 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 31/600) |
|
Phranc
|
DEC 06, 01:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Sorry Fierobear, the link didnt' take me to what you wanted me to see. My point however, is that the measurement used by the global warming advocates is the summer figure. You get that in August. So you have to be sure the pic you are getting is the summer figure. The one you showed above looked like it is the fall pic.
Arn |
|
I know some where in this thread is a side by side of sea ice from last summer and this summer and there is more now.
 And here it is.[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 12-06-2008).]
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 06, 03:08 PM
|
|
As of today. Slightly more ice than last year. So much for the "entire ice cap melting forever!!!"
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 07, 01:25 PM
|
|
Skepticism on climate change
THE MAIL brings an invitation to register for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 in New York City. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank, the conference will host an international lineup of climate scientists and researchers who will focus on four broad areas: climatology, paleoclimatology, the impact of climate change, and climate-change politics and economics.
But if last year's gathering is any indication, the conference is likely to cover the climate-change waterfront. There were dozens of presentations in 2008, including: "Strengths and Weaknesses of Climate Models," "Ecological and Demographic Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears," and "The Overstated Role of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change."
Just another forum, then, sounding the usual alarums on the looming threat from global warming?
Actually, no. The scientists and scholars Heartland is assembling are not members of the gloom-and-doom chorus. They dispute the frantic claims that global warming is an onrushing catastrophe; many are skeptical of the notion that human activity has a significant effect on the planet's climate, or that such an effect can be reliably measured or predicted. Some point out that global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been falling since then. Indeed, several argue that a period of global cooling is on the way. Nearly all would argue that climate is always changing, and that no one really knows whether current computer models can reliably account for the myriad of factors that cause that natural variability.
On this they would all agree: Science is not settled by majority vote, especially in a field as young as climate science.
Skepticism and inquiry go to the essence of scientific progress. It is always legitimate to challenge the existing "consensus" with new data or an alternative hypothesis. Those who insist that dissent be silenced or even punished are not the allies of science, but something closer to religious fanatics.
Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, far too many people have been all too ready to play the Grand Inquisitor. For example, The Weather Channel's senior climatologist, Heidi Cullen, has recommended that meteorologists be denied professional certification if they voice doubts about global-warming alarmism. James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wants oil-company executives tried for "crimes against humanity if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically" about global warming. Al Gore frequently derides those who dispute his climate dogma as fools who should be ignored. "Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don't believe we landed on the moon," Gore's spokeswoman told The Politico a few days ago.
But as the list of confirmed speakers for Heartland's climate-change conference makes clear, it is Gore whose eyes are shut to reality. Among the "climate deniers" lined up to speak are Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT; the University of Alabama's Roy W. Spencer, a pioneer in the monitoring of global temperatures by satellite; Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog; and meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982. They may not stand with the majority in debates over climate science, but - Gore's dismissal notwithstanding - they are far from alone.
In fact, what prompted The Politico to solicit Gore's comment was its decision to report on the mounting dissent from global-warming orthodoxy. "Scientists urge caution on global warming," the story was headlined; it opened by noting "a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation."
Coverage of such skepticism is increasing. The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Michael Scott reported last week that meteorologists at each of Cleveland's TV stations dissent from the alarmists' scenario. In the Canadian province of Alberta, the Edmonton Journal found, 68 percent of climate scientists and engineers do not believe "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."
Expect to see more of this. The debate goes on, as it should.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
DEC 07, 06:32 PM
|
|
The "science" of global warming, was settled by a desire for cash, and the media and companies embracing it as a selling point for goods and ideals.
I agree conserving is good, but only to a point.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 09, 12:47 AM
|
|
Here is an article about an interesting new scientific paper on a theory that the oceans, and not greenhouse gasses, may be responsible for the recent warming:
Rethinking Observed Warming
(excerpts)
The interesting (to say the least) work was conducted Gilbert Compo and Prashant Sardeshmukh of the Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (these guys must have oversized business cards) and the work was supported financially by the NOAA Climate Program Office. The first sentence of the abstract reads “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.” This sentence certainly captured our interest at World Climate Report – anyone suggesting that some warming may have been caused by something other than the buildup of greenhouse gases will always get a second look.
...
Stating “global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined” is an interesting way to report that the entire global warming – greenhouse gas buildup link (largely unchallenged) may be a quite a bit off. Time will tell, but don’t look for a lot of press coverage coming from the Poland meeting of this interesting research challenging the gospel of global warming.[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-09-2008).]
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
DEC 09, 01:57 AM
|
|
|
Wait, so now you admit there's warming? Welp, there goes the past 2 pages....
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
DEC 09, 07:48 AM
|
|
|
I though people admitted there was warming only that its not caused by man made green house gasses. Kinda why the word anthropogenic is in the title. Warming that had stop years ago...
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
DEC 09, 08:19 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
Wait, so now you admit there's warming? Welp, there goes the past 2 pages.... |
|
Warming, cooling, happens all the time, yearly cycles and much longer ones, we aren't going to change that much either direction.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 09, 09:22 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
Wait, so now you admit there's warming? Welp, there goes the past 2 pages.... |
|
When did I ever say there wasn't warming? Temperatures have gone up since the end of the little ice age, in the 1800s. The question is why. Anthropogenic forcing could not have started the warming trend in the 1800s. Certainly not CO2. Temperatures have been flat for the last 10 years. Anyway, the paper I'm quoting talks about the warming. I'm just quoting what is there. The interesting part of this is a scientific paper questioning whether GHGs are forcing temperatures.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 09, 09:30 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Phranc:
I though people admitted there was warming only that its not caused by man made green house gasses. Kinda why the word anthropogenic is in the title. Warming that had stop years ago... |
|
Another interesting article, on that subject, is projected warming that looks at the numbers with or without the 1998 El Nino temperature spike:
According to the IPCC, the world reached its high-temperature mark in 1998, thanks to a big “El Niño,” which is a temporary warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that occurs once or twice a decade. El Niño years are usually followed by one or two relatively cold years, as occurred in 1999 and 2000. The cooling is, not surprisingly, called La Niña. No one knows what really causes these cycles but they have been going on sporadically for millennia.
Wait a minute. Starting an argument about global warming in 1998 is a bit unfair. After all, that’s starting off with a very hot temperature, followed by two relatively cool years.
Fine. Take those years out of the record and there’s still no statistically significant warming since 1997. When a scientist tells you that some trend is not “significant,” he or she is saying that it cannot mathematically be distinguished from no trend whatsoever.
More important, as shown in our Figure 1, there’s not going to be any significant trend for some time.
Assume, magically, that temperatures begin to warm in 2009 at the rate they were warming before the mid-90s, and that they continue to warm at that rate.
We show two alternatives. One includes the El Niño/La Niña cycle of 1998-2000. Assuming that the old rate of warming reappears in 2009 and continues, the warming since 1998 does not become statistically significant until 2021.
Our other alternative simply removes the El Niño/La Niña cycle and starts in 1997. Under that assumption, warming doesn’t become significant until 2020.
Whatever the assumption, even if the earth resumes warming at the pre-1998 rate, we will have nearly a quarter-century without a significant warming trend.
Figure 1. Top: Observed temperature, 1998-2008 (blue circles), plus a constant rate of warming beginning in 2009 at the rate established from 1977 through 1997 (0.17°C/decade) (red circles). Warming since 1998 does not become statistically significant until 2021.
Bottom: Same as above, but the observed temperatures beginning in 1997 through 2008 (filled blue circles), and ignoring the El Niño/La Niña swing in 1998-2000 (open blue circles). The constant rate of warming is assumed to begin in 2009 (filled red circles). In this case, warming does not become significant until 2020.
The bottom line is that the U.N.’s own climate models have failed, barely a year after they were made public. They have demonstrated a remarkable inability to even “predict” the present! Can 10,000 people in Poznan somehow ignore this?
They shouldn’t. Instead they should be thankful. The lack of recent and future warming almost certainly means that the ultimate warming of this century is going to be quite modest. Instead, they should keep in mind that expensive policies to fight a modest climate change will only worsen the unprecedented cold snap affecting the global economy.
===================
"Poznan" is climate conference happening now in Poland that's supposed to put together a new Kyoto agreement that's even more restrictive. Yup, nothing like pushing a solution to a non-existent problem.[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-09-2008).]
|
|
|
|