BethesdaWX
-
Posts
6,817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About BethesdaWX
- Birthday 07/28/1992
Recent Profile Visitors
3,696 profile views
-
Lay off the Thai food, bruh.
-
What happened to this place? I miss the days when frivolousz and skierinvermont ran the backbone of the AGW side, at least they bring legitimate science to the table. Now the scientific method has gone up in flames, very sad.
-
You said added warming, or at least that is how I interpreted it. If I misinterpreted you I apologize. And as I believe the reconstructions that show more variance over those that show less, I believe the globe has likely warmed more than 1.5C since 1650. There was a substantial increase in temperature from the mid 1600s to the late 1700s in most non-tree ring proxies. The three periods of rapid warming continued a net upward trend, with the last warming period from 1978-2006 supposedly caused by Man's CO2 emmisions, if the AGW theory is correct.
-
Wow. So blending GISS, HADCRUT, UAH, RSS, and NCDC together means I'm a denier of (something?)?
-
How can warming (let alone human caused warming) be causing the release of natural stores of methane across the globe when the globe has not seen any statistically significant warming in the past ~ decade? What irks me about your post is your breaching of the scientific method, it can be argued many ways as to what is causing the warming, so unobjective comments like this seem to clog up the forum with unscientific banter.
-
This one sentence in your post I think is what needs to be focused on aside from the political stuff. Within the scientific method, CO2 induced warming is a simple hypothesis. In fact, when looking at the data we have, observations, and other mechanisms, it's closer to being "disproven" now than it is "proven", at least when it comes to how the climate system processes changes in LW energy. More work needs to be done on understanding the GHE, total atmospheric conduction body, and the kinetic budget before we declare catastrophe. It is actually quite complicated when it comes to the climate system, and evidence for solar induced change is growing by the day. I'm hoping I find the chance to debate some new findings. What if I could find something that correlates to every El Nino, every blip in temperature, and even the long term trend in temperature in a stove-kettle relationship? Without going into details, the climate system is all about maintaining equilibrium, and the GHE is never not in equilibrium. If it weren't for CO2 and other GHGes, the global temp would actually be warmer. The answer lies in convection, involving the kinetic budget. I could rant for hours but I'll cease on that for now.
-
*satellite*
-
Yes they are, but the issue is albedo loss adds to warming near the surface, while higher up in the troposphere any effect you get is more likely to represent/display changes in GHGes, or at least more than would be seen at the surface. The AO also needs to be corrected for to get any true GHG signal that would be present.
-
The error bars on UAH published in peer review for all regions on a decadal scale is +/- 0.05C/decade, and by far it is a more viable method than extrapolating anomalies from outside the arctic, which leads to larger error bars than would be present in UAH data. The fact that there are error bars present is not a way to scrutinize/discredit a dataset via the scientific method, especially compared to a dataset that has no data in the area of comparison,which would lead to larger error bars. One rule in science, never alter observations to match a model. That is an immediate breach of the scientific method. Those operating the unversity of colorado sea level satellite readings breach the scientific method every time they "bump up" the trend, latest excuse was "due to observed CO2 increase,the oceans should have expanded by etc" based on model science, changing the observational dataset to reflect models that have been busting continuously in regards to the global temperature since the middle of last decade.
-
If you want to determine the effect of an increase in CO2/Methane alone, then yes changes in albedo, natural or man made, will contaminate the dataset, hiding the "real" signal. How can you deny that? Maybe you misunderstood me?
-
If satellites suggest that GISS is too cold or too warm then GISS should adjust to match satellites. But GISS's trend has deviated warm from UAH and RSS in the Arctic rather than followed suit. Using the Actual Data is probably the bestway to go. The LT is the place to measure the impact of Methane release itself and no the Surface, which is subject to contamination fro variation in albedo due to many factors.
-
Unlike UAH/RSS, GISS doesn't have any data in the Arctic, they just extrapolate, and either way it being surface data results in contamination due to variation in albedo while the LT measurements that UAH and RSS do not have as big a contamination signal.
-
Methane increased dramatically from 1979 to 1994...the Arctic atmosphere cooled during that time...when methane began leveling off is when temps began warming...Irony says hi, Arctic temps now in a little downward blip, coinciding with the methane spike... Does that answer things? Ironic(?) too that total column water vapor correlates inversely to global temps. Or does it make sense given the GHE drives convection and less water vapor = less low cloud cover and convective potential.
-
I never denied it was full of good info...good info that was posted to refute nonfactual claims that also ruined my UAH thread. Those who originally posted the good info in this thread were bashed and ridiculed, for doing good research and thinking rationally and objectively.. This happens here quite alot, it is somewhat irritating.
-
This thread is an alarmist disaster. Come on.