If the Weatherman can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather, how can they predict Global Warming

Box, it's February in Norway. Dress in layers and wear a hood. I'd take along a balacava too, just in case it's bitter cold. Gloves, footwear that can get wet, and woolens if you're planning to be outdoors. Keep your core warm. I'm picturing one of those big white parkas with a furry edge on the hood.

Originally posted by Johnmike
They can't accurately predict global warming. It's only a theory, and far from proven. The Earth is still very much a mystery to scientists.

Then there will be jobs for them for a long time. That's good.

In the 70's I worked at PSU and the whole 3rd floor of the Dept. of Electrical Engineering was an Ionosphere Research lab. They were affiliated with Cornell and did work with Arecibo. The 2nd floor of the west building was solid state devices, one wall was plastered with sat pics of NYC with heat distribution in color. Central Park stood out in the middle. In the basement was Quantum Theory, you can imagine how interesting that was. Our dept. head was from New Zealand, Dr. Ross. Our professors (some from India, Pakistan and Korea) collaborated with scholars and industry around the globe. And that was over 30 years ago. They ALL collaborate with the National Science Foundation who funds most of the research. I used to type their proposals and correspondence and send them off. Day-to-day coursework, quizzes and exams. Even textbooks for them.

Since then, Accuweather has grown up in that same town and gone worldwide also.

And to complete the political circle, Al Gore's on the bandwagon with ex-Senator Santorium pushing legislation to contract our NOAA and the NWS. (that's just great)

When Industry figures out how to make money on the weather, then the BDS's need to come out.


[edit on 9-2-2007 by psyopswatcher]

Global warming is a global political scam. If the oil company's put out a report that denied global warming it would be shot down and labled "bias". but when Al Gore and people like Mike Moore put out a fantacy description of how they precieve things, there is definetly no bias? Also what the heck do ex VP's and failed presidential hopefuls know about the enviornment? why do the three most outspoken poloticians that are bringing this issue to the arena flying around the country in the most polluting jets they can get their paws on? They sure seem worried...... for some information on the faults in the global warming theory check out
www.cs.usask.ca...

[edit on 9-2-2007 by chrondoc]

Doc, you should know this from the hypocratic oath: First do no harm.

You're correct about those polluting jets but I think we all know there is no stopping progress.

The answer then is to progress without doing more harm than needs be done. We all need to stop and look at what we give back to our communities, to our world.

What do we leave behind besides what goes down the drain, down the toilet?

Originally posted by chrondoc
Global warming is a global political scam. If the oil company's put out a report that denied global warming it would be shot down and labled "bias". but when Al Gore and people like Mike Moore put out a fantacy description of how they precieve things, there is definetly no bias? Also what the heck do ex VP's and failed presidential hopefuls know about the enviornment? why do the three most outspoken poloticians that are bringing this issue to the arena flying around the country in the most polluting jets they can get their paws on? They sure seem worried...... for some information on the faults in the global warming theory ainst_global_warming.html

Doc--

The only "biases" I see here are your own--ergo--against the persons named in your post.

Is Global Warming a "real" issue??

Yes

Is the Data Valid??

Yes

Are the calculations used by the sciences correct?

Yes, and they have been checked with redundancy several times over.

Does Big Oil support the Findings?

Yes, Exxon definitely does--and so do the Governments of 54 Countries in the world. that, my friend, is the basis of the Kyoto Agreement--and our own Governmental Administration refused to sign it. Who is that? Geroge Bush -- aka --Big Oil.

'Nuff said.

Originally posted by thebox
Excellent thread, I'll just add my little rant here...

I'm off to Norway on Monday and have been checking the weather forecast daily for over a month. Every single day I check various sources, accuweather, metcheck, etc and the forecast has been VASTLY different every time. This happens every time I go away, the weather is forecast so inaccurately that I genuinely don't know what to expect when I arrive in the country.

I know there is always going to be a margin for error but they're not even close half the time.

Most internet sites (Metcheck for example) do not actually issue forecasts. What they do is convert the raw data from each 6 hourly computer model run into a forecasts. Each run can - and often is - very different, especially beyond 3 or 4 days. hence widely differing forecasts all the time ....

As for predicting future climate. Well, I may not be able to predict exactly when it will rain in your town next week. But I can predict that it will rain in your town next year and that the summer months will be warmer than the winter months. And that's the difference between weather forecasting and climate forecasting

I think Essan has got it spot on. Weather is more chaotic than climate. Weather predictions focus on more low-level chaotic effects, reducing accuracy.

Climate change is shown by the overall long-term trend in temperatures. It is not even questionable that global warming is occuring. There will be variations within the overall trend, thus some places will have warmer winters, others may have colder winters - but the overall trend will be warming. The main focus was the cause.

CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, it is sourced from fossil fuels (tested via the change in the ratio of carbon isotopes), CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 can only have one effect - warming. Its physico-chemical properties ensure this.

At this point, the weight of evidence shows that other forcings (solar etc) are unable to account for the warming effects and that CO2 is the major cause.

Don't fall the the oil-funded disinformation campaigns, industry tried the same with CFCs and ozone (especially du pont).

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Is Global Warming a "real" issue??

Yes, Climate Change is happening.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Is the Data Valid??

What data are you talking about? If you mean the computer models from proxies, the hockey stick graph is one of the examples on how wrong they can get their models. There are still some past Climate Changes we cannot understand completly, and the models have not been able to accurately predict past events.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Are the calculations used by the sciences correct?

Yes, and they have been checked with redundancy several times over.

Not really, several times they have to revise the data because they did not predict exactly what would happen, and the UN reports have been wrong because they used a flawed model, the Hockey Stick Graph, to make their assesments.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Does Big Oil support the Findings?
Yes, Exxon definitely does--and so do the Governments of 54 Countries in the world. that, my friend, is the basis of the Kyoto Agreement--and our own Governmental Administration refused to sign it. Who is that? Geroge Bush -- aka --Big Oil.

'Nuff said.

The Kyoto agreement is nothing more than a scam. Why is it that China, India and other countries are being exempted from cutting their greenhouse emissions?

China will be surpassing the U.S. in greenhouse emisisons by 2009, and China is one of the worlds most polluted countries. Seven out of the ten most polluted cities in the world can be found in China, the same goes for their rivers, yet the Kyoto protocol would allow China, along some other countries, to continue, and even increase as much as they want their greenhouse emissions.

The Kyoto protocol is not there to "save the world" or curb pollution, it is being used as a political tool and will be used to squeeze money from countries like the U.S., nothing more, nothing less.

As for the UN report, there is more to that story than meets the eye. For some reason the UN hired many of the scientists which disagree with the claim that mankind is the cause for global warming. That reason is to make people beleive that "most scientists" agree with this claim when they don't.

Many of the scientists which the UN used for their assesments were not asked now or in the past what they thought the data is saying.

Real report under wraps

By DR. TIM BALL, GUEST COLUMNIST

We are told hundreds of scientists played a role in writing the UN climate science report released last week. We are also told it proves that scientists agree -- human release of carbon dioxide is the primary cause of climate change and a catastrophe looms.

Fortunately, this is nonsense.

The report just released is merely the 'Summary for Policymakers,' an executive summary of the main report that no one outside a select group sworn to secrecy knows the contents of until May.

Why would the main report and its summary not be issued together?

According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
.............
To understand why the IPCC does this, Canadians need to appreciate that the summary is not a scientifically neutral document. It is written to fulfill political objectives in support of carbon dioxide-reduction negotiations.
........................
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."

www.ottawasun.com...

[edit on 10-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
What data are you talking about? If you mean the computer models from proxies, the hockey stick graph is one of the examples on how wrong they can get their models. There are still some past Climate Changes we cannot understand completly, and the models have not been able to accurately predict past events.

....


Not really, several times they have to revise the data because they did not predict exactly what would happen, and the UN reports have been wrong because they used a flawed model, the Hockey Stick Graph, to make their assesments.

The Mann et al. data was not flawed, it has been replicated more than once. They used some statistical approaches that were not ideal. They were the first to use such an approach, like most science, methods are fine-tuned with time. However, their findings have since been shown to be correct.

A hockey stick wake-up
June 26, 2006

EVER SINCE scientists in 1998 and 1999 charted the planet's temperature trends over the last 1,000 years, the graph's ``hockey stick" line reflecting centuries of temperature stability and a sharp jag upward in recent years has been a controversial symbol of the global warming debate. On Thursday, a special panel of scientists and statisticians convened by the National Academy of Sciences largely confirmed the research behind the graphed data. Those in the energy industry, the Bush administration, and Congress who deny that heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate of the planet have one less excuse for doing so.

www.boston.com...

A panel of the National Research Council recently looked at the 1999 study by Mr. Mann's group and found problems with it. The panel questioned some specific conclusions of the paper but supported some of its general findings.

One criticism of the 1999 graph centers on the method used to produce it. Some researchers argue that the technique automatically generates hockey-stick shapes in data. The National Research Council found that criticism valid but said it did not seriously affect the results. Studies done with other techniques have produced similar findings.

For the earliest part of the 1999 analysis, Mr. Mann's group relied heavily on bristlecone pines from western North America. The original study noted that there were some difficulties in using such trees because of peculiarities in their recent growth, but Mr. Mann and his group attempted to quantify those problems and to work around them. The National Research Council suggested that researchers avoid using trees that are the most difficult to interpret. More-recent studies have avoided those trees and reached similar conclusions.

chronicle.com...


Also, Tim Ball is not a good source for anything useful, he has no credibility on this issue. Lying about credentials isn't the best sign of an honest critic.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

The Mann et al. data was not flawed, it has been replicated more than once.
............

Really? They try a dissapearing act of two warming events, the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, which have been corroborated by the geological record from all over the world, and both of which were warmer than today, plus the Little Ice age which has also been corroborated by the geological record, and you think that this link you are giving which claims "for the past 1,000 years there was temperature stability", which is an obvious lie, is the proof that Mann's graph is right?.....

Climate History: Hot and Cold. Scientists first noted that the Roman and Medieval warmings were part of a much longer pattern when Greenland ice cores, first brought up in 1984, provided 250,000 years of climate history. Evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle has since been found in Antarctic glaciers, in the seabed sediments of four oceans, in ancient tree rings, and in cave stalagmites on all the continents and New Zealand. But 1,500-year cycles were too long and too moderate for ancient peoples without thermometers and written records to discern.

In Europe, the Roman Warming lasted from 200 B.C. to A.D. 600. It allowed grapes and olives to be grown farther north, and good rains allowed the Romans to buy abundant grain from across the Mediterranean in North Africa. The Roman Warming was followed by the cold Dark Ages (A.D. 600 to 950). Weather is far less stable during the cold phases of the climate cycle. Widespread droughts and storms drove hordes of hungry barbarians to assault the granaries of the collapsing Roman Empire.

The Medieval Warming prevailed from about A.D. 950 to 1300, bringing ample sunshine, milder storms and longer growing seasons. Food harvests were so good that Britain’s population rose from an estimated 1.4 million people in the late 11th century to 5 million in 1300. Europe’s total population increased from 40 million to 60 million — during a period when temperatures rose higher than today’s.

From 1300 to 1850, the planet shifted into the Little Ice Age. The good weather ended abruptly. During the summer of 1315, incessant sheets of rain fell from May to August throughout Europe, washing away much of the topsoil and beating crops to the ground. In late summer, the weather turned unseasonably cold, and the soft kernels of the few surviving grain plants were attacked by fungus. Across northern Europe, harvests were disastrous, and famine set in.

www.ncpa.org...

The following is incredibly interesting information.

Nearly 1,700 years ago, devastating tempests associated with sea-level rise destroyed villages of the Calusa Indians on the southwest Florida coast, near present-day Fort Myers, forcing the native fishermen to move inland to relative safety, said UF anthropologist Karen Walker.

Walker's clues to storms, sea-level rise and migration include village remains buried by storm-surge sediment, and other village deposits found at higher elevations than where they should be. In addition, the modest shells and fishbones left behind by the Indians, she said, show ecological correlations between rising sea levels and global warming periods documented in the historical record of ancient Europe.

"As we enter into a modern warming period, which seems to be the case, Florida is likely to experience flooded shorelines and an increase of intense storms," Walker said. "I think that it's not a coincidence that there were major storms recorded at some of the archaeological sites that I study and that those storms happened during the warm Roman Optimum period. I have the storms closely dated to the fourth century AD."

Global warming is not new, said Walker, explaining that a variety of evidence points to a global episode of warming, dubbed the Roman Optimum, which occurred roughly from 200 B.C. and about A.D. 400, and a later episode, the Medieval Optimum, which took place from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200. A cooling episode named the Vandal Minimum occurred roughly between the two warmings.

"By studying many archaeological deposits from many locations, I see a picture showing that sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to these climate fluctuations known from European history," she said.

www.napa.ufl.edu...

Walker does claim that for example, the Roman warming period was probably caused by the Roman's deforestation as they built roads throughout their empire. Strange that some scientists always want to find some reason to blame mankind for Climate Change....


Then those same links try to claim that anyone who disagrees with the claim that "temperatures have been stable for 1,000 years", nomatter if they are experts who were part of the IPCC body of scientists who the UN has hired more than once, yet these same scientists keep saying that the UN is not listening to them and are reaching their own conclusions, must be part of the energy industry, part of the Bush administration or apparently they must be getting paid to say these things when there are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who disagree with the claim that mankind is the cause of global warming?

Originally posted by melatonin
Also, Tim Ball is not a good source for anything useful, he has no credibility on this issue. Lying about credentials isn't the best sign of an honest critic.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by melatonin]

Really?... Did you get that claim from the same source claiming any scientist who disagrees with Mann's graph must be "part of the Bush administration, or are being paid by the oil industry to disagree"?

Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment. He is the co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 - McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World's leading authorities on arctic birds.

Dr. Ball’s extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition, make him the ideal head of NRSP as we move into our first campaign, Understanding Climate Change. His extensive public speaking experience and presentations to professional societies, business conferences, public forums and a wide variety of public, private and non-profit organizations make him the ideal spokesperson for NRSP as well.

His other work in such areas as water resources, sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics will be invaluable as NRSP tackles other issues starting later in 2007.

Throughout his career, Dr. Ball has been heavily involved in local and national committees related to climate, water and river management and hazardous waste. He is regular contributing writer for Country Guide and has appeared as a guest opinion writer in all of Canada’s major newspapers.

www.nrsp.com...


Some more informaiton on Dr. Tim Ball

Climatologist

Tim Ball
Climatologist, Author & Environmental Consultant,

Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, wrote his doctoral thesis at the University of London (England) using the remarkable records of the Hudson's Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714 - 1952. He has published numerous articles on climate change and its impact on the human condition. Dr. Ball has served on numerous committees at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on climate, water resources, and environmental issues. He was a professor in the geography department at the University of Winnipeg before retiring. He has written a regular column on weather in the agricultural magazine. Country Guide, for 14 years. He is currently working as an environmental consultant and public speaker based in Victoria and has written, with Dr. Stuart Houston, 18th Century Naturalists on Hudson Bay, a book on the science and climate of the fur trade (McGill-Queens University Press, 2003).

www.fraserinstitute.ca...


[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]

With a bread basket full of money under the nose, I could tell you global warming is going to hit mankind and wipe out half the world population in 20 years.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
With a bread basket full of money under the nose, I could tell you global warming is going to hit mankind and wipe out half the world population in 20 years.

Humm... Could you tell us exactly what are you trying to claim with your statement "With a bread basket full of money under the nose"?

I also want to know why is it that apparently you made this new name, just to anwser in this thread... and just to give a short anwser...

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Anyways, appart from the apparent attempt of some people making new names and trying to derail the thread for whatever reason they have in mind. The evidence is very clear.

Although not all scientists agree, there are several other theories on Climate Change, and it is clear that mankind is not as "omnipotent" as some would like people to believe.

Timo Niroma:
Sunspots: The 200-year sunspot cycle is also a weather cycle.

A 2000-year historical perspective.

-- The Roman Empire and its demise.
-- The Mayan Classic Period.
-- When the Nile froze in 829 AD.
-- Why is it Iceland and Greenland and not vice versa?
-- Tambora did not cause it.
-- The spotless century 200 AD.
-- The recent warming caused by Sun.
-- The 200-year weather pattern.


A 2000-year historical perspective


The other supercycle, besides the Gleissberg, that most often is referred to in the present-day data, is a 200-year supercycle. The Gleissberg cycle is usually cited with one of two values, accurately as 78 years, inaccurately as 80 years, but the 200-year cycle has no agreed-upon value, mostly the values referred to are from 180 to 220 years.

Explicitly there is no 200-year cycle in the Elatina data, but I have interpreted that the 29.2 "sawtooth pattern" represents a cycle of 173 years, which means that it may be a variant of the 200-year cycle. In addition, the longest of the remaining Elatina supercycles is 105 years. There is also a 52-year cycle, which is not seen in today's data. One interpretation could be that the corresponding cycles today are 105 (weak) and 210 (strong) years. There are indications that the possible 200-year cycle really oscillates today. Would this hint to limits of 170 and 210 years in Elatina data, corresponding to from 180 to 220 years in today's data. That may mean a change in the Sun's cyclicity or in the Earth's rotation rate or rather a mixup of these both factors.

www.kolumbus.fi...



[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Some more informaiton on Dr. Tim Ball

Climatologist

Tim Ball
Climatologist, Author & Environmental Consultant,

Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, wrote his doctoral thesis at the University of London (England) using the remarkable records of the Hudson's Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714 - 1952. He has published numerous articles on climate change and its impact on the human condition. Dr. Ball has served on numerous committees at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on climate, water resources, and environmental issues. He was a professor in the geography department at the University of Winnipeg before retiring. He has written a regular column on weather in the agricultural magazine. Country Guide, for 14 years. He is currently working as an environmental consultant and public speaker based in Victoria and has written, with Dr. Stuart Houston, 18th Century Naturalists on Hudson Bay, a book on the science and climate of the fur trade (McGill-Queens University Press, 2003).

www.fraserinstitute.ca...

Yeah, he's been cleaning up his exaggerated claims. He used to say he was the first canadian climatologist and has been a professor for 28 years, or even 32 in some cases. He has also claimed to be that his PhD is a doctor of science (DSc.), which it is not.

He was going to sue Dan Johnson (a researcher from Canada) last summer for defamation for a letter he wrote to the Calgary Herald pointing out his dishonesty. However, defamation requires false accusations. No lawsuit took place. In fact, as you can see, his claims about his credentials have become less extreme.

Example of dishonesty...

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

www.orato.com...

as for the Mann criticism, I'll answer that later...

I wonder why is it that everytime some researcher refutes anything about "mankind's role on Global Warming", there are hundreds and hundreds of "letters" and accusations trying to discredit these people?...

I also wonder if the same is done to several other resarchers who want to refute "mankind's role on Global warming"?

Some of the proponents of the "mankind is at fault for Global Warming" have even sugested to take away the credentials of those climatologists who would even doubt that mankind activities are the cause for global warming...

It does appear that these people are very afraid that the public will se that "most scientists do not agree with the claim that mankind is at fault for climate change"....

I also wonder why is it that when those scientist who have been making models since the late 80s have been proven wrong in their data, and that their claims were exagerated, apparently none of those people who want to beleive to their death that "mankind is the cause for global warming" even mention these facts.

In 1988 a climatologist, James Hansen, claimed in front of Congress that global temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the century, they rose 0.1C. He also claimed that sea levels would rise several feet, and they only rose one inch.

The Climate Models from "NASA's supercomputers" have also been overestimating how much temperatures would rise, yet despite these facts, the proponents that "mankind is at fault for global warming" want to claim these computer models are "precise and right to the last point".....

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really? They try a dissapearing act of two warming events, the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, which have been corroborated by the geological record from all over the world, and both of which were warmer than today, plus the Little Ice age which has also been corroborated by the geological record, and you think that this link you are giving which claims "for the past 1,000 years there was temperature stability", which is an obvious lie, is the proof that Mann's graph is right?.....

Why are you criticising the 1998 Mann study for missing out stuff that happened over 1000 years ago (i.e roman warming) when it assesses the trend in global temperatures for the last 1000 years?

These sort of issues are not resolved, they could be mere regional changes, or possibly global. It is not certain and is not an issue when examining all the data - they show the same thing, rapid 20th century warming.

Ten different studies over the 1000 year period.


en.wikipedia.org...:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png [key for studies available]

Over the 2000 year time period (only three extend back to 200CE)...


en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png [key to studies available]

All the studies show that the current warming is anomalous. Why pick on one single study? Given differences in the fine details of the reconstructions, they all show the same thing...

Originally posted by Muaddib
I wonder why is it that everytime some researcher refutes anything about "mankind's role on Global Warming", there are hundreds and hundreds of "letters" and accusations trying to discredit these people?...

Read what he says again...

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

He uses his apparent credentials to add weight to his argument, therefore his credentials are open for criticism.

"Ohh, poor me, everyone ignores me even though I am a god of climate scientists..."

He opens himself up to this analysis. The facts and evidence are all that counts.

In 1988 a climatologist, James Hansen, claimed in front of Congress that global temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the century, they rose 0.1C. He also claimed that sea levels would rise several feet, and they only rose one inch.

This is a Patrick Michaels distortion of Hansen's work, which was then regurgitated by Crichton.

Here is Hansen's predictions from his published work in 1988. He made three simulations, each with different scenarios, he presented Scenario B to congress stating it was most probable. Pat Michaels deleted the two lower curves and presented to congress, in 1998, the extreme prediction as Hansen's only claim. Pure distortion.



Not too sure about the sea level claim, that's a new one to me. Probably just another distortion from the contrarians, par for the course...

The problem is that i am saying this simply because not all, or even a mayority of "scientists in the world think the 20th century is unprecedented", or that "mankind activities are the cause of the Climate Change we are going through.

China Finds No “Unprecedented Warming” in Today’s Climate

Dennis T. Avery

Chinese climate researchers say today’s world climate shows no unprecedented warming. After analyzing nine separate Chinese historic temperature sources, they’ve concluded that China’s warmest temperatures occurred nearly 2000 years ago when Europe was in the well-documented Roman Warming.

Global warming activists want us to believe the world had nice, stable temperatures until humans came along in the 20th century and created the “greenhouse effect” with auto exhausts and heavy industry.

Greenpeace claims that the Dunde glacial ice cap in central Asia yields temperature information for the last 12,000 years and the warming since 1850 has been ”unprecedented.”

Jonathon Overpeck of the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration called 1998 “the warmest year in at least 1200 years.” He even suggested that the famed Medieval Warming Period (recorded in Europe between 900 and 1300 AD, with temperatures 47 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today) happened only in Europe!

Chinese researchers sharply disagree. Chinese temperature history, collected from such sources as peat bogs, lakebed sediments, ice cores, and tree rings, shows:
China was warmest between the year 1 AD and the year 240 AD (during Europe’s Roman Warming).
China then had a colder period from AD 240800, coinciding with the cold European weather of the Dark Ages.
China had warmer weather from AD 8001400, essentially the years of Europe’s Medieval Climate Optimum.
China cooled again between 1400 and 1820 (roughly the period of Europe’s Little Ice Age. (That’s when the Vikings who had settled Greenland during the Medieval Warming starved or froze to death.)
China’s current warming cycle began in the early 1800s, as did the recent warming in Europe and North America.
Overpeck’s suggestion that the Medieval Warming was a Europe-only event is controversial, but a number of climate researchers have said, “Research has failed to identify any known natural climate-forcing mechanism that could have generated all of the ‘unprecedented warming’ of the 20th century.”
Of course, it is at least as unlikely that Europe could have maintained a temperature substantially higher than the rest of the planet for more than 300 years.

Fortunately, recent U.S. research breaks the theoretical deadlock. A team led by Dr. Gerard Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (affiliated with New York’s Columbia University) recently released its analysis of seabed cores from the North Atlantic that go back 12,000 years. Looking at iceberg debris, the Bond team found nine global warmings and nine global coolings in a cycle that averaged 1340 years and coincided exactly with a known cycle in the sun’s magnetic activity.

The Chinese climate history, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, further validates the Bond team’s seabed core findings. It also tosses into a cocked hat both the idea of stable earth temperatures and the idea that Europe could have a climate separate from the rest of the Earth.

Dr. Sally Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has long warned that the main greenhouse effect is natural. She says water vapor, clouds, and such variables as sea ice are at least ten times as important as carbon dioxide levels in atmospheric warming or cooling. Dr. Baliunas also notes that virtually all of today’s warming occurred before 1940. A slight cooling from 1940 to 1970, with a slight warming trend since then, followed the pre-1940 warming. None of this lends much credence to the theory that human industries are making the planet warmer.

www.cgfi.org...

Not only that, but there is more.

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!

www.worldclimatereport.com...

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.

ff.org...

Nearly 1,700 years ago, devastating tempests associated with sea-level rise destroyed villages of the Calusa Indians on the southwest Florida coast, near present-day Fort Myers, forcing the native fishermen to move inland to relative safety, said UF anthropologist Karen Walker.

Walker's clues to storms, sea-level rise and migration include village remains buried by storm-surge sediment, and other village deposits found at higher elevations than where they should be. In addition, the modest shells and fishbones left behind by the Indians, she said, show ecological correlations between rising sea levels and global warming periods documented in the historical record of ancient Europe.

"As we enter into a modern warming period, which seems to be the case, Florida is likely to experience flooded shorelines and an increase of intense storms," Walker said. "I think that it's not a coincidence that there were major storms recorded at some of the archaeological sites that I study and that those storms happened during the warm Roman Optimum period. I have the storms closely dated to the fourth century AD."

Global warming is not new, said Walker, explaining that a variety of evidence points to a global episode of warming, dubbed the Roman Optimum, which occurred roughly from 200 B.C. and about A.D. 400, and a later episode, the Medieval Optimum, which took place from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200. A cooling episode named the Vandal Minimum occurred roughly between the two warmings.

"By studying many archaeological deposits from many locations, I see a picture showing that sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to these climate fluctuations known from European history," she said.

www.napa.ufl.edu...

Group rejects 'unfounded' global warming claims
Email this storyPrint this story Monday May 01, 2006

A group of leading climate scientists has announced the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming.

"We believe this is a significant development in opening up the debate about the real effects of climate change and the justification for the costs and other measures prescribed in the Kyoto protocols," said the coalition's secretary, Terry Dunleavy.

He said members of the coalition had had enough of "over-exaggerated" claims about the effects of man-made global warming and aimed to provide a balance to "what is being fed to the people of New Zealand".

www.nzherald.co.nz...

Kind of strange that all over the globe scientists are making these groups to counter the claim that Mankind is the cause for Climate Change, isn't it?

Even the concensus of Russian scientists is completly different from the claims of those who want to claim mankind is at fault for global warming.

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

en.rian.ru...

[edit on 11-2-2007 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...

That's the "pure distortion".

Meanwhile Mann and others want to claim we are currently going through a warmer period than ever before, data from several sources from all around the world keep proving what the following graphs show.



Man's role in emissions of CO2.




That it was warmer during the MWP than today.




[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]

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 it doesn't help their claims...

That's "pure distortion".

Meanwhile Mann and others want to claim we are currently going through a warmer period than ever before, data from several sources from all around the world keep proving what the following graphs shows.

Again, at risk of repeating myself, Mann's study would not include the 'roman warming period' because it doesn't cover that period. That is a disingenuous criticism.

Yeah, cool. Lots of nice pictures. There are ten from reliable peer-reviewed studies provided in my own posts, all show the same effect. When I look at the 10 studies I provided above, overall they show some variation in temps at the expected periods (MWP & LIA), some show it more than others - all show anomalous warming in the 20th century. Here's another collection of studies from Jones & Mann's review in 2004...



Showing a bit of evidence of regional variations doesn't really mean much on a global scale. As I mentioned earlier, the jury is still put as to whether all these were real global changes or just regional variations. Even if we find it was global, showing that some places were warmer then than now means nada on the large scale.

No-one is covering up the fact that there are other forcings of global climate, these would underlie the periods you seem so stuck on. These periods have been modelled, the MWP is likely a consequence of these other forcings (lack of volcanic activity, increased solar irradiance). However, neither of these can adequately account for the current warming. It's all very simple, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if we increase its concentration, temperature will rise. At this point, solar irradiance (and other forcings) does not adequately account for the current change in climate.

Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich2, H. Spruit3 and T. M. L. Wigley4

Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

Thus taking all the forcings and mechanisms that we do currently understand, there is only one conclusion - AGW is real. We can ignore it all we like, but if the models are predicitve, we need to at least prepare and act in some way.

Ah, so showing that the same variations in warm and cooling trends in Europe, America, New Zealand, and China among other countries do not show that these trends were happening all over?....

Wow....

I guess the fact that we have been having an increase in magmatic and seismic activity deep underwater in all our oceans mean nothing too huh?...

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 and CO2 and Methane have been released from our ocean floors more than they have for a while now.

Source: University Of California - Davis
Date: August 30, 2006

Greenhouse Methane Released From Ice Age Ocean
Science Daily — Periods of warming temperatures during the last ice age triggered the release of methane from beneath the ocean, according to U.S. and French researchers. Once in the atmosphere, the methane would have acted as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas.

"This is a new source of methane which has not been looked at before," said Tessa Hill, now assistant professor of geology at UC Davis and at the university's Bodega Marine Laboratory.

Off the California coast -- and elsewhere around the world -- natural petroleum seeps release oil, tar and gas into the bottom of the ocean. Some methane gas finds its way to the surface, while the tar sinks back to the bottom.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Gas Escaping From Ocean Floor May Drive Global Warming

Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

Remarkable and unexpected support for this idea occurred when divers and scientists from UC Santa Barbara observed and videotaped a massive blowout of methane from the ocean floor. It happened in an area of gas and oil seepage coming out of small volcanoes in the ocean floor of the Santa Barbara channel –– called Shane Seep –– near an area known as the Coal Oil Point seep field. The blowout sounded like a freight train, according to the divers.

www.ia.ucsb.edu...

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.

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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"....

At the risk of having to repeat myself, and despite the fact that proof is found from all over the globe, "mankind's activities are not the cause of Global Warming or Climate Change".....

Yes, changes are coming... Changes have been happening throughout the history of Earth, despite the apparent claim by some that Earth's climate can be stable for a couple thousand years...

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....

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]