Can We Even Stop Global Warming?

Originally posted by Muaddib
The question is, if it is mankind who is to blame for global warming because of the CO2 being released by mankind in the atmosphere and the chemicals released in the oceans, why did the increase in temperatures began deep under the Earth's crust first?

Anybody care to anwser that question?

Muaddib, I have asked exactly that same question in other threads as well, and seemingly no one wants to approach it. The Earth is warming from the bottom up IMHO.

Again, it seems no one will even approach the question



AB1

Muaddib you are also saying, all-be-it in a round-about way, that the IPCC report is a political report as much as anything else. The IPCC certainly has access to all the data from all the sources you cite, yet they basically just dismiss that data. Why is that? There are a couple of reasons such could be the case. One, they simply don't believe the conclusions of the various studies are true. Two, they don't care if they are true or not, because they have enough ammunition to issue a scathing report without them. Three, they stand to gain something by the report they did release. Four, some combination of the factors above. Note that in all cases except for the first, which implies that either they or the original report writers of the studies you cite are wrong, the report they did release becomes by default a politically motivated report.

Now, since the IPCC does not itself conduct any studies at all, the report they released represents the general consensus of the vast majority of the climate studies and climate simulations done to date. Either the writers of the vast majority of such studies are simply wrong in their conclusions, or the writers of the studies you cite are wrong in theirs. Again, this begins to sound like a political report as much as anything else.

Certainly grant money to conduct further research is tied to the conclusions of the various studies and certainly climate scientists are just as prone to protect their sources of income as anyone else.

This whole ball of wax begins to sound like an unwitting conspiracy by the world's cimate scientists to get mankind to wean itself from fossil fuels and do other things to clean up the environment and to hell with the truth.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Astronomer70]

Your hypothesis sounds good on Muaddib but it would be interesting to run it past a real scientist who actually knows what they are talking about and see what they say.

The thing is I have read railings before from you about liberal agenda's in association with the notion of Global Warming and how you are just trying to get the truth out... how noble. But you see the problem with that reasoning is the assumption that somehow liberals are the only ones with agendas and conservatives are only ones after the truth. Now that may be a wonderful salve and balm to your ego to think that but it simply is not the case... NOTHING is ever that black and white or simplistic... obviously you have your own agenda as do other conservatives. That is not to say that liberals don't because that simply isn't true either, I am just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. The other thing is that the scientists who are working on global warming come from wide backgrounds and nations and it is absurd to even consider that they all are involved in some great scheme to convince us that we have screwed up the planet somehow thanks to our usage of fossil fuels. That is simply absurd to even think that that could possibly be the case.

No one should have to convince us of that, all we have to do is look around. We have been crapping in our own nest for a long time now.

Originally posted by grover
Your hypothesis sounds good on Muaddib but it would be interesting to run it past a real scientist who actually knows what they are talking about and see what they say.
.............

A real scientist?... I have given several links to research papers and what several "real scientists" have to say.

The borehole data speaks for itself, temperatures deep beneath the Earth's crust have been rising since the 1600s, that's 300 years before temperatures in the Earth's surface raised dramatically. How do you explain that?...

How do you explain the "coincidence", if you want to call it that, as to everything else that has been happening ? The Earth's magnetic field starting to weaken about 100 years before the sudden increase of temperature in the Earth's surface, the sun going beserk and producing the biggest sunspots on record, the Global warming and dramatic changes seen in every planet and moon with an atmosphere in the solar system...

Everyone of those points covered I have corroborated with data, research papers, and what "real scientists" say about them...


[edit on 5-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Muaddib you are also saying, all-be-it in a round-about way, that the IPCC report is a political report as much as anything else. The IPCC certainly has access to all the data from all the sources you cite, yet they basically just dismiss that data. Why is that?
.......................

Good points you are raising. As to the exact reason why the IPCC and other groups want to keep dismissing the data which proves the contrary as to their claims, I cannot say. We can only speculate and every question you made could be the reason why.

But this is not the first time in the history of science when data which refutes the "scientific concensus" has been ignored and dismissed despite the evidence to support it.

History does repeat itself doesn't it?

The fact still remains that the whole concensus from the IPCC came about from the Hockey Stick Graph. A graph which did not show either the Medieval warming period nor the little Ice Age which followed in the Middle ages.

We have detailed borehole data that shows that the temperatures increased inside the Earth 300 years before they increased in the surface of Earth, and they have kept increasing.

The borehole data is also a direct thermophysical record, not based on proxies which are bound on errors.

Is that just another "coincidence" of the mountain loads of data which points to other sources for the current global warming Earth is going through?

That data alone should be raising questions about the "scientific concensus", yet it doesn't.


---edited to add comment---

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Rantings huh?....

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick" RealClimate

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. The people

Rantings and myths is exactly it, since your are incapable of millions of calculations a second and think cherry picking data to fit a hypothesis is logical.

NOAA ACTIVATES NEWEST CLIMATE & WEATHER SUPERCOMPUTERS

You don't even know what borehole data represents, where as model simulations all show that it is not possible to explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without including the contribution from anthropogenic forcing factors.

So go post a forecast and leave out anthropogenic factors, then we shall see if your all blow or not. I say you have no such courage. You only know how to hindcast and pretend to know better than NASA and the NOAA.



[edit on 5-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
...............
So go post a forecast and leave out anthropogenic factors, then we shall see if your all blow or not. I say you have no such courage and you only know how to hindcast.

This coming from the same person who in order to refute evidence uses a website which claims everyone who does not agree with their opinion is just a layperson despite the fact that there are several prominent scientists who can refute these claims?...

yes we can stop global warming... we have the technology to do so.

but do we want to use it, the cost in money could be to much, would we give up our life still for it... i really doubt it... would 3rd world countries agree... nope. it would cause mass starvation...

weve hit over population as it is

although it is extremely possible though

Originally posted by Muaddib

This coming from the same person who in order to refute evidence uses a website which claims everyone who does not agree with their opinion is just a layperson despite the fact that there are several prominent scientists who can refute these claims?...

But thats just the point, those "prominent" scientists that you call them aren't in the general concensus as the rest of the scientifici community are on the topic. Just because there are a few scientists that say differently does'nt make them correct. Back when GW was just a forming theory, many scientists (most actually) didn't take it seriously as they couldn't fathom mankind affecting the earth on that scale.
These scientists that you post about have their own theories that may or may not have some basis in fact - the rest of the scientific sommunity happen to disagree with them.

Do you really think there is some mass worldwide conspiracy with all the worlds scientists collaborating with liberals on this to demonize man?? Do you realize how insane that sounds??

It seems to me it boils down to this... either:

(A) Muaddib is right and the scientists who say that global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses are wrong and/or they are part of some grand global conspiracy to sell the idea.

(B) Muaddib is just plain wrong and the same scientists are right.

(C) Muaddib either simply doesn't understand the data he presents and/or is missing a big key to the puzzle... OR

(D) He is the one who is pushing his own political agenda by obscuring the debate by throwing out a lot of non related and in many cases unverified data at us... OR

(E) He does this because he wants to be the big man on ATSNN.

Now to be fair I will rule out E, though he does like to dominate any thread he is involved in and i will rule out A because that is just too far fetched to be real.... it would involve getting thousands of scientists from a multitude of backgrounds to consistantly lie about the data.

So... that leaves B, C or D. and personally I think that all this debate about whether Muaddib is right or not still obscures the primary question in regards to Global warming which I state again:

DOES HUMAN ACTIVITY CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND IF SO TO WHAT DEGREE, AND IF SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO STOP OR CURB IT?

Everything else is illrevelant.


[edit on 5-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 5-2-2007 by grover]

[edit on 5-2-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Muaddib
This coming from the same person who in order to refute evidence uses a website which claims everyone who does not agree with their opinion is just a layperson despite the fact that there are several prominent scientists who can refute these claims?...

Bashcasting is not forecasting

Since you're incapable of making your own forecast, then show me where these "several prominent scientists" made a forecast and climate model. I have yet to see one of these anti-US government models, so where is it? Let's compare their accuracy.



Trying to sell me on your anti-US, anti-world anarchy idealisms that would sabotage the world's agriculture industry, isn't going to cut it with me. Show me a working model that out performs what we are currently using, or post your own forecast.



[edit on 5-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

You use the same tack frequently Muaddib when confronted with people who disagree with you.

Interesting, no hilarious that some of you accuse muaddib of being "anti-US" and "anti-world anarchy" (what exactly is the latter, anyway?). And to accuse muaddib of doing the bashing is just nuts. I've been reading through this thread and it's clear that regenmacher and grover are the ones that started losing it when they realized they couldn't shout muaddib off the thread. Like this thread is going to be the "end all" on global warming anyway.

Face it. You're talking about competing theories for what's happening and that no has proved anything yet. I even saw a theory that changes in the cosmic ray flux affects cloud cover and thus global warming/cooling. I saw another one that says without this warming effect, we'd be headed for another mini-ice age.

The issue to me is that if finally proven that the warming is not caused by mankind, or in the absence of proof that it is cause by humans, why start spending billions and making new laws and possibly badly hurting the economy of developed countries such as the U.S. while leaving China's out of the mix?

Why not be a little more cautious until the truth can be determined?

If you say that you still want to do all this without the proof that man is the culprit, then I have to ask for and suspect your agenda.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by centurion1211]

There seems to be two extremes on this issue

1) The climate changes are due entirely to human activity ie. industrial revolution, automobiles, and factories, and that it has little to no to do with natural fluxuations

2) The second oppinion seems the to be the complete opposite where a series of completely natural phenomenon come together to produce increased warming and human activity has not released sufficient greenhouse gases to siginificantly

I believe the the truth must be somewhere in between, this global climate cannot be atributed to more the on factor.

Natural Factors:

1. INcreased solar out put- It is true the Solar output has been greater in the past 60 years then in the past 1,000 years. This would obviously have a increased effect on global temperature increase.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Solar Output

2. Earths Orbit - The natural change in earths orbit can have a slow been large change in the amount of solar radiation absorbed. This would also contribute to periods on cooling or heating on the planet.

Slow variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun change where and when solar energy is received on Earth. This affects the amount of energy that is reflected and absorbed. These orbital variations are believed to be a factor in initiating the ice ages.

Earths Orbit and More


Human Factors

1. Hman Greenhouse gases - This is the factor that is generally asscoiated with global warming. The industrial of the 1850's put a reliance on fossil fuels for all of the modernized world. The burning of the fuels releases Carbon dioxide, which acts as greenhouse gas. The gases are essential for the natural warmth of earth, but it is becoming evident that our releasal of greenhouse gases is throwing off the natural balance.

(long article section, sorry) First 3 paragraphs and the last one are most important for you skimmers.

Before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at about 280 parts per million, scientists have determined.

Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts-per-million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

Asked to explain the stepped-up rate, climatologists were cautious, saying data needed to be further evaluated. But Asia immediately sprang to mind.

“China is taking off economically and burning a lot of fuel. India, too,” said Pieter Tans, a prominent carbon-cycle expert at NOAA's Boulder lab.

Another leading climatologist, Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles D. Keeling, developed methods for measuring carbon dioxide, noted that the rate “does fluctuate up and down a bit,” and said it was too early to reach conclusions. But he added: “People are worried about `feedbacks.' We are moving into a warmer world.”

He explained that warming itself releases carbon dioxide from the ocean and soil. By raising the gas's level in the atmosphere, that in turn could increase warming, in a “positive feedback,” said Keeling, of San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that, if unchecked, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by 2100 will range from 650 to 970 parts per million. As a result, the panel estimates, average global temperature would probably rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.7 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) between 1990 and 2100.

MY conclusion is that as many have claimed we are in a natural pahse of warming caused by factors that are far out of the realm of human control. That being said human effects on the planet with our release of greenhouse gases isn't helping the problem. We are creating faster than normal warming, giving us less time to prepare for any natural climate changes. The unusually fast increase in the rate of melting of polar ice caps and warming temperatures can to a very large extent be pointed at the new factor we have addded to the equasion on natural temperature fluxuation. It is estimated that if measures arent taken in the next 30 years we will no longer have the power to fix the problem and the earth will continue on its trend of warming until our actions change what could have been a natural and SURVIVABLE climate change into a manmade catastrophe.

There seems to be two extremes on this issue

1) The climate changes are due entirely to human activity ie. industrial revolution, automobiles, and factories, and that it has little to no to do with natural fluxuations

2) The second oppinion seems the to be the complete opposite where a series of completely natural phenomenon come together to produce increased warming and human activity has not released sufficient greenhouse gases to siginificantly

I believe the the truth must be somewhere in between, this global climate cannot be atributed to more the on factor.

Natural Factors:

1. INcreased solar out put- It is true the Solar output has been greater in the past 60 years then in the past 1,000 years. This would obviously have a increased effect on global temperature increase.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Solar Output

2. Earths Orbit - The natural change in earths orbit can have a slow been large change in the amount of solar radiation absorbed. This would also contribute to periods on cooling or heating on the planet.

Slow variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun change where and when solar energy is received on Earth. This affects the amount of energy that is reflected and absorbed. These orbital variations are believed to be a factor in initiating the ice ages.

Earths Orbit and More


Human Factors

1. Hman Greenhouse gases - This is the factor that is generally asscoiated with global warming. The industrial of the 1850's put a reliance on fossil fuels for all of the modernized world. The burning of the fuels releases Carbon dioxide, which acts as greenhouse gas. The gases are essential for the natural warmth of earth, but it is becoming evident that our releasal of greenhouse gases is throwing off the natural balance.

(long article section, sorry) First 3 paragraphs and the last one are most important for you skimmers.

Before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at about 280 parts per million, scientists have determined.

Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts-per-million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

Asked to explain the stepped-up rate, climatologists were cautious, saying data needed to be further evaluated. But Asia immediately sprang to mind.

“China is taking off economically and burning a lot of fuel. India, too,” said Pieter Tans, a prominent carbon-cycle expert at NOAA's Boulder lab.

Another leading climatologist, Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles D. Keeling, developed methods for measuring carbon dioxide, noted that the rate “does fluctuate up and down a bit,” and said it was too early to reach conclusions. But he added: “People are worried about `feedbacks.' We are moving into a warmer world.”

He explained that warming itself releases carbon dioxide from the ocean and soil. By raising the gas's level in the atmosphere, that in turn could increase warming, in a “positive feedback,” said Keeling, of San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that, if unchecked, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by 2100 will range from 650 to 970 parts per million. As a result, the panel estimates, average global temperature would probably rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.7 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) between 1990 and 2100.

MY conclusion is that as many have claimed we are in a natural pahse of warming caused by factors that are far out of the realm of human control. That being said human effects on the planet with our release of greenhouse gases isn't helping the problem. We are creating faster than normal warming, giving us less time to prepare for any natural climate changes. The unusually fast increase in the rate of melting of polar ice caps and warming temperatures can to a very large extent be pointed at the new factor we have addded to the equasion on natural temperature fluxuation. It is estimated that if measures arent taken in the next 30 years we will no longer have the power to fix the problem and the earth will continue on its trend of warming until our actions change what could have been a natural and SURVIVABLE climate change into a manmade catastrophe.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Face it. You're talking about competing theories for what's happening and that no has proved anything yet. I even saw a theory that changes in the cosmic ray flux affects cloud cover and thus global warming/cooling. I saw another one that says without this warming effect, we'd be headed for ther mini-ice age.

Global warming: a tendency for the mean surface temperature to increase over a given period of time.

My agenda is accurate forecasting and mathematical models don't use emotionalized fear driven political garbage. Only losers here are those that think they know more than NASA and the NOAA, don't have a supercomputer, don't have an alternate scientific theory, and haven't made an accurate forecast.

If the theory is valid, the prediction will be correct.

So go post your emotionalized cherry picking anarchist forecast and we will see how right it is. All I see is hindcast excuse making, no one stepping up to the plate with a forecast of their own, or even showing a model built on these kook science speculations.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, if they aren't they're only a hypothesis at best. We can disprove the GW theory by finding a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the GW theory. If someone gives an alternate theory for these observations, they need to test it. They have to try and prove their theory false! So where is the alternate theory? Where is the alternate model? Where are these alternate forecasts?

Atomic theory hasn't been disproven either.

Predictive power

The predictive power of a scientific theory refers to its ability to generate testable predictions. Theories with strong predictive power are highly valued, because the predictions can often encourage the falsification of the theory. The concept of predictive power differs from explanatory or descriptive power (where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained by a given theory) in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by FoxStriker
yes we can stop global warming... we have the technology to do so.

but do we want to use it, the cost in money could be to much, would we give up our life still for it... i really doubt it... would 3rd world countries agree... nope. it would cause mass starvation...

weve hit over population as it is

although it is extremely possible though

Really? Even the latest report from the IPCC says that nomatter what we do, we can't stop Global Warming. In this it appears that most scientists do agree.

I am very interested to see how you think Global warming can be stopped.

Originally posted by LogansRun

But thats just the point, those "prominent" scientists that you call them aren't in the general concensus as the rest of the scientifici community are on the topic.

Yet many of them come from different camps, different countries and agree that something else must be going on because of what the "real data", and not "proxies", show.

Originally posted by LogansRun
Just because there are a few scientists that say differently does'nt make them correct. Back when GW was just a forming theory, many scientists (most actually) didn't take it seriously as they couldn't fathom mankind affecting the earth on that scale.

There are more than "just a few scientists who disagree that mankind has not caused global warming. Just because you don't hear it in the news, the newspapers, or even in some internet websites, does not mean they are only a few.

Originally posted by LogansRun
These scientists that you post about have their own theories that may or may not have some basis in fact - the rest of the scientific sommunity happen to disagree with them.

Do you really think there is some mass worldwide conspiracy with all the worlds scientists collaborating with liberals on this to demonize man?? Do you realize how insane that sounds??

Their data is based on fact....on real measured data, not on "proxies made up of variables which has been proven to be wrong, such as the data from the Hockey Stick Graph.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Yet many of them come from different camps, different countries and agree that something else must be going on because of what the "real data", and not "proxies", show.

Just because the people who believe alternate theories are diversified, doesn't mean they are right. There are far more scientists who agree that global warmig does exist and that mankind contributes to it. They are from diffrent countries as well, and there are a lot more of them.

Originally posted by Muaddib
There are more than "just a few scientists who disagree that mankind has not caused global warming. Just because you don't hear it in the news, the newspapers, or even in some internet websites, does not mean they are only a few.

Agreed, however I was referring to the number as "a few" compared to the many many more scientists who do believe in mankinds role in gw.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Their data is based on fact....on real measured data, not on "proxies made up of variables which has been proven to be wrong, such as the data from the Hockey Stick Graph.

GW data is based on fact. You keep talking about bore holes, perhaps you should read up on ice core samples, history of co2 levels in the atmosphere and its relationship to temperature. Again, the hockey stick graph is but one of MANY pieces of evidence that point to man affecting gw. You are the one that keeps bringing up the hockey graph, not one person in here has used it as a basis for argument as far as i can tell. Believe what you will, however I am going to do what I can in the mean time to counter act it, however insignificant i may be....

We do agree on one thing however, we must end our dependence on fossil fuels and find alternative sources of energy.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
................
You don't even know what borehole data represents, where as model simulations all show that it is not possible to explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without including the contribution from anthropogenic forcing factors.
...............

I am pretty sure I know a thing or two about "borehole data" measurements, after all my job as a field engineer, or MWD engineer, has been to measure and interpret real time, and recorded mode data retrieved from rig sites, and part of that data is downhole temperature changes.

You see, with your above statement you just made my point. The conclusions reached by the IPCC, and scientists such as Mann, comes from "proxies", which are nothing more than simulations from different "variables."

Meanwhile borehole temperature is real data, measured directly from the Earth which gives precise paleoclimate data, and not wild guesses where some scientists decide what data they should use, and what data they shouldn't use to reach their "guesses."

Borehole temperatures can be used to discern surface temperature change, because temperatures in the surface does diffuses through the Earth.

But in order to acquire a "best estimate" of average surface temperature trends in multidecade, you also need to compare borehole temperatures with surface temperature trends, which do tend to be contaminated and which are the trends being used by scientists such as Mann to reach their conclusion on mankind's role on climate change.

But don't believe me if you don't want.

Here is another link on a research paper written by other scientists, and I took the liberty of excerpting the names of the scientists involved in this research paper, which backs my statement.

Unresolved Issues with the Assessment of Multi-Decadal Global Land-Surface Temperature Trends
Roger A. Pielke Sr., University of Colorado, CIRES/ATOC, Boulder, CO, 80309

Christopher A. Davey, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512

Dev Niyogi, Souleymane Fall, and Jesse Steinweg-Woods, Purdue University, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Agronomy, 915 W. State St., West Lafayette, IN 47907

Ken Hubbard and Xiaomao Lin, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE 68583-0997

Ming Cai, Department of Meteorology
Young-Kwon Lim, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306

Hong Li, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742

John Nielsen-Gammon, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3150

Kevin Gallo, NOAA/NESDIS, Center for Satellite Applications and Research, Camp Springs, MD 20746

Robert Hale, CIRA, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

Jim Angel, Illinois State Water Survey, Dept. of Natural Resources
2204 Griffith Drive, Champaign IL 61820-7495

Rezaul Mahmood and Stuart Foster, Dept. of Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Richard T. McNider, Department of Atmospheric Science University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899

Peter Blanken, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80501-0260

Keywords: Air temperature, Global Warming, Climate Change, Surface Temperature, Historical Climate Network, Climate Uncertainty/Index Terms 1600 (Global Change); 1637-Regional Climate Change;
3309-Climatology; 3305-Climate Change and Variability; 3322-Land-Atmosphere Interactions 11/07/06


Abstract

The paper documents various unresolved issues in using surface temperature trends as a metric for assessing global and regional climate change. A series of examples ranging from errors caused by temperature measurements at a monitoring station to the undocumented biases
in the regionally and globally averaged time series are provided. The issues are poorly understood or documented and relate to micrometeorological impacts due to warm bias in nighttime minimum temperatures, poor siting of the instrumentation, effect of winds as well as surface atmospheric water vapor content on temperature trends, the quantification of uncertainties in the homogenization of surface temperature data and the influence of land use/land-cover (LULC) change on surface temperature trends.

blue.atmos.colostate.edu...

There is one thing that i don't get. Let me explain what I mean.

Borehole data is precise, and if the increase in temperature in the Earth's crust comes from the surface, as shown in the graph I have given a couple times, why is it that borehole temperatures show a steady increase in underground temperatures since the 1600s, and a dramatic rise in underground temperatures since the 1700s, when the dramatic increase in surface/air temperatures appeared in the middle of the 1900s according to every data that the "the mankind is at fault crowd" relies on?





The following is a graph of the air/surface temperature trends.



All of the above graphs I have posted already a couple times before.

You see, heat diffuses in the Earth, and it takes a long time for temperatures deep under the Earth to change due to diffusion, either from the surface or from deep in the Earth's core, so whatever "event" triggered this dramatic increase in temperature in the Earth's crust, started more than 400 years ago, and the temperature is still increasing.

How can surface/air temperatures be the cause of this rise in temperature in the Earth's crust, if the surface/air temperatures only increased dramatically over "400 years after the increase of temperature in the Earth's crust"?...

It should be the other way around if this dramatic increase in downhole temperatures was caused by "mankind".

If mankind was to blame for this dramatic increase in downhole temperature, the air/surface temperatures should have increased first, then due to diffusion of heat, which would take a while to propagate through the Earth, through a medium, in this case the Earth, the temperatures underground would have steadily increased after, but that's not the case.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Muaddib]