• 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

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well now. This may cause a stir. Here we have a research result suggesting there has been no significant surface warming for the past 170 years, and there is no temperature correlation with atmospheric CO2.

Land Surface Air Temperature Data
170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming

Author: Thomas K. Bjorklund, University of Houston, Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences October16, 2019 Key Points 1. From 1850 to the present, the noise-corrected, average warming of the surface of the earth is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade. 2. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate…

[FONT=&quot]Author: Thomas K. Bjorklund, University of Houston, Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]October16, 2019[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Key Points[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. From 1850 to the present, the noise-corrected, average warming of the surface of the earth is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Recent increases in surface temperatures reflect 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation climate pattern.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Abstract[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This study investigates the relationships between surface temperatures from 1850 to the present and reported long-range temperature predictions of global warming. A crucial component of this analysis is the calculation of an estimate of the warming curve of the surface of the earth. The calculation removes errors in temperature measurements and fluctuations due to short-duration weather events from the recorded data. The results show the average rate of warming of the surface of earth for the past 170 years is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The perceived threat of excessive future global temperatures may stem from misinterpretation of 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate pattern in the eastern Pacific Ocean. ENSO activity culminated in 2016 with the highest surface temperature anomaly ever recorded. The rate of warming of the earth’s surface has dropped 41 percent since 2006. . . . [/FONT]

 
The link is to the classic reply to the Consensus Enforcement Squad. Here is the concluding passage.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

". . . Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of Mother Church.
Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that “Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference — science and the nation will suffer.”. . . "
 
I wonder what the AGW religious types will say to this?
 
From Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Excerpt:

We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time. According to the main hypothesis, warming since 1951 has been due almost exclusively to the increase in GHGs (greenhouse gases), of which CO2 is the most important one. The IPCC does not find anything else that has contributed to the observed warming.

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate.

LINK
 
Run, do not walk to the next climate conference to present this info! Call up Inhofe! Tell Detroit to forget about fuel standards! End this foolishness!

There. Now that I got that out of my system, simply get this circulated. Add it to the literature on climate change so that we can adjust policy if necessary.

Or... continue going “Nyaa Nyaa, we were right and you were wrong.”
 
Nickyjo said:
Run, do not walk to the next climate conference to present this info! Call up Inhofe! Tell Detroit to forget about fuel standards! End this foolishness!

There. Now that I got that out of my system, simply get this circulated. Add it to the literature on climate change so that we can adjust policy if necessary.

Or... continue going “Nyaa Nyaa, we were right and you were wrong.”
Click to expand...

I await reasoned discussion.
 
Jack Hays said:
I await reasoned discussion.
Click to expand...

This is my reasoning:1- if the nations of the world, as informed by scientists, have the position that climate change is affected by human activity and that it is problematic, the answer for skeptics is to write, lobby, testify and demonstrate. Tell the CIA and oil companies that they should not put climate change into their calculations about the future. Tell Florida to stop worrying. If they cannot convince the powers that be, too bad. They can say “I told you so” once the waters recede from St. Mark’s (to skeptics, more properly called St. Marx’s) Square in Venice not to return. 2- Recognize, if you will, that proposed controls on human economic activity run counter to conservatives’ creed, thus they can look at the same range of information and come to the conclusion that surprise!— nothing to worry about so forget about those tyrannical regulations. If you disprove climate change to liberals, fine, we’ll just move on to saving whales or something. 3- Realize that when your most prominent political spokespersons on the right for skepticism are Donald “Its a Chinese hoax, so rake the California forests” Trump, and Sen. James “Snowball” Inhofe, while at least Gore had a slide show.

As I said, run the info that started this thread up the flagpole to see if other scientists salute it. If it carries the day, change policy. It’s better to light (an energy efficient) candle than to curse the darkness, as the man said. Til then, I’ll keep my solar panels and Prius.
 
Nickyjo said:
This is my reasoning:1- if the nations of the world, as informed by scientists, have the position that climate change is affected by human activity and that it is problematic, the answer for skeptics is to write, lobby, testify and demonstrate. Tell the CIA and oil companies that they should not put climate change into their calculations about the future. Tell Florida to stop worrying. If they cannot convince the powers that be, too bad. They can say “I told you so” once the waters recede from St. Mark’s (to skeptics, more properly called St. Marx’s) Square in Venice not to return. 2- Recognize, if you will, that proposed controls on human economic activity run counter to conservatives’ creed, thus they can look at the same range of information and come to the conclusion that surprise!— nothing to worry about so forget about those tyrannical regulations. If you disprove climate change to liberals, fine, we’ll just move on to saving whales or something. 3- Realize that when your most prominent political spokespersons on the right for skepticism are Donald “Its a Chinese hoax, so rake the California forests” Trump, and Sen. James “Snowball” Inhofe, while at least Gore had a slide show.

As I said, run the info that started this thread up the flagpole to see if other scientists salute it. If it carries the day, change policy. It’s better to light (an energy efficient) candle than to curse the darkness, as the man said. Til then, I’ll keep my solar panels and Prius.
Click to expand...

Your post is the first time I've encountered "St. Marx's" and I've been to Venice.
The most vocal opponent of "climate economics" turns out to be Michael Mann.
Skeptics have made their case; orthodox AGW advocates try to ignore it.
This is not a conservative-liberal issue. It is a scientific issue.
 
I see that a couple of non refutation, refutations have showed up.

It is clear warmists have no argument to make in the thread.
 
It may only be increaseing at a rate of 0.07 degrees per year but out ecosystems are very delicate. A change by just one degree would have noticeable effects on the environment. Four degrees would have unfortold effects. It's not just that the weather is getting warmer, it's all the side effects that come along with it.

In case anyone gets confused about whether carbon emissions are manmade, carbon 13 is much less likely to come from fossil fuels than from natural sources. The percentage of carbon 13 in the atmosphere has been falling.

Suess effect - Wikipedia
 
Nickyjo said:
This is my reasoning:1- if the nations of the world, as informed by scientists, have the position that climate change is affected by human activity and that it is problematic, the answer for skeptics is to write, lobby, testify and demonstrate. Tell the CIA and oil companies that they should not put climate change into their calculations about the future. Tell Florida to stop worrying. If they cannot convince the powers that be, too bad. They can say “I told you so” once the waters recede from St. Mark’s (to skeptics, more properly called St. Marx’s) Square in Venice not to return. 2- Recognize, if you will, that proposed controls on human economic activity run counter to conservatives’ creed, thus they can look at the same range of information and come to the conclusion that surprise!— nothing to worry about so forget about those tyrannical regulations. If you disprove climate change to liberals, fine, we’ll just move on to saving whales or something. 3- Realize that when your most prominent political spokespersons on the right for skepticism are Donald “Its a Chinese hoax, so rake the California forests” Trump, and Sen. James “Snowball” Inhofe, while at least Gore had a slide show.

As I said, run the info that started this thread up the flagpole to see if other scientists salute it. If it carries the day, change policy. It’s better to light (an energy efficient) candle than to curse the darkness, as the man said. Til then, I’ll keep my solar panels and Prius.
Click to expand...
Do you think the seasonal high tides in Venice will not return to normal shortly?
Good thing we can check the live cameras!
Live Cam Piazza San Marco - Venice
Live Cam Venice - St. Mark's Basin, Riva degli Schiavoni
 
Masterhawk said:
It may only be increaseing at a rate of 0.07 degrees per year but out ecosystems are very delicate. A change by just one degree would have noticeable effects on the environment. Four degrees would have unfortold effects. It's not just that the weather is getting warmer, it's all the side effects that come along with it.

In case anyone gets confused about whether carbon emissions are manmade, carbon 13 is much less likely to come from fossil fuels than from natural sources. The percentage of carbon 13 in the atmosphere has been falling.

Suess effect - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Who thinks average temperatures are increasing at .07C per year? that is simply crazy.
Many models were expecting .21C per decade, but that is both too high and .021 C per year.
FYI, GISS temps .977C for the last 118 years, or .00827 C per year.
How about the fastest warming period between 1980 and 2000 was .322 C or .0161 C/year?

Also the average temperature is increasing, the maximum temperatures not nearly as much.
Most (75%) of the observed warming has been in winter and nighttime lows, not going as low, and increasing the average.
 
Nickyjo said:
This is my reasoning:1- if the nations of the world, as informed by scientists, have the position that climate change is affected by human activity and that it is problematic, the answer for skeptics is to write, lobby, testify and demonstrate. Tell the CIA and oil companies that they should not put climate change into their calculations about the future. Tell Florida to stop worrying. If they cannot convince the powers that be, too bad. They can say “I told you so” once the waters recede from St. Mark’s (to skeptics, more properly called St. Marx’s) Square in Venice not to return. 2- Recognize, if you will, that proposed controls on human economic activity run counter to conservatives’ creed, thus they can look at the same range of information and come to the conclusion that surprise!— nothing to worry about so forget about those tyrannical regulations. If you disprove climate change to liberals, fine, we’ll just move on to saving whales or something. 3- Realize that when your most prominent political spokespersons on the right for skepticism are Donald “Its a Chinese hoax, so rake the California forests” Trump, and Sen. James “Snowball” Inhofe, while at least Gore had a slide show.

As I said, run the info that started this thread up the flagpole to see if other scientists salute it. If it carries the day, change policy. It’s better to light (an energy efficient) candle than to curse the darkness, as the man said. Til then, I’ll keep my solar panels and Prius.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nickyjo said:
This is my reasoning:1- if the nations of the world, as informed by scientists, have the position that climate change is affected by human activity and that it is problematic, the answer for skeptics is to write, lobby, testify and demonstrate. Tell the CIA and oil companies that they should not put climate change into their calculations about the future. Tell Florida to stop worrying. If they cannot convince the powers that be, too bad. They can say “I told you so” once the waters recede from St. Mark’s (to skeptics, more properly called St. Marx’s) Square in Venice not to return. 2- Recognize, if you will, that proposed controls on human economic activity run counter to conservatives’ creed, thus they can look at the same range of information and come to the conclusion that surprise!— nothing to worry about so forget about those tyrannical regulations. If you disprove climate change to liberals, fine, we’ll just move on to saving whales or something. 3- Realize that when your most prominent political spokespersons on the right for skepticism are Donald “Its a Chinese hoax, so rake the California forests” Trump, and Sen. James “Snowball” Inhofe, while at least Gore had a slide show.

As I said, run the info that started this thread up the flagpole to see if other scientists salute it. If it carries the day, change policy. It’s better to light (an energy efficient) candle than to curse the darkness, as the man said. Til then, I’ll keep my solar panels and Prius.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nickyjo said:
This is my reasoning:1- if the nations of the world, as informed by scientists, have the position that climate change is affected by human activity and that it is problematic, the answer for skeptics is to write, lobby, testify and demonstrate. Tell the CIA and oil companies that they should not put climate change into their calculations about the future. Tell Florida to stop worrying. If they cannot convince the powers that be, too bad. They can say “I told you so” once the waters recede from St. Mark’s (to skeptics, more properly called St. Marx’s) Square in Venice not to return. 2- Recognize, if you will, that proposed controls on human economic activity run counter to conservatives’ creed, thus they can look at the same range of information and come to the conclusion that surprise!— nothing to worry about so forget about those tyrannical regulations. If you disprove climate change to liberals, fine, we’ll just move on to saving whales or something. 3- Realize that when your most prominent political spokespersons on the right for skepticism are Donald “Its a Chinese hoax, so rake the California forests” Trump, and Sen. James “Snowball” Inhofe, while at least Gore had a slide show.

As I said, run the info that started this thread up the flagpole to see if other scientists salute it. If it carries the day, change policy. It’s better to light (an energy efficient) candle than to curse the darkness, as the man said. Til then, I’ll keep my solar panels and Prius.
Click to expand...

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.
 
longview said:
Who thinks average temperatures are increasing at .07C per year? that is simply crazy.
Many models were expecting .21C per decade, but that is both too high and .021 C per year.
FYI, GISS temps .977C for the last 118 years, or .00827 C per year.
How about the fastest warming period between 1980 and 2000 was .322 C or .0161 C/year?

Also the average temperature is increasing, the maximum temperatures not nearly as much.
Most (75%) of the observed warming has been in winter and nighttime lows, not going as low, and increasing the average.
Click to expand...

This is true. The warming is having a greater effect on the coldness than on the heat. This has helped in melting glaciers which raise sea levels.
 
Masterhawk said:
This is true. The warming is having a greater effect on the coldness than on the heat. This has helped in melting glaciers which raise sea levels.
Click to expand...
How would an increase in low temperatures melt much of anything?
Say the daily temperature range near a glacier is from -15 C to -3 C, and the -15 C warms to become -14 C, bringing up the average
temperature by 1 C, what melts?
Also the sea level raise has almost no correlation to the observed temperature increase.
 
longview said:
How would an increase in low temperatures melt much of anything?
Say the daily temperature range near a glacier is from -15 C to -3 C, and the -15 C warms to become -14 C, bringing up the average
temperature by 1 C, what melts?
Also the sea level raise has almost no correlation to the observed temperature increase.
Click to expand...

It's really along the edges where the melting happens as that's where the glacier stopped growing because it was no longer cold enough for it to continue growing. It's not where it's negative 20 where the melting is happening but rather the edges where it's just above freezing.
 
Masterhawk said:
It's really along the edges where the melting happens as that's where the glacier stopped growing because it was no longer cold enough for it to continue growing. It's not where it's negative 20 where the melting is happening but rather the edges where it's just above freezing.
Click to expand...
Glaciers grow from the top, snow accumulates and does not melt at the end of the season, and so builds.
The glacier gets bigger when the amount of edge melt exceeds the amount of snow addition.
Changes in ether input or output could cause a glacier to loose size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom