Is global warming even real?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Ilikeponies579, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    No. They should be stamped out.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    I ain't seen one that clearly shows the holocene thermal maximum, various more recent warm and cold periods.

    Do you have good proof of that?
    From what I've read, it seems that temperature rise during the early holocene was much more rapid than that of the last century.
    But-----------do not neglect that insolation was just about at it's max during the early holocene.

    there are roughly 2747 quintillion pounds of water in the oceans
    to heat that 1 degree f would take 2747 quintillion btu's
    so
    to get the above quoted 2 degrees c rise, we'd need @9889 quintillion btu
    wow(that's a lot of heat)
    certainly more slower than the atmosphere.
    consider ohc as a trailing indicator
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,097
    They're visible, they just don't show - globally - what you have been trying to extrapolate from your various links.
    Do share. Nothing like that is visible - globally - in what you've linked.
    Something one might expect to have (pending research) a different pattern of heating than the current greenhouse is having - greater relative warming of low latitude midlevel ocean water, for example, compared with high latitude low level air temperatures, than a greenhouse warming would be expected to show.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    The only way you can get the temperature records of the last 500 to 2000 years to NOT look like a hockey stick is to adulterate the data.
    Does the shape of the temperature profile over those time periods "shock" you? If so - so be it. You are responsible for your own emotional reactions to things.

    You might also be "shocked" to learn that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, that too much UV exposure can cause skin cancer, or that eating a lot of fats and sugars can lead to heart disease, or that drinking to excess can cause liver disease. Those facts might have "great shock value." You might think of them as "great hyperbole." They are also good science.

    Those facts are, of course, denied by people who want to drink a lot, eat a lot of fat, lie in the sun and smoke. (And denied even more strongly by the people who make cigarettes and Twinkies.) The fact that they prefer not to believe the science so they can feel better about themselves - and justify their own actions to themselves - does not change the validity of the science.
    Science. Which is why I value Mann's work far more than I value Soon's or Seitz's.
     
    CEngelbrecht likes this.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    If thinking that the hockey stick is good science gives you some comfort, then please do so.
     
  10. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Please stop being so trite and asinine. Multiple members respond to your juvenile posts with well considered, factually supported observations and you belch out this nonsense. Well, if you are going to continually play the emotional card because you have no substance to your arguments others can too. Did you fall on your head when you were a child?
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    I have repeatedly stated my distaste for hyperbole in the sciences. It belongs only in political science, rhetoric, and comedy.

    I have posted several studies indicating that the climate was previously warmer(and colder) from europe to asia to antarctica to south america to .......etc... which is not evident in your cherished hockey stick.

    Do you think that all of the quoted scientists are liars, or deluded, completely bonkers insane, fond of "just making it up a they go along their tenure tracked paths"?
    Perhaps they all sold out to monied interests?

    That being said:
    wow
    just go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
    OR:
    EVEN BETTER---post actual science derived from field work--that moderates or nullifies the above quoted studies.
    ...........................
    There may be something more evil than politicized science drifting into the quagmire of hyperbole.................
    hmmmmmm
    I can't imagine what that could be..............
    working on it-...................
    Nah, nothing.
    Your thoughts?
    ........................
    How about actually discussing the specifics of the science.
    Is that even possible?

    How about a discussion of Alley's work on greenland?
    (caveat----as mentioned in a previous thread readings from greenland during the last glacial period should be moderated due to smoother readings from the waters off iceland, and antarctica)------------Does that correction follow into the inter-glacial (holocene)?
    How about discussing the work of Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K. Linsley & Delia W. Oppo
    How about discussing the work of Zunli Lu, et.al.
    How about discussing the work of Neukom, R., Luterbacher, et.al.
    How about discussing the work of Zhang De'er
    How about discussing the work of Arseneault, D. and Payette
    How about discussing the work of K. Gajewski
    .................
    all mentioned and/or quoted and linked to above
    .................................................
    If science is a game of cards, then field work is trump(no relation to the candidate)
    Balls in your court babe:..............................................................................................
    (caveat------there are NO simple answers)
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2016
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    HUH WUT?
    John Galt/ Ophiolite:
    Don't forget dadio: I've been reading you on 2 science forums for several years now.
    AND you have the temerity to call someone else trite?!?
    jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz dad
    (is this a pot and kettle thing?)
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    Hyperbole like:
    Yes, that sort of hyperbole makes people look like partisan political hacks, rather than anyone with something to say about the science.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    You either trust the work and conclusions of the mentioned scientists or you don't.
    If you don't, do you have a reason for your distrust?

    as stated:
    How about actually discussing the specifics of the science.

    How about a discussion of Alley's work on greenland?
    (caveat----as mentioned in a previous thread, readings from greenland during the last glacial period should be moderated due to smoother readings from the waters off iceland, and antarctica)------------Does that correction follow into the inter-glacial (holocene)?
    How about discussing the work of Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K. Linsley & Delia W. Oppo
    How about discussing the work of Zunli Lu, et.al.
    How about discussing the work of Neukom, R., Luterbacher, et.al.
    How about discussing the work of Zhang De'er
    How about discussing the work of Arseneault, D. and Payette
    How about discussing the work of K. Gajewski

    Pick one?
    If you want to pick one of their works apart(for valid scientific or logical reasons), please do so.
     
  15. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    I'm looking forward to all the new coastal city sports:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,097
    I don't want to pick them apart, just put them in global context. I'll pick this one: " - the work of Neukom, R., Luterbacher, et.al."

    Here's the list of authors for the third linked hockey stick I posted above, with dozens of names edited out to meet the posting limits, but two key names left visible:
    The hockey sticks are of course summary, graphs of compiled and discussed data from the researchers named as authors. So that will do, yes?
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    as/re mbh98/99
    as/re:
    R. Neukom • J. Luterbacher

    Just a name?
    Nothing about the work?
    Rather a tad shallow.

    What they wrote"
    "Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field
    reconstructions for southern South America covering
    the past centuries
    R. Neukom • J. Luterbacher • R. Villalba • M. Ku¨ ttel • D. Frank • P. D. Jones • M. Grosjean •
    H. Wanner • J.-C. Aravena • D. E. Black • D. A. Christie • R. D’Arrigo • A. Lara •
    M. Morales • C. Soliz-Gamboa • A. Srur • R. Urrutia • L. von Gunten
    Received: 12 November 2009 / Accepted: 8 March 2010
    The
    reconstructed SSA mean summer temperatures between
    900 and 1350 are mostly above the 1901–1995 climatology.
    After 1350, we reconstruct a sharp transition to colder
    conditions, which last until approximately 1700."
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
  19. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    756
    So what? Just mentioning that temps in South America were mostly about 1901-1995 means little to me. Did they mention what might have caused the increase in temp?
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    The word they wrote was "above" not "about"

    see chart/graphs

    ................
    Simple question:

    Do their findings support mbh98/99?
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
  21. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    756
    Sorry for the typo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I haven't been following closely enough to say whether or not this single study supports anything. What I would like to know is, why did the temps spike during that time period? And does that relate at all to what's happening now?
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    Why?
    Indeed
    The authors didn't go into the "Why".
    Perhaps, it had to do with the solar maximum between the ort and wolf minima?
    We just had a rare grand solar maximum during the last 1/2 of the last century.
    Coincidence or causality?
     
  23. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    756
    From wiki:

    "The idea of a Modern Maximum has now been thrown into question with the release of a paper at the International Astronomical Union General Assembly in August 2015"

    Don't have time to look into it any further right now. If anyone finds the paper please post.
     

Share This Page