Proof Global Warming Science is a Load of Tripe
Discussion
I was reading London's free 'thelondonpaper' this evening and it struck me that scientists don't know whether our climate will be effected by global warming, and the press don't understand the rubbish the scientists produce.
The article reads:
"British scientists are predicting a succession of record-breaking temperatures after the most detailed forecast on global warming", not quite right, but go on...
"Powerful computer simulations, used to create the world's first global warming forecast, suggest temperature rises will stall in the next two years before rising sharply at the end of the decade." Ok so given global warming should be linear, how do you explain the dip of the next two years. You can't just write off a period of time because it doesn't suit your findings - if all politician did this, can you imagine what would happen to averages...oh they do, never mind then!
"From 2010 they warn every year has at least a 50 per cent chance of exceeding the record year of 1998, when average global temperatures reached 14.54C." So it either will or won't, gee thanks for that. So global temperatures could actually be less than the record, or higher than the record. So what's the story?
"The study's findings raise the prospect of hotter summers but also torrential rains. UK temperatures peaked in 1998 at 32.2C, although the UK record was set back in 2003 at 38.1C." No it doesn't, the rainfall has only become an issue after we experienced, no models predicted that - hence the clever shift to 'climate change'. The study's findings also suggest, temperatures 50% of the time could be less than records, does this suggest a cooling of our planet?
Anyway, the guff continues. Keep serving it up, and i'll continue to blow it apart!
The article reads:
"British scientists are predicting a succession of record-breaking temperatures after the most detailed forecast on global warming", not quite right, but go on...
"Powerful computer simulations, used to create the world's first global warming forecast, suggest temperature rises will stall in the next two years before rising sharply at the end of the decade." Ok so given global warming should be linear, how do you explain the dip of the next two years. You can't just write off a period of time because it doesn't suit your findings - if all politician did this, can you imagine what would happen to averages...oh they do, never mind then!
"From 2010 they warn every year has at least a 50 per cent chance of exceeding the record year of 1998, when average global temperatures reached 14.54C." So it either will or won't, gee thanks for that. So global temperatures could actually be less than the record, or higher than the record. So what's the story?
"The study's findings raise the prospect of hotter summers but also torrential rains. UK temperatures peaked in 1998 at 32.2C, although the UK record was set back in 2003 at 38.1C." No it doesn't, the rainfall has only become an issue after we experienced, no models predicted that - hence the clever shift to 'climate change'. The study's findings also suggest, temperatures 50% of the time could be less than records, does this suggest a cooling of our planet?
Anyway, the guff continues. Keep serving it up, and i'll continue to blow it apart!
Quite hilarious, the article glosses over the fact that by its own storyline the planet has cooled over the last 8 years while carbon dioxide levels and emissions have risen (and the expected enhanced greenhouse effect didn't exactly heat up the atmosphere for the previous 20 years either - virtually no change) and goes on to say there's a 50/50 chance each year in some future timescale will be hotter than an arbitrary value. Or cooler. Astonishing nothingness wrapped up in fancy but transparent something.
A 50% chance of being cooler than the record temperature does not mean colder than average. Think about it.
I have been teaching about the global effects of atmospheric warming for nearly 30 years. From that time the main prediction was for more unsettled weather with increasing likelihood of colder/hotter/drier/wetter weather in most of the inhabited parts of our planet.
Snow in Santiago this week - the first in 8 years.
Prolonged droughts in Australia followed by storms and flooding this year.
Indisputable photographic evidence of glaciers and pack ice melting more than ever recorded.
Droughts and recent fires in southern Europe - remember the terrible floods in Europe recently?
Longest ever recorded continuous monsoon rains in India/Bangladesh at the moment.
The list goes on.
How can anyone deny it's happening? Check out this page on http://www.foxnews.com/specialsections/naturaldisaster/index.html , totally dedicated to recent natural disasters.
I have been teaching about the global effects of atmospheric warming for nearly 30 years. From that time the main prediction was for more unsettled weather with increasing likelihood of colder/hotter/drier/wetter weather in most of the inhabited parts of our planet.
Snow in Santiago this week - the first in 8 years.
Prolonged droughts in Australia followed by storms and flooding this year.
Indisputable photographic evidence of glaciers and pack ice melting more than ever recorded.
Droughts and recent fires in southern Europe - remember the terrible floods in Europe recently?
Longest ever recorded continuous monsoon rains in India/Bangladesh at the moment.
The list goes on.
How can anyone deny it's happening? Check out this page on http://www.foxnews.com/specialsections/naturaldisaster/index.html , totally dedicated to recent natural disasters.
driverrob said:
A 50% chance of being cooler than the record temperature does not mean colder than average. Think about it.
I have been teaching about the global effects of atmospheric warming for nearly 30 years. From that time the main prediction was for more unsettled weather with increasing likelihood of colder/hotter/drier/wetter weather in most of the inhabited parts of our planet.
Snow in Santiago this week - the first in 8 years.
Prolonged droughts in Australia followed by storms and flooding this year.
Indisputable photographic evidence of glaciers and pack ice melting more than ever recorded.
Droughts and recent fires in southern Europe - remember the terrible floods in Europe recently?
Longest ever recorded continuous monsoon rains in India/Bangladesh at the moment.
The list goes on.
How can anyone deny it's happening? Check out this page on http://www.foxnews.com/specialsections/naturaldisaster/index.html , totally dedicated to recent natural disasters.
Climate changing = YesI have been teaching about the global effects of atmospheric warming for nearly 30 years. From that time the main prediction was for more unsettled weather with increasing likelihood of colder/hotter/drier/wetter weather in most of the inhabited parts of our planet.
Snow in Santiago this week - the first in 8 years.
Prolonged droughts in Australia followed by storms and flooding this year.
Indisputable photographic evidence of glaciers and pack ice melting more than ever recorded.
Droughts and recent fires in southern Europe - remember the terrible floods in Europe recently?
Longest ever recorded continuous monsoon rains in India/Bangladesh at the moment.
The list goes on.
How can anyone deny it's happening? Check out this page on http://www.foxnews.com/specialsections/naturaldisaster/index.html , totally dedicated to recent natural disasters.
man made = never been proven!
driverrob said:
A 50% chance of being cooler than the record temperature does not mean colder than average. Think about it.
Did anybody say that? Moreover, the use of 'record' temperature is misleading. The record temperature alluded to means a record in an extremely short timescale. It also makes no mentuion of cause and effect as pointed out by others. All in all, unconvincing.driverrob said:
I have been teaching about the global effects of atmospheric warming for nearly 30 years. From that time the main prediction was for more unsettled weather with increasing likelihood of colder/hotter/drier/wetter weather in most of the inhabited parts of our planet.
Well that pretty sums up what the weather can be, so i guess it'll be quite a good forecast. Weather isn't the same as climate though, and computer climate models cam't cope with spatial scales or timescales short enough to do anything at all with weather. The basis for extreme weather predictions is more energy in the atmosphere but the atmosphere has barely warmed for the last 30 years. What extra energy? In fact extreme weather is more associated with periods of global cooling than global warming, since temperature differences across the planet's surface become more pronounced - as per the devastating storms in Europe during the Little Ice Age, ask the netherlanders historians about that for a bit of context.driverrob said:
Snow in Santiago this week - the first in 8 years.
Prolonged droughts in Australia followed by storms and flooding this year.
Wasn't that because the PM asked aussies to pray for rain? It worked Prolonged droughts in Australia followed by storms and flooding this year.
True Believers should love it.driverrob said:
Indisputable photographic evidence of glaciers and pack ice melting more than ever recorded.
Arctic glaciers? Svalbard as per the Greenpeas photostunt and Dave 'Hug a Husky' Camoron's PR trip? A few km away from a retreating glacier or two being photographed are many glaciers advancing. How is that, if the cause is global warming? Are you aware of the natural lifecycle changes in such glaciers?As to pack ice, the antarctic is showing a net gain in ice of 27 billion tonnes per year, the figure previously published by Joughin and Tulaczyk has just been confirmed by another team of researchers.
Arctic conditions are known to show swings of temperature regularly, on a timescale of a few decades. Recent PR stunt expeditions have been called off due to extreme cold and more snow/ice than expected. But hey that's global warmign for you, it can be hot, cold, wet dry, snowy or not, we're all doing it by having our TV's on standby.
driverrob said:
Droughts and recent fires in southern Europe - remember the terrible floods in Europe recently?
Yes they're the most terrible since the previous more terrible floods pre-industrialiation...caused by - what?driverrob said:
The list goes on.
And the cause is assumed. The IPCC say that current modest warming is within the range of natural variation. what is the panic about? Taxes and submarxist lifestyle control freakery?Here are some recent research findings for you and fellow PHers to consider. My forecast - they probably won't appear on the BBC website nor on the front page of the Guardian or the Independent. there's even a correction to a 'record' in there, which should be appealing.
Warming can thin heat-trapping clouds
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that man-made global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville involving IPCC Lead Author Prof John Christy.
Instead of creating more clouds as climate models currently envisage, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming actually saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAH's Earth System Science Center.
This was not what he expected to find.
"To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said.
Spencer and his colleagues anticipate these new findings will be controversial, but they are consistent with observations that show a troposphere failing to heat up according to predictions for an enhanced greenhouse effect with water vapour feedback. Instead it supports the view that an already warm atmosphere has more degrees of freedom than represented in climate models, allowing the transfer of energy and preventing further warming.
Spencer, Roy W.; Braswell, William D.; Christy, John R.; Hnilo, Justin
'Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations'. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 34, No. 15, 9 August 2007
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875
1934, not 1998, was the warmest year on record in the USA
Steve McIntyre, best known for his effective critique of the flawed ‘hockey stick’ temperature reconstruction, has now identified a major error in the NASA (GISS) USA annual mean temperature records.
The record has been duly corrected and reveals that 1934 was the warmest year recorded, despite much lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than in 1998, which is now the second warmest. Once again there is clear evidence that carbon dioxide levels are not paramount in determining climate change.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#more-1880
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
In the mid-1970s, a climate shift cooled sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean and warmed the coast of western North America, bringing long-range changes to the northern hemisphere. After this climate shift waned, an era of frequent El Ninos and rising global temperatures began.
Tsonis et al. have investigated the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation.
By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times.
Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then. a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability.
The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.
Major climate shifts have occurred or will occur around 1913, 1942, 1978, 2033, and 2072 according to the authors of this recent paper, who also predict a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 which should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so - then cooling for the rest of the 21st century.
Tsonis, Anastasios A.; Swanson, Kyle; Kravtsov, Sergey: 'A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts', Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 34, No. 13, 12 July 2007
http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf
Surface warming and the 11-year solar cycle
Camp and Tung have compared surface temperature measurements across the globe between years of solar maximum (with higher heat output) and years of solar minimum.
They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note.
Camp, Charles D.; Tung, Ka Kit: Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 34, No. 14 18 July 2007
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/07080...
Belgian weather institute (RMI) study dismisses role of CO2
Brussels: Carbon dioxide is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study performed by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it," climate scientist Luc Debontridder says.
"Not carbon dioxide, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped carbon dioxide so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Luc Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on carbon dioxide. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide..
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540...
Hey, this is getting serious.
Hopefully no-one disputes (from a knowledge point of view) that average global temperatures have been rising over the last 50 years or more and more rapidly in the last 10 years, nor that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen.
We know that water vapour and methane (blame the termites and cattle, mostly) also affect global temperatures via the 'greenhouse effect'. We know that green plants in equatorial regions can mitigate these effects. We know that human activities have changed the proportions of these gases, too.
Nobody should lay all the blame for global warming or climate change on just human activities; there is just no proof of that. It's possible that we are experiencing just one of Earth's long-term fluctuations but that doesn't mean it's not happening. It doesn't mean if we ignore it it will go away some time soon. It doesn't mean that man is helpless to reduce global warming and the increased incidence of extreme weather events which are killing and making homeless millions of people every year.
Hopefully no-one disputes (from a knowledge point of view) that average global temperatures have been rising over the last 50 years or more and more rapidly in the last 10 years, nor that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen.
We know that water vapour and methane (blame the termites and cattle, mostly) also affect global temperatures via the 'greenhouse effect'. We know that green plants in equatorial regions can mitigate these effects. We know that human activities have changed the proportions of these gases, too.
Nobody should lay all the blame for global warming or climate change on just human activities; there is just no proof of that. It's possible that we are experiencing just one of Earth's long-term fluctuations but that doesn't mean it's not happening. It doesn't mean if we ignore it it will go away some time soon. It doesn't mean that man is helpless to reduce global warming and the increased incidence of extreme weather events which are killing and making homeless millions of people every year.
driverrob said:
Hey, this is getting serious.
Hopefully no-one disputes (from a knowledge point of view) that average global temperatures have been rising over the last 50 years or more and more rapidly in the last 10 years, nor that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen.
We know that water vapour and methane (blame the termites and cattle, mostly) also affect global temperatures via the 'greenhouse effect'. We know that green plants in equatorial regions can mitigate these effects. We know that human activities have changed the proportions of these gases, too.
Nobody should lay all the blame for global warming or climate change on just human activities; there is just no proof of that. It's possible that we are experiencing just one of Earth's long-term fluctuations but that doesn't mean it's not happening. It doesn't mean if we ignore it it will go away some time soon. It doesn't mean that man is helpless to reduce global warming and the increased incidence of extreme weather events which are killing and making homeless millions of people every year.
OK so we might just be able to delay the inevitable but if man is not responsible it will happen anyway.Hopefully no-one disputes (from a knowledge point of view) that average global temperatures have been rising over the last 50 years or more and more rapidly in the last 10 years, nor that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen.
We know that water vapour and methane (blame the termites and cattle, mostly) also affect global temperatures via the 'greenhouse effect'. We know that green plants in equatorial regions can mitigate these effects. We know that human activities have changed the proportions of these gases, too.
Nobody should lay all the blame for global warming or climate change on just human activities; there is just no proof of that. It's possible that we are experiencing just one of Earth's long-term fluctuations but that doesn't mean it's not happening. It doesn't mean if we ignore it it will go away some time soon. It doesn't mean that man is helpless to reduce global warming and the increased incidence of extreme weather events which are killing and making homeless millions of people every year.
We could keep less farting cows but then those millions who will get flooded wouls have died of starvation anyway.
driverrob said:
Hopefully no-one disputes (from a knowledge point of view) that average global temperatures have been rising over the last 50 years or more and more rapidly in the last 10 years, nor that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen.
You need to specify what temperature you're talking about. Near-surface air temperature has been claimed to show a marked rise in the last couple of decades but there's a real problem there, the identity of the groundstation locations which got their temperatures pooled in a soup, have been lost - and so no audit of the data is possible. The problem is that we almost certainly have groundstations like those below contributing to a 'global warming' diagnosis when it's anything but. Aircon outlets and the Sheriff's hotrod more like.
If the temperature record referred to is the tropospheric temperature, where we should see warming most pronounced due to any man-made enhanced greenhouse effect that might be operating, it's not there. The troposphere has not shown any dramatic rise in temperature overall in the last 28 years.
What you might be referring to is the 'hockey stick' temperature profile that has been shown to be an artefact. The algorithm used to make that shape (from inappropriate data too but that's another story) also generates hockey stick shapes from just about the whole lot of 10,000 sets of random numbers. Here is a set of hockey sticks, one is the real junk science hockey stick and the rest are from random numbers using the same algorithm. So which is it?
Can we also assume you're aware that carbon dioxide has never led a temperature shift? All studies of climate shifts show that the temperature changes first, then the carbon dioxide follows. This is a chart from research by Monnin et al showing the typical 800 year lag.
Carbon dioxide doesn't drive climate change, the only thing it can be claimed to do is add a bit of spice to any existing natural warming, and even that mechanism - the enhanced greenhouse effect - isn't seen in the troposphere data. The Spencer/Christy paper and associated commentary I cited gives the biggest part of the reason why.
If you teach this, sticking to the syllabus is one thing, swallowing the information pollution in it is quite another.
bigdavy said:
turbobloke said:
stuff
Brilliant, great to read some proper facts.I've carried out literature searches on climate science for many years, and made a close study of the results from biogeography to paleolimnology. The best bit is, as I'm not funded by global warming grants, and since all the science I quote is from fellow scientists, I have no personal stake in this whatsoever.
My reputation isn't on the line here, it's other scientists' science I report. I don't need to worry about tenure, or securing the next research grant, or being politically aligned to my peers nor any particular institution, noeither do I get concerned about retaining political favour from any part of the political spectrum.
I've always said that if ever there was any credible objective evidence for a dangerous human impact on global climste, I'd try to be the first to report it here. Still waiting.
reading turbobloke's posts makes it seem very clear, if not obvious.
But I cant understand why this side of the argument has been so well and truly smothered by the other.
Why if the data is so unclear are so many scientists swallowing it? I know there are issues with grants, political connections etc, but the way that this has happened is disturbing.
But I cant understand why this side of the argument has been so well and truly smothered by the other.
Why if the data is so unclear are so many scientists swallowing it? I know there are issues with grants, political connections etc, but the way that this has happened is disturbing.
peterpeter said:
But I cant understand why this side of the argument has been so well and truly smothered by the other.
Why if the data is so unclear are so many scientists swallowing it?
At one point the earth was flat, anybody said any different would have been ridiculed, that may be part of the reason. Why if the data is so unclear are so many scientists swallowing it?
Although i suspect grants etc is a huge underlying factor. Relate anything to global warming and "here you are sir £100,000.00".
driverrob said:
It doesn't mean if we ignore it it will go away some time soon. It doesn't mean that man is helpless to reduce global warming and the increased incidence of extreme weather events which are killing and making homeless millions of people every year.
We are far better spending the money preparing for the worst and mitigating the NATURAL change, than economically crippling ourselves and destroying our means of surviving total disaster by taxing motorists into poverty.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff