• 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!

No Evidence for Significant Warming for 170 Years

Tim the plumber said:
Well argued point.

The obvious counter point is to ask about the severity of the bad stuff.

Can you cite the place you think will be hit the worst by a single bad thing, bad aspect of a warmer world, as per the IPCC'sa climate predictiopns, say. Try to keep it to some sort of local authority area so we can look at it in detail.
Click to expand...

I presume the bad stuff will happen more frequently. As to where, some people chalk up current migrations north from Africa, fears in some small Pacific islands, concerns in low lying areas of a Florida, fires in California, stronger hurricanes in the Caribbean. I don’t think scientists would definitely ascribe any one incident to climate change, but predict that there will be more such or similar incidents.
 
Sunsettommy said:
I don't have any problems with you using Solar Panels and Prius cars, what I object to are the overwrought baloney people say about climate changes, and unverified far into the future temperature projections, then call it good science, which governments make their policies on.

It is irrational and wasteful.

It was actually around 2C warmer than now during the early part of the inter glacial period, yet no evidence of widespread suffering ever happened, while CO2 levels were around the 270 ppm, which is what you warmists ignore all the time.
Click to expand...

Write an article, contact Inhofe to testify. Drive out bad information with good stuff.
 
Nickyjo said:
Write an article, contact Inhofe to testify. Drive out bad information with good stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't read or follow Inhofe, he has been quiet anyway.

I posted some good published to see it get ignored, a moderator no less is doing that today............
 
Nickyjo said:
I assume they will return to normal. I also assume there will be more incidents like these.
Click to expand...
The king tides have been happening for almost 1000 years, so they will happen again.
They are more a result of subsidence than sea level, but levels will return to normal once the tide recedes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What I find equally (if not more) problematic is when "scientists" or "climate experts" confidently predict that X will occur by year Y and that does not happen. Since the planet's climate has been constantly changing (varying over time?), there is also the legitimate question "what is Earth's ideal climate and in what year did that occur?" to be answered.
Click to expand...

I don’t think scientists tend to be as confident as you suggest. But look, in my lifetime we have been told of the dangers of tobacco, smog, acid rain and to the ozone. We changed laws, regulations, and behavior to deal with those. In each case there were skeptics or deniers of the problem. For all I know the acid rain and ozone things were not true or exaggerated. But the air in LA seems cleaner, fewer people smoke and I think lakes in the northeast are in better health.

I read a while ago that the skeptical part of the GOP is the only conservative party in the developed world that resists the apparent consensus. I have visited oil company websites, and it seems they accept the science. Bottom line is that most of the world thinks there is something that should be done about the situation. But if enough evidence mounts to the contrary, we can act differently. What I don’t understand, tho I may be ignorant of it, is why someone like Sen Inhofe doesn’t have hearings, invite prominent skeptics and proponents alike to testify, and continue to enlighten us so that we make better policy.
 
longview said:
The king tides have been happening for almost 1000 years, so they will happen again.
They are more a result of subsidence than sea level, but levels will return to normal once the tide recedes.
Click to expand...

That’s what I understand as well. But sad to see this happen. My heart ached at the beauty of Venice, by little son’s jaw reached the ground at his first view of the Grand Canal.
 
Nickyjo said:
That’s what I understand as well. But sad to see this happen. My heart ached at the beauty of Venice, by little son’s jaw reached the ground at his first view of the Grand Canal.
Click to expand...
I am sorry the plaza is flooded by seasonal floods as well, but it does happen on it's own every few decades.
I remember as a boy, my Dad showing me the picture in the paper in 1966, saying that's where you were feeding the pigeons last year.
Venice has been sinking for a long time, independent of sea level rise.
I remember in 1965, the lagoon was still clear enough to see the curved tops of the old boat houses on the buildings,
The first floor of the buildings having gone under some centuries earlier.
I took my Daughter and her Husband there in 2011, it is indeed a magical place.
 
Nickyjo said:
I presume the bad stuff will happen more frequently. As to where, some people chalk up current migrations north from Africa, fears in some small Pacific islands, concerns in low lying areas of a Florida, fires in California, stronger hurricanes in the Caribbean. I don’t think scientists would definitely ascribe any one incident to climate change, but predict that there will be more such or similar incidents.
Click to expand...

I agree again that we are told such stuff.

The problem is that given the current situation is that no place has actaully suffered anything bad due to climate change, that Pacific islands are all growing or staying the same size, that wild fires are a lot less than in the 1920's, that hurricanes are less destructive, less hitting land and only more numerous because we can spot them better now and that places like Florida will have to spend an additional amount of money on sea defenses that is far less than their traffic light budget, thus insignificant, I just don't see any problem.

The massive human migration from places where there is constant hunger to the lands where you can eat your fill out of the bins on the street would stop if we stopped using food as fuel. The price of world food would halve if we stopped it. This would mean that 20 million or so people, probably more, less would die next year. The effect on the economy of the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day would be massive. They would see a huge rate of economic improvement. This Bio-fuel is done in tyhe name of global warming and is in fact of no net CO2 benefit.

The bad science hype of CAGW is causing massive trouble. Millions of deaths.
 
[h=2]Raw Data Bombshell: no change in Very Hot Days in Australia since World War I[/h]
What a bombshell. Despite the non-stop stories of unprecedented heat the original data at 60 of the oldest sites across Australia shows there are no more Very-Hot-Days now than there were early last century. That’s no trend in 40 degree days for 100 years. No change – that is, until the Bureau of Meteorology adjusts the data…

After we were shocked at the latest ACORN changes to our Very Hot Days data, I asked Chris Gillham if we could see the effect of Bureau of Meteorology changes to the original raw data – and he replied it would be too time-consuming writing the code to calculate 40C+ days among the millions of daily temperatures from 112 weather stations across Australia since 1910. Then he did it anyway.
Wow. In 2011, the BoM’s ACORN 1 adjustments wiped out some of the “very hot days” recorded at weather stations in the early 1900s. These were records that had stood for a whole century. Then, quietly six years later, the ACORN 2 readjustments turned the statistical air conditioner on again and cooled people from 100 years in the future.
It’s all especially miraculous given that even the old World War I data was recorded in official BoM-approved Stevenson screens. The BoM won’t consider pre 1910 data because it wasn’t standardized, but even when it is, they still have to “fix” it. And in the intervening years after 1910, the Urban Heat Islands have grown and electronic equipment that can record one-second-records have been introduced across the nation. With the old equipment, 40C+ extremes were harder to get than with today’s micro-minute spikes caused by gusts of hot air rolling off carparks and tarmacs.
What we see in the 60 longest running ACORN sites, all open in 1910, is that the raw temperature data had just as many “very hot days” in the World War I era as it does now. Oh boy.
No wonder the BOM was keen to move the “Very Hot Days” graphics and data and tuck them away in a remote page on their website.

History changing before your eyes.
​

Chris also analyzed larger pools of sites (see below) but these include new stations that have opened since 1910, many of which are in hot arid locations that skew the averages as the proportion of “hot region” thermometers grows. The addition of new “hot” stations probably makes an upward trend all by itself. The 60 long-term stations then, are more useful because they’re the originals, even though many of them have shifted down the road from post offices to airports and got new electronic gizmos. None of them are ideal, but at least they are in the same locality.
Presumably with a million-dollars-a-day the Australian BoM might have been able to do this graph themselves. But somehow we need unpaid volunteers to tell Australians basic things about the trends across the country. With billion dollar decisions about how to change the global weather, you might think a responsible bureau would want to let Australians know that the original temperatures recorded show there are no more 40C+ days now than there used to be?
– Jo
______________________________________________________
[h=3]No more extreme hot days in Australia than 100 years ago[/h]Guest Post by Chris Gillham, who maintains waclimate.net
Despite a community belief that global warming is creating a climate of extremes with more very hot days in Australia than ever before, analysis of the Bureau of Meteorology’s 112 ACORN weather stations shows nothing much has changed since 1910. . . .


 
Tim the plumber said:
...places like Florida will have to spend an additional amount of money on sea defenses that is far less than their traffic light budget, thus insignificant,...

The massive human migration from places where there is constant hunger to the lands where you can eat your fill out of the bins on the street would stop if we stopped using food as fuel. The price of world food would halve if we stopped it. This would mean that 20 million or so people, probably more, less would die next year. The effect on the economy of the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day would be massive. They would see a huge rate of economic improvement. This Bio-fuel is done in tyhe name of global warming and is in fact of no net CO2 benefit.

The bad science hype of CAGW is causing massive trouble. Millions of deaths.
Click to expand...

Both of these statements are not true. They have been proven false to Tim several times. The first one supposedly cost him $100!!

Why Tim keeps repeating these lies over and over again... I will never know.
 
Buzz said:
Both of these statements are not true. They have been proven false to Tim several times. The first one supposedly cost him $100!!

Why Tim keeps repeating these lies over and over again... I will never know.
Click to expand...

This is just more of your outright lies.

Which bit do you think is false?

That you have shown a place that will experience costs of more than it's traffic lights cost due to global warming? You have obviously failed to show that. Miami beach, the city built on a reef/sand bar has 12 feet or more sea defenses which it is renewing with an extra 4 inches on top. The numbers thus don't make the extra cost more than the traffic lights.

Or is it that you think people who live on $2 a day have long happy lives? That they don't die in their 40's mostly?

Or that removing vast amounts of food from the tables of the world causes food prices to rise?

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

Stop telling me that I lie when it is clearly you who has zero ability to deal with truth.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder what the AGW religious types will say to this?
Click to expand...

They probably consider it to be complete bunk, and they would be right.

Consider the source. The study referenced in the OP is based upon HadCRUT4 data which comes from (of all places) the Climatic Research Unit (University of East Anglia) in conjunction with the Hadley Centre (UK Met Office). If you read up on their so-called data it is highly extrapolated because they have no data. Particularly around the poles. In other words, it is entirely manufactured out of thin air.

The bulk of their data is extrapolated from local temperature data taken between 1961 and 1990. They have absolutely no data prior to 1961, yet they want us to believe they know what the global temperature was 150 years ago. Even the NASA GISS data is more accurate than that.

See: Temperature data (HadCRUT4, CRUTEM4) Climatic Research Unit global temperature

We then provide a globally complete absolute surface air temperature climatology on a 1° × 1° grid. This is primarily based on data for 1961–1990. Extensive interpolation had to be undertaken over both polar regions and in a few other regions where basic data are scarce, but we believe the climatology is the most consistent and reliable of absolute surface air temperature conditions over the world.

Source: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years
Click to expand...

So in this particular case, it is definitely complete BS.
 
Nickyjo said:
I don’t think scientists tend to be as confident as you suggest. But look, in my lifetime we have been told of the dangers of tobacco, smog, acid rain and to the ozone. We changed laws, regulations, and behavior to deal with those. In each case there were skeptics or deniers of the problem. For all I know the acid rain and ozone things were not true or exaggerated. But the air in LA seems cleaner, fewer people smoke and I think lakes in the northeast are in better health.

I read a while ago that the skeptical part of the GOP is the only conservative party in the developed world that resists the apparent consensus. I have visited oil company websites, and it seems they accept the science. Bottom line is that most of the world thinks there is something that should be done about the situation. But if enough evidence mounts to the contrary, we can act differently. What I don’t understand, tho I may be ignorant of it, is why someone like Sen Inhofe doesn’t have hearings, invite prominent skeptics and proponents alike to testify, and continue to enlighten us so that we make better policy.
Click to expand...

Acid rain is the result of smog being washed out of the atmosphere. All pollution is local. Meaning it never gets beyond the troposphere, and is therefore washed out of the atmosphere (usually in the form of acid rain) after a few weeks. The air pollution from China, for example, never reaches the western shores of the US. Acid rain has absolutely nothing to do with the climate and is 99% of the time the result of human pollution.

The Ozone Layer, however, is another story. Ozone is created by combining molecular oxygen with ultraviolet radiation. It resides between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Being made of entirely oxygen it is highly volatile and easily destroyed. Where there is no sunlight there is no ozone. You will notice that every "ozone hole" the fanatical left reference it is always over one of the poles during the Winter months, when there is no sunlight.

The Ozone Layer is thickest around the equator (which receives the most sunlight) and thinnest around the poles (which receives the least sunlight). It also has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. As long as there is oxygen in the atmosphere and sunlight there will always be ozone.

In order to have an effect on global climate it must reach the stratosphere. Only the most powerful volcanic explosions are able to reach that far into the atmosphere. In the last 150 years there have only been two volcanic eruptions that reached the stratosphere and effected the climate of the entire planet: Pinatubo, 1991; and Krakatoa, 1883.

Consensus also doesn't mean anything in science. There was 100% consensus among the 46 scientists at the National Science Foundation in March 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were all facing another ~100,000 years of glaciation where between 20% and 25% of the planet would once again be covered in ice. Six years later those very same 46 NSF scientists changed their minds, and their consensus.

Consensus is only used in science when there is no data, either way. As soon as an observation is made or data becomes available then consensus goes into the trash. For example, in 1921 there was 100% consensus among astronomers that the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire extent of our universe. Then in 1922 Edwin Hubble obliterated that consensus with observed data that showed our galaxy to be just one of trillions in an ever expanding universe.

So the only thing anyone should ever take away from "scientific consensus" is that they don't really know, either way.
 
Glitch said:
Acid rain is the result of smog being washed out of the atmosphere. All pollution is local. Meaning it never gets beyond the troposphere, and is therefore washed out of the atmosphere (usually in the form of acid rain) after a few weeks. The air pollution from China, for example, never reaches the western shores of the US. Acid rain has absolutely nothing to do with the climate and is 99% of the time the result of human pollution.

The Ozone Layer, however, is another story. Ozone is created by combining molecular oxygen with ultraviolet radiation. It resides between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Being made of entirely oxygen it is highly volatile and easily destroyed. Where there is no sunlight there is no ozone. You will notice that every "ozone hole" the fanatical left reference it is always over one of the poles during the Winter months, when there is no sunlight.

The Ozone Layer is thickest around the equator (which receives the most sunlight) and thinnest around the poles (which receives the least sunlight). It also has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. As long as there is oxygen in the atmosphere and sunlight there will always be ozone.

In order to have an effect on global climate it must reach the stratosphere. Only the most powerful volcanic explosions are able to reach that far into the atmosphere. In the last 150 years there have only been two volcanic eruptions that reached the stratosphere and effected the climate of the entire planet: Pinatubo, 1991; and Krakatoa, 1883.

Consensus also doesn't mean anything in science. There was 100% consensus among the 46 scientists at the National Science Foundation in March 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were all facing another ~100,000 years of glaciation where between 20% and 25% of the planet would once again be covered in ice. Six years later those very same 46 NSF scientists changed their minds, and their consensus.

Consensus is only used in science when there is no data, either way. As soon as an observation is made or data becomes available then consensus goes into the trash. For example, in 1921 there was 100% consensus among astronomers that the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire extent of our universe. Then in 1922 Edwin Hubble obliterated that consensus with observed data that showed our galaxy to be just one of trillions in an ever expanding universe.

So the only thing anyone should ever take away from "scientific consensus" is that they don't really know, either way.
Click to expand...

So assuming all the above I’d true, should we try to cut down on coal, auto exhaust, etc.? Seems to me we adjust outlet behavior depending on what we think we know about it’s effects. Until we know or think we know differently, what is wrong with the current suggestions about conservation, alternative energy to oil and coal?
 
Glitch said:
The study referenced in the OP is based upon HadCRUT4 data which comes from (of all places) the Climatic Research Unit (University of East Anglia) in conjunction with the Hadley Centre (UK Met Office). If you read up on their so-called data it is highly extrapolated because they have no data. Particularly around the poles. In other words, it is entirely manufactured out of thin air.

The bulk of their data is extrapolated from local temperature data taken between 1961 and 1990. They have absolutely no data prior to 1961, yet they want us to believe they know what the global temperature was 150 years ago. Even the NASA GISS data is more accurate than that.
Click to expand...

This only strengthens the paper's argument. Even using the datasets preferred by AGW advocates, there's no warming.
 
Nickyjo said:
So assuming all the above I’d true, should we try to cut down on coal, auto exhaust, etc.? Seems to me we adjust outlet behavior depending on what we think we know about it’s effects. Until we know or think we know differently, what is wrong with the current suggestions about conservation, alternative energy to oil and coal?
Click to expand...
Anything we do that will reduce the pollution we create is a good thing. That is where we should be concentrating our efforts because the 8 million tons of plastic we dump into the oceans every year is doing far more harm than anything humans are doing to the climate.

The problem with suggesting that we use "alternative energy to oil and coal" is first you have produce this so-called "alternative energy." Since "alternative energy" is just a figment of the insane left's overactive imagination and doesn't actually exist in reality, we will continue to use oil and coal for our energy. However, that doesn't mean our oil and coal power plants cannot be made to burn cleaner.
 
Jack Hays said:
This only strengthens the paper's argument. Even using the datasets preferred by AGW advocates, there's no warming.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the AGW advocates who posted this complete BS. By claiming there has been no warming you are attempting to validate this steaming pile of crap. As expected, you push an agenda not science. Making you no different from the insane leftist AGW fanatics.
 
Glitch said:
It wasn't the AGW advocates who posted this complete BS. By claiming there has been no warming you are attempting to validate this steaming pile of crap. As expected, you push an agenda not science. Making you no different from the insane leftist AGW fanatics.
Click to expand...

As you wish. After your complete fumble on the solar/GCR climate link I don't take you seriously anyway. Carry on.
 
Jack Hays said:
As you wish. After your complete fumble on the solar/GCR climate link I don't take you seriously anyway. Carry on.
Click to expand...

My fumble? ROFL! I wasn't the moron who didn't know the difference between solar and cosmic radiation, remember? You, and your moron source, used the terms interchangeably as if they were the same thing. Further demonstrating your lack of understanding, and your eagerness to post complete BS.
 
Glitch said:
My fumble? ROFL! I wasn't the moron who didn't know the difference between solar and cosmic radiation, remember? You, and your moron source, used the terms interchangeably as if they were the same thing. Further demonstrating your lack of understanding, and your eagerness to post complete BS.
Click to expand...

I see you still don't understand how badly you messed up. No one was confused but you.
 
Jack Hays said:
I see you still don't understand how badly you messed up. No one was confused but you.
Click to expand...

We know your posts to be nothing but trolls. You can't comprehend science, so you manufacture complete BS and hope idiots buy it. All it requires is an high school education in science and you are exposed as a fraud.
 
Glitch said:
We know your posts to be nothing but trolls. You can't comprehend science, so you manufacture complete BS and hope idiots buy it. All it requires is an high school education in science and you are exposed as a fraud.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're the one who demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the work of Svensmark and Shaviv, even after I spoon-fed you the material.
 
Glitch said:
Anything we do that will reduce the pollution we create is a good thing. That is where we should be concentrating our efforts because the 8 million tons of plastic we dump into the oceans every year is doing far more harm than anything humans are doing to the climate.

The problem with suggesting that we use "alternative energy to oil and coal" is first you have produce this so-called "alternative energy." Since "alternative energy" is just a figment of the insane left's overactive imagination and doesn't actually exist in reality, we will continue to use oil and coal for our energy. However, that doesn't mean our oil and coal power plants cannot be made to burn cleaner.
Click to expand...

No quarrel with most of what you say. But I assume that we don’t know the scope of future developments in solar, wind, etc., and that some leftist figments may be fulfilled. I have solar panels on my house which not only lower my electric bill, but allow me to contribute energy to others, and got me a handsome tax credit when installed. I assume future generations of panels will be more efficient. I think that subsidies and tax breaks for those industries are probably a good idea, much as we subsidized and still subsidize oil, coal and the nuclear industries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom