Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Neonred said:

Cold front hit here too.  

 

I am in the Miami area for the NASCAR weekend and for the race last night it got down into the mid 60's.   Had to bundle up.

 

Fortunately the rest of the weekend should be a little warmer.  Low of 70, high of 80, and mostly sunny.

Got down to 49* here in Orlando overnight.  I should have stayed in Lauderdale!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

  Looking at NOAA's data, we are not going to be near the record high temperatures set in 2016, we'll end up almost half a degree F lower, but still well above the 20th century average.

 

 

Quote

The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.39°F above the 20th century average of 57.5°F – the fourth highest for January-September in the 139-year record. The 2018 year-to-date value was 0.43°F lower than the record high set in 2016.

 

[jg121783 3,907]

We got a couple inches of global warming here the other day. Why does global warming feel so cold?

[jg121783 3,907]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Looking at NOAA's data, we are not going to be near the record high temperatures set in 2016, we'll end up almost half a degree F lower, but still well above the 20th century average.

 

 

 

Because the last 100 years is a good representation of the millions of years of Earth's existence right?

[Dashinka 23,238]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Because the last 100 years is a good representation of the millions of years of Earth's existence right?

And that big fire balll in the sky.  

[jg121783 3,907]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

And that big fire balll in the sky.  

You mean the one that has absolutely no effect whatsoever on our climate even though solar cycles match the Earth's weather patterns by some sort of coincidence?

[Dashinka 23,238]

10 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

You mean the one that has absolutely no effect whatsoever on our climate even though solar cycles match the Earth's weather patterns by some sort of coincidence?

Yeah, that one.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Because the last 100 years is a good representation of the millions of years of Earth's existence right?

 

   Unfortunately the dinosaurs were not know for their record keeping abilities. We know it has been colder and it has been warmer. We know it doesn't take a whole lot (relatively) in either directions to push species and ecosystems of the cliff, and we know the shorter the time frame over which temperature change occurs in either direction, the less likely that species can adapt to the changes in their ecosystems. 

 

   Anyway, you were the one who brought up the scientific process. All we can go on is the data we have. There are people out there who exaggerate the importance of every fractional degree of temperature change and there are people who say it doesn't matter because it used to be hotter in the Paleocene epoch. Fortunately I'm not at either extreme so I can see how silly both perspectives sound. 

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Unfortunately the dinosaurs were not know for their record keeping abilities. We know it has been colder and it has been warmer. We know it doesn't take a whole lot (relatively) in either directions to push species and ecosystems of the cliff, and we know the shorter the time frame over which temperature change occurs in either direction, the less likely that species can adapt to the changes in their ecosystems. 

 

   Anyway, you were the one who brought up the scientific process. All we can go on is the data we have. There are people out there who exaggerate the importance of every fractional degree of temperature change and there are people who say it doesn't matter because it used to be hotter in the Paleocene epoch. Fortunately I'm not at either extreme so I can see how silly both perspectives sound. 

When you have incomplete data the only conclusions that can be drawn are called theories. In this case the data sample size compared to the data we don't have is so small I would argue it wouldn't be a very substantial theory.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

My personal data set is small, but I have lived in various parts of the world, and have come to realize that if I am not happy with the climate, I have but to wait a short time, and it will change.  Sometimes hourly.  Certainly no more than a few months.

 

And if I don't like the way it changes, I move.  That is all.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Satisfied

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

When you have incomplete data the only conclusions that can be drawn are called theories. In this case the data sample size compared to the data we don't have is so small I would argue it wouldn't be a very substantial theory.

 

   Indeed. I would agree with that. I was not suggesting otherwise.

 

   The data we do have shows a relatively large temperature increase over a short time period. Statistically that would be a trend. It's not conclusive, and we may not know all of the reasons why, but it should be concerning the longer it continues. As I said though, the mean global temperature this year is significantly lower than 2016. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Indeed. I would agree with that. I was not suggesting otherwise.

 

   The data we do have shows a relatively large temperature increase over a short time period. Statistically that would be a trend. It's not conclusive, and we may not know all of the reasons why, but it should be concerning the longer it continues. As I said though, the mean global temperature this year is significantly lower than 2016. 

I seem to recall your stance is pretty MOR on the topic.  But some here believe the end of the world is nigh, that mankind has such a profound influence on the universe.  That we are dooming ourselves.  Personally, I feel that while we do make a difference, it has far less effect than a supernova in a nearby constellation or galaxy.  Nor do we change the temps nearly so much as the sun’s proximity to our tiny planet.  I’m sure others feel the same way, based on logical thought processes.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

17 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

I seem to recall your stance is pretty MOR on the topic.  But some here believe the end of the world is nigh, that mankind has such a profound influence on the universe.  That we are dooming ourselves.  Personally, I feel that while we do make a difference, it has far less effect than a supernova in a nearby constellation or galaxy.  Nor do we change the temps nearly so much as the sun’s proximity to our tiny planet.  I’m sure others feel the same way, based on logical thought processes.

 

  There are 2 things we can be relatively sure of. First, in a billion years or so, due to the ideal gas law, the suns thermal output will be enough to end all life on earth. Second, as that time approaches, if humans are still around, some politician somewhere will come up with a thermal output tax.

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Indeed. I would agree with that. I was not suggesting otherwise.

 

   The data we do have shows a relatively large temperature increase over a short time period. Statistically that would be a trend. It's not conclusive, and we may not know all of the reasons why, but it should be concerning the longer it continues. As I said though, the mean global temperature this year is significantly lower than 2016. 

I'm not sure what your view on global warming/climate change is so this doesn't necessarily apply to you but to those who believe the planet is warming at dangerous levels due to human activity. It seems to me to establish that view as a legitimate theory you would need a "control sample" of temperature data to compare the last 150 years or so to (the theorized amount of time that human activity has altered the climate). In other words without reliable temperature data for thousands of years (the larger sample the better to account for natural climate change) before the period humans theoretically  altered the climate it's difficult to draw any conclusions. 

 

35 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  There are 2 things we can be relatively sure of. First, in a billion years or so, due to the ideal gas law, the suns thermal output will be enough to end all life on earth. Second, as that time approaches, if humans are still around, some politician somewhere will come up with a thermal output tax.

I thought I read something once saying that the sun will wipe out all life on Earth far before that. Could be wrong though. That means we better put all our political differences aside and start working on technology to enable us to colonize other planets if we want the human race to survive.

Edited November 18, 2018 by jg121783

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just have to change earth's trajectory by 1/1,000,000th of a foot in 50 years so we "scootch" a little further from the sun as it burns out.

 

I'm more bothered by what mankind will do after the sun cools a few million degrees.  Hard to stay warm when the heat is turned off.