Global warming data manipulated

[NativeSon]

I have to say that I don't buy the global warming either.

You're saying it's unverifiable?

Then it must be phony baloney.

What's the point of this thread in the first place?

[Borg69]

You're saying it's unverifiable?

Then it must be phony baloney.

What's the point of this thread in the first place?

Some scientists say that all of the planets are warming up. No amount of human pollution can cause that. At one time Africa was a lush jungle and walls of ice reached to where New York would be built. Ocean fossils are found in Montana. Montana!

I don't think there's any question that the Earth is in a state of constant flux. I'm just not convinced God or dirty humans are the ones causing it. We're an arrogant species and either through pride or guilt will take the blame for everything. A volcanic eruption puts out more harmful fumes in 10 minutes than all the humans in all existence.

[kindy64]

You're saying it's unverifiable?

Then it must be phony baloney.

What's the point of this thread in the first place?

I think the alarmism is outsized to what is actually known, or can be known at this point. For those of us who have been around a while, and always skeptical of government solutions, the scare mongering is getting old, tired, and a bit hysterical. To say it a scientific question is "settled" is to ignore the reality that new things are always being discovered, and improved upon.

Like I said, there are sound economic reasons for increasing energy efficiency, decreasing pollution, broadening our energy sources (to include nuclear,) and investigating further the effects of man on the environment. For instance, the most efficient solar energy project would be to put the generating into space, and transmit the power down to earth. That's the kind of thing governments ought to be researching and planning for.

The question will always be, how much of any climate change is natural, versus how much is attributable to man. And if it is, let say for speculation, 90% natural, what can be, or should be done to change it.

And the ultra-skeptic in me says, follow the money...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...lobal-bus/

“Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policymaking, notes Don Jergler, an analyst for Insurance Journal, an industry publication.

“The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal,” he writes.

Is research being influenced to give answers in order to continue research?

Solutions don't raise money for politicians and bureaucrats, controversy does.

[Cuddly]

I'm a believer. The quote below in combination with the thread amuses me. I agree the earth and its surrounding atmosphere is in constant change, but the nearly exponential growth in the temperature anomaly is terrifying. A few celsius means little to us on the outside, but consider fever, where a few celsius difference internally means life or death. It wouldn't be so terrifying if it wasn't such a permanent thing - relative to our lifespan.

"Public reactions to global warming and concern about its effects are also increasing. A global 2015 Pew Research Center report showed a median of 54% consider it "a very serious problem". There are significant regional differences, with Americans and Chinese (whose economies are responsible for the greatest annual CO2 emissions) among the least concerned.[27]"
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[NativeSon]

Is research being influenced to give answers in order to continue research?

Doesn't appear to be the case. The supposed manipulated data has already been verified to be accurate.

My point was this smells like fake news. Fake news with an agenda.

[Confuzzled4]

So I must say disclaimer: I have spent most of my young years doing science, specifically physics. Am I a climate expert? No, but most scientists, or students of science as I'd consider myself holding a masters degree, have some degree of knowledge about what the studies have shown. First, all this news simply says is that there was in fact a year's pause in the trend, hardly does that disprove the trend that global warming is occurring. Just think for a moment, here in the U.S. record highs have been occurring with great frequency, and in fact most of the hottest years on record have occurred within the last 10 years. Fossil records help provide evidence about what the climate was like in the past. For example, the erosion patterns in canyons, rates of desertification, what fossils are found where, etc. No we don't know what the weather will be like in 2 months, but we have a sense of the general conditions i.e. the climate. Further, global warming models predict more than just hotter temperatures, they predict more violent storms. Hurricane Sandy for the east coast was an unprecedented storm, earthquake activity is up with many large magnitude earthquakes (7.0 or greater) occurring within the past few years in Japan, Chile, Italy, and China. Even Virginia had a 5.0 earthquake a few years back. There are strong tsunamis and cyclones, Sri Lanka 2003, Myanmar 2010. The belief is that the higher concentrations of CO2, methane, CFCs, and other gases are destroying the ozone layer, which reflects UV radiation, and acting as a reflector for heat that would normally leave from the earth. What has been proposed is a model, and the model by and large appears to accurately capture the events. That is what science is, modeling and empirical evidence. Once the modeling is confirmed through testing many times over, it is accepted among the scientific community. This is why the overwhelming majority of scientists "believe" in climate change, evolution, quantum mechanics, our understanding of gravity etc. The models just work, and it'd be foolish to think that so many scientists have made so many mistakes for so many years on the same issue.

[Emiliano]

If only the money existed for the coastal cities and states who believe in climate change to build infrastructure to protect themselves from rising sea levels and flooding from big storms, while simultaneously building a network of canals that would redirect flood water into the inland cities and states that don't believe in it.

[kindy64]

And how is earthquake activity related at all to climate change?

[kindy64]

Seems to me if climate scientists still have questions about how climate works, then the science is far from settled...

article

We do not believe that warming has ceased, but we consider the slowdown to be a recent and visible example of a basic science question that has been studied for at least twenty years: what are the signatures of (and the interactions between) internal decadal variability and the responses to external forcings, such as increasing GHGs or aerosols from volcanic eruptions? The last notable decadal slowdown during the modern era occurred during the big hiatus. The recent decadal slowdown, on the other hand, is unique in having occurred during a time of strongly increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system. This raises interesting science questions: are we living in a world less sensitive to GHG forcing than previously thought 27, or are negative forcings playing a larger role than expected? Or is the recent slowdown a natural decadal modulation of the long-term GMST trend? If the latter is the case, we might expect a ‘surge’ back to the forced trend when internal variability flips phase 13

[Confuzzled4]

And how is earthquake activity related at all to climate change?

Earthquake faults are very sensitive to changes in pressure. There is the short answer, I clearly am not going to get anywhere with you because you took the only part you didn't understand and tried to invalidate everything else I said.