IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The So-called Greenhouse Effect Has Long Been Known To Be Devoid Of Physical Reality — Temp Variations Cause Co2 Changes — Not The Reverse’, U.S. Navy Meteorologist Claims:

Quest
post Apr 23 2010, 01:56 PM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



U.S. Navy Meteorologist Claims: ‘The so-called greenhouse effect has long been known to be devoid of physical reality — Temp variations cause CO2 changes — not the reverse’

http://www.prisonplanet.com/u-s-navy-meteo...he-reverse.html

Dr. Martin Hertzberg
Climate Realists
Friday, April 23, 2010

Hockey Sticks and “Climategate”: a Death of Scientific Integrity

Dr. Martin Hertzberg of Copper Mountain, a retired research scientist and consultant in the causes and prevention of accidental fires and explosions, will present the above titled talk at this month’s meeting of the Café Scientifique. The meeting will be held at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, April 27th at the Summit County Senior and Community Center, 151 Peak One Blvd, Frisco, Colorado. Dr. Hertzberg also served as a forecasting and research meteorologist while on active duty with the U. S. Navy. He has been studying the “global warming/climate change” issue for over twenty years and has published papers and articles on the subject.

The presentation will be in two parts: the first will discuss the theory that human emission of CO2 is causing dangerous global warming or climate change and that drastic measures of “carbon control” are needed. That discussion will be prefaced by a showing of a condensed version of the documentary “Not Evil, Just Wrong”, followed by a summation of the available data that shows that the theory is false. The evolution of two fraudulently concocted “hockey sticks” is revealed: one for the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, and the other for the atmospheric CO2 concentration. They are discussed in the context of the recent disclosures of the e-mail correspondence among the various global warming advocates: the so-called “climategate” scandal. The e-mails reveal an appalling lack of scientific integrity on the part of those advocates.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



The second part of the presentation will be prefaced by a showing of a brief film entitled “Unstoppable Solar Cycles”, which will be followed by a summation of much of the available data that elaborates on the real causes of global warmings, global coolings and climate change. Those cycles are controlled by solar activity on the time scale of decades to hundreds of years, and by variations in the properties of the earth’s orbit around the sun on the longer time scale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Variations in solar activity modulate the intensity of cosmic rays impacting the earth’s atmosphere. Cosmic ray ionization provides nucleating agents for cloud formation. The cosmic ray flux measured at our own Climax mine correlates precisely with the earth’s total low level cloud coverage, as measured from satellites. Dr. Hertzberg’s analysis of the radiative equilibrium between the sun, the earth, and free space, confirms that all the temperature variations of the last century are readily explained in terms of those modest changes in cloudiness that are observed to correlate with solar activity.

Global warmings result in an increase in atmospheric CO2 as warmed oceans emit their dissolved CO2. Global coolings result in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 as cooling oceans absorb atmospheric CO2. Temperature variations precede those CO2 variations by several hundred to a thousand years, thus indicating that it is the temperature variations that cause atmospheric CO2 changes and not the reverse. The human contribution to the cycle is trivial and furthermore the so-called “greenhouse effect”, touted as the mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 controls weather, has long been known to be devoid of physical reality. Accordingly, proposed measures of “carbon control” will have no effect on the weather but instead will seriously damage the Nation’s economy and the reliability of its electric generating capacity: a system that is currently working quite satisfactorily and is entirely independent of foreign sources of energy. Clearly, that system for supplying the Nation with its essential need for reliable electricity “ain’t broke”…and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Apr 23 2010, 06:55 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Hmmm. Who came up with the title, did the U.S. Navy Meteorologist really claim: "The so-called greenhouse effect has long been known to be devoid of physical reality — Temp variations cause CO2 changes — not the reverse"... ? Because while the 2nd part of that sentence is most certainly true, the 1st half is not - there IS a so-called greenhouse effect. Our important greehouse gases (water vapour, CO2, methane, ozone) DO trap heat. Without them the planet would be very cold. The question is whether the tiny amount of CO2 human activity adds to the atmosphere contributes meaningfully to this effect, and the warming during the 70s 80s and 90s was the result of this human activity and subsequent measured increase in CO2, or whether the warming of the 70s 80s and 90s (caused by something else, i.e. the sun) instead caused CO2 levels to rise. Many, like me, have come to realize that the second scenario better reflects reality - that oceans and perma-frost act like a sink and trap CO2 more when colder and less when warmer and that this explains why CO2 fluctuations historically follow fluctuations in temperature, as reflected in the 2nd part of the US Navy Meteorologist's claim. But there IS a greenhouse effect, the atmosphere DOES trap heat. Thank heaven it does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 23 2010, 09:14 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 23 2010, 10:55 PM) *
Hmmm. Who came up with the title, did the U.S. Navy Meteorologist really claim: "The so-called greenhouse effect has long been known to be devoid of physical reality — Temp variations cause CO2 changes — not the reverse"... ? Because while the 2nd part of that sentence is most certainly true, the 1st half is not - there IS a so-called greenhouse effect. Our important greehouse gases (water vapour, CO2, methane, ozone) DO trap heat. Without them the planet would be very cold. The question is whether the tiny amount of CO2 human activity adds to the atmosphere contributes meaningfully to this effect, and the warming during the 70s 80s and 90s was the result of this human activity and subsequent measured increase in CO2, or whether the warming of the 70s 80s and 90s (caused by something else, i.e. the sun) instead caused CO2 levels to rise. Many, like me, have come to realize that the second scenario better reflects reality - that oceans and perma-frost act like a sink and trap CO2 more when colder and less when warmer and that this explains why CO2 fluctuations historically follow fluctuations in temperature, as reflected in the 2nd part of the US Navy Meteorologist's claim. But there IS a greenhouse effect, the atmosphere DOES trap heat. Thank heaven it does.


Good point, Sanders. I don't believe I mised that. I hadn't had my 2nd cup of coffee yet.

"Greenhouse effect" is the limited hangout now that global warming has been proven to be a fraud. Sort of like how "Lord" Mockton who while denouncing global warming pushes oil as a "fossil fuel" which in turn, I suppose, supports "peak oil". Like Chris Rock says, "They just keep spinnin, and spinnin and spinnin..." laugh.gif

Lord Monckton Says Queen Should Not Intervene in Global Warming
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...should_not.html

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 23 2010, 09:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 24 2010, 11:40 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Still not studied the science yet then Quest or the debunking of both Climategate and the attempts at discrediting Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Two of the many problems with the McIntyre hokey on the hockey stick is that one, corrections made because of the small error McIntyre stomped about made little difference the the graph and second, there were numerous other graphs produced from alternative data sets and they all agreed in trends with Mann's hockey stick.

Still I guess I will just have to keep at this ground-hog day scenario and keeping whacking these moles as they pop up again and again and again.

Monckton is a snake-oil salesman who's tours are paid for by the many 'Institututes' of corruption.

It should be becoming clear to you by now, should you at least read stuff from reliable sources, that measures to combat the very real dangers of climate change would be beneficial to the US economy and national security. Otherwise let the likes of Blankenship keep blowing tops off mountains and killing people directly and indirectly through poisoned water so that coal and power companies can keep raking in profits as they role out a fleet of dirty, old tech, coal burners. Your cheap electricity comes at a dreadful real cost to people all over. Perhaps you should think about such things.

If you persist in belittling the science of climate change and how it is proven that humans are causing the current warming trend (study that science) I shall have little choice but to classify you with the FOX blowhards, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and their kin mostly in Murdoch(the Wizard of Oz)land who go on promoting the messages of the fossils in the fossil fuel and related industries. For the likes of you to go on supporting the opinions of the likes of they is a clear example of cognitive dissonance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 24 2010, 11:58 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 21 2010, 09:55 PM) *
...whether the warming of the 70s 80s and 90s (caused by something else, i.e. the sun) instead caused CO2 levels to rise.

As we all know CO2 levels and temperatures have continued to rise in spite of the sun having a period of lowered solar activity.

Explain that.

QUOTE
...that oceans and perma-frost act like a sink and trap CO2 more when colder and less when warmer and that this explains why CO2 fluctuations historically follow fluctuations in temperature,

That has not always been the case and is not so at the present.

It is well understood how rapidly CO2 emissions have accelerated over the last decade as more coal fired power plants are built. Fortunately the earth's systems have been sequestering much of this rise, at the expense of acidifying oceans, but the increase in fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity is still increasing year on year. See:

CO2 Now

Isotopic analysis differentiates between CO2 from fossil fuel burn and other sources. That science is well understood as is the way in which the earth's atmosphere has top heat up to restore radiative balance.

See:

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

There is no longer any room for denying that APGW is real and dangerous and that it is now destroying peoples lives and livelihoods thus it is becoming morally unacceptable to continue doing so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Apr 24 2010, 01:09 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 28 2010, 09:58 AM) *
As we all know CO2 levels and temperatures have continued to rise in spite of the sun having a period of lowered solar activity.

Explain that.


We all know??? Looks to me like temps have been flat or declining since about '98. Hence, "hide the decline" LoL.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 25 2010, 03:11 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 22 2010, 03:09 PM) *
We all know??? Looks to me like temps have been flat or declining since about '98. Hence, "hide the decline" LoL.



Good point Sanders. link to interactive graph

But it is inconclusive, because there was very strong El Nino in 1998. The decline is conclusively apparent since 2001. link to interactive graph

Only global temp panel which shows slight rise of temps since 2001 is Gistemp, which is notorically unreliable and even the guys from NASA in "Climategate 2" emails admitted that is better to use the CRU results. The CRU, and both US satelite panels show conclusive global temperature decline since 2001 at rate ~0.07-0.1C/decade, which is consistent with the declining phase of the solar cycle 23.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Apr 25 2010, 07:35 PM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi All!

I'll probably regret jumping into this hair-pull but here goes.

There is qualified evidence in favor of global warming. There is also a case against. But the way I see it you don't have to get into the details, the existence two poles of opinion are enough.

I see the issue as being like casualty insurance for your house. Every year, to guard against a totally catastrophic risk, you pay a premium of something like $200 per $100,000 in house value. What is the risk of the house burning down in any given year? Maybe 1 in 100,000.

So we should be spending some reasonable amount, like a casualty insurance premium, to guard against the risk that global warming is real. To me the risk is not extinction of the species but instead serious economic losses (ie Florida beach fronts underwater and loss of certain breadbaskets) and the resulting social disruption. Some parts of the world will also benefit but the transition is the problem. So with the risk measured akin to the risk of your house burning down, you have to ask what is a reasonable amount to pay to guard against it.

What is different is the calculation is not on a year by year basis but instead a one time event at an uncertain future time with a downside in dollar amounts that is hard to fix but certainly huge. So, the amount spent now for "premium" should be discounted to less than the 200 per 100,000 ratio for homeowner's insurance. But it should still be calculated as accurately as possible and the money spent.

The problem I have with those who totally disregard the risk of climate change is there terrible certainty. Using the above analogy to the likelihood of your house burning down in a given year, they are saying that there is not even one chance in 100,000 that they are wrong on a subject that only experts can really know anything about and about which even those experts are divided. I'm not that prescient and have no reason to think they are either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Johnny Angel
post Apr 26 2010, 01:15 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 191
Joined: 15-April 07
From: Pittsburgh Pa USA
Member No.: 956



I have always been puzzled by the Global Warming debate. ??

I think we should be mad as Hell about the Pollution, and the development of chemical, biological and Nuclear weapons. This Planet could sure use better Leaders, serious about the future...

This past week the Science Channel had a program about the dangers of a real terror attack against a LNG freighter entering a US port, A disruption in our Oil supply, Nuclear waste disaster etc etc .

Humans in the Western Civilization are so dependant on these resources. Any disrtuption man made or Natural could be very painful.

I hope everyone had a Happy Earth Day..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 26 2010, 11:13 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 22 2010, 04:09 PM) *
We all know??? Looks to me like temps have been flat or declining since about '98. Hence, "hide the decline" LoL.

No longer funny Sanders. In fact it is becoming very irritating that you persist in distorting reality despite my ample citations to reliable information on the true state of play WRT Climate Change science.

This may help you further in understanding as to the state of the science, please be bothered to watch:

Richard Alley on The Biggest Control Knob

article and comments here:

In must-see AGU video, Richard Alley explains “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”

You will also find this useful:

The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate

By now you have had ample time, and prompting to have discovered to what 'hide the decline' applies. But that takes a little more effort than it appears you have put in to this.

Perhaps this will help you with the facts of the matter rather than the piles of garbage floating around the denial echo chamber.

Denialists denied again

it is worth wandering around at The Rabett

as it is here:

Climatic Research Unit scientists cleared (again)

You may have missed my last post on The Big Wet

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...c=19796&hl=

QUOTE
Looks to me like temps have been flat or declining since about '98

On what basis?

See:

NASA: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010″

for starters

and

Bye-bye, global cooling myth: Hottest March and hottest Jan-Feb-March on record

and

Energy and Global Warming News for April 16th: Global temperatures hit ‘hottest March on record’

based upon this:

State of the Climate


Of course it is far easier for you if you simply ignore all of the above and just keep on trotting out the by now familiar unsupported by facts untruths.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 26 2010, 04:18 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Another polar rescue must send chills down spines of alarmists
Andrew Bolt From: Herald Sun April 21, 2010
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/anothe...f-1225856131380

TOM Smitheringale wanted to prove the world was warming. Now he's another alarmist with frostbite.
The 40-year-old from Perth planned to be the first Australian to trek unassisted to the North Pole, but announced he'd raise some consciousness along the way.

As he wrote on his website: "Part of the reason Tom's One Man Epic is taking place now is because of the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps."

Indeed, he wanted to see the North Pole while it was still there: "Some scientists have even estimated that the polar ice cap will have entirely melted away by 2014!"

But Antarctica isn't melting away, and Arctic ice has slowly increased since its big low in 1997.

But no one seems to have told Tom, who soon found his extremities freezing.

Two weeks ago he nearly called off his trek after suffering excruciating pain in his fingers and thumbs, forcing him to call in emergency help.

And last week he had to be rescued by Canadian soldiers after falling through the ice sheet.

"(I) came very close to the grave," he said, on being flown out.

This is actually now the fourth year running that warming alarmists have had to be rescued from expeditions to prove the Arctic is warmer than it actually is. It's a metaphor.

Last year it was British eco-explorer Pen Hadow and his two-person team who had to be flown out mid-stunt, after battling brutal sub-zero weather conditions that gave the team's photographer frostbite.

The year before, eco-adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh was similarly thwarted.

He'd planned to kayak 1200km to the North Pole to raise awareness of how global warming had allegedly melted the ice sheet so badly that scientists warned the North Pole that summer could be ice-free.

No such luck. Pugh had to pull out, still 1000km from the finish, when a great barrier of sea ice blocked his route.

The year before gave even more farcical entertainment.

"Explorers and educators" Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen said they were off on what reporters described as "a historic 75-day expedition to the North Pole and beyond to raise awareness of global warming's impact on the fragile Arctic".

It turned out that what was fragile was not the Arctic but the alarmists, who had to call off their big trip not long after it started, when Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold drained their batteries.

Explained a spokesman: "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming."

Like the globe, really.

The fact is that when Arctic rescuers must save more people from global warming stunts than from global warming itself, it's time to heed again the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." So if alarmists settled down, they might just live longer, and keep their toes.

And the rest of us might not be put to so much needless expense. Like rescues, for instance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 26 2010, 04:31 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Scientists predict colder European winters to come
Published: 15 Apr 10 11:53 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100415-26569.html

Continental Europe and Britain are likely to see more unusually cold winters like last season due to low solar activity, according to a new study by British and German researchers published on Thursday.

http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100415-2...utm_content=124

QUOTE
In the last 11 years, sun spot activity has been at a 90-year low, providing the researchers from the University of Reading, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, and the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau with a special opportunity to compare historic temperature records with sun activity and investigate how this connects to cold winters in the region.

Their work showed that periods of quieter sun activity influenced atmospheric conditions, creating a “blocking” effect against warm Atlantic air that would normally reach the region, resulting in colder winters.

The meteorological changes affect the jet stream above the region, rerouting the usual mild westerly winds and allowing cold and dry wind to gust over Europe – adding to an overall lower temperature.

The study said that conditions even suggest an eight percent chance that a chilly Maunder minimum-like era could occur once again.

But the scientists insisted that their findings did not disprove the theory of climate change.

“We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect,” the study said, adding that “results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.”

To reach this conclusion, the UK researchers incorporated data from the Central England temperature (CET) record, which dates back 351 years, with sun activity data put together by the Max Planck specialists.

Director the Institute for Solar System Research there Sami K. Solanki said he used magnetic field measurements to measure sun activity, but because these records date back to just 1900, researchers reconstructed older levels with the help of computer simulations.

“The connection between sun activity and the cold winter in Europe was only recognisable after we calculated out the overlaying trend of global warming,” Solanki said in a statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 27 2010, 08:25 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



i think, that we have been watching the sun for along time.
If the intensity of the sun was changing, or the frequency of the light coming from it, increasing. It would be noted.
One could easily assume that an intensification in the radiation from the sun would mean hotter temperatures on Earth.

So along came the hole in the ozone layer.
People had been putting a CFCs in the atmosphere for too long,
and were told to keep out of the sun from 10AM to 2 PM,
or they get a sun burn.

But could this just be the sun intensifying?

The global warming appeared, in the news.
People were making just too much carbon-dioxide,
and this was causing the planet to heat up.

And the sun continues to intensify its' radiation.

and of course, the blame is put on people,
not the real culprit, the sun.

...and if you don't give your tidings to the priests,
the sun won't rise tomorrow.

It could get pretty freaky if it suddenly became, like night,
in the middle of the day, and you knew not of eclipses,
only that the hyenas came out after dark...

i think, it may be very wise to stay out of the midday sun.
...and not to touch the remains of fallen satellites.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 27 2010, 11:37 AM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 23 2010, 05:11 PM) *
Good point Sanders.

Only if you don't know better or are trying to obfuscate. thumbdown.gif

Sanders and Quest – you get a load of this too.

Exogenous Factors

Global Temperature from GISS, NCDC, HadCRU

How Long?

And about the satellite UAH data.

Hum! That one you cannot subvert, unless you try and call on Christy and Spencer but we know about those guys and how they are compromised.

Hottest January in UAH satellite record Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Douglass and Christy: Bad science; disingenuous commentary

More for your consideration:

Climate scientist bashing
Note the remarks in comment 1 re Fox News and GISSTemp, you seem to be singing the same tune as Fox. Oh dear!:
QUOTE
1Zeke Hausfather says:
7 April 2010 at 4:01 PM
Stefan,

On surface temp reconstructions, there has been a whole slew of blogger-driven efforts by Tamino, Nick Stokes, Jeff Id/Roman M, myself, and others to create their own global land temp reconstructions. I reviewed them recently over here, and noted how similar their results are: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/compa...econstructions/

Its a good example of good blog science, and hopefully will make spatial analysis and anomaly tools more widespread and available to dispel some of the sillier arguments out there (like the one in Spiegel, or that terrible Fox News article on GISSTemp last week).

QUOTE
Only global temp panel ...

and
QUOTE
... both US satelite panels...

Panels – solar panels perhaps? laughing1.gif

Whatever.
QUOTE
even the guys from NASA in "Climategate 2" emails admitted that is better to use the CRU results.

Please provide exact and full quotes that back up that statement and provide references.
QUOTE
The CRU, and both US satelite panels show conclusive global temperature decline since 2001 at rate ~0.07-0.1C/decade, which is consistent with the declining phase of the solar cycle 23.

Once again provide full references to back up that statement. Oh! And BTW Christy and Spencer have been shown to have produced flawed studies.

Plots of temperature show unequivocally that the temperature trend is still up as previous links of mine show.

Here are some in an article dispelling some of the other climate myths that the deniersphere like to trot out (like a UKIP member I talked to about a month ago – I most certainly not be voting for this Monckton aligned party of twerps which they must be if they take this conceited deceiver seriously):

Myths and falsehoods from the assault on global warming science

Note this:
QUOTE
NASA, CRU, and NCDC data all show similar long-term warming trends. While, as Hansen noted, there are some differences in how NASA, CRU, and NCDC analyze the data, all three show a similar long-term warming trend. Hansen included the following chart in a NASA document released in March:


On its website, the Met Office explains:

QUOTE
One important thing to note is that the difference between the GISS [NASA] and HadCRUT3 [CRU] analyses are smaller than the calculated uncertainties on the HadCRUT3 data set -- the data sets are not inconsistent. The largest component of the uncertainty arises from the fact that temperatures over large areas of the Earth's surface remain unobserved. There are very few observations in the Arctic and Antarctic. GISS attempts to estimate temperatures in these areas, HadCRUT3 does not. This is the major source of difference between the analyses, which can be seen if, instead of a global average, one takes the average temperature anomaly between 60S and 60N. Over this slightly smaller area, the GISS and HadCRUT3 analyses give very similar results.

You must of course appreciate that temperature only informs on sensible heat. It is clear that the earth's cryosphere with huge amounts of ice at both poles is responding rapidly to large amounts of heat energy otherwise not detectable in a visual way. It takes eighty times as much heat energy to melt ice to water, that is once the ice has warmed to melting point which involves lots more heat energy, as it does to raise the temperature of an equal mass of water by one degree centigrade. Think about that folks.

And don't forget to take in info and links in posts replying to Quest and Sanders above as well as elsewhere here.

You are fudging charts and temperature trends whilst the earth's systems are telling us that warming is real and is continuing. Argue against that if you can.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 27 2010, 11:47 AM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 24 2010, 06:18 PM) *
Another polar rescue must send chills down spines of alarmists
Andrew Bolt From: Herald Sun April 21, 2010

But Antarctica isn't melting away,


Oh yes it bloody well is!

QUOTE
and Arctic ice has slowly increased since its big low in 1997.

Oh no it bloody well is not!

Quest please try and quote reliable sources and not agenda driven clowns like Bolt who is as beholden to Murdoch as the Faux news shills in the US which strangely you folk who scoffed at them WRT 9/11 suddenly want to act as echos for.

Bolt is pathetic and your are more pathetic for using him as an echo source.

To see how pathetic Bolt is look here:

Deltoid Bolt roll
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 27 2010, 11:56 AM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 25 2010, 10:25 AM) *
The global warming appeared, in the news.
People were making just too much carbon-dioxide,
and this was causing the planet to heat up.

And the sun continues to intensify its' radiation.

and of course, the blame is put on people,
not the real culprit, the sun.

Behind such apparently worthy narrative lies a mind that conflates the variations of the solar insolation over different time periods.

If, lunk, you read up a bit more about the science behind our knowledge of climate change then you would be less confused and less inclined to confuse others.

I'll repeat by pointer to Richard Alley's excellent talk:

Richard Alley on The Biggest Control Knob

I do wish you folks would also read replies to others, sorry if you already do that but evidence of such is scant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 27 2010, 12:22 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 24 2010, 06:31 PM) *
Scientists predict colder European winters to come
Published: 15 Apr 10 11:53 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100415-26569.html


Quest, did you actually read this (and note the emphasis)?

QUOTE
“The connection between sun activity and the cold winter in Europe was only recognisable after we calculated out the overlaying trend of global warming,” Solanki said in a statement

And in case you think warming has stopped read this:

The hottest decade ends and since there’s no Maunder mininum — sorry deniers! — the hottest decade begins

QUOTE
Related scientific studies on the subject can be found on the excellent debunking website, Skeptical Science. Here’s but a few:

Erlykin2009: “We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming”

Benestad 2009: “Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.”

Lockwood 2008: “It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%.”

Lockwood 2008: “The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.”

Ammann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”

Lockwood 2007: “The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.”

Foukal 2006 concludes “The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.”


Further in the letter we read this:

QUOTE
Our subsequent studies (not reported here) on solar modulation of various blocking indices have confirmed previous studies [7], and we stress that this phenomenon is largely restricted to Europe and not global in extent [41].


A Maunder Minimum would be welcome right now it might just buy is a bit of time to overcome the results of inertia from a couple of decades of disniformation propaganda campaigns which have clearly worked on you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 27 2010, 02:16 PM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Physics professor tells U.S. government PUT UP OR SHUT UP on Global Warming Claims

http://www.prisonplanet.com/physics-profes...ing-claims.html

HOWARD HAYDEN
Climate Realists
April 27, 2010

To: Department of State

Date: 23 April 2010

Re: U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. 5th ed.

Many states around the nation are trying to enact laws to restrict carbon emissions, and industries too numerous to mention have begun making changes hoping to be fully prepared to comply with laws they haven’t seen yet. Congress is considering laws in hopes that they can avoid having EPA impose its own version of CO2 restrictions.

Before jumping on this bandwagon, we should be certain that we understand the science. U.S. Climate Action Report 2010, 5th ed. might be understood by some Americans to be the definitive word; however nary a word in the report even pretends to

establish a link between CO2 and putative global warming

show that the increase in CO2 concentration is due to human activity instead of natural causes (such as natural warming of the oceans)

show that either an increase in CO2 concentration or an increase in temperature is, on balance, bad (or worse than laws restricting CO2 emissions) or

do any science whatsoever.

Despite screams to the contrary, a vast number of scientists dispute the findings of the IPCC. Perhaps the Department of State believes that “the science is settled.” If so, please let us know which of the two dozen models—see Fig. 1 showing a slight disagreement by a factor of 3000 among the models—settled the science so that all of the others can be thrown into the dustbin of failed science and de-funded.


Figure 1: Graph from IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, showing calculations by various models. Note that the range of values spans a factor of 3,000.

Like an ant crawling out an anthill and concluding that the world is made of 1-millimeter rocks, global-warming activists have looked at the last three-millionths of one percent of the earth’s climate history and made brash conclusions about climate, and especially their understanding of it. They wax eloquent about results from computer models. In the longer view—see Fig. 2—we see that the last million years or so are rather anomalous. The highest CO2 concentrations during the last many ice ages and interglacials are lower than at any other time for the last 300 million years. The dinosaurs lived when CO2 concentrations were 5 to 20 times as high as now. Indeed, such large creatures could not survive without the very verdant conditions afforded by adequate plant food known as carbon dioxide.


Figure 2: Carbon dioxide concentrations for the last 600 million years. Points represent actual measurements; lines represent computerized smoothings. The most recent million years is in a very narrow strip to the left of the graph, with concentrations less than 400 ppmv. The right-hand scale is in multiples of quaternary average.

That long history teaches us something else. We have all been in an auditorium when somebody was testing out the sound system and there was a sudden screech owing to a “tipping point” wherein the amplified sound at the microphone was loud enough to be picked up and made louder yet. If the people did not act immediately to cut the gain of the amplifier, and everybody just left the room and locked the door, the screech would persist forever if the power remained on. This behavior, often called “running to the rail” by electronics folks, is characteristic of all positive feedback systems. Once you reach the tipping point, there is no return. If high levels of CO2 were to cause the earth to reach a tipping point, it would have done so a long time ago, and we wouldn’t be here talking about it.

All in all, there is a best policy to direct toward climate change, and that is to have the courage to do nothing. We humans have precious little to do with climate. When and where did you read anything from climate alarmists that said that humans are responsible for about 3% of all CO2 emissions? When and where did you read anything from climate alarmists that said that warming oceans emit CO2? When and where did the climate alarmists tell you about CO2 levels that were up to 20 times current levels when dinosaurs roamed the earth? When and where did alarmists tell you that the conditions they openly worry about have repeatedly happened without turning the earth into an oven?

Nowhere and never, did you say? Perhaps you should consider that you have been deliberately misled.

Cheers,

Howard Hayden

The Energy Advocate

www.energyadvocate.com

Vales Lake Publishing, LLC

www.valeslake.com

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 27 2010, 07:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 27 2010, 02:49 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Oh, that nasty, poisonous CO2.

Seeing is Believing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE...player_embedded
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 27 2010, 09:46 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 27 2010, 11:49 AM) *
Oh, that nasty, poisonous CO2.

Seeing is Believing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE...player_embedded


Must see short video
!

More CO2 makes plants grow quicker, and bigger.
It is the essence of all carbon based life forms.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st September 2014 - 02:34 PM