still denying global warming?

And three years later...arctic ice still shows no sign of disappearing.

icecover_current.png

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Earth has not warmed (trended up) over the last 16 years. If all of the North Pole sea ice melted, it wouldn't even raise the sea level at all.
 
Care to explain why sea level rises?

There is one of evidence about climate change exist. :dunno:
 
TXgolfer said:
Nice. You were correct all along.
Click to expand...

Of course. It was real simple. Whenever you have people go the obscene lengths of gloom and doom alarmism with the Chicken Little syndrome then you know something's not right. Plus, the ability to understand real science helps.
 
Phoenix23 said:
Of course Global warming exists! Just look at the proof!
788787255_1995102.gif
Click to expand...

lol, I have give some of my thought on climate change and sea level rise is one of my majority concern.

The global warming is heavily biased and controversial, so I don't follow any small articles about global warming anymore and they don't have any credible. I continue to check any major media about climate change.

If global warming isn't exist so sea level shouldn't rise or stabilized. :dunno:
 
Foxrac said:
lol, I have give some of my thought on climate change and sea level rise is one of my majority concern.

The global warming is heavily biased and controversial, so I don't follow any small articles about global warming anymore and they don't have any credible. I continue to check any major media about climate change.

If global warming isn't exist so sea level shouldn't rise or stabilized. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Foxrac, I have been reading some interesting stuff by a scientist who got his PhD from MIT. He also worked as a scientist for the Department of Defense. He studied this:

Ancient rainforest discovered under Antarctica


A few months ago, a Russian oil drilling company was able to pick raw wood pulp off of a drill (wood that had been frozen, not petrified) and later, seeds were found. The seeds were also frozen, completely preserved. They were planted, and it was a tropical fern.

Supposedly, that tropical fern had grown millions and millions of years ago, when Antartica used to be a tropical forest, but the fern that grew from the seed was the exact same genus of plant and tropical fern that grows today.

edited:

Apparently, they changed the age of the seeds to 32,000 years (initially they were claiming several millions of years old)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120221-oldest-seeds-regenerated-plants-science/

The oldest plant ever to be regenerated has been grown from 32,000-year-old seeds—beating the previous recordholder by some 30,000 years. (Related: "'Methuselah' Tree Grew From 2,000-Year-Old Seed.")

A Russian team discovered a seed cache of Silene stenophylla, a flowering plant native to Siberia, that had been buried by an Ice Age squirrel near the banks of the Kolyma River (map). Radiocarbon dating confirmed that the seeds were 32,000 years old.

The mature and immature seeds, which had been entirely encased in ice, were unearthed from 124 feet (38 meters) below the permafrost, surrounded by layers that included mammoth, bison, and woolly rhinoceros bones
Click to expand...
 
I try and stay out of controversial things like this.. .politics, and trials over stupid S*** because I get WAY to pi***d off about them... So, I post stuff like that to ease my mind and break the tension. I'm well aware unfortunately what goes on in the world and the USA even worse... but I really try to keep my focus off it or I get super HULK SMASH ANGRY! =P Hehehe... Plus, I like skimpy Panties... ( wearing and viewing ) hehe... So, it makes me appreciate I'm not in the old day panties that look like pants. =p hehe
 
I know, I get so mad I will grab a bunch of European aerosol cans of hairspray that contain chlorofluorocarbons and run around my neighborhood spraying things at random.
 
Another red flag, name calling such as "climate deniers" is a dead giveaway that they have nothing solid to hold on to. In desperation they go the ad hominem route.
 
How climate deniers abuse statistics to mislead

rawImage.jpg

Climate deniers use a narrow window of data from 1998 to say that the Earth is not experiencing global warming. But 1998 was one of the hottest years on record due to an extraordinary El Niño and, since 2000, nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred. The narrow window of data doesn't reflect the decades of cooler years preceding it.

By James Temple

July 22, 2013

In 1998, the global mean temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 2012, it was 58.2 degrees.

That's a 0.1 degree decrease. Look, I just disproved global warming! Hummers for everyone!

As ridiculous as it sounds, that simplistic analysis is the basis for one of the most frequently cited critiques of climate science. Indeed, any time I write about global warming, an e-mail arguing that the globe hasn't heated in 15 years reliably lands in my in-box.

Those readers are probably taking their talking points from the many professional climate deniers who repeat this inaccuracy as often as possible, including in opinion pieces in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal.

"Warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO{-2} emissions have soared over this period," wrote Peter Ferrara, a director at the Heartland Institute, in a representative Forbes.com piece.

This conclusion isn't at all surprising from a conservative think tank that routinely goes to great lengths to sow doubts about the science of global warming in the public mind. The problem is that arriving at it requires ignoring everything but the two dots on a chart that, in isolation, seem to make their case.

The 1998 gambit

Let's start by looking at the data in question:
780x686.jpg


It becomes immediately obvious that this is a classic case of manipulating statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion, specifically by cherry-picking the start date. That red line that deniers are relying on doesn't actually conform to the shape of that chart.

If you want to know whether a climate change denier is attempting to mislead you, the first clue is the use of the year 1998. It was one of the hottest years on record thanks to an unusually strong El Niño.

"The 1998 spike caused by an extraordinary El Niño event has been statistically abused for a long time," said Reto Ruedy, a research associate at NASA, in an e-mail. "What appeared to be an extraordinary global temperature anomaly 15 years ago is now an expected occurrence and has been - within the margin of error - equaled 8 times since then."

In fact, he pointed out, the margin for error in these numbers is about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, so there's actually no statistical difference between the years 1998 and 2012.

Long-term trend

Start your analysis at the year 1999, or strip out the anomalous year of 1998, and suddenly you see a strong warming trend.

But there's no reason to do that. The truth is there's a huge amount of variability in the climate system; temperatures bounce up and down from year to year. It's messy stuff. That's why climate scientists care more about long-term trends, favoring at least 30-year cycles.

So let's look at that:
390x686.jpg


There's simply no questioning the trend line here. But let's zoom out even further:
410x686.jpg


Quite a different picture.

"When skeptics or deniers say look at this little graph that shows that temperatures are not warming anymore, they're misleading or misreading or both," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a research institute in Oakland.

Problematic plateau

Now it is true that some scientists acknowledge a decline in the rate of temperature increases in recent years, what some have dubbed the climate change plateau or slowdown. But nothing about that is particularly reassuring - or gets us off the hook for our skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions.

First off, consider the conditions we've witnessed during this period. Regardless of the rate of increase in temperatures, globally nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000.

"It would be absurd to use the hottest 10 or 15 years on record to argue that we don't need to worry about the Earth getting even hotter," said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution in an e-mail.

We're already living with the consequences of climate change, including more extreme weather events, melting ice caps, rising sea levels and more.

Caldeira said that one of three things is likely at work in the plateau: radiative forcing from carbon dioxide, which is essentially the amount of energy that the added CO{-2} prevents from escaping, is less than scientists thought; more energy is being absorbed by the oceans than previously believed; or more energy is escaping into space.

He said additional research is needed to know what's really under way, but if he were forced to bet, he'd go with the warming ocean. A handful of recent studies also point to the ocean, specifically the deep ocean, as the culprit.

Warming waters

The oceans absorbed about 90 percent of the heat added to the climate system during the last 50 years, according to research published in May in Geophysical Research Letters. And for some reason, the deep ocean became "much more strongly involved in the heat uptake after 1998," the report said.

That's bad news. Warmer oceans alter weather patterns, stir up more powerful storms and threaten all sorts of sea life. And as much attention as melting ice caps get for their role in rising sea levels, the other major cause is warmer water, which simply takes up more space.

Here's what the temperature picture looks like when you toss ocean warming into the mix:
1210x686.jpg


Feel reassured now?

"When you look at the bigger picture, warming hasn't stopped," Gleick said.

Good news, bad news

Some scientists do think there's a possibility that the climate system is slightly less sensitive to growing carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought. A report published in May in the journal Nature Geoscience looked at temperatures in the last decade and concluded that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" might fall into the lower part of earlier ranges.

It's almost odd to have to point this out, but if so, that is good news for the Earth and its species. It could mean a little more time to deal with the still incredibly abrupt changes under way in our climate system.

But no matter what deniers will make of such reports, it's not evidence that the globe has stopped warming, nor that we've sidestepped a gigantic problem that demands our immediate attention.

"Global temperatures have been increasing for decades," Caldeira said. "From a policy perspective, we have no choice but to transform our energy system into one that does not use the atmosphere as a waste dump."

To read more of The Chronicle's continuing coverage on the impacts of climate change, go to: Taking the heat - SFGate

James Temple is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. Dot-Commentary appears three days a week. E-mail: jtemple@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @jtemple

Source: How climate deniers abuse statistics to mislead - San Francisco Chronicle
 
Steinhauer said:
Are you a digital subscriber to SFChronicle? If so, can you please post the entire article so all of us can read it?

:ty:
Click to expand...

I copied and pasted - perfectly same as webpage that I read in link.

No, I'm not subscribed to SFChronicle and I just could read ay no charge.
 
kokonut said:
Another red flag, name calling such as "climate deniers" is a dead giveaway that they have nothing solid to hold on to. In desperation they go the ad hominem route.
Click to expand...

I don't even know how they came up with the term "climate deniers". You mean there are actually people who believe we live in a vacuum? like ... rain isn't really real? Plants and trees, and grass, and insects, and pollination, and tide and wind currents .. all just a figment of our collective imaginations?


I don't deny there is a climate .... :giggle:
 
kokonut said:
Another red flag, name calling such as "climate deniers" is a dead giveaway that they have nothing solid to hold on to. In desperation they go the ad hominem route.
Click to expand...

Not really, I posted the article with scientific statistic, but you probably choose to deny it.

Call you as climate change denier doesn't make you looks correct or fact.
 
Back
Top