Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is just more euro-centric alarmist, fear mongering. For a culture that is slowly but voluntarily dying out, white Europeans sure do a lot of complaining and instigating controversy.
Eastern North America has been extremely cold the last two years and I don't need any graphs to know it.
You are racist AND stupid AND don't know s**t about climate. Explosive mixture.
'Murica...
It is just more euro-centric alarmist, fear mongering. For a culture that is slowly but voluntarily dying out, white Europeans sure do a lot of complaining and instigating controversy.
Eastern North America has been extremely cold the last two years and I don't need any graphs to know it.
That's a sea surface height change over 22 years. Not a temperature change. Yes we know average global sea level rise has been a whopping 3mm per year Floridians better pack up and leave now!
Quote:
Consider the following statements from Cazenave regarding global sea level rise:
the 20th century average is 2 mm/yr,
observations from 1992-2002 are 3.4 mm/yr
observations from 2003-2011 are 2.4 mm/yr
when corrected for an abundance of La Ninas, sea level rise from 2003-2011 is ‘adjusted’ to 3.3 mm/yr
Global ocean temps have boiled over. In fact, at 2000 meter in depth, the mean temperature of the ocean has warmed by 0.09C warmer since 1950.
Quote:
We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.
and our most accurate tools to measure atmospheric temperature change are satellites. The UAH satellite measures the lower troposphere and since 1979, global temps have risen by 0.11C per decade. Far lower than the CMIP5 models predicted.
That's a sea surface height change over 22 years. Not a temperature change. Yes we know average global sea level rise has been a whopping 3mm per year Floridians better pack up and leave now!
So? How the f is that relevant to anything we talk about here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
and our most accurate tools to measure atmospheric temperature change are satellites. The UAH satellite measures the lower troposphere and since 1979, global temps have risen by 0.11C per decade. Far lower than the CMIP5 models predicted.
Jesus f*****ck. Do you have to mention this every time? Do you even realize how dumb you look?
I post some new data about various things and there is always this one guy who will come and post this data (which is irrelevant as we live on the surface of the earth, http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/day-after-response).
So, how is space above earth's atmosphere doing? Is it warming or cooling? Oh, It's not relevant? HOW F SURPRISING.
Tell me who pays you and how much? The same oil companies that support republicans?
It is extremely annoying and quite wrong to bring data and facts into a discussion, like a satellite measurement of the atmosphere (it's not just the lower troposphere, the satellites measure the stratosphere and tropopause as well). It makes you look bad if you keep insisting the actual measurements mean anything. It would be like somebody actually measuring the global rainfall amounts, then when somebody talks about the horrific drought in California, they keep bringing up how globally rainfall has increased, so the drought isn't really meaningful, or how the amount of rain in California is meaningless, because most people don't live in California.
Facts that don't show drastic (and dangerous) warming are irrelevant, it doesn't actually mean anything if we measure global cooling, it just means something is wrong with the measurements, and they need to be adjusted. That is how climate science works, why can't people understand this? It might be the coldest anyone alive has ever seen, with more snow than anyone has ever been through, but that doesn't mean anything. Because we don't live in the real world, we live in a global world, so if the ocean in the southern hemisphere is .0021 degrees warmer, and the equatorial Pacific is warmer by .02 degrees, then it doesn't matter if north America is cold, it's irrelevant, because people don't live on the surface of the planet, they live 2000 meters under the sea, and that's why your facts and your fancy thermometers and satellite measurements are meaningless. It's irrelevant, it doesn't matter.
You really need to just completely trust the government, after all, if somebody is from the government here to help you, what could possibly be wrong with that?
Well you show us a map of sea level rise, then end your sentence with
Quote:
eastern North America, and it has been cold for two years there
Why not show us a global temperature anomaly map instead?
Quote:
LoL, a blog? Buahahah, 'climate etc'...
Great source.
I guess you don't know that the owner of that blog is Judith Curry is a well published peer reviewed climate scientist. Or that she is citing peer reviewed literature. Face palm much?
Quote:
So? How the f is that relevant to anything we talk about here?
You're right global ocean heat content isn't relevant to this discussion on global warming.
Quote:
Jesus f*****ck. Do you have to mention this every time? Do you even realize how dumb you look?
Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.
So, how is space above earth's atmosphere doing? Is it warming or cooling? Oh, It's not relevant? HOW F SURPRISING.
So you don't even know what that the satellites measure the entire lower troposphere. The first 5000 ft of atmosphere..... "Not space above the earth's atmosphere" and can show us a much bigger picture of what the atmosphere is doing as opposed to the 2 meter ground instruments that GISS uses which may have temperature bias
Quote:
Tell me who pays you and how much? The same oil companies that support republicans?
Can you quote me where I said I didn't believe that the earth has warmed? Or that man doesn't play a role in the warming? No you can't. What you can find from me is skepticism of the climate models and how much warming will occur in the time frame that they give.
By all means, carry on sounding like an uneducated douche
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 08-30-2015 at 04:37 PM..
It is extremely annoying and quite wrong to bring data and facts into a discussion, like a satellite measurement of the atmosphere (it's not just the lower troposphere, the satellites measure the stratosphere and tropopause as well). It makes you look bad if you keep insisting the actual measurements mean anything. It would be like somebody actually measuring the global rainfall amounts, then when somebody talks about the horrific drought in California, they keep bringing up how globally rainfall has increased, so the drought isn't really meaningful, or how the amount of rain in California is meaningless, because most people don't live in California.
Facts that don't show drastic (and dangerous) warming are irrelevant, it doesn't actually mean anything if we measure global cooling, it just means something is wrong with the measurements, and they need to be adjusted. That is how climate science works, why can't people understand this? It might be the coldest anyone alive has ever seen, with more snow than anyone has ever been through, but that doesn't mean anything. Because we don't live in the real world, we live in a global world, so if the ocean in the southern hemisphere is .0021 degrees warmer, and the equatorial Pacific is warmer by .02 degrees, then it doesn't matter if north America is cold, it's irrelevant, because people don't live on the surface of the planet, they live 2000 meters under the sea, and that's why your facts and your fancy thermometers and satellite measurements are meaningless. It's irrelevant, it doesn't matter.
You really need to just completely trust the government, after all, if somebody is from the government here to help you, what could possibly be wrong with that?
You totally missed the point. This is not about bringing up measurments, It's about bringing them in every moment, even most irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm not posting GISS data every time I want to make a point, because we already know what this data shows.
Every time I post something there is always this one guy who has answer in one not that relevant data set.
And I don't get this 'irrelevant' rant.. WTF is all that about? Are you really trying to say that because it was cold for 2 years in eastern NA, global warming is a government scam? If that is the case, there is no point talking anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Well you show us a map of sea level rise, then end your sentence with
I was refering to the fact that if temperatures were cold for 2 years in his backyard, global temperature rise and all Its effects in his mind must be a scam and they will not affect him.
I thought this reference was clear... Turns out it wasn't for some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
I guess you don't know that the owner of that blog is Judith Curry is a well published peer reviewed climate scientist. Or that she is citing peer reviewed literature. Face palm much?
As I repeat over and over, getting into conclusions over such a short time peroid measurments is simply wrong. Especially when we had such a turbulent years with strongest el nino ever recorded. As it turns out she acclowledges that:
'Writing in the journal Nature Climate Change on Sunday, experts said the rate from 2003-2011 would have been 3.3 mm a year when excluding natural shifts led by an unusually high number of La Nina weather events that cool the surface of the Pacific Ocean and cause more rain over land.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
You're right global ocean heat content isn't relevant to this discussion on global warming.
No. I'm not refering to the article as a whole, but to this:
Quote:
2000 meter in depth, the mean temperature of the ocean has warmed by 0.09C warmer since 1950.
Btw - climate modelling is extremely hard. Small time deviations can be extremely high as el nino in 1997 and then la nina in 1998 proved. What really matters is long time trend. 18 years is not enough especially counted right after those events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
So you don't even know what that the satellites measure the entire lower troposphere. The first 5000 ft of atmosphere..... "Not space above the earth's atmosphere" and can show us a much bigger picture of what the atmosphere is doing as opposed to the 2 meter ground instruments that GISS uses which may have temperature bias
Lol, once again you didn't get my sarcasm and didn't even notice comparison.
Nevermind, just ignore it.
As to GISS data - it is corrected. Moreover, GISS data can't be collected in places where global warming is fastest - poles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Can you quote me where I said I didn't believe that the earth has warmed? Or that man doesn't play a role in the warming? No you can't. What you can find from me is skepticism of the climate models and how much warming will occur in the time frame that they give.
What I did is lose my temper for the guys who deny and answer for all new high temperature records, ice melting, sea level rises, etc with 18 years old so called 'hiatus'.
This is not a way to discuss, this is acting like a child that has the same answer for everything.
I was refering to the fact that if temperatures were cold for 2 years in his backyard, global temperature rise and all Its effects in his mind must be a scam and they will not affect him.
I thought this reference was clear... Turns out it wasn't for some.
Comparing apples and oranges. Next time compare apples with apples. It would make more sense
Quote:
As I repeat over and over, getting into conclusions over such a short time peroid measurments is simply wrong. Especially when we had such a turbulent years with strongest el nino ever recorded. As it turns out she acclowledges that:
'Writing in the journal Nature Climate Change on Sunday, experts said the rate from 2003-2011 would have been 3.3 mm a year when excluding natural shifts led by an unusually high number of La Nina weather events that cool the surface of the Pacific Ocean and cause more rain over land.'
All in all current rate of warming is just over 1mm higher than it was in the early 20th century. I don't think people in Florida will rush to sell their beach front properties just yet.
Quote:
No. I'm not refering to the article as a whole, but to this:
That's a big scary graph. Yet the earth's energy imbalance is 1 part of 1000 of the total energy in the system
Quote:
RSS data again? Yaaawn.
You have a problem with satellite data? Or is your problem with their statement that the models are running too warm?
Quote:
Btw - climate modelling is extremely hard. Small time deviations can be extremely high as el nino in 1997 and then la nina in 1998 proved. What really matters is long time trend. 18 years is not enough especially counted right after those events.
It's long enough to show that our sophisticated climate models aren't doing so well factoring in natural variability. Thus, they may not paint an accurate picture for future temperature rise.
Quote:
Global mean surface warming over the past 15 years or so has been less than in earlier decades and than simulated by most climate models
Lol, once again you didn't get my sarcasm and didn't even notice comparison.
Nevermind, just ignore it.
Sarcasm? Really?
Quote:
As to GISS data - it is corrected. Moreover, GISS data can't be collected in places where global warming is fastest - poles.
GISS likes to infill missing data. Don't know if that is considered "corrected" or "adjusted".
And only the Arctic is warming fastest. The Antarctic as whole, hasn't really budged over last 40 years. Check UAH and HadCRUT4
Quote:
What I did is lose my temper for the guys who deny and answer for all new high temperature records, ice melting, sea level rises, etc with 18 years old so called 'hiatus'
This is not a way to discuss, this is acting like a child that has the same answer for everything.
Well don't take it out on me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
