It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Ah, so showing that the same variations in warm and cooling trends in Europe, America, New Zealand, and China among others do not show that these trends were happening all over?....
Wow....
Science 17 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372
Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz
Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.
Let's forget the fact that our oceans have in storage more CO2 than mankind can ever produce, and that we have been coming out of an ice age CO2 and Methane have been released from our ocean floors more than they have for a while now.
None of that matters.. what matters is that "we must believe that it is mankind of who is at fault for the current Climate Change/Global Warming"....
We do need to be ready, but not because of "Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming", but because Climate Changes are a natural occurrence on the history of Earth.
It is kind of funny that we were told not too long ago that "since we did it, we can stop it", but now at least the IPCC politically influenced report says that nomatter what we do, we will not stop Climate Change....
Originally posted by melatonin
You can believe what you like, most people do, but in science we will follow the data
Originally posted by melatonin
So, the only real difference is that you feel the change in natural, although the evidence suggests otherwise. We know that natural cycles and changes in climate exist, we can model them to a decent degree, but, at this point, we see no natural mechanisms that can account for what we observe.
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
Scientists Group to Refute Global Warming Claims
Monday, 1 May 2006, 10:08 am
Press Release: Centre for Resource Management Studies
Media Release - Immediate
A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.
The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:
- Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.
- Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).
- Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.
- Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com
- Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist
Originally posted by melatonin
I haven't read the recent report, but I think it was always going to be a case of reducing the effect. If we can just slow down our emissions, we will be in a better position - we will solve our dependence on fossil fuels with technology eventually. One way or the other we have to
Originally posted by Muaddib
Yes, in science we do follow the data, and there is a lot of data which refutes what you are stating about AGW.
Yes, there is evidence to the contrary, and even though I have presented evidence that other scientist disagree with the claim of AGW, and there is data to refute the claim that mankind has caused GW, which you should know "GW" is a misused term since there are cooling trends in some areas of the globe , you keep persisting that is not true and that no data proves that GW is part of a natural cycle.
Even more recently, the warmest years have been in this order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004. If anthropogenic radiative forcing is to blame, then why hasn't the temperatures gone up evenly every year?
From a 2005 article from NASA.
Scientists Group to Refute Global Warming Claims
Monday, 1 May 2006, 10:08 am
Press Release: Centre for Resource Management Studies
Media Release - Immediate
A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.
I wonder exactly how they plan to "reduce the effects of anthropogenic CO2", when they claim the Kyoto protocol is the way to go, and the Kyoto protocol will allow countries like China, India and others to continue and even increase their greenhouse emissions, despite the fact that Chine will surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2009.
[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]
Originally posted by melatonin
I've yet to see any.
Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC
This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, I should stick to CC rather than GW. However, on the global scale, we are seeing warming.
Originally posted by melatonin
No-one expects each year to be warmer than the last. We are looking for a trend over periods of years. That is what we are seeing on a global scale. If you read the rest of the NASA article you linked, you would know why we don't see a consistent yearly trend.
Originally posted by melatonin
Even if it said otherwise, it would be of little consequence until peer-reviewed.
Originally posted by melatonin
Well, they'll need to be producing reliable peer-reviewed work to do so. This still doesn't refute anything.
Originally posted by melatonin
No-one doubts that a minority refuse to accept the evidence. It is their job to produce evidence to suggest otherwise.
Originally posted by melatonin
Kyoto was just a starting point. It was never ideal. Most plans devised by committee never are.
Do you think that China & India, which have populations many times that of the USA & europe, should use less resources than the USA and Europe?
We need to produce a fair approach to this. We in europe and NA have the means to act, most of our populations are well-provided with power and have the comforts of an advanced society.
Originally posted by Muaddib
The pure distortion is how Mann, and others have tried to dismiss and even erase the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming period and even the Little Ice Age because these events don't help their claims, and in fact prove the contrary...
Originally posted by Muaddib
I have yet to see any evidence that corroborates the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the leading cause of Climate Change.....
More and more scientists are coming forward disputing the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for GW.
Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC
The above is evidence that the IPCC and other "politicians suddenly made environmental experts" have been misusing the data provided by experts in the field and the "policymakers" have drawn their own conclusions on GW.
The fact is that all trace gases on Earth amount to 1%, and out of that 1% anthropogenic CO2 is 0.28%, meanwhile water vapor constitutes 95% of trace gases....
The math and science does not add up.
You want us to believe that even though anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for GW, that we shouldn't expect to see a steady increase in warming over the years?
If anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for global warming, then the trend should have always been warming, but that has not been the case.
Since anthropogenic CO2 emissions have continuously increased and since there have been variations between warming and cooling trend it is very clear anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of global warming, and the warming is being cause by some other factor which keeps changing.... one of those factors which keeps changing is our Sun's output.
Ah, so unless the "policy makers" review and change the data "it is of little consequence"?... Because that is exactly what they are doing.
No, but the data provided in the other links does, including the data from Dr. Waler from Florida University which indicates that "sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to the climate fluctuations from Europe"
www.napa.ufl.edu...
Although modern pollution, deforestation, ozone depletion and other human-related activity are likely to result in more extreme changes for today's climate, Walker says a growing number of researchers argue that earlier warming trends also were in part human-induced. The Roman Optimum warming, for example, correlates with the Romans' clearing of vast forests as they expanded their empire into northern Europe, and with African deforestation during the Iron Age, situations not unlike the practice of modern populations destroying tropical forests, she said.
It is a lot more than a "minority", and even the IPCC has hired several of these "minorities" to review the IPCC reports, and since their names are in those reports it seems as if they agree with the conclusions of the IPCC reports when they don't.
As for your response that "China and India should be allowed to raise their greenhouse gas emissions because they have more people", then the problem was never "man-made greenhouse gas emissions" to start with. If it was, the plan would be to "curb all man-made greenhouse gas emissions", and not just whatever the UN pleases because "some countries have more people".
Originally posted by melatonin
The recent IPCC report would be a good starting place.
Originally posted by melatonin
Sounds like what the discovery institute say about evolutionary theory...
Originally posted by melatonin
They can dispute all they like, they can jump, spit, and fume all they like - until someone produces real evidence suggesting another cause of the current warming trend they are just blowhards.
Originally posted by melatonin
No, it is evidence that Chris Landsea spat his dummy about the effect of SST on Hurricanes. Strangely enough, the IPCC report doesn't actually conflict with his position on this issue. He also does accept that greenhouse gases are a cause of current warming.
Originally posted by melatonin
Personal incredulity means nothing.
Originally posted by melatonin
You've just moved the goalposts. You were questioning why we don't have year on year increases. Due to effects such as El Nino, we will see some variation on the year scale - your own linked information pointed this out, you ignored it.
Originally posted by melatonin
There will be an overall global trend in temperatures over a period of years. This is what we are seeing.
2005 and 1998 are the warmest years
on record
The global mean surface temperature in 2005 was 0.47°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C). This places 2005 as the second warmest year in the temperature record since 1850. The warmest year is 1998 with annual surface temperatures averaging 0.52°C above the same 30-year mean.
The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Originally posted by melatonin
I've just posted an abstract of a study from only a few months back that suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by melatonin
No, peer-review does not mean that.
Originally posted by melatonin
And from the same link...
Originally posted by melatonin
No issue. You have quite an ability to be selective in your information processing.
Originally posted by melatonin
They didn't have to take part if they didn't want to. The contrarians are a minority.
Originally posted by melatonin
Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you think that China and India, which has populations many times of NA and europe, should use less resources than these smaller populations?
[edit on 12-2-2007 by melatonin]
Originally posted by Muaddib
The recent IPCC report is nothing more than a "policymaker tool to implement a global tax system", nothing more nothing less.
Now-a-days it appears that "peer-reviewed" research is only "peer-reviewed" if it has the stamp, and has been revised by "policymakers".[/
Real evidence huh? you mean like the Hockey Stick graph which was rigged to show a sudden increase in the 20th century while trying to erase past climatic events?.....
Chris Landsea was the only one in that section of the report with the knowledge needed to make any assesments, yet his expertise was overlooked and instead the "policymakers" made up their own conclusions.
Are you now flip flopping and saying that CO2 is not the main driver of Climate?.... Here i thought you were trying to claims CO2 is the "main cause for global warming"?...
I am trying to point out that "Global warming" is not being caused by anthropogenic CO2 which seems to be the case...
and i posted several...
Yeah i also pointed out from that same link that Dr. Walker was blaming the Roman expansion for the Roman warming period...but that I know of the Romans did not have cars, factories and AC.... The part on that report that stand out is that there was Dramatic Climate change on this side of the world at the same time that it happened in Europe...
But here I thought CO2 is the "main driver of Global warming.... I guess the Romans must have had cars, AC, and factories pumping greenhouse gases back 2,500-3,000 years ago....
Oh yeah, i forgot, in science "the supposed mayority is always right"...that's why they have been right so many times in the past.....
and here I thought the main purpose of the Kyoto protocol is to reduce greenhouse emissions globally to reduce the impact of Global WArming.... i must have been wrong....
Yeah well, if CO2 was the cause for global warming we should be seen increases in warming..
2005 and 1998 are the warmest years
on record
The global mean surface temperature in 2005 was 0.47°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C). This places 2005 as the second warmest year in the temperature record since 1850. The warmest year is 1998 with annual surface temperatures averaging 0.52°C above the same 30-year mean.
The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
www.wmo.ch...
1998 warmer than 2005?... the trend seems to be cooling every year, except for 2005...if there was a "Global warming trend" every year should be getting warmer, and not cooler than the year before.
Originally posted by melatonin
................
Did you read the NASA website you provided earlier? It explains why this is.
No-one expects year on year increases. Climate is a tad more complicated than that. We are looking for an overall long-term trend, 1998 was an anomaly for a good reason.
Originally posted by melatonin
Seems you like the Bob Carter Kool-aid...
Originally posted by Muaddib
2005 was the anomaly, not the other way around...
1998 was the warmest year, then the anomaly 2005 which was cooler than 1998, then 2002 was cooler than 1998 and 2005, 2003 was cooler than 2002, 2004 was cooler than 2003.
The "anomaly" in those years was 2005...
Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures. However, what's significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino.
Originally posted by Johnmike
When attacking the "hockey stick" graph, he wasn't being dishonest.
See, it begins in the early 1800's. I'm convinced that scientists do it on purpose to make their data appear more alarming than it is (even if it is still valid and alarming nonetheless). That's when we were coming out of the little ice age. Naturally, if you're coming out of a little ice age, the start temperatures (and, indeed, the mean, as the temperature moved over many years, not suddenly) was lower than the global average.
correlation does not imply causation
A team of scientist from Austria and Germany located three stalagmites in the Spannagel Cave located around 2,500 m above sea level at the end of the Tux Valley in Tyrol (Austria) close to the Hintertux glacier. The temperature of the cave stays near freezing and the relative humidity in the cave is always at or near 100%. The stalagmites grew at a rate between 17 and 75 millionths of a meter per year and are nearly 10,000 years old.
...............
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!
Reference
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W. 1999. Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: Archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition. Science 284: 939-942.
The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.
Source: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: September 8, 2006
Siberian Lakes Burp 'Time-bomb' Greenhouse Gas
Science Daily — Frozen bubbles in Siberian lakes are releasing methane, a greenhouse gas, at rates that appear to be “... five times higher than previously estimated” and acting as a positive feedback to climate warming, said Katey Walter, in a paper published today in the journal Nature.
The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep
The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps. This is the site of seafloor spreading that is actively separating Europe from North America, and was the goal of the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition) with two research icebreakers, the "USCGC Healy" from USA and the German "PFS Polarstern". Aboard were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions. The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit "anemic" magmatism. Instead, surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found. These results require a fundamental rethinking of the mechanisms of seafloor generation at midocean ridges (Nature, January 16 and June 26).
The IPCC Web site claims an impressive number of participants: 450 lead authors, 800 contributors and 2,500 expert reviewers (of which I was one). But it would be a mistake to assume all these experts endorse everything in summary, including its bottom-line assessment: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.
IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."
Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.
.................
This unorthodox reporting procedure led to the "Chapter 8 controversy" in 1995, in which significant and unwarranted modification of the IPCC science report was known to have been made before it was issued, so as to conform to the summary.
The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.
NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."
Originally posted by Muaddib
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!
The above are not "proxies based on computer guesstimates"... They are based on real measured data. But some members want to claim otherwise.
The following is a graph showing the concentrations of CO2 for the past 600 million years on Earth.
Yet some want to claim the concentrations of CO2 now on Earth are "unprecedented" and that a 0.28% of anthropogenic CO2, which are part of the trace gases on Earth, from mankind activities are causing Climate Change when we know for a fact that Climate Change is par tof the normal cycles the Earth goes through....
Nevermind that water vapor amounts to 95% of trace gases on Earth and retains twice the amount of heat than CO2, and never mind that since we have been coming out of an ice age large amounts of CO2, methane and other gases have been released from our oceans and lakes and we are just discovering the amount of trace gases being released naturally is at least 5 times more than we ever though.
But yet "some members/member" want to claim this data is not "peer reviewed' because the "policymakers" didn't put their stamp of approval on it...
Not to mention that these members, or member, want to claim that in "order to read the real science you can start by reading the latest IPCC summary"....
Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.
Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.
But never mind any of those facts...
Originally posted by melatonin
That is one study localised to a single area of europe. I never denied that certain areas may have been warmer in the past than now. Again, it is a global trend we are looking for.
Originally posted by melatonin
I like the reference on the climate chart you post, seems it was based on something from 1990 (Houghton et al., 1990), was it an actual real peer-reviewed study? Seems the current up to date data suggest that reconstruction was wrong, not surprised considering it was almost 20 years ago, things move on...
Originally posted by melatonin
Wow, you mean Houghton et al. actually had a time machine to take measurements during the medieval?
Amazing...
Originally posted by melatonin
Ai, Ai, Ai, you still haven't actually looked into what 'peer-reviewed' means yet, have you?