reply to post by nextone
Appeals to authority are not productive, especially when that authority is biased. Dr. Christy is not the only source of world temperature data.
Recall what I said about Dr. Christy focusing on the tropics because according to him, that's where impact would be most easily discerned. Now watch
the video at this NASA page
. Again, warming is not nearly as
strong in the tropics as it is elsewhere. You have not refuted this. Here are some other things by Dr. Christy, things that can be found in the link
to his testimony provided earlier, in chronological order (old to new):
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Will CO2 increases affect climate significantly? Models suggest the answer is yes, though I have serious
That greenhouse gases are increasing in concentration is clearly true and therefore the radiation budget of the atmosphere will be altered. In
response, the surface temperature should rise due to this additional forcing.
Energy demand will grow, as it should, to allow these people to experience the advances in health and prosperity that we in the U.S. have. They
are far more vulnerable to the impacts of poverty and political strife than climate changes. I simply close with a plea, please remember the needs and
aspirations of the poorest among us when energy policy is made.
We’ve also found that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually happening in the atmosphere because
they are contaminated by surface development.
The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979-1993 was +0.09°C/decade
I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new
underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature
it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest
of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response
Note that by this point, he supports a trend in warming (albeit lower) here in his 2011 testimony to Congress - a trend that hadn't abated at that
point - and expects future warming due to more CO2. This flies in the face of his earlier skepticism about CO2 contributing to warming.
Oh, and another article from a biased website. The Australian
is owned by none other than
. They've been accused before of
misrepresentation and bias
This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed
that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise.
As to that specific
article, there is an easy response
Pachauri is the mentioned chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly. Had he said that global surface air temperatures have
plateaued and that this doesn't disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct. Though it's also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the
global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming).
Note the selective use of paraphrased
remarks. A very narrow subset of data: 1) during a specific timeline, 2) on a very specific part of the
data), 3) it's so tenuous that they aren't even claiming the opposite (cooling) but rather the neutral ('not' warming). This is then generalized to
misinform people, like you, about what is going on. Additionally:
More importantly, over the past 17 years the planet has accumulated the equivalent energy to detonating 3.7 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second,
every second. It takes a fundamental misundertanding of the global climate to deny that immense amount of global warming.
Please - critique articles you come across, and search for contradictory information before claiming them to support your position.
14Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:57:11 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)