global warming data...garbage in...

[Master Dan]

Yes Virgina there is Global Warming. Those people who lie or refuse to believe it don't believe in Santa Claus either?

Your premise on ocean temps is complete BS and try living in the Arctic the last 20 years even since 1999 it has been extreme change causing many violent swings of lows and highs but those who are paid or troll slaves like yourself will not admit it untill everything you own is under water, burned up or you have to take out a second mortgage to buy food? The scary part folks is that if we eliminate all cabon discharge 100% today the amount right now in the atmosphere will stay beyond our current life spans and continue to have extreme effects such as extreme heat and lack of rain in many areas and to date there has not been a method for removing Co2 yet? but I understand it is being worked on?

Breitbart is Dead Obama Lives!!!!

 

[ballen0351]

Yes Virgina there is Global Warming. Those people who lie or refuse to believe it don't believe in Santa Claus either?

Your premise on ocean temps is complete BS and try living in the Arctic the last 20 years even since 1999 it has been extreme change causing many violent swings of lows and highs but those who are paid or troll slaves like yourself will not admit it untill everything you own is under water, burned up or you have to take out a second mortgage to buy food? The scary part folks is that if we eliminate all cabon discharge 100% today the amount right now in the atmosphere will stay beyond our current life spans and continue to have extreme effects such as extreme heat and lack of rain in many areas and to date there has not been a method for removing Co2 yet? but I understand it is being worked on?

Breitbart is Dead Obama Lives!!!!

The sky is falling were all going to die the sky is falling were all going to die the sky is falling were all going to die. Think Ill go fire up my 79 cherokee with its 360 V8 and its 8 mpg and go for a drive today it looks like its going to be nice out

 

[billc]

More rebuttal to the "man made" global warming hysteria...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/winning_the_agw_science_debate_heres_how.html

I would start by asking AGW supporters the following question: "What is your single most important piece of evidence for AGW?" I have received many answers to this question; most of them can be disposed of in a trivial way. Some examples are:

• "Man-made CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is increasing in the atmosphere." True, but is warming increasing as a result?

• "Climate models predict rising climate temperatures in the future." True, but models are not evidence.

• "Glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, storms are increasing, droughts and floods are increasing." Even if any of these were true, they don't reveal the cause and certainly cannot furnish temperature data like thermometers.

• "Sea levels are rising." But they have been rising for 18,000 years, and there is no evidence that the current rate of rise is affected by temperature; 20[SUP]th[/SUP]-century data show no acceleration.

• A common misleading reply by AGW supporters: "The past decade is the warmest in X years." This may be true, provided X is chosen appropriately, but the current trend over the past decade has been approximately zero. (One must not confuse Trend [measured in degrees C/decade] with temperature [measured in degrees C]. According to climate models, it is an increased temperature trend that should relate to any increasing trend in greenhouse gases.)

But note also that climate seems to follow long-term cycles of about 1,500 years (Singer and Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years, 2007). If the "Bond-cycle" is active now, we may expect further, irregular warming in the present century and beyond -- entirely due to natural causes, likely related to the Sun.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/winning_the_agw_science_debate_heres_how.html#ixzz258jlz06m
​

Further, the models are largely unable to represent or capture important natural forcings -- for example, well-documented climate oscillations involving the oceans, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Also omitted from the models are the effects of solar-activity changes -- in spite of excellent evidence, supported by a growing body of published results, that solar-caused cosmic-ray variations strongly correlate with terrestrial climate changes.
Turning next to climate observations, there are many questions about the reliability of the reported land-surface temperature data reported by weather stations. Mid-troposphere temperatures do not agree with surface trends -- a disparity that a National Academy of Sciences climate panel tried unsuccessfully to resolve in 2000. It seems that mid-troposphere temperature trends derived from radiosondes in weather balloons and from microwave instruments in satellites both show negligible tropical warming in the last decades of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century. Data are never perfect, and there may be corrections necessary. However, for the time being, these two independent datasets show remarkable agreement with one another, and remarkable disagreement with what the IPCC models would expect as a result of anthropogenic warming.

Re​

Ocean data have been notoriously difficult to reconcile, since they employ so many different types of instrumentation. These include buckets, buoys, ship-engine cooling-water inlet temperatures, and both infrared and microwave satellite observations. Unfortunately, there are problems with each of the datasets; their coherence is often different from what one might expect. One example: inlet temperatures seem to be warmer than bucket and drifter buoys that measure temperatures close to the surface -- just opposite of what would be expected.

Additional ocean datasets do not show the warming observed by land weather stations; for example, night-time marine air temperatures (NMAT) confirm the strong warming up to 1940 and cooling to 1975 but show only a small recovery post-1978, with maximum temperatures in the 1990s no greater than in 1940. Similarly, data of ocean heat content (OHC) do not show a warming trend from 1978 to 2000 -- although it should be noted that 20[SUP]th[/SUP]-century OHC data is of poor quality and has been subject to frequent corrections.

Finally, we have non-thermometer proxy data, which mostly show no warming from 1978 to 1997. Most confirm the 1910-40 warming from weather stations -- but also show no post-1940 warming. It would be interesting to examine the large dataset assembled by the authors of the "hockeystick" to see what temperatures are observed after 1978; unfortunately, their published curve stops at just that point, and their post-1978 data have not been accessible.

It should be clear by now that the strong AGW claims of the IPCC are based on rather flimsy evidence.

The best part...

It would be interesting to examine the large dataset assembled by the authors of the "hockeystick" to see what temperatures are observed after 1978; unfortunately, their published curve stops at just that point, and their post-1978 data have not been accessible.

​

 

[Sukerkin]

I can understand Ballens attitude in a way, for the boy that cried "Wolf" is a famous parable and, superficially at least, there have been a couple of over-hyped scenarios within my lifetime. However, one vital thing to understand when it comes to massive, chaotic, systems is that they have equally massive inertia. So, usually, by the time you notice something happening it is usually well along the road to non-recoverability. So, it is in our interests to act if we suspect that something is in the wind, so to speak {Yeah, climatological pun attack! }.

Here is the British Met Office's take on the various temperature observation and measurement regimes that have been used to support the theory that we are stepping over the threshold of a warming period:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/temp-records

Now, the Met Office may draw a little ribald comment on their forecasting accuracy (the weather here is notoriously complex as we have a lot of factors in a small area) but they are a fairly sober and serious organisation, not given to wild speculation. So I tend to trust what they have to say on something.

The trends are clear, altho' I do think that less than a couple of centuries of data is a small pool from which to draw conclusions. As I noted above, massive systems have lots of 'lag' in them and altho' we have been loading the atmosphere with CO2 for quite some time, to the extent that the PH of the oceans is changing, it might yet be that the Earth will regulate that excess away in time (most likely by using it's great climate tool, living things). Even so, I think it only makes good sense to do the things I've mentioned before regardless of whether the climate is going to change radically or not. Oil and gas are finite resources and far too useful to waste just by setting fire to them.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't know if our members outside the UK can access this podcast from Costing the Earth. Not directly relevant to the thread but pretty interesting nonetheless:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/costearth/costearth_20120814-1529a.mp3

 

[billc]

Sooo...You have the men who created the I.P.C.C report, the one all the other scientist point to as proof of man made global warming, hiding or destroying their data to keep it from being examined by other scientists, trying to keep other scientists who disagree with their report from getting published, trying to get journalists and editors who allow skeptics to get published, fired. Then you have groups like green peace doctoring glacier photos and members of the I.P.C.C team lying about glaciers in their research. You have global warming computer climate models that don't actually work with real world data. You have temperature monitoring stations either being ignored, if they are in cold parts of Russia, or badly placed, next to garbage incinerators for example. You have islands that are supposed to be sinking having their water level monitoring equipment showing no rising waters.

Yet...we are supposed to trust that what all of this "information" points to is man made global warming. Hmmmm...You know, I have this bridge that is a real deal right now and if you're interested...

 

[Sukerkin]

Soooo ... when it comes to forming an opinion on climate change my choices are .... the ninety-seven percent of professional climatologists who think there is a problem to be addressed or some bloke on the Interwebs who would love to cast the situation as a plot dreamed up by Obama to facilitate the destruction of the American Way {TM}?

Which one to choose for reliable information? It's such a conundrum that I really can't choose between the two options ... I'll sleep on it.

 

[billc]

I have to guess you didn't pay any attention to climate gate 1 or 2, the made up data on glaciers, the made up data on Tuvalu, the fact that the I.P.C.C. report that the 97 percent of scientists base their opinions on global warming is the subject of climate gate, or the ignoring of temperature monitoring stations in the cold parts of the world, or the failure of climate model computers to accurately predict the current climate or any number of other screw ups in the man made global warming science.

As a reminder...

Turning next to climate observations, there are many questions about the reliability of the reported land-surface temperature data reported by weather stations. Mid-troposphere temperatures do not agree with surface trends -- a disparity that a National Academy of Sciences climate panel tried unsuccessfully to resolve in 2000. It seems that mid-troposphere temperature trends derived from radiosondes in weather balloons and from microwave instruments in satellites both show negligible tropical warming in the last decades of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century. Data are never perfect, and there may be corrections necessary. However, for the time being, these two independent datasets show remarkable agreement with one another, and remarkable disagreement with what the IPCC models would expect as a result of anthropogenic warming.

In the meantime we can post certain question to the AGW supporters and await their answers:
**Why did climate warm between 1910 and 1940?
**Why did climate cool from 1940-1975? If the cause is assumed to be aerosols, also please explain the separate trends observed in the northern and southern hemispheres and compare with climate models. This asymmetry has been a puzzle for some time.
**Why is there a step increase (temperature "jump") in 1976-77 -- and again in 2001-2002? Such jumps are not in accord with the slow, steady increase calculated by climate models.
**Why is there no pronounced warming trend since 2002?
**And finally, why no warming for night-time marine air temperatures, troposphere, and proxies in the last two decades of the 20th century -- in conflict with reported land-surface temperatures? Could one admit the possibility that there might be something wrong with the land-surface data used by IPCC as "evidence" for AGW?

Obama wasn't mentioned once in any of the information on these topics.

Hmmm...you must be reading my posts again. How brave of you.

 

[Sukerkin]

Don't make me wish I wasn't - there's a fine line between curiosity and the Net equivalent of Car-crash TV.

 

[billc]

I can't make you do anything Sukerkin, if you don't have the strength to read my posts, well, I can't help you then.

 

[billc]

A new book on the myth of man made global warming...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/

The hypothetical courtroom is a newly published book,

Global Warning, Trials of an Unsettled Science; and the prosecutor is its author, David Solway, a familiar name to regular readers of PJ Media.

What will especially raise readers’ ethical hackles are his disclosures of duplicity at what should be the most credible institutional levels in ensuring that counter-claims to the received wisdom are suppressed.

For a particularly egregious example of bad faith in communicating with the public, Solway cites a 2009 University of Illinois survey concluding that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. But the methodology of the survey was grossly corrupt. Of the 10,257 respondents, 10,180 demurred from the consensus. They were summarily rejected, even though included amongst them were solar scientists, meteorologists, physicists, and other scientific experts. Seventy-five of the remaining 77 respondents agreed with the proposition that global warming is caused by humans and voilà! That equals 97.4%. In fact, only .008% of the respondents concurred with the hypothesis. This is intellectual fraud of breathtaking arrogance, yet it is only one of a slew of truth-traducing offenses Solway has amassed.
How do academics and other global-warming stakeholders justify their complicity in manufacturing consent? Solway explains it as a form of cognitive dissonance of the type one often finds in religions and triumphalist ideologies, where ends are privileged over means. In his chapter on environmentalism as religion, Solway explains how Gaia, the earth’s divine avatar, replaced God in our secular age.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye that's a bad way to run a study all right. But I am perplexed why you are so fiercely committed to banging this drum, Bill.

Really, as I have said many times now, it does not matter if the process is driven by mankind or just helped along the road by us. Trying to pollute and waste less is just good sense and, if we can, rein in the temperature rises to something within which we can maintain our civilisations.

 

[WC_lun]

In similiar news, evolution is a hoax and the Earth is only six thousand years old.

 

[elder999]

In................. and the Earth is only six thousand years old.

And it's flat...:lol:

 

[Xue Sheng]

And it is on the back of Atlas or a turtle....that is where it gets a bit fuzzy

 

[elder999]

And it is on the back of Atlas or a turtle....that is where it gets a bit fuzzy

And it used to have unicorns, but they all missed the Ark.....:lfao:

 

[granfire]

And it used to have unicorns, but they all missed the Ark.....:lfao:

but the damn horseflies didn't! :flammad:

 

[CanuckMA]

In similiar news, evolution is a hoax and the Earth is only six thousand years old.

Prepostorous. The World is 5,773 years old.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And it used to have unicorns, but they all missed the Ark.....:lfao:

But they fit 2 of every other living thing in approximately 101,000 square feet.

 

[WC_lun]

Sometimes you guys make me laugh.