[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

An inaccurate or dishonest reporting of the study and its findings. The study found that of the papers it examined, 67% did not take a position on global warming. And that of those papers that did take a position, over 97% took the position that man caused global warming. Only 0.7% rejected the position, and 0.3% were uncertain.

Those are the findings of the study. It is inaccurate to suggest or imply that 68% don't agree that humans cause AGW. You don't know why a position was not taken. It is clear that in any scientific paper that did take a position, almost all agree with the position that man causes AGW.

 

What is significant about the year 1998, that we should assess climate change relative to that year? Is it still insignificant relative to 1988, 1978, etc.?

 

I don't think you know how statistical modeling works.

The models attribute most of the warming to manmade co2 - it is "forcing". You act like these guys don't know what they are doing and are just looking at simple correlations in excel.

These trends happen over very very long periods of time and have different characteristics. Scientists have been able to rule out fluctuations in the earths motion, the solar output in the sun, and other factors as the cause for the current warming spell.

Many people complain that the models didn't predict certain cooling trends or ice coverage - so they are inaccurate. That's simply not true. The models are historically spot on - meaning they are accounting for the variables from observed data, but forecasting isn't the same thing. You can't predict el Nino and La Nina cycles which are also forcing variables in determining surface temps. We don't know when those will occur until after the fact which is why it's so hard.

But that doesn't mean they don't know how the variables interplay.

We are warming the Earth at an alarming rate. There is no dispute about this anymore amongst legit scientists. It's a matter of putting one's head in the sand or not.

Can we stop it? Probably not.

 

YOu should ready your own source - it doesn't say what you think it does.

It actually says it has been increasing since 1971.

You are just trying to find holes anyway you can manufacture them. The models already show where the increase is coming from. Why can't you accept the science?

 

I'm sure there were many points in Earth's history when the global temperature was hotter. So what? There is an undeniable spike in global temperatures over the last few hundred years which can not be explained by any known natural factors as far as I'm aware, and it happens to be occurring during a period when we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels. Sheer coincidence?

 

The term "unprecedented levels" that you have used here does not mean what you seem to think it means. In fact, temperature levels and CO2 levels have been quite a lot higher, than they are today. However, as far as CO2 levels having ever been very much lower, it is not clear when or if this has ever been the case.

As far as the spike in global temperatures, this can easily be explained.

The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.

Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.

So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.

 

I'd answer
1) Probably yes
2) Possibly yes
3) Probably no

 

I was referring to the rate at which we are adding CO2, not the absolute CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Just because the Earth had a warming period a 1000 years ago, that doesn't mean what we're seeing today is just the same thing. We need to try to understand why its getting warmer and if we have any role in it -- and the vast majority of climate scientists who have been studying this problem believe the answer to that is yes -- because this could end up being a serious threat to our future.

 

Haven't read through all the pages, but if you look at global temps over the last year, you see one little area of blue over North America with the Great Lakes in the middle. Everything else is warmer. The jet stream pattern over our continent has been screwed up the last two years and the West Coast has been much warmer and drier than average. Here in Oregon, the Cascades are running about 30% of snowpack this year. Folks are worried about the Crater Lake ecosystem, which depends on average of 40 feet of snow per year. January isn't technically over and the trees in my front yard are budding. I have yet to scrape ice off of my rig in the morning. It was 65 degrees a few days ago. OR, WA, and CA will be in drought again this year. Last year, farmers plowed under productive orchards because of lack of water and this year we will see more of the same. Food costs will go up. We are going to lose swaths of forests in the coming years because we are not getting cold enough in the winter to kill most of the bark beetles. We will have a longer fire season and bigger fires this summer.

Yeah,yeah, screw California and the west coast because they aren't red. Having grown up in Texas, I fully understand the provincialism, anti-intellectualism, and the desire to do anything that pisses the Liberals off on display here. But this is different than most issues. Really, do you guys think 2011 was something Texas will never see again? Are you so removed from the world, sitting in air conditioned rooms and riding in air conditioned cars, that you cannot see or feel the changes taking place?

This is the one thing I am a full-fledged pessimist on. We are so screwed.

 

Shoots a big hole through that thinking....

 

Clearly you only read what you want to read to try to debunk what you hope to debunk.

But it actually concludes the opposite:

 

NASA has subsequently come out and said there was actually only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year, and that only by 0.04 degrees. That is four one-hundredths of a degree. LOL.

And there were other more accurate measurements (which showed that this was not the hottest year on record), from satellites, that they apparently decided to overlook in the process of cherry-picking this pathetically small increase, of which there was actually a 62% chance that it really did not happen anyway.

But all that aside for a moment. Even if we just "believe" that this was the hottest year on record by four one-hundredths of a degree, what that really shows us is that temperatures have effectively been flat since 1998, which was the previous warmest year on record, as a four one-hundredth's degree increase is obviously not a material enough increase to justify announcing that the 18+ year "pause" has ended. Instead, it is a clear confirmation that the "pause" continues.

And it is another year where the warmists prediction models get further away from what the actual results show, as their projections show the world getting hotter and hotter every year.

LOL. Can you believe these people? {Answer: No, you can't}

 

Maybe you should take stat 101 before posting.






http://mashable.com/2015/01/20/climate-skeptics-warmest-year/

 

That the differences are so small that we have to employ statistical probability analysis to even try to propose that 2014 may have been the warmest year in the last 18 tells us a lot.

But what is more important is the smallness of the hypothetical record at four one-hundredths (0.04) of a degree. What this tell any thinking person with their brain turned on is that even reaching and spinning as hard as they can, these scientists are still only showing us that temperatures are effectively flat over this period.

And that of course overlooks the possibility that these numbers may have been fabricated and manipulated to begin with, which unfortunately the AGW scientists have been caught doing in the past on a number of occasions. But let's set that aside for another time and just assume that the numbers are correct, as I did in my two previous paragraphs and my two previous posts before that.

 

You are cherry-picking a date (1998), which, even in the general warming trend which anyone could easily observe over the past 100 years, was an anomalous uptick. That's not the right way to analyze a statistical trend.

 

Pot meet kettle. So are you. All of your trends assume the selection of a date that supports the trend that you want to present. If you want to be taken seriously with these sorts of objections, you first need to stop committing the exact same offense you are complaining about.

But there is a sound reason for the selection of the 1998 date, as it happens to overlap very tightly the many projection models of the AGW scientists that support this hypothesis.

The warmists have over 70 "scientific" models that they have used to base their theories on. These models predicted rapid increases in temperatures which have not occurred. They were wrong. All of them. And all in the same direction (to the hot side), and by no small margin, either.

For the purpose of performing this comparison between projections and actual, the time period since 1998 is perfectly reasonable.