I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[FXMastermind]

Here’s a way to stop being ignorant about the weather vs climate problem.

This NASA page explains things. Please notice the image they use, in regards to spring coming earlier.

It show weather, a three month period for Jan-March 2005

Now look at a twenty year trend, which shows climate. Here is another one, which shows spring is warming, at least for most of the US

When somebody shows you a single year, or a few months, that is weather. Long term trends, at least a decade or more, shows climate.

It’s why one cold winter means little, but two decades of colder winters means a lot.

Or why one early spring means little, but a twenty year trend means something.

Like, why is April so obviously warming, in some areas? While February is obviously getting colder.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

http://imgur.com/ezJF5xt

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

… idiots were annoyed, or just ignored it.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

How this thread should look - Imgur

That didn’t take long.

[Skywatcher]

NASA says the average global surface temperature rose .3°C over a 100-year period, with a rate of increase which doubled during the second half, and predicts that the trend will continue.

[VinylTurnip]

@FXMastermind

Popper is spinning in his grave.

Popper would think you’re an obnoxious dick and beat you to death with a fireplace poker.

[FXMastermind]

@Skywatcher

NASA says the average global surface temperature rose .3°C over a 100-year period, with a rate of increase which doubled during the second half, and predicts that the trend will continue.

It actually says

The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906 and 2005, and the rate of temperature increase has nearly doubled in the last 50 years.

It’s interesting to look at the GISS maps, and see the changes.

1900-1910 cooling

1910-1940 warming

1940-1970 cooling

1970-2000 warming

2000-2014 cooling

It’s interesting how the previous cooling compares to the recent cooling period

1955-1970 winter trend

summer trend

This may increase confidence that the current change isn’t natural variation, as the current “cooling” is not the same at all (it’s actually postulated that the global cooling was also due to human pollution at the time) Past cooling wasn’t just in winters.

2000-2014 winter trend

2000-2014 summer trend

[FXMastermind]

Using the CONUS as proxy for global changes, you can easily see the cooling periods for the summers in the US.

The winter data doesn’t match as well, but using the FEb min values does show the problem, even with not all of the US experiencing winter cooling.

It’s interesting that the CONUS winter trendpretty much matches the global RSS data for lower troposphere temperatures.

Even the annual values for CONUS temperatures matches the global values.

But those max/min values, now there is really something.

[FXMastermind]

In regards to Popper

BUT PERHAPS THERE IS YET A DEEPER QUESTION. If the facts and the predictions were both more clear, would this mean that global warming was disproven? It would not. This is only one tiny example from a small part of the overall climate debate. There are discussions in the literature that are vastly more complicated than this, covering issues such as methods for measuring historical temperatures, ways to measure the albedo of various substances, the effect of global warming on ocean currents, the carbon cycle and the percentage of carbon emissions that are retained by the atmosphere, the impact of methane and other greenhouse gases beyond carbon dioxide, the effects of cloud cover and water vapor, and many, many others. I have taken us on an abbreviated tour of one of the smallest back alleys in the city of climate science. The debate is far bigger than any one claim, and reducing it to a small set of talking points does the scientific community a great disservice.

Though I am sure my own opinion shows through, the point of this paper is not to argue for or against global warming itself. Instead, I hope to have shown that the public understanding of science is simplistic at best, and grossly distorted at worst. Reducing a scientific question to a matter of political debate strips it of meaning, and turns it into a caricature of itself. If we are to face the issues that the twenty-first century will bring us, then we must learn to grapple with scientific questions on their own terms, with a little modesty and a great deal of patience for nuance. Science refuses to be reduced to a talking point, and we must understand that if we are to have any chance of finding the truth.

Antarctica is a pretty good example of how global warming can’t be falsified. If it was melting away, it’s global warming. If it was gaining mass, global warming.

Since we know global warming is happening, anything that happens has to be global warming.

Unless something else is causing the changes, but then, you can say if it wasn’t for that, there would be global warming.

Or, and this is actually a real example, “when (insert other thing happening) stops happening, global warming will return”.

This is a sure fire debate winning point. No matter what is stopping the current global warming, when it stops stopping global warming, global warming will happen again, and probably worse than ever.

Nobody can refute this.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Nobody can refute you’re a troll.

[FXMastermind]

Speaking of that annoying south polar sea ice

Almost all of the sea ice that forms during the Antarctic winter melts during the summer, so scientists had assumed it never grew very thick. Previous studies suggested the ice was usually 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) thick, with a few rare spots up to 16 feet (5 meters) in thickness. The robot sub surveys showed the thickness was 4.6 to 18 feet (1.4 to 5.5 meters). The thickest ice was about 65 feet (20 meters) thick, in the Bellingshausen Sea, Maksym told Live Science.

Underwater Robot Makes Puzzling Find on Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness

It almost seems like it’s colder there. But, and this is science, since nobody actually knew what the ice was like before, the new measurements don’t mean much. For all we know, the ice used to be thicker than at present.

But damn, that is some surprising data.

[FXMastermind]

Wow, check this shit out.

“Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”

“Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”

Read more at: Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

While that is a bold new theory, that they found cooling since 2002 is spot on. If it is CfCs causing the enhanced greenhouse effect, as the paper theorizes, that would also explain why winter shows the most cooling. CfCs, like CO2, would show the most effect when the sun isn’t shining.

This might also explain (big maybe here) why winters were warming so much before, but now are cooling. In a sense, it would mean global warming was directly due to greenhouse gas emissions. Just not the CO2.

Wow, science is cray

[Skywatcher]

@FXMastermind

It actually says

The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906 and 2005, and the rate of temperature increase has nearly doubled in the last 50 years.

Why’d you leave off “Temperatures are certain to go up further”? :dubious:

[Skywatcher]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Nobody can refute you’re a troll.

There is the possibility of being disingenuous to the point of being indistinguishable from one.

[FXMastermind]

@Skywatcher

There is the possibility of being disingenuous to the point of being indistinguishable from one.

That is a very good observation. I think it was the disingenuous nature of the hacked emails that got my attention, which led to actually looking hard at the available data, which led to my skepticism about the global warming movement. Or rather the false claims being made, based on global warming.

Imagine if you heard the claim, concerning the Appalachian Trail

It’s had nine murders since 1937—about the same as you would get in many small towns.“

Let’s say that statement is true. (to the best of my knowledge it is) But then you read

This was correct, but a wee disingenuous. The AT [Appalachian Trail] had no murders in its first thirty-six years and nine in the past twenty-two. —Bill Bryson, A Walk in the Woods, 1999

Disingenuous Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Why would somebody make that claim? Why not tell the whole story?

[FXMastermind]

Hmm, the more I think about it, the more it really seems to be a major communication problem. While someone may be writing in an ingenious manner, it may appear as coming across as disingenuous. Which is strange, since one is not actuallky the opposite of the other. For example

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I should really be trying to be a good person, rather than mocking a douchbag on the internet.

It’s really hard to know if it’s sarcasm, or genuine.

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Wow! What am I doing with my life?

In fact, the assumption of sarcasm, the base assumption in most online conversations, makes even the most earnest and honest discussion seem like a snarky putdown.

Little wonder there may actually be a real belief that somebody repeating something said in good faith, comes across as insane, or trolling.

@Skywatcher

There is the possibility of being disingenuous to the point of being indistinguishable from one.

But what if somebody actually believes something false, and when they say it, they actually firmly believe they are 100% right, and nothing will sway them in any way? Is that trolling? Or just the human condition?

Like when we read these seemingly insane announcements about the fate of the entire world, it comes across as rabid insanity. But the people repeating them are actually sincere, they actually believe the world is doomed.

But it’s not some grizzly nutjob on the street with a sign, “The end is near”, but a respected scientists, or pundits, or bloggers, constantly preaching a message of dire consequences, or certain doom, of tipping points, of not being able to stop the disaster.

It’s death spirals and runaway warming, it’s the oceans rising and storms destroying like never before, it’s millions starving, or something, always bad news.

It certainly seems insane.

[FXMastermind]

For example

As the world struggles with how to deal with the slow motion apocalypse of global climate change

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/06/30/Toppling-Fossil-Fuel-Empire/

This is just an example of what is constantly being produced and spread by people, who probably are sincere, they actually believe their own bullshit, but they sound like insane people.

Our failure of imagination regarding the ever-increasing production and use of fossil fuels will, over time, kill billions of us and irreversibly change all life on the planet.

You couldn’t make this up.

the scientific community has been paying increasing attention to the possibility that at least some changes will be abrupt, perhaps crossing a threshold or ‘tipping point’ to change so quickly that there will be little time to react."

It’s like a preacher.

The mega-corporations that peddle fossil fuels and effectively sponsor climate change and the melting of the ice caps are not an “industry.” They are a plague. And indeed their impact is already tantamount to a plague – the fastest rate of species extinction since the end of the dinosaurs – and will over the next hundred years kill exponentially more people than all the plagues in world history combined.

There is an enemy, but it’s not of course, the fossil fuel using author of course.

if we don’t begin trying to imagine controlling the private fossil fuel empire it will never happen. And if it doesn’t happen, we condemn our grandchildren and their grandchildren to an unimaginable dystopia.

And there it is. If I was actually writing that sort of shit on the SDMB, it would sound like trolling. It couldn’t be serious.

But that exact shit is printed or blogged all the time, and they actually believe their own bullshit.

Half of Americans Think Climate Change Is a Sign of the Apocalypse

[FXMastermind]

Now Europe's biggest glacier falls to global warming

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

Now Europe's biggest glacier falls to global warming | Environment | The Guardian

I was going to point out the idiocy of that claim from 2000, which of course never happened. But I got distracted.

@Blake

So Lobohan’s argument is that since his alarmist predictions are clearly right, any discussion that assumes they might be wrong is clearly the work of an imbecile.

@Lobohan

No, I’m saying that the vast, vast majority of scientists think that there is a danger. We should take them seriously, factoring the level of confidence we have into the equation.

Warmer Arctic Climate May Raise Ocean Levels
LOS ANGELES, May 30

(A.A.P.).—Mysterious warming of the Arctic climate held a potential threat to people living in lowlands, Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said yesterday.
Dr. Ahlmann was speaking at the geo-physical Institute of the University of California.
He said an increase in the climate was manifesting itself steadily, and melting the Arctic ice regions, and the major Greenland icecap.

31 May 1947 - Warmer Arctic Climate May Raise Ocean Levels - Trove?
That sounds fucking scary as hell.

If these ice areas continued melting at the present rate, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions, and people living in lowlands along ocean shores would be
inundated, he said.
Dr. Ahlmann said that temperatures in the Arctic had increased 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900, an “enormous” rise from the scientific standpoint.

Flashback to 1947 - Arctic Climate's Alarming Change | HotWhopper And that was in 1947.

But since then, well there is just so much more.

Like the discovery of an Arctic haze full of hydrocarbons and dry cleaning chemicals, shit like Perfluoroethane and Freon, maybe some Carbon tetrachloride and Trichloroethane. Potent greenhouse gases. A shit ton of it.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cAUgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9WQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3442%2C3961314

I love the phrase “among other operations”, when describing the witches brew of toxic and extremely long lived greenhouse gases, found in a thick haze over the arctic. (1983) Some of that shit is 12,000 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat, and lasts at least 10,000 years in the atmosphere.

I was going to link to the jetstream causing cold winters story, but that arctic haze story really caught my eye.

Gee, I wonder if, maybe, just fucking maybe, the huge fucking amount of pollution found over the arctic has anything to do with the climate changing?

Well, you know what DOW and DUPONT always say, you can’t ever be sure, so don’t fucking sue us.

But goddamn, Fluoroform. There’s some just nasty as fuck shit, hanging around, destroying ozone and warming the goddamn atmosphere.

Dear Klara,

Not too surprising… Fluoride is called the “protected pollutant”. Hardly anybody is aware of what it does to our health and our environment.

http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/environ/enews/fluoroform.htm

You got that fucking right. 14,800 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2

Ironically, only in the early weeks of 1998, following a re-analysis of the archived air samples collected at Cape Grim on the north west coast of Tasmania, was it discovered that the atmosphere probably contains 135 000 ton’s of fluoroform, a previously unnoticed greenhouse gas with a global warming potential some 10 000 times greater than that of carbon dioxide, although of course it is present in much smaller quantities.

Nevertheless, scientists in the University of East Anglia in the UK calculate that the current volume of fluoroform in the atmosphere has a global warming potential of 1.6 billion ton’s of carbon dioxide, or three times the annual emissions of carbon dioxide in Britain. Fluoroform is said to be increasing at the rate of 5 per cent each year so that it cannot be ignored.

The connection with refrigeration is that fluoroform, HFC-23, unfortunately is a waste byproduct of the manufacture of HCFC-22. It is used for a variety of purposes in its own right in industry including the lubrication of computer disks. Ironically again, the information became available just after the intergovernmental meeting in late 1997 at Kyoto, Japan, so that the agreement on practices to limit the release of greenhouse gases reached at that meeting, of necessity completely ignored this newly-discovered danger. This was Grim news in more ways than one.

Yeah, no shit.

And guess what? There is way more of that fucking shit now than there was then. The new Freon that is friendly to ozone? Well, there’s just so much more of it being put into the air now. But since it isn’t considered an ozone killer, just fucking fill the world with that shit. Add some other greenhouse gas to it and fill er up. Just don’t ask us to give up air conditioning, or anything else Freon allows.

Because fuck the planet, as long as we are comfortable now.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Colibri

Troll, troll, troll away!

Indeed.

[Mosier]

bump