LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I was not attacking the source. I was merely attacking the characterization of the source as a “major news source” as claimed by the poster. You shouldn’t call something a major news source if it isn’t.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
As I’m sure you know, an increase in the planet’s albedo will reduce the amount of energy absorbed by the planet and re-emitted as IR. An increase in cloud cover will increase the albedo. I don’t have any idea what the increase would have to be in order to have a significant effect, but, again, the problem with oversimplifying the climate system to “CO2 is all that matters” is that it ignores everything else going on.
Ender
R
RGCheek
Guest
Yeah, true. I do tend to evaluate news sources by the accuracy of the content rather than the reputations built by prior generations.
R
RGCheek
Guest
Well, show me another news source that is reporting the email content of the Climategate scandal and you would have a point.
Till then these sources ARE the only sources, and thus the MAJOR sources of the data.
R
RGCheek
Guest
It would appear that from about 1820 to 1930 we had an average of about 1 degree Celsius per 50 years, so about a 2 degree increase in average temperature.
The question is what caused that increase. After 1930, global temperatures seemed to return to a cyclic pattern, with a plateau the past 15 years or so.
The root issue is that we have not been keeping accurate temperature data across the entire globe long enough to make any kind of accurate estimation of what is or is not normal cyclic variation.
The people who want to make hysterical changes in the global economy are simply ideologues and not scientists wearing their ‘science hats’ when making such ‘doom and gloom’ declarations.
E
Ender
Guest
There is no scientific justification for this claim. It is not that the data don’t support the claim, it is that there are insufficient data points available to make any supportable claim at all. We have no idea what the temperature of the deep oceans was in the past because there was no effective way to measure it.
This claim is pure speculation and is based on the assumption that the Earth must be warming, so if we can’t find the increase over here then we’ll assume it’s over there. The atmosphere has not warmed so it is claimed that the oceans have, even though the data cannot support the claim. It could actually be true but there is simply no way to know.
At this point all we have is an unsupportable assertion based on a non-existent theory about the mechanism.
Ender
R
RGCheek
Guest
And doesn’t warm water tend to rise rather than sink into the deeper ocean?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that some of the heat in the upper layers is being mixed through turbulence with lower levels. This still leaves the lower levels cooler than the surface, but not by as much as if the mixing had not taken place. Again, no one is saying this leaves a bunch of warm water sitting below a bunch of cooler water.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I see no citation of a source, as I had asked. Am I supposed to just take your word for it? Then how about you just take my word for it that the temperature rise was more like 0.6 deg. C per 50 years - about half of what you say.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You didn’t say they were just the major sources of the hacked e-mails commentary. You said they were “major news sources”. Most people interpret that phrase to mean news sources with some broadly recognized reputation.
T
twoshoes
Guest
Should we fight climate change? Should we fight a rainy day? Should we fight a sunny day. Should we fight a cold day? When someone has an answer without the need for taxes, with a solution that is more realistic than the question, then I 'll respond to this Man Made Disaster.
E
estesbob
Guest
So why did not one single model predict this? Every single model failed so instead of admitting that perhaps they were wrong they come up with increasingly bizarre theories abut where the heat went.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
So?? What’s your point? It is a known fact that it’s cold down there and that much of the Antarctic has not responded yet very much to AGW (as the Arctic has), even tho now they are saying on the whole the Antarctic is also warming, rather than cooling, but apparently not in all places. I do know it is warming in West Antarctica.
It may also be cooling in Podunk, but that doesn’t mean the global average temp is not warming.
For the average you need to take X1 + X2 + X3 + …+ Xn and divide by n. and not get stuck on some X here or some X there.
You not only need stats for the whole world, but also over many decades. Climate science is a slow and laborious project. It took them some 200 years to finally establish AGW is happening, even though it was expected, given the laws of physics, etc.
If you are really into Antarctic climate science and why some of its areas are for the time being cooling, you might start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy
No, in fact it’s eating into my precious time, which is getting ever tighter, and I probably won’t be able to post much for the next few months.
But perhaps I’ll be compensated in Heaven for my good work to thwart wrong-doing and evil in this world. That is if I don’t go to Hell for wasting time here.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Although it has been stated many times that scientific fact can and should be considered independently of what consequences (taxes or otherwise) may result, it still seems there are people who think we can determine whether or not there is global warming by considering the tax consequences.
G
gam197
Guest
It really doesn’t matter what people think, the governments are pushing it -Sept. 15th news article
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
All models fail at some point. That does not mean they are useless. Why do you think the climate models from 20 years ago should have predicted increased ocean turbulence? Even if the ocean’s heat sink is providing us with an unexpected reprieve from the immediate effects of global warming, can we count on that heat sink to continue doing that indefinitely?
What is so bizarre about the theories being proposed?
E
estesbob
Guest
Every single Global warming model was false and yet I am supposed to accept the theory based on failed models? I think not.
That heat magically jumps directly from the atmosphere to the deep ocean. Can you find anyone advancing this theory prior to the failure of AGW models and the discovery that they had been falsifying data?
R
RGCheek
Guest
Then the evidence for that should be easily acquired; where is it?
Really? Average global temperatures are facts of the public domain; you really want me to prove them to you?
OK, then there were no temperatures since 1800, lol.
In the context, yes, they are the major news sources and the only sources.
And no, by your definition then there are no major news sources any more.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am afraid you do not understand the proper vocabulary that needs to be used when discussing Global warming. For instance:
Climate Scientist-Any scientist who supports AGW
Credible News sources-Any news source that supports AGW
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is nothing magical about it. It has been known for centuries that when the sun shines on water the water gets warmer. It has also been known for centuries that when you stir a container of water, the warm water on the top mixes with the cooler water below.
- Status