• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

Y-not said:
Could you please link to a study or studies that say current trends are a repeat to what has been seen in the past.
Click to expand...

Nobody will be capable of doing that, because it doesn't exist.
 
[FONT=&quot]Humor[/FONT]
[h=1]Hump day hilarity – the progression of climate narrative names[/h][FONT=&quot]I had a predictable and laughable Twitter dialog today with the editor of the bought and paid for climate activist site known as “The Carbon Brief”. He was bent out of shape because I pointed out that while he thought the reason for the stepping down of Lord Lawson at The Global Warming Policy Foundation…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/16/hump-day-hilarity-the-progression-of-climate-narrative-names/"]
climate-narrative-names-220x126.png
[/URL]Humor[/FONT]
[h=1]Hump day hilarity – the progression of climate narrative names[/h][FONT="]I had a predictable and laughable Twitter dialog today with the editor of the bought and paid for climate activist site known as “The Carbon Brief”. He was bent out of shape because I pointed out that while he thought the reason for the stepping down of Lord Lawson at The Global Warming Policy Foundation…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

How is your High Schooler blog post related to this Scientific American article?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Bloggers have more credibility than SA. SA is a for profit publication. No more credible than any other for profit media. In fact, tabloids are likely as credible.
Click to expand...

Scientific American sources from accredited scientists. Perhaps you could cite the sources of the Scientific American article, and link to some reputable sources, and try to refute them.
 
Scientific American used to be a great magazine. Now it's a dumbed-down political rag.
 
Y-not said:
Could you please link to a study or studies that say current trends are a repeat to what has been seen in the past.
Click to expand...

Here's an informative video from Tony Heller, who is a computer scientist who did work for NASA and NCAR on the climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0l3tymEagc

Heller has a number of other videos you might want to check out. He uses data from NASA, NCAR, along with news accounts, etc., to make his case.
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate Communications[/FONT]
[h=1]Climate hysterics skyrocket[/h][FONT=&quot]Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather reality Paul Driessen Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric. The “climate crisis” is the “existential threat of our time,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must “end the inaction and denial of science that…
[/FONT]
 
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Background

The Washington-DC-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1985 by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker to pursue a free-market approach to environmental issues. CFACT describes their mission as “relentlessly infusing the environmental debate with a balanced perspective on environmental stewardship.” [1]

According to their website, “Its co-founders, David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, believed very strongly that the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s pressing concerns.” [1]

In 1989, Craig Rucker and David Rothbard approached the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) requesting “corporate involvement and support.” According to CMA's documents, CFACT was established to “fight the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG) and Ralph Nader-type organizations.” [42]

SourceWatch also describes CFACT as the conservative answer to U.S. Public Interest Research Groups such as NYPIRG, ConnPIRG, and other progressive organizations lobbying for environmental issues. [23]
 
Threegoofs said:
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Background

The Washington-DC-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1985 by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker to pursue a free-market approach to environmental issues. CFACT describes their mission as “relentlessly infusing the environmental debate with a balanced perspective on environmental stewardship.” [1]

According to their website, “Its co-founders, David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, believed very strongly that the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s pressing concerns.” [1]

In 1989, Craig Rucker and David Rothbard approached the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) requesting “corporate involvement and support.” According to CMA's documents, CFACT was established to “fight the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG) and Ralph Nader-type organizations.” [42]

SourceWatch also describes CFACT as the conservative answer to U.S. Public Interest Research Groups such as NYPIRG, ConnPIRG, and other progressive organizations lobbying for environmental issues. [23]
Click to expand...

Yes, and . . . ?
 
[h=2]Early 20th century global warming[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on January 23, 2019 by curryja | Leave a comment[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.
Continue reading →


In order to have any confidence in the IPCC and NCA attribution statements, much greater effort is needed to understand the role multi-decadal to millennial scales of internal climate variability.
Much more effort is needed to understand not only the early 20th century warming, but also the ‘grand hiatus’ from 1945-1975. Attempting to attribute these features to aerosol (stratospheric or pollution) forcing haven’t gotten us very far. The approach taken by Xie’s group is providing important insights.
Once we do satisfactorily explain these 20th century features, then we need to tackle the 19th century — overall warming, with global sea level rise initiating ~1860, and NH glacier melt initiating ~1850. And then we need to tackle the last 800 years – the Little Ice Age and the ‘recovery’. (See my previous post 400 years(?) of global warming). The mainstream attribution folk are finally waking up to the importance of multidecadal ocean oscillations — we have barely scratched the surface re understanding century to millennial scale oscillations, as highlighted in the recent Gebbie and Huybers paper discussed on Ocean Heat Content Surprises.
There are too many climate scientists that expect global surface temperature, sea ice, glacier mass loss and sea level to follow the ‘forcing’ on fairly short time scales. This is not how the climate system works, as was eloquently shown by Gebbie and Huybers. The Arctic in particular responds very strongly to multidecadal and longer internal variability, and also to solar forcing.
Until all this is sorted out, we do not have a strong basis for attributing anything close to ~100% of the warming since 1950 to humans, or for making credible projections of 21st century climate change.


 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Early 20th century global warming[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on January 23, 2019 by curryja | Leave a comment[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.
Continue reading →


In order to have any confidence in the IPCC and NCA attribution statements, much greater effort is needed to understand the role multi-decadal to millennial scales of internal climate variability.
Much more effort is needed to understand not only the early 20th century warming, but also the ‘grand hiatus’ from 1945-1975. Attempting to attribute these features to aerosol (stratospheric or pollution) forcing haven’t gotten us very far. The approach taken by Xie’s group is providing important insights.
Once we do satisfactorily explain these 20th century features, then we need to tackle the 19th century — overall warming, with global sea level rise initiating ~1860, and NH glacier melt initiating ~1850. And then we need to tackle the last 800 years – the Little Ice Age and the ‘recovery’. (See my previous post 400 years(?) of global warming). The mainstream attribution folk are finally waking up to the importance of multidecadal ocean oscillations — we have barely scratched the surface re understanding century to millennial scale oscillations, as highlighted in the recent Gebbie and Huybers paper discussed on Ocean Heat Content Surprises.
There are too many climate scientists that expect global surface temperature, sea ice, glacier mass loss and sea level to follow the ‘forcing’ on fairly short time scales. This is not how the climate system works, as was eloquently shown by Gebbie and Huybers. The Arctic in particular responds very strongly to multidecadal and longer internal variability, and also to solar forcing.
Until all this is sorted out, we do not have a strong basis for attributing anything close to ~100% of the warming since 1950 to humans, or for making credible projections of 21st century climate change.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a denier.
 
[h=2]Atmospheric Physicists: A Human Signature Hasn’t Shown Up In 40 Years Of Temperature Change Observations[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 24. January 2019
[h=3]“It is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of
global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect
due to human activities.” — Drs. Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h]
Has-global-warming-already-arrived-Varotsos-Efstathiou-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h]In a step-by-step dissection of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, or “greenhouse hypothesis of global warming”, two prominent Greek atmospheric physicists – Dr. Carlos Varotsos and Dr. Maria Efstathiou – expose the withering contradictions between (a) what is hypothesized to occur atmospherically according to AGW models and (b) what was actually observed from satellite measurements during 1978 to 2018.
According to AGW models, there was supposed to be “a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres” in response to the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases over the last 40 years.
According to temperature change observations in the satellite era (December, 1978, to present), this pattern did not occur.
According to AGW models, there was supposed to be an evident intrinsic relationship between lower stratospheric temperatures and tropospheric temperatures in accordance with the explosive increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during 1978-2018.
Satellite observations do not indicate that such a stratospheric-tropospheric relationship existed during this period.
The fundamental discrepancies between AGW models and real-world observations led these climate scientists to conclude that (a) “climate models are not able to simulate real climate”, and (b) the view that increases in greenhouse gases from human activities are what caused the global warming over the last 40 years cannot be reliably supported by observed evidence.


 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Atmospheric Physicists: A Human Signature Hasn’t Shown Up In 40 Years Of Temperature Change Observations[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 24. January 2019
[h=3]“It is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of
global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect
due to human activities.” — Drs. Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h]
Has-global-warming-already-arrived-Varotsos-Efstathiou-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h]In a step-by-step dissection of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, or “greenhouse hypothesis of global warming”, two prominent Greek atmospheric physicists – Dr. Carlos Varotsos and Dr. Maria Efstathiou – expose the withering contradictions between (a) what is hypothesized to occur atmospherically according to AGW models and (b) what was actually observed from satellite measurements during 1978 to 2018.
According to AGW models, there was supposed to be “a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres” in response to the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases over the last 40 years.
According to temperature change observations in the satellite era (December, 1978, to present), this pattern did not occur.
According to AGW models, there was supposed to be an evident intrinsic relationship between lower stratospheric temperatures and tropospheric temperatures in accordance with the explosive increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during 1978-2018.
Satellite observations do not indicate that such a stratospheric-tropospheric relationship existed during this period.
The fundamental discrepancies between AGW models and real-world observations led these climate scientists to conclude that (a) “climate models are not able to simulate real climate”, and (b) the view that increases in greenhouse gases from human activities are what caused the global warming over the last 40 years cannot be reliably supported by observed evidence.
Click to expand...

Is this a post backed up by one of the references to peer-reviewed research that you claim to almost always cite? No, of course is isn't. It's yet another cut-and-paste job from a nutcase denier blog :roll:
 
Surface Detail said:
Is this a post backed up by one of the references to peer-reviewed research that you claim to almost always cite? No, of course is isn't. It's yet another cut-and-paste job from a nutcase denier blog :roll:
Click to expand...

It is indeed, and it was linked right there in the post.


​

[h=1]Has global warming already arrived?[/h]Author links open overlay panelC.A.Varotsos

M.N.Efstathiou




Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.10.020Get rights and content

[h=2]Highlights[/h]•The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence.


[h=2]Abstract[/h]The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphereover the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. In addition, in the lower stratosphere the temperature cooling over both poles is lower than that over tropics and extratropics. To study further the thermal field variability we investigated the long-range correlations throughout the global lower troposphere-lower stratosphere region. The results show that the temperature field displays power-law behaviour that becomes stronger by going from the lower troposphere to the tropopause.This power-law behaviour suggests that the fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature at short intervals are positively correlated with those at longer intervals in a power-law manner. The latter, however, does not apply to global temperature in the lower stratosphere. This suggests that the investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory.


 
Jack Hays said:
It is indeed, and it was linked right there in the post.


​

[h=1]Has global warming already arrived?[/h]Author links open overlay panelC.A.Varotsos

M.N.Efstathiou




Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.10.020Get rights and content

[h=2]Highlights[/h]•The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
•The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
•The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence.


[h=2]Abstract[/h]The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphereover the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. In addition, in the lower stratosphere the temperature cooling over both poles is lower than that over tropics and extratropics. To study further the thermal field variability we investigated the long-range correlations throughout the global lower troposphere-lower stratosphere region. The results show that the temperature field displays power-law behaviour that becomes stronger by going from the lower troposphere to the tropopause.This power-law behaviour suggests that the fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature at short intervals are positively correlated with those at longer intervals in a power-law manner. The latter, however, does not apply to global temperature in the lower stratosphere. This suggests that the investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory.
Click to expand...

Your link was actually to the nutcase blog, not the paper.

Anyway, what the hell is "The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence" supposed to mean? It's not even grammatically correct, and that's supposed to be one of the highlights! Any person with intact critical thinking facilities should immediately smell a rat here.

We know for a fact that global warming has occurred over the past 40 years. If their results are unable to show this, there would appear to be a problem with their data collection and/or analysis techniques.
 
Surface Detail said:
Your link was actually to the nutcase blog, not the paper.

Anyway, what the hell is "The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence" supposed to mean? It's not even grammatically correct, and that's supposed to be one of the highlights! Any person with intact critical thinking facilities should immediately smell a rat here.

We know for a fact that global warming has occurred over the past 40 years. If their results are unable to show this, there would appear to be a problem with their data collection and/or analysis techniques.
Click to expand...

1. The paper was the basis of the blog post, as was obvious. The link to the paper itself was also obvious.
2. The authors are Greek, so that explains the less than pristine English. How would your Greek language skill measure up?
3. Anyway, stop dodging the point.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. The paper was the basis of the blog post, as was obvious. The link to the paper itself was also obvious.
2. The authors are Greek, so that explains the less than pristine English. How would your Greek language skill measure up?
3. Anyway, stop dodging the point.
Click to expand...

What point? At least one of the conclusions of the paper is clearly nonsensical. Peer review weeds out a lot of the chaff, but it isn't perfect, as this paper so clearly demonstrates!
 
Surface Detail said:
What point? At least one of the conclusions of the paper is clearly nonsensical. Peer review weeds out a lot of the chaff, but it isn't perfect, as this paper so clearly demonstrates!
Click to expand...

The global warming reference is clearly to anthropogenic global warming. You are making a fool of yourself.
 
Surface Detail said:
Your link was actually to the nutcase blog, not the paper.

Anyway, what the hell is "The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence" supposed to mean? It's not even grammatically correct, and that's supposed to be one of the highlights! Any person with intact critical thinking facilities should immediately smell a rat here.

We know for a fact that global warming has occurred over the past 40 years. If their results are unable to show this, there would appear to be a problem with their data collection and/or analysis techniques.
Click to expand...
I think the more defined quote would be this one,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618305030
Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions,
it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
The global warming reference is clearly to anthropogenic global warming. You are making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

It's supposed to be a scientific paper. You can't simply add words that aren't there to make it say what you want it to say! That would be transparently deceitful.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's supposed to be a scientific paper. You can't simply add words that aren't there to make it say what you want it to say! That would be transparently deceitful.
Click to expand...

The paper's final paragraph:

In summary, the tropospheric temperature has not increased over the last four decades, in both hemispheres, in a way that is more amplified at high latitudes near the surface. In addition, the lower stratospheric temperature did not decline as a function of latitude. Finally, the intrinsic properties of the tropospheric temperature are different from those of the lower stratosphere. Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities. The temperatures used are often estimated indirectly from satellite observations of radiances (e.g. Cracknell and Varotsos, 2007, Cracknell and Varotsos, 2011). It would be interesting to directly analyse these radiances to answer questions about warming or cooling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom