Earth To Reach Highest Temperature In 1,000,000 Years

Ive noticed a number of folks that have previously expressed in other threads that they believe the government has misled and is misleading the american people about terrorism & the middle east. I bringing this up because I am perplexed at seeing these same people citing government sources as evidence to support the thesis that global warming has a human cause. Once you have established that government routinely lies to the public, how can you trust any information coming from that government?

They might as well call it "The War On Global Warming", because at the core of this argument you will find that it uses the same basic method as "The War On Terror", to gain support. It uses fear. The government doesn't care what you are afraid of, so long as you are afraid. A scared population is compliant and easy to manipulate.

The government needs another massive & complex bureaucratic boondoggle in which to hide the booty it steals from american taxpayers after things come to a close in afghanistan and iraq. Global warming will be that boondoggle and those socially responsible democrats will do the right thing. Not for you, for themselves. The democrats will also reward their friends with patronage positions to staff the bureaucracy just like the republicans have done in the area of national security.

Of course global warming is occurring, every great lie contains an indisputable truth. No one is denying this fact, however their is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that humans have any significant impact on global warming.
.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Muaddib

I think that you know I respect you. I find your mind sharp and you usually are very open minded to the truth. But on this issue anything to do with global warming, I can’t say the same. Would I be right if I said you actually were working within the fossil fuel industry or very closely allied to it? Well?

Why is it that everytime someone poses intelligent questions and shows the inconsistencies with some of the theories thrown around, it must immediately mean that "that person works for oil interests, and changes the data for the benefit of the oil industry"? or "he/she must be a government agent"?.....

Can anyone actually be smart enough to do the research necessary to provide data that refutes the evidence being discussed, instead of immediately making accusations because certain people don't want to accept the information being provided?

Why is it people like yourself make such accusations? is it because you can't truly dismiss the inconsistencies, and in some level that scares you to death because you "don't have control"?...in this case over global warming?

Do i work "for the interest of oil companies"? No, i don't even work for an oil company, I work for a company that provides "services in the field" to oil companies. I don't get paid to shape the opinion of others in favour of oil companies.

First you should know that everyone on this planet nomatter where and for who they work for, are living in this same planet...

If i thought that CO2 was the cause of global warming, and if i thought that global warming is happening because of "human activities", nomatter how much money I was paid to say otherwise, I would be in as much jeapordy as the poorest person in the planet, therefore i would be looking for another job, which i can probably find, and I would be speaking against human activities.

I do believe that we have to be responsible for what is done to "the environment", and we must try to do our best to cause the least damage to the environment, but with all the data and research i have gone through, I have come to the conclusion that global warming is not being caused by human activities.

Now let me ask you this.... The same NASA scientist who claims that "it must be the warmest in 1 million years", even though he hasn't looked at the data at all to back such a claim, works for a company whose main objective is missions to space.... Do you even know what that means?.... This man works for a company which needs the products provided by oil companies....

Now, how many jobs around the world do not use products which in some way are related to "oil"?.....

Are you now going to claim that every person in the planet must have an agenda because of this?....

I am sorry to tell you that such an accusation only shows ignorance.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
In addition to that Muaddib you also are using incorrect science as you sources. I am surprised by that I would never dream of using information that I had not verified myself. I also notice that the very research centre you seem to be focusing on this thread is giving different information from what your sources have described.
...........................
You used a quote from the Telegraph

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998” and further “official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase

Yep of course that’s right, BUT ITS NOT RIGHT lets look at a nice graph so everyone can see of what the actual results have been from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia shall we?

Did you even check that graph?... It actually shows that from 1998 to 2000 global temperatures increased but then began to slowly stabilize, or level, and unless you can provide data which shows the contrary, and a graph since 2000-2006 that proves it is still increasing, the data suggests that global warming is stabilizing, at least for now.

There is also the fact that there is a controversy surrounding the hockey-stick graph used by Mann in the report provided to the ICCP in 1998.

Here is an article that touches as what this controversy is all about.
www.arcticnet-ulaval.ca...

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
The only problem therefore is the misinformation provided by yourself and from the Telegraph.

Not really, the problem is that "you don't want to see what is being shown".

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
In addition…well I … to be honest im soo sick of this whole spin and counter spin displaying not the truth. I believe that you should practise what you preach and amend your posts on this thread I have found 3 similar misrepresentations, I will display them one by one unless you use your good brain for some truth yourself, and correct the unreliable quotes.

You know what I am sick of? People like yourself who "don't want to accept the possibility that global warming is not being caused by human acitivities and instead resort to trying to label people who refute this claim with evidence, and make questions about this topic"....

Anyways...sorry, to tell you that you haven't proven anything.... Look at that graph again and tell me since 1998 global temperatures have not slowly leveled.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Lets look at what the Environment Secretary for the UK government said today shall we:

“People "should be scared" about global warming - and be ready to take action to help tackle the problem, says Environment Secretary David Miliband.

Could you tell me where in the world have i said there is no global warming? The data seems to indicate that global temperatures appear to be leveling.

BTW, this year's hurricane season was supposed to be worse than last year, but until now it hasn't been the case, and even I believed the data given by meteorologists, that this year was going to have a worse hurricane season than last year's.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
In addition:

He said he had thought he had been well-informed about climate change but had quickly been shocked by what he had learned since taking on the job.

.........

Well the thing is that climate change is a reality, and it has happened in the past many times, and imo mankind "can't do a thing to stop it or slow it down".


[edit on 30-9-2006 by Muaddib]

I have to post the article here because it's too long to insert in my previous post.

Arctic archives

Breaking the hockey stick

(January 27, 2005) NATIONAL POST (Marcel Crok)

The famous graph that supposedly shows that recent temperatures are the highest in a thousand years has now been shown by careful analysis to have been based on faulty data.

Few people dispute that the earth is getting warmer, but there are people -- so-called "climate skeptics" -- who question whether the change is historically unique and whether it is the result of human activity. These skeptics are generally outsiders, reviled by "true" climate researchers.

On the one hand, Michael Mann, the first author of the two noted hockey-stick papers (in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999), is the unofficial king of climate research. In 2002, Scientific American included him as one of the top 50 visionaries in science. On the other hand, the two Canadian skeptics are outsiders: Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics and Stephen McIntyre is a mineral exploration consultant -- which Mann likes to call a conflict of interest.

Climate skeptics are most prolific on the Internet, a platform for novices, the scatterbrained and the experienced alike. Not surprisingly, the climate researchers whom we consulted (predominantly Dutch) presumed the work of the two Canadians to be unconvincing. We at Natuurwetenschap & Techniek were initially skeptical about these skeptics as well. However, McIntyre and McKitrick have recently had an article accepted by Geophysical Research Letters -- the same journal that published Mann's 1999 article. This, together with the positive responses of the referees to that article, quickly brought us around.

Even Geophysical Research Letters, an eminent scientific journal, now acknowledges a serious problem with the prevailing climate reconstruction by Mann and his colleagues. This undercuts both Mann's supposed proof that human activity has been responsible for the warming of the earth's atmosphere in the 20th century and the ability to place confidence in the findings and recommendations of the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The political implication is a serious undermining of the Kyoto Protocol with its worldwide agreements on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

www.arcticnet-ulaval.ca...



[edit on 30-9-2006 by Muaddib]

BTW, i do have to wonder why is it that the following graph has not found it's way to the mainstream media yet.

Well, i guess it has something to do with the fact that the whole concept that mankind is responsible for global warming came directly from the "hockey-stick graph" which presented data until the year 2000....

BTW, how many people have heard about the Wegman report?

The following graph is very interesting, and take a look who is the officer in NASA responsible for the graph....

I'll excerpt who is responsible anyways...

Responsible NASA Official: James E. Hansen

[Couldn't get the image to download to ATS as it is too large]

The above image can be found at.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

I hope people see the trend that the graph is showing. Could there be any more warming in the future? possible, but for now what it shows is obvious, and quite the contrary.


[edit on 1-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Another interesting piece of information which i posted on another forum in ATS and it's pertinent to this dictussion.

...............
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.
......................
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...

Several questions should come to mind from the information which is stated in that link I gave.

First, why is it that the warmest years for the past 7 years are in order, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004?

Second, shouldn't warming be highest in, or close to, the cities in the world where the most CO2 and other gases and chemicals are released in the atmosphere?

Third, why is it that climatologists say, according to the link i gave, that "the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas", but it is being portrayed differently in many other sites/reports?

Fourth, if the warming is not due to the influcence of pollution from urban areas, what is causing the warming then?

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Muaddib]

So where are they taking these temperature measurements? DEATH VALLEY CALIFORNIA?

Seriously, I live in the most polluted city in the world "Los Angeles", and the temperatures have been the same for about 20+ years.

When are they taking their temperatures? Day, Night? Where are they taking the temperatures? All over the world at one time? Are they calculating averages or exact temperatures?

How can they be sure their temperature readings from 1,000,000 years ago are 100% accurate? I'm sorry but taking core samples from the ground to find the temperature can NOT be 100% accurate no matter what anyone says. They have no way of proving it is 100% accurate.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Seriously, I live in the most polluted city in the world "Los Angeles", and the temperatures have been the same for about 20+ years.

I think you'll find Mexico City is rather a lot more polluted than LA And do you have accurate temp records for 20 years?

But in any case, the fact some places are not warmer now than they were 20 years ago does not change the fact that overall the planet is warmer. That's not an opinion or believe, it's an undeniable fact. The questions are what has caused the warming, and whether or not it's higher than previous warming that have occurred over the past few thousand years.

Graphs showing the warming stopped after '98 are misleading - '98 was a strong el nino year. Such years are always warmer. The fact that 2005 equalled '98 without an el nino is telling .....

When are they taking their temperatures? Day, Night? Where are they taking the temperatures? All over the world at one time? Are they calculating averages or exact temperatures?

Temps are taking from thousands of locations on every continent, every day, both maxima and minima, and are averaged out. Additionally we have satellite measurements, tropospheric measurements etc etc. There is a lot of data out there.

How can they be sure their temperature readings from 1,000,000 years ago are 100% accurate? I'm sorry but taking core samples from the ground to find the temperature can NOT be 100% accurate no matter what anyone says. They have no way of proving it is 100% accurate.

Well, the scientific method is to show why it's not accurate, not to just make such an asssertion based on belief However, you are right.

To revert back to the Hansen paper, there are questions over the accuracy of the measurements: recent studies have indicated a 1-3c margin of error in chmical analysis of forams. So the Hansen data may not be as accurate as thought. Also, there is a wealth of paleoclimate data indicating that the Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than today - in some parts of the world by up to 6c. I'm currently in the process of collating this data to build a clearer picture of the global climate around 6-10,000 years ago. I should add that at that time, some places were also colder than today, and that in many N Hemisphere places the higher temps occurred only in summer.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
So where are they taking these temperature measurements? DEATH VALLEY CALIFORNIA?

Believe it or not, what you've just said rings a very truthful AND scientifically accurate tone.

It's not really a matter of WHERE it is being taken NOW but a matter of where it WAS being taken THEN.

Over the course of the years, Average temperatures were taken by remote stations vastly in remote areas...now, as cities have furthered developed (losing remote areas and space) these same stations have been relocated within the city limits which are, inherently, warmer. Also, the schema by which averages are attained have not only lied with government permanent stations, but with privately held (or the general public) weather stations across the globe as well...via services like weatherunderground.com as an example. People buy weather stations, put them up around their yards, homes, etc and choose to have that temperature (as well as other climatic data) sent freely to the internet which is used by noaa as well in calculating average temps.

AB1

Originally posted by Essan

But in any case, the fact some places are not warmer now than they were 20 years ago does not change the fact that overall the planet is warmer. That's not an opinion or believe, it's an undeniable fact.

It debunks the claim that the main cause for global wamring is human activities. Gases expand in the atmosphere, but CO2 and other gases are released continuously mainly in the biggest cities in the world, in these cities you see a smoke screen from all the gases being released into the atmosphere, so why are we not seeing an increased temperature in those areas more than in remote areas? Even in that article they stated climatologists don't think the warming is being caused by pollution from cities.

Originally posted by Essan
The questions are what has caused the warming, and whether or not it's higher than previous warming that have occurred over the past few thousand years.

and how reliable is the hockey stick graph when many inconsistencies have been found yet it is still being used to claim that human activities are the main cause for global warming.

Originally posted by Essan
Graphs showing the warming stopped after '98 are misleading - '98 was a strong el nino year. Such years are always warmer. The fact that 2005 equalled '98 without an el nino is telling .....

The graphs showing that some years after 1998 were warmer than the three consecutive years, 2002 being warmer than 2003, 2003 being warmer than 2004 is also telling .....

Originally posted by Essan
To revert back to the Hansen paper, there are questions over the accuracy of the measurements: recent studies have indicated a 1-3c margin of error in chmical analysis of forams. So the Hansen data may not be as accurate as thought. Also, there is a wealth of paleoclimate data indicating that the Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than today - in some parts of the world by up to 6c. I'm currently in the process of collating this data to build a clearer picture of the global climate around 6-10,000 years ago. I should add that at that time, some places were also colder than today, and that in many N Hemisphere places the higher temps occurred only in summer.

Yes there are many inconsistencies with the hockey-stick graph, yet for some reason this graph is still being used.