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

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

Wow....

If you read what I said it was that all of these periods may have been global or may not.

As for the MWP & LIA, look at the reconstructions I've posted, they do exhibit climate variation as expected during these periods, I stated this earlier. The only issue is that you would like to claim that these periods were certainly warmer than now, however, you don't have the evidence that this is true on a global scale. The reconstructions show they were not.

Science 17 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz

Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.

Let's forget the fact that our oceans have in storage more CO2 than mankind can ever produce, and that we have been coming out of an ice age CO2 and Methane have been released from our ocean floors more than they have for a while now.

Well, the articles you posted focus specifically on CH4.

There have been no increases in methane concentrations since the early 1990's (see Bousquet et al., 2006). The IPCC actually was incorrect to predict otherwise. The difference between CH4 and CO2 is that CH4 is transient, whilst CO2 collects in the atmosphere. Methane is actually converted to CO2.

If it is released in massive amounts from hydrates due to the current warming, we have a real problem in addition to the AGW sourced greenhouse gases.

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"....

You can believe what you like, most people do, but in science we will follow the data

ABE:Sorry missed your edit:

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....

So, the only real difference is that you feel the change in natural, although the evidence suggests otherwise. We know that natural cycles and changes in climate exist, we can model them to a decent degree, but, at this point, we see no natural mechanisms that can account for what we observe.

I haven't read the recent report, but I think it was always going to be a case of reducing the effect. If we can just slow down our emissions, we will be in a better position - we will solve our dependence on fossil fuels with technology eventually. One way or the other we have to

[edit on 11-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

You can believe what you like, most people do, but in science we will follow the data

Yes, in science we do follow the data, and there is a lot of data which refutes what you are stating about AGW.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, the only real difference is that you feel the change in natural, although the evidence suggests otherwise. We know that natural cycles and changes in climate exist, we can model them to a decent degree, but, at this point, we see no natural mechanisms that can account for what we observe.

Yes, there is evidence to the contrary, and even though I have presented evidence that other scientist disagree with the claim of AGW, and there is data to refute the claim that mankind has caused GW, which you should know "GW" is a misused term since there are cooling trends in some areas of the globe , you keep persisting that is not true and that no data proves that GW is part of a natural cycle.



Even more recently, the warmest years have been in this order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004. If anthropogenic radiactive forcing is to blame, then why haven't temperatures been increasing evenly every year? There have been years with cooling trends, and other years there have been warming trends.

From a 2005 article from NASA.

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...

Scientists Group to Refute Global Warming Claims
Monday, 1 May 2006, 10:08 am
Press Release: Centre for Resource Management Studies
Media Release - Immediate
A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.

The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:

- Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.

- Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

- Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

- Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com

- Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist

www.scoop.co.nz...

Originally posted by melatonin

I haven't read the recent report, but I think it was always going to be a case of reducing the effect. If we can just slow down our emissions, we will be in a better position - we will solve our dependence on fossil fuels with technology eventually. One way or the other we have to

I wonder exactly how they plan to "reduce the effects of anthropogenic CO2", when they claim the Kyoto protocol is the way to go, and the Kyoto protocol will allow countries like China, India and others to continue and even increase their greenhouse emissions, despite the fact that Chine will surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2009.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yes, in science we do follow the data, and there is a lot of data which refutes what you are stating about AGW.

I've yet to see any.

Yes, there is evidence to the contrary, and even though I have presented evidence that other scientist disagree with the claim of AGW, and there is data to refute the claim that mankind has caused GW, which you should know "GW" is a misused term since there are cooling trends in some areas of the globe , you keep persisting that is not true and that no data proves that GW is part of a natural cycle.

Yeah, I should stick to CC rather than GW. However, on the global scale, we are seeing warming.

Even more recently, the warmest years have been in this order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004. If anthropogenic radiative forcing is to blame, then why hasn't the temperatures gone up evenly every year?

No-one expects each year to be warmer than the last. We are looking for a trend over periods of years. That is what we are seeing on a global scale. If you read the rest of the NASA article you linked, you would know why we don't see a consistent yearly trend.

From a 2005 article from NASA.

I don't think that article refutes anything. It seems to be saying that we can't blame urban pollution per se for warming in these areas. Says nothing about not being due to increasing human-derived CO2.

Even if it said otherwise, it would be of little consequence until peer-reviewed.

Scientists Group to Refute Global Warming Claims
Monday, 1 May 2006, 10:08 am
Press Release: Centre for Resource Management Studies
Media Release - Immediate
A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.

Well, they'll need to be producing reliable peer-reviewed work to do so. This still doesn't refute anything.

No-one doubts that a minority refuse to accept the evidence. It is their job to produce evidence to suggest otherwise.

I wonder exactly how they plan to "reduce the effects of anthropogenic CO2", when they claim the Kyoto protocol is the way to go, and the Kyoto protocol will allow countries like China, India and others to continue and even increase their greenhouse emissions, despite the fact that Chine will surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2009.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Kyoto was just a starting point. It was never ideal. Most plans devised by committee never are.

Do you think that China & India, which have populations many times that of the USA & europe, should use less resources than the USA and Europe?

We need to produce a fair approach to this. We in europe and NA have the means to act, most of our populations are well-provided with power and have the comforts of an advanced society.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I've yet to see any.

I have yet to see any evidence that corroborates the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the leading cause of Climate Change.....

More and more scientists are coming forward disputing the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for GW.

I have excerpted the comments from three of the 30 scientists which participated on the IPCC summary and who say that they were never asked their opinion on GW, they were just given parts of the report which they are experts of and reviewed those parts, nothing more, nothing less.

Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...

The above is evidence that the IPCC and other "politicians suddenly made environmental experts" have been misusing the data provided by experts in the field and the "policymakers" have drawn their own conclusions on GW.

The fact is that all trace gases on Earth amount to 1%, and out of that 1% anthropogenic CO2 is 0.28%, meanwhile water vapor constitutes 95% of trace gases. Yet you want to make me believe that 0.28% CO2 is going to cause Global Warming, and water vapor which amounts to 95% of trace gases and which retains twice the amount of heat as CO2 is not a greater cause for GW?

The math and science does not add up.

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, I should stick to CC rather than GW. However, on the global scale, we are seeing warming.

Originally posted by melatonin
No-one expects each year to be warmer than the last. We are looking for a trend over periods of years. That is what we are seeing on a global scale. If you read the rest of the NASA article you linked, you would know why we don't see a consistent yearly trend.

Wait a second there... CO2 emissions keep adding up, we have not stopped the CO2 emissions yet, and in fact they have been increasing because of countries like China.

You want us to believe that even though anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for GW, that we shouldn't expect to see a steady increase in warming over the years?

If anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for global warming, then the trend should have always been warming, but that has not been the case.

Since anthropogenic CO2 emissions have continuously increased and since there have been variations between warming and cooling trend it is very clear anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of global warming, and the warming is being cause by some other factor which keeps changing.... one of those factors which keeps changing is our Sun's output.

Originally posted by melatonin
Even if it said otherwise, it would be of little consequence until peer-reviewed.

Ah, so unless the "policy makers" review and change the data "it is of little consequence"?... Because that is exactly what they are doing.

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, they'll need to be producing reliable peer-reviewed work to do so. This still doesn't refute anything.

No, but the data provided in the other links does, including the data from Dr. Waler from Florida University which indicates that "sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to the climate fluctuations from Europe"

www.napa.ufl.edu...

Originally posted by melatonin
No-one doubts that a minority refuse to accept the evidence. It is their job to produce evidence to suggest otherwise.

It is a lot more than a "minority", and even the IPCC has hired several of these "minorities" to review the IPCC reports, and since their names are in those reports it seems as if they agree with the conclusions of the IPCC reports when they don't.

Originally posted by melatonin
Kyoto was just a starting point. It was never ideal. Most plans devised by committee never are.

Do you think that China & India, which have populations many times that of the USA & europe, should use less resources than the USA and Europe?

We need to produce a fair approach to this. We in europe and NA have the means to act, most of our populations are well-provided with power and have the comforts of an advanced society.

Well the one thing everyone seems to agree on, including the assesment by the last IPCC report, that nomatter what we do to curb pollution we can't stop global warming.

As for your response that "China and India should be allowed to raise their greenhouse gas emissions because they have more people", then the problem was never "man-made greenhouse gas emissions" to start with. If it was, the plan would be to "curb all man-made greenhouse gas emissions", and not just whatever the UN pleases because "some countries have more people".

[edit on 12-2-2007 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 these events don't help their claims, and in fact prove the contrary...

Something which they have emphatically not tried to do. All they did was publish their data according to what the data showed. Unfortunately it didn't show such strong signals for the MWP and LIA as some had expected.

Bearing in mind that the only data available to anyone is limited, proxy data - those pesky Vikings forgot to take their Davis Weatherstations with them to Greenland, let alone keep accurate daily records

In any case, unless one has evidence that the MWP and LIA were caused by the same processes that are causing current climate change, the discussion is wholly irrelevant - and usually only raised by deniers who have not empirical evidence to discuss.

btw did you know that according to the Greenland ice cores, the MWP and LIA were pretty inconsequential events compared with cold and warm periods that occurred earlier in the Holocene? They were effectively just minor bumps in the general downturn in temperatures since the onset of the Neoglacial. A downturn which just possibly may now be in the process of being reversed....

Originally posted by Muaddib
I have yet to see any evidence that corroborates the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the leading cause of Climate Change.....

The recent IPCC report would be a good starting place.

More and more scientists are coming forward disputing the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for GW.

Sounds like what the discovery institute say about evolutionary theory...

They can dispute all they like, they can jump, spit, and fume all they like - until someone produces real evidence suggesting another cause of the current warming trend they are just blowhards.

Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

The above is evidence that the IPCC and other "politicians suddenly made environmental experts" have been misusing the data provided by experts in the field and the "policymakers" have drawn their own conclusions on GW.

No, it is evidence that Chris Landsea spat his dummy about the effect of SST on Hurricanes. Strangely enough, the IPCC report doesn't actually conflict with his position on this issue. He also does accept that greenhouse gases are a cause of current warming.

The fact is that all trace gases on Earth amount to 1%, and out of that 1% anthropogenic CO2 is 0.28%, meanwhile water vapor constitutes 95% of trace gases....

The math and science does not add up.

Personal incredulity means nothing.

You want us to believe that even though anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for GW, that we shouldn't expect to see a steady increase in warming over the years?

If anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for global warming, then the trend should have always been warming, but that has not been the case.

You've just moved the goalposts. You were questioning why we don't have year on year increases. Due to effects such as El Nino, we will see some variation on the year scale - your own linked information pointed this out, you ignored it.

There will be an overall global trend in temperatures over a period of years. This is what we are seeing.

Since anthropogenic CO2 emissions have continuously increased and since there have been variations between warming and cooling trend it is very clear anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of global warming, and the warming is being cause by some other factor which keeps changing.... one of those factors which keeps changing is our Sun's output.

I've just posted an abstract of a study from only a few months back that suggests otherwise.

Ah, so unless the "policy makers" review and change the data "it is of little consequence"?... Because that is exactly what they are doing.

No, peer-review does not mean that.

No, but the data provided in the other links does, including the data from Dr. Waler from Florida University which indicates that "sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to the climate fluctuations from Europe"

www.napa.ufl.edu...

And from the same link...

Although modern pollution, deforestation, ozone depletion and other human-related activity are likely to result in more extreme changes for today's climate, Walker says a growing number of researchers argue that earlier warming trends also were in part human-induced. The Roman Optimum warming, for example, correlates with the Romans' clearing of vast forests as they expanded their empire into northern Europe, and with African deforestation during the Iron Age, situations not unlike the practice of modern populations destroying tropical forests, she said.

No issue. You have quite an ability to be selective in your information processing.

It is a lot more than a "minority", and even the IPCC has hired several of these "minorities" to review the IPCC reports, and since their names are in those reports it seems as if they agree with the conclusions of the IPCC reports when they don't.

They didn't have to take part if they didn't want to. The contrarians are a minority.

As for your response that "China and India should be allowed to raise their greenhouse gas emissions because they have more people", then the problem was never "man-made greenhouse gas emissions" to start with. If it was, the plan would be to "curb all man-made greenhouse gas emissions", and not just whatever the UN pleases because "some countries have more people".

That's a distortion of what I said.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you think that China and India, which has populations many times of NA and europe, should use less resources than these smaller populations?

[edit on 12-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

The recent IPCC report would be a good starting place.

The recent IPCC report is nothing more than a "policymaker tool to implement a global tax system", nothing more nothing less.

Now-a-days it appears that "peer-reviewed" research is only "peer-reviewed" if it has the stamp, and has been revised by "policymakers".

Originally posted by melatonin

Sounds like what the discovery institute say about evolutionary theory...

Yeah well, the only difference is that you among others are talking about warming in the whole globe meanwhile the south seas have had an increase in sea ice, and that's not mentioning the "blizzards" we have been having "all over the world"...but i guess CO2 is to blame for that too..... CO2 is causing Global Warming and Global Cooling at the same time...

Originally posted by melatonin
They can dispute all they like, they can jump, spit, and fume all they like - until someone produces real evidence suggesting another cause of the current warming trend they are just blowhards.

Real evidence huh? you mean like the Hockey Stick graph which was rigged to show a sudden increase in the 20th century while trying to erase past climatic events?.....

Originally posted by melatonin
No, it is evidence that Chris Landsea spat his dummy about the effect of SST on Hurricanes. Strangely enough, the IPCC report doesn't actually conflict with his position on this issue. He also does accept that greenhouse gases are a cause of current warming.

Chris Landsea was the only one in that section of the report with the knowledge needed to make any assesments, yet his expertise was overlooked and instead the "policymakers" made up their own conclusions.

Originally posted by melatonin
Personal incredulity means nothing.

and placing your faith in reports from the IPCC which have become "politicized" means you are selling out science for "politics"...

Originally posted by melatonin
You've just moved the goalposts. You were questioning why we don't have year on year increases. Due to effects such as El Nino, we will see some variation on the year scale - your own linked information pointed this out, you ignored it.

Are you now flip flopping and saying that CO2 is not the main driver of Climate?.... Here i thought you were trying to claim CO2 is the "main cause for global warming"?...

I am trying to point out that "Global warming" is not being caused by anthropogenic CO2 which seems to be the case...

Originally posted by melatonin
There will be an overall global trend in temperatures over a period of years. This is what we are seeing.

Yeah well, if CO2 was the cause for global warming we should be seen increases in warming..

2005 and 1998 are the warmest years
on record


The global mean surface temperature in 2005 was 0.47°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C). This places 2005 as the second warmest year in the temperature record since 1850. The warmest year is 1998 with annual surface temperatures averaging 0.52°C above the same 30-year mean.

The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

www.wmo.ch...

1998 warmer than 2005?... the trend seems to be cooling every year, except for 2005...if there was a "Global warming trend" every year should be getting warmer, and not cooler than the year before.

Originally posted by melatonin
I've just posted an abstract of a study from only a few months back that suggests otherwise.

and i posted several...

Originally posted by melatonin
No, peer-review does not mean that.

The IPCC summary is a report on the take of "policymakers", and not on what the science is showing.

Originally posted by melatonin
And from the same link...

Yeah i also pointed out from that same link that Dr. Walker was blaming the Roman expansion for the Roman warming period...but that I know of the Romans did not have cars, factories and AC.... The part on that report that stand out is that there was Dramatic Climate change on this side of the world at the same time that it happened in Europe...

Originally posted by melatonin
No issue. You have quite an ability to be selective in your information processing.

But here I thought CO2 is the "main driver of Global warming.... I guess the Romans must have had more cars, AC, and factories than we have now pumping greenhouse gases back 2,500-3,000 years ago....since that time period was a lot warmer than it is now..

Originally posted by melatonin
They didn't have to take part if they didn't want to. The contrarians are a minority.

Oh yeah, i forgot, in science "the supposed mayority is always right"...that's why they have been right so many times in the past.....

Originally posted by melatonin
Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you think that China and India, which has populations many times of NA and europe, should use less resources than these smaller populations?

[edit on 12-2-2007 by melatonin]

and here I thought the main purpose of the Kyoto protocol is to reduce greenhouse emissions globally to reduce the impact of Global WArming.... i must have been wrong....

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The recent IPCC report is nothing more than a "policymaker tool to implement a global tax system", nothing more nothing less.

Now-a-days it appears that "peer-reviewed" research is only "peer-reviewed" if it has the stamp, and has been revised by "policymakers".[/

Yeah, you would say that, conspiracy BS. I've been following the science for over 20 years, from the days when it was ignored by 'policymakers'.

It also contains a review of all the peer-reviewed science relevant to the issue.

You really don't know what 'peer-reviewed' means do you?

Real evidence huh? you mean like the Hockey Stick graph which was rigged to show a sudden increase in the 20th century while trying to erase past climatic events?.....

Now I know you are intellectually dishonest.

I've now explained three times that Mann's original study has been replicated TEN TIMES at least.

Not once, or twice, but at least TEN TIMES. Different researchers, different statistical methods, same rapid warming in the 20th century that is at levels greater than for 1000 years.

The science doesn't depend on one single study.

Chris Landsea was the only one in that section of the report with the knowledge needed to make any assesments, yet his expertise was overlooked and instead the "policymakers" made up their own conclusions.

The conclusions of that section did not conflict with his opinion.

Are you now flip flopping and saying that CO2 is not the main driver of Climate?.... Here i thought you were trying to claims CO2 is the "main cause for global warming"?...

All the current evidence suggests that this current period of warming is predominately driven by CO2.

I must say that you're coming across as probably the most disingenuous person I've debated with in quite a while. I thought YECs were pretty much the apex.

I am trying to point out that "Global warming" is not being caused by anthropogenic CO2 which seems to be the case...

Well, maybe you can make a clear case for it. Rather than posting random contrarian BS, produce some real peer-reviewed (you'll have to figure out what this means though) studies that show this assumption to be the case.

and i posted several...

Amazing, I failed to see any real science that supports your thesis, just pretty pictures, links to news items, the occassional study and website that doesn't support what you think it does, and the normal distortion.

Yeah i also pointed out from that same link that Dr. Walker was blaming the Roman expansion for the Roman warming period...but that I know of the Romans did not have cars, factories and AC.... The part on that report that stand out is that there was Dramatic Climate change on this side of the world at the same time that it happened in Europe...

Sheesh, she talks about how man is influencing the current warming. She also speculates that the socio-cultural development of man may have influenced climate during the roman period - she is speculating with little evidence really.

But here I thought CO2 is the "main driver of Global warming.... I guess the Romans must have had cars, AC, and factories pumping greenhouse gases back 2,500-3,000 years ago....

Now you're just being silly. I've already mentioned that solar variations and other forcings, such as sulphates from volcanoes, may have been driving previous periods of climate change - Walker thinks humans may have contributed to some extent during that period of time - maybe, maybe not.

Oh yeah, i forgot, in science "the supposed mayority is always right"...that's why they have been right so many times in the past.....

All the contrarians have to do is present real evidence explaining the current trend in climate. Like you, they seem to prefer rhetoric, distortion, and disinformation.

and here I thought the main purpose of the Kyoto protocol is to reduce greenhouse emissions globally to reduce the impact of Global WArming.... i must have been wrong....

It is.

However, we also need to be realistic.

You still completely avoided the question...again

[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]

I'll take the edit here...

Yeah well, if CO2 was the cause for global warming we should be seen increases in warming..

2005 and 1998 are the warmest years
on record


The global mean surface temperature in 2005 was 0.47°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C). This places 2005 as the second warmest year in the temperature record since 1850. The warmest year is 1998 with annual surface temperatures averaging 0.52°C above the same 30-year mean.

The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

www.wmo.ch...

1998 warmer than 2005?... the trend seems to be cooling every year, except for 2005...if there was a "Global warming trend" every year should be getting warmer, and not cooler than the year before.

Did you read the NASA website you provided earlier? It explains why this is.

No-one expects year on year increases. Climate is a tad more complicated than that. We are looking for an overall long-term trend, 1998 was an anomaly for a good reason.

Seems you like the Bob Carter Kool-aid...





[edit on 13-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
................
Did you read the NASA website you provided earlier? It explains why this is.

No-one expects year on year increases. Climate is a tad more complicated than that. We are looking for an overall long-term trend, 1998 was an anomaly for a good reason.

2005 was the anomaly, not the other way around...

1998 was the warmest year, then the anomaly 2005 which was cooler than 1998, then 2002 was cooler than 1998 and 2005, 2003 was cooler than 2002, 2004 was cooler than 2003.

The "anomaly" in those years was 2005...

Originally posted by melatonin
Seems you like the Bob Carter Kool-aid...

Naa, I like applejuice better.... Why, you don't like them apples?....

Originally posted by Muaddib
2005 was the anomaly, not the other way around...

1998 was the warmest year, then the anomaly 2005 which was cooler than 1998, then 2002 was cooler than 1998 and 2005, 2003 was cooler than 2002, 2004 was cooler than 2003.

The "anomaly" in those years was 2005...

In muaddib fantasy-land probably...

from your the link you provided:

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.

When attacking the "hockey stick" graph, he wasn't being dishonest.

See, it begins in the early 1800's. I'm convinced that scientists do it on purpose to make their data appear more alarming than it is (even if it is still valid and alarming nonetheless). That's when we were coming out of the little ice age. Naturally, if you're coming out of a little ice age, the start temperatures (and, indeed, the mean, as the temperature moved over many years, not suddenly) was lower than the global average.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by Johnmike]

well they use magnetism in the rock to predict global warming!
they may have to use something else to predict weather the same way may be!
the machine can't do that any more! it goes too much way upscale as the particules of impurities in the atmosphere send the weather man in a dance like a salsa and they take their head on their hands! they are thinking they will loose their job now!
Ah Ah!
no more 5 or fat 6 figure salary!

:-)

[edit on 14-2-2007 by deedub6]

Global Warming is a valid concern, and something to try and prevent if it's at little cost, but it's still nothing more than a loose theory. Even within the argument supporting it, there's no proof that CO2 is a cause or the cause. That's why harming an economy (see: Kyoto Protocol) is massively preemptive. (I oppose the Kyoto Protocol for other reasons as well, but that's another story).

"Correlation does not imply causation."

[edit on 14-2-2007 by Johnmike]

you should read what I wrote about global warming and a study of Atomic partiucule!
the fuel on impurities of the planets!

Originally posted by Johnmike
When attacking the "hockey stick" graph, he wasn't being dishonest.

See, it begins in the early 1800's. I'm convinced that scientists do it on purpose to make their data appear more alarming than it is (even if it is still valid and alarming nonetheless). That's when we were coming out of the little ice age. Naturally, if you're coming out of a little ice age, the start temperatures (and, indeed, the mean, as the temperature moved over many years, not suddenly) was lower than the global average.

I don't get what you mean about "it begins in the early 1800s" and that "scientists do it on purpose". The 'hockey stick' studies assess 1000 years of climate. We only have directly observed reliable measurements since the 1800s. As essan points out, we can't really blame the vikings for not having kept scientific measurements of climate.

In the first instance, no, I won't claim intellectual dishonesty. If you note I mention it is actually agreed that the Mann study did have some statisitical issues. But they were not critical.

The original Mann et al. 1998 study has been replicated over ten times, different researchers, different statistical methods, each time the same outcome - rapid warming in the 20th century to levels not seen in 1000 years.

some studies even go back almost 2000 years...



Still the same issue. It is disingenuous to keep perseverating on a single study that has a minor statistical flaw when the science doesn't depend on a single study, especially when it has been pointed out repeatedly that all the reconstructions show the same thing. Then continuing perseveration does suggest a degree of intellectual dishonesty.

ABE:

correlation does not imply causation

But it is strongly suggestive of one, especially when we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - properties that have a causal effect. We then assess the relationship in more detail and find it to be more than a simple correlation. In fact, we can only fully account for the current trend in warming by the addition of human activity.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by melatonin]

The dishonesty actually comes when some members/member want to make others believe that only the data they want to believe in, and they are presenting is the only one that exists, and they want everyone to believe "the other data is not backed by science."

Again, I presented several other models from different studies and from different parts of the world and they all say the same thing.

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...

Reference
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W. 1999. Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: Archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition. Science 284: 939-942.

The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

ff.org...

The above are not "proxies based on computer guesstimates from flawed data"... They are based on real measured data. But some members want to claim otherwise.

The following is a graph showing the concentrations of CO2 for the past 600 million years on Earth.



Yet some want to claim the concentrations of CO2 now on Earth are "unprecedented" and that a 0.28% of anthropogenic CO2 trace gas from mankind activities are causing Climate Change when we know for a fact that Climate Change is part of the normal cycles the Earth goes through.

Nevermind that water vapor amounts to 95% of trace gases on Earth and retains twice the amount of heat than CO2, and never mind that since we have been coming out of an ice age large amounts of CO2, methane and other gases have been released from our oceans and lakes and we are just discovering the amount of trace gases being released naturally is at least 5 times higher than we ever though.

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...

The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep

The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps. This is the site of seafloor spreading that is actively separating Europe from North America, and was the goal of the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition) with two research icebreakers, the "USCGC Healy" from USA and the German "PFS Polarstern". Aboard were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions. The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit "anemic" magmatism. Instead, surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found. These results require a fundamental rethinking of the mechanisms of seafloor generation at midocean ridges (Nature, January 16 and June 26).

Link

But yet "some members/member" want to claim this data is not "peer reviewed' because the "policymakers" didn't put their stamp of approval on it...

Not to mention that these members, or member, want to claim that in "order to read the real science you can start by reading the latest IPCC summary".... Never mind that they have been wrong in the past and have reached conclusions based on flawed data, and never mind that there are scientists who were hired to review the summary, as well as past IPCC reports and didn't agree with it's conclusions.

The IPCC Web site claims an impressive number of participants: 450 lead authors, 800 contributors and 2,500 expert reviewers (of which I was one). But it would be a mistake to assume all these experts endorse everything in summary, including its bottom-line assessment: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

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...

But never mind any of those facts...

Nor the fact that those same warm periods are documented not only in Europe, but in Austria, China, and America, but I guess that does not mean there was a global warming trend during those periods...


[edit on 14-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!

That is one study localised to a single area of europe. I never denied that certain areas may have been warmer in the past than now. Again, it is a global trend we are looking for.

The interesting thing with this new method is the correlations of three stalagmite data sources with the climate models of the likes of Mann et al. - all are found to be significant over a 500 year period. Cool, eh? (see Smith et al., 2006 Int J. Climatology).

I like the reference on the climate chart you post, seems it was based on something from 1990 (Houghton et al., 1990), was it an actual real peer-reviewed study? Seems the current up to date data suggest that reconstruction was wrong, not surprised considering it was almost 20 years ago, things move on...

Then you post another graph, is this 'fort smith' a single location? If so, see earlier comment about localised data and global trends.

The above are not "proxies based on computer guesstimates"... They are based on real measured data. But some members want to claim otherwise.

Wow, you mean Houghton et al. actually had a time machine to take measurements during the medieval?

Amazing...

The following is a graph showing the concentrations of CO2 for the past 600 million years on Earth.

Yet some want to claim the concentrations of CO2 now on Earth are "unprecedented" and that a 0.28% of anthropogenic CO2, which are part of the trace gases on Earth, from mankind activities are causing Climate Change when we know for a fact that Climate Change is par tof the normal cycles the Earth goes through....

Fantastic graph, Love the way it conveniently covers up the last 400,000 years...



Do you really think that graph means much to the debate? We know there has been periods of large changes in atmospheric content over geological timescales, no-one denies it. But we are possibly seeing the highest concentration of CO2 for 20 million years.

Nevermind that water vapor amounts to 95% of trace gases on Earth and retains twice the amount of heat than CO2, and never mind that since we have been coming out of an ice age large amounts of CO2, methane and other gases have been released from our oceans and lakes and we are just discovering the amount of trace gases being released naturally is at least 5 times more than we ever though.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's amazing that methane has been stable for several years then isn't it?

No-one ignores the effect of water, it's generally considered feedback rather than forcing. As for the ice-age stuff, you can see on the graph above what CO2 during the ice-age cycle looks like.

And, heh, yeah, of course, all that fossil fuel use, tree burning, and deforestation mean nothing...

But yet "some members/member" want to claim this data is not "peer reviewed' because the "policymakers" didn't put their stamp of approval on it...

Ai, Ai, Ai, you still haven't actually looked into what 'peer-reviewed' means yet, have you?

Not to mention that these members, or member, want to claim that in "order to read the real science you can start by reading the latest IPCC summary"....

Unless you have university access to the journal articles themselves, then a review such as the IPCC can be a useful source for the current science. You'll find news items tend to be overstated. The IPCC report will contain the science on which the policy is being made. You can easily separate the politics from the science - the science is the data; the politics is the policy derived from the science. I don't know if the full report is out yet though.

Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.

Every single participant doesn't have to agree with the conclusion. If they were forced to I would be more worried.

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.

Yeah, Lindzen is probably the most respectable of the climate skeptics. He suggests that natural variation may account for CC, but has absolutely no evidence this is the case, purely a faith-based position.

But never mind any of those facts...

When there is 2500 people on a single report, there will be issues. No-one expects everyone to be happy with the conclusions, that's what happens in a committee.

If anyone seriously doubts the current science, we have scientific journals for them to publish their evidence. That's all they have to do, publish the evidence

[edit on 14-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

That is one study localised to a single area of europe. I never denied that certain areas may have been warmer in the past than now. Again, it is a global trend we are looking for.

I actually gave excerpts of research from Spain, Austria, China, and North America, all which correlate the Roman warming period, the Medieval warming period, and the Little Ice age among others.

BTW, please stop trying to insult my intelligence, and that of other members, I have given links and excerpts to scientific research papers, but you don't want to accept them and instead keep trying to dismiss them...which reminds me of another member who uses that same tactic...

Originally posted by melatonin
I like the reference on the climate chart you post, seems it was based on something from 1990 (Houghton et al., 1990), was it an actual real peer-reviewed study? Seems the current up to date data suggest that reconstruction was wrong, not surprised considering it was almost 20 years ago, things move on...

No, that graph was the final revision of the GEOCARB model (Berner, 1991, 1994), [American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204.]
www.geocraft.com...

Originally posted by melatonin

Wow, you mean Houghton et al. actually had a time machine to take measurements during the medieval?

Amazing...

....No, i mean that data comes from samples such as stalagmites, ice cores, etc, while the claims that anthropogenic CO2 are causing the current Climate Change are based on computer models which try to "guess" what happens in Earth's atmosphere.....

Originally posted by melatonin
Ai, Ai, Ai, you still haven't actually looked into what 'peer-reviewed' means yet, have you?

You think you are the only one with access to such data?.... If you did have access to that data, then you would know that the data is "for scholarly use only", hence noone can link in these forums that data...even if people need access to see it; hence "there is no point in bringing this up except in your dellusion that making such a statement gives more credence to your argument"...

BTW, if you did have access to that data, you would very well know that "anthropogenic CO2 emissions causing Climate Change" is still very debatable, even if the IPCC, and you want to claim the contrary.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by Muaddib]

accuratly I dout!

perfection does not exist!
it is like the infinit number the one that most mathematician can find an end too!

they can just go around it like a bird of pray!

but then the way they chose in 2005 rock and their magnetism are cause for concern!
as well as interest especially for my personal study!
the Quiper belt the aurora baurealis the change in atom particules
such as co2 and others becoming O3 then afterward becoming O2 or O in the Kuipper belt
100K above the earth!

pardon my french if I have misspell his mane!