A new look on global warming

Remove all ads!

Ahhh, good ole' boy Fred Singer's Group:

TGS - Maybe the "Disciples of Exxon" will convince us that they saved the planet from Al Gore. Check back in 20 years to find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

 

Yep coin, the arctic had a record low in the summer & the antarctic had a record high at the same time. Hmm, you think they might be connected?
Just like the record highs in the arctic over the last few winters.
(It's funny coin, you don't believe the gov't on 9/11 but you do on global warming?)
Drew, what happens if every single piece of sea ice melts? Sea level will DROP. Yep thats right, the sea level will fall not rise.

How does global warming account for the slew of record lows that have been reported?
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm

US climate report assailed

 

martaug, I admit I'm at a loss to explain exactly why there are so many record lows this year, but my guess is that they pick their statistics carefully:
for example, the 2000 record on the site states stuff like:

4 huge statistics expressed in 4 tiny sentences. Whereas you get much more precise stuff lately:

Which is a much longer text blurb, but is far less impressive than the 4 sentences in 2000. Overall the entries in 2009 are much longer, and are about much smaller 'point measurements' than in 2000. They also omit 'record highs' on the thousands of other mountain peaks, but that's why they choose to list only 'record lows'.

I'd just like to point out this simplistic reasoning I stumbled upon on that site:

The fossil record is complete?? Half a feather?!? I guess having a degree in biology doesn't amount to squat nowadays...

Your second link makes an audacious claim, especially in light of your first link:

There's a lot of ways to alter perception of statistics, and I believe that iceagenow is doing this. Opponents of the climate change debate are happy to make leaps of reasoning based on carefully chosen and worded statistics. But please don't make the mistake of losing interest in it, simply because there is bias and uncertainty in science.

 

Don't pollute, turn off your light bulbs when not needed, flush at half volume, drive smaller engined cars and dump SUVs, cease all wars, have less children.


Of course the earth could decide to move a little closer to the sun and we all get fried.

 

Coin, it's not just this year but the past few, ever since we started having less sun spots.
All weather comes from the sun. It's real simple.

Less sunspots = less solar wind = more cosmic rays hitting the earth = more clouds(due to interaction with oxygen & nitrogen molecules) = less heat from the sun = cooler temperatures.

& the inverse

More sunspots = more solar wind = Less cosmic rays hitting the earth = Less clouds = Warmer temperatures.

No one is arguing that global warming & global cooling happen, we just argue that the nonsense in support of the holy religion of AGW(man caused global warming) is full of BS.

MIT climate forecast unscientific

 

martaug, did you look up the info on sunspots? It's a very clear 11 year cycle. It may explain a temporary lull in global temperature this year, but the cycle will go up again soon. And it doesn't even offer an alternative explanation for the recorded global warming over the last 100 or so years.

And as for the Medieval Warm Period, I couldn't find a good explanation for it. We don't know what happened back then, nor whether it was a worldwide event, or just localized in the northern hemisphere. It may well be the result of widespread expansion of agriculture at the time... but I know too little to hazard a guess.

 

Coin, the average is 11 years but it can be as short as 9 or as long as 14 years.
Maunder minimum

Note that this 70 year period covered several solar cycles.

There also seems to be an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP).

the human impact on gloabal warming is insignificant

Very good article

 

That isn't my point. The point of my metaphor was to illustrate the irrefutable fact that when ice melts, everything in its vicinity gets colder. It is not only natural but expected that as the polar ice caps are thinned due to global warming (regardless of whether that warming is man-made, cyclical, more man-made than cyclical, or more cyclical than man-made), the rate of that warming will be slowed and even temporarily reversed. The more well-reasoned and qualified skeptics aren't arguing that there is no global warming, but disagree on the extent of man's culpability or on the severity of the problem going forward. Be skeptical if you want, but don't argue that because climate change doesn't isn't charted as a straight line on a graph that there is no climate change. That's just silly.

 

Well, I looked up the answers for you, on wiki's global warming controversy page. Recognized scientific studies have concluded that, even in the most optimistic of circumstances, "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."
In other words, very little correlation at all is found between sunspot activity and the rise in temperature.
Sorry to disappoint; I'd also love to live in an unchangeable world where mankind is free of responsibility for the environment. But the evidence just doesn't corroborate that idea.

There is definitely a drive to make people aware of the environment. But the fact that you dismiss it as dogmatic and religious, just means that you haven't been approached the right way. True; the zeal with which people drive home the message is based on self-preservation, and as such is no different from religious zeal. But you are forgetting that the issue in question is documented, proven, and very real. So stop reacting to the how of the message, and start thinking about the why of the issue.

 

Please coin thats as biased a page as any i have seen on wiki. Wiki is ok for most things that don't have a political inclination but on those, watch out.
Take this statement

So according to this article the Roman Warm Period (RWP), the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP) didn't happen as they all were fluctuations of more than a few degrees.

 

So, get the mistakes on wiki removed then. It's an open information source; you can apply to make corrections. I assume your attempts to 'correct' wiki will be refused, so what will your conclusion be? That the wiki staff are 'science zealots'?

Ahh for f@#$'s sake! Take a look at the average temperature over the last 1000 years. Sorry that I'm linking a 'corrupt' wiki graph again. Tell me, how does this compare to recent temperature change?

 

Oh please coin, There is no meaningful "global temperature".
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'

 

So making an average of temperatures across the globe is the same as, and just as pointless as, calculating the average phone number in the phone book? And the global exchange rate comparison makes no sense atall: an exchange rate is already a comparison (derived from the value of two currencies) - temperatures are real measurements.
I know it's low of me, but I'll have to accuse this 'researcher' of being biased, and making publication just to sway public perception.

So far you've attacked the global warming theory from three different angles, I'd almost start to think you had a vested interest in debunking it...?

 

Of course i do, as does every other person that looks at the real science & not the crap that al gore spewed. Which, BTW, let him make somewhere between 40 - 100 Million dollars(no, thats no reason to lie to people)

It's funny at the beginning it was all "we know whats going on, global warming", however when the planet refused to cooperate(by all of the record lows, new antarctic & arctic high records of ice, the southeast coming out of a drought, etc.) they changed to "we know whats going on with climate change".
It's like one of those late night pitchmen you see on tv, they will say anything to get you to buy their product, And honestly, thats all these guys are, snake oil salesmen.

 

Two points here:
You shouldn't make this an issue about Al Gore personally. He's just another fat cat raking in the cash, and I don't like him that much either (c'mon, he's still an american politician for pete's sake). But I dislike others much more. Anyway, for all I know he wouldn't give a damn if the scientific community hadn't adopted and paid him as their awareness-mascotte.

The second point, is that you are correctly referring to certain elements in tackling global warming as 'snake oil salesmen'. My own energy company charges me extra for 'green electricity', but it all still comes from nuclear plants in France. Again I say: don't make this about them. Corruption is everywhere. Their activities may undermine public perception, but the issue at hand is still real.

 

Martaug, the folks writing books and producing documentaries sympathetic to your side of the equation made money doing it, too. This point is irrelevant.

I call shenanigans on this one. All you've done here is erect a strawman and knock it down.

 

Uh oh, martaug. We'll have to see what the moderators think of this one...

Brooms, heheheh!

 

Oh no's!!! not brooms!!
Doomed!
I is doomed!!


Seriously though(yeah, yeah, what fun is that) Drew, what part of that statement don't you like? Since, you know, thats what happened.


EDIT
I was gonna use one of the Carbon Footprint Calculators, however i cant find one that lists big trucks(f 250 & up size) or a reasonable size motorcycle(they list a large motorcycle as 500cc's(thats not a motorcycle, it's a scooter!)
Does anybody know of any CFC that include big(ger) trucks?

 

Martaug, that isn't what happened. Your argument ignores the fact that severe weather fluctuations (like your much vaunted record lows) were accounted for, expected, came as no surprise to the scientific community, and have fit as is into the currently accepted models regarding how climate change works for more than 20 years (prior to 1987, you might have had a point, I'm too lazy to back-track any farther than that right now); you've ignored the fact that your evidence of an increase in arctic ice is highly contested because while the ice had increased in surface area, it was still thinner. What you've presented is a one-sided caricature of events; you have not argued the actual science being presented by the IPCC.

 

Unfortunately, Drew, the models that account for new record lows didn't come out until after we started seeing them.

Ok, to start a few things:
1.)The problem with taking an average global temperature is that we can't effectively do it. If you really wanted to do it, and have it mean anything at all, you'd have to take the exact temperature of every molecule in and on the Earth, and average them. Now, we can safely assume that the cooling of the Core is slow enough not to seriously impact things, so let's cut out 99.9% of the Earth and only go with every molecule within the top 10 feet of the crust and up. That's still VASTY more than we're even close to being able to do. Instead, we take a couple (seriously, compared to the total surface of the Earth, it's a couple) constant points and use them. That's an approximation that would even have engineers (and boy do we love our approximations) calling shenanigans! (Yay, brooms!)
2.)The next problem, and one I've criticized for years, is that these much-vaunted climate models are rarely, if ever, verified against known historical data (and there's a lot of it). I have yet to see one that encorporates any of the warming or cooling periods in the last 2500 years (and we know several of them occured in Antarctica at the same time and same way as they happened in Europe).
3.)We all know the claims of the Global Warming Extremists that "we're entering unknown territory", "we're at temperature highs that haven't been seen since the Cretacius", "We've changed the climate more than the Earth ever could", etc. Yet, historical records from a scant 600 years ago talk about a Greenland free of ice and wine-grapes being grown in England so well they out-sold French wines in France (and farmers petitioned the King about it)! These are extremes we have yet to even get close to.
4.)Any talk about a "global temperature" more than about 30 years ago is no more accurate then the estimates of the Little Ice Age, and many are far less accurate. They're trying to piece together a piece-meal record of temperature that only accounts for a tiny percentage of the surface of the Earth, often not even at the same time (the further back we go, the larger period that "average temperature" covers, even up to millinea for pre-historic temperatures).
5.)The entire idea of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is based on a theory called CO2 forcing, which claims CO2 starts a vast and complex set of reactions and interactions in the atmosphere to vastly amplify the effectiveness of water vapor, yet I've never once seen a scientific study to verify it.
6.)Sun Spots vary according to MANY different cycles, including one that averages 11 years, about 7 other longer cycles (from 50 years to 900 years) that we've identified, and many more that we suspect.
7.)I've seen charts corresponding Sun Spot activity to temperature changes that showed closer to a 60% correlation.
8.)Historically, CO2 concentrations are even less closely associated with temperature changes than Sun Spot activity.

And there are probably more, but I just woke up from a nap. In the end, the more I see "the science of climate change", the more I see guesswork that actually shy's away from verification instead of charging toward it. Now, this doesn't disprove AGW, but it does seriously discredit it as a scientific theory.