The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: rangerrebew on August 09, 2013, 08:13:47 pm
-
This is the third evidence I have provided showing the ilk of Algore and Diane Feinstein are not interested in facts, only scare tactics used to tax people even more. :terror: It has also shown that the "settled science" of the liberal whack heads is bunk. :chairbang:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/global_warming_melts_away.html
-
This is the third evidence I have provided showing the ilk of Algore and Diane Feinstein are not interested in facts, only scare tactics used to tax people even more. It has also shown that the "settled science" of the liberal whack heads is bunk.
I think the global cooling scenario in your other thread is more likely. That would be a real disaster, unlike global warming which would be beneficial or benign.
At least these libs are so stupid that they constantly get their 'predictions' wrong. If they ever got one right, can you imagine the tyranny that would result?
-
The facts are that the supposed "global warming" phenomenon is not global in nature; it is, in fact, very regional and confined to the far northern part. While certainly important, such a regionalized warming trend can be helpful: storms become less violent because of a smaller temperature gradient, northern land masses become more viable for agriculture and food production (keep in mind, Grande Prairie, Alberta, a farm town in the north of the province, is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada) and, in general, warmer climates lead to greater biodiversity (you see a lot more diverse life in a rainforest than you do in the tundra).
The claims that we are well warmer than we should be are suspect-- even now, after one of the coldest late winters in recent memory, the data dummies are claiming it's above average.
The blaming of CO2 is suspect-- their most famous CO2 observations come from on top of an active volcano and continues to report steadily rising figures despite recorded emissions going down.
What makes anyone think we should trust the same voices parroting these talking points with the supposed solution, especially since they claim it has been hundreds of years in the making?
-
The average temperature doesn't change. The extremes do. There is certainly evidence of a small climate shift. CO2 may or may not be involved (it was .033% when I was at school, it is now .04% so there has been an increase.) The polar caps are smaller, in the main. The sun is prepping for it's field shift, which means increased output.
-
The salient point, however, is not whether or not the global mean temperature is increasing or decreasing, it is whether or not human activity is driving any such increase.
-
Given the increase in the mean solar output over the last cycle, I would tentatively say no. There may be a small effect due to deforestation, but I would not consider it major.
What does concern me is something odd, which has so far not been studied. It is known that urban areas are heat traps. Concrete and tarmac may be slow to heat up, but they are even slower to cool down. In the bad old days, it used to be that the particulates would regulate the temperature (at the cost of being able to breathe comfortably). With those gone, thanks to clean air initiatives, the cities provide localized hot spots and change weather patterns.
-
Let us not forget about the "scientists" who are making lots of money "proving" AGL is a real phenomenon. :whistle:
-
Given the increase in the mean solar output over the last cycle, I would tentatively say no. There may be a small effect due to deforestation, but I would not consider it major.
What does concern me is something odd, which has so far not been studied. It is known that urban areas are heat traps. Concrete and tarmac may be slow to heat up, but they are even slower to cool down. In the bad old days, it used to be that the particulates would regulate the temperature (at the cost of being able to breathe comfortably). With those gone, thanks to clean air initiatives, the cities provide localized hot spots and change weather patterns.
Related to that is whether the measuring stations used have been adjusted to take increased urbanization into account. If you have a measuring station that was originally built in a forested, unbuilt area, that is now on the edge of a built-up urban area containing no trees, then the temperature readings will have gone up simply because of the heat captured, then radiated back, by the concrete and tarmac; they would not reflect the broader global temperature and if unadjusted would give false, higher, temperature readings.
-
Given the increase in the mean solar output over the last cycle, I would tentatively say no. There may be a small effect due to deforestation, but I would not consider it major.
What does concern me is something odd, which has so far not been studied. It is known that urban areas are heat traps. Concrete and tarmac may be slow to heat up, but they are even slower to cool down. In the bad old days, it used to be that the particulates would regulate the temperature (at the cost of being able to breathe comfortably). With those gone, thanks to clean air initiatives, the cities provide localized hot spots and change weather patterns.
While the development of urban areas has created localized "heat islands", the American land mass covered by forests has actually increased rather than decreased since 1960, and has remained stable since 1900.1 It has been theorized that the measurable increases in surface temperatures during the past century are exclusively due to urban development in areas around temperature sensors, as well as the replacement of sensors formally located in rural areas with ones disproportionally sited at airport weather stations, and thus subject to the effects of both tarmac heating and jet exhaust.
As to the present solar activity cycle, it has been the weakest in recent history, and is already trending downward.2
1
(http://0.tqn.com/d/forestry/1/0/m/l/forest_region_acres.JPG)
2
(http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif)
-
While the development of urban areas has created localized "heat islands", the American land mass covered by forests has actually increased rather than decreased since 1960, and has remained stable since 1900.1 It has been theorized that the measurable increases in surface temperatures during the past century are exclusively due to urban development in areas around temperature sensors, as well as the replacement of sensors formally located in rural areas with ones disproportionally sited at airport weather stations, and thus subject to the effects of both tarmac heating and jet exhaust.
As to the present solar activity cycle, it has been the weakest in recent history, and is already trending downward.2
1
(http://0.tqn.com/d/forestry/1/0/m/l/forest_region_acres.JPG)
2
(http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif)
America is one country. The increase in forestation - well documented - is counterbalanced by the deforestation in South America and Africa. The imbalance is why I will accept a small change in climate due to that.
-
The truth is very inconvenient for the global warming crowd.
Therefore they will declare it to be lies and ignore it.
-
The truth is very inconvenient for the global warming crowd.
Therefore they will declare it to be lies and ignore it.
Of course. Why let a few pesky facts get in the way of a juggernaut political narrative?
-
Of course. Why let a few pesky facts get in the way of a juggernaut political narrative?
It occurred to me this morning that the key signature of our post-modern times is a vocal disregard for fact in conflict with belief.
The result is an atonal cacophony of sound intended to drown out dissonant voices, as promoted by people who go through life as deaf as posts to truth.
-
On a semi-related note... I was reading about Svalbard, the extreme far-north archipelago, the other day.
Wikipedia has a little graph purporting to show the climate change in the archipelago the past 100 years or so. The problem is that the graph is in fact bunk. For one, they changed the location of the observing station in 1972, and the new station registered a full three degrees lower than the one before it. Second, they slap regression lines on the graphs, both of which point upward. The problem is that the pre-1972 line clearly shows a trend downward in the 50 years or so prior (offset by some warming at the start of the 20th century; the trend looked kind of like the top of an oval). So whoever made this graph-- I'm not kidding here-- adjusted the pre-1972 numbers down two degrees and the post-1972 numbers up a degree so that the (wrong) regression lines would match up.
It amazes me how these so-called scientists can get away with such blatant con-artistry.
-
On a semi-related note... I was reading about Svalbard, the extreme far-north archipelago, the other day.
Wikipedia has a little graph purporting to show the climate change in the archipelago the past 100 years or so. The problem is that the graph is in fact bunk. For one, they changed the location of the observing station in 1972, and the new station registered a full three degrees lower than the one before it. Second, they slap regression lines on the graphs, both of which point upward. The problem is that the pre-1972 line clearly shows a trend downward in the 50 years or so prior (offset by some warming at the start of the 20th century; the trend looked kind of like the top of an oval). So whoever made this graph-- I'm not kidding here-- adjusted the pre-1972 numbers down two degrees and the post-1972 numbers up a degree so that the (wrong) regression lines would match up.
It amazes me how these so-called scientists can get away with such blatant con-artistry.
Perhaps the regression line(s) are as they are because they did the regression after they "normalized" the two sets of data. It seems to me that this is a little like taking an apple and an orange, painting them both blue, and then declaring that you can now compare apples to oranges.