Reply With Quote
Well that settles it man induced global warming doesn't exist.
...down.
Father of scientific climatology calls global warming "...a bunch of hooey."
The BBC studies itself and discovers, Surprise!, we're biased to the left on just about everything, including climate change."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."
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
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?"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."
Well that settles it man induced global warming doesn't exist.
Good for you.
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.
Then, there's this:
Global Warming stopped in 1998
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.
And, who could forget this?
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
That's five!
All you've got is a "concensus" reached by a political organization.
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)
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.
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.
I didn't need any convincing. I was already convince several years ago.
Link to one peer-reviewed scientific study that supports anthropogenic global warming.
Just one. The political IPCC "concensus" do ent doesn't count. Besides, there's no evidence in that do ent anyway.
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.
Wait a minute! I could be wrong. This just in...
Pending doom: Global warming crisis
Well, you've got a group of Maine 4th graders on your side.
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.
Cmon guys! Come through in the clutch, prove Yoni is wrong! I know you all got it in you..
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 decided to do their own review of 928 peer reviewed studies.
And here is a follow up experiment to that Science Mag studyIPCC 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 ac ulating 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.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 06-19-2007 at 01:14 AM.
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:
Wikipedia"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."
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.”
From Yoni's second article...
TelegraphAfter 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.
Tony Blair? Now there's a shocker. Yoni didn't mention that part.
...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....
Yoni's LinkyBut 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.
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
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:
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: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.
Long Range Solar Forecast
Solar Storm Warning
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle
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.
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:
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:
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:
Beryllium 10 is also converted in the atmosphere by the sun's intensity. Another interesting correlation:
Hold the phones, Chuck! We may be back to global cooling...
Read the sunspots
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
Check that, Chuck...it's just Mother Nature thowing a tizzy.
'Earth Mother getting angry'
Get ready for Global Homeless SHelter Bukkake!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
