Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

Originally posted by audas

Wow - so the THOUSANDS of studies which conclusively prove global warming are what - debatable ?

And the fact that there is not a single peice of evindence published in a peer reviewed scientific journal which is current and disproves this ?

So how is there a debate, how is it in question ? Simply because the deniers claim it is unresovled does not make it so, the issue is well and truly settled, it is unfortunately a matter delusion and inability to face facts.

Wow audas is working at it again... There is no proof against AGW?...

There are HUNDREDS of "peer reviewed" research papers that doubt AGW....and there are THOUSANDS of scientists who also doubt AGW....

The oly people claiming there is no proof are those like you who for some reason become blind when evidence is posted against your RELIGION...

reply to post by maybereal11

Sidenote: I have an uncle

My father was the same way. I saw him completely disassemble three junk tractors, each one barely worth scraping, and recombine them into a new International Super-'A' tractor. It ran for many years without a hitch until my mother sold it after his death.

I saw him assemble his own tractor before that, from a Briggs-Straton one-cylinder engine, some scrap metal, a few belts and pulleys, and a gearbox and rear end out of junked cars. The clutch is a lever attached to a set of those pulleys. The thing will out-pull that International tractor he built.

I own that tractor now, and money won't buy it.

So I know full well of which you speak. And I believe you can understand my personal point of view on this subject.

It seems to me you have skipped going to the doctor alltogether and are relying solely on the Climatologist to diagnose your ills?

Funny you should mention that. I am well-known in my local area for being the guy who never visits doctors. A great many of those I visited when I was younger told me I was going to die if I didn't quit drinking, smoking, and eating grease like it was candy. I'm still alive; most of those doctors are dead.

But back to the original topic...

The emails raise issues, but given the span of years that was hacked and the tonage of data...a few emails with associated "interpetations" do not damn the entirity of scientific research on the matter.

I have never stated they did. What I have stated is that the emails place into question the methodology used to obtain the data that practically every climate prediction is modeled on. Thus, I consider them under indictment until evidence can show one way or another whether or not the concerns are warranted. At the very least, I find it unsettling that they introduced adjustments more or less secretly instead of explaining outright how those adjustments were arrived at.

I have not even spent much time investigating the emails. I do not know of the involved scientists' methodology enough to pass judgment at this time. I will instead research out how and why the resulting confirmation or condemnation of them is reached and proceed from there. Until that time I will suspect the data, but will reserve judgment.

As to Copenhagen... since the data is under question, it would seem inappropriate to sign treaties or pass legislation based on said data until the allegations are thoroughly investigated.

This will be a hotly debated topic for some time to come. The investigation and public perception of actions surrounding the investigation can either declare a final judgment, or it can dissolve into another controversy. I do not want another controversy; I want to know how accurate the data is.

Hopefully this equation will be of use to you….

Now you can incorporate it into your calculations?

At first glance (today is a very busy day personally for me) it does appear to be what I am looking for. If a better examination shows a logical derivation and appears to be accurate, then yes, absolutely, I will include it into my calculations!

Thank you for the tip! Now, since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, do you have any idea where I can get an averaged albedo value for the Earth?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by maybereal11
.....................
I still gave you the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe that all those opposed to the concept of AGW were not simply agenda motivated by agenda or blindly wed to their position.

You open minded?.... ... You are closed minded like the rest of the AGW proponents.

You dismiss hundreds of "peer reviewed research" and thousands of scientists who disagree with your RELIGION...

Yes, AGW has become a RELIGION and a POLITICAL TOOL...

Scientists have been been fired, and or lost funding for "DARING" to doubt AGW....

Even scientists that were part of the IPCC have resigned because the IPCC has POLITICIZED science, and Climate Change, and many of them have come forward to expose the farce of the IPCC and the AGW proponents.

But what do people like you do?.. you dismiss the science that refutes your RELIGION because you want to claim "the science is settled"...

People like you claim that those scientists who were part of the IPCC and have told us about the truth are just "pissed off ex-employees", or just dismiss them entirely because it is convinient...

People like you claim "the scientists who disagree are all being paid to disagree" or some other silly excuse, and then as evidence you give a link to a Liberal/Environmental website that makes the same claims but can only be corroborated by other Liberal/environmentalist websites...

People like you dismiss the HUNDREDS of "peer reviewed" research that disagree with AGW, and as proof you give the rigged data of Jones, Mann et, al....

Yet you want to claim you are open minded?....

[edit on 11-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

The emails raise issues, but given the span of years that was hacked and the tonage of data...a few emails with associated "interpetations" do not damn the entirity of scientific research on the matter.

I have never stated they did. What I have stated is that the emails place into question the methodology used to obtain the data that practically every climate prediction is modeled on. Thus, I consider them under indictment until evidence can show one way or another whether or not the concerns are warranted. At the very least, I find it unsettling that they introduced adjustments more or less secretly instead of explaining outright how those adjustments were arrived at.

Actually I disagree with that.

Mann, Jones, et al, have in the past done the same thing with Mann's "Hockey Stick Graph" which Mann, and other AGW proponents have used to dismiss the hundreds of "peer reviewed research" that show the Medieval Warm, and the end of the Roman Warm period were a lot WARMER than the 20th century, and the beginning of the 21st century warming.

There is evidence that these two warm periods, alongside the LIA were GLOBAL in nature, because they can be found in the geological record of every continent.

Yet Mann decided to post his rigged Hockey Stick graph which has been proven that any information you put into it will create a similar hockey stick Graph. Then, Jones, et al decided to back Mann's rigged data by extrapolating his research data points with that of others, which if you separate you can see each one of them gives a different conclusion.

At first I thought there was a possibility that Mann didn't realize his "Hockey stick Graph"could have been a unintended mistake, but even after several other scientists, and even statiticians like Mckintyre showed that using Mann's main program used in MBH98 and any red point data that was input would produce a similar hockey Stick graph, yet Mann continued to claim his Hockey Stick graph was valid, and he dismissed anyone, and everyone who would doubt his Hockey Stick Graph. not to mention the fact that Manndismissed the Medieval Warm period, and later with his 2,000 year old graph the end of the Roman Warm period was also gone.

Sorry to say that these "scientists" not only have done this before, trying to deceive the world, but now these leaked emails show that they have continued to deceive the world. They can't even understand why it hasn't gotten warmer, and have even told to each other ways, including illegal ways, to keep people from getting the main program and the data that they used for their latest reserch, and they even state that they had given Mckintyre the program, and data points which were already rigged so Mckintyre would get the same results they got.

These scientists are scumbags who shouldn't even be near any scientific position, and much less be called scientists.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by maybereal11

The emails raise issues, but given the span of years that was hacked and the tonage of data...a few emails with associated "interpetations" do not damn the entirity of scientific research on the matter.

The emails do more than just raise issues, they show these scientists Mann, Jones, et al are continuing to deceive the world because of their preconceived views on AGW.

They have been deceiving the world with the introduction of Mann's Hockey stick graph, which barely shows the Medieval Warm Period, and Mann's 2,000 temperature series do not even show the end of the Roman Warm period, when there are hundreds of peer reviewed research that show the Medieval, and the Roman period were warmer than the 20th century and were global in nature.

Then Jones, et al decided to unite with Mann to continue to deceive the world.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Hopefully this equation will be of use to you….it does not originate from the IPCC/CRU, and it’s source goes as far to say…

The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate.

Nice try... There are other equations that show that the most that temperatures can increase because of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 0.1 C -0.15C per century...

But of course the AGW proponents love to post only the equations which have been rigged by the AGW scientists to make it look like a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures to up to 6C, when that is not possible at all.

Water vapor alone would increase temperatures more than CO2 ever will.

quote] by ElectricUniverse
Mann decided to post his rigged Hockey Stick graph which has been proven that any information you put into it will create a similar hockey stick Graph. Then, Jones, et al decided to back Mann's rigged data by extrapolating his research data points with that of others, which if you separate you can see each one of them gives a different conclusion.

At first I thought there was a possibility that Mann didn't realize his "Hockey stick Graph"could have been a unintended mistake, but even after several other scientists, and even statiticians like Mckintyre showed that using Mann's main program used in MBH98 and any red point data that was input would produce a similar hockey Stick graph, yet Mann continued to claim his Hockey Stick graph was valid, and he dismissed anyone, and everyone who would doubt his Hockey Stick Graph. not to mention the fact that Manndismissed the Medieval Warm period, and later with his 2,000 year old graph the end of the Roman Warm period was also gone.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse] [quote\]


I had to shorten this load of spin bs crap quote just to have the simpleist attempt to point it out.
The above says WHAT?
Nothing is the answer to my own question.
Don't be fooled by this bunk.
Get an Indian weather rock and be done.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]

Here is my criticism of the original points on the first page. In case it matters, yes, I am a professional scientist (PhD physics). I do not work in climate or atmospheric science, but I know some people who do.

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

True but misleading. In fact, the Earth has had a fairly stable climate since the development of human civilization, about 10,000 years ago. Intentionally disrupting this state when there are 7 billion humans dependent on the current ecosystem is very unwise.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warmingsince 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

False and or misleading. It is entirely expected from the laws of physics that *stratospheric* temperatures will decline and lower altitude temperatures will increase with an increased greenhouse effect due to higher amounts of greenhouse gases. This is exactly what has been observed by satellites and aerial measurements.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

The unambiguous facts are that the temperature pattern changes observed (night time increases more than day time, more at polar regions, e.g.) are consistent with the physics of increased greenhouse gases, and contrary, for example, to an increase in solar output. The only anthropogenic signal which can be expected to be seen is from increased greenhouse effect. This is observed.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +15 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

The temperature numbers are wrong by about a factor of 10, but this is otherwise correct. It is never disputed among scientists that the natural greenhouse effect is critical for climate. In fact the origin of the concern (starting in 1960s) about human changes to the greenhouse effect came out of people working on space physics and physics of other planets.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

This is extremely misleading and a willfully wrong misreading of scientific reality. Furthermore, the insinuation apparently contradicts the correct point in #4, that the physics of the greenhouse effect is indeed true and very important in the climate of the Earth.

On the annual cycle, CO2 goes up and down because of this thing known as "the seasons". There is more land mass in Northern Hemisphere and therefore CO2 goes up more in colder winter months (decay of plants) and down as plants grow in the summer. So indeed, increases in CO2 precede increases in temperature---on the annual timescale.

And then at the 100,000 year timescale there are ice age cycles which are *originally* triggered by changes in orbital parameters (much slower than a year) which result in climate changes---then the response of the biosphere is to release more CO2 which is a positive feedback forward. And yes, temperature precedes CO2.

But these true facts do NOT dispute the causal physical relationship where more greenhouse gases result in more radiation as a *consequence*.

On the decade to century level timescale where the actual debate is, the facts are different. Changes in CO2 levels are only explainable by human intervention and the anomalies in the isotopic concentrations prove that this change is mostly a result of emissions from fossil fuels.

Why the original discussion of 1 and 100,000 years? Pure deception and diversion from the actual issue.

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Outright lie. The people working groups on the scientific aspects of the IPCC are all professional scientists in the field, with loads of published papers and personal research. They are not employees of the United Nations, but of universities, research institutes etc from around the world.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".

I happen to know something about this as I did work on nonlinear dynamics professionally and of course have red Ed Lorenz's papers.. The principal worry here is that the implications of some aspects of the nonlinear dynamics generally make the prospect substantially more worrisome---rather than less---than the typical consensus forecasts. In truth the scientists do know this, but they also are, by design, very scientifically conservative in the IPCC arena and generally project only the safest science they agree is the case. Some unknowables from sudden bifurcations imply an even larger risk to humans as as result of the perturbations. In any case, the professional literature in meterology and climate is well aware of chaos.

Potentially near nonlinear instabilities are Greenland's glaciers and Siberian methane. Upshot: some initial warming might make things go "i've got a bad feeling about this" worse MUCH faster.

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

I don't know the numbers, but the reality is that science says that we ought to be doing substantially more than even the "leftists" political proposals agree upon.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

See above. This means the risks from uncontrolled climate experimentation by humans are even larger. Nevertheless there is one thing which is certain: more greenhouse gas means more electromagnetic radiation striking the biosphere of the Earth. This is an incontrovertible, experimentally measured fact and law of physics. One has to consider extreme scenarios to imagine that this results in cooling---but if it does the mechanisms to cause it would be even worse for civilization than mainstream predictions.

The denialists concentrate on pettifoggerry about nits in paleoclimate reconstructions and statistics but have no answer for the laws of physics. Climate change from increased radiation from greenhouse gas isn't predicted because of statistics, it is predicted because of physics.

Consider the ozone-hole: how much paleo historical data was there on polar ozone & UV in Antarctica? Virtually zilch. And yet people actually did something about it because the laws of physics were crystal clear about what was happening after we studied it intently. People believed it as they should.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

The climate models are getting better, but it is true that this (and not the existence of the problem over all) is an active part of climate research.

None of it is any justification for not considering or slowing the effect of human induced climate emissions.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

Nearly all physical scientists who study it do agree. The danger level is not known, but the rate of perturbation in greenhouse gas, which has a major effect on climate, is unquestionably faster than has ever existed since the evolution of homo sapiens.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

And that is what people in the profession have been doing for decades. This research got its start in the late 1960's and was continuing for many years in the usual way as any other scientific subject. When they got enough data and understanding about the phenomenon to be sufficiently confident that's when they started talking in public.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by mbkennel]

What I have stated is that the emails place into question the methodology used to obtain the data that practically every climate prediction is modeled on.

This is not true. The only thing of any significant worry was a questionable data set based on tree rings. If you throw out that data set, the overall results change little.

Mann's results have essentially been verified by a National Academy of Sciences panel who looked into the whole thing. There were minor disagreements on small details of statistical procedures but in the end they were inconsequential. The chairman of the panel agreed. See the end of this article.

tech.yahoo.com...

None of the scads of other independent actual temperature measurements, from ships, aircraft, balloons, spacecraft and stations have been denied, and neither have the other physical observations which are independent of human intent, such as changing migration and plant growth patterns as well as the number of receding glaciers.

Originally posted by melatonin

Yeah, you post a rant then go all plausibly deniable. You have some responsibility for what you post. Don't you even want to know yourself? Are you so gullible?

i sure as hell do, after all, once posted it's there for everyone to see, so where did i deny posting it? it's clear enough where i'm coming from i believe and disagreement is expected, no, it's necessary to get people to dive deeper into the matter. needless to say, except you, no-one bothered to do that. i guess i'll have to live with that.

This is how creationists argue their case. It is clearly dishonest. There is no room for ambiguity in that quote-mine.

This is the last hurrah for deniers. You've attained the status I've been suggesting for a while. The new YEC creationists.

why not Exxon? or Big Tobacco again? there is no status to be gained or lost, if you find these mails and code unconvincing, that's your choice. posting a few paragraphs can only be the beginning, never an end all, be all statement. when people don't care, the effort is lost right there.

Don't you even note the language you're using? Do you think I've been 'skipping around' these dishonest quote-mines? lol

i wasn't talking about these quotes, obviously. they do have their place, or rather, did.

There's no misconduct in any sense there, lol.

Stop the presses! Scientist questions veracity of data!

let's say there was a desire to correct these readings, which is believable if there was a real, traceable reason to believe the data was faulty in the first place. the fact that they couldn't find one was considered a travesty, which sounds a bit too much like confirmation bias. you argued against that, for everyone to see and applied the context of disputed satellite readings. oh, and tweaking should be limited to equipment, not the dataset, which in essence means that data retrieved with untuned equipment really shouldn't be used....

McIntyre isn't a dendrochronologist. If he thinks his work is robust he can submit it like very other scientist does.

He removed a number of samples from the original data in Briffa's study (data which is actually from a Russian group), then replaced them with tree samples from a completely different site.

All he showed was by murdering a proxy series and using a different set of tree samples the data is different.

so, he ruined the dataset, bust him, no? what appeared to have happened was some kind of workaround, which caused some apprehension. what for? didn't seem to be that simple.

Repeat after me "there is a consensus... there is a consensus... there is a consensus... there is a consensus.... the debate is over... the debate is over... the debate is over..."

And all the people said... "Amen!"

Alright ushers, get ready to take the collection...

"Thank you Lord for giving us carbon and thank you for giving breath to man! For with mankind's exhaled breath and the carbon of his dust, shall all the vast wealth of the nations be plundered!"

And all the people said... "Amen!"

Originally posted by Long Lance
let's say there was a desire to correct these readings, which is believable if there was a real, traceable reason to believe the data was faulty in the first place. the fact that they couldn't find one was considered a travesty, which sounds a bit too much like confirmation bias. you argued against that, for everyone to see and applied the context of disputed satellite readings. oh, and tweaking should be limited to equipment, not the dataset, which in essence means that data retrieved with untuned equipment really shouldn't be used....

No, it also applies to correctly analysing the data. Ask 'sceptics' Christy and Spencer at the UAH who produced the first erroneous satellite data.

Lets parse the quote:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

1. we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment

So Trenberth is saying that the lack of warming on the short-scale can't be accounted for. He's pretty peeved that we can't. A good understanding of natural variations in the short-term is very very useful.

2. CERES actually suggests there should be warming

The data from the new satellite system observing the radiation budget suggests warming in the short-term. Which is obviously not consistent with the 'lack of warming'.

3. The observing system is inadequate.

If we can't account for the lack of warming on short-term scales then of course the system is inadequate. If we have the new satellite system saying warming should be happening in the short-term but the actual data shows no warming, then there's something not quite right.

There's nothing there. It's just a scientist suggesting we need to do better if we want to understand short-term variability properly. He even published an article on the issue.

so, he ruined the dataset, bust him, no? what appeared to have happened was some kind of workaround, which caused some apprehension. what for? didn't seem to be that simple.

He has been. Briffa, when he sufficiently recovered from brain surgery, posted interdweeb articles on the Yamal issue (and he said he might submit to a journal in time). Other bloggers have done the same (try 'delayedoscillator' who is a dendro-wonk). Well, we are talking about 'blog science' here.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mbkennel
Here is my criticism of the original points on the first page. In case it matters, yes, I am a professional scientist (PhD physics). I do not work in climate or atmospheric science, but I know some people who do.

This is my criticism to your claims. First you claim to have a PhD in physics, and you claim to know people who work in atmospheric science, and then you claim:

Originally posted by mbkennel
True but misleading. In fact, the Earth has had a fairly stable climate since the development of human civilization, about 10,000 years ago. Intentionally disrupting this state when there are 7 billion humans dependent on the current ecosystem is very unwise.

False...the Earth's climate has never been stable, and in the last 10,000 years there have been several periods of cooling, and warming..

There have been periods that were MUCH WARMER than it has been recently, and there have been periods like the Little Ice Age, which were global events despite the lies from the AGW proponents.

This claim of yours that the Earth's climate has been fairly stable in the past 10,000 years right there shows you really don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by mbkennel
False and or misleading. It is entirely expected from the laws of physics that *stratospheric* temperatures will decline and lower altitude temperatures will increase with an increased greenhouse effect due to higher amounts of greenhouse gases. This is exactly what has been observed by satellites and aerial measurements.

False and misleading, there have been events even in the stratosphere, and troposphere, which cannot be explained by the current GCMs.

As for "laws of physics" not too long ago scientists didn't believe it was possible for large breaches to form on Earth's magnetic field in the way they occurred because the known science was saying it wasn't possible, yet it did happen... Science IS NOT WRITTEN IN STONE...

BTW, I am not saying to just disregard science, but the minute you THINK "the science is settled" is the minute you stop learning, and you are just showing to not care about science, but instead that you are using your preconceived ideas to further your own agenda, and not for the pursuit of scientific knowledge, and the truth.

Dec. 16, 2008: NASA's five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earth's magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to "load up" the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms. But the breach itself is not the biggest surprise. Researchers are even more amazed at the strange and unexpected way it forms, overturning long-held ideas of space physics

www.space.com...

Originally posted by mbkennel
The unambiguous facts are that the temperature pattern changes observed (night time increases more than day time, more at polar regions, e.g.) are consistent with the physics of increased greenhouse gases, and contrary, for example, to an increase in solar output. The only anthropogenic signal which can be expected to be seen is from increased greenhouse effect. This is observed.

The "unambiguous facts" are that the areas of most warming have occurred FAR AWAY from large cities and their pollution, which agains proves the warming is not being caused by Anthropogenic CO2....

BTW, there are more natural factors than just "the Sun's output"...but like always the AGW can't get around the fact that unlike them, we know there are several NATURAL factors that affect the temperatures, and the climate of Earth...

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.

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by mbkennel
The temperature numbers are wrong by about a factor of 10, but this is otherwise correct. It is never disputed among scientists that the natural greenhouse effect is critical for climate. In fact the origin of the concern (starting in 1960s) about human changes to the greenhouse effect came out of people working on space physics and physics of other planets.

Actually, he made you a favor and posted the numbers CLAIMED by the AGW proponents, the real numbers are much different, and state that the amount of warming caused by a doubling of CO2 could be from 0.1C to about 0.4C, and not the 3C -6C CLAIMED by the policymakers of the IPCC, and the AGW proponents.

Originally posted by mbkennel
This is extremely misleading and a willfully wrong misreading of scientific reality. Furthermore, the insinuation apparently contradicts the correct point in #4, that the physics of the greenhouse effect is indeed true and very important in the climate of the Earth.

Please stop talking about "extremely misleading, and a willfully wrong misreading of scientific reality" when it is obvious your are describing yourself.

Even your first statement shows you have no idea what you are talking about...

The Earth's climate fairly stable in the last 10,000 years?...

For example the following is a list of some of the Climate Changes in Europe/near east for the last 15,000 years, many of those were global in nature.. The list is missing the Medieval Warm Period btw.

large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's

13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.


12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.

11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).

11,500 - 10,500 y.a. - climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.


9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's

about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.

8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today's.


(but; at 5,900 y.a. - a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the 'elm decline').

Since about 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present

2,600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas

(but; 1,400 y.a. [536-538 A.D.] wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).

(Followed by 'Little Ice Age' about 700-200 ya)

www.esd.ornl.gov...

As for the 20th century being the warmest, and the fastest Climate Change? that is nothing more than another lie from the AGW proponents.



Just to show you the new things that scientists have been learning recently, here is another example...

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind

www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
............
"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger."

However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.

"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.

"Heejeong used detailed statistical analysis to prove this phenomenon is real. Convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere can be strongly driven by these fluctuations, independent of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Some of the other natural factors which can, and do affect the climate on Earth can be found on the following link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 12-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by TSZodiac


Actually, no i'm not gonna attack his credentials and i'm not a gore-ite either.. I think its laughable to think Al Gore is apart of this huge conspiracy. b/c well, in my opinion, it just doesn't seem plausable even tho i do believe other conspiracies as plausable like 9/11, but not this one.. where we have proof that GW isn't man made, we have the same exact 'opposite' proof saying it is real! and, in my opinion, there is far more proof that it is real than that it isn't..

The AP just conlcuded that this email scandal, altho has reason to be suspect is more about just a few scientists questioning some of their data as opposed to the entire view of the world scientists and other scientists at this london organization. meaning, yeah it seems they fudged the evidence a bit but has nothing to do with a broad vast conspiracy!

do I agree their are those who are trying to make money from this? Absolutely. but so is the tobacco industry trying to make money off of our addictions and could care less about its 'clientel' dying from lung cancer... everyone tries to make money from anything and nothing. do i agree with these taxes? No, I don't.. but I do agree with making regulation so steep and so extreme to enforce change - we are talking about the earth we live on and we are fighting the ways of change that may improve our earth. even with the slightest bit of proof should be enough to change.. this is not a conspiracy to make money and the NWO to control the world.. i don't need scientific data to see that 'smog' in our city skyline can happen worldwide over time. I know Nitrogen is differrent from Co2 but why do we not hear any conspiracy about that? About Nitrogren run off from excessive farming along the east coast and this nitrogen which comes from feces and fertilizers is completely natural but so much of it has nearly killed over half of the Chessapeak bay eco-system - and is a major reason why coral reefs in Australia are dying off..

Granted I do know ppl on this forum do care about our earth and I should end this in saying many ppl on here do agree that man is negatively impacting our environment as a whole, and there are more important imminent environmental threats such as farming runoff and overfishing... but its the way the govertnment is handling it by trying to control us with taxes - see i get that, and i can understand that. but i still believe part of this GW is man made.

**Oh and part of his 10 truthes and 10myths about GW, I think it was #1 - where I believe he is dead wrong. the world has risen slightly in temperature on average over the past century. I think this is undeniable. i'd like to find how he got this data or where he got it from. maybe i'll even do a search on worldwide tempartures of the past 100years to get the figures myself. i'm real curious to see if he was indeed right.. altho, for now, I don't think he was..

reply to post by mbkennel

In fact, the Earth has had a fairly stable climate since the development of human civilization, about 10,000 years ago.

Well, you might have a PhD in physics, but knowledge of history certainly is lacking:
www2.sunysuffolk.edu...

The Little Ice Age in Europe

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea.

Impact on Agriculture

Lamb (1966) points out that the growing season changed by 15 to 20 percent between the warmest and coldest times of the millenium. That is enough to affect almost any type of food production, especially crops highly adapted to use the full-season warm climatic periods. During the coldest times of the LIA, England's growing season was shortened by one to two months compared to present day values. The availability of varieties of seed today that can withstand extreme cold or warmth, wetness or dryness, was not available in the past. Therefore, climate changes had a much greater impact on agricultural output in the past.

There are many more examples, but I won't bother to refute your other points, as they are nothing but your opinion, and the OP actually REFUTES your comments.

The fact that you felt it necessary to refute each point shows that you are not unbiased, but merely another minister of the Church of AGW.

I just wanted to add one additional note that makes ALOT of sense -

Ok, here goes... Now, I'm a believer in GW, I think it is undeniable that the earth has been warming for the past Century - that is why I think this guys 10myths is wrong where he said it hasn't. just look at the ice shelves of greenland? are they not melting?

Anyways, I do know climate moves in cylces. I do know that other planets are warming and cooling. but i also know that even tho this GW maybe natural, I adimantly believe that humans are ever so slightly speeding it up. i mean, how can you not see it? even tho humans emit less Co2 than all of nature, we emit something that has tilted the natural cyclical balance.

ok, wow, I got off course, sorry just being a liberal fool who pretends to be conservative. or vice versa. LOL. what i really wanted to say was that, this talk on Co2 without a doubt takes away the discussion that is needed for Overfishing and depleting our oceans of fish and other wildlife, for farming pollution and worse pollution from chemical and other companies, and basically just the overall health of the world unrelated to CO2 and GW. this discussion will go on and with the population of the human race usually around 2bil people prior to 1940 exploding to nearly 7bil today, accompanied by an explosion in industry and technology during the same time, that is going to tilt the balance in nature just by the sheer amount of energy and food that is needed to sustain the human race! so we do also have other important imminent issues at hand that need discussion unrelated to GW and CO2 emissionas AND not just this worry about the NWO taking over the world and enslaving us..

What is happening today with the AGW advocates is very similar to what may have happened in this fictional news report from 1647. Enjoy:

Could the widespread use of windmills be responsible for recent observations that the European continent is rapidly cooling?

[Chairman] "This session of the Rotterdam Congress on Global Turbulence Cooling in the year of our Lord 1647 will now come to order. [Gavel strikes] Before the initial period of testimony and investigation begins, the chair recognizes brief opening remarks by Mijnheer de Dokter Jut Om Brom, the leading expert on windmill effects in climate change.

"Mijnheer Om Brom has been studying the significant lowering of European temperatures since 1612, and has concluded that the then recent introduction of windmill pumping stations around the Netherlands, with their subsequent adoption in other countries as grain processors and irrigation devices for croplands, has led to an increase in wind turbulence throughout Europe and Western Asia.

"Dutch scientists have been sounding the alarm about global turbulence cooling since it was realized in the last decade that a decline in cereal grain production, as well as the freezing of previously clear winter shipping lanes, is causing food shortages and population shifts to become serious threats to future prosperity.

"Mijnheer Om Brom if you please." [Applause from the panel and from the assembly]

[Om Brom] "Thank-you Mijnheer President. Thank-you members of this august body. As you all know, the windmill has come to symbolize the technological achievements of the Dutch inventive spirit. With the windmill, new lands have come to exist, raised up out the ocean, itself. The outstretched sails of a great wooden windmill represent the triumph of ingenuity over the forces of Nature that resist our growth. Other cultures have created new uses for the windmill, increasing the quality of foodstuffs, and developing more efficient ways to cultivate their land holdings.

"However, with the windmill has come an unforeseen circumstance. As this chart indicates, temperature readings over the last thirty years from the steps of Saint Laurens Church right here in Rotterdam, show a steep decline when compared to those taken in the middle of the last century by the previous clergymen.

"A team of internationally funded research scientists are now suggesting that it is the windmills that are causing this downward trend because of additional air turbulence generated by the vanes. As can be demonstrated by these graphed equations, turbulence is a direct result of spinning vanes and propagates outward, influencing the movement of surrounding airflow patterns.

"These equations have been vetted by a number of independent study groups who agree that, with some adjustments for North Sea ice increases, along with a slightly warmer Mediterranean Ocean, the turbulence causes regional cooling. Although the models are complex, it is indisputable that human-made windmills will soon result in a global cooling crisis.

"As the airflow becomes more chaotic, it is unable to hold sufficient heat, allowing that heat to dissipate. When heat dissipation increases, turbulence increases, resulting in an ever greater heat loss. We expect that within the next century, perhaps within the next ten to twenty years, turbulence will become so great that nonstop cold winds will cause an overall freezing of our country, eventually chilling the remainder of the continent."

[Chairman] "Very disturbing conclusions, Mijnheer Om Brom. What do you suggest as a course of action?"

[Om Brom] "I have no other conclusion to offer than that an immediate program of windmill reduction be instituted. Also, because the major contributors to global turbulence are those who create the windmills, sell them and install them, I think that those nations who make the most use of windmills should be required to offset that use by buying 'turbulence credits' from non-windmill nations. In that way, the non-windmill using countries may continue to increase their economic development, while not contributing to further turbulence.

"Here is my Spanish colleague, Mijnheer Don Quixote to explain his views. He has already begun a private program that he hopes will result in fewer windmills in his own country. He has need for additional funding in order to carry that cause further."

[Chairman] "The chair recognizes Mijnheer Don Quixote."

[Don Quixote] "Gracias Senor Presidente. I have long desired to leave my village and take up the profession of knighthood, for I am spurred on by the conviction that the world needs my immediate presence. The order of knight-errantry was instituted to defend maidens, to protect widows, and to rescue orphans and distressed persons. Neither fraud, nor deceit, nor malice has yet interfered with truth and plain dealing."

[Chairman] "I understand, Mijnheer Quixote, that you have been engaged especially in a campaign to destroy as many windmills as you can find. It is a strong stand, yet may not be the most effective political posture."

[Don Quixote] "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed."

[Chairman] "Is it your contention that these facts about global turbulence are true and deserve the maximum response?"

[Don Quixote] "Facts are the enemy of truth. God, Who provides for all, will not desert us; especially being engaged, as we are, in His service."

[Chairman] "Thank-you Mijnheer Quixote. And thank-you Mijnheer de Dokter Om Brom."

www.thunderbolts.info...

The arrogance of man, actually believing that they control the weather, is truly laughable.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Actually I disagree with that.

Perhaps you should read my posts a little closer. I make no judgment on the data at this time. I will not condemn nor condone any of the scientists involved due to the leaked emails until such has been investigated. This is one point where I will not argue with you nor support you at this time. We will know when the investigation is finished how severe the damage is.

To jump to conclusions over these leaks is to become the same as you claim the CRU scientists are. I am looking for the truth. If it is hidden in these emails, fine. If it is not hidden in these emails, that's fine too. For now, I will not participate in the fray.

An indictment is far from a guilty verdict. So far, we have an indictment. Just an indictment.

TheRedneck

reply to post by mbkennel

True but misleading. In fact, the Earth has had a fairly stable climate since the development of human civilization, about 10,000 years ago.

The key word here is 'fairly'. During that 10,000 years, we have evidence that Greenland, for example, supported widespread agriculture. We know that there have been warm periods and cool periods. Whether or not these periods were localized to one section of the planet or truly global can be debated.

Thus, I fail to see where the statement is misleading.

The unambiguous facts are that the temperature pattern changes observed (night time increases more than day time, more at polar regions, e.g.) are consistent with the physics of increased greenhouse gases, and contrary, for example, to an increase in solar output. The only anthropogenic signal which can be expected to be seen is from increased greenhouse effect. This is observed.

Actually, the deviations are what one would expect to see if there were a slow steady heat source emanating from the surface of the planet. This is one reason why I keep coming back to volcanic activity. So far, there is no evidence of such activity in amounts that would fully explain any changes, but then again, we know little about what actually lies under 2/3 of the planet's surface.

Greenhouse gas increases would also explain most of the observed phenomena, but I fail to see evidence of enough carbon dioxide to vet that argument either. Especially when the largest anomalies are located distant from the sources of the increased carbon dioxide levels.

On the annual cycle, CO2 goes up and down because of this thing known as "the seasons". There is more land mass in Northern Hemisphere and therefore CO2 goes up more in colder winter months (decay of plants) and down as plants grow in the summer. So indeed, increases in CO2 precede increases in temperature---on the annual timescale.

The periods mentioned are not yearly differences. If one were to examine the yearly fluctuations between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, one could say that one leads the other or vice versa.

Seasonal differences in temperature and carbon dioxide levels on a global scale are not even affected by the seasons. In a global sense, it is always spring/summer somewhere and always fall/winter somewhere. If annual variations are observed, it is indicative of noise that is produced by skewed observation on the global scale.

That could be indicative of inadequacy of the observed data or it could be a result of geographical differences.

But these true facts do NOT dispute the causal physical relationship where more greenhouse gases result in more radiation as a *consequence*.

The causal relationship you mention is simplified and itself does not consider self-regulating systems that work to offset any effect. Photosynthesis under enhanced carbon dioxide levels speeds up (assuming no other differences in conditions), thus both removing carbon dioxide form the air and respirating soil-based water into the atmosphere, lowering temperatures. Increased air temperatures mean increased evaporation, taking heat energy from the surface and carrying it higher into the atmosphere. And that's just two examples.

Outright lie. The people working groups on the scientific aspects of the IPCC are all professional scientists in the field, with loads of published papers and personal research. They are not employees of the United Nations, but of universities, research institutes etc from around the world.

Does the IPCC/UN not provide grants to cover the operations of these Universities? It's not who signs the checks; it is who sends the money.

I don't know the numbers, but the reality is that science says that we ought to be doing substantially more than even the "leftists" political proposals agree upon.

Science says nothing of the sort. Scientists may say so, based on their research, but they may also say so based on personal incentives. Scientists are people.

Science is a quest, not a mouthpiece.

TheRedneck

reply to post by mbkennel

The only thing of any significant worry was a questionable data set based on tree rings. If you throw out that data set, the overall results change little.

Wrong. The fact that adjustments were made in secrecy without any public indication of their existence on otherwise public statements is a concern. As is the fact that despite this action, many here are still defending the secrecy as though there is nothing wrong with changing data behind closed doors.

That is more troubling than specific numbers.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by melatonin

1. we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment

that is the point we should really focus on. it's always portrayed as a done deal, the earth is warming, it's been proven, period. full stop. if you asked questions you were labelled a denier, so having someone with authority claim there really was no warming in the last decade. that's interesting, imho - and puts sensationalist claims in perspective.

your interpretation is as valid s anyone else's, of course i'm not convinced, though, take a look at:

1120593115.txt from July, 5th 2005
...
This is partly why I've sent you the rest of this email. IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences....

can we infer that they'd like to see it happen, but currently do not?


PS: i'll have to email the people who maintain the eastangliamails website, because this particular text is truncated and had to be c/p'ed from my copy of the file, that's why i did not link directly.

[edit on 2009.12.13 by Long Lance]