Global Warming, where is it?

Big Horn said:
I am presently sitting at a place that was once underwater in a tropical sea. A few hours from me is the Blue Forest, once a place of spectacular palms. The trees are still there, but they're a few feet underground and fossilized. The face and weather of this inconsequential planet will continue to change with or without the presence of one insignificant but terribly arrogant species.
Click to expand...


Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests



Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/
 

Camper6 said:
Tell me how all this has impacted your lifestyle other than needless worry?
Click to expand...

I am not that self centred to think that this is all about me. I agree with Don M above. It is about the future and the impact on future generations and future societies.

As for who started the California fires, it doesn't matter one little bit. A lightning strike, a cigarette butt or a delinquent teenager or disturbed pyromaniac - that is not the issue. The issue is how the fire behaves, how fast it takes off, how violent the wind is and how dry the fuel is. These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now.
 
My comments in blue.
Camper6 said:
The theory is that burning fossil fuels causes the greenhouse effect that causes global warming.
Not exactly. It has been demonstrated that certain gases have the property of holding radiant energy in certain layers of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how they get there - burning fossil fuels, natural wild fires, decaying garbage, farting cows and melting frozen soils containing ancient vegetation all contribute. Now which of these are increasing over time and which ones could we do anything about? Also, natural cycles have a capacity to remove greenhouse gases over time. Carbon dioxide is removed by plants - all plants - but particularly forests and extensive grasslands. Are we increasing or decreasing the area of forests and grazing lands on a global scale or are we cutting and burning the rainforests to plant coffee and chocolate. Is grain fed beef taking over from range fed beef? Is the most tender steak that you can eat worth risking the future of the planet?

There is no single, simple fix. A whole lot of areas need looking at including architecture designed to minimise heating/cooling energy consumption, the way we design and use our cars and public transport and the sources of power that we exploit. Agriculture will be impacted the most.

Therefore if that's true we are doomed because we need vehicles for transportation of food and the necessities of life and personal transportation. See above. We have options now and possibilities for the future. We do not have to doom ourselves of the planet, but we can adapt voluntarily now or be force to do it later when the situation becomes more grave.

No one is going to give up their vehicles. Not even the ones who support AGW including those that are posting here.
They may be forced to for financial reasons. The cost of driving on the roads in Sydney are about to go through the roof through tolls and I envisage a scale of fees that takes into account the size of the engine and the number of empty seats in the car. One person driving around the city in a great big SUV is something the planet cannot afford.

Oh by the way . There's no way to cap the thousands of volcanoes in the world but somehow the supporters say volcanoes contribute to cooling.
Certain volcanoes spew out a lot of fine particulate material that gets into the slip streams. Temporarily they produce a cooling effect by blocking a certain amount of radiation from reaching the earth's surface. Eventually the effect wears off and if the greenhouse gases have been building up then the global temperatures will resume their upward trends.

So far as it says in the Bible. It has not come to pass.
Book, chapter and verse please.
Click to expand...
 

Warrigal said:
I am not that self centred to think that this is all about me. I agree with Don M above. It is about the future and the impact on future generations and future societies.

As for who started the California fires, it doesn't matter one little bit. A lightning strike, a cigarette butt or a delinquent teenager or disturbed pyromaniac - that is not the issue. The issue is how the fire behaves, how fast it takes off, how violent the wind is and how dry the fuel is. These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now.
Click to expand...

Sorry Warrigal. That's a cop out. The thread started out with all about me and where the heck is it.

If it hasn't impacted you at all after all this time then it means it's nothing to worry about. Predicting the future is like believing in fortune tellers.

Did you read my link? They got their modelling wrong.
 
So far as it says in the Bible. It has not come to pass.
Book, chapter and verse please.
Click to expand...

I should know better than to argue with a school teacher. Because they have never heard it means it doesn't exist?

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah 7:7


Isaiah 7:7
KJ21
thus saith the Lord God: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
ASV
thus saith the Lord Jehovah, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
AMP
for this is what the Lord God says, “It shall not stand nor shall it happen.
AMPC
Thus says the Lord God: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
BRG
Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
CSB
This is what the Lord God says: It will not happen; it will not occur.
CEB
But the Lord God says: It won’t happen; it won’t take place.
CJB
“‘This is what Adonai Elohim says: “It won’t occur, it won’t happen.
CEV
I, the Lord, promise that this will never happen.
DARBY
thus saith the Lord Jehovah: It shall not stand, nor come to pass;
DRA
Thus saith the Lord God: It shall not stand, and this shall not be.
ERV
But the Lord God says, “Their plan will not succeed. It will not happen
ESV
thus says the Lord God: “‘It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
ESVUK
thus says the Lord God: “‘It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
EXB
But I, the Lord God, say, “‘·Their plan will not succeed [L It will not stand]; it will not happen,
GNV
Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it be.
GW
This is what the Almighty Lord says: It won’t take place; it won’t happen.
GNT
“But I, the Lord, declare that this will never happen.
HCSB
This is what the Lord God says: It will not happen; it will not occur.
ICB
But I, the Lord God, say, Their plan will not succeed. It will not happen.
ISV
‘But this is what the Lord God has to say: “‘It won’t take place. It won’t ever happen.
JUB
Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall
 
Warrigal said:
I am not that self centred to think that this is all about me. I agree with Don M above. It is about the future and the impact on future generations and future societies.

As for who started the California fires, it doesn't matter one little bit. A lightning strike, a cigarette butt or a delinquent teenager or disturbed pyromaniac - that is not the issue. The issue is how the fire behaves, how fast it takes off, how violent the wind is and how dry the fuel is. These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just something brought in that unintentionally distracts from the real issue. The length of the season when the forests are most at risk has been extended too. I think someone already mentioned this. Good post, Warri.
 
Camper6 said:
I should know better than to argue with a school teacher. Because they have never heard it means it doesn't exist?

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah 7:7


Isaiah 7:7
KJ21
thus saith the Lord God: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
Click to expand...

Thanks but one link would have been sufficient since each one is really just the one verse.

I did take the time to look it up and place it into context.
It does not seem to be at all relevant to global warming when not taken out of context.

Isaiah 7:1-20New International Version (NIV)The Sign of Immanuel

7 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[SUP][a][/SUP] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[SUP][b][/SUP] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. [SUP]5 [/SUP]Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, [SUP]6 [/SUP]“Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” [SUP]7 [/SUP]Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
[SUP]8 [/SUP]for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”​

[SUP]10 [/SUP]Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, [SUP]11 [/SUP]“Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? [SUP]14 [/SUP]Therefore the Lord himself will give you[SUP][c][/SUP] a sign: The virgin[SUP][d][/SUP] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[SUP][e][/SUP] will call him Immanuel.[SUP][f][/SUP] [SUP]15 [/SUP]He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, [SUP]16 [/SUP]for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. [SUP]17 [/SUP]The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

Assyria, the Lord’s Instrument

[SUP]18 [/SUP]In that day the Lord will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. [SUP]19 [/SUP]They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. [SUP]20 [/SUP]In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also.
Click to expand...
 
Sunny said:
Camper, this was in today's paper. It answers the question you ask as the title of this thread.
Click to expand...

No it does not.

From the link:
Hotter global temperatures are exacting a human toll. Although the increase since 2000 may seem slight - about 0.75 degrees Fahrenheit - the planet is not a uniform oven. Local spikes can be dramatic and dangerous. Heat waves, defined as extreme temperatures that persist for at least three days, are on the rise.

You know in scientific papers the temperatures are always quoted in Celsius not Fahrenheit. So why does this one quote F instead of C.

And that temperature is well within the norm.

As I keep telling you. The Earth has been warming for centuries. There's nothing you can do about it. It will continue with or without humans.

Do yourself a favor. Check the average temperatures where you live for the last 100 years. See how much they have increased or decreased.
 
Sunny said:
Camper, this was in today's paper. It answers the question you ask as the title of this thread.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/cli...tially-irreversible-ways-report-warns-1769114
Click to expand...
The article does not state that there was any new evidence for climate change. The listed professions of the "researchers" suggest a political group.

"including climate scientists as well as ecologists, geographers, economists, engineers, mathematicians"

I'm an economist. I have only the barest knowledge of physics, chemistry, and geology. I assume that they were there for a vacation. That's what most conferences are. They're never held in Mumbai or Fairbanks.

This is akin to telling me that smoking will kill me even though there is no evidence that I smoke. I don't smoke and never have.
 
Sunny said:
Camper, this was in today's paper. It answers the question you ask as the title of this thread.
Click to expand...

No it does not.

From the link:
Hotter global temperatures are exacting a human toll. Although the increase since 2000 may seem slight - about 0.75 degrees Fahrenheit - the planet is not a uniform oven. Local spikes can be dramatic and dangerous. Heat waves, defined as extreme temperatures that persist for at least three days, are on the rise.

You know in scientific papers the temperatures are always quoted in Celsius not Fahrenheit. So why does this one quote F instead of C. Because .75 F looks larger than .23 C.

And that temperature is well within the norm for the century dating back to 1800.

As I keep telling you. The Earth has been warming for centuries. There's nothing you can do about it. It will continue with or without humans.

Do yourself a favor. Check the average temperatures where you live for the last 100 years. See how much they have increased or decreased.

And I looked up the records for Maryland. In which years were the hottest months recorded in November.?

Warmest November Days

The warmest November days in Maryland are:
Baltimore, Maryland197587.1°F
Baltimore, Maryland195086.4°F
Patuxent River, Maryland196885.3°F
Camp Springs, Maryland195084.4°F
Camp Springs, Maryland197484°F
 
These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now
Click to expand...

No there is no proof that these factors are all made worse by global warming. We are not seeing the changes now that are caused by global warming.
 
These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now
Click to expand...

No there is no proof that these factors are all made worse by global warming. We are not seeing the changes now that are caused by global warming.


https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/...chile...snow-record.../70002197Jul 16, 2017 - A bitter blast of frigid air is plunging into central Chile this weekend, causing snow to fall at unusually low levels and putting records in jeopardy.

So shall I say that is being caused by global cooling?
 
The article is reporting on an article in The Lancet, the highly respected British medical journal. So you claim that the top scientists who write for this journal are really just politicians, eh?

I realize that you don't want to be troubled by the facts, Camper, since you have managed to politicize the weather... but here's just one among many articles citing scientific proof.

http://tinyurl.com/ycw63pqv


 
Sunny said:
The article is reporting on an article in The Lancet, the highly respected British medical journal. So you claim that the top scientists who write for this journal are really just politicians, eh?

I realize that you don't want to be troubled by the facts, Camper, since you have managed to politicize the weather... but here's just one among many articles citing scientific proof.

http://tinyurl.com/ycw63pqv
Click to expand...
If something is not subject to disproof, it's not legitimate science. That disproof may or may not exist, but a scientist accepts the fact that if it does, it must be able to be applied.
 
The mathematical technique for testing the truth of a proposition is to apply the null hypothesis to the data.

For the publication, see Null Hypothesis: The Journal of Unlikely Science.

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[SUP][1][/SUP] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted H[SUB]0[/SUB] (read “H-nought”, "H-null", "H-oh", or "H-zero").
Click to expand...

In other words, the climate data around the world has been tested against the proposition that there is no connection between global warming and human activity. The data shows that there is only a very small probability that this is true and by extension, a very high probability that human activity since about 1900 has contributed to global warming and that this affect is accelerating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
 
There are charts that show warm and cool patterns that occur every so many years. I tried to get them to copy so I could print them here, but so far failed. This global warming thing has fail to do as predicted 15 or so years back. Some of the charts now show the worlds climate to be in another cooling spell. I will keep on working on this material as I think some folks really need to back off the demanding of global warming and just let the world do its thing. That is exactly what is going to happen anyway.
 
Last edited:
Sunny said:
The article is reporting on an article in The Lancet, the highly respected British medical journal. So you claim that the top scientists who write for this journal are really just politicians, eh?

I realize that you don't want to be troubled by the facts, Camper, since you have managed to politicize the weather... but here's just one among many articles citing scientific proof.

http://tinyurl.com/ycw63pqv
Click to expand...

Do me a favor. Read your own links. Yes we had a record year. A whopping .1 degrees difference. If you can notice that you're a better man than me. It's well within the expected norm and it's probably more accurate now because of better measurement facilities.
 
Warrigal said:
The mathematical technique for testing the truth of a proposition is to apply the null hypothesis to the data.



In other words, the climate data around the world has been tested against the proposition that there is no connection between global warming and human activity. The data shows that there is only a very small probability that this is true and by extension, a very high probability that human activity since about 1900 has contributed to global warming and that this affect is accelerating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Click to expand...

That is the theory alright. And I will concede that humans contribute. They always do. But can you give me a percentage of contribution assuming there are no humans on Earth.

Dont give me a story or another link. Just give me the percentage. 1 to 100 percent .

Blaming storms on on the theory is ridiculous. Even the scientists don't believe it.

Worst hurricane in the history of the United States. Galveston Texas 1900.
 
I had an error in #67 and said warming when it was about really showing the beginnings of a cooling spell.

Will try to get those charts and links to work sometime today, if I can. Not all scientist live in politically paid for surroundings as those that came on board during our previous government here in the US. Doubters were deliberately driven from the discussions and only global warmers have been allowed to speak or given any authority. Not wanting to become like our US VP should not be a crime.
 
BobF said:
I had an error in #67 and said warming when it was about really showing the beginnings of a cooling spell.

Will try to get those charts and links to work sometime today, if I can. Not all scientist live in politically paid for surroundings as those that came on board during our previous government here in the US. Doubters were deliberately driven from the discussions and only global warmers have been allowed to speak or given any authority. Not wanting to become like our US VP should not be a crime.
Click to expand...

Have you tried screenshots for the graphs?
 
I have not found the same charts I looked at last night. I just scanned for global warming charts as I did not keep records of what I was looking at. I will try screen shots and see what happens. I think that is what I tried yesterday and for some reason could not capture them. So here goes.

chart-no-global-warming-18-years.png



gisp-last-10000-new.png



Well, it appears that what I did is working. Will not know till I send. Many years back I got tired of watching the global warming folks turn this entire issue into a political thing. They joined ranks and totally ignore any one other than their very own boosters. Even real true scientist get ignored if not joining into the global warming nonsense completely.

There was a group of scientist and observers that often challenged some theories and had proofs of their thinking. Not sure if they are still around. I hope so as we need more than just these politically correct folks to be involved in what is happening to us and why. Done looking for today.
 
Climate science is not "rocket science", it's pretty straight forward, so much so that worldwide the overwhelming majority of scientists from all

disciplines agree that the long term climate is permanently changing, with rising global temperatures due to the increase in

carbon emissions, since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Yearly seasonal fluctuations don't always reflect the long term changes.

It's too bad that 'some' politicians have seized upon climate change to use as a political football to galvanize opinion among their followers.

Our grandchildren will bear the consequences of the denier efforts to obfuscate the climate issue to sabotage positive action.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top