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

  • #46
    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.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #47
      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, 551556 (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 30298 Tg C  yr−1 during the 20002004 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 177623 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.

      Comment


      • #48
        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.

        Comment


        • #49
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            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.

            Comment


            • #51
              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?

              Comment


              • #52
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.
                  If you don't have a definition of "climate," you're just producing wind. And too much hot air.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth Im after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    If you don't have a definition of "climate," you're just producing wind. And too much hot air.
                    There's no such thing as climate. It's all a conspiracy led by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to keep TrueChristianstm from their rightful place as Earth's slum landlords. Just ask the pirate.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Let's not reply to the beagle as long as it doesn't come up with a definition of "climate" that makes sense and seems helpful.
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth Im after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.
                        Ok, so a thirty year trend when man made Co2 has grown exponentially doesn't count. That is nonsense HM, if we did see a negative effect on global precipitation rates from AGW this is exactly where we should see it. The other real problem HM is that there is no consensus on the rate of precipitation. Three different studies come to three different conclusions - why should I believe that their long term trends are any more accurate?
                        Last edited by seer; 07-02-2014, 07:24 AM.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          There's no such thing as climate. It's all a conspiracy led by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to keep TrueChristianstm from their rightful place as Earth's slum landlords. Just ask the pirate.
                          Nobody is saying we should destroy our earth. But creating artificial restrictions just to satisfy political agendas disguised as "science" only serves to harm the economy.

                          But I suppose your philosophy is just "well so what if it isn't true? We still need to control x,y,z just in case"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Nobody is saying we should destroy our earth. But creating artificial restrictions just to satisfy political agendas disguised as "science" only serves to harm the economy.
                            Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see.

                            We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.

                            But I suppose your philosophy is just "well so what if it isn't true? We still need to control x,y,z just in case"
                            My philosophy is that real problems don't vanish if you stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't there. My philosophy is to accept reality and to work to solve the problem.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see.

                              We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.



                              My philosophy is that real problems don't vanish if you stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't there. My philosophy is to accept reality and to work to solve the problem.
                              The reality is that you believe anything the democrats tell you to believe. You have not shown us any actual "overwhelming scientific evidence" at all. All you have done is make claims, show us some chart that shows negative precipitation and is based on a computer model, and hand-waved away anything anyone else says as "wingnut" even though your "evidence" does not correspond with the actual recorded data.

                              You haven't even been able to answer one of seer's questions, or back up any of your claims, or even define "climate"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                The reality is that you believe anything the democrats tell you to believe. You have not shown us any actual "overwhelming scientific evidence" at all. All you have done is make claims, show us some chart that shows negative precipitation and is based on a computer model, and hand-waved away anything anyone else says as "wingnut" even though your "evidence" does not correspond with the actual recorded data.
                                "Tobacco smoke doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer, honest! That's just Democrat political lies!"



                                You haven't even been able to answer one of seer's questions, or back up any of your claims, or even define "climate"
                                Yeah, we know. It's all a big conspiracy to take your rum money. There's no evidence at all. There aren't thousands of scientific papers published every year with documenting the problem. Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world doesn't have a dedicated scientific publication Nature Climate Change. It's all Al Gore's lies.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, 08-02-2021, 08:31 PM
                                11 responses
                                54 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 08-02-2021, 07:14 PM
                                9 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-27-2021, 09:39 AM
                                34 responses
                                135 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-25-2021, 08:57 AM
                                0 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-23-2021, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X