Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Warming: Where Is The Harm?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    It doesn't matter, if the presenter has rigged the data falsely and continuously. The "climate changers" want us to ruin our industrial base, while countries like China won't follow the new pollution rules. They have yet to prove anthropic climate change.
    but we have models!!!! they prove AGW!!!! Just ask beagle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    Funny that I'm the only one of us posting research papers from the primary scientific literature, ain't it?

    The blue part of the chart was the real measured data. It was from this paper



    From the paper:



    All the data up to 2006 was based on historical dendrochronological records.
    well if it was real measured precipitation then there is no way it can go negative, huh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    It doesn't matter, if the presenter has rigged the data falsely and continuously. The "climate changers" want us to ruin our industrial base, while countries like China won't follow the new pollution rules. They have yet to prove anthropic climate change.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    HMS, those stats for global precipitation rates over a 30 year period came from this paper.
    Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    As I said in post 40 - projections and charts are pretty much meaningless in the face of measurable changes in climate zones.
    These guys are heavy into reality denial. No amount of data will change their views because God gave them the Earth to use and abuse as they please.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Translation: "I still got nothing. But I am really good at regurgitating the party line"

    I am sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW supporters sites with all sorts of manipulated data. Lying for their cause is what they do.

    Gee that was easy.

    --

    So, how about producing a chart of the actual rainfall (not TRENDS) measured in the last 100 years in California? Hmmm? Your chart said "precipitation" not "trends". And you claimed it was the actual data. Apparently it wasn't. So... where's the real measured data?
    Funny that I'm the only one of us posting research papers from the primary scientific literature, ain't it?

    The blue part of the chart was the real measured data. It was from this paper

    Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America
    Schwalm et al
    Nature Geoscience 5, 551–556 (2012)

    Abstract: Fossil fuel emissions aside, temperate North America is a net sink of carbon dioxide at present. Year-to-year variations in this carbon sink are linked to variations in hydroclimate that affect net ecosystem productivity. The severity and incidence of climatic extremes, including drought, have increased as a result of climate warming. Here, we examine the effect of the turn of the century drought in western North America on carbon uptake in the region, using reanalysis data, remote sensing observations and data from global monitoring networks. We show that the area-integrated strength of the western North American carbon sink declined by 30–298 Tg C  yr−1 during the 2000–2004 drought. We further document a pronounced drying of the terrestrial biosphere during this period, together with a reduction in river discharge and a loss of cropland productivity. We compare our findings with previous palaeoclimate reconstructions and show that the last drought of this magnitude occurred more than 800 years ago. Based on projected changes in precipitation and drought severity, we estimate that the present mid-latitude carbon sink of 177–623 Tg C yr−1 in western North America could disappear by the end of the century.
    From the paper:

    For the 800 -2006 period we used summer PDSI reconstructed from a network of dendrochronological records in western North America. We first averaged all grid points in the study domain across the full five-year period to quantify the severity of the turn of the century drought. We then applied this threshold We then applied this threshold to the full 1,205-year record to estimate the amount of similar events in the past, that is, a similar event matched or exceeded (had a larger negative value) for at least one five-year period.
    All the data up to 2006 was based on historical dendrochronological records.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    I'm sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW denier sites with all sorts of manipulated data on short term trends. Lying for their cause is what they do. When you can present something from the primary scientific literature on rainfall in the US west over the last 100 years let me know.

    For the one-eyed science illiterate - you can have negative trends in rainfall, in temperature, in any physically measurable parameter. Geez...
    HMS, those stats for global precipitation rates over a 30 year period came from this paper. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2.514/abstract

    Abstract

    Decadal trends of global precipitation are examined using the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP), Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP), and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reanalysis data. The decadal trends of global precipitation average diverge a decreasing trend for the CMAP data, a flat trend for the GPCP data, and an increasing trend for the reanalysis data. The decreasing trend for the CMAP data is associated with the reduction in high precipitation. The flat trend for the GPCP data is related to the offset between the increase in high precipitation and the decrease in low precipitation. The increasing trend for the reanalysis data corresponds to the increase in high precipitation.
    The fact is there is no consensus on this. A fact that you don't like or will not admit.

    And this link has the actual NOAA graphs:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013...tion-datasets/
    Last edited by seer; 07-01-2014, 03:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    As I said in post 40 - projections and charts are pretty much meaningless in the face of measurable changes in climate zones.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    I'm sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW denier sites with all sorts of manipulated data on short term trends. Lying for their cause is what they do. When you can present something from the primary scientific literature on rainfall in the US west over the last 100 years let me know.

    For the one-eyed science illiterate - you can have negative trends in rainfall, in temperature, in any physically measurable parameter. Geez...
    Translation: "I still got nothing. But I am really good at regurgitating the party line"

    I am sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW supporters sites with all sorts of manipulated data. Lying for their cause is what they do.

    Gee that was easy.

    --

    So, how about producing a chart of the actual rainfall (not TRENDS) measured in the last 100 years in California? Hmmm? Your chart said "precipitation" not "trends". And you claimed it was the actual data. Apparently it wasn't. So... where's the real measured data?

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    I'm sure you can find plenty of wingnut AGW denier sites with all sorts of manipulated data on short term trends. Lying for their cause is what they do. When you can present something from the primary scientific literature on rainfall in the US west over the last 100 years let me know.

    For the one-eyed science illiterate - you can have negative trends in rainfall, in temperature, in any physically measurable parameter. Geez...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Isn't there a better way? More coal plants?
    yeah. And I am willing to go buy a gas guzzling, oil burning, smokemobile to help out.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    We need more cow farts!
    Isn't there a better way? More coal plants?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Records show that deserts are expanding - though not in a smooth line - the overall trend is one of expansion.
    So, are there any records showing that other environments are expanding?
    Rainfall in semi arid areas is reducing, particularly in autumn (fall), and the zones are expanding and shifting away from the equator.
    But that is an over-all pattern - in some areas semi arid zones are expanding but not shifting, in others shifting but not expanding, in yet other areas it is both. Over all - semi arid area is increasing.
    Tropical climates are showing a modest annual average expansion.
    Mediterranean climates shifting poleward - already altering the viability of some grape growing areas.
    Temperate climate zones - shifting poleward. Increase of average 2 degrees centigrade will turn large parts of these areas into desert.
    So - graphs or no graphs, projections or no projections ... observed trends show climate change. Moreover, most food groups (if I remember rightly) depend on temperate or Mediterranian climates. Those zones are the hardest hit in the short term.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Then we should accelerate warming?
    We need more cow farts!

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    A lot warmer leads to the kind of climates you are thinking of. A bit warmer and the climate gets drier. Whether global warming produces a major problem or not (in terms of actual rainfall) depends on how long it takes to go from a bit warmer to a lot warmer. Fast transition might be less of a problem than slow.
    Then we should accelerate warming?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
136 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X