Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED - » Forum Post by SivCorp

When people say that cold winter weather has nothing to do with the global climate, they aren't just blowing smoke up your ass. It is true. Regardless of the cause of global warming (natural or manmade), temperatures during winter months in a localized area have nothing to do with global climate. For example, a little bit ago this winter, a lot of the eastern US received extremely cold weather (ie, Florida reaching sub-freezing temperatures). Cold temperatures like this are simply due to shifts in the jet stream which has little to do with the global climate.

You could have Earth be 5 degrees celsius warmer than it is today and still have jet stream dips like we did earlier that will send temperate climate regions into cold temperatures. It happens all the time. But, jet stream changes that happen on a daily/weekly basis has little to do with global climate. Because generally when the jet stream dips toward the equator in one region at the same time it is extending toward the poles in another region which blows warm air into colder regions and in turn, they are receiving warmer weather. So on a global scale, the temperatures don't shift at all because of jet stream movement. All jet stream movement does is shift for a short period where the warm and cold air is going. That is simply natural variability in the Earth's weather system and has nothing to do with global warming.

So if you are having an extremely cold winter this year, you can be sure that somewhere else someone is having a very warm winter. It happens.

Clonmac

You posted a graph of data generated from the grace twins. I recall seeing that graph in December doing some research on issues raised by this thread. I could not make head nor tail of what it purported to suggest. The title of the pic, "Antarctic Ice Mass" does not properly correspond to the data displayed which shows a change from about x gigatonnes to -x gigatonnes.

The graph seems to have been labeled incorrectly. This link at jpl nasa offers some explanation of the data in the pic at top right (a very similar graph to the one you posted). Yet according to the jpl explanation the grace satellites observed an incredible mass expansion of the antarctic ice field prior to the aproximately equal incredible loss of mass used to label the graph.

Quoting GenuineD,

reply 1227

Clonmac

You posted a graph of data generated from the grace twins. I recall seeing that graph in December doing some research on issues raised by this thread. I could not make head nor tail of what it purported to suggest. The title of the pic, "Antarctic Ice Mass" does not properly correspond to the data displayed which shows a change from about x gigatonnes to -x gigatonnes.

The graph seems to have been labeled incorrectly. This link at jpl nasa offers some explanation of the data in the pic at top right (a very similar graph to the one you posted). Yet according to the jpl explanation the grace satellites observed an incredible mass expansion of the antarctic ice field prior to the aproximately equal incredible loss of mass used to label the graph.

Both graphs are labeled correctly, but the one I posted is a better representation of antarctic ice. One shows ice loss in regards to mass while the other is measured in volume. There has been a lot of new snow fall in the recent years in Antarctica which is why the volume went up in the graph (the one in your article) during 2005. But, that is new snow fall and is not as dense as the compact ice deep below. This is why volume can flucuate much more quickly, but over the same time frame can show the same trend as mass. But, on a short time frame (the kind of time frame that the GRACE study has been around for) mass is a better indicator overall. There will always be fluctuations in snowfall, but if the ice continues to melt, then the snow fall won't really amount to much more new ice each year.

Coincidentally, both the volume and mass measurements have very close numbers associated with them which could amount to the confusion you had between the two graphs. The change rate between mass and volume is about the same. It is losing volume at around 80-150 cubic km per year. At the same time, the rate at which it is losing mass is around 50-115 Gt/yr. That is why the graphs look fairly identical in their axis numbering and the deviation used is the same, but the plot points are slightly different.

Hope that helps.

Just because Earth is warming (for whatever the reason) doesn't mean there won't be cold climates anywhere. So if you are tired of snow where ever you live, then I may suggest moving south.

Like Dallas, Texas.

I know, cheap shot.

Both graphs are labeled correctly, but the one I posted is a better representation of antarctic ice. One shows ice loss in regards to mass while the other is measured in volume.

It's still in mass. It's being measured in volume at a specific density, that of solid ice. The Grace twins can't do anything but measure mass, and only indirectly. They're working off changes in gravity distribution, and may or may not be horribly inaccurate as a result, but they're probably close. That massive spike at the end was the seasonal gain in ice, it had one hell of a cold winter down there in 2005. It was also rapidly lost afterwards. The problem with using this as proof of global warming, is that Antarctica has been losing mass all along, it's nothing new. That it loses it faster at the height of the warm cycle isn't exactly news. If it's still losing it at this rate 30 years from now at the bottom of the cold cycle, then we have news.

For some reason the enlarged picture shows a longer scale, for those of you utterly perplexed over the rise...

Quoting psychoak,

reply 1229

It's still in mass. It's being measured in volume at a specific density, that of solid ice. The Grace twins can't do anything but measure mass, and only indirectly. They're working off changes in gravity distribution, and may or may not be horribly inaccurate as a result, but they're probably close. That massive spike at the end was the seasonal gain in ice, it had one hell of a cold winter down there in 2005. It was also rapidly lost afterwards. The problem with using this as proof of global warming, is that Antarctica has been losing mass all along, it's nothing new. That it loses it faster at the height of the warm cycle isn't exactly news. If it's still losing it at this rate 30 years from now at the bottom of the cold cycle, then we have news.

For some reason the enlarged picture shows a longer scale, for those of you utterly perplexed over the rise...

Volume isn't mass (which I know you know, I'm just stating). But, you're right, the GRACE project measures mass indirectly. They use other calculations when coming up with the volume measurements, but the mass data comes straight from their satellite gravity measurement data.

But, the spike in volume in 2005 is more related to precipitation than it is to the temperature. While the temperatures were cold in 2005 (in the antarctic), there was also a lot of precipitation in Antarctica that year. That is why the mass didn't spike, but volume did. New snowfall isn't as dense so volume goes up, but mass stayed relatively the same. The antarctic summer that year was also very warm in contrast to its winter that same year. New snowfall melts quicker too, so the next summer all that new snowfall melts off. So the new snow from that year never amounted to any new ice gained and thus it never gained much mass overall that year. Volume was another story. That's why the GRACE study is so unique and important, because it can measure mass fairly accurately and not just volume.

And ya, I noticed that about the graph image in that article. It looks like the top right image is only a snippet of the whole graph (there is no axes shown in the snippet).

The same overly large spike in ice mass appears in both graphs. Yours is on a larger scale, both in change and length of measurements. There is zero difference between the data presented on the two graphs. It's not measuring the volume of the snowfall, it can't. Idiotic wording on the website aside.

Quoting psychoak,

reply 1231

The same overly large spike in ice mass appears in both graphs. Yours is on a larger scale, both in change and length of measurements. There is zero difference between the data presented on the two graphs. It's not measuring the volume of the snowfall, it can't. Idiotic wording on the website aside.

There is a large difference between the data. The difference being that one's unit of measurement is km3 (volume) and the other is Gt (mass). They're measuring two completely different things. I know it isn't measuring snowfall. I never said it did measure snowfall. Eitherway, both graphs are correct. Just be careful how large spikes in volume are interpreted. It is best just to look at ice changes in mass, not volume.

Quoting clonmac,

reply 1228

Hope that helps.

Thanks for responding.

One of the things about the graph is that the graph's data suggests that the y axis is change in mass and not the total mass as the graph title indicates (the mass measure dropped into negative values implying that the mass axis was change of mass and not total mass).

The problem is that ExxonMobil, Texaco/Chevron and Saudi Arabia wouldn't like that very much and in this and every other country on the planet money gets what money wants. However peak oil is not all that far off and when it occurs there will be no other choice. The good news is that we pretty much have all the technical capability we need to pull it off although because we lack the balls we'll have to wait until it really starts to hurt before we start down that road and due to the long lead time of nuclear there will be a very painful transistion.

Nevermind all the ecogeeks and environerds that object to nuke plants because of the radioactive waste produced. Here's a list on Wiki of anti nuke groups, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_United_States . Don't see your favorite bogeymen on that list, but I haven't researched every single one of them, perhaps they secretly back one or more?

I asked for an explanation of what was so onerous about it but have yet to receive any response whatsoever.

Try this one on for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

He admits that cap and trade will cause energy prices to skyrocket. As you know not only will this effect the cost of energy, but the cost of everything produced in this country.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are at their highest levels in millions of years. The concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 385 parts per million (ppm) in 2008, an increase of 105 ppm above preindustrial levels. Concentrations have been increasing at an average rate of 1.9 ppm per year during this decade, significantly faster than the rate of increase during the 1990s.

Some possibly interesting data here:

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/forecast_co2_line.jpg

and here:

If correct, and I will try to find out more about this site(veracity) it would seem the that the greatest threat to the global climate is developing countries. And according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol China accounts for more than a fifth of global GHG emissions.

It would seem to me then that the US would not be able to underproduce GHG enough to offset China's develoement. While this doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up our act, I can't see how it would impact GHG lvls without something being done about China. I especially like this bit "Studies of carbon leakage also suggest that nearly a quarter of China's emissions result from production of goods exported to developed countries". "We wouldn't polute so much if you didn't buy so much of our stuff!" Way to dodge responsibility. Must be taking lessons from the US govt.

The numbers are guesswork, pure guesswork. It does illustrate the basic problem though. We can't do a damn thing to stop them from rising, let alone reduce them, without putting most of the world into abject poverty. Something most of the world isn't likely to agree with.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits:

There has been no global warming since 1995

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

If CO2 is an ever-increasingly major contributor to global warming, then the past 15 years should have seen the most dramatic rise in temps - also ever increasing to the present.

No data-set shows that, except for the 'hockey-stick', that I have yet seen.

The fact that some ice is still melting is not really a good indicator. It simply means that the earth has warmed to a point where a lot of the ice will melt.

Mashadar,

I really like how those above graphs are laid out, by the way. The first segment shows a 15 year period, then a one year segment, then a 4 year segment, then the rest as (projected) 5 year segments.

And both graphs show the emissions from the U.S. decreasing from around 2003-2004 to the present. It seems to me that we are already 'cleaning up our act' - without any stinkin' Climate Bill that will totally tank the economy.

LOL, always assuming the data is correct of course. But of course, MMGW isn't about saving the planet, it' s about control. Control of the people, and the way we live.

And what do you guys think of that video of Barack? Great stuff, love the way he throws us under the bus for his agenda

Id say in essence no one truly knows. Has anyone even forseen this winter? Nope.

What it doesnt change tho is that we have a basic responsibility to keep starship earth in order.

Like stopping to cut down our air supply units in brasil for instance.

Such highly schizophrenic acts among others have to end

regardless what any models say.

Like stopping to cut down our air supply units in brasil for instance.

Such highly schizophrenic acts among others have to end

Oh yeah! Especially when the reason for chopping them down is to gain more ground for growing plants which produce the basic ingredient for so called "bio diesel"!

Want proof that CO2 causes a rise in surface temerature? Go spend a weekend on venus...

We don't understand our own climate, but this guy thinks he knows Venus's.

Hey Mashadar,

Have you put those graphs next to ones with the current Oxygen output of the world? I'm curious to see if the rise in CO2 has caused an equal and opposite reaction in O2...

Global warming is a misnomer that most climatologists will not use anymore.

Climate change is real though, and human cause climate change has more facts behind it than not.

Even if we suppose climate change isn't being caused mostly by our actions, it does not mean we should continue to pollute our environment. Cutting CO2 emissions, and creating cleaner energy, will have many more ecological impacts besides just climate change. It's just that climate change is the most dangerous outcome that can (possibly) happen if we continue on the same path.

Even if we suppose climate change isn't being caused mostly by our actions, it does not mean we should continue to pollute our environment.

Reasonable pollution reduction is highly desirable, and not particularly expensive. Needlessly raising the cost of energy consumption through creation of a bureaucratic behemoth to control/regulate CO2 (to the enrichment of 'carbon middlemen') is not, all the more so if CO2 ain't the problem.

Want proof that CO2 causes a rise in surface temerature? Go spend a weekend on venus...

To think we were getting bashed for pointing out the abject stupidity of comments like this earlier on, and it gets spewed forth again...

Since it's already been done, in this thread, WRONG will have to suffice. Do something brilliant, like look up the atmospheric properties of Venus. It shows the opposite, that the minuscule CO2 levels here can't possibly have any noticeable effect on the climate.

Quoting SpaghettiMon,

reply 1244

Climate change is real though, and human cause climate change has more facts behind it than not.

The first part of your statement is true. The second part is not true. The second part is the reason there is so much skepticism as the ones claiming what you claimed have made very effort to not allow anyone to check up on their work or data. And in some cases falsified it.

What do we know? Weather changes. Climate changes. That is about it. We do not know if the current changes are mostly, partly or very little caused by man. We dont know if the changes are unprecedented. We do not know what the trend is (yes eventhat much) due to monkeying with the data.

So given what we know, all we can say is climate change is real. Is it bad? We don't know. Is it accelerating? over what period of time? As long as you have politicians driving the agenda, we will never know the truth. Time to fire them and let scientists do the research so we can find out.

Step 1: Identify an undeniable fact of existence (i.e. the climate changes)

Step 2: Link this fact with human behavior (i.e. humans cause the climate to change)

Step 3: Grab all the power and money you can in order to control human behavior (i.e. Cap & Trade)

The facts supporting the link in step 2 are irrelevant as long as a consensus is reached that the science is settled. Oh, and never document suppression of the data and peer reviews where hackers may find this evidence and make it public.

Rest assured that al gore will never ever ever have to give up his private jet. You will have to drive in a pure piece of crap electric golf car, but al gore will still have his private jet and his mansions that spew more carbon dioxide than 1000 of us. The elites are all exempt as they have been throughout all of history.

Amen, ST.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

Scientists no longer in it for the science...