Is global warming even real?

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

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,442
    I linked you to the hockey stick that they co-authored. You seem to think they do good work. I agree, and among that good work is their contribution (among dozens) to yet another graph of historical global temps - including the summer means in South America they measured, the Greenland ice cap fluctuations, the whole shootin' match - that looks like yet another hockey stick.

    Causal of course - all solar fluctuations have an effect on the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Of course these days they tend to get overridden by the effects of this CO2 boost, but there's no reason they would vanish entirely.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,442
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
    zgmc likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Newly Calibrated sunspot Group Number over the last 400 years:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Also found this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Ergo... no particular correlation between sun spot activity and planetary temperature rise. As if we didn't know.
     
    zgmc likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    "Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2(2), 36-63.http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com©Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License .
    Testing the hockey-stick hypothesis by statisticalanalysesof a large dataset of proxy records
    1
    Guido Travaglini
    1.Introduction
    More than a decade ago some climatologists led by Michael Mann, after performing past temperature reconstructions on a millennial scale,have come up with the conclusion that the Recent Warming Period (RWP) is an unprecedented phenomenon in the climatic history of the Earth(Mann
    et al.
    , 1998, 1999). The unusual behavior of recorded temperatures in the late 20th century was attributed by the authors to anthropogenic influences, and chiefly to substantial hikes in the recorded greenhouse gas concentrations caused by the worldwide expansion of industrial activities and to the sharp world population increase.

    The authors produce statistical evidence graphically shaped as a hockey-stick that has been prominently featured in the Nobel-prized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) activity since the Third Assessment Report(IPCC, 2001). This evidence spurred a world wide dispute on both the validity of the empirical evidence and on its causes. By consequence, the purported dramatic rise of recent temperatures and the associated anthropogenic origin have found advocates and skeptics still to date igniting the “hockey-stick curve” controversy (Montford,2010).
    Abstract
    This paper is a statistical time-series investigation addressed at testing the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis known as the “hockey-stick”. The time-series components of a select batch of 258 long-term yearly Climate Change Proxies (CCP) included in 19 paleoclimate data sets, all of which running back as far as the year 2192 B.C., are reconstructed by means of univariate Bayesian Calibration. The instrumental temperature record utilized is the Global Best Estimated Anomaly (BEA) of the HADCRUT4 time series readings available yearly for the period 1850-2010. After performing appropriate data transformations, Ordinary Least Squares parameter estimates are obtained, and subsequently simulated by means of multi-draw Gibbs sampling for each year of the pre-1850 period. The ensuing Time-Varying Parameter sequence is utilized to produce high-resolution calibrated estimates of the CCP series, merged with BEA to yield Millennial-scale Time Series (MTS). Finally, the MTS are individually tested for temperature single break date and multiple peak dates. As a result, the estimated temperature breaks and peaks suggest widespread rejection of the hockey-stick hypothesis since they are mostly centered in the Medieval Warm Period.
    Research Areas:
    Earth Science —Climate Change
    Received:
    10/Aug/2013-
    Revised:
    13/Dec/2013-
    Accepted:
    09/Jan/2014 -
    Published:
    23/Apr/2014
    1
    Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Giuridiche, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 00181, Italy.
    Correspondence to:
    G. Travaglini(jay_of_may@yahoo.com)."

    (but, then again, he could be wrong)
    curious?
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2016
  8. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Global warming? Hell, we'll adapt . . . .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    759
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
  12. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    sculptor likes this.
  13. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    759
    I posted something from 2015. You post something from 2010. Another quote from the article I posted:

     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (Robinson et al., 2007).
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,442
    You mean that the fact of his argument there - that a predominance of peaks and breaks centered on the Medieval Warm Period conflicts with something he is calling "the hockey stick hypothesis" - seeming to reveal a basic ignorance about the topic under consideration, casts a certain doubt on his entire analysis?

    Yeah, I agree: he could be wrong.

    Here's the same guy proving to you that the Maunder Minimum

    - you know, that feature you emphasize as the foundation of the current warming, the source of the claims that solar fluctuations and the like have been driving a warming trend for a long time now, and the recent warming is a continuation of that rather than a new CO2 driven event -

    does not exist: https://www.researchgate.net/public...Numbers_before_and_during_the_Maunder_Minimum

    So what do you think: could he be wrong?

    btw: The phenomena of economists predominating in the recent trend of inexperienced and scientifically uninformed math specialists turning to analysis of climate data and finding things in it that actual climate researchers and modelers think are stupid, needs an explanation.

    Here's a thought: maybe the debacle of 2008, when their expertise and recommendations (that had proved so persuasive to some honchos in the world of multinational trade and finance and corporate power) turned out to be garbage, brought insight to those honchos,

    and the insight was this: those equation jockeys we have on the payroll were very convincing. They sold moonshine to some very smart guys who bet big money. Maybe they can sell AGW denial to some people we are having trouble with

    Just a passing thought. It's not the only explanation. But the market for deep thinking from econometricians took a serious hit right about the time a bunch of them turned the spotlight of their brilliance unto new fields, where their reputations remained untarnished by the cheap ugliness of what actually happens in the world.
     
    zgmc and CEngelbrecht like this.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,442
    The location of the Sargasso Sea: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ew/77712_990x672-cb1394831495.adapt.768.1.jpg

    It's in the North Atlantic, the southern turn of the gyre reaching down to around the Caribbean.

    The point about solar fluctuations made repeatedly here and elsewhere, directly relevant to any argument you plan to make - sometime in the future when you get around to making one - with these floating posts:
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    not cold
    Figure 1: Central Greenland temperatures, 1 CE to 1980 CE. Temperature reconstruction based on ice cores from central Greenland shows evidence of the Medieval Warm Period from 950 to 1250, followed by the Little Ice Age from 1550-1850. The ancestors of the Inuit arrived somewhere around 700-750, and the Norse settlement was established in 986. The Norse settlement disappeared sometime during the 1400s.
    data from Niels Bohr Institute Centre for Ice and Climate
    .........................................
    The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However, from 1300 or so the climate began to cool.

    The crops grown a thousand years ago in Greenland eg: barley, were crops not grown in greenland today.
    Barley (corn) can not be effectively grown in the short season Greenland offers today.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2016
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Hong et al. (2000) had also reported that, at the time of the MWP, "the northern boundary of the cultivation of citrus tree (Citrus reticulata Blanco) and Boehmeria nivea (a perennial herb), both subtropical and thermophilous plants, moved gradually into the northern part of China, where it has been estimated that the annual mean temperature was 0.9-1.0°C higher than at present." And considering the climatic conditions required to successfully grow these plants, they further noted that annual mean temperatures in that part of the country during the Medieval Warm Period must have been about 1.0°C higher than at present, with extreme January minimum temperatures fully 3.5°C warmer than they are today,
     
  19. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Look, you can try and make all the noise you want, it still doesn't change the fact that level of CO2 and Earth temperature go hand in hand for the last at least 400,000 years. And that the level of atmospheric CO2 has climbed 100 ppm in the 200 years to 380ppm with the industrial revolution and increased burning of fossil fuels, the highest level during those 400,000 years. And that there are no other likely candidates for the source of this vast increase other than human civilization burning fossil fuels, especially considering the low level of sun spots the last number of centuries, meaning we would be in a cooling if not for the rise of CO2.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    For the last five pages, you have done everything in your power to drown out those facts, since they can't be refuted. Why? What are you doing, mate? I mean, just trolling away for the bullying fun of it is not gonna get you laid with what ever girl rejected you when you were 16 anyway. Or spinning on behalf of some fossil tycoon's just gonna make 'em loose their ancestor's fortune even faster. Or are you a fan of Book of Eli or what is it?

    Is global warming "even" real? Yes, it is. Is it man made? Yes. Next question.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,442
    Do you have anything else you want to post from your 1973 Encyclopedia Brittanica?
    Fascinating.

    Your point? Something you wish to tell the audience?
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    actually from a recent anthropology publication

    Both china and greenland show previous warmer conditions not evident on your precious hockey stick!
    Ah, but wait-----------(you're thinking) though in the eastern and western hemisphere, they're both in the northern hemisphere ...that ain't global....
    However:
    If you've been reading the posted:
    ?
    Then you will have seen that previous warmer conditions were also noted in the south pacific, southern south america, and antarctica(and you just don't get much further south than that) ...
    So: we now also have previous warmer conditions on the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere, the eastern hemisphere and the western hemisphere..........................
    Whats left?
    Oh, did you notice the posted sea surface temperatures above the sargasso sea?


    And still...........................(i suspect that) you are most likely thinking-------but, but, but, but, that ain't global..............................

    If you really care
    How many trees have you planted and nurtured?
     
  22. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Me, I've planted a couple, actually. But we'd have to replant the entire surface of the planet with woodland to counter our consumption of fossil CO2, including underwater algae stretches. The woodlands, that we are exhausting on top of burning fossil CO2. So why not just let go of burning fossil CO2? Problem solved. We have all the energy we'll ever need in the planet's hydro- and atmosphere, for as long as the Sun will burn. We already got the technical implements to harvest it. Why are you so bent against letting go of burning fossil CO2? It's idiotic. Are you suicidal? Do you hate your own species? Or do you have financial gains from burning fossils? Take that money and invest in sun, wind and sea. Now. Now. Now. Fossil fuel is history. It's not a tragedy, it's evolution.
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    One reason is the Koch brothers don't want to lose the bottom line. So what's the avatar represent? Looks like a down line for some deep free dive.
     

Share This Page