It was the eighth warmest June on record for the globe, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Wednesday in the 129 years since records began in 1880. And the first six months of the year were the ninth warmest since record keeping began in 1880, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center reported. The planets average temperature for June was 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.9 degrees warmer than average for the month.
DON’T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. Just a few days ago, the University of Alabama, Huntsville came out with their global assessment and they reported the 22nd warmest in the 30 years of records in their data base (in other words the 9th coldest). In fact, their global mean was actually below the average (base period 1979-1998) with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). This is a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NOAA guesstimate. The other NASA satellite source, RSS had June as the 13th coldest out of the last 30 years.
The global data bases suffer from major station dropout after 1990 (number dropped from 6000 to less than 2000) and a ten fold increase in the number of missing months in the stations that report. There are serious problems with their algorithms for assessing whether a station is urban or rural and adjusting for local land use changes. There are major siting issues, many of which Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke Sr. have shown have not been properly adjusted for. An old version of a document describing these issues can be found here. Please note the NERON networks plans of NOAA morphed into the Climate Reference Network, a relatively small number (110 if fully implemented) properly sited instrument locations that should provide a better tracking of at least US climate in the future but will not resolve the historical US and current global discrepancies.
Time has come for a major independent investigation of the data sets, compilation methodology and adjustment practices (and records) for the global data sets of NOAA, NASA and Hadley. Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts are doing their best finding problems but Steve has run into many roadblocks suggesting folks may have something to hide. Meanwhile we will trust only the UAH and RSS.
Try this to see for yourself how bad the global station data is. Go to this site (GISS - virtually the same as NOAAs GHCN though the adjustments made differ), scroll down to the map and click on any region. You will see stations listed - notice the highly variable reporting periods. Start clicking on stations. You will get plots. But before you move to other stations go to the bottom and click on “Download monthly data as text”. You will see for many/most stations numerous “999.9"s meaning missing data. How do you come up with an annual averages when one to multiple months are missing? That is like making beef stew but without the beef. I was told that in many cases the data is available (Environment Canada tells us they have their data we show as missing) but that NOAA and NASA is making no efforts to go out and get it. Our cry should be after every NOAA press release “Where is the beef?”
Remember those future movies where theres a small group of public citizens hiding and using broadcast radio or TV for tellin the truth? As the sheep believe what they have to because the communist welfare check won't come otherwise? Well, they are taking away antenna TV, we seem to be seeing some lies being pushed on the public, when will we be at that point?
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
Published: 25 Jul 08 - 0:00 India has issued a report challenging global warming fears. This is dramatic. The Indian Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change said that India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth in order to cut gases.
Referring to claimed changes in climate attributed to human activity, the report declares: "No firm link between the documented charges described below and warming due to an anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."
The report goes on to state: "It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people . . . India is determined that its per capita greenhouse-gas emissions will at no point exceed those of developed countries."
The Australian Herald noted that this declaration "means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1,02 t) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now at 20 t)."
This Indian report was music to my ears. I have constantly said that developing countries cannot afford to let their school children do homework at night by candle light rather than by electric light, in an effort to save on electricity production, on the basis of the flimsy evidence presented in favour of man-induced climate change.
So we must ask ourselves: what is the main source of these claims that the Indian report referred to? The answer is that the claims mainly originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly referred to as the IPCC.
Note the term 'governmental' – this is important. In July 1986, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) established the IPCC as an organ of the UN.
The IPCC's key personnel, and lead authors, were appointed by governments. In addition, the IPCC regulations state that its most important documents, its Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) documents, have to be approved by UN member governments.
So when the SPMs are released to the public and the media, they are ‘government approved'.
From the start, the IPCC was more of a political entity rather than a scientific one. Frequently, the public is told of the thousands of scientists whose work forms part of the IPCC output. This is true. By far the majority of the scientists are good, competent folks. I know a few of them personally. But it is not their work that the public sees – the pubic is given the filtered version, which is published in the SPMs, and these SPMs are voted on, line by line, by representatives of the UN member governments.
The IPCC's second assessment report, of 1996, stated: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." In fact, the scientists never said this; they said that it was too early to tell. The third assessment report of the IPCC, in 2001, used the now infamous Hockey Stick graph, which purported to show that there had been a steep rise in global temperature during the twentieth century.
This graph was later shown to be wrong, and the IPCC's fourth report, of 2007, no longer uses it.
This should make people think a bit about government representatives voting on what version of the science they want the public to see. Many scientists, like me, have been irritated by all this, particularly when a result can be the retardation of the economic growth of the world's poor people. A number of the scientists involved in the IPCC work have quit very publicly, over the years, stating that what they actually determined scientifically and what was subsequently fed to the media differed greatly.
In parallel to all this, there has been a substantial, but rather silent, undercurrent of scientists who have been upset by this distortion of the truth.
A recent result of the existence of this agitated scientific bloc has been the establishment of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. This group was activated in early 2007, and was formalised at a climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007.
It is interesting to note that the president of the Czech Republic, Dr Vaclav Klaus, stated at the UN climate conference on September 24, 2007, that it would help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the IPCC were eliminated.
The NIPCC is a collection of eminent independent scientists directed by Dr S Fred Singer, the first director of the US Weather Satellite Service. He subsequently retired as chief scientist of the US Department of Transport. The founding core of scientists of the NIPCC came from a dozen countries, and all are totally independent. They state that their primary concern is the dissemination of scientific truth.
In accurately formulated scientific documents, the NIPCC rejects many of the claims of the IPCC, particularly the notion that man-induced climate change is upon us, and is causing great harm.
Keep your eyes open for good sense from the NIPCC.
A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”
This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically. The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.
These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.
A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]
IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].
Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?
We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.
Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)
Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP
Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and
The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].
Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.
The above article is about a letter from scientists to the IPCC, but let's not let that graph get lost in the noise - if CO2 were driving temperature, and we were at/near/beyond this "tipping poing" or "past the point of no return" as some have said, why such a noticeable disconnect between CO2 and temperature?
By John Boudreau Mercury News Article Launched: 07/27/2008 01:36:13 AM PDT
California public students will stick to reading, writing and arithmetic, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided as he vetoed a bill late Friday that would have required climate change be added to schools' curriculum.
The measure, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would have required future science textbooks to include climate change as a subject.
In January, the state Senate approved the bill, SB 908, by a 26-13 vote. Only two Republicans supported the proposal.
In his veto statement, Schwarzenegger said he supported education that spotlights the dangers of climate change. However, the Republican governor said he was opposed to educational mandates from Sacramento.
"I continue to believe that the state should refrain from being overly prescriptive in specific school curriculum, beyond establishing rigorous academic standards," he said.
Schwarzenegger added that the state's Integrated Waste Management Board's Office of Education and Environment, along with California's Environmental Protection Agency, are creating an environmental curriculum for K-12 students that includes climate change issues.
Simitian had said his bill wouldn't dictate what to teach; rather, it would require the state Board of Education and state Department of Education to decide how the topic would be covered and which grades would study it.
While global warming is included in high school classes as it pertains to weather, the subject is not required to be covered in all textbooks, according to the California Science Teachers Association.
================================
Does anyone think they won't try again? Does anyone think they haven't already started the indoctrination - not to mention frightening kids with horrible disaster scenarios - already? They have. My teenage niece tells me of how teachers are trying to scare the bejeesus out of them, with talk of how global warming will kill all human life and other such absolute NONSENSE. And this is being *pushed*, hard, in public schools.
The boy has drawn, in his third-grade class, a global warming timeline that is his equivalent of the mushroom cloud.
"That's the Earth now," the 9-year-old says, pointing to a dark shape at the bottom. "And then," he says, tracing the progressively lighter stripes across the page, "it's just starting to fade away."
Alex Hendel of Arlington County is talking about the end of life on our beleaguered planet. Looking up to make sure his mother is following along, he taps the final stripe, which is so sparsely dotted it is almost invisible. "In 20 years," he pronounces, "there's no oxygen." Then, to dramatize the point, he collapses, "dead," to the floor.
(Wow. No oxygen. Dead. I'll bet the warmists are ecstatic that they've succeeded in scaring the s*** out of 8 year olds. Good job, warmists. )
For many children and young adults, global warming is the atomic bomb of today. Fears of an environmental crisis are defining their generation in ways that the Depression, World War II, Vietnam and the Cold War's lingering "War Games" etched souls in the 20th century.
Parents say they're searching for "productive" outlets for their 8-year-olds' obsessions with dying polar bears. Teachers say enrollment in high school and college environmental studies classes is doubling year after year. And psychologists say they're seeing an increasing number of young patients preoccupied by a climactic Armageddon.
"Our parents had the civil rights and antiwar movements," says Meredith Epstein, 20, who grew up in Rockville and is now a junior at St. Mary's College of Maryland. "But for us, this is what we need to take immediate action on."
(I guess every generation needs their "cause")
...
"And they're looking ahead and going, 'Hey -- when we have kids, our kids are going to be messed up because of this, and we need to start doing something now.' "
Goldstein adds: "In my practice, they bring this up. Some of the kids are scared, and it's interesting, because I've seen an evolution. . . . Kids used to have fears of war and nuclear annihilation. That's dissipated and been replaced by global warming."
It's not just a U.S. phenomenon: A United Kingdom survey, by the Somerfield supermarket chain, of 1,150 youngsters age 7 to 11 found that half felt anxious about global warming -- and many were losing sleep over it, convinced that animal species will soon die out and that they, themselves, will be victims of global warming.
After 8-year-old Mollie Passacantando, daughter of Greenpeace USA's executive director, read a story about polar bears in class this year, the Fairfax County youngster and her friends spent recess marching around the playground with signs reading, "Stop global warming. Save the polar bears." A classmate taunted, "You can march all you want, but you're not going to save a single polar bear."
That riled Mollie up. With her father, John Passacantando, she started a blog to get the polar bear put on the endangered species list.
"I have heard from friends and work colleagues around the country," says Mollie's mother, Lisa Guide, "that global warming is a subject that can be stressful to children. Mollie was so concerned . . . we really felt it was important to help her do something constructive."
(It doesn't matter whether the Polar Bears are *really* endangered, which they aren't. Just DO SOMETHING!!!!)
...
The number of interested students, both elementary-age and older, keeps booming. In 2003, 65 U.S. and Canadian colleges joined the Energy Action Coalition's drive to raise awareness about global warming. One year later, there were 280 campuses. By February, that number was 587.
"I think it's been exponential in growth," says Matt Stern, campus director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, describing the numbers of students fighting global warming's dire predictions: massive sea-level risings, drought, famine, widespread disease.
"If you follow global warming, every prediction is scarier than the prior one. It's really scary stuff. Global warming is this huge uncertainty, and we see it compromising our future.
"So much of going to school," he says, "is getting an education and preparing yourself for the future. But . . . what's the use of a college degree when Wall Street is under water?"
(Wall Street, under water. Geez.)
...
At Sherwood High School in Sandy Spring, Laura Dinerman's AP environmental science class has grown by an entire classroom each year: She started with 22 students, is teaching two classes this year and next year expects to have 66 students -- at least three classes, "if it doesn't go up," she says.
Dinerman has also seen a blossoming interest this year in the school's environmental club (mission statement: "Change the World"). Just under 10 teenagers were active last year; 90 have signed up this year, an increase helped by an aggressive marketing campaign and Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore is this generation's Bob Dylan; "Truth" is its "Blowin' in the Wind."
(Despite loads of inaccuracies, exaggeration and outright bullshit, An Inconvenient Truth is now in every classroom, and is being taught as science.)
...
"This message about global warming is so powerful," Bronstein says. "It gives me hope for the human race because people are responsive to it." He also encourages anxiety about the planet's future, comparing enviro-fears to "any suffering in your life: The first step is denial, and then there's a sense of doom, and then you have to get up and shake it off and change something."
Which is exactly what happened when 9-year-old Alyssa Luz-Ricca's mother returned from a business trip to Costa Rica with a T-shirt of a colorful frog and the words "Extinction is forever." Alyssa looked at the T-shirt and, she says, "I cried."
"She cried very hard," clarifies her mother, Karen Luz of Arlington.
"I don't like global warming," Alyssa continues, her eyes huge and serious behind her glasses, a stardust of freckles across her nose, "because it kills animals, and I like animals."
She dreams of solar-powered cars and has put a recycling basket for mail, office and school paper in the corner of her family's dining room. She made another recycling box for her third-grade English teacher's classroom at Key Elementary School and has persuaded her mother to start composting. At Key, she also organized an effort among her classmates to pick up playground trash at recess.
Marvel at any of her efforts, though, and she looks confused: Everyone should be doing all this -- and more -- to save the environment.
"I worry about it," says this girl who has yet to lose all her baby teeth, "because I don't want to die."
(They have a 9-year-old girl convinced that global warming is going to KILL her. Lovely, isn't it?)
I saw a commercial the other day about the dire needs of the polar bears and they are all dying.... To bad its a bunch of crap and polar bears are flourishing. The polar bears numbers are stagnated and kept in check with hunting. Yes hunting by Canadians is the biggest threat to polar bears. Its pretty messed up they have to lie and lie a lot to push this agenda.
I saw a commercial the other day about the dire needs of the polar bears and they are all dying.... To bad its a bunch of crap and polar bears are flourishing. The polar bears numbers are stagnated and kept in check with hunting. Yes hunting by Canadians is the biggest threat to polar bears. Its pretty messed up they have to lie and lie a lot to push this agenda.
Here are two videos, each about 8 minutes long, from climate scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville. He also works with NASA on their climate satellites. These video show a talk he gave about a paper he wrote (published in a science journal) about how the IPCC climate models and their positive feedbacks are wrong.
The Australian government is using this farce as a way of getting more money. They have decided to bring in the good old paying for carbon credits BS. Stuffed if I know how that actually reduces emissions. Seems to me it is just a way to make people pay for the privelage.
All the data I have seen over time doesn't convince me. Past temperature change graphs overlaid over past major volcanic eruptions graphs brings a temperature spike every time. Overlay the C02 graphs and just after the temperature warming the C02 levels rise.
Histograms from the GRIP reconstruction (Fig. 3) show that temperatures at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) were 23 6 2 K colder than at present (21). The temperatures at this time, 25 ka, reflect the cold temperatures seen on the measured temperature profile at a depth of 1200 to 2000 m. Alternative reconstructions of the ice thickness and accumulation rates all reproduce LGM temperatures within 2 K (9, 10, 22, 23). The cold Younger Dryas and the warm Bølling/Allerød periods (24) are not resolved in the inverse reconstruction. The temperature signals of these periods have been obliterated by thermal diffusion because of their short duration (25). After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures in our record increase steadily, reaching a period 2.5 K warmer than present during what is referred to as the Climatic Optimum (CO), at 8 to 5 ka. Following the CO, temperatures cool to a minimum of 0.5 K colder than the present at around 2 ka. The record implies that the medieval period around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present in Greenland. Two cold periods, at 1550 and 1850 A.D., are observed during the Little Ice Age (LIA) with temperatures 0.5 and 0.7 K below the present. After the LIA, temperatures reach a maximum around 1930 A.D.; temperatures have decreased during the last decades (26). The climate history for the most recent times is in agreement with direct measurements in the Arctic regions (27). The climate history for the last 500 years agrees with the general understanding of the climate in the Arctic region (28) and can be used to verify the temperature amplitudes. The results show that the temperatures in general have decreased since the CO and that no warming in Greenland is observed in the most recent decades. As seen in Fig. 3, resolution decreases back
According to the data in the graph, it was warmer - MUCH warmer in Greenland in the past. So why didn't all the ice melt then? Why would we believe it will melt NOW?
1. There are scientists - quite a few, in fact - who are part of the so called "consensus" who do NOT agree with the final conclusion that "man is causing warming, period." 2. These scientists will tell you that the IPCC does not do any research or measuring of climate. The assimilate papers from climate scientists and have reviewers publish a "summary for policymakers". In many cases, the people who wrote those papers are reviewing their own work. So much for "peer review". The fox is guarding the henhouse. 3. The IPCC cherrypicks info and data that supports their conclusion, and rejects data that refutes their conclusion. 4. The process is about politics, not science.
Here are some links regarding the flawed IPCC process:
IPCC's assessment of CO2 affect is wrong. Video titled Analysing the IPCC`s climate change models Description: "Bill Kininmonth, the head of Australia`s National Climate Centre from 86 - 98 looks at the climate change issue and the IPCC`s projections to see if they are logical or not"
So did the north with record temps and snow fall in areas. It friggin snowed in Baghdad.
Watch out. The AGW advocates will tell you THAT IS PROOF of AGW, as "AGW makes weather patterns more erratic and difficult to predict."
Don't laugh- This IS what many said about the "major hurricane season" the AGW crowd was predicting last year that didn't happen. When it DIDN'T happen, that was there response! They WIN either way. Pretty sweet if you ask me.
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: Watch out. The AGW advocates will tell you THAT IS PROOF of AGW, as "AGW makes weather patterns more erratic and difficult to predict."
Don't laugh- This IS what many said about the "major hurricane season" the AGW crowd was predicting last year that didn't happen. When it DIDN'T happen, that was there response! They WIN either way. Pretty sweet if you ask me.
Cold weather is just anecdotal and means nothing!!!
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: Watch out. The AGW advocates will tell you THAT IS PROOF of AGW, as "AGW makes weather patterns more erratic and difficult to predict."
Don't laugh- This IS what many said about the "major hurricane season" the AGW crowd was predicting last year that didn't happen. When it DIDN'T happen, that was there response! They WIN either way. Pretty sweet if you ask me.
You know, global warming is proven. It causes more extremes in weather- hot AND cold. Rain AND drought.
It's not the same thing as anthropogenic global warming. I think that shows your ignorance on the matter. Or were you being facetious?
You know, global warming is proven. It causes more extremes in weather- hot AND cold. Rain AND drought.
It's not the same thing as anthropogenic global warming. I think that shows your ignorance on the matter. Or were you being facetious?
Climate change is proven. Warming is only a trend within natural variation. That is all that is proven. Manmade CO2 driving climate is NOT proven. It is assumed, they've made computer models to try to understand it, and the models fail without extensive "tweaking". The idea that manmade CO2 is making it hotter, colder, rain more and bringing more drought is very questionable.
You know, global warming is proven. It causes more extremes in weather- hot AND cold. Rain AND drought.
It's not the same thing as anthropogenic global warming. I think that shows your ignorance on the matter. Or were you being facetious?
Ryan,
No, I am not ignorant on the weather or warming patterns, etc. Pedal your attempts at being "knowledgeable" somewhere else. "Climate Change" of ANY kind beyond the sun being blocked out does not cause meterologists to predict a "major hurricane season," and then change SO RAPIDLY that it doesn't even come close to being a bad hurricane season. It was the AGW people driving those predictions, and then when it didn't happen, they played the have it both ways game.
To sum it up, my point was staright forward. I did not mispeak or "confuse" AGW for generic "global warming" as your response appears to suggest. I said that AGW crew made the exact claim I pointed out. First, AGW was going to CAUSE the worst hurricane season in a century. Then, when it DID NOT HAPPEN, they claimed, "Well, AGW makes the weather unpredictable, so the fact that it DID NOT HAPPEN is PROOF of AGW." THAT IS IGNORANT, and is having it both ways.
And please stop using terms like "ignorant" when addressing others when you're displaying your own apparent inability to read what I said. It's tiresome. I don't speak to you that way and don't appreciate it when you speak to me that way.
Regards, Gary
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 08-05-2008).]
Another example of this is regarding the influence of the sun. When data was presented that seems to show the sun driving the temperature changes, and that the lack of sunspots is hinting that we might be heading into another "little ice age" (decades of well below normal temperatures), they AGW proponents said "Well, then the sun will just be masking manmade warming from CO2". NOOOO!!! They won't admit they might have been wrong about CO2 driving warming. They won't even CONSIDER the possibility. THAT'S how you know you're being scammed by this bullshit.
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: they claimed, "Well, AGW makes the weather unpredictable, so the fact that it DID NOT HAPPEN is PROOF of AGW." THAT IS IGNORANT, and is having it both ways.
Who is "they"? Is there a link or (presumably leftist/commy) news article that backs this up?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Climate change is proven. Warming is only a trend within natural variation. That is all that is proven.
Yes, thank you. That's all I said. Beyond that, nothing can be proven. Even gravity is not proven, it's a theory. Somewhere in the universe could be two masses of tungsten repelling each other.... That said, I think the computer models have a great understanding of the situation. I've posted this before:
Fierobear - this is what the prediction for climate would be if only natural events occurred (e.g. the SUN's natural variation):
Another example of this is regarding the influence of the sun. When data was presented that seems to show the sun driving the temperature changes, and that the lack of sunspots is hinting that we might be heading into another "little ice age" (decades of well below normal temperatures), they AGW proponents said "Well, then the sun will just be masking manmade warming from CO2". NOOOO!!! They won't admit they might have been wrong about CO2 driving warming. They won't even CONSIDER the possibility. THAT'S how you know you're being scammed by this bullshit.
There is a very clear relationship between the sun and global temperatures (duh). But temperature should have been falling since about 1970 if it were the only influence.
[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 08-05-2008).]
No comment on the solar activity vs temperature? I'll see if I can find the source.
Yeah, I'm trying to find where I posted a number of graphs that show the correlation. I thought it was in this thread, but I think there are 3 AGW threads going right now. I might run out of time this morning.
Let me know if you'd like the sources for those. Note that solar forcing has a time lag. It would seem to agree with the theory I've recently read that the oceans, rather than greenhouse gasses, drive temperature. Also, the oceans change their temperature VERY slowly, so a lag of several years makes sense with a sun-ocean-driven climate system.
maybe she knows something.....but then maybe she dont...LOL
