1970.

What they indicate is that the satellite data are accurate, and that models to that point didn't agree well with actual numbers. The data which disagree are two different types of measurements - surface, and lower atmosphere. Earlier models suggested that the two sets should basically be identical. Beyond that assumption being proven wrong by satellite data; it seems a naive assumption to begin with, because the atmosphere moves and mixes a lot, the water much less so, and the land not at all.

Unlike the surface-based temperatures
So surface temperatures are going up. Significantly.
global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere ... The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward.
While the lower atmosphere cools *slightly*, because it circulates and thus does not itself retain heat as well.
The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño
Of course. Our contribution is essentially a constant acceleration. Volcanic contributions are random, ocean cycles are periodic. Such natural events are detectable, and do not and should not cause anything other than a deviation from a background norm. That background "norm" is now one of steady change which is strongly correlated with human contributions to the process.
So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity
If taken out of context, as this is, this is both true and highly misleading. Those *older* models incorrectly predicted warming of the lower atmosphere. But that's because the atmosphere isn't warming, while the surface IS, and the models linked the two incorrectly.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 204
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 7:16:06 PM

Yes the study is dated 1997 and I would assume the past 2-decades being 1977-1997. Now compare that to the temperature graph at the BBC link in MSG#1. There is no flat spot in that study during those times, or the study referenced. So NASA has essentially said the data is wrong.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
One (the NASA graph) is showing "temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere" the other (the BBC graph) is showing "land-surface average temperature".

To state the obvious - they are not charting the same thing.
While it's true that NASA acknowledges there is an anomaly, they go on (on that very page) to talk about the complexity of the issue and potential pitfalls of attempting direct correlations.


So there are disagreements in the data unless you want to disregard NASA as a bogus agency.

If you are basing this conclusion ^^^ on comparisons of two dissimilar data sets you are correct, though the conclusion is obviously meaningless.
It follows that your meaningless conclusion doesn't support any inference about NASA, since the comparison you used to arrive at it was improper.

Note that comparison of the BBC land-surface temperature graph with NASA charts relating to global (land-ocean) surface temperature reveal no glaring disagreement.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
 flowe944
Joined: 12/1/2011
Msg: 205
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 10:31:03 PM
When you Chicken Little's weather model programs agree, and you can predict the weather 3 weeks out, maybe then you will have some credibility.
Let's start a fight. What's the ideal temperature? Anyone?
Just like the myth of a united arab world, there's no such thing.....
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 206
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 11:10:50 PM
ideal temp for the earth.

says who?

nature?
me?
crops?

what, has nature somehow developed an intelligent way to keep the temperature in a range for us?
 flowe944
Joined: 12/1/2011
Msg: 207
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 11:25:20 PM
"Golly gee whillikers, Gentle Ben" at least somebody gets it. Panic and a regulation explosion over whether or not the temp is rising, and whether or not mankind had anything to do with it. In 1960,very few cars had a/c systems. Now people whine when it's in the 80's. Maybe an Al Gore conference on "Global Whining" is next.

What's the "scientific consensus" on the "ideal temp" and for who?
Subjective? objective? Philosophical? Poetical?
"Ode to the weather: An Al Gore Poem"
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 208
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 11:41:01 PM
When you're done reiterating the fallacies and failing to get the picture, perhaps you could review the facts too. Start with the NASA link already provided, since it has lots of pictures, you should be able to review the facts, without resorting to the last resort of a failed ideology - argumentum ad hominem.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 209
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/12/2011 12:30:55 AM
I'm a fan of no eco foot print.
neutral, maybe.
hard to actually do.


the powers that be, will continue to use the earth for money, power, and recognition.
even their proposed 'cures' will have to continue to bring them the same feelings.

I'm guessing the ideal temperature is what we have now.
why would it continue so?
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 210
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/12/2011 10:09:12 AM

When you Chicken Little's weather model programs agree, and you can predict the weather 3 weeks out, maybe then you will have some credibility.

When you start understanding the differences between weather and climate you may also gain some credibility.
 flowe944
Joined: 12/1/2011
Msg: 211
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/13/2011 12:28:59 AM
"lots of pictures" I'm sure pics are quite useful for the reading impaired.
"weather vs Climate"excuse my imprecise terminology.
Global warming morphed to climate change; what are you calling it next week?

Burned off an acre of brush today; shot 2 Whitetail deer, second a running shot.
Processing meat tomorrow. Tomorrow night I might spotlight and shoot coyotes using the offal as bait. Disc'ed up 4 acres with my diesel tractor on brother's little place in country 2 weeks ago. I eat what I harvest, what I grow in my garden. Next weekend
I'm going to a friend's to watch him do smoky burnouts in a nitromethane burning
dragster as the exhaust stench waters my eyes and the smoke blots out the sun. Come on over and I'll let you shoot a full automatic. Barbaric,huh?
Anybody remember Eugenics? Or Time magazines next ice age?
Junk "science" from the past.If you Really believe in climate change, do you
walk?stopped using all but self power? Stopped using manufactured products?
Computers? Do you practice what you preach?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 212
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/13/2011 1:05:16 AM
"Believing" in climate change is as simple as observing...the changes, and continuing trends of those changes. It shouldn't take the slightest bit of genius to call a spade a spade, but I gather you need help.


"lots of pictures" I'm sure pics are quite useful for the reading impaired.

Exactly. Since you clearly haven't read anything that presents the facts, I figured pictures might help.


Global warming morphed to climate change; what are you calling it next week?

They're the same thing, but "climate change" is a concession to the simpletons who thing that "global warming" means "everywhere is warmer all the time".


Burned off an acre of brush today; shot 2 Whitetail deer, second a running shot.
Processing meat tomorrow. Tomorrow night I might spotlight and shoot coyotes using the offal as bait. Disc'ed up 4 acres with my diesel tractor on brother's little place in country 2 weeks ago. I eat what I harvest, what I grow in my garden. Next weekend
I'm going to a friend's to watch him do smoky burnouts in a nitromethane burning
dragster as the exhaust stench waters my eyes and the smoke blots out the sun. Come on over and I'll let you shoot a full automatic. Barbaric,huh?

Are we to conclude that you live somewhere that produces a great portion of the global atmospheric pollution, refuses to commit to do anything about it, and where the common mantra is "oh my poor economy can't handle the crunch while those rich Somalis choke the sky with their campfires"?


Anybody remember Eugenics? Or Time magazines next ice age?
Junk "science" from the past

Relevance? Any?
The first was a fringe idea backed largely by people who were NOT scientists.
The second wasn't more than a handful [one?] of speculative papers which, as you note, only gained notoriety from a magazine cover.
Global warming is a subject of research encompassing thousands of scientists in many related fields of study. There are vast amounts of data which demonstrate a) decades of steady global warming, and b) a strong human connection to that trend. If that's your idea of "junk science", best get off your computer, put away your tractor, and throw away your gun, because the junk science which created them clearly doesn't work.

Really believe in climate change, do you walk?stopped using all but self power? Stopped using manufactured products?

Recognizing that it's happening is quite a different thing than doing something about it. Is there some kind of rational point you're trying to make here? It'd be a first, though I don't see it coming.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 213
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/13/2011 6:01:16 PM

Relevance? Any?
The first was a fringe idea backed largely by people who were NOT scientists


Really?

Eugenics was a philosophy supported by several US presidents, winston churchil and many other world leaders (like AGW) and was taught in most major universities as factual science (like AGW) for decades and was backed up by a wealth of government funded "scientific research" as well as influencing projects to reduce the breeding rates of several of the "less evolved" species of humans in Africa and Asia

It only vanished as a "valid" viewpoint in the years leading up to Germany becoming a socialist country and the rise of the Nazi party due to the similarities in ideology between Eugenics and the extreme Nazi viewpoints

It should also be noted that although Eugenics almost evapourated in the years leading upto German independance from Jewish financial controls from 1933 onwards theres been a plethora of modern day projects or systems often under the guise of "humanitarian aid" that would suggest Eugenics is still very much alive and still influencing modern day thinking amongst the rich elitists
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 214
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/13/2011 9:26:47 PM



Global warming morphed to climate change; what are you calling it next week?

They're the same thing, but "climate change" is a concession to the simpletons who thing that "global warming" means "everywhere is warmer all the time".


Climate change has been happening since the climate existed and will continue until the climate ceases to exist. This is not the same thing as global warming. And global warming isn't the even same thing as anthropogenic global warming. The reason for the change in terminology had nothing to do with concessions and everything to do with propaganda. Since the climate always changes there's always a ready excuse for big government programs that enrich the wallets of fat-cats like Al Gore.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 215
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/14/2011 3:07:19 AM
Climate change is synonymous with global warming, though climate change more accurately reflects the numerous changes that occur as a consequence of increasing Co2 in the atmosphere. Extremes are becoming the new normal, from extreme heat, to extreme cold, extreme rain and snowfall, to extreme drought, extreme tornado outbreaks and stronger storms in general. The record tornado outbreak this year had never been experienced by anyone living here today. Likewise the droughts, wildfires and haboobs of the new dustbowl West of the US and Australia seem to becoming the new normal.

The thing is, we don't know HOW exactly the global thermostat and modifying mechanisms worked to make this place so inhabitable to the point that biological diversity explodes when moderation occurs. We DO know that our rivers and air are no longer infinite sources of toxic wastes disposal, a foreign concept a half century ago. We do know that our species alone is capable of causing the 6th great mass extinction of life on earth. We do know that soil is disappearing faster than it is being replaced, that aquifers and lakes can be drained from over use, that anti-biotics that we designed are not working anymore, and a thousand other examples of former beliefs that have proven to be wrong about our ability to horribly change living conditions on earth for the worse.

Since current, status quo CONG energy production is finite, and getting more destructive and dirtier and desperate, we ARE going to transition at some point soon anyway. It is only common sense that we should be applying the Precautionary Principle in doing a more rapid transition given the increasing evidence that CONG energy is causing atmospheric carbon to rise, along with particulate matter, water pollution, acid precip, and mercury and radionuclides accumulating in the food chain.

Solar power is already cheaper than CONG energy when all the environmental costs are factored in. Negawatts, aka efficiency and conservation methods are cheaper still.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 216
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/14/2011 7:24:05 AM
Epuppy,

The rivers and air, at least in USA are cleaner than a century ago, or even 50 years ago. So your statement is just outright not true. Your whole agenda is to push PV solar collectors in every thread you can. As for Climate change, its been changing for thousands of years, even before humans were simple tribes roaming the earth. One noted mini-climate change was the dust bowl in the 30's. Their are droughts in Florida and Texas that occurred recently, but both of these happened before and probably will again. Climate change is more of a long rage issue, and would take data over at least 50 years to even determine a change. Unusual harsh seasonal weather from one (1) to ten (10) years is not an indication of long range climate change.

CO2 is on the rise, but then again the current world population is near 7 billion, in 1930 is was estimated at 2 billion. 3rd world countries that are now beginning to live a modern life style are not gone to give it up. There is only one real solution and that is human depopulation. This also requires a different economic model, and can be planned to take place gradually, or by painful means. Either way its gone to happen.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 217
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/14/2011 9:21:23 AM
"Climate change is synonymous with global warming, though climate change more accurately reflects the numerous changes that occur as a consequence of increasing Co2 in the atmosphere."

This simply isn't true. The climate is always changing and always has. This is different from global warming which is the tendency for the average temperature of the Earth to increase. Global warming is a type of climate change, but so is global cooling.

The predicted increase in frequency and strength of hurricanes hasn't happened.

The predicted increase in precipitation isn't happening. Take a look at http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8g.html and let me know if you see any extreme precipitation.
 Bishopboat
Joined: 9/3/2010
Msg: 218
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/14/2011 11:21:45 AM
I have far bigger fears than global warming... I'm worried about, oh idk.... SHTF?
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 219
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/15/2011 3:31:53 AM

he rivers and air, at least in USA are cleaner than a century ago, or even 50 years ago.

You got alink for that?

.
Climate change is more of a long rage issue, and would take data over at least 50 years to even determine a change.


Funny thing is that trend maps over about 40 years would point to ashift and funny thing is that co2 that is known grenhouse gas that occupies our flimsy atmosphere and is designed to maintain atemp has risen drasticl in those last 40 or so years..

funny that.


3rd world countries that are now beginning to live a modern life style are not gone to give it up


The population increase is mostly in the developed world who have mostly the biggest emissions.

funny that as all those anti global warming trolls are from the same place,mostly...
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 220
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/15/2011 6:40:40 AM
"Funny thing is that trend maps over about 40 years would point to ashift and funny thing is that co2 that is known grenhouse gas that occupies our flimsy atmosphere and is designed to maintain atemp has risen drasticl in those last 40 or so years.."

When the oceans warm up they release CO2. It's not increasing concentrations of CO2 that causes global warming, it global warming that causes increased concentrations of CO2.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 221
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/16/2011 7:07:15 PM
"are you really now claiming that the burning of fossil fuels does not relaease C02 and it is just a result of warming seas that C02 has increased - FFS how dumb is that -"

I didn't say that, or anything close to it. Apparently you are unaware that CO2 is soluble in water and that it becomes less soluble as the temperature of water increases. In fact there's 50 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere.

"No offence but that is just dumb clearly c02 rises are man made and clearly c02 is a greenhouse gas - we could debate the effects of this , well we could if you had some data and credible science,"

Let's start with this. What is the experimentally measured climate sensitivity of CO2?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 222
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/16/2011 8:44:14 PM
It's going to be so funny when it comes out that the seriously screwed up weather conditions and the changes in climate and all of this fun stuff is / was a result of the tilt of the planet, the effects of the sun, and coincides with the Mayan calendars as we enter a new age. Oh, and even better. The result will be a mini ice age as earth engine rebalances itself from the increase in freshwater into the ocean.

I saw some show on TV where some guy that tried to say that we are having larger and more frequent earthquakes because ice is lighter then water and because the glaciers are melting its putting more weight on the plates. Hahaha... OK... At some point you listen to some of the people and you have to laugh and just say, "your making this S**t up!"

Also, since most people seem to be convinced that the planet is going to puke us up in the near future over this whole climate thing... are you doing anything to prepare for it? Any survival preparations?

I am pretty close to buying a kit with 30 days of food. I was in LA during some quakes and pretty clearly remember the runs on the stores and people not holding it together very well. Maybe a few more volcano eruptions, 9.0 earthquakes and tsunamis will set things back to normal?
When it starts sounding like, “Doesn’t hurt to be prepared,” than maybe… it doesn’t hurt to start getting prepared.
:)
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 223
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/16/2011 9:11:45 PM

Oh, and even better. The result will be a mini ice age as earth engine rebalances itself from the increase in freshwater into the ocean


your obviously not aware of the impact man has had on freshwater making oceans are you?


At some point you listen to some of the people and you have to laugh and just say, "your making this S**t up!"


Yep!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 224
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/16/2011 9:39:25 PM
What is a freshwater making ocean? That is totally a new concept for me. I have to admit I have never heard of that.

What is our impact on them?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 225
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 6:37:56 AM
"WTF are you on about now here is your quote again
It's not increasing concentrations of CO2 that causes global warming, it global warming that causes increased concentrations of CO2.
Perhpas you could defend it or explain it rather than try to mobe the gola posts and discuss something else?"

I'll try to explain this again. When the oceans warm up carbon dioxide becomes less soluble in them. This causes CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. Thus global warming causes an increase in CO2 levels. Do you deny this?

"Lets start with you actually understanding what you say and what it means rather than asking another unrelated [ to my point] question – no you cannot move the goalposts "

It's a very much related point. You're claiming that increased CO2 levels causes global warming. I'm asking for a quantitative measurement of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures (a.k.a. climate sensitivity). The phrase "climate sensitivity" is pretty basic to the global warming issue. I'm surprised that you've never heard of it before.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures