PDA

View Full Version : NOAA baffled over ocean readings



Papa Bear
03-20-2008, 10:38 PM
NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump. The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil". According to a Dumocrat strategist on Fox news. "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict".

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right. ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone. Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going on here: CONTROL

lottie
03-21-2008, 12:23 AM
Papabear - do you know where about in the oceans (as in which oceans) they've had their robots?

The waters down here have been colder over the past couple of months - down to 26C..brrr..freezing for me - but maybe i'm acclimatizing lol :D

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 12:36 AM
NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump! The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil" According to a Dumocrat strategist on fox news! "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict"!

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right! ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone! Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going onb here! CONTROL!

As I posted elsewhere:


In a paper published in 2006 it was incorrectly reported that ocean temperatures had dropped. (Johnson, G. C., S. Levitus, J. M. Lyman, C. Schmid, and J. K. Willis (2006), Ocean heat content variability, in Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate: FY 2005, edited by J. M. Levy D. M. Stanitski, and P. Arkin, pp. 74-84, NOAA Climate Program Office, Silver Spring, MD)

Last year that report was revised. (Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean” Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson, Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters.)

In that revision it was noted by the authors that: "Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see Link (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/)for more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann, 28 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling."

Bottom line: There was a problem in the data and in the latest analysis, the cooling has disappeared.

When you make sweeping claims it is usually considered to be a good idea to keep up on the field. Failure to do so leaves one operating in a mindset that shares more with those who believe that you can turn lead to gold and that the Sun revolves around the Earth rather than with modern science.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice." - Arthur Schopenhauer

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 12:44 AM
Papabear - do you know where about in the oceans (as in which oceans) they've had their robots?

The waters down here have been colder over the past couple of months - down to 26C..brrr..freezing for me - but maybe i'm acclimatizing lol :D

http://www-hrx.ucsd.edu/www-argo/status.jpg
Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.

Positions of the floats that have delivered data within the last 30 days (20 March 2008)

Important notice to Argo users (pressure offset errors, 2nd notice): This is to provide an update to the earlier notice (see http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset.html) (http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset.html), with regard to progress in correcting pressure offset errors.

Pressure offset errors in WHOI/FSI Argo float profiles include a subset (a) that can be corrected exactly using automated procedures and a subset (b) that requires expert examination to produce an approximate correction.
Profiles in subset (a) have now been corrected, and replacement of GDAC files for these profiles will be completed by 20 October. Procedures for real-time correction of these profiles are in place as of 10 October. These floats have been removed from the greylist as of 10 October, meaning the profiles will be available on the GTS.
Profiles in subset (b) are undergoing expert examination and the files are being replaced on the GDAC as they are completed. Errors are noted in the files corresponding to the uncertainty in the pressure correction. Since these profiles cannot be corrected automatically, the corresponding instruments continue to be greylisted (i.e. profiles are not on the GTS).
While studying the pressure offset errors, a related problem was discovered in a group of WHOI/SBE profiles. Reported pressures from these instruments corresponded to the bottom pressure of bins rather than to the mid-bin pressure. This ½ bin pressure offset error is generally less than for the profiles noted in (1) above. For the affected WHOI/SBE instruments, all profiles have now been corrected and are available on the GDACS. The real-time data stream for these instruments has been corrected (as of 14 September). These instruments are not greylisted.WMO ID numbers for the affected instruments in each of the groups discussed above are posted below. The Argo project will continue to improve procedures for detection and correction of data quality problems, and Argo endeavors to provide data of highest possible quality. Users should note that near real-time data are subject only to automated quality checking, and the best quality data for climate research applications are available only in delayed-mode (“D” files). Users can assist by reporting any data quality problems to support@argo.net (http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/supoort@argo.net) and to the AST co-chairs if the problems persist.
Dean Roemmich and Howard Freeland, on behalf of the international Argo Steering Team

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 02:01 AM
Lottie, they are free drifting all over the world oceans! They are reporting the same thing I have recorded no warming beyond normal variations! You have to also understand that we shut down 2/3rd of the coldest reporting stations when the USSR closed their doors in 1992! So they had to average thus the false reading! Some, like at NASA are politically motivated to hid the truth! This is a new program in geologic terms and I to have noticed the cooler water in the last 8 years or so from the Caribbean to the South Pacific! We will get more data and track the changes better in the future! The best indicator is still that fact that the ocean has risen at the same rate for the last 35000 years on average! 3/4 inch per year!

All this while MARS is also going through planetary warming and we just came off a solar cycle of high activity! We live in an open system and CO2, as a diver you know, is only .o47% of ambient air! Hardly beyond the Oceans carrying capacity for CO2 witch is nothing more than Carbon that is free until a green plant uses it! Poor science by political scientists!

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 02:17 AM
Lottie, they are free drifting all over the world oceans! They are reporting the same thing I have recorded no warming beyond normal variations!
Actually here is what NOAA has to say:

Question: Is the climate warming?

Yes. Global surface temperatures (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html) have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc09.gif). Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2001/ann/ann.html) being the second warmest year on record after 1998.


Linear trends can vary greatly depending on the period over which they are computed. Temperature trends in the lower troposphere (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc12.gif) (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) from 1979 to the present, the period for which Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit data exist, are small and may be unrepresentative of longer term trends and trends closer to the surface. Furthermore, there are small unresolved differences between radiosonde (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/%7Ehopkins/wx-inst/wxi-raob.htm) and satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures, though both data sources show slight warming trends. If one calculates trends beginning with the commencement of radiosonde data in the 1950s, there is a slight greater warming in the record due to increases in the 1970s. There are statistical and physical reasons (e.g., short record lengths, the transient differential effects of volcanic activity and El Niño, and boundary layer effects) for expecting differences between recent trends in surface and lower tropospheric temperatures, but the exact causes for the differences are still under investigation (see National Research Council report "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change" (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html/)).


An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2001/ann/msustrat2001_pg.gif) and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data.


Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.


There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc02.gif) (DTR), (the difference between high and low daily temperatures) over about 50% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. Cloud cover has increased in many of the areas with reduced diurnal temperature range. The overall positive trend for maximum daily temperature over the period of study (1950-93) is 0.1°C/decade, whereas the trend for daily minimum temperatures is 0.2°C/decade. This results in a negative trend in the DTR of -0.1°C/decade.


Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacier length (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc18.gif) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations, the records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher alititudes that weather stations allowing us more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.
Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that Arctic sea ice has decreased (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc14.gif) between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade. Although this seems to correspond to a general increase in temperature over the same period, there are lots of quasi-cyclic atmospheric dynamics (for example the Arctic Oscillation) which may also influence the extent and thickness of sea-ice in the Arctic. Sea-ice in the Antarctic (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/SHemsea-ice.gif) has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.

You have to also understand that we shut down 2/3rd of the coldest reporting stations when the USSR closed their doors in 1992! So they had to average thus the false reading! Some, like at NASA are politically motivated to hid the truth! This is a new program in geologic terms and I to have noticed the cooler water in the last 8 years or so from the Caribbean to the South Pacific! We will get more data and track the changes better in the future! The best indicator is still that fact that the ocean has risen at the same rate for the last 35000 years on average! 3/4 inch per year! None of what you write there is true. I suggest that you come up with some references.

All this while MARS is also going through planetary warming and we just came off a solar cycle of high activity! We live in an open system and CO2, as a diver you know, is only .o47% of ambient air! Hardly beyond the Oceans carrying capacity for CO2 witch is nothing more than Carbon that is free until a green plant uses it! Poor science by political scientists!NASA says:

Human Activities Add to Atmospheric (CO2) Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 25 percent since the early 1 800s. Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., estimate the increase since 1958 has been about 10 percent. Currently, the level of atmospheric C 2 is increasing at a rate of about 0.4 percent a year.
But then, of course, you have more accurate data and better interpretive skills, right?

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 02:30 AM
Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam

Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute



When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.


It’s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”


Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 02:36 AM
COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

By John Coleman

jcoleman@kusi.com

it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 02:44 AM
SPEAKING FREELY
The global warming scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.

A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.

The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.

15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.

15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.

4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.

Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?

Comments
The above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.

The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.

The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.

The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.

Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.

Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.

What do you think?

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 02:46 AM
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [Telegraph]

Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register] Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. [World Climate Report]
Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. [Telegraph]

Okay, take notes, there will be a quiz at the end of class.

First of all, greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life as we know it, as the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.

Now, this is not to say that I think we should waste our planet's resources. Quite the contrary, I think we need to be very careful of what we have, because we are not likely to get a replacement planet any time soon. But the global warming "hype" is exactly that, hype to sell products and policies. If you want to do something about the damage to the planet caused by oil, STOP THE WARS BEING FOUGHT OVER IT!
Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone. [Pacific Free Press]
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data.

All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. [DailyTech 2/27/2008]


1975: We were doomed because of global cooling

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 02:48 AM
So it seem that not "All scientist concur on Global Warming" It is a hoax and it is even getting out at NOAA! Thanks to real scientists! :eek:

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 02:59 AM
Deal with the question on the table, then we can move on to other things. Do you currently see the following post as true or false?


NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump. The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil". According to a Dumocrat strategist on Fox news. "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict".

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right. ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone. Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going on here: CONTROL

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 03:22 AM
A professor of marketing at the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania, according to the online journal Spiked, Armstrong is an internationally known expert on forecasting methods. In his research on forecasting, he has found that global warming forecasts like those cited by Al Gore and developed by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) frequently violate the principles of forecasting. In fact, as Spiked reports, Armstrong and research partner Kesten Green of Australia's Monash University found that one frequently cited IPCC report "violated 72 of the principles of forecasting."

With climate change forecasts based on such shoddy work, why not bet that global warming is a hoax? That's just what Armstrong has done. According to Spiked, Armstrong has "faxed and posted (to be on the safe side) his ‘Global Warming Challenge’ to Gore. He challenged the former US vice-president to a 10-year bet in which both parties will put forward $10,000. Gore would put his money on his forecasts that temperature will rise dangerously in the coming decade, while Armstrong will put his money on what is referred to as the ‘naïve model’: that is, that temperatures will probably stay the same in the coming years.‘"

It's a safe bet that a decade from now, Armstrong's $10,000 will still be safe and snug in his bank account.

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 03:35 AM
Deal with the question on the table, then we can move on to other things. Do you currently see the following post as true or false?


NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump. The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil". According to a Dumocrat strategist on Fox news. "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict".

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right. ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone. Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going on here: CONTROL

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. - Thomas Huxley

I suggest that it the OP refuses to reply to my reasonable request, this thread should be closed.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 03:40 AM
http://management.silicon.com/itdirector/0,39024673,39167966,00.htm

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 03:46 AM
I think my point has been made. PB's lack of response demonstrates his refusal to admit that which is perfectly clear, he is advancing a political, social, and economic view under the guise of science. Anyone who was participating in a rational discourse would have said, thanks for the new information, I was not aware of that and moved on.

Mods, please put these threads out of their misery.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 03:53 AM
The High Cost of the Global Warming Scam

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:30 PM



“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global warming; it is a scam. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion (sic) of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environment whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon, they claimed to be a consensus.”

- John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel.

Coleman goes on to describe what has taken place regarding what he calls the global warming scam.

“Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then team up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalists, [and] journalists to create this wild 'scientific' scenario of the civilization-threatening environmental consequences from global warming unless we adhere to this radical agenda," says Coleman.

"Now, their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and becomes a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic political Party, the governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens.

"Only one [ABC] reporter has been allowed to counter the global warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment,” he says.

Coleman is the latest expert to declare that global warming is a hoax, yet its advocates in Congress and among Democratic candidates for their party's presidential nomination are promising to saddle the American people with laws designed to stop something that is not happening: laws that will have many of us in the poor house.

According to The Washington Post, the Democrats' current global warming proposals "will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society."

The Post reported that Democrat presidential candidates' climate proposals would "cost billions of dollars," and detailed exactly what the American people will face when it comes to cap-and-trade proposals. Others hiked the price tag into the trillions of dollars.

The Post went on to point out that energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study showed that "under the scenario of an 80-percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity.

"At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel."

The Wall Street Journal recently warned that: "These new climate proposals come at a time when a "winter-heating crisis looms. As fuel prices surge to new records, lawmakers are trying to limit a potential crisis that could leave many of the Northeast's poor without adequate heating this winter."

According to The (Colorado Springs, Colo.) Gazette, the choices facing the government involve imposing: "costly, probably ineffective government dictates, or concede costs are too great and benefits too little to bother.

"Some are rethinking rash acts. An article in the British environmental journal Nature last month said it's time to dump the Kyoto Protocol because it's the wrong approach and has ‘failed' to cut greenhouse gases. The London School of Economics and Oxford authors also said carbon taxes and so-called cap-and-trade systems won't achieve reductions, either," the paper editorialized.

The Gazette continued: "Meaningful CO2 reductions would negatively affect a large part of the economy, Alan Greenspan writes in his new book, The Age of Turbulence. Any meaningful reduction cap means a ‘large number of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost, and real incomes of workers constrained.'"

The paper concluded that, "the Congressional Budget Office says consumers would pay most costs. Of course they would; consumers pay for everything one way or another.

"The Free Enterprise Education Institute think tank forecasts an economic contraction that will cost each U.S. Family $10,800 by 2020. ‘Cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence,' Greenspan writes."

According to a spokesman for Sen James Inhofe, R-Okla., other news outlets have detailed how the poor face the most harmful impacts from rising energy costs. A 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children found that high energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons they became homeless.

"The Congressional Budget Office recently looked at the approach taken by most global warming proposals in Congress - known as cap and trade - that would place a cap on carbon emissions, allocate how much everyone could emit, and then let them trade those emissions," Sen. Inhofe writes. "Let me quote from the CBO report:

" 'Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.'

"Think about that. Even relatively modest bills would put enormous burdens on the poor," says Inhofe.

"The poor already face energy costs much higher as a percentage of their income than wealthier Americans," Sen. Inhofe continues. "While most Americans spend about 4 percent of their monthly budget on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent of their budget on energy. Why would we adopt policies which disproportionately force the poor and working class to shoulder the heaviest burdens through even higher energy costs?"

Says astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study: “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz: “Anthropogenic [man-made] global warming bites the dust.” Another scientist said the study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore.

“Effectively, this [new study] means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of [about] 1 kelvin by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in August.

Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore , was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

If the global warming fanatics have their way, you'll be paying a lot to finance a hoax, a scam, and a covert scheme to impose socialism on the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist and World War II Marine who writes for Newsmax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s.

He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska.

He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers.

He can be reached at pvb@pvbr.com.

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 05:47 AM
I'll see your right wing hack and stupid jokes and raise you the National Academy of Sciences' 2008 Edition of "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change."

At a time when responding to climate change is one of the nation's most urgent and complex endeavors, reports from the National Academies provide analysis and direction for policymakers and stakeholders. This booklet highlights recommendations from those reports in an easy-to-read format. Now in its third edition, the booklet includes an expanded section on impacts and updated figures and graphics.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/images/Climate_cov.jpg

Download Booklet PDF (http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf) (3.3 MB)

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 05:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig&feature=related

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 06:02 AM
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of man-made global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.

Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 06:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuNxy6i1o0&feature=related

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 06:24 PM
Chris Horner, Planet Gore

Gotta love this NPR headline, “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat.” This is the most recent in a refreshing series of sober assessments that of course brief periods are not climatically meaningful, be they a month, a year, three years, even a decade. The folks in the NASA PR shop who put together all those “annual temperature trend” press releases sure must be embarrassed.

Things are wonderfully captured in this euphemistic kicker from the article: “it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.” Like, maybe, this?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ttttpart1figure3-520.png





What’s global warming without the warming called? Come on, you can say it . . .

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 06:29 PM
The "Mystery" Is That We Still Listen To Them
Admin, Thursday 20 March 2008 - 18:19:48

There is so much wrong with this story from National Public Radio that its hard to know where to start. Here is a teaser from their story: "it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about". Just one of several that indicate much of what scientists thought they knew about the climate, and climate models, is being reconsidered. All based on new information from 3,000 diving robots.

First let me thank one of our regular readers, D. K. Wells, for pointing out this NPR story. Our readers obviously study all sides of this issue because many of them quote articles appearing in some very liberal publications.

So lets dissect this story "The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat".

The story starts off discussing the 3,000 diving robots loaded with scientific instruments that began taking measurements of the world's oceans in 1995.

"These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them."


Argo Robotic Buoys
When in doubt blame the robots!


Obviously these robots didn't get the Al Gore memo that all science must conclude that the earth has a fever. If science's theory of CO2 warming was correct the earth would have seen overall "global" warming over this period as CO2 levels continued to climb. This assumes that outside influences such as solar activity had a minimum effect, which is what they've been telling us. There would have been local variations in temperature but the global average should have increased as more solar energy was "trapped" by the "greenhouse gas blanket".

"This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record."

Again, they don't know why this is happening as their computer models didn't predict anything like this. Could it be that the oceans had trapped solar heat and as the solar cycle cooled the oceans cooled as well? When the oceans cool they release this energy which causes surface warming.

"But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming."

Remember this quote.

"In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans."

So when we finally get some decent instruments in place they tell us there is no global warming. You would think that would pretty much put an end to the argument that disaster is looming.

'"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming." '

Say what? You measure global cooling and then call it "less rapid warming". If the CO2 theory of warming was correct every year would be warmer "globally" unless there were outside influences that changed the amount of energy the earth was receiving. But we've been told time after time that the solar cycles are having a minimum effect on climate. “Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness” - Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. So if CO2 levels are increasing and variations in the Sun's energy isn't effecting the climate exactly what caused the ocean cooling over the past 5 years? Increasing CO2 levels should have trapped more of the Sun's (steady state) energy and according to the greenhouse theory the earth should have warmed, not cooled.

If the oceans hold 80-90% of warming and they're actually cooling where does that heat go? We're not seeing it over land as we've seen no warming for 10 years now. If its going in to space, as the article indicates as a possibility, why didn't it get released in to space at this rate 10 years ago? That makes no sense.

"with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot."

Again, they have no idea why this is happening.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years"

Yet another mystery that their models can not solve. Now its going to be a lot harder to blame future sea level increases on global warming.

"One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys."

That's right, blame the poor defenseless robots. When the evidence doesn't fit the theory blame the evidence, not the theory. They're basically admitting again that they have no idea what is going on. They had expected the buoys to nicely confirm what their computer models were telling them. Instead the buoys are putting them on the hot seat.

"The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. That can't be directly measured at the moment, however. "Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," said KevinTrenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research

When you consider that water vapor makes up 95% of atmospheric greenhouse gases (CO2 represents only 3.6%) you begin to understand the importance of the statement above. Clouds and water vapor are extremely important to understanding climate yet they readily admit to having a poor understanding of this important component and have no way to directly measure and track it.

"it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about"

At least one major component in the climate equation is missing from the models. Yet we're still suppose to trust their computer models and spend trillions of dollars on mitigation, carbon taxes, and regulations.

"what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board" - Kevin Trenberth

Lets just hope they approach the "drawing board" with an open mind and not try to make the data fit their existing theory.

"Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat."

As stated above, for the anthropogenic greenhouse gas theory of global warming to hold up when we're experiencing global cooling you have to show what external factor is causing the temperature balance to change. Are we receiving less external energy?, is something causing less energy to be received through the atmosphere?, or is something causing more energy to escape back in to space? Being able to account for the missing heat only allows the Greenhouse Theory to survive, it doesn't prove that it is valid. Right now its teetering on the edge of being invalidated. Certainly the existing computer models are missing some very important information.

How can we trust their computer models regarding future climate when they have no idea of how the climate works today?

Additional Resources:

* "The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat" - National Public Radio (NPR). Audio of their Morning Edition piece is also available here.
* Wikipedia - Argo (oceanography)
* Argo Project Page, UCSD - Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 06:43 PM
Chris Horner, Planet Gore

Gotta love this NPR headline, “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat.” This is the most recent in a refreshing series of sober assessments that of course brief periods are not climatically meaningful, be they a month, a year, three years, even a decade. The folks in the NASA PR shop who put together all those “annual temperature trend” press releases sure must be embarrassed.

Things are wonderfully captured in this euphemistic kicker from the article: “it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.” Like, maybe, this?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ttttpart1figure3-520.png





What’s global warming without the warming called? Come on, you can say it . . .You're chasing your own tail, that comes from the bad data from the ARGOS system that we discussed, and dismissed and that you refused to admit your error on. How many times and how many different ways are you going to try and use that discredited data?

NPR Article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025)

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 06:46 PM
By Steven Milloy
March 20, 2008

You didn’t have to be a rocket scientist in the 1990s to figure that speculative investment in dot-coms with no revenues would be disastrous. The same goes for lenders giving mortgages to borrowers with no job, no income and no assets. So after surviving the tech bubble and while trying to extricate the economy from the housing bubble, why are we bent on heading into the global warming bubble?

Just this week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill that is now being considered by the Senate. The EPA projects that, if the bill is enacted, the size of our economy as measured by its gross domestic product (GDP) would shrink by as much as $2.9 trillion by the year 2050. That’s a 6.9 percent smaller economy than we might otherwise have if no action was taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

For an idea of what that might mean, consider our current economic crisis. During the fourth quarter of 2007, GDP actually increased by 0.6 percent, yet trepidation still spread among businesses, consumers and the financial markets. Though the EPA says that Lieberman-Warner would send our economy in the opposite direction by more than a factor of 10, few in Congress seem concerned. For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.

And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095 -- 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent -- atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels would be 25 parts per million (ppm) lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation was implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration? Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

So who in their right mind would push for this?

I met many of them up-close-and-personal last week at a major Wall Street Journal conference at which I was an invited speaker.

My fellow speakers included many CEOs (from General Electric, Wal-Mart, Duke Energy, and Dow Chemical, to name just a few), California’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the heads of several environmental activist groups.

The audience -- a sold-out crowd of hundreds who had to apply to be admitted and pay a $3,500 fee -- consisted of representatives of the myriad businesses that seek to make a financial killing from climate alarmism. There were representatives of the solar, wind, and biofuel industries that profit from taxpayer mandates and subsidies, representatives from financial services companies that want to trade permits to emit CO2, and public relations and strategic consultants to all of the above.

We libertarians would call such an event a rent-seekers ball -- the vast majority of the audience was there to plot how they could lock-in profits from government mandates on taxpayers and consumers.

It was an amazing collection of pseudo-entrepreneurs who were absolutely impervious to the scientific and economic facts that ought to deflate the global warming bubble.

In the interlude between presentations by the CEOs of Dow Chemical and Duke Energy, for example, the audience was shown a slide -- similar to this one -- of the diverging relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperature since 1998. That slide should have caused jaws to drop and audience members to ponder why anyone is considering regulating CO2 emissions in hopes of taming global climate.

Instead, it was as if the audience did a collective blink and missed the slide entirely. When I tried to draw attention to the slide during my presentation, it was as if I was speaking in a foreign dialect.

The only conclusion I could come to was that the audience is so steeped in anticipation of climate profiteering that there is no fact that will cause them to reconsider whether or not manmade global warming is a reality.

The callousness of their blind greed was also on display at the conference.

In an instantaneous poll, the Wall Street Journal asked the audience to select the most pressing societal problem from a list of five that included infectious disease (malaria, AIDs, etc.), terrorism, and global warming.

Global warming was the most popular response, receiving 31 percent of the vote, while infectious disease was far behind in last place with only 3 percent of the vote. It’s an amazing result given that billions are sickened, and millions die every year from infectious disease. The consequences of future global warming, on the other hand, are entirely speculative.

Finally, I was astounded by the double-speak practiced by the global warmers.

Virtually every speaker at the conference professed that they were either in favor of free markets or that they supported a free-market solution to global warming. But invariably in their next breath, they would plead for government regulation of greenhouse gases and government subsidies for alternative energy.

It’s hard to conceive of any good coming from a public policy in which facts play no substantial role in its development and words have no meaning in its public debate.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 06:51 PM
Only fools and lefties will challenge all this data! Our attack the messenger! Either way they have no answers other than "Get off my planet" "Kill your children" or "Give up your evil ways"! All BS in the first degree! These are the same people who won't let us build new Nuclear plants or refineries? They just want you to sit home waiting to die while they fly around the country telling everyone to turn over your tax money so we can save you and the reefs! So don't take up SCUBA it takes too much carbon to get you there! It is all dying anyway so there must not be much to see or study!

It must be miserable being them!:eek:

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 10:51 PM
Only fools and lefties will challenge all this data! Our attack the messenger! Either way they have no answers other than "Get off my planet" "Kill your children" or "Give up your evil ways"! All BS in the first degree! These are the same people who won't let us build new Nuclear plants or refineries? They just want you to sit home waiting to die while they fly around the country telling everyone to turn over your tax money so we can save you and the reefs! So don't take up SCUBA it takes too much carbon to get you there! It is all dying anyway so there must not be much to see or study!

It must be miserable being them!:eek:What data? The only data you've presented is data that was revised because the instruments were miscalibrated. You alternate between posting and reposting that erroneous data and cuting and pasting self serving lies provided for that purpose by boot-licking tools like Steven Milloy (serious wacko, best know for his claim following the terrorist attacks of September 11 that the collapse of the World Trade Towers could have been delayed if only the builders had used more asbestos (http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q4/junkman.html). ), Chris Horner (who works as legal Counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Even ExxonMobil doesn't take the CEI serious any more. (http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-acknowledges-climate-change)), Phil Brennan (who makes up numbers when the facts doen't suit him debunk (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/)), John Coleman (who's a TV weatherman and music show host with no climate change credentials bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_%28meteorologist%29)) and Dennis Avery (whom we've already covered).

Frankly, there's nothing I'd welcome more than creditable data discrediting anthropogenic climate change. But I've yet to see any, I hear the really weird wailing and whining that comes from the right, but they have no creditable data, in fact they don't seem to care about creditable data or the truth, they just want a piece of Al Gore's hide. Well I hate to tell them, I don't like Al Gore either, and I sure don't like Tipper and her attempts to censor music, but that's not the issue, on the basis of the data, on the basis of creditable analysis by creditable scientists there is little room for doubt.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 11:15 PM
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of man-made global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

So let the crying begin!:eek:

thalassamania
03-21-2008, 11:39 PM
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of man-made global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

So let the crying begin!:eek:You obviously know nothing about science or how it works. It is not like industry and has very little concern with "vested interests." In point of fact that very critique points to the way industry and business thinks, not science.

If I (or for that matter any competent scientist) had one shred of definitive evidence that could poke a hole in anthropogenic climate change believe me it'd be out in pubic with trumpets blowing ... that's the sort of thing that careers are made on.

Anyone who could do that would win all the major prizes and have their pick of a tenured chair at all the best institutions. It would be far more rewarding than, ho-hum another piece of data that supports climate change.

Papa Bear
03-21-2008, 11:44 PM
With the recent evidence of significant disagreement between the IPCC model projections and reality, as diagnosed by surface air and tropospheric temperatures (e.g. see, see and see) and upper ocean heat content (i.e. see), Climate Science is reposting a weblog from 2006 titled “Big Time Gambling With Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Predictions by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roger A. Pielke Jr.”

The weblog reads,

”Many advocates for action on climate change, including the IPCC assessments and recent documentaries have promoted a view that global warming will continue through the 21st century, with global warming defined as a steady increase in global average temperatures. This prediction of warming is based on the output of multi-decadal general circulation models and is primarily due to the radiative forcing effect of anthropogenic emissions of CO2. In such models only relatively minor year-to-year variations in global average temperatures are forecast in the upward trend, except when major volcanic eruptions cause short-term (up to a few years) of global cooling. For example, see these projections of the most recent IPCC — none of the models has an obvious multi-year (i.e., >2) decrease in global average temperatures over the next century.

Such predictions represent a huge gamble with public and policymaker opinion. If more-or-less steady global warming does not occur as forecast by these models, not only will professional reputations be at risk, but the need to reduce threats to the wide spectrum of serious and legitimate environmental concerns (including the human release of greenhouse gases) will be questioned by some as having been oversold. For better or worse, a failure to accurately predict the changes in the global average surface temperature, global average tropospheric temperature, ocean average heat content change, or Arctic sea ice coverage would raise questions on the reliance of global climate models for accurate prediction on multi-decadal time scales. Surprises or experience that evolve outside the bounds of model output would likely raise questions even among some of those who have so far accepted the IPCC reports as a balanced presentation of climate science. (For a perspective different than the IPCC on applications of climate models see this.)

The National Research Council published a report in 2002 entitled “Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises” (of which RP2 was a committee member). The report raised the issues of surprises in the climate system. One of the surprises (to many) may be that the global climate models are simply unable to accurately predict the variability and trends in the climate metrics that have been adopted to communicate human-caused climate change to policymakers. Among the climate metrics with the most public visibility are the long term trends in global average surface temperature, global average tropospheric temperature, summer arctic sea ice areal coverage, and ocean heat content.

There is some emerging empirical evidence to suggest, however, that the concerns expressed here are worth consideration. The recent dramatic cooling of the average heat content of the upper oceans, and thus a significant negative radiative imbalance of the climate system for at least a two year period, that was mentioned in the Climate Science weblog posting of July 27, 2006, should be a wake-up call to the climate community that the focus on predictive modeling as the framework to communicate to policymakers on climate policy has serious issues as to its ability to accurately predict the behavior of the climate system. No climate model that we are aware of has anticipated such a significant cooling, nor is able to reproduce such a significant negative radiative imbalance. Meaningless distinctions between “projections” and “predictions” will be unlikely to convince consumers of climate models to overlook experience that does not jibe with modeled output.

[Note added for the March 21 2008 weblog - while the cooling reported above was shown to be an error in the analysis of the upper ocean data by the authors of the Lyman et al at study, their corrected data still shows no warming in the upper oceans for the last 4 years; thus the comment about the failure of the models still applies. There has been no global warming, at least above the 700m level in the ocean, since at least 2004].

There is no greater danger to support for action on important issues of human impacts on the environment than an overselling of what climate science can provide. If the climate behaves in ways that are unexpected or surprising it will be more than just credibility that is lost. Advocates for action should think carefully when gambling with the unknown predictive abilities of climate models. The human influence on the climate system is real, but the climate may not always cooperate.”
« Comments On The NPR Story By Richard Harris Entitled “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat” Comments On The News Article by Seth Borenstein entitled “Global Warming Rushes Timing of Spring” »

thalassamania
03-22-2008, 12:17 AM
Once again Papa Bear displays a "different" interpretation of what people are actually saying and what they actually conclude. Dr. Pielke has, at worst, a somewhat guarded position on climate change. He is described, however, by the right wing loonies as a skeptic, but is a description that he clearly rejects.


Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.
and

A press release (http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_4091524) by Paradise Post reported on an important problem with the lack of a balanced presentation of climate science in the media. However, there are several falsehoods that are included with respect to my views. A correction is essential.

The news release stated, ” He says most scientists are not willing to claim global warming is the fault of humans and their lifestyle.”

This is not my perspective. As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!(see (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/)).

The article stated, “The professor also challenged recommendations made at the end of the program to reduce atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide, saying such a program is really a waste of time and energy.”
I never made such a challenge. Indeed, I endorse the development of alternative energy and energy efficiency, both of which could save us money, reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuel, as well as reduce emissions of gases and aerosols into the atmosphere, including CO2 (see (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/04/20/a-win-win-solution-to-environmental-problems/)).

The attribution to me of the statement, “Their theories have been disputed by former colleagues and a current co-worker, according to Pielke, who noted, “Oppenheimer serves as an adviser to a left-wing activist group, Environmental Defense.” is wrong. I never made this statement. To place quotes around statements that I did not make is completely unacceptable and inappropriate.

The press release could have made their points without creating fictional quotes and views that I did not make.

I am sorry to see that media bias exists on all sides of the presentation of views on climate.

I'm sure that Dr. Pielke would regard Papa Bear's misapplication of his writing in this same vein.

Once again Papa Bear, I request your retraction of your post, based on the author's own words.

Papa Bear
03-22-2008, 03:23 PM
“Despite the short period of the present analysis, these results have important implications for climate. First, from 2004 to the present, steric contributions to sea level rise appear to have been negligible. This is consistent with observations of ocean surface temperature, which show relatively little change in the global average between 2003 and 2006 [Smith and Reynolds, 2005, see NCDC global surface temperature anomalies]. It is in sharp contrast, however, to historical analyses of thermal expansion over the past decade [Willis et al., 2004] and the past half-century [Antonov et al., 2005; Lombard et al., 2005; Ishii et al., 2006]. Although the historical record suggests that multiyear periods of little warming (or even cooling) are not unusual, the present analysis confirms this result with unprecedented accuracy.”

The above paragraph reinforces a conclusion reached on Climate Science that global warming, at least as diagnosed by tropospheric and upper ocean heat content (see), has not been occurring since 2004. It is impossible to know if this lack of warming will continue, but these observations are inconsistent with the predictions of the long-term global climate predictions, such as reported in the 2007 IPCC report.

thalassamania
03-22-2008, 10:51 PM
“Despite the short period of the present analysis, these results have important implications for climate. First, from 2004 to the present, steric contributions to sea level rise appear to have been negligible. This is consistent with observations of ocean surface temperature, which show relatively little change in the global average between 2003 and 2006 [Smith and Reynolds, 2005, see NCDC global surface temperature anomalies]. It is in sharp contrast, however, to historical analyses of thermal expansion over the past decade [Willis et al., 2004] and the past half-century [Antonov et al., 2005; Lombard et al., 2005; Ishii et al., 2006]. Although the historical record suggests that multiyear periods of little warming (or even cooling) are not unusual, the present analysis confirms this result with unprecedented accuracy.”

The above paragraph reinforces a conclusion reached on Climate Science that global warming, at least as diagnosed by tropospheric and upper ocean heat content (see), has not been occurring since 2004. It is impossible to know if this lack of warming will continue, but these observations are inconsistent with the predictions of the long-term global climate predictions, such as reported in the 2007 IPCC report.But that says nothing about over all, long term, global warming. If you and any understanding of the system you'd realize that due to the huge difference in heat capacity between air and water, short term temperature measurement of the atmosphere are irrelevant and that long term trends must mirror long term trends in the oceans. Similarly, as far as short term trends in shallow water are concerned the volume of water being reported on here is in the 200 to 400 meter range, that's what ocean surface temperature is about, consider that average ocean depth is a bit under 4,000 meters, so measurements of surface ocean temperature tell you nothing about the temperature of more than 90% of the oceans. What Dr. Pielke (and by the way, who died and made him the world's foremost expert anyway?) is discussing here is the inferential change in the oceans' temperature as measured by changes in sea level (as water warms it expands, that's the "steric effect" that is referred to). This is a "fine point" argument, of interest to specialists in the field. But what it really goes to is not the big picture of global warming, but discussions about how to measure it, as was stated in the abstract of the paper under discussion:

Despite excellent agreement of seasonal and interannual sea level variability, the 4-year trends do not agree suggesting that systematic long-period errors remain in one or more of these observing systems.

Let us not forget Dr. Peilke's overall conclusion:

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

Papa Bear
03-22-2008, 11:00 PM
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM

By: Phil Brennan

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.

Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.

An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.

In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.

Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.

Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in.

More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

Facts! Just facts!

Papa Bear
03-22-2008, 11:04 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080320/news_1c20weather.html

Hum, just what I have been saying! More tax dollars spent on talking about the weather! :mad:

thalassamania
03-22-2008, 11:14 PM
Please save us the Phil Brennan rants, we dealt with his creditability in an earlier post ... I guess you forgot. Let's put the last nail in the coffin of Mr. Brennan as anything but a right wing idealog who is happy to lie and make it up as he goes along.

NewsMax's Brennan Follows Anti-Global Warming Script
Topic: NewsMax
In a Sept. 25 NewsMax column (http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/Global_Warming/2007/09/25/35562.html), Phil Brennan lashed out against the "mass hysteria over the alleged warming of the planet." He threw a bunch of numbers out to try and back it up. For instance:

Those evil deniers however, have taken the trouble to look at the facts instead of the propaganda from the U.N. and the rest of the global warming fanatics. They point out that the the anthroprogenic sources of CO2 account for exactly 0.11 percent of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. In other words, 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has not a damn thing to do SUVs, jet travel, backyard barbecues or any other human activity.
The folks at RealClimate have taken the trouble to look at the facts as well, and they pretty much debunk (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/) Brennan's numbers. Don't expect Brennan to report that, of course.

Papa Bear
03-23-2008, 02:07 AM
As posted before by me, be ready for the personal attacks based on opinion and never any facts! Oldest tick in the book is to attack the messenger if you can't attack the message! Beware of fools with personal attacks and no facts to back them except "It's getting warmer" when it isn't or the "Ice is melting" when its not! The really good one is the "Sea is rising" and it isn't beyond it normal average! For we divers "The sea is getting so warm it's killing the reefs" NOT! They all bow to the god ALGORE and him leading them down the path like a modern day Pied Piper! Follow me to the land of socialism and state control! Just the world I want to live in! NOT! I would rather live in a world 20 degrees warmer than a day in paradise as a slave to the UN or some other repressive government controlled by the ALGORE's of the world!

Sell your gear and head for high country if you can afford the fuel to get there!

thalassamania
03-23-2008, 03:01 AM
As posted before by me, be ready for the personal attacks based on opinion and never any facts! Oldest tick in the book is to attack the messenger if you can't attack the message! Beware of fools with personal attacks and no facts to back them except "It's getting warmer" when it isn't or the "Ice is melting" when its not! The really good one is the "Sea is rising" and it isn't beyond it normal average! For we divers "The sea is getting so warm it's killing the reefs" NOT! They all bow to the god ALGORE and him leading them down the path like a modern day Pied Piper! Follow me to the land of socialism and state control! Just the world I want to live in! NOT! I would rather live in a world 20 degrees warmer than a day in paradise as a slave to the UN or some other repressive government controlled by the ALGORE's of the world!

Sell your gear and head for high country if you can afford the fuel to get there!There have been no personal attacks, I have simply raised the question of credentials and creditability, both or which appear to me to be sorely lacking. Is it wrong to ask if someone has any training is the subject that they are holding forth on or if someone is slipping them a few bucks to say something? You make those same accusations of professional scientists without any evidence, at least I provide evidence of their incompetence and/or venality.

Papa Bear
03-23-2008, 03:31 AM
Just a "Weatherman"?:

THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
REMARKS OF JOHN COLEMAN
As presented on March 2, 2008
At the Marriot Marquee in New York City
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
With those words, posted on the weather page of the website of the San Diego
Television station where I am chief meteorologist, I came out of the closet and into the
spotlight in the movement to debunk the wildly out of control, hysterical frenzy about the
supposed imminent climatic catastrophe of Global Warming. And, how does it feel to be
in the ring dueling it out with the global warming doomsayers? In the words of James
Brown, "WOW. I feel Good."
I feel Good because I know I am on the right side in this debate. I acknowledge the
sides are very unbalanced. On the other side are the United Nations, the leaders of the
many of the nations of the world, most politicians here in the United States including all
the current candidates for President, the Governor of my home state of California and
many other governors, virtually all of Hollywood's do-gooder stars, just about all of the
national media, seemingly every environmentalist on the planet, a half dozen
prestigious scientific organizations, many well known scientists, most teachers and up
to 80 percent of the people. They all stand alongside of the Nobel Peace Prize and the
Academy Award winner; the former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.
So here I am now a part of an outcast, much assailed, way outnumbered group of
global warming deniers. At least that is what we are called by the other side. Deniers, a
demeaning and ugly term. I can handle their abuse. I don't like it; but I can handle it.
But here is what I decided is not acceptable: Being silent when I know I am right. And I
have pledged to make every effort to explain this scam and reveal the truth about
climate change to all who will hear me. To cave-in and give lip service to the other side,
the side that is wrong, dead wrong, is not an option. And no matter how it all come out,
"Wow, I feel Good."
My father was raised on a farm. Even after he became a college professor he still liked
to go on the farmer's evening walk to look at the weather and predict what tomorrow
would be like. As a young boy I loved to go with him. This was way back in the late
1930's when weather data was scare and weather forecasts were rudimentary. But in
those boyhood days with Dad, I developed a sense of connection with the atmosphere.
My future life as a meteorologist was being molded.
As a freshman in college I worked in a start-up, pioneering TV station. This was in
1953. One day the boss asked "Who knows about the weather?" My hand shot up and
from that moment on I was a television weathercaster. When I went to class the next
day, the Professor began, "I watched you report the weather on TV last night. What are
you doing here in Introduction to Meteorology?" I answered, "Trying to find out what I
am talking about." Everybody laughed, but it was true. Thus began the education I
needed to really forecast the weather.
All through college and for the 51 years that have followed, I have predicted the weather
every day. I have walked in the weather and felt connected to my environment. Here I
am, in 2008, still doing it. I walk in the weather. I predict the weather every day. I feel
one with my environment. And, I feel Good.
Somewhere along the way, perhaps a decade ago, I began to read about global
warming. I didn't take it seriously; after all, I had been through the coming Ice Age
frenzy in the mid 70's. None the less, I read and listened. I had my doubts but tried to
keep an open mind.
I am not a research meteorologist like many in this room with advanced degrees. I am
your student. But, I am a serious student and totally immersed in my field of expertise.
As I studied, I couldn’t believe what was happening around me. There was an
unprecedented explosion of global warming hype. All the media was filled with the bad
news that the sky is falling. We have been warned of the dire consequences our
civilization faces. The coasts will be flooded by melting ice caps. The crops will fail.
Millions will die. Species will be wiped out as their habitats vanish. Panic sweeps the
media. There are new alarms sounded every day. It has gone on for more than two
years.
I tried to stay calm. My studies had convinced me, beyond a shadow of doubt, this well
orchestrated media frenzy is wrong; dead wrong. There is no unprecedented,
unequivocal, uncontrollable man made global warming now and no evidence that it is to
come. The entire frenzy is just as ridiculous as it can be.
People I meet ask me about Global Warming. I tell them to relax it isn't for real. And,
some of them get very hostile with me. People with no scientific knowledge and no
reason I can see to take a position, have accepted global warming as their mantra; their
religion; their passion; their cause.
It has finally risen to the point, where, like Howard Beal in the movie "Network”, I can't
take it anymore. When Mr. Gore was given a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, when
CNN declared Earth a "Planet in Peril", when NBC went green to save the Earth from
Global Warming and turned out the studio lights on a football pregame show: That was
it. I essentially opened the window and shouted at the top of my lungs, "I am madder
than hell and I am not going to take it anymore". That is when I wrote and published my
global warming rant.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
That was mid November. Since I posted that first piece, I have written and posted 8
more briefs explaining the scientific basis for my stand on global warming.
I have intensified my studies. I have entered the debate where ever I have been
invited. And I stand firm. Man made Global Warming is not a problem. There is no
climate change crisis.
I am holding a document. At this point, I believe this is last remaining cornerstone
document of the global warming advocate's case. This 113 page scientific paper is
titled: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. It is the much debated chapter
nine of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wonder how
many people who are disciples of Global Warming have actually read it. I wonder how
many understand it. This paper portends to explain how carbon dioxide, CO2, drives a
radiative forcing multiplier that turns this minor trace compound in the atmosphere into
THE force behind uncontrollable global warming.
When the global warming hype was beginning, it was that hockey stick chart of average
temperatures over the millenniums, the chart featured in Al Gore's book and movie that
grabbed everybody's attention. That chart was reproduced everywhere. It was the
centerpiece of Global Warming.
Thank goodness for Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They lead the charge to
expose this chart for what it is; a scientific fraud. Their papers were widely published
and prompted others to conduct studies, as well. After a few years of debate, the
hockey stick chart is dead and buried. Rest in peace.
But there was more bad science to keep the battle going. With great fanfare NASA
began releasing papers that claimed to be detecting global warming in the average
annual temperatures of Earth. Each year was said to be warmer than the last or among
the warmest ten ever. However, it was not long before Madhay Khandekar and Joseph
D’Aleo, Roger Pielke Sr., Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, Anthony Watts, Ben
Herman and many others demonstrated the inaccuracy and data manipulations behind
these NASA pronouncements. At one point, NASA admitted its errors and issued
corrected figures that shifted the warmest decade from the 1990's back to the 1930's.
What has become clear is that any warming that took place in the last 20 years of the
20th century was small, less than a degree, and was not totally, if at all, the result of
mankind’s activities.
Urban heat islands, problems with the sites where weather instruments are located,
changes in the instruments themselves and even the paint on the instrument shelters all
play a part in distorting temperature data. Determining which stations to include in
averaging, the statistical methods used in processing the data, melding of sea surface
satellite data with land based temperature measurements, considerations of
measurements at different levels in the atmosphere are some of the complications in
producing global temperature averages. They leave lots of room for error and for
games to be played. The bottom line is, whatever warming may have occurred is not
great, not increasing year to year and not necessarily or entirely man made. After much
debate and study, average global temperature increases, another cornerstone of the
Global Warming frenzy, fell into discredit.
The global warming advocates fail to consider natural climate changes versus man
made climate influences. We all know Earth has always gone through constant natural
climate changes. There is no reason to assume that these natural shifts are not
continuing and will continue to occur in the future. For instance, it is well documented
that Earth has been in a long gradual warming trend following the last ice
age. Solar cycles and shifting ocean current variations overlay that long term warmup
producing fluctuations from year to year and decade to decade. None of this is
devastating, but it is important to consider when we produce climate predictions. I see
no convincing evidence that natural climate changes have been overwhelmed because
of the activities of mankind.
So that brings me back to this paper, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.
Since all of the other gambits of the Global Warming advocates have not withstood the
scrutiny of peer review, how about this one. It all boils down to carbon dioxide. The
Global Warming advocates claim the buildup of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere
resulting for the burning of fossil fuels is leading directly to an uncontrollable warm-up in
global temperatures which will accelerate over time and produce disastrous
climatological consequences. If their hypothesis is wrong, then the entire Global
Warming frenzy is without basis. This is indeed their last remaining cornerstone;
their bottom line. All the other stuff we hear about ice caps melting, polar bears,
hurricanes, droughts and heat waves is just antidotal noise. Most of it is wrong and
none of it really counts. The only thing that matters now is the issue of CO2 forcing.
I am confident that CO2 forcing is not valid. I tell you without equivocation, after
reading lots of research Papers, I conclude the CO2 forcing hypostasis has failed the
test of peer review.
The increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere were first measured and published
by Roger Revelle, who is known as the Grandfather of Global Warming. He was a man
of great accomplishment and stature; a true senior scientist. He was the founder of the
Scripps Oceanographic Institution and later a Professor at Harvard where one of his
students was Al Gore. Gore says his experience in Revelle’s class became the
foundation of his eventual Global Warming campaign. But, interesting enough, in later
years Revelle himself cautioned against the assumption that CO2 was the engine of
climate change.
CO2, the natural compound that we humans breathe out, that plants use in
photosynthesis, that oceans absorb and release, is also in the exhaust of the burning of
fossil fuels. It seems clear that much of the frenzy over Global Warming comes from
environmentalists who want to end the burning of fossil fuels. They try to frame Carbon
Dioxide as a pollutant that must be eliminated. Their case does not hold up. It is not a
pollutant. And eliminating fossil fuels would not eliminate it, only reduce it.
Many well intentioned scientists have done studies that they say link the buildup of
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere with warming of temperatures. Their historical
evidence has been proven wrong. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere follows warming,
perhaps as a result of the warming, but clearly does not proceed warming. It is not the
cause of warming. Studies of long term temperatures and CO2 prove that.
But still the Global Warming advocates rest their case on their contention that CO2 has
a special influence on water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
They say is multiplies the greenhouse effect of the water vapor. This is called CO2
forcing. Without this forcing effect, CO2 couldn't have a significant impact on
greenhouse warming because it is a mere trace compound in the atmosphere, around
38 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 thousand molecules of atmosphere, a tiny
fraction of the air around us.
That brings me back to this paper, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. This
paper, done for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has
been peer reviewed within the IPCC, accepted and made a part of the underlying
documents of the Global Warming predictions of the IPCC. And very importantly, the
CO2 forcing formula from this paper is what has gone into those IPCC accepted climate
computer models that predict climatic Armageddon. So this is it, the final and key
cornerstone document. If it is correct, the Global Warming frenzy is valid. If it is not
correct, the entire case is baseless. And this is a very substantial study building on a
referencing dozens of prior studies. A large group of significant scientists have worked
on aspects of and contributed to this final product. It is very substantial. Those
scientists and their work and this paper cannot be lightly dismissed.
Many of the scientists who are here today have commented on this paper. Some have
done studies that counter its findings; essentially they prove it wrong. I find the most
convincing work on this to date is this paper, Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie
Soon. To me they are absolutely convincing. But, I believe the debate on this issue
may continue for some time.
When I discuss Global Warming debate with those around me, I often hear the plea,
"John, if the United Nations and its panel of 2,500 scientists have concluded that global
warming is a major threat to our planet, you should listen to what they say. They are
the experts. The UN must be the final judge in this matter. You are a heretic." This is I
believe the hardest hurdle to jump. Debating the science is logical and straight
forward. People's view of the world structure is emotional and difficult to overcome. But
let me try, please.
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in
1988. Engineer Alan Cheetham has done an exhaustive study of how this came about.
It is an amazing political story with an undercurrent of effort to position third world
nations to gain restitution from the highly developed nations for the pollution from their
industrial activity. The history also documents how the politicians clamored to create
another bureau for the dream of a one world government and to entrench themselves in
power.
Once the UN IPCC was established, it had to create documentation of manmade
climate change to prove its own worthiness to exist and to gain funding for its activities.
Money flowed to scientist to produce to the needed research. Meetings were held to
validate their work, publications were made, publicity was generated and the
bureaucracy not only prevailed but grew in importance and budget and the cycle has
continued to compound.
What if the UN IPCC had produced studies that denied that man made climate change
was a problem and that there was no cause for alarm. The IPCC would have been
disbanded. No bureaucrat is going to let that happen. The bias to produce the desired
results overwhelms reality.
At this point, much is made of the IPCC panel of 2,500 scientists being in consensus on
Global Warming. But get this. We now know how few scientists actually reviewed that
key chapter of the IPCC report, the one that concludes that it very highly likely that
greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the global warming over the
past 50 years. Dr. John McLean has issued a detailed report on IPCC reviewers. He
reveals that there were as few as 23 independent reviewers of that chapter and that
only 4 explicitly endorsed the hypothesis. That’s a long way from 2,500 and a long way
from consensus.
The lack of consensus is also well documented by Dr. Vincent Gray who was a expert
reviewer and member of the IPCC since the early 1990s. He has detailed just how
contrived the IPCC process has been and how it hardly actually reflects a majority
consensus of scientists at all. Dr. Gray asked hard questions. They were ignored. I
conclude that the final report of the IPCC panel is a political not a scientific document.
Now, I turn to our media. Within the media, whatever the UN says is generally accepted
as fact. The UN says there is a man made global warming crisis and its panel of 2,500
scientists is in consensus, that good enough. And if a former Vice President is the
spokesman for the cause, well that’s all the evidence the media needs to beat the
drums for global warming. So now Global Warming is the American media's cause
celeb.
I am not the only television weathercaster who is skeptical of global warming. I know of
two dozen others who have made public statements. And two dozen others have
privately contacted me but cannot make public statements because of their employment
situations. In any case, we are not nearly influential enough to turn the media.
Marc Morano working for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has
released an impressive list of more than 450 scientists who took a stand against the
global warming frenzy in 2007. And there are the thousands of scientists who signed a
petition against the Kyoto Protocol. That is impressive. But, in the media world none of
this seems to count. What we need to move the media is a network anchor or a
Hollywood super star to join the side of the skeptics.
Let me put a few things into perspective. The media won't, so allow me to try. Through
government we create an orderly civilization, or at least a reasonable facsimile of
same. The media seems hung up on government. But the real advancements of the
civilization are the product of science, not government. Science created the healthcare
that cured me of cancer and has saved my life twice, so far, and provides the
medications to keep me alive so I can be here today. Science created the power and
machines and systems that made air and auto travel possible, that warm and cool our
spaces. Science created our means of communication: our phones, our television and
radio, our internet and most of all science created computers that extend our human
capabilities by the power of millions. Science, not government, is the driving force of
civilization. That is why I am so excited to be here at a meeting of scientists. I honor
you and all your brethren around the world. You are the prime force of civilization.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Debate among scientists is the healthiest condition possible in our society. From
disagreement is born study, serious considerations and re-considerations. To declare
the debate about Global Warming to be over is anti-science, regressive and, in a word,
dumb. Let the debate flourish.
In conclusion, here are things we should not expect: The UN will never withdraw its
report. Al Gore will never admit he is wrong. The scientists who have developed the
case for CO2 forcing and global warming will not admit they erred. Environmental
extremists will never relent.
Things we can work for: The media might be persuaded to give some coverage to our
side of the debate. A significant percentage of the public may become climate change
skeptics. As a result some politicians may come to our side of the argument. These
are things we need to work toward.
Here is one question from me; a question, not a charge. If CO2 is not the culprit in
global warming, is the selling of carbon credits a financial fraud?
And, to paraphrase David Letterman, the number one thing to expect is: In 20 years we
will have the last laugh. When the climate has not changed, the ice caps have not
melted, polar bears are flourishing, the oceans have not flooded the shores, when
climate change has not destroyed our lives, Ah, we will have the last laugh.
The frenzy will fade away and there will be global warming jokes and Al Gore's prizes
will be tarnished.
Yes, we will have the last laugh.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming...it is a SCAM.
And because we are standing up to the horde of Global Warming alarmists and doing
our best to set the record straight, to calm the frenzy and provide proof that the sky is
not falling; yes, because of the work of all of you here today,
Wow, I feel good.
Links referenced in John Coleman’s remarks
KUSI Television, San Diego, John Coleman’s comments on Global Warming
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...l+Warming1.pdf
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
The late James Brown
http://www.funky-stuff.com/jamesbrown/
An online article about the word “deniers” used to describe Global Warming skeptics
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/1782/
My father, Ernest Claude Coleman, PhD
http://www.thecolemannet.com/index.htm
United Nations IPCC Chapter 9, the key chapter on CO2 Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf
Natural Resources Defense Council Global Warming report
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick Chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist)
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s Paper refuting the Hockey Stick Chart
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf
Stephen McIntyre’s website
http://www.climateaudit.org
Ross McKitrick’s website
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html
NASA web pages on average annual temperatures
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html
Dr. Mayhay Khandekar and Joseph D’Aleo’s post on the problems with the NASA
average temperature calculations
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PITFALLS.pdf
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr;’s post on problems with calculation average global temperatures:
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/an-...veragesurface-
temperature/
Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels paper detailing how observation points change over
time influences global average temperatures
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
Anthony Watts discovers serious site problems with many official weather observation
stations in the United States and conducts a national effort to survey every location
http://surfacestations.org/
Dr. Ben Herman investigates questionable exaggerations in maximum temperatures at
locations where certain types of new temperature sensors have been installed.
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/21/gue...theuniversity-
of-arizona-maximum-temperature-trends/
The controversy about the influence of urban heat islands on global temperatures is
covered in the Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Long term climate changes on Earth, resulting from natural causes, primarily variations
in the radiation received from the Sun are detailed by D. Bruce Merrifield
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html
I write about the solar influence on climate variations on Earth in my brief The Force
behind Climate Change
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...al+Warming.pdf
Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming and the man who inspired Al Gore,
cautioned against alarmism from the carbon dioxide build-up
http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...9-778c0973526e
Carbon Dioxide characterized as a pollutant, the force behind global warming
http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/
Typical newspaper article decrying carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._carbon22.html
Union of Concerned Scientists page on carbon dioxide
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...-globalwarming.
html
The key Paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon that explains
that Carbon Dioxide Forcing is not valid
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...inson_Soon.pdf
Another excellent Paper by Allan M.R, MacRae showing that Carbon Dioxide is not the
primary force in climate change
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Dr. David Evans Paper showing that Carbon Dioxide does not cause Global Warming
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf
Alan Cheetham details the history of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm
Dr. John McLean details the lack of significant peer review of the IPCC documents
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...an/mclean_IPCC
_review_final_9-5-07.pdf
Dr. Vincent Gray writes about his experience as a member of the IPCC
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...=155&Item id=
1
Two dozen Television meteorologists who are global warming skeptics are listed on
ICECAP
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts
The report on the over 400 scientists who spoke out in opposition to global warming in
2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport
The Petition against the Kyoto Protocol
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Papa Bear
03-23-2008, 03:46 AM
Some will attack findings just because the credentials of the man presenting the findings! "You can't believe him because he has no formal training" or "The wrong school's Degree"! So going alone with that Evolution is false! why? Because Charles Robert Darwin had no formal training in Anthropology, Oceanography, or any of the natural sciences! He studied Medicine and theology! So he couldn't have discovered or observed what he did!

Then there is Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni NO formal training and just a painter?

So no matter what you post about some body it comes down to evidence Vs No evidence! Most people who discovered most of what we know until the middle of the last century had either no or very little formal education. Yet it still matters to some who said it. Well what is ALGORE's Credentials inventing the internet or being the subject of "Love Story" or maybe re-inventing Government? Nice job!

thalassamania
03-23-2008, 06:22 AM
Then there is Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni NO formal training and just a painter?Well, actually, in 1488 after overcoming parental opposition, Michelangelo was formally apprenticed to Domenico Ghirlandaio for a term of three years. Later in life Michelangelo tried to suppress this fact, probably to make it seem that he had never had an ordinary workshop training; for it was he more than anyone else who introduced the idea of the Fine Arts having no connection with the craft that painting had always previously been.

Papa Bear
03-23-2008, 07:25 AM
Some will attack findings just because the credentials of the man presenting the findings! "You can't believe him because he has no formal training" or "The wrong school's Degree"! So going alone with that Evolution is false! why? Because Charles Robert Darwin had no formal training in Anthropology, Oceanography, or any of the natural sciences! He studied Medicine and theology! So he couldn't have discovered or observed what he did!

Then there is Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni NO formal training and just a painter? He was a self taught engineer and artist extraordinary beyond his time and I can't believe I have to point that out to some?! He worked in "The Trades" but their was no degree program! So for those who can't understand English or its meanings I thought I would further explain!

So no matter what you post about some body it comes down to evidence Vs No evidence! Most people who discovered most of what we know until the middle of the last century had either no or very little formal education. Yet it still matters to some who said it. Well what is ALGORE's Credentials inventing the internet or being the subject of "Love Story" or maybe re-inventing Government? Nice job!

No rebuttal to facts have been or can be offered! They're not there!