Mad Mike Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, twa said: What is made up about any of that post?....don't be myopic. Did you know severe drought in some areas can cause the earth to wobble and impact currents and thus sea levels? Did you know NASA already accounts for this an still determines through science that global warming is man made and cause by greenhouse gasses such as carbon and methane?https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/causes/overview Quote The seas of the Earth are rising, a direct result of a changing climate. Ocean temperatures are increasing, leading to ocean expansion. And as ice sheets and glaciers melt, they add more water. An armada of increasingly sophisticated instruments, deployed across the oceans, on polar ice and in orbit, reveals significant changes among globally interlocking factors that are driving sea levels higher. Yet the globally averaged trend toward rising sea levels masks deeper complexities. Regional effects cause sea levels to increase on some parts of the planet, decrease on others, and even to remain relatively flat in a few places, including, in recent decades, on the California coast. Thermal expansion of seawater can be the product of regional phenomena, such as El Niño, the periodic warming of the eastern tropical Pacific. But some of these regional cycles so far show no direct link to long-term global climate change—despite, at times, independently exerting a powerful short-term influence on global climate. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/causes/drivers-of-change Quote Ice loss near the poles is one of the most critical changes pushing sea levels higher, a conclusion supported by data of increasing weight and accuracy. Greenland’s contribution to global sea-level rise is the largest, and increases every decade. Studies suggest that its melt grew from 0.09 millimeters per year between 1992 and 2001, expressed as the global sea-level rise equivalent, to 0.59 millimeters per year between 2002 and 2011 [Velicogna et al, 2014]. Why don't you just admit you were wrong. BTW... Quote my·op·ic ˌmīˈäpik/ adjective nearsighted. synonyms: nearsighted; shortsighted "a myopic patient" lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight. "the government still has a myopic attitude to public spending" synonyms: unimaginative, uncreative, unadventurous, narrow-minded, small-minded, short-term, shortsighted Cherry picking data that supports your opinion while ignoring data that shreds your argument makes you the myopic one. Not me. Edited January 19, 2017 by Mad Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 yes the sea level has been rising since the last little ice age. Any Idea when the next will begin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 19 hours ago, twa said: 2 minutes ago, twa said: yes the sea level has been rising since the last little ice age. Any Idea when the next will begin? And you go right back to flinging **** against the wall hoping it will stick while ignoring how you were just proven wrong. The behavior of a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just now, Mad Mike said: And you go right back to flinging **** against the wall hoping it will stick while ignoring how you were just proven wrong. The behavior of a troll. What ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, twa said: What ****? Saying that because sea levels have been rising since the last ice age proves man made global warming is false is like saying that everyone dies so there is no link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Its a bull****, intellectually empty argument meant to change the subject from your former failed argument. Your smarmy tone while spouting such bull**** arguments only confirms my assessment of your trollish behavior. Edited January 19, 2017 by Mad Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 33 minutes ago, Mad Mike said: Saying that because sea levels have been rising since the last ice age proves man made global warming is false is like saying that everyone dies so there is no link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Its a bull****, intellectually empty argument meant to change the subject from your former failed argument. Your smarmy tone while spouting such bull**** arguments only confirms my assessment of your trollish behavior. Where did I say that? But since you mention it.....does cigarette smoking mean you will get cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I am very skeptical of the Man Made Global Warming issue because the numbers just don't fit. There were several news articles recently that told us that the "Global Temperature" had risen for 10+ years in a row and that the recent year was the "Highest on record". So, I looked into this and found that these article, written mostly by reporters who know nothing about science in general and so called 'global climate' overall. Here is a very good article that shows just how they are wrong: http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/ Why NYT Hid The Numbers For The ‘Hottest Year On Record’ When you read a science report claiming that 2016 was the hottest year on record, you might expect that you will get numbers. And you would be wrong. By Robert Tracinski JANUARY 18, 2017 They say that mathematics is the language of science, which is a way of saying that science is quantitative. It is moved forward by numbers and measurements, not just by qualitative observations. “It seems hot out” is not science. Giving a specific temperature, measured by a specific process at a specific time, compared to other systematically gathered measurements—that is science. So when you read an article proclaiming that, for the third year in a row, last year was the hottest year on record, you might expect that right up front you will get numbers, measurements, and a statistical margin of error. You know, science stuff. Numbers. Quantities. Mathematics. And you would be wrong. I just got done combing through a New York Times report titled, “Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year.” The number of relevant numbers in this article is: zero. We are not told what the average global temperature was, how much higher this is than last year’s record or any previous records, or what the margin of error is supposed to be on those measurements. Instead, we get stuff like this. Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016—trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014. It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row. Note to the New York Times: “trouncing” and “blown past” are phrases appropriate to sports reporting, not science reporting. Except that no sports reporter would dare write an article in which he never bothers to give you the score of the big game. Yet that’s what passes for “science reporting” on the issue of global warming, where asking for numbers and margins of errors apparently makes you an enemy of science. Instead, it’s all qualitative and comparative descriptions. It’s science without numbers. It wasn’t just the New York Times. Try finding the relevant numbers ready at hand in the NASA/NOAA press release. You get numbers comparing 2016’s temperature with “the mid-20th century mean” or “the late 19th century.” But there’s nothing comparing it to last year or the year before except qualitative descriptions. So the government’s science bureaucracy is setting the trend, making reporters dig for the relevant numbers rather than presenting them up front. It’s almost like they’re hiding something. And that is indeed what we find. I finally tracked down an exception to this reporting trend: the UK newspaper The Independentgives us the relevant numbers. <rest at link> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, btfoom said: I am very skeptical of the Man Made Global Warming issue because the numbers just don't fit. There were several news articles recently that told us that the "Global Temperature" had risen for 10+ years in a row and that the recent year was the "Highest on record". So, I looked into this and found that these article, written mostly by reporters who know nothing about science in general and so called 'global climate' overall. DId you actually look at the NYT article. Because, I did and they included this novel way to give people numbers called a graph: Edited January 21, 2017 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 On 1/19/2017 at 2:35 PM, Mad Mike said: Saying that because sea levels have been rising since the last ice age proves man made global warming is false is like saying that everyone dies so there is no link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Its a bull****, intellectually empty argument meant to change the subject from your former failed argument. Your smarmy tone while spouting such bull**** arguments only confirms my assessment of your trollish behavior. You can ignore him please. Or you can stop acting like a 5 year old. Either way is fine, but we arent going to continue this way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 58 minutes ago, btfoom said: I am very skeptical of the Man Made Global Warming issue because the numbers just don't fit. Oh good, @btfoom is making another appearance in the climate change thread. I'm quoting him and tagging him so that there will be no confusion as to whether or not he sees this 27th request to address my theory that he has no experience or expertise in this field as he likes to claim. Tell me @btfoom, how accurate is my assessment that, when you say you understand the science because of your work, you are actually pulling **** out of your ass? That at the very most, you have done work for an agency, company, or organization that specializes in this field but that your work had nothing to do with the actual science? And for bonus points, I'll guess that based on your level and style of B.S. that your work is actually something either in upper-level management or, more likely, litigious. Possibly financial but not just record keeping or accounting... it would also have to have some sort of background in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Okay, so, any mention of Climate Change has just been taken down off the white house website. I am hoping more than anyone that Trump will be a good president. This is a shot to the gut though, right off the bat. Edited January 21, 2017 by d0ublestr0ker0ll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said: I am hoping more than anyone that Trump will be a good president. Ain't.... Gonna.... Happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Ain't.... Gonna.... Happen! Yikes man, yikes. I keep myself in denial. Ha..... Climate denial... No. WTF man. He should at least keep his mind open to it, for crying out loud. Renewable energy is gaining momentum, no reason to stop that in its tracks. I don't think he'll have the influence to stop it fully. Europe is on it, so is a lot of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Watch for who he appoints to NOAA. Will be telling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 11 hours ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said: Okay, so, any mention of Climate Change has just been taken down off the white house website. I am hoping more than anyone that Trump will be a good president. This is a shot to the gut though, right off the bat. Explanation is here of why it was removed: http://www.snopes.com/white-house-web-site-trump-changes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I'll just leave this here UAH climate expert: Warming trend exaggerated by NASA, NOAA http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/01/uah_climate_expert_warming_tre.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 So they admit there's a warming trend? Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Springfield said: So they admit there's a warming trend? Hmmm. and that humans impact temp readings. ....Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, twa said: and that humans impact temp readings. ....Hmmmm. Never said they did or didn't. As long as we can agree that the globe is, in fact, warming, then we are heading this conversation in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) The headline is misleading. NASA and NOAA are measuring the surface temperature. The UAH is based on satellite measurements. They are measuring two different things. Christy never says they exaggerated it (i.e. he is not accusing NASA and the NOAA of fraud). The big thing is that this ignores the other satelite data sets that shows more warming that UAH (Spencer's data set who is interviewed). The RSS and NOAA STAR are also both satellite data sets and both show a more rapid rate of warming. Spencer acts like they don't exist and that his data set is the only one. Edited January 21, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Springfield said: Never said they did or didn't. As long as we can agree that the globe is, in fact, warming, then we are heading this conversation in the right direction. and the temperature , my ass doesn't like sheets of ice a mile thick. peter, what he says on surface temps is: Quote Christy pointed to the fact that the study from NASA and NOAA centered on surface temperatures, which he said are not as precise as data from satellite and weather balloon that he collects. NASA and NOAA also said that the record heat of 2016 marks the third straight year a global heat record has been set. and Christy described surface data collection as "a hodgepodge type of measurement" while atmospheric measurements are "very consistent." and "We need to know what happens at the surface because that's where we live and grow our food," Christy said. "So that's important. But that's also part of the problem. The fact that we live on the surface, we have changed it so that the surface thermometers that measure this temperature are affected by the way we have changed the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, twa said: and the temperature , my ass doesn't like sheets of ice a mile thick. peter, what he says on surface temps is: So he is admitting that man contributes to temperature changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, Hersh said: So he is admitting that man contributes to temperature changes. Your body and buildings and pavement and such certainly do....which is what he claims drives higher surface temp reading errors. go lay on the asphalt here in July to demonstrate it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Never heard of the guy before but his Wikipedia page indicates that he believes climate change is real and man made. He doubts the catastrophic predictions of other scientists and thinks that being unnecessarily concerned to the point of over regulating will do a great deal of damage to the economy and little good for the environment. We may be approaching an intelligent argument on the opposing view's side here. Edited January 21, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, twa said: and the temperature , my ass doesn't like sheets of ice a mile thick. peter, what he says on surface temps is: I thought you were just putting it here? It sounds like you want to defend it. Like you think it has some actual merit. 1. The idea that the surface temperatures have more issues in terms of creating accurate measurements is at least debatable. Satellite measurements have various issues, the most basic being they aren't actually measuring temperature. Others include drifts in satellite orbits, changes in sensitivity as equipment ages, and over the whole span of time even satellites having to replaced. That's why the different satellite measures are different. I believe that currently there is actually less differences between the different surface records than the different satellite measures. (I think the RSS satellite data is actually closer to the surface temperatures than RSS satellite data is closer to the UAH satellite date). 2. Nobody doubts that we are changing the surface. Nobody doubts that the UHI does happen and everybody agrees that land use changes are an important part of climate change. From the USGS web site: https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/node/5601 "How does land-use change affect climate change? Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases." I think that statement is technically correct. 1 hour ago, twa said: Your body and buildings and pavement and such certainly do....which is what he claims drives higher surface temp reading errors. go lay on the asphalt here in July to demonstrate it UHI is only one thing one way that we have changed the surface that affects climate. (I'll point out that the area of the surface that is warming the fastest is the Arctic and certainly there isn't a large UHI affect there.) Again, remember even of the satellite data Spencer is really only discussing his own data set, which shows the lowest rate of warming. Edited January 21, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now