Enjoying the Global Warming? [Archive]

Havet

10th January 2010, 21:37

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01156f7ad71e970c-800wi

Source (http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/05/is-global-warming-happening-three-different-temperature-perspectives.html)

http://www.hyscience.com/Global%20Cooling%20Graph.jpg

"MSU" = Microwave Sounding Unit - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
"HadCRUT3v" = Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature, version 3, variance adjusted -
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Carbon Dioxide levels based on Mauna Loa: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

342 year records of temperature here (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/JonesMann2004.gif)

Hockey Stick Data Proved Wrong Here (http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm)

Global Lower Tropospheric Report (2009) (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/09/global-lower-tropospheric-temperature-report-december-2009-and-for-the-year-2009/)

"This data shows why the focus needs to be on the regional scale and that a global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience."

A quote that nails it down pretty well:

So, humans aren't affecting the planet or its temperature?

Whoa! We didn't say that at all.

This discussion is on greenhouse effect and possible enhanced greenhouse, but that's a long way from anthropogenic effect in total. Whether or not they really affect global mean temperature, human endeavors have significant local effects.

The heat island effect mentioned above or the local effect of increased water vapor from large scale irrigation schemes would be good examples. Then there's land use change which can be variable depending on latitude -- replacing dark forest with wheat fields might significantly affect local albedo and cooling one region while denying shade in a more heavily irradiated region might cause ground heating through increased absorption.

There are many effects in a hugely complex system, some will be negative, some positive and all represent change, although that is neither good nor bad in and of itself. That humans affect the region of their activities is true -- that enhanced greenhouse from human activity is known to be a current or imminent catastrophe is not. And this document is only dealing with greenhouse effect and "global warming."

For added bonus, some of the e-mails exchanged by the climate "scientists" who had their e-mails exposed by a hacker:

Some of the excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):
From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
From Nick McKay (modifying data):
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?
From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Dimentio

10th January 2010, 21:43

It was the excerpt of Phil Jones which seemed shady, but I would like to read the whole mail before judging.

Bud Struggle

10th January 2010, 21:48

Britain a couple of days ago:

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.1km.jpg

That would be snow.

Pirate turtle the 11th

10th January 2010, 21:53

I'm loving the snow and will indeed be encouraging people to destroy the environment for the sake of it not raining.

10th January 2010, 21:54

^ It's as cold as it looks. :P

Havet

10th January 2010, 22:12

It was the excerpt of Phil Jones which seemed shady, but I would like to read the whole mail before judging.

I've been trying to find legitimate sources for this all over the net, but haven't gotten to yet.

Here's (http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner) the initial source I copied the excerpts from

Here are a couple more (from that same source):

Update, 10:30am – Since the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm). They report that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”
Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center. Some of the more recent revelations include:
From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
From Tom Wigley (data modification):

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.
From Ben Santer * (witholding data) :

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.
From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.
From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.
* Quote was initially incorrectly attributed to Dr. Thomas Karl.

Update, 3:45pm MDT: In regards to the authenticity, not one report disputing the veracity of the emails has come out. Many sources have talked to some of the email authors and they have not disputed the messages.

IcarusAngel

10th January 2010, 22:12

I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

Again, hayenmill proves he doesn't care about logic and context. Those emails were taken out of context; this is just one example.

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/)) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens..

As Real Change clarifies:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

By using the same tactics as the global warming deiniers, you could "disprove" gravity, integral calculus, etc. just as easily:

[quote]
If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.
When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
But perhaps the most damaging revelations are those concerning the way these math nerd scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. They suggest dubious practices such as:
Conspiring to avoid public scrutiny:

There is nothing which I desire to avoid in matters of philosophy more then contentions, nor any kind of contention more then one in print: & therefore I gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. What’s done before many witnesses is seldom without some further concern then that for truth: but what passes between friends in private usually deserve ye name of consultation rather then contest, & so I hope it will prove between you & me.
Newton to Hooke, 5 February 1676
Insulting dissenting scientists and equating them with holocaust deniers:

[Hooks Considerations] consist in ascribing an hypothesis to me which is not mine; in asserting an hypothesis which as to ye principal parts of it is not against me; in granting the greatest part of my discourse if explicated by that hypothesis; & in denying some things the truth of which would have appeared by an experimental examination.
Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672
Manipulation of evidence:

I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.
Newton to Keill, May 15 1674
Knowingly publishing scientific fraud:

You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence & may be corrected by the reader.
Newton to Cotes June 15 1710
Suppression of evidence:

Mr. Raphson has printed off four or five sheets of his History of Fluxions, but being shew’d Sr. Is. Newton (who, it seems, would rather have them write against him, than have a piece done in that manner in his favour), he got a Stop put to it, for some time at least.
Jones to Cotes, 17 September 1711
Abusing the peer review system:

…only the Germans and French have in a violent manner attack’d the Philosophy of Sr. Is. Newton, and seem resolved to stand by Cartes; Mr. Keil, as a person concerned, has undertaken to answer and defend some things, as Dr. Friend, and Dr. Mead, does (in their way) the rest: I would have sent you ye whole controversy, was not I sure that you know, those only are most capable of objecting against his writings, that least understand them; however, in a little time, you’ll see some of these in ye Philos. Transact.
Jones to Cotes, October 25 1711

Insulting their critics:

The controversy concerning Sr. Isaac’s Philosophy is a piece of news that I had not heard of unless Muys’s late book be meant. I think that Philosophy needs no defence, especially when tis attack’t by Cartesians. One Mr Green a Fellow of Clare Hall in our University seems to have nearly the same design with those German & French objectors whom you mention. His book is now in our press & is almost finished. I am told he will add an appendix in which he undertakes also to square the circle. I need not recommend his performance any further to you.
Cotes to Jones, November 11 1711
Gravity does not extend so far from Earth that it can be the force holding the moon to its orbit; school students are increasingly reluctant to practice differential equations, that will only lead to the practice of more oppressive forms of higher math; the tide is turning against over-regulation, like Newton’s “laws” of motion and Universal Gravitation. The so called ‘Cartesian’, ‘skeptical’ view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately we’ve a long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in classical mechanics, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Newton / Royal Society mail scandal is true, it is a blow to the Renaissance lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.[q/uote]

http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/

lol.

Welcome to hayenmill's "stupid world."

Havet

10th January 2010, 22:20

the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”,

Here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/how-the-trick-was-pulled-off/) is what "the trick" really means.

While the digital version of the Briffa reconstruction has only become available in the past few days, Briffa 2000 (cited in the caption to IPCC Fig 2.21) did show the decline as shown in Briffa 2000 Figure 5 shown below (with its original caption). This series obviously goes down at the end (as does a related series in Briffa et al 1998, referred to by Gavin Schmidt.) What Gavin didn’t discuss is how you get from the version below to the IPCC version.

Gavin Schmidt stated that everything was “in plain sight”. Regular CA readers are used to watching the pea under the thimble. There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960. Nor is there any mention of the deletion in the IPCC reference (Briffa 2000) nor, for that matter, in the article cited by Gavin Schmidt (Briffa et al 1998). These articles report the divergence, but do not delete it. (Briffa et al 2001 does delete the post-1960 values.)

Not only was the deletion of post-1960 values not reported by IPCC, as Gavin Schmidt implies, it is not all that easy to notice that the Briffa reconstruction ends around 1960. As the figure is drawn, the 1960 endpoint of the Briffa reconstruction is located underneath other series; even an attentive reader easily missed the fact that no values are shown after 1960. The decline is not “hidden in plain view”; it is “hidden” plain and simple.

See the source for images and a better scientific explanation.

How does people hiding information for their own political agendas in the past disprove that the current climate "scientists" have also hidden information?

That's a non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur).

IcarusAngel

10th January 2010, 22:43

Havet

10th January 2010, 22:52

The scientists haven't 'hidden information.' The denialists (Moncton and others) have proven to be frauds again and again. And there is no 'conspiracy' or 'hidden information' in what you're providing:

"But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation."

We can spend all day quoting other people's interpretation of the e-mails. lets move ahead

By your standard of using out of context emails to prove something, any field could be disproven.

I don't intend to disprove global warming by using e-mails. I intend to disprove it by using science, which I have shown sources to in the first post of this thread. We can discuss that, if you wish.

The vast majority of scientists agree Global Warming is real. A few out of context email isn't going to convince me that it's false.

Well, just because many people believe something doesn't make it right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_populum_fallacy). We have to look at the science itself and not blindly trust scientists, because, like all humans, they can also make mistakes (though they are certainly less prone to it)

Anyway, e-mails wouldn't convince me either. They're just some scraps of wood to add to the current fire and to get others interested in the discussion.

whore

10th January 2010, 23:05

dude, it's climate change. which, in this context, means extreme weather conditions. including extreme cold (such as currently being seen across the northern hemisphere), and extreme heat (such as being seen in certain parts of, among other places, australia).

me, i'm not a scientist. i can't prove or disprove (well, i probably could if i studied it for a few years) special relativity (something about GPS satts?). i would not know the first place to start when looking at plate tetonics. and i also am quite unsure about how one demonstrates that it is more likely that things are made of atoms, than not. (evolution is about the only thing i am confident of showing it is more true than the alternatives).

and when it comes to weather and climate, i'm also at a loss. so what's a body to do? it gets to the point that you have to trust the people who actually study this shit. i, and you, don't understand enough to know either which way. you can't seriously know enough to make an informed decision. no, i don't belive that most climate change skeptics can make a truely informed decision about the science either.

so, it comes down to who you are going to trust more. the majority, who includes most of the left, or the minority, which is mostly comprised of people who stand to loose something if carbon dioxide (etc.) emmissions are reduced. personally, i don't trust the capitalists one bit.

IcarusAngel

10th January 2010, 23:10

We can spend all day quoting other people's interpretation of the e-mails. lets move ahead..

No. They're lying when they say the emails disprove climate change, and they are distoring the emails far more than the emails suppposedly distort the science.

"But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation."

I don't intend to disprove global warming by using e-mails. I intend to disprove it by using science, which I have shown sources to in the first post of this thread. We can discuss that, if you wish.

You quoted a blog written by someone who is not a scientist and junkscience.org, a website known for distorting science. Where is a published paper that disputes global warming?

IcarusAngel

10th January 2010, 23:12

so, it comes down to who you are going to trust more. the majority, who includes most of the left, or the minority, which is mostly comprised of people who stand to loose something if carbon dioxide (etc.) emmissions are reduced. personally, i don't trust the capitalists one bit.

Take a look at Hayenmills "sources." Then go to scienceblogs and search for people such as Moncton, Junkscience, and so on. They have a far more proven track record of public DISTORTION than a few "emails" taken way out of context.

hayenmill doesn't understand the issue; ignore him.

Havet

10th January 2010, 23:18

dude, it's climate change. which, in this context, means extreme weather conditions. including extreme cold (such as currently being seen across the northern hemisphere), and extreme heat (such as being seen in certain parts of, among other places, australia).

You mean this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/08/high-fire-danger-in-south-australia-as-temperatures-soar/#more-15008) extreme heat?

So the record cold (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/09/global-lower-tropospheric-temperature-report-december-2009-and-for-the-year-2009/) in the Northern Hemisphere is just weather natural variation, but a hot australian summer is definite proof of climate change?

so, it comes down to who you are going to trust more. the majority, who includes most of the left, or the minority, which is mostly comprised of people who stand to loose something if carbon dioxide (etc.) emmissions are reduced. personally, i don't trust the capitalists one bit.

I would not be so quick to distrust the minority. yes, some have special interests, but so do the ones on majority (they will get more funding if they give reasons why the "ruling class" should extend its power).

In the end its about who follows more strictly the scientific method, and for that you have to dig up a bit into the subject.

Havet

10th January 2010, 23:24

No. They're lying when they say the emails disprove climate change, and they are distoring the emails far more than the emails suppposedly distort the science.

Nobody is trying to disprove climate change through the e-mails.

You quoted a blog written by someone who is not a scientist and junkscience.org, a website known for distorting science. Where is a published paper that disputes global warming?

I quote them because they quote published papers. Here, take a look at their "article (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)" and trace back the sources for yourself.

Have fun with this one as well (http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf).

IcarusAngel

10th January 2010, 23:34

I'm not reading anything off the Competitive Enterprise Institute's site. The reason you are only able to cite news articles and the competitive interprise institute is because they don't know what they're talking about.

dude, it's climate change. which, in this context, means extreme weather conditions. including extreme cold (such as currently being seen across the northern hemisphere), and extreme heat (such as being seen in certain parts of, among other places, australia).

That is correct. Also, global warming refers to warming of the entire globe at an alarming rate, not just to land temperatures. They are of course referring to the rate of change. it's entirely possible to see a really high temperature for one year (such as during an El Nino) and yet have a rate of change that indicates that global warming is accelerating. Global warming refers to the rise in heat from oceans, land, ice and so on.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml

A look at the land + atmosphere trends clearly shows that global warming has continued since 1998, but has experienced some down trends as well due to the storms that it likely has caused. If you remove the 1998 freak year the planet is still warming at pre-1998 levels.

Havet

10th January 2010, 23:38

I'm not reading anything off the Competitive Enterprise Institute's site. The reason you are only able to cite news articles and the competitive interprise institute is because they don't know what they're talking about.

Of course, I should already be expecting this; everything that disputes your arguments is by someone who "doesn't know that they're talking about"

IcarusAngel

10th January 2010, 23:50

lol. I use the same standards you use in science. Once you're proven a fraud, like the capitalists at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, you're over with. That's it, it's over. Only if you publish honest research can you come back. The has lied repeatedly and is funded by big corporations. They also found Libertarian organizations like Bureaucrash and other front groups for corporations.

They're much like you hayenmill, pretending to be something they're not (in this case a think tank).

However, I am keeping my eye on Global Warming. I try and take in as much science as possible, and if it's shown that the scientists were wrong that will be a good thing for the future, esp now since more and more people are questioning free-markets, although it may hurt the left momentarily as the left has often blamed industrialism for the problem.

But if it is real, and the data and the science seem to agree, capitalism will have to be considered perhaps the WORST system in history.

Revy

11th January 2010, 00:03

From The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/giles_coren/article6981487.ece)

January 9, 2010
If I hear another global warming joke, I’ll . . .

. . . go completely insane. Climate change doesn’t mean we’ll have lots of lovely weather all the time, you numbskulls

Right, there is something that is going to have to stop right this second, and that is people making jokes about “If the globe is warming up then where did all this snow come from, eh? Eh? Tell me that?” Because it is driving me crazy.
And when I say “people”, I mean mostly columnists, cartoonists and comedians. I know there is nothing else to write about at the moment (God help me, I’m writing about people writing about the snow) and I grant that it was a nice little coincidence that the Copenhagen summit happened just as it started snowing, but please, people, stop making jokes about the weather in relation to climate change. Stop pretending to be surprised that you had to put a scarf and hat on this morning when the world is supposed to be warming up. The two things are not related. Nobody who understands the science is claiming that global warming (if it happens) is going to make Britain hotter in the long run.
You hear me? Nobody is saying that, not the bleeding-heartedest, most climate-credulous ladyboy Yakult-drinker in Islington. It will do the opposite. Global warming will in the end interfere with the ocean currents, knock out the Gulf Stream, and remove the protection we have from the icy Nordic weather that is our due, as sharers of the same latitude as Siberia. Britain will get colder. So this joke about the weather just isn’t there.
Do you understand? It’s called “global warming”, but that doesn’t mean “nice warm weather”. So please stop making these stupid, stupid jokes in my newspapers and on my television.

Every bloody spring it’s the same. As soon as there is a nice sunny day the climate-sceptic jokemeisters say: “If this is global warming, then bring it on!” Ha ha ha.
Idiots! Don’t you get it? Those sunny days are because Great Britain is protected by the Gulf Stream, thanks to a finely balanced climatic status quo that will change if, as some people believe will happen, world temperatures rise by a couple of degrees over the next few years.
Can you get it into your thick skulls? If global warming turns out to be true, Britain weather will go bonkers. It will snow all the time. Weather might be like this more often, not less. Those unseasonably sunny early springs are exactly what there will be fewer of, not more. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Good. So then you grasp that there is no irony at all in “people going on about so-called global warming when there is snow on the ground”? I am not saying that the snow we are having now is because of global warming. It is not. Although it is an example of what we will have if global warming happens (regardless of whether it is man-made or the result of a Vulcan farting epidemic on Mars). The cold weather now is a change of weather, okay? It’s not a change of climate. The two things are completely different, however endlessly hilarious you seem to think it is to confuse them.
I appreciate how enjoyable it is for middle-aged rightwingers, who think that climate change (along with racial prejudice, gender inequality and Aids) is a lefty invention by softies on Camden Council, to make a mockery of it every time there is any sort of weather at all, but it is driving me absolutely insane.
If you don’t understand it, DON’T TALK ABOUT IT! And if you don’t believe in it, and you think that recent global temperatures have followed an upward trend because of something to do with sunspots and solar cycles and that climate change is just a way for certain endemic quasi-socialist, wealth-baiting principles to manifest themselves politically in the aftermath of communism, then SAY SO! But for Christ’s sake don’t keep making fools of yourselves with this endless bloody idiot joke about how nice it would be if we had hotter summers in England and didn’t have to go to the Mediterranean every year. Because there is no joke to be made.
• (I very nearly wrote “there’s snow joke to be made” — the worst cold weather gag in the history of the world, including all those dreadful, dreadful puns on Wednesday and Thursday about “CHILLY wind at No 10” and “FROSTY atmosphere in the Cabinet” and “Brown GRITS his teeth” and “The silence of David CHILL-i-band”. Actually I made those last two up, can’t think why nobody used them . . .)

IcarusAngel

11th January 2010, 00:09

Also, saying you're going to "debate the science" does not mean posting people's emails and linking to those same types of editorials the author describes. Instead of coming in here and saying "here is the capitalist/business perspective" on climate change, hayenmill says "here is what the scientists are saying on the issue" and then links to the CEI and so on.

I don't know if he hopes people wouldn't notice it was from the Competitive Enterprise Institute or what.

Glenn Beck

11th January 2010, 00:20

11th January 2010, 02:46

LOL hayenmill, on top of an anarchist, you're an anarchist capitalist, now you're a climate change denier too? Is there any kind of fringe nuttery you don't indulge? Maybe next week you'll be posting graphs about how the ovens at Auschwitz were incapable of warming up enough to kill anyone, or the approaches of Planet X over the past 100 million years.

That's a bit harsh ain't it. I mean hayenmill is a nutcase, we all know that :P, but I don't see what's so particularly eeeeeevil about making a case against the fact that humans directly contribute to climate change.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I thought that's what hayen was attacking, not that global warming is actually happening..?

Revy

11th January 2010, 03:47

That's a bit harsh ain't it. I mean hayenmill is a nutcase, we all know that :P, but I don't see what's so particularly eeeeeevil about making a case against the fact that humans directly contribute to climate change.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I thought that's what hayen was attacking, not that global warming is actually happening..?

The position is not evil in itself. It is misguided. But those who benefit directly from climate denial are evil.

Here are corporations who resist so greatly the truth of climate change because they want to keep making profits off of pollution, deforestation and other serious threats to the Earth.

The planet is our habitat and it is not somehow "lifestylist" to contend that our very habitat should not be subject to this kind of climate chaos because of interests based on greed.

The island nation of Tuvalu is already being flooded due to rising tides. The deserts are claiming more fertile land across the world. This is a very critical situation and it's treated like a joke.

I have read an article in the Scientific American about it. It showed how by the end of this century, almost all of Florida will be underwater , including the city where I live. They had a map of it, though I couldn't find it online, but these aren't crackpots, they are scientists. I have more reason to trust the situation is serious than listen to the propaganda arm of Exxon-Mobil.

11th January 2010, 04:25

The position is not evil in itself. It is misguided. But those who benefit directly from climate denial are evil.

Here are corporations who resist so greatly the truth of climate change because they want to keep making profits off of pollution, deforestation and other serious threats to the Earth.

The planet is our habitat and it is not somehow "lifestylist" to contend that our very habitat should not be subject to this kind of climate chaos because of interests based on greed.

The island nation of Tuvalu is already being flooded due to rising tides. The deserts are claiming more fertile land across the world. This is a very critical situation and it's treated like a joke.

I have read an article in the Scientific American about it. It showed how by the end of this century, almost all of Florida will be underwater , including the city where I live. They had a map of it, though I couldn't find it online, but these aren't crackpots, they are scientists. I have more reason to trust the situation is serious than listen to the propaganda arm of Exxon-Mobil.

And there are Capitalist governments using global warming to implement their policies and win brownie points with people, how is your point about corporations anymore relevant than mine?

And for your information, good old Exxon-Mobil, have an advert along with BP and Renault and others saying shit like DO YOUR PART TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING - TURN YOU LIGHTS OFF, WE ARE DOING OUR PART ARE YOU DOING YOURS?

All sponsored by the government no doubt, who are also 'ecofriendly', ecofriendly like when they taxed the shit out of workers in cars in London with the 'congestion charge' and the new 'low emissions zone' shit. Yeah well fucking done to them, for charging workers more than they can afford.

Revy

11th January 2010, 05:48

And there are Capitalist governments using global warming to implement their policies and win brownie points with people, how is your point about corporations anymore relevant than mine?

And for your information, good old Exxon-Mobil, have an advert along with BP and Renault and others saying shit like DO YOUR PART TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING - TURN YOU LIGHTS OFF, WE ARE DOING OUR PART ARE YOU DOING YOURS?

All sponsored by the government no doubt, who are also 'ecofriendly', ecofriendly like when they taxed the shit out of workers in cars in London with the 'congestion charge' and the new 'low emissions zone' shit. Yeah well fucking done to them, for charging workers more than they can afford.

You seem to take the statements of corporations and governments at face value.

Corporations and governments have been claiming to be "green" for almost a decade. Yet, little action is actually done to remove the problem. Of course their solutions are shitty. That's why we need radical, revolutionary ones.

11th January 2010, 06:17

You seem to take the statements of corporations and governments at face value.

Corporations and governments have been claiming to be "green" for almost a decade. Yet, little action is actually done to remove the problem. Of course their solutions are shitty. That's why we need radical, revolutionary ones.

The question I suppose is, do you consider global warming to be more important than worker's rights ie, if in power, would you vote against motions to build new industry that you thought would be 'contributing to global warming'?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

11th January 2010, 06:36

I'm just wondering. Why do we even bother discussing this as if opponents have something valuable to say? When someone tells me evolution is a theory, I laugh at them and walk away. If someone tells me 1+1=3, I don't take that seriously, either.

Do we seriously think we're going to convince people, here? I mean, you don't have to know a single thing about climate change, global warming, or the atmosphere. All you have to know is how to defer to experts, find trustworthy sources, and express cynicism when people have external motivations.

It's really obvious the scientific community, especially credible scientists, are overwhelmingly in favor of the global warming thesis. Global warming was also named rather poorly. Conservatives hear the word "warming" and suddenly think they have an amazing argument.

Unless you're an expert with a deferring opinion, there is really no reason for the average person to be disagreeing here. We don't understand the information properly. And even with a basic understanding, it's obvious that global warming is a preferable conclusion. I look at this the same way I look at a religious person. There is some sort of psychological, political, or external motivation impeding reasoning here. It's not an intellectual debate. It's a cut and dry scientific issue. Here are the problems:

1. People like to form controversial opinions so they disagree with global warming in whatever way possible.
2. Common sense is left-wing. People who are right-wing have an ideological opposition to science, in many cases.
3. Environmentalism has historically been a hippie movement, which is very unpopular even amongst many moderates.
4. Huge political motivations are obvious. Environmentalism can cost money.
5. People don't want to change their lifestyle or fund research to deal with the problem. Homelessness is not a problem. Health care is not a problem. Education is fine. It's obvious these are all false statements in almost every country, yet you'll find tons of people agreeing when the facts are black and white.
6. People are scared of potential problems.
7. Some radicals have proposed end of the world scenarios that people latch onto to justify not believing in global warming.

Even if global warming was somehow false, we still need to invest "MUCH" more in the environment as well as other public works. It's not the cause of all spending problems.

And people want to criticize global warming. Scientists aren't fundamentalists, in most cases. They work with controls and a methodological similar to one a mathematician might use. It's precised and as unbiased as possible.

I've heard that funding is being wasted on global warming. Umm, it involves rational scientific method and controlled experimentation. If the funding was being wasted, the actually work in the field would be a problem.

Regardless of the cause, global warming is an issue. Environmental damage is predicted to occur in certain areas regardless of whether it's natural or not. And even if C02 isn't a major factor (don't make me laugh), toxins in the atmosphere are poisoning us, giving us cancer, and making the general experience of breathing an issue. Money spent on solving this would be recuperated alone in the saved money in health care costs.

Global warming solutions need to occur regardless of the actual theory. I mean, you can make a basic model that a 5 year old can understand. Get some atmosphere going. Put some basic earth conditions. Watch temperature change. Or put large amounts of C02 and gases outside. Watch temperature change. Or track weather in areas with more pollution and monitor weather changes over time. Know basic statistics and data calculation perhaps?

Such a joke. If you can't understand college level statistics, which many people can't, people have no business criticizing such theories. You know how many tests they actually do? You know how accurate predictions can be made using a sample size of 1000 cases, with controlled variables? It's high. And the data gets more conclusive every day.

It's not some controversial theory about mysterious lasers entering our atmosphere and making aliens change the weather. It's a basic idea about how known chemicals interact with known environments. It extrapolates this to a larger scale. Oh by the way, environments generally behave similarly when increased in size. Controversial, I know. Then they monitor area weather patterns with respect to variables, control possible extrapolating factors. Even if they assume there is a high level of additional factors influencing the test and account for a high estimate of natural change.

Nevermind. I'm just ranting because I'm sleepy. When I took a High School biology class, we talked about global warming. It wasn't discussed as a theory anymore than evolution, gravity, etc are in other classes.

Scientists are laughing and crying at the general population. And I can find Phds who actually believe in aliens. Nutjobs believe just about every theory and disbelieve just about every theory as well. My Dad has a Phd. in Engineering and doesn't believe in evolution.

SocialPhilosophy

11th January 2010, 09:33

Britain a couple of days ago:

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.1km.jpg

That would be snow.

That has got to be the most epic satellite picture ever.

Dimentio

11th January 2010, 10:40

To be frank, most global warming-scepticists seem to be on the right of the political spectrum. To the idiot right I must also state. Because politics will turn more violently against the current order when we are in a deep crisis.

Havet

11th January 2010, 14:39

Also, saying you're going to "debate the science" does not mean posting people's emails

That was for "added bonus". Check my first post, where I state that

---

Anyway, I see a lot of people posting but none actually sourcing up their claims with scientific evidence. I would like to reverse that.

For the record let me just make something perfectly clear: I do not think the current extreme cold weather is a consequence of climate change, nor do I think it is proof that climate change is fraud. It is, at best, one more sample data to add the overall cooling trend being experienced since 1998. (Reference: UAH lower troposphere data (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2))

Most people here seem to boil down the question as to whether we should trust general scientific consensus on this matter or not. I believe that too many political intentions have infiltrated the scientific research of climate so that one has to be especially skeptic.

I can think of several reasons why people would want to believe global warming is not real or climate change isn't really caused by humans:

- Oil-based industries will want to keep their monopolies and their profits
- Someone may be on the payroll of these big companies to spread lies
- Companies may fear competition from cleaner forms of energy

However, I can also think of several reasons why people would want to portray global warming as a catastrophic real threat:

- Gives excuse for governments (on corporation's payroll) to control more of the economy and to monopolize for of the resources to benefit themselves.
- More catastrophic predictions to back the ruler's desire to expand their power will likely get the institute to receive more funds to "develop research"

So it seems we actually do need to look at the science itself because interest groups have formed on both sides.

And the science itself, as I see it, does not allow us to accurately make the conclusion that it is us humans who are causing the current surface global "warming" or the climate change, expressed in events such as droughts, floods or extreme hot and cold weather.

I mean, the long term annual average of reported hurricanes (http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/hurricanes/3c.html) remains fairly constant. And even if it weren't, even that the number of floods or draughts has been increasing, there is no causal connection to proof that it derives from CO2 release. There's a correlation, at best, but not a cause-effect relationship.

I am open to all scientific data regarding this subject and if I see concrete data to prove the position that the climate is changing and that humans are indeed responsible for it then I will accept such data as true.

Qwerty Dvorak

11th January 2010, 14:47

Sad to see that RevLeft has been infected with the current epidemic of climate change denial nutjobbery.

Havet

11th January 2010, 14:53

Sad to see that RevLeft has been infected with the current epidemic of climate change denial nutjobbery.

You're free to provide evidence to support your belief

Invader Zim

11th January 2010, 15:21

Breaking News: Idiots astounded that winter is COLD!

Britain a couple of days ago:
That would be snow.

Impressive. But I live in mid-Wales, and I saw very little snow over the past couple of weeks; indeed I look out of my window now and there isn't a single flake on the ground to be seen except in the hills. There is however lots of water on the ground, testiment to the fact that it isn't freezing here.

As for the claim that this decade is cooler, let us examine the facts:

http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/8cad8_latest_rankings_jan_to_nov.gif

http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/8cad8_Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Whoops.

Havet

11th January 2010, 16:11

Breaking News: Idiots astounded that winter is COLD!

Breaking News: Idiots believe cold winters are caused by humans now!

As for the claim that this decade is cooler, let us examine the facts:

Whoops.

Whoopsies

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/JonesMann2004.gif

Source (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt)

It's different when you look at the whole picture, isn't it?

Invader Zim

11th January 2010, 16:59

Breaking News: Idiots believe cold winters are caused by humans now!

Whoopsies

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/JonesMann2004.gif

Source (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt)

It's different when you look at the whole picture, isn't it?

Not especially.

Ovi

11th January 2010, 20:58

Here's some more pics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I think the entire global warming thing is actually doing a service to big corporations. Convince people that the only problem in this world is global warming, forget about water contamination by mines, chemical plants, agriculture and others, acid rains, deforestation, buildup of harmful substances such as pesticides in soil which end up in our food and of course starvation, millions of deaths each year caused by illnesses that are treatable but are too expensive to treat for too many (such as malaria) etc. Next pay a scientist to prove that there is no global warming and voila: there are no more problems.

Global warming is a big issue; if we don't do anything about it, 50 years from now many coastal areas and atolls will be flooded, extreme weather like droughts will be the norm, threatening the food supplies of millions, water will become scarce in many areas and so on. However there are many more problems today than global warming and making global warming the top priority even when it comes to environmentalism only fuels the these right wing nuts and their propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Havet

11th January 2010, 21:34

Here's some more pics

Look, we can spend all day and night posting pics, that is not going to solve everything. We need to discuss why some pictures are good and others aren't.

Going into detail on yours, which depicts Michael Mann's famous "hockey stick" on temperature.

Below is an explanation of why current evidence contradicts that we have reached all time records, showing the "curvature" of the "stick" (added in spoiler):

Basically, using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' (Source: Mann M.E. et al, "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations", AGU GRL, v.3.1, 1999)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
In Mann's original formulation, the `Hockey Stick' only applied to the Northern Hemisphere. However, the U.S. National Assessment treated it as if it were a global history by reproducing Mann's original graph with a new title implying it has global rather than hemispheric application (Source: National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), "Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change" - Overview document, USGCRP, June 2000 )

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory. To that end, `exhibits' of physical evidence are presented below to prove that not only is the `Hockey Stick' false, but that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were not only very real - but also global in extent.

Exhibit 1 - The Sargasso Sea

In the Sargasso Sea (an area popularly known as the `Bermuda Triangle'), radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in sea bed sediments by L. Keigwin [Source: Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996] demonstrates that sea surface temperatures were around 2°F cooler than today around 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age), and around 2°F warmer than today 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). In addition, the data also demonstrates that the period before 500 BC (the so-called Holocene Climatic Optimum) saw temperatures up to 4°F warmer - and without any greenhouse gas component to cause it.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4951/sargasso.gif

Figure - 3,000 years of climate in the Sargasso Sea

Exhibit 2 - Caribbean Sea

Measurements of oxygen isotopes in coral skeletons from Puerto Rico by Winter et al [Source: Winter et al. "Caribbean Sea Surface Temperatures: Two-to-Three Degrees Cooler than Present During the Little Ice Age", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, 20, p.3365, Oct 15 2000], compared modern isotope ratios with those of the distant past. Calibration of the coral isotopes to provide a sea surface temperature proxy was based on modern sea surface temperature records around Puerto Rico for the period 1983-1989. This provided the baseline for the researchers to test the coral for temperatures during known cold phases of the Little Ice Age, 1700-1710, 1780-1785, and 1810-1815. They found that during the Little Ice Age, sea surface temperature in the Caribbean was 2 - 3°C cooler than it is today, a truly massive reduction in temperature which could by no stretch of the imagination be local.

Exhibit 3 - West Africa

In an ocean drilling study off Cap Blanc, Mauritania, West Africa de Menocal et al [Source: deMenocal P. et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period", Science, v.288, p.2198-2202, Jun 23 2000] recovered ocean bed sediments from which various mineral and biological proxies were examined. According to their paper -

"A faunal record of sea-surface temperature (SST) variations off West Africa documents a series of abrupt, millennial-scale cooling events, which punctuated the Holocene warm period. These events evidently resulted from increased southward advection of cooler temperate or subpolar waters to this subtropical location or from enhanced regional up-welling. The most recent of these events was the Little Ice Age, which occurred between 1300 to 1850 A.D., when subtropical SSTs were reduced by 3° to 4°C." - deMenocal et al. abstract

The result was a profile of ocean temperature going back 2,500 years very similar to that acquired from the Sargasso Sea. Both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were strongly evident as demonstrated by Fig.7. In fact, deMenocal et al identified two periods of colder climate coinciding with two similar cold periods revealed in the Sargasso Sea.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9128/capblanc.gif

Figure - Sea Surface Temperature off West Africa, last 2,500 years

That places the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as existing throughout the North Atlantic Basin, from the tropics, to the Americas to Europe and the far North Atlantic to Greenland. That represents a huge slice of the northern hemisphere, making it virtually impossible that climate elsewhere in that hemisphere could negate the effect of those events in any hemispheric average.

Exhibit 4 - Kenya, East Africa

In Kenya, a study by Verschuren et al [Source: Verschuren D., "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa during the past 1,100 Years", Nature v.403(6768) pp.410-414, 27 Jan 2000], extracted lake bed sediments from Lake Naivasha. According to their paper -

"Our data indicate that, over the past millennium, equatorial east Africa has alternated between contrasting climate conditions, with significantly drier climate than today during the `Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 1000-1270) and a relatively wet climate during the `Little Ice Age' (~ AD 1270-1850) which was interrupted by three prolonged dry episodes." - Verschuren et al abstract

They determined historical lake level and salinity measurements from proxy indicators in the lake bed sediments.

http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/6742/eastafr.gif

Here we see the main Little Ice Age of the late 1600s and 1700s, confirmed by the Sargasso and Cape Blanc data. During the Medieval Warm Period, the lake clearly endured a period of extended drought from 1000 to 1200 AD. Today the lake level is about half-way between these two extremes, suggesting that our present climate is poised about mid-way between these two historic extremes.

These are only 4 examples. You can see other 10 which confirm the the existence of a Medieval Warm Period (with far hotter temperatures than any so called "records" of these days) and a little ace age HERE (http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm)

These are all backed up by valid scientific studies, and if you are indeed passionate about the truth you will accept this data as true.

I think the entire global warming thing is actually doing a service to big corporations. Convince people that the only problem in this world is global warming, forget about water contamination by mines, chemical plants, agriculture and others, acid rains, deforestation, buildup of harmful substances such as pesticides in soil which end up in our food and of course starvation, millions of deaths each year caused by illnesses that are treatable but are too expensive to treat for too many (such as malaria) etc. Next pay a scientist to prove that there is no global warming and voila: there are no more problems.

That is a very, very good point. Even if there weren't any global warming, I would still be arguing about the harm that we're doing to the planet, because IT IS REAL. We may not have the ability to change the climate on a global scale, but we can certainly change the climate on a regional scale, and affect the environment in many many other ways, with our production of garbage, with our dumping of dangerous chemicals and plastics on vast resources such as the oceans, etc.

Global warming is a big issue; if we don't do anything about it, 50 years from now many coastal areas and atolls will be flooded, extreme weather like droughts will be the norm, threatening the food supplies of millions, water will become scarce in many areas and so on. However there are many more problems today than global warming and making global warming the top priority even when it comes to environmentalism only fuels the these right wing nuts and their propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

If global warming were indeed a big issue, it is not by stopping fossil fuel combustion that we would solve the problem.

Qwerty Dvorak

11th January 2010, 21:43

You're free to provide evidence to support your belief
This thread is evidence of my belief that RL has been infected with climate change denial nutjobbery...

Havet

11th January 2010, 21:48

This thread is evidence of my belief that RL has been infected with climate change denial nutjobbery...

Why is it nutjobbery? Because you fail to provide scientific data to prove your assertions that the data that i'm providing is false?

Ovi

11th January 2010, 22:10

Look, we can spend all day and night posting pics, that is not going to solve everything. We need to discuss why some pictures are good and others aren't.

Going into detail on yours, which depicts Michael Mann's famous "hockey stick" on temperature.

Below is an explanation of why current evidence contradicts that we have reached all time records, showing the "curvature" of the "stick" (added in spoiler):

These are all backed up by valid scientific studies, and if you are indeed passionate about the truth you will accept this data as true.

Honestly I couldn't give a fuck. In the end this whole thread will be about everyone showing some reference that proves/disproves a theory. We're negotiating something objective. I could argue that global warming is accepted by most scientists or that carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas. Arguing that despite an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of 30% in the last century the greenhouse effect has not increased is ignorant. But how much has the temperature increased? I could easily write up an equations that takes into account some of the feedbacks of global warming and show you that global warming exists. What next? I'm part of the conspiracy too? Fortunately others have already calculated the effects and have made temperature measurements to show that global warming is real. For now I have little reason to believe big oil companies instead of real scientists.

If global warming were indeed a big issue, it is not by stopping fossil fuel combustion that we would solve the problem.
Of course not. We could never convince the rich guys of the world to do that. Instead we should take away their privileges and stop using fossil fuel ourselves.

Havet

11th January 2010, 22:59

I could argue that global warming is accepted by most scientists

...Despite overwhelming evidence that the current warming hasn't gotten near levels of the Medieval times.

or that carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas.

I think nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But water vapor is a far more contributing greenhouse gas than all others combined (Source (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)). Check this too (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html) as well.

Arguing that despite an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of 30% in the last century the greenhouse effect has not increased is ignorant. But how much has the temperature increased?

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas.

water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%

The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.

Source 1 (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)

Source 2 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/)

As far as temperature goes, it hasn't risen much in the past 349 years (Source (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt))

I could easily write up an equations that takes into account some of the feedbacks of global warming and show you that global warming exists.

Well by all means then do write them up.

What next? I'm part of the conspiracy too?

Of course not. You're just working under wrong data and therefore making false assumptions

Fortunately others have already calculated the effects and have made temperature measurements to show that global warming is real.

Yes they have. (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)And they have arrived at different conclusions than you.

ComradeMan

11th January 2010, 23:08

Global warming due to co2 is a myth in my opinion or at least very exaggerated and has now become a big "green" business! The real issue is cosmic rays and we can't do anything about it!!!

All of humanity needs to stand together now to deal with this problem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542332/Cosmic-rays-blamed-for-global-warming.html

Ovi

11th January 2010, 23:28

...Despite overwhelming evidence that the current warming hasn't gotten near levels of the Medieval times.

Actually it has. See the graph I pointed out. I told you this whole thread will degenerate in a reference war. It's stupid and pointless.

I think nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But water vapor is a far more contributing greenhouse gas than all others combined (Source (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)). Check this too (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html) as well.

This a one of the most common arguments, yet one of the dumbest. The fact that water vapor represents most of the greenhouse effect only worsens it. Once some small warming is created by carbon dioxide, water vapor creates positive feedback due to higher saturation value, which means even more warming.

As far as temperature goes, it hasn't risen much in the past 349 years (Source (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt))

Actually it has. You forgot about common sense and about real life. Since you can't prove anything on your own, you could at least note the fact that 97% of scientists who know a few things about the greenhouse effect believe that the climate has warmed up due to human influence. (http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)

Well by all means then do write them up.

What's the point of that? There are hundreds of physicists more knowledgeable than me in this regard which have published many papers on this. All you have to do is google.

Of course not. You're just working under wrong data and therefore making false assumptions

Yes they have. (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)And they have arrived at different conclusions than you.
Yeah. Probably an Exxon scientist.

Havet

12th January 2010, 12:56

Actually it has. See the graph I pointed out. I told you this whole thread will degenerate in a reference war. It's stupid and pointless.

No its not pointless. Given that none of us is a climate scientist, we must therefore study the science other climate scientists have performed, and compare it under objective scientific principles. Either one of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong, but both of us cannot be right (law of non-contradiction)

This a one of the most common arguments, yet one of the dumbest. The fact that water vapor represents most of the greenhouse effect only worsens it. Once some small warming is created by carbon dioxide, water vapor creates positive feedback due to higher saturation value, which means even more warming.

I believe that what you are saying is correct, but sourcing up your claims next time would be sweet.

Actually it has. You forgot about common sense and about real life. Since you can't prove anything on your own, you could at least note the fact that 97% of scientists who know a few things about the greenhouse effect believe that the climate has warmed up due to human influence. (http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)

I'm sure you already know this, but just because many people believe something that doesn't make it right. It's called an ad populum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_populum_fallacy)

Anyway, like i've said earlier, we cannot compare opinions of scientists but the science itself. Having established that, i think that the sources for my info (Jones, HadCRUT, Mann (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/JonesMann2004.gif)) are reliable (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt).

I have also pretty much proven how the possible increase in temperature that people have been yammering about is nowhere near as extreme as the temperatures humans have experienced in the medieval times and afterwards (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1647638&postcount=37).

The only reason why scientists believe CO2 was linked when they first thought of it was because they saw a correlation. And I can make correlations too:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/02/200760920pirate.gif

Furthermore, they thought that CO2 always lead temperature, so if CO2 increases (for whatever cause), then temperature must necessarily follow.

But if you look at the ice record, that is simply not true (ie: there are points when CO2 increases but temperature does not follow):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Data of the graphs (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html)

"Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years" (Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Fischer%2C+H.%2C+M.+Wahlen%2C+J.+Smith%2C +D.+Mastroiani+and+B.+Deck%2C+1999%3A+Ice+core+rec ords+of+atmospheric+CO2+around+the+last+three+glac ial+terminations.+Science%2C+283%2C+1712-1714.&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT))

What's the point of that? There are hundreds of physicists more knowledgeable than me in this regard which have published many papers on this. All you have to do is google.

What was the point of mentioning that "you could easily do it" yourself then?

Yeah. Probably an Exxon scientist.

Ad hominem is pointless in these kinds of discussions, and you should know better by now. Unless you have any proof of your claims, please refrain from engaging in them.

Ovi

12th January 2010, 13:35

No its not pointless. Given that none of us is a climate scientist, we must therefore study the science other climate scientists have performed, and compare it under objective scientific principles. Either one of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong, but both of us cannot be right (law of non-contradiction)

I believe that what you are saying is correct, but sourcing up your claims next time would be sweet.

I'm sure you already know this, but just because many people believe something that doesn't make it right. It's called an ad populum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_populum_fallacy)

Obviously 97% of scientists supporting a theory is better than the rest of 3% right?

Anyway, like i've said earlier, we cannot compare opinions of scientists but the science itself. Having established that, i think that the sources for my info (Jones, HadCRUT, Mann (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/JonesMann2004.gif)) are reliable (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt).

I have also pretty much proven how the possible increase in temperature that people have been yammering about is nowhere near as extreme as the temperatures humans have experienced in the medieval times and afterwards (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1647638&postcount=37).

Actually the temperature is greater now than it was during the medieval warm period.

The only reason why scientists believe CO2 was linked when they first thought of it was because they saw a correlation. And I can make correlations too:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/02/200760920pirate.gif

Needless to say, pirates are not greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are called this way because they produce a greenhouse effect, one that has been calculated numerous time. Get yourself a Ph.D in physics and especially on the effects of greenhouse gases, write down some equations, find yourself some reliable temperature estimates and show the world how you're right. Point out to a nut who screams: global warming is fake!! won't do. Be that nut and disprove every other scientist who disagrees. You'll get a Nobel prize like Obama.

Furthermore, they thought that CO2 always lead temperature, so if CO2 increases (for whatever cause), then temperature must necessarily follow.

But if you look at the ice record, that is simply not true (ie: there are points when CO2 increases but temperature does not follow):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Data of the graphs (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html)

"Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years" (Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Fischer%2C+H.%2C+M.+Wahlen%2C+J.+Smith%2C +D.+Mastroiani+and+B.+Deck%2C+1999%3A+Ice+core+rec ords+of+atmospheric+CO2+around+the+last+three+glac ial+terminations.+Science%2C+283%2C+1712-1714.&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT))

That graph shows a pretty well correlation of CO2 and atmospheric dust with temperature. Of course those are not the only factors that matter. Milankovitch cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) are also important so are other things that we have yet to discover. The warming/cooling periods of the Earth is not exactly a solved problem, but experimental data show that the earth's temperature has witnessed an unusual rise, that theoretical models do point out that surprisingly greenhouse gases do increase the surface temperature and that the vast majority of real scientists on the subject do agree on it. It's almost a consensus. Of course, big corporations deny it, while states tend to be happy on it as long as they can tax it, which I assume is why you are against the whole notion. But states also tax gasoline and tvs surely they exist.

What was the point of mentioning that "you could easily do it" yourself then?

I could just as well point out to existent studies and it would be the same. I point out one reference you point out the other.

Ad hominem is pointless in these kinds of discussions, and you should know better by now. Unless you have any proof of your claims, please refrain from engaging in them.
What proof? This whole thread discusses something objective without proof. You can't prove anything of what you're saying but only point out to someone who claims he did.

Havet

12th January 2010, 16:43

Obviously 97% of scientists supporting a theory is better than the rest of 3% right?

Not really. Its the science itself that matters.

Actually the temperature is greater now than it was during the medieval warm period.

No it isn't. (explanation in my previous post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1647638&postcount=37))

Needless to say, pirates are not greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are called this way because they produce a greenhouse effect, one that has been calculated numerous time. Get yourself a Ph.D in physics and especially on the effects of greenhouse gases, write down some equations, find yourself some reliable temperature estimates and show the world how you're right. Point out to a nut who screams: global warming is fake!! won't do. Be that nut and disprove every other scientist who disagrees. You'll get a Nobel prize like Obama.

“You begin saving the world by saving one person at a time; all else is grandiose romanticism or politics.” - Charles Bukowski

That graph shows a pretty well correlation of CO2 and atmospheric dust with temperature. Of course those are not the only factors that matter. Milankovitch cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) are also important so are other things that we have yet to discover. The warming/cooling periods of the Earth is not exactly a solved problem, but experimental data show that the earth's temperature has witnessed an unusual rise, that theoretical models do point out that surprisingly greenhouse gases do increase the surface temperature and that the vast majority of real scientists on the subject do agree on it. It's almost a consensus. Of course, big corporations deny it, while states tend to be happy on it as long as they can tax it, which I assume is why you are against the whole notion. But states also tax gasoline and tvs surely they exist.

Dude, i just proved (argumentatively speaking) that the "correlation" lags up to 600 years!

I could just as well point out to existent studies and it would be the same. I point out one reference you point out the other.

And what's wrong with that?

What proof? This whole thread discusses something objective without proof. You can't prove anything of what you're saying but only point out to someone who claims he did.

So lets analyze if that someone is actually right or not.

That said, please point out to "someone" who has claimed that the person who wrote this (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) received money by Exxon.

IcarusAngel

12th January 2010, 19:54

You didn't disprove shit. And John L Daly isn't even a climate scientist, he was an Austrilian teacher. Of course, citing the vast majority of scientific data is not a fallacy. Citing laymen as "experts" IS however a fallacy.

Skooma Addict

12th January 2010, 21:57

Everyone remember that just because the majority of scientists believe X, that does not mean X is true.

Havet

12th January 2010, 22:23

Everyone remember that just because the majority of scientists believe X, that does not mean X is true.

Also, regarding the current weather, remember, weather isn’t climate (unless it’s hot weather in which case it proves that Global Warming is true)...

Everything is caused by AGW. Hot….cold…..snow….rain….drought.

Skooma Addict

12th January 2010, 22:36

I don't know much on the subject, so maybe someone could tell me: Is global warming falsifiable? I know that some people claim that it's not.

whore

12th January 2010, 22:40

Also, regarding the current weather, remember, weather isn’t climate (unless it’s hot weather in which case it proves that Global Warming is true)...

Everything is caused by AGW. Hot….cold…..snow….rain….drought.
err, yes, climate change 'causes extreme cold as i said earlier. (you even quoted it.)

one thing some people have said might happen is that the gulf stream might fuck up. which would mean "good bye northern europe". well, it would mean that it would be really fucking cold, like canada and siberia.

the reason people stopped saying 'global warming', and started saying 'climate change', was because idiots said, "cold weather, therefore no warming". global warming fucks with the climate. that means, extreme cold (such as being seen across the northern hemisphere), as well as extreme hot.

Everyone remember that just because the majority of scientists believe X, that does not mean X is true.
no. indeed most scientists would probably say that nothing they say can be known to be "true". however, when enough evidence points to something, you can say with a certain amount of certainty, "x is true".

me, i'm not a scientist. however, i doubt that you are either. neither (none) of us are climate scientists. when it comes down to it, i would rather trust the people who study this stuff, than some random capitalist stooge.

i've weighed the evidence, and i've made up my mind. just like i've weighed the evidence with regard to relativity, plate tetonics, and various other scientific theories i can't know much about with out much more study.

evolution and the earth being round are two things i coudl demonstrate i think.

Skooma Addict

12th January 2010, 22:45

no. indeed most scientists would probably say that nothing they say can be known to be "true". however, when enough evidence points to something, you can say with a certain amount of certainty, "x is true".

me, i'm not a scientist. however, i doubt that you are either. neither (none) of us are climate scientists. when it comes down to it, i would rather trust the people who study this stuff, than some random capitalist stooge.

i've weighed the evidence, and i've made up my mind. just like i've weighed the evidence with regard to relativity, plate tetonics, and various other scientific theories i can't know much about with out much more study.

evolution and the earth being round are two things i coudl demonstrate i think. Well yea, you can make up your mind however you like. However, if your going to say that since most climate scientists believe X, therefore X is true, then your committing a fallacy. Also, I personally would not trust a climate scientist on global warming as much as I would, say, trust a physicist regarding physics.

whore

13th January 2010, 05:39

Well yea, you can make up your mind however you like. However, if your going to say that since most climate scientists believe X, therefore X is true, then your committing a fallacy. Also, I personally would not trust a climate scientist on global warming as much as I would, say, trust a physicist regarding physics.
no, i never said that just because y number of people believe x, that x is true.
however, because a majority of climate scientists say that x is more likely to be true than not true, and because i am not a climate scientist and am unable to understand the evidence one way or the other, and that you are not a climate scientist, and i doubt your ability to understand the evidence one way or the other. given all this, and the fact that those who deny human induced climate change are generally fucking scum (not always, but mostly) ...

Ovi

13th January 2010, 12:29

Not really. Its the science itself that matters.

What science? This thread is not a scientific thread. We don't use any scientific methods, we don't analyze anything, but just post links to others who have some opinions, more or less based on facts.

No it isn't. (explanation in my previous post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1647638&postcount=37))

And the graph I posted shows a very unusual rise of global mean temperature in the last 1000 years, very well correlated with increased CO2 concentration.

Dude, i just proved (argumentatively speaking) that the "correlation" lags up to 600 years!

You are talking about glacial and interglacial periods. The atmospheric CO2 concentration during these periods, according to some is some sort (http://www.climate.unibe.ch/%7Ejoos/OUTGOING/publications/joos03scope_proofs.pdf) of feedback of warming, not a cause, which has 2 implications: 1. a lag is normal 2. it only makes the climate change worse. Of course, the present atmospheric carbon dioxide is the direct result of pollution and that graph of yours is quite frightening: in the last half a million years, the atmospheric CO2 did not surpass 300ppm. Today it's 387ppm and rising!

And what's wrong with that?

It's pointless. Some religious fanatic could point out that some guys saw Jesus. Anything you would say, that guy points other links. There's nothing scientific and nothing useful in this.

So lets analyze if that someone is actually right or not.

Analyzing whether someone is right or wrong means analyzing whether global warming is right or wrong.

That said, please point out to "someone" who has claimed that the person who wrote this (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) received money by Exxon.
You should point out how 97% of all scientists are fraud.

Ovi

13th January 2010, 12:36

Everyone remember that just because the majority of scientists believe X, that does not mean X is true.
Of course not. But since none of us here are global warming experts, we can either believe that 97% of scientists know something, or that we're living in a global conspiracy of world scientists and only a few dare to speak up. Pathetic.

Well yea, you can make up your mind however you like. However, if your going to say that since most climate scientists believe X, therefore X is true, then your committing a fallacy. Also, I personally would not trust a climate scientist on global warming as much as I would, say, trust a physicist regarding physics.
I also have good reasons not to trust someone whose studies are completely bogus compared to the world consensus and big companies have material benefit in it.

Skooma Addict

13th January 2010, 16:13

no, i never said that just because y number of people believe x, that x is true.
however, because a majority of climate scientists say that x is more likely to be true than not true, and because i am not a climate scientist and am unable to understand the evidence one way or the other, and that you are not a climate scientist, and i doubt your ability to understand the evidence one way or the other. given all this, and the fact that those who deny human induced climate change are generally fucking scum (not always, but mostly) ...

Maybe I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the evidence isn't that difficult to understand. I haven't really looked into the subject since it is pretty boring and I really don't care about it. Normally, I would agree that if the majority of experts believe something, that is a valid argument for it being true. But I agree with Aquinas when he said that even though appealing to experts is a valid argument, it is still the weakest of all arguments. It is an argument which relies solely on faith, which is why it is so weak. As I also mentioned earlier, I don't place much faith on climate scientists because they often have hidden political or business agendas.

The interesting thing is that the more I look at it, the more it appears that global warming is not falsifiable.

Of course not. But since none of us here are global warming experts, we can either believe that 97% of scientists know something, or that we're living in a global conspiracy of world scientists and only a few dare to speak up. Pathetic.I don't doubt your figures, but can you provide the source which shows that 97% of scientists believe in global warming? I just want to look it over.

Invader Zim

13th January 2010, 17:41

I don't doubt your figures, but can you provide the source which shows that 97% of scientists believe in global warming? I just want to look it over.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? [...] 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

In fairness other scientists, who don't work on the climate, disagree; but asking their opinion is like taking the word of an orthopediatrist over that of a cardiologist when you suffer from angina.

NecroCommie

13th January 2010, 17:55

Britain a couple of days ago:

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.1km.jpg

That would be snow.
Bah! So what?! Snow only means it's below 0 celsius, so you still have a ten celsius' window of having it warm. Complain to me when you have a month of -20 celsius and below.

Havet

14th January 2010, 11:51

err, yes, climate change 'causes extreme cold as i said earlier. (you even quoted it.)

one thing some people have said might happen is that the gulf stream might fuck up. which would mean "good bye northern europe". well, it would mean that it would be really fucking cold, like canada and siberia.

the reason people stopped saying 'global warming', and started saying 'climate change', was because idiots said, "cold weather, therefore no warming". global warming fucks with the climate. that means, extreme cold (such as being seen across the northern hemisphere), as well as extreme hot.

So basically nobody can ever disprove global warming because every single piece of new evidence can be used to support it! Does that sound scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)to you?

Invader Zim

14th January 2010, 12:01

So basically nobody can ever disprove global warming because every single piece of new evidence can be used to support it! Does that sound scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)to you?

What would you know about what is, and is not scientific, afterall you're the one who purports that 97% of the worlds experts on the topic are in league in a massive conspiricy to defraud us.

Havet

14th January 2010, 12:13

What science? This thread is not a scientific thread. We don't use any scientific methods, we don't analyze anything, but just post links to others who have some opinions, more or less based on facts.

So lets analyze what degree do other's opinions are based on facts or not

And the graph I posted shows a very unusual rise of global mean temperature in the last 1000 years, very well correlated with increased CO2 concentration.

And the graph i posted shows a very unusual lag between temperature and CO2 concentrations in the past 400,000 years.

Have you not been paying attention? We need to get past the "i have a graph that disproves you" and actually talk about the methods behind their data collection, and how reliable they are.

That said, how do you explain that CO2 concentration kept on growing yet temperature dropped between 1940s-1970s?

You are talking about glacial and interglacial periods. The atmospheric CO2 concentration during these periods, according to some is some sort (http://www.climate.unibe.ch/%7Ejoos/OUTGOING/publications/joos03scope_proofs.pdf) of feedback of warming, not a cause, which has 2 implications: 1. a lag is normal 2. it only makes the climate change worse. Of course, the present atmospheric carbon dioxide is the direct result of pollution and that graph of yours is quite frightening: in the last half a million years, the atmospheric CO2 did not surpass 300ppm. Today it's 387ppm and rising!

Look, its fairly simple really:

If "Co2 rise causes temperature rise" hypothesis comes from the analysis of the previous 200 years, but in the previous 400,000 years we do not see the same cause effect (despite huge volcanic eruptions which spike the concentration of co2), so i don't see how we could still support the same hypothesis while new data has just disproved it!

Is it frightening that today's concentration of CO2 is 387? Maybe. But what is more frightening is that it is not affecting temperature in a linear fashion as AGW-proponents claimed.

It's pointless. Some religious fanatic could point out that some guys saw Jesus. Anything you would say, that guy points other links. There's nothing scientific and nothing useful in this.

But those links are not based on facts or science. And our links are. Which is why we need to analyze them and see which one of them is based on more reliable data.

Analyzing whether someone is right or wrong means analyzing whether global warming is right or wrong.

You're just perpetuating the cycle. We already agreed that we cannot discuss global warming on our own, which is why both of us have been posting links to more or less reliable sources. So how about if we start discussing those sources now?

You should point out how 97% of all scientists are fraud.

Sorry, but i'm not going to point out anything until you provide evidence for your first accusatory statement that just because THAT person had a different view on global warming then they are on the payroll of Exxon. Either show the evidence, or refrain from such inane and unproved statements, because it only shows how you are not quite interested in global warming but more about winning an argument.

Ovi

14th January 2010, 13:07

So lets analyze what degree do other's opinions are based on facts or not

I already said this before, but to analyze who's right and who's wrong means to analyze ourselves global warming in a scientific manner.

And the graph i posted shows a very unusual lag between temperature and CO2 concentrations in the past 400,000 years.

I already explained why that happened and it's not happening today.

Have you not been paying attention? We need to get past the "i have a graph that disproves you" and actually talk about the methods behind their data collection, and how reliable they are.

That we can't do. There's no way we can objectively and scientifically say how some data collected by someone else is reliable or not simply by posting it on revleft.

That said, how do you explain that CO2 concentration kept on growing yet temperature dropped between 1940s-1970s?

Global warming doesn't mean every single square meter in every single second is hotter that it used to be.It means that the global average over a certain period of time is greater than it's normal. That means you can have snow storms, a Great Britain that's 10 degrees cooler that it should be or even 30 years of lower temperatures. If you look closely on that graph, while it depicts decreasing temperatures during those 30 years, those temperatures are still higher than they were at the beginning of the century, so that's no global cooling but a fluctuation in the warming process in this case because of industrial activities. Here's some explanations (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639):

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006.
The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artefact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships.

Look, its fairly simple really:

If "Co2 rise causes temperature rise" hypothesis comes from the analysis of the previous 200 years, but in the previous 400,000 years we do not see the same cause effect (despite huge volcanic eruptions which spike the concentration of co2), so i don't see how we could still support the same hypothesis while new data has just disproved it!

First of all volcanic eruptions cause a decrease in temperatures because of the aerosols. Second of all carbon dioxide from volcanic activity comprises less than 1% of the artificial carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/volcanoes-global-warming-460109). And I already told you that carbon dioxide is not the cause of glacial periods but its feedback! Today is the other way around.

Is it frightening that today's concentration of CO2 is 387? Maybe. But what is more frightening is that it is not affecting temperature in a linear fashion as AGW-proponents claimed.

Linear? You mean as in a linear mathematical function? Why would that matter? This thread is not about whether the warming is linear or not but whether global warming is real or not.

But those links are not based on facts or science. And our links are. Which is why we need to analyze them and see which one of them is based on more reliable data.

How can 2 links that have contradictory data be both scientific. Clearly one is fake.

You're just perpetuating the cycle. We already agreed that we cannot discuss global warming on our own, which is why both of us have been posting links to more or less reliable sources. So how about if we start discussing those sources now?

You mean discuss how every science academy, scientific organization, hell even some oil companies (http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm) and NASA scientists (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html) agree on the subject?

Sorry, but i'm not going to point out anything until you provide evidence for your first accusatory statement that just because THAT person had a different view on global warming then they are on the payroll of Exxon. Either show the evidence, or refrain from such inane and unproved statements, because it only shows how you are not quite interested in global warming but more about winning an argument.
Nope, you started this thread. Prove that 97% of all scientists are a fraud.

Havet

15th January 2010, 21:44

That we can't do. There's no way we can objectively and scientifically say how some data collected by someone else is reliable or not simply by posting it on revleft.

I don't intend to simply post it. I intend to analyze it.

Global warming doesn't mean every single square meter in every single second is hotter that it used to be.It means that the global average over a certain period of time is greater than it's normal. That means you can have snow storms, a Great Britain that's 10 degrees cooler that it should be or even 30 years of lower temperatures.

Here you arrive at a critical argument: AGW theory is not falsifiable. Unlike every single other scientific theory, AGW theory is not falsifiable, because that scientists can always claim that "Oh just because we've been with 30-50 years with a negative trend doesn't mean we're not getting warmer".

This is what happens when politics get in the way of science.

If you look closely on that graph, while it depicts decreasing temperatures during those 30 years, those temperatures are still higher than they were at the beginning of the century, so that's no global cooling but a fluctuation in the warming process in this case because of industrial activities.

So just because we reached a peak, then even if it goes down it still counts as warming "fluctuation"? Unbelievable

Here's some explanations (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639):

I was already familiar with that theory, and posted simply to see what you could come to. Indeed it appears, from the data available, that that explanation is the most correct. See, this is what I want to do with all the other topics: exchange links and resources, analyze them and then arrive at logical conclusions based on the data.

First of all volcanic eruptions cause a decrease in temperatures because of the aerosols. Second of all carbon dioxide from volcanic activity comprises less than 1% of the artificial carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/volcanoes-global-warming-460109).

Okay

And I already told you that carbon dioxide is not the cause of glacial periods but its feedback! Today is the other way around.

But you were not able to explain why, in one case, temperature and co2 records lead to a certain conclusion, and in the other, they lead to another one entirely. Why is it allowed people to pick and choose from the same data? Its almost like those Christians who pick and choose from the bible to prove their points!

Linear? You mean as in a linear mathematical function? Why would that matter? This thread is not about whether the warming is linear or not but whether global warming is real or not.

Linear as in pretending that the Climate is a very simple system.

A parallel between climate science and meteorology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology) can be drawn. Consider that for meteorologists to predict the weather (which they cannot predict with over 99% certainty) they only take into account 5 factors: temperature, air, pressure, water vapor and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Climate science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_science) has to take into account a lot more variables, such as: atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere.

Obviously that every single conclusion that we try to draw from climate data has to be analyzed very carefully due to the many hypothetical interactions which we might not be aware of.

You mean discuss how every science academy, scientific organization, hell even some oil companies (http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm) and NASA scientists (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html) agree on the subject?

We can also discuss how there is an enormous list of scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming) and [/URL]how some of nasa's satellite data go against their so called "official position":

[URL="http://enso.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/pub/conference/Minnis.SPIE.05.pdf"]Aqua Satellite (Cloud cover/CO2 feedback) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming)

Here is the basics from new data coming from NASA AQUA satellite (launched in 2002) that measures water vapor in the atmosphere. This is the first data on this. Seems the water vapor is NOT increasing as the GW models would suggest. In fact, Water vapor is increasing in the lower atmosphere which will affect cloud cover and at a minimum means LESS WARMING from C02 than thought and could lead to COOLING. So actual data is showing a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP. Which means that higher CO2 level will decrease water vapor in the upper atmosphere which is exactly OPPOSITE what the GW predict.

Why is this important? Because much of the scare from GW is that as C02 increases it reached a limit on warming (which we are likely at or near). Its like painting window. First coat reduces light through it..second reduces it more but by the time you get to the fifth coat add more coats does nothing to decrease the light coming through the window. Same with C02..it reaches a warming limit. So the power of warming has been thought to be in positive feedback loop of increasing water vapor in the upper atmosphere..amplifying the heating (water is a powerful warming agent). Turns out that was wrong.

World Climate Report » The Vapor Rub (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/03/18/the-vapor-rub/)

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Climate Metric Reality Check #1 - The Sum Of Climate Forcings and Feedbacks Is Less Than The 2007 IPCC Best Estimate Of Human Climate Forcing Of Global Warming (http://climatesci.org/2007/11/30/climate-metric-reality-check-1-the-sum-of-climate-forcings-and-feedbacks-is-less-than-the-2007-ipcc-best-estimate-of-human-climate-forcings/)

As early as 1990, MIT’s Richard Lindzen began to question the assumed strength of the water vapor feedback (in fact, he even questioned whether it was positive). Lindzen contended that the amount of water vapor in the upper levels of the atmosphere (above about 5 km) may actually decline in a warmer world. He argued that warmer surface temperatures would lead to more and stronger convection events (thunderstorms) that would transport less moisture to higher altitudes as a result of an increasing precipitation efficiency (i.e., the storms rain would themselves out). That effect, he theorized, combined with a few other hypothesized impacts, results in a much diminished water vapor feedback loop and thereby a much diminished greenhouse warming.
Now, about 14 years later comes further support (and actual evidence) for Lindzen’s ideas. Climate researchers Ken Minschwaner and Andrew Dessler have published the results of their careful examination of the water vapor feedback in tropical regions, both as contained in climate models and in observations made by instruments aboard orbiting satellites.
First, they developed their own model, one that has much more detail and resolution in the processes that describe vertical moisture transport in the tropics than do full-blown general circulation models (GCMs). Using this modeling tool, they determined that while the water vapor feedback was indeed positive, it was only about half as strong as found in current GCMs. These researchers then took the nearly unprecedented step of actually comparing their results with observations!
Combining satellite measurements of upper atmospheric moisture levels with the sea-surface temperatures below, the authors were able to demonstrate the actual relationship between temperature changes and upper atmospheric humidity changes. What they found was that the observed relationship was very close (or perhaps even a bit weaker) to what their model showed (Figure 1).
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/vapor1.JPG
Figure 1. The relationship between water content (specific humidity—y-axis) at an altitude of about 12km and the sea surface temperature below (x-axis). Notice that the observed relationship falls between the expected relationship from “no positive feedback” and the positive feedback found by Minschwaner and Dessler in their model. The relationship inherent in current GCMs is not even close to reality (adapted from Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004).
The final result of Minschwaner and Dessler’s efforts is that it is likely that the actual strength of the positive water vapor feedback, at least in the tropics, is significantly less than is inherent in current GCMs, such as the ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR). A weaker positive water vapor feedback directly results in less warming.

Nope, you started this thread. Prove that 97% of all scientists are a fraud.

I already did - at my first post of this thread.

Now will you please provide evidence to your claim?

Havet

15th January 2010, 21:49

Oh and BTW people, guess what the predictions were for the winter of 2009...

Yeah, the Met Office of UK predicted a mild winter. So much for supercomputers and climate models... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html)

Ovi

16th January 2010, 18:53

I don't intend to simply post it. I intend to analyze it.

Analyze what? Do you have a PhD in the physics of climate? If not then there's nothing that we can objectively analyze in this thread.

So just because we reached a peak, then even if it goes down it still counts as warming "fluctuation"? Unbelievable

Yes. You see those 30 cooler years were warmer than they should have been.

I was already familiar with that theory, and posted simply to see what you could come to. Indeed it appears, from the data available, that that explanation is the most correct. See, this is what I want to do with all the other topics: exchange links and resources, analyze them and then arrive at logical conclusions based on the data.

If you agree then what on earth is so unbelievable?

But you were not able to explain why, in one case, temperature and co2 records lead to a certain conclusion, and in the other, they lead to another one entirely. Why is it allowed people to pick and choose from the same data? Its almost like those Christians who pick and choose from the bible to prove their points!

What are you talking about? Today, unlike in regular interglacial periods, carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.

Linear as in pretending that the Climate is a very simple system.

A parallel between climate science and meteorology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology) can be drawn. Consider that for meteorologists to predict the weather (which they cannot predict with over 99% certainty) they only take into account 5 factors: temperature, air, pressure, water vapor and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Climate science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_science) has to take into account a lot more variables, such as: atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere.

Obviously that every single conclusion that we try to draw from climate data has to be analyzed very carefully due to the many hypothetical interactions which we might not be aware of.

Analyze what? Do you really think that by reading some web articles and looking over some graphs you can logically arrive to any conclusion? The only conclusion is that you might believe those who work in this domain or you don't. I don't say that global warming is the ultimate truth, but it's nearly a scientific consensus. If it's not real then I doubt it was a world wide conspiracy but a misunderstanding, a misunderstanding that I certainly can't solve myself simply by posting on revleft. The relativity theory could be wrong as far as I'm concerned by I won't shout like an idiot that it's a conspiracy. This is exactly what you do, you believe in a world wide scientists conspiracy that surprisingly big corporations like Exxon endorse.

We can also discuss how there is an enormous list of scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming) and how some of nasa's satellite data go against their so called "official position":

They're completely irrelevant.

Aqua Satellite (Cloud cover/CO2 feedback) (http://enso.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/pub/conference/Minnis.SPIE.05.pdf)

Hide that! You wouldn't want real scientists to see it!

I already did - at my first post of this thread.

Ok :laugh:

You still haven't explained why the earth has been warming in the last century more than it has in the last thousands of years.

Havet

16th January 2010, 19:37

Analyze what? Do you have a PhD in the physics of climate? If not then there's nothing that we can objectively analyze in this thread.

Scientific methods are objective, whether one has a phd or not. We just need to look at how reliable the data collected is and cross it with information (aka nuggets of knowledge) we both have until we arrive to a conclusion.

Yes. You see those 30 cooler years were warmer than they should have been.

How can you objectively predict, with very good certainty, what "should" have been?

What are you talking about? Today, unlike in regular interglacial periods, carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.

But you can't claim that. Although interglacial periods are indeed regular, that's exactly what i've been saying all long: temperatures have not risen above past maximums, only co2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1647638&postcount=37).

Analyze what? Do you really think that by reading some web articles and looking over some graphs you can logically arrive to any conclusion? The only conclusion is that you might believe those who work in this domain or you don't. I don't say that global warming is the ultimate truth, but it's nearly a scientific consensus. If it's not real then I doubt it was a world wide conspiracy but a misunderstanding, a misunderstanding that I certainly can't solve myself simply by posting on revleft. The relativity theory could be wrong as far as I'm concerned by I won't shout like an idiot that it's a conspiracy. This is exactly what you do, you believe in a world wide scientists conspiracy that surprisingly big corporations like Exxon endorse.

I never claimed it was a conspiracy. I only claimed that group interests have formed on both sides.

They're completely irrelevant.

Hide that! You wouldn't want real scientists to see it!

Like I said, you're just giving me more reason. Whenever evidence appears that disproves the current data, it is considered "irrelevant", so AGW theory is pretty much not falsifiable, unlike every other scientific theory, which means its not scientific.

You still haven't explained why the earth has been warming in the last century more than it has in the last thousands of years.

The temperature has indeed warming more in the last century, but you've been led to believe (due to Hockey Stick pseudo-science) that that warming is drastically more than what we've experienced in the past, when its not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

You, who seem to believe so much in regular patterns and regular interglacial periods, what do you see when look at the above picture? Clearly we're just crossing another regular warming trend.

I mean, you can look at the data yourself and model the graphic. Here, temperatures in the last 343 years (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt).

And if you want far more scientific references, daily's website is pretty good at disproving the hockey stick (http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm).

I think it was Carl Sagan who said "The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence"

And right now I don't see compelling evidence that the current 20th century warming trend is caused by humans and that it is something we should worry about, just as I don't think that sunspots can explain that trend as well or some other theory, because we simply don't know that much about the climate (which is extremely complex) to be able to predict it with good certainty.

Let us focus on more vital and important issues, those we do have evidence for, and solve them, like sea and land pollution, poverty, toxic contamination, etc.

Ovi

17th January 2010, 00:12

Scientific methods are objective, whether one has a phd or not. We just need to look at how reliable the data collected is and cross it with information (aka nuggets of knowledge) we both have until we arrive to a conclusion.

What scientific method could you possibly use if you know nothing about the science?

How can you objectively predict, with very good certainty, what "should" have been?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But you can't claim that. Although interglacial periods are indeed regular, that's exactly what i've been saying all long: temperatures have not risen above past maximums, only co2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1647638&postcount=37).

Actually they have. Exxon doesn't admit it though. See above graph.

I never claimed it was a conspiracy. I only claimed that group interests have formed on both sides.

Prove that 97% of all scientists are a fraud.

I already did - at my first post of this thread.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Like I said, you're just giving me more reason. Whenever evidence appears that disproves the current data, it is considered "irrelevant", so AGW theory is pretty much not falsifiable, unlike every other scientific theory, which means its not scientific.

The temperature has indeed warming more in the last century, but you've been led to believe (due to Hockey Stick pseudo-science) that that warming is drastically more than what we've experienced in the past, when its not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

You, who seem to believe so much in regular patterns and regular interglacial periods, what do you see when look at the above picture? Clearly we're just crossing another regular warming trend.

Man made global warming is only 100 or so years old. You don't expect to see that fine interval in a half a million years graph do you? Here's some science: your graph depicts almost 500 thousands years in 500 width pixel image, thus 1000 years in a pixel. It would take 1/10 of a pixel to see the current warming. This is objective.

I mean, you can look at the data yourself and model the graphic. Here, temperatures in the last 343 years (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2004/jonesmannrogfig2c.txt).

Here's something probably more reliable (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html) (also (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)) . Yes I trust the US Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA more that some random guy on the internet. Reliability, remember?
Here's some more
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2
http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

And if you want far more scientific references, daily's website is pretty good at disproving the hockey stick (http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm).

I have certain reasons to trust NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NAP (national academies press) than john daly.

And right now I don't see compelling evidence that the current 20th century warming trend is caused by humans and that it is something we should worry about, just as I don't think that sunspots can explain that trend as well or some other theory, because we simply don't know that much about the climate (which is extremely complex) to be able to predict it with good certainty.

What is known is that the current temperatures are greater than they were in the last few thousands of years, including the medieval warm period, that the trend of rapid warming is continuing and that there is over 30% more atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, that there was 2 centuries ago, and more than anytime in the last 15 millions years (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm).

Let us focus on more vital and important issues, those we do have evidence for, and solve them, like sea and land pollution, poverty, toxic contamination, etc.
I agree but you're the one who started this meaningless thread.

Ovi

17th January 2010, 00:56

By the way I did plot your data that is supposed to prove how global warming is a scam. Data reliability set aside, here it is, averaged over a 5 year period.
http://i46.tinypic.com/dxmzoj.jpg
The highest temperature anomaly was during 1999-2002 of 0.88 degrees. The highest average temperature anomaly before the 20th century is in the 1734-1738 interval, of 0.39 degrees. This is supposed to prove something?

Havet

18th January 2010, 20:16

What scientific method could you possibly use if you know nothing about the science?

The reliability of the sources of the data, study of the predictions of the hypothesis, and whether they fit what actually happens or not, etc

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I already showed (http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm) how there is evidence to suggest that the medieval warm period exceeded, by far, today's current "record" temperatures.

Actually they have. Exxon doesn't admit it though. See above graph.

What does Exxon have to do with it now? I thought you only mentioned them because they "supposedly" bribed the guy whom i was using for sourcing my claims?

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Whatever

Man made global warming is only 100 or so years old. You don't expect to see that fine interval in a half a million years graph do you? Here's some science: your graph depicts almost 500 thousands years in 500 width pixel image, thus 1000 years in a pixel. It would take 1/10 of a pixel to see the current warming. This is objective.

And what is also objective is how we (humans) have experienced far more record breaking temperatures in the medieval warm period.

Here's something probably more reliable (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html) (also (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)) . Yes I trust the US Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA more that some random guy on the internet. Reliability, remember?
Here's some more
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2
http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

I have certain reasons to trust NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NAP (national academies press) than john daly.

Dude, for the nth-time, I do not belief what john daly's says on his site just because he is john daly. I believe the evidence presented because the sources from where he posted the information seem reliable.

Look at them yourself:

[1] Biondi F. et al., "July Temperature During the Second Millennium Reconstructed from Idaho Tree Rings", Geophysical Research Letters, v.26, no.10, p.1445, 1998
[2] Cioccale M., "Climatic Fluctuations in the Central Region of Argentina in the last 1000 Years", Quaternary International 62, p.35-37, 1999 (as reported by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change - http://www.co2science.org/ )
[3] Cook et al., "Climatic Change over the Last Millennium in Tasmania Reconstructed from Tree-Rings", The Holocene, 2.3 pp.205-217, 1992
[4] Daly J., "The Surface Record: Global Mean Temperature and How it is Determined at Surface Level" April 2000, http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm
[5] Daly J., "Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels", June 2000 http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm
[6] deMenocal P. et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period", Science, v.288, p.2198-2202, Jun 23 2000
[7] Dullo, W. et al., "Stable Isotope Record from Holocene Reef Corals, Western Indian Ocean", Journal of Conference Abstracts v.4 no.1, Symposium B02, http://www.campublic.co.uk/science/publications/JConfAbs/4/164.html
[8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000
[9] Hong Y. et al., "Response of Climate to Solar Forcing Recorded in a 6000-year delta18O Time-Series of Chines Peat Cellulose", The Holocene, v.10, p.1-7, 2000
[10] Houghton, J. et al. "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change", Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 1995
[11] IPCC, Third Assessment Report (draft), January 2000
[12] Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996
[13] Kuo-Yen Wei et al, "Documenting Past Environmental Changes in Taiwan and Adjacent Areas", Department of Geology, National Taiwan University, 1996. http://www.gcc.ntu.edu.tw/gcc/research/igbp/1996_igbp/sec3-4/3-4.html
[14] Lean J., "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, no.16, p.2425, August 15 2000
[15] Magnuson J. et al., "Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern Hemisphere", Science, v.289, p.1743, 8 Sept 2000
[16] Mann M.E. et al, "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations", AGU GRL, v.3.1, 1999
[17] Mann M.E., Personal Website - http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mem6u (http://www.people.virginia.edu/%7Emem6u/)
[18] National Academy of Science, "On being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research", National Academy Press, 1995
[19] National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), "Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change" - Overview document, USGCRP, June 2000
[20] National Research Council, "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change", National Academy Press, 2000
[21] Nunez, M., "The Urban Heat Island: Some Aspects of the Phenomenon in Hobart", University of Tasmania, ISBN 0-85901-121-6, 1979
[22] Orwell, George, "Nineteen Eighty-Four", Penguin Books, London.
[23] Peru ice core http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/fig19d.htm
[24] Svensmark H., "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate", Physical Review Letters, v.81, no.22, p.5027, 30 Nov 1998
[25] ---, "A 1000-year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada", Quaternary Research, v.39, p.249-255, 1993.
[26] Tagami, Y. Reconstruction of Climate in the Medieval Warm Period http://edcgeo.edu.toyama-u.ac.jp/Geohome/IntN/Abs.htm
[27] Tyson, P.D. et al., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa". South African Journal of Science, v96. p.121-126, 2000
[28] van de Plassche & van der Borg, "Sea level-climate correlation during the past 1400 yr", Free University Amsterdam & Utrecht University, http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~adejong/radiocarbon_dating/Sea-level/sea_level-climate_correlation.htm (http://www.fys.ruu.nl/%7Eadejong/radiocarbon_dating/Sea-level/sea_level-climate_correlation.htm)
[29] Verschuren D., "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa during the past 1,100 Years", Nature v.403(6768) pp.410-414, 27 Jan 2000
[30] Villalba, R., "Tree-ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America". Climate Change, 26: 183-197, 1994
[31] Wang Wen & Xie Zhiren, "Historical Sea Level Fluctuations in China: Tidal Disaster Intensity and Sea Level Change", Nanjing University, http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn/periodical/hhdxxb/hhdx99/hhdx9905/990509.htm
[32] Winter et al. "Caribbean Sea Surface Temperatures: Two-to-Three Degrees Cooler than Present During the Little Ice Age", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, 20, p.3365, Oct 15 2000
[33] J T Houghton, G J Jenkins, J J Ephraums, Eds,, "Climate Change; The IPCC Scientific Assessment". 1990 . Cambridge University Press, p.202

What is known is that the current temperatures are greater than they were in the last few thousands of years, including the medieval warm period, that the trend of rapid warming is continuing and that there is over 30% more atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, that there was 2 centuries ago, and more than anytime in the last 15 millions years (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm).

The sources above posted should clarify that IT IS NOT KNOWN that the current temperatures are greater than they were in the last few thousands of years.

rise in CO2 does not necessarily imply global warming.

The very modest increase in global temperature predicted for a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 is about one degree Celsius. This extra energy is available to evaporate more water. But think about the evaporation cycle. When water evaporates it takes latent heat from the surface which results in a cooling of that surface. The water vapor raises to the cloud tops where it condenses out to form clouds. Condensing water vapor releases latent energy which now being above most of the atmosphere (and above almost all of the water vapor which is the dominate greenhouse gas) is largely radiated back out into space as outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

The AGW crowd would have you believe that the atmosphere retains that moisture, that is that the relative humidity will stay constant instead of raining out to keep the global greenhouse factor constant as required by the energy minimum principle. What warrant do they have to make that claim?

We have no where near doubled the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. The natural variability (http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=1&ui_sort=0) in year-to-year rain/snow patterns is so great that it would be next to impossible to isolate any increase in participation due to increased CO2 out of the data. But, then again, I haven’t tried to do so either.

BTW, if you're looking at computation of the data from which i just sourced my claim, someone already saved you the trouble (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/summer-snow/).

I agree but you're the one who started this meaningless thread.

Why is it meaningless? if it is meaningless why are you posting on it? do you enjoy meaningless things?

The reason why i made this thread is so that people can pay attention to REAL problems once and for all and stop worrying about what we have no evidence of.

By the way I did plot your data that is supposed to prove how global warming is a scam. Data reliability set aside, here it is, averaged over a 5 year period.
http://i46.tinypic.com/dxmzoj.jpg
The highest temperature anomaly was during 1999-2002 of 0.88 degrees. The highest average temperature anomaly before the 20th century is in the 1734-1738 interval, of 0.39 degrees. This is supposed to prove something?

Not really. I apologize, because i fucked up when posting my source. Give me some time while i find it