Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Global confusion

  1. Jul 16, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Im, sure global warming has been debated many times, but have we
    learnt anything from all the data recordings taken all over the world,
    surly they would show a weather, "trend", in the UK we have had local
    record breaking weather conditions, rain fall, temperature and wind
    .But thats nothing compared to say the flooding in Bangladesh and other
    parts of the world, so is the earth getting hotter? if it is then is it a natural
    or man made phenomena?
    I think the best evidence for the past weather conditions would be the
    ice core samples and" dendrenology"--spelling? taken over the years.
    if a match is found from the samples taken, then surly we could see at
    least a 1000 yrs weather trend.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 16, 2004 #2
    Hey, wolram, check the other thread, there is your answer.
  4. Jul 16, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have read the other thread, but its not convincing, we are constantly
    shown conflicting facts, who is providing and interpreting these facts?
    Which of these should we listen to?
  5. Jul 16, 2004 #4
    Well whenever you're suspicious of any of the parties, get active and calculate. Check it all yourself. I spend on the average four hours in the evening doing that and I'm getting results.

    You may notice that one party uses sentimental techniques with little refence to real hard data back ups whilst others can't stop pointing to clear accepted formal datasets like http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/ [Broken].

    Starting here you can make your complete assesment of the global temperature in the last century.

    Hint: check the difference between cities and rural stations in their proximity and you may understand the origin of the global warming hype.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  6. Jul 19, 2004 #5
    Then again you could check a new thread
  7. Jul 20, 2004 #6
    Andre do i understand you right when i say you solely depend on figures to make statements on the subject?
    IHMO this is to complex of a subject to make statements about with just several datasets to work with.
  8. Jul 20, 2004 #7
    Natuurlijk niet, Marijn

    How about a lot of studies that are conflicting in the first place, like MBH98 versus M&M. The antipersistency study of the atmosphere of Olavi Kärner directly disputes the alledged role of CO2 . That's when you start checking the numbers I guess.
  9. Jul 21, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From what I hear, it's a fact that the average global temperature has risen a little since the Industrial Revolution (0.5 Celcius? Andre?)...also a fact that the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases have increased since that time...however, it's a big debate as to whether the warming (and any future warming) is attributable to humans.

    I look forward to a good discussion on this. (at the moment, I'm still trying to look into Andre's points...it would be nice to have a climate scientist here at PF)
  10. Jul 21, 2004 #9
    All, First of all,

    The retreat of GW continues: A serious attack right in the middle of the Lions Den, since Dutch policymakers have been on the cutting edge of the hype.


    This is how far it has got. The man's life would be in danger, it would not have been the first political murder of this century in The Netherlands.

    I may have mentioned some of those.

    And in the process proving exactly the methods of the alarmists
    Unfortunately, its not really that easy. The main witnesses for the global warming are the ice age evidence and the Venus alleged runaway or wet greenhouse effect heating. Those have logically driven the scientific part of the AGW myth. But the Venus and ice age stories are totally different, I know now, but the required paradigm shift will likely be way too big to be acceptable.


    The average number used to indicate the warming trend from 1850 to now is 0.7 degrees per century. But we see strong occilations. Conveniently enough for the alarmists the temperatures increased some 0.3 degrees between 1990 and 1998. But the warming has leveled off after that.

    So what is really happening?
    Using the Stefan Bolzman relation the 30% increase in Carbon dioxide may have caused a real Greenhouse warming increase of about 0.2 degrees between 1850 and 2004, or 0.13 degrees per century

    Cities are usually some degrees warmer than the rural areas. Alarmist have argued that this Urban Heat Island effect is accounted for. But that's only true for the steady states and not the trends, whilst growing cities getting increasingly warmer, rural areas do not. These are the virtual -ghost- trends that we see disguised as part of the global warming. As many rural stations have been closed in most continents in the 1980/1990 era we see the strong trend up starting there. But in the USA the rural stations remained active. Consequently little or no warming in the States. I´m busy inventarising all the data and try to produce a report about it. But it will certainly take some months.

    My current modestly sophisticated gestimate for rural heat island effect is 0.3-0.5 degrees per century.

    And then there is solar output fluctuation, albedo changes, soot, haze, volcanoes etc. The sum of effects may cancel out the Stefan Bolzman factor.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook