Sometimes you have to use the lesser of 2 evils. If mosquitoes were responsible for a disease outbreak that was making people sick or dying, Id like them to use DDT and spray the hell out of it. They still do it here locally when the mosquito population explodes in a particular area. They sprayed about 1/2 dozen neigborhood ponds here a few months ago.
Sometimes you have to use the lesser of 2 evils. If mosquitoes were responsible for a disease outbreak that was making people sick or dying, Id like them to use DDT and spray the hell out of it. They still do it here locally when the mosquito population explodes in a particular area. They sprayed about 1/2 dozen neigborhood ponds here a few months ago.
Now look up how much the earth can absorb and what the carbon signature of the C02 in the atmosphere is.
Now that I know you are accepting the scientific evidence I posted, you can certainly look this up yourself and post it here. The members of the Forum are not your personal servants.
Now that I know you are accepting the scientific evidence I posted, you can certainly look this up yourself and post it here. The members of the Forum are not your personal servants.
Arn
I'm not accepting anything, for one thing you provided only graphs no links. Also the graph I replied to seems to agree with what the others I've seen from credible sources but with no context what you are saying it shows is inaccurate. I'm just suggesting that you look at the whole picture rather than cherry pick.
Keep trying though.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-20-2010).]
Newf, it is you who is cherry picking. Look up the data and post it.
Arn
Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance. (Source: IPCC AR4).
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions. (IPCC AR4)
Once again we are back to the IPCC whose data has been roundly criticized by French researchers such as Ernst-Georg Beck, and others, for being inaccurate. In fact much of it was based on totally falsified data from England`s East Anglia University, if you research the current investigation underway in Britain.
However, even using their carbon figures, we see that CO2 as a total from all sources forms .039% of the earth`s atmosphere. Of that total, by your own IPCC figures, mankind produces 29 of the 801 total gigatonnes, or .033% of the total carbon emissions. This means that mankind produces CO2 amounting to (.039% x .033%) or .001287% of total world atmosphere. And this can change the planet`s Global Temperature, hmm....
But please don`t forget the IPCC data isn`t to be trusted, so all of this may well be inconsequential.
Once again we are back to the IPCC whose data has been roundly criticized by French researchers such as Ernst-Georg Beck, and others, for being inaccurate. In fact much of it was based on totally falsified data from England`s East Anglia University, if you research the current investigation underway in Britain.
However, even using their carbon figures, we see that CO2 as a total from all sources forms .039% of the earth`s atmosphere. Of that total, by your own IPCC figures, mankind produces 29 of the 801 total gigatonnes, or .033% of the total carbon emissions. This means that mankind produces CO2 amounting to (.039% x .033%) or .001287% of total world atmosphere. And this can change the planet`s Global Temperature, hmm....
But please don`t forget the IPCC data isn`t to be trusted, so all of this may well be inconsequential.
Arn
And whose data is trusted? Yours? I mean you seem to feel you have it figured out, yet all the scientists that agree and spend their days researching keep over looking the facts that you provide. Do you really believe that? First it's not happening, then it's happening but it's due to sunspots, then wait...no it's not happening, hold on...yes it is but it's just the natural cycle of the earth...etc...
Not saying the science is settled and that someday more information may be found but for right now I will put my trust in the thousands of scientists that spend their time studying the climate and mans effect on it. I can (and will you may have noticed ) argue some tables and "facts" when people claim falsehoods but when it comes to things like the amount of C02 that's being released and absorbed and the effects of it without a broader knowledge or context I don't think either of us have the expertise.
You or I could say water is good for us, in fact we can't live without it but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't die if you drank too much of it.
I told you according to the science the earth can't absorb the amount of c02 that's being produced according to the data, and when they looked at the C02 that is being left it contains the signature of the C02 that is clearly from human production (according to scientists)
Is you contention that the scientists are missing what you are saying or delibretly misleading everyone including their peers?
Why don't you read the IPCC reports or the other scientifc bodies statements on Climate Change and come up with your own report and submit it for their review. You seem to think it's easy to be able to poke holes in their data. Challenge an expert.
You seem to think the percentage C02 to atmosphere is too small to have any effect, at what point does it have an effect? Any idea? Or does it just seem to small to you. Did you happen to read this "As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years." Do the math see what you come up with Do your figures need context or will we just guess it's a small amout?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-21-2010).]
Is you contention that the scientists are missing what you are saying or delibretly misleading everyone including their peers?
That is exactly what Scotland Yard is investigating. It is pretty widely known that the numbers were cooked. IPCC's information sources are badly compromised and can't be taken at face value.
And, FYI, I have read up extensively for the last 5 years. The fact that CO2 is less than 3% of the earth's atmosphere and that the largest portion is generated by the oceans is common scientific knowledge.
The fact that water vapor in the form of clouds and ground level humidity is 97% of green house gas is also common scientific knowledge
That is exactly what Scotland Yard is investigating. It is pretty widely known that the numbers were cooked. IPCC's information sources are badly compromised and can't be taken at face value.
The fact that water vapor in the form of clouds and ground level humidity is 97% of green house gas is also common scientific knowledge
Arn
More claims with nothing to back it up. Any proof?
IP: Logged
09:22 PM
Nov 13th, 2010
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
It's in this thread about 17 posts down on page 4. Two graphs that show global mean temps with a link provided with even more data for you to try and disprove. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...6/HTML/078909-4.html
In this post, you showed a "Survey of 68 scientific studies". OK, so the "majority" of the studies predict warming, but we aren't getting any warming. Oh, NASA GISS says warming, you say?
Richard Foot, Canwest News Service · Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010
Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.
Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.
Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.
Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”
Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.
Over the past two decades, they say, “the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.”
Using the agency’s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.
They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.
The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
“NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.
Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis,” he said. “The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures.”
In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.
This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.
The revelations come only two months after the “climategate” scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails -- private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.
IP: Logged
08:18 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You're just repeating the same sources whose data is in question. In simple language, they are dicking with the data to get warming. Their datasets are not reliable.
Oh, and here's one of the biggest warmists, Phil Jones from the Hadley Center in England, admitting there's been no warming since 1995:
But hey you and Arn are welcome to read the data, debunk the science given and come to your own conclusions and then we can submit it for review if you'd like as you two claim to be experts and know the real truth. Think of all the money you'd save everyone!! http://www.skepticalscience...rements-advanced.htm
quote
There are three prominent reconstructions of monthly global mean surface temperature (GMST) from instrumental data (fig. 1): NASA's GISTEMP analysis, the CRUTEM analysis (from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit), and an analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Figure 1. Comparison of global (land & ocean) mean surface temperature reconstructions from NASA GISS, the University of East Anglia's CRU, and NOAA NCDC. How reliable are these temperature reconstructions? Various questions have been raised about both the data and the methods used to produce them. Now, thanks to the hard work of many people, we can conclude that the three global temperature analyses are reasonable, and the true surface temperature trend is unlikely to be substantially different from the picture drawn by NASA, CRU, and NOAA.
The three GMST analyses have much in common, though there are significant differences among them as well. All three have at their core the monthly temperature data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), and all three produce both a land-stations-only reconstruction and a combined land/ocean reconstruction that includes sea surface temperature measurements.
Let's explore the reliability of these reconstructions, from several different angles.
The data and software used to produce these reconstructions are publicly available Source code and data to recreate GISTEMP and CRUTEM are available from NASA and CRU websites. (The data set provided by CRU excludes a fraction of the data that were obtained from third parties, but the results are not substantially affected by this).
The software has been successfully tested outside of NASA and CRU, and it works as advertised Both GISTEMP and CRUTEM have been successfully implemented by independent investigators. For example, Ron Broberg has run both the CRUTEM and GISTEMP code. In addition, the Clear Climate Code project has duplicated GISTEMP in Python. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the output of the GISTEMP reconstruction process as implemented by NASA and by Clear Climate Code ... but since the results are identical, the second line falls exactly on top of the first.
Figure 2. The GISTEMP land/ocean temperature analysis as implemented by NASA and by Clear Climate Code. Results of the two analyses are effectively identical.
Similar results can be obtained using different software and methods Over the past year, there has been quite a flurry of "do-it-yourself" temperature reconstructions by independent analysts, using either land-only or combined land-ocean data. In addition to the previously-mentioned work by Ron Broberg and Clear Climate Code, these include the following:
•Nick Stokes •Zeke Hausfather •Joseph at Residual Analysis •Chad Herman •JeffId and RomanM •Tamino (There are probably others as well that we're omitting!)
Most recently, the Muir Russell investigation in the UK was able to write their own software for global temperature analysis in a couple of days.
For all of these cases, the results are generally quite close to the "official" results from NASA GISS, CRU, and NOAA NCDC. Figure 3 shows a collection of seven land-only reconstructions, and Figure 4 shows five global (land-ocean) reconstructions.
Figure 3. Comparison of land-only reconstructions, 1900-2009. Note that the NASA GISS reconstruction using only land stations is not shown here, because it is conceptually different from the other analyses.
Figure 4. Comparison of land-ocean reconstructions, 1900-2009.
Obviously, the results of the reconstructions are quite similar, whether they're by the "Big Three" or by independent analysts.
The temperature increase is not an artifact of the GHCN adjustment process Most of the analyses shown above actually use the raw (unadjusted) GHCN data. Zeke Hausfather has done comparisons using both the adjusted and raw versions of the GHCN data set, and as shown in fig. 5, the results are not substantially different at the global scale (though 2008 is a bit of an outlier).
Figure 5. Comparison of global temperatures from raw and adjusted GHCN data, 1900-2009 (analysis by Zeke Hausfather).
The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations While it is true that the number of stations in GHCN has decreased since the early 1990s, that has no real effect on the results of spatially weighted global temperature reconstructions. How do we know this?
•Comparisons of trends for stations that dropped out versus stations that persisted post-1990 show no difference in the two populations prior to the dropouts (see, e.g., here and here and here). •The spatial weighting processes (e.g., gridding) used in these analyses makes them robust to the loss of stations. In fact, Nick Stokes has shown that it's possible to derive a global temperature reconstruction using just 61 stations worldwide (in this case, all the stations from GISTEMP that are classified as rural, have at least 90 years of data, and have data in 2010). •Other data sets that don't suffer from GHCN's decline in station numbers show the same temperature increase (see below). One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of "cool" stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D'Aleo and Watts are simply wrong.
The temperature increase is not an artifact of stations being located at airports This might seem like an odd statement, but some people have suggested that the tendency for weather stations to be located at airports has artificially inflated the temperature trend. Fortunately, there is not much difference in the temperature trend between airport and non-airport stations.
The temperature increase is present in other data sets, not just GHCN All of the above studies rely (mostly or entirely) on monthly station data from the GHCN database. But it turns out that other, independent data sets give very similar results.
Figure 6. Comparison of global temperatures from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and Global Summary of the Day (GSOD) databases. (Analysis by Ron Broberg and Nick Stokes).
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades. Figure 7 shows a comparison of land, ocean, and global temperature data from the surface reconstructions (averaging the multiple analyses shown in figs. 3 and 4) and from satellites (averaging the results from RSS and UAH):
Figure 7. Comparison of temperatures from surface stations and satellite monitoring of the lower troposphere.
We'll end by looking at all the surface and satellite-based temperature trends over the entire period for which both are available (1979-present). What are the trends in the various data sets and regions? As shown in fig. 8, the surface temperature trends over land have a fair amount of variability, but all lie between +0.2 and +0.3 C/decade. Surface trends that include the oceans are more uniform.
Figure 8. Comparison of temperature trends, in degrees C per decade.
Overall, the satellite measurements show lower trends than surface measurements. This is a bit of a puzzle, because climate models suggest that overall the lower troposphere should be warming about 1.2X faster than the surface (though over land there should be little difference, or the surface should be warming faster). Thus, there are at least three possibilities:
•The surface temperature trends show slightly too much warming. •The satellite temperature trends show slightly too little warming. •The prediction of climate models (about amplified warming in the lower troposphere) is incorrect, or there are complicating factors that are being missed. It should be noted that in the past the discrepancy between surface and satellite temperature trends was much larger. Correcting various errors in the processing of the satellite data has brought them into much closer agreement with the surface data.
Conclusions The well-known and widely-cited reconstructions of global temperature, produced by NASA GISS, UEA CRU, and NOAA NCDC, are replicable.
Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results.
The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-15-2010).]
IP: Logged
09:00 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
As members of Congress debate sweeping legislation to address climate change, shouldn't it be newsworthy that of the roughly 25 percent of the weather stations analyzed by independent, non-government volunteers, more than half appear to not meet federal guidelines involving their placement?
Well, meteorologist Anthony Watts, the owner of Watts Up With That, speaking at a climate conference in Boulder, Colorado, on Tuesday, presented his findings concerning the examination of some of the weather stations across America that monitor the nation's temperatures. The news was quite disturbing.
Yet, from what I can tell, outside of a newspaper in Northern California, even as global warming matters are highlighted on a daily basis by a sycophantic press, not one major media outlet thought this was newsworthy.
As reported by the Chico Enterprise Record Thursday (emphasis added, h/t Marc Morano):
The preliminary results show Watts and his volunteers have surveyed about a quarter of the 1,221 stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Of those, more than half appear to fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement.
Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners - all artificial heat sources which could affect temperature records.
[...]
Watts said his findings show there are potential problems with the placement of many weather stations. Although it's not conclusive, temperature records from many stations, reposted on Watts' blog, showed notable increases after being moved closer to heat sources.
Now, if Watts's findings showed that temperatures measured by these stations were actually understating reality, and that global warming is really worse than is being reported, do you think the press would have been all over this story?
Like white on rice, right?
How disgraceful!
Post facto questions and opinion: What's happened to investigative journalism in this country? Wouldn't this be a perfect story for "60 Minutes" or "20/20"? Do news outlets today only investigate that which supports and/or advances their agenda? How can't this number of weather stations not meeting federal guidelines be something that virtually every press outlet would find newsworthy?
Honestly, this matter being totally buried should make it easy for Americans to conclude not just how biased the media are, but also that they are complicit in a fraud being perpetrated on this nation with grave present and future implications.
I’ve received a few requests for information regarding just what the established standards are for placing weather stations as they relate to their surroundings. Here is an excerpt from the NWS web page describing the issue, along with an embedded link to the PDF document that gives specific details:
The [National Weather Service] COOP network has provided climate and weather data for over 100 years. Consistency of the measurements is an attribute of the network, and it has been maintained by rare and/or gradual change, and established standards for exposure, of instruments over the life of the network. In order to preserve the integrity of the network, NWS has established standards for equipment, siting, and exposure.
By these standards, the Stevenson Screen at the NWS office in Monterey, CA shown above, is well out of compliance.
Temperature sensor siting: The sensor should be mounted 5 feet +/- 1 foot above the ground. The ground over which the shelter [radiation] is located should be typical of the surrounding area. A level, open clearing is desirable so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow. Do not install the sensor on a steep slope or in a sheltered hollow unless it is typical of the area or unless data from that type of site are desired. When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.
Precipitation gauge siting: The exposure of a rain gauge is very important for obtaining accurate measurements. Gauges should not be located close to isolated obstructions such as trees and buildings, which may deflect precipitation due to erratic turbulence. To avoid wind and resulting turbulence problems, do not locate gauges in wide-open spaces or on elevated sites, such as the tops of buildings. The best site for a gauge is one in which it is protected in all directions, such as in an opening in a grove of trees. The height of the protection should not exceed twice its distance from the gauge. As a general rule, the windier the gauge location is, the greater the precipitation error will be.
But hey you and Arn are welcome to read the data, debunk the science given and come to your own conclusions and then we can submit it for review if you'd like as you two claim to be experts and know the real truth. Think of all the money you'd save everyone!!
Well Newf, at least you are predictable. The graph data you produced came from.....wait for it........THE INFAMOUS HOCKEY STICK GRAPH!!
This has been fully debunked in the leaked documents from East Anglia. Here again is an excerpt as reported in the National Post
Here is a sampling of some of the exchanges.
* From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S. scientists who have produced the controversial “hockey-stick graphs” that purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16, 1999.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
* From Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to Michael Mann, on Oct 12. 2009. The email, titled “BBC U-turn on climate,” laments a BBC article that reversed its long-held position on man-made global warming.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. ... Our observing system is inadequate.”
You see the data you have is a scam. They added temperature into the data to create false highs. Moreover, they could not account for the actual Global Cooling during the period.
The scientists who call out Global Warming are correct. Not you, and not me, the scientists.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-14-2010).]
Some people believe anything and will stick to it...do or die. Look at Jim Jones followers for example, and the Hale Bopp people, and..................
Manmade global warming is a made up bunch of BS no matter how you look at it unless you believe liars and fairys.
Newf daaahhhh..... You have the graph. You posted it.
Show how it compares or is the one you are talking about as the hockey stick graph. I have been trying to find wherer that is the case but can't seem to find it. Or are you claiming it is because the temps are rising?
IP: Logged
10:44 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Some people believe anything and will stick to it...do or die. Look at Jim Jones followers for example, and the Hale Bopp people, and..................
Manmade global warming is a made up bunch of BS no matter how you look at it unless you believe liars and fairys.
Yup, there are even idiots that still believe that smoking has little or no effect on ones health they tend to trust.... wait for it...anecdotal type evidence and think that they know better than the experts, some were even convinced by a minority of unscrupulous doctors and scientists that were tobacco company shills.
You and the others here are welcome to believe whatever you want but to say that man can't or doesn't have a major impact on his environment is the BS in my opinion. To what extent that impact is having may be open for debate but trying to ignore it or claim that you know more than the experts in the field (you know experts, scientists not ordinary joes) is a stretch.
I thought the "Hockey Stick" graph showed a much larger swing in temp? this is hardly 2 degrees C
You would think so, given all the hype, but that is actually the case. There is some scientific theory that a 2 degree increase in the earth's overall temp would cause a huge impact. This may well be true. As it is, the temperature moves much less than the hockey stick graph shows. Typically it can be .02 degrees in a decade.
Hope you're working on your paper seeing that you consider yourself an expert, can't wait until you submit it for review.
You still haven't replied to fierobear's request for a source for your post on 11-13-2010 09:00 PM. Don't you think you should hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to?
You still haven't replied to fierobear's request for a source for your post on 11-13-2010 09:00 PM. Don't you think you should hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to?
Fixed, thanks for checking. Be sure to note that the graphs appear to have the sources and links from each of scientific bodies used to compile the data.
IP: Logged
12:46 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by newf: Fixed, thanks for checking. Be sure to note that the graphs appear to have the sources and links from each of scientific bodies used to compile the data.
Thank you. You can expect an answer soon.
Garbage in, garbage out. The CRUTEM and GISTEM are questionable to begin with. That others would come to the same conclusion based on the same raw data, which IS affected by the UHI, is not surprising. Input garbage, and your output will be garbage. Input temperatures that are artificially high because of UHI affects will output artificially high temps.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-15-2010).]
IP: Logged
04:17 PM
Nov 16th, 2010
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
"The U.N. panel of climate scientists say a creeping rise in global temperatures will bring ever more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels."
It will get hotter AND colder, wetter AND drier...yeah...right...LOL
Let's put some perspective into the Arctic Ice situation.
First off, there are no drowning or starving polar bears, or seals.
There is currently 7.7 million square kilometers of arctic ice.
Due to ocean currents over the past few years, the ice has opened up at the edges, as the graph will show. You can see the lines where the median is expected. Remember, the median is the midpoint of the expansion and retraction cycles, not the "normal".
It is the current 7.7 million square kilometers of ice that reflect the sun and help keep the pole cold. It has been growing rapidly back to its median for the past few years, but, it remains somewhat less than its optimum for a couple of reasons. The actual increased sun activity in the last decade did help reduce the ice, but more importantly the El Nino changed the continental air currents. This drove more warm air northward in the summer. And there is a big lag time in the cycle, but, since 2007 it has been recovering. This is all within normal parameters. You can read about it at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
As you can see, the myth of the Northwest Passage being commercially viable is a pipe dream. Don't buy stock in those shipping companies trying it.
And just to repeat it for anyone who missed it, there are no drowning and starving polar bears.
Using your own linked page (finally you use real data from reputable sources ) there Arn you can see the general trend and that they in fact say that...
quote
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?
Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.
Here are a couple of graphs on the same page as you link that illustrate that:
IP: Logged
08:01 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
) argue some tables and "facts" when people claim falsehoods but when it comes to things like the amount of C02 that's being released and absorbed and the effects of it without a broader knowledge or context I don't think either of us have the expertise.
Canada 
