The walls come crumbling...

[Yonivore]

...down.

Father of scientific climatology calls global warming "...a bunch of hooey." (http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613)

"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

The BBC studies itself and discovers, Surprise!, we're biased to the left on just about everything, including climate change. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)
Boy, wouldn't it nice if ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did that here? Think they'd be as surprised? If, that is, they could muster the courage to be honest about it.

The NOAA doesn't know how to move weather stations when they become compromised by localized environmental influences (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html)

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."
If you fail to move thermometers when civilization puts an air conditioning vent fan or an incinerator within ten feet; or, when you pave the ground around it or build a building next to it; you can expect temperatures to rise over time, eh?

[George Gervin's Afro]

...down.

Father of scientific climatology calls global warming "...a bunch of hooey." (http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613)


The BBC studies itself and discovers, Surprise!, we're biased to the left on just about everything, including climate change. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)
Boy, wouldn't it nice if ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did that here? Think they'd be as surprised? If, that is, they could muster the courage to be honest about it.

The NOAA doesn't know how to move weather stations when they become compromised by localized environmental influences (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html)

If you fail to move thermometers when civilization puts an air conditioning vent fan or an incinerator within ten feet; or, when you pave the ground around it or build a building next to it; you can expect temperatures to rise over time, eh?


Well that settles it man induced global warming doesn't exist.

[Yonivore]

Well that settles it man induced global warming doesn't exist.
Good for you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Good for you.


Yep. All I need is for 1 person to tell me something and I take their word while ignoring everyone else.

[Yonivore]

Yep. All I need is for 1 person to tell me something and I take their word while ignoring everyone else.
Well, it's good there were three articles citing three different fallacies of the global climate change hysteria then. You got triple-convinced.

What took you so long.

Oh yeah, I hear Gore's daughter has written a book that claims the Sun heats the earth! I'll bet he's fuming.

[Yonivore]

Then, there's this:

Global Warming stopped in 1998 (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html)


The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

[Yonivore]

And, who could forget this?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

That's five!

All you've got is a "concensus" reached by a political organization.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

yoni, i really admire you. at this point the work you put into to upholding positions that are so obviously false is truly impressive.


edit: PS, its too bad that you're not taken seriously anymore though (i mean i never did take you or your positions seriously, but at least you had some support for all of you troubles once upon a time)

[MadDog73]

Sigh. I really, really hope that conservatives stick with this "Global warming is not proven (just like evolution)" argument.

If they keep this up, even Hillary Clinton may be able to win the White House. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

The NOAA doesn't know how to move weather stations when they become compromised by localized environmental influences

If you fail to move thermometers when civilization puts an air conditioning vent fan or an incinerator within ten feet; or, when you pave the ground around it or build a building next to it; you can expect temperatures to rise over time, eh?

So, it's your contention that the global warming phenomenon is result of thermometers being too close to structures that produce heat? Hmmm. So you admit that the termometers are signaling increasing tempatures, but that this increase is explaind by the location of the thermometers? Interesting.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't need any convincing. I was already convince several years ago.

[Yonivore]

yoni, i really admire you. at this point the work you put into to upholding positions that are so obviously false is truly impressive.


edit: PS, its too bad that you're not taken seriously anymore though (i mean i never did take you or your positions seriously, but at least you had some support for all of you troubles once upon a time)
Link to one peer-reviewed scientific study that supports anthropogenic global warming.

Just one. The political IPCC "concensus" document doesn't count. Besides, there's no evidence in that document anyway.

[Yonivore]

So, it's your contention that the global warming phenomenon is result of thermometers being too close to structures that produce heat? Hmmm. So you admit that the termometers are signaling increasing tempatures, but that this increase is explaind by the location of the thermometers? Interesting.
Did you read the article?

What this guy has found would explain a rise in national averages over time, particularly if the practice is as widespread in other areas as he's found in his.

The theory that cities are becoming warmer because of reflective impervious cover such as parking lots and buildings has been around for some time. That's not a result of global climate change as much as it is of localized environmental changes.

[Yonivore]

Wait a minute! I could be wrong. This just in...

Pending doom: Global warming crisis (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story_pf.php?id=113600&ac=)


A group of fourth-graders in Portland creates a list of priorities to stop global warming.
Well, you've got a group of Maine 4th graders on your side.

[Mr. Peabody]

Did you read the article?

What this guy has found would explain a rise in national averages over time, particularly if the practice is as widespread in other areas as he's found in his.

The theory that cities are becoming warmer because of reflective impervious cover such as parking lots and buildings has been around for some time. That's not a result of global climate change as much as it is of localized environmental changes.

I did read the article....




NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

[Yonivore]

I did read the article....
Those that were improperly situated in those 40 is a statistically significant indication of what can be expected upon inspection of the remaining 1,180 or so.

And, that was only one of five articles I posted that addressed other aspects of the Global Warm....er, Global Climate Change hysteria.

[gtownspur]

Cmon guys! Come through in the clutch, prove Yoni is wrong! I know you all got it in you..

[PixelPusher]

Link to one peer-reviewed scientific study that supports anthropogenic global warming.

Just one. The political IPCC "concensus" document doesn't count. Besides, there's no evidence in that document anyway.
Well, gee-golly-willikers...I don't have access to peer reviewed scientific studies. I guess I'll just have to take your word...Oh, wait!

Science Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) decided to do their own review of 928 peer reviewed studies.

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

And here is a follow up experiment to that Science Mag study (http://norvig.com/oreskes.html)

[Nbadan]

Yoni's article Father of scientific climatology calls global warming "...a bunch of hooey." is misleading. NASA's Michael Griffin is no friend of the global climate change crowd...

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep airing May 31, 2007 on NPR News' Morning Edition, Griffin said the following:


"I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin)

Prominent climate scientists have referred to his remarks as ignorant. In particular, James Hansen, NASA's top official on climate change, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance”, as millions will likely be harmed by global warming. Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”

[Nbadan]

From Yoni's second article...


After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.

But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.

Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml)

Tony Blair? Now there's a shocker. Yoni didn't mention that part.

[Nbadan]

...and finally, Yoni's third article: 'Helping along global warming', says this about the National Climatic Data Center and it's 1,221, mostly rural, weather observation stations around the country....


But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses.

Yoni's Linky (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html)

The United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina is the world's largest active archive of weather data. The Center has more than 150 years of data on hand with 224 gigabytes of new information added each day. NCDC archives 99 percent of all NOAA data, including over 320 million paper records; 2.5 million microfiche records; over 1.2 petabytes of digital data residing in a mass storage environment. NCDC has satellite weather images back to 1960.

Data are received from a wide variety of sources, including satellites, radar, remote sensing systems, NWS cooperative observers, aircraft, ships, radiosondes, wind profilers, rocketsondes, solar radiation networks, and NWS Forecast/Warnings/Analyses Products.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Climatic_Data_Center)

[Wild Cobra]

The article tells us what I have been hearing for years about the weather monitoring sites. The towns have been growing into them.

Now don't get tied up in the "mostly rural" part and conclude the Forest Grove and Roseburg site as unusual. These likely fit the rural site definition. I used to live in Forest Grove. Even today, it is trees, trees, trees! However, the thermometer next to an AC heat exchanger...

2000 census:

Roseburg; 20,017
Forest Grove; 20,380

I like the part of the article that says:


Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year.

Many of the scientists who disagree with global warming are saying the next few years will be cooler than 1998. Some, because of the patterns being seen of the sun. I find thess articles interesting; links:

Long Range Solar Forecast (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm)
Solar Storm Warning (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm)
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml)

The above articles from NASA and UCAR will be an interesting read for those who like science.

You guys should look at the simple effect from just the sun. I don't recall the estimated zero-point, but for simplicity and illustration, I will call it –341 Fahrenheit (-207 C, 66 Kelvin) vs. today's global average of 59 degrees (15 C 288 Kelvin) Now absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin is the temperature where an object will settle at with no outside heat. The earth will not over the millennia's will not get that cold if our sun disappeared because of it's own internal heat. It will get very cold however.

OK now, 400 degrees difference. The sun has a proportional effect on the earths heat. That means every 1% of the sun would affect the earth by 4 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2.2 degrees Celsius. We only have records of solar irradiance since 1978. Before that, we had no satellites that could make this direct measurement. We see a normal cycle with the 11 year sunspot activity that varies by about 4 watts/meter with about a 1366 average. That is 0.3%. This makes the temperature changes from just the solar radiation about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Now of course, we never see that. The temperature system of the earth is like a battery, charging and discharging. There is a lag time so these changes are not as intense and we don't see them for a few years after a change.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Now for the sake of argument, let's say the earth would be an average of –141 instead with no external heat. I cut the range in half. The nominal sun cycle still now has half the influence. Now it's 2 degrees per percent, or a 0.6 degree change! Also for the sake of argument, it we bring our zero-point to absolute zero, the 100% range is 518, or 5.2 degrees per percent That now makes makes a 1.6 degree change over the sunspot cycle.

The sunspot cycle isn't much to consider short term because it has been rather consistant these last several years. When we know there are erratic historical periods in the suns cycle, and we can clearly assume the same trend follow, we have better evidence that the sun is causing the warming trends we see. First, look at this butterfly graph:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif/800px-Sunspot-bfly.gif

Note the greater intensity and pattern starting after 1950. Isn't this about the time we started seeing more warming?

Now let's look at this trend:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/350px-Sunspot_Numbers.png

I know, there are those disclaiming the solar idea. Their reasons don't wash however when you compare the consider the accurate short term data and apply the trend to the long term observations.

One more thing that correlates with historical intensity of the sun is Carbon 14 data. Nitrogen in the atmosphere is converted to carbon 14 by the suns radiation. There is a direct link of this conversion with the suns radiation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png/800px-Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png

Beryllium 10 is also converted in the atmosphere by the sun's intensity. Another interesting correlation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png/300px-Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

[Yonivore]

Hold the phones, Chuck! We may be back to global cooling...

Read the sunspots (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)


The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

[Yonivore]

Check that, Chuck...it's just Mother Nature thowing a tizzy.

'Earth Mother getting angry' (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070618/REPOSITORY/706180330)

[gtownspur]

Get ready for Global Homeless SHelter Bukkake!!

[Wild Cobra]

Here is some more interesting science around global warming:

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA)

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI)

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0)

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk)

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro)

[xrayzebra]

I love the way they want to accept the inventor of the inter-net's doomsday prophecy
and never want to accept or listen to
what some "real" experts say.

Most say nothing has been proven at this
point and it needs a lot more study. They
also ask, what is the "normal" temperature
for the earth. No one knows. No one also
knows for sure about the "average" temperature for earth, since there are many,
many places where they have no record
of temperature.

[u2sarajevo]

Dallas weather this year has been unreal. Lots of rain (too much) and mild temperatures. We are a few days from July 1 and we haven't had a day over 100 degrees.... and usually we see the first 100 degree day before the end of May. In fact, temperatures this week aren't supposed to get into the 90's until Thursday (92).

The reason I bring this up is because what do the doom sayers say to this? Is their argument that weather cycles are cyclic? I would think that would be a fair statement, although filled with irony.

The guy that cuts my hair is as liberal as the day is long.... When I got my hair cut last week I brought up the crazy mild weather we have been having. I mentioned, jokingly, that it was due to "global warming"... to which he went on a diatribe about how that was it... that global warming was causing our temperatures to be cooler somehow. It was then that I realized that this new found religion will always have an out... no matter what happens to the temperatures it will be due to their god, global warming.

I picture the warmites praying over the Weather section hoping for 110 degree weather to plague us so that they can go out and convert more to their religion.

[Yonivore]

Dallas weather this year has been unreal. Lots of rain (too much) and mild temperatures. We are a few days from July 1 and we haven't had a day over 100 degrees.... and usually we see the first 100 degree day before the end of May. In fact, temperatures this week aren't supposed to get into the 90's until Thursday (92).

The reason I bring this up is because what do the doom sayers say to this? Is their argument that weather cycles are cyclic? I would think that would be a fair statement, although filled with irony.

The guy that cuts my hair is as liberal as the day is long.... When I got my hair cut last week I brought up the crazy mild weather we have been having. I mentioned, jokingly, that it was due to "global warming"... to which he went on a diatribe about how that was it... that global warming was causing our temperatures to be cooler somehow. It was then that I realized that this new found religion will always have an out... no matter what happens to the temperatures it will be due to their god, global warming.

I picture the warmites praying over the Weather section hoping for 110 degree weather to plague us so that they can go out and convert more to their religion.
You must have missed the memo. It's no longer called "global warming." All these phenomena, you and I would normally call weather, that have been putting the lie to the "global warming" hysteria has caused Chief Priest Algore and his minions to begin referring to the crisis as "global climate change."

Now, anytime something occurs that you and I might consider "weather," it is a result of "global climate change."

[xrayzebra]

You must have missed the memo. It's no longer called "global warming." All these phenomena, you and I would normally call weather, that have been putting the lie to the "global warming" hysteria has caused Chief Priest Algore and his minions to begin referring to the crisis as "global climate change."

Now, anytime something occurs that you and I might consider "weather," it is a result of "global climate change."
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/Global.gif

[Yonivore]

Scientist Implicates Worms in Global Warming (http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63227)


Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

[Yonivore]

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)

Another brick in the Algore's wall comes tumbling down...

[Wild Cobra]

QUOTE=Buck Rogers]the earth isn't getting hotter, the sun is. stars are known to fluctuate and have flare ups. those "small" flare ups aren't so small when you consider the size and energy of the sun...........people are so gulliable.[/QUOTE]
Yes, people are gulliable.

I don't understand why the obvious is rejected by most people.

The Sun is the source of our heat. Normal average global temperatures are about 288 degrees Kelvin. If we assume the earths core would maintain us at 88 K with no sun, then a 200 degree range means 2 degrees Celsius per one percent change in the suns output. We see nominal 0.2% to 0.3% changes in the sunspot cycles (calculated 0.4 C to 0.6 C) since we have been able to directly monitor the suns energy, starting in 1975. Historical proxy evidence is very compelling and suggests that we have had lower energy from the sun in the earlier 1900’s and beyond than today’s average. The proxy evidence falls in line with the proxy evidence that we derive past temperatures from. They are nearly 100% in alignment with each other.

Then there are cosmic ray changes and CME (coronal mass eruptions) also.

I wonder how much money Al Gore has made from his stock holdings in these companies that sell carbon credits?

[mookie2001]

global warming is real

the alarmists are trying to scare us to death though
rule with fear
exactly like the al queda boogeymen

the federal government is just going to use global warming to gain more control and power

these enviornmental corporations are evil as shit though, theyre going to take peoples land and restrict personal liberty

if you want to help the enviornment you should plant a tree, drive less, conserve water and energy, not give to env corporations and support more federal regulations, laws, and programs

[Yonivore]

global warming is real

the alarmists are trying to scare us to death though
rule with fear
exactly like the al queda boogeymen

the federal government is just going to use global warming to gain more control and power

these enviornmental corporations are evil as shit though, theyre going to take peoples land and restrict personal liberty

if you want to help the enviornment you should plant a tree, drive less, conserve water and energy, not give to env corporations and support more federal regulations, laws, and programs
Well, I take exception to your analogy of global warming to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has actaully caused tangible, measurable human suffering and death. Global Warming, not so much.