Global Warming Thread VIII

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE


Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Jim » Mon May 24, 2010 7:47 am


Thanks for this further explanation that represents credible investigation as opposed to the junk-science of Mann et al, assuming Mann is just a crackpot rather than advancing an anti-American agenda (most likely the case since he had help from the CRU, for instance). The tendency of the intellectuals in this country to accept the United Nations as the institution of integrity is simply mind-boggling. U.S. scientists who actually are climate-change experts are dissed because the elitists are determined to construct a world government, ergo, acceptance of the IPCC notwithstanding the well-documented fraud it represents. The objective is to bring the U.S. to its knees economically since to do so militarily would, besides being virtually impossible, be a bit messy…all that blood in the streets. The alarmists either can’t or won’t recognize the differences between how people affect the planet, i.e., that they have great effect on the physical Earth (mining, drilling, emissions, farming, etc.) and no effect on the atmosphere, except as it applies to earth in perhaps the first 100,000 feet or so of altitude, thus no effect on actual climate. Cap-and-trade is designed to sink this country, putting it on the same level as all the others, denying its exceptionalism in favor of joining worldwide mediocrity. This administration is hell-bent to collude with the UN in this matter, thus making “diversity” the politically correct paradigm of the future. To the extent that democrats and republicans alike subscribe to this fatal nonsense, mediocrity will be achieved...or not.
Jim
 
Posts: 3597
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Mon May 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:1Ed: David, KeithE has been out of the hospital less than a week and had to go back to work immediately , let him rest.
2But I am with you on the GW stuff.

1) There wasn't anything in my post that would have been too stressful for Keith.

2) Glad to hear it, Ed. :thumb:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Mon May 24, 2010 10:32 pm

.
.
This article (link below) is hilarious and simultaneously enlightening. Global warming alarmism is going to go down in a flame of laughter. Here's a paragraph lifted from the text:
    Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Jim » Tue May 25, 2010 8:21 am

Bruce Gourley wrote:
KeithE wrote:There is so much falsity in what you have written into post above, I merely want to say - my rejoinders to most all of these falsities have been posted before. I have far more important things to do with my life that repeatably correct the uncorrectable David Flick and his denialist sources. Try reading Skeptical Science for the truth and straightfoward answers to denialist arguments.

BTW it is not Spencer's blog I want to you to study, it's his DATA at AMSU DATA. As always, follow the directions.

David, your cohorts are threatening real scientists. Read all three pages


The tide has already turned in the course of history, it seems to me. Only a small handful of scientists (and even few Republicans in D.C. these days) deny the human impact upon climate change, and they are merely recycling false data and arguments while the world continues to heat up. The denial machine will one day be held accountable for their reliance on false data and arguments, just as the Catholic Church was eventually held accountable for denying the science of Galileo and Copernicus.

When people living in real time talk about the tide immediately turning in the entire course of history, their comments have to be taken with a grain of salt. We still don’t know what the outcome of WWII means in terms of entire history. Historians someday might figure that out, but currently historians all have different views. The only thing that changed as a result of the war in this country, for instance, was that rationing ceased. The liberties that were in place before the war were still in place after the war, with the government unchanged. There were considerably fewer men around but that circumstance was no different from circumstances that prevailed since the beginning of human history, human nature being what it is. The demographic was changed considerably in that women entered the work force in such numbers that families have been greatly affected but even circumstances such as this run in cycles so that the “entire” history of the world may not be affected at all. Without question and on the basis of the best science, climate has changed in cycles since the beginning and at times, without help from man unless he was disguised as perhaps an orangutan, has been so much hotter than now that we can’t even conceive of it. There was a time when whatever beings there were made their homes near the polar circles because the area around the Equator was too hot. Just the opposite is true today, so what else is new? Nothing! The alarmists who worship at the feet of crackpots like Mann and the CRU bunch either have absolutely no sense of history or they are in lockstep with those who would make this country just part of a worldwide “can’t we all just get along” zaniness that defies both logic and a sense of pride in a country that has achieved to the point of uber-excellence but is being pulled down now in the spirit of “diversity as god.” Disgusting! Of course, this is just a rant from the loony bin!
Jim
 
Posts: 3597
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Jim » Tue May 25, 2010 5:16 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:Dan 12:4 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
But thou, O Daniel, shut vp the wordes, and seale the booke euen to the time of the ende: many shall runne to and fro, and knowledge shall bee increased.

Jim: // Egad! People have been running to and fro and knowledge has been increased for millennia. Do you suppose the end has already come and we missed it? \\

I do not ascribe to the a-millennial viewpoint ;-) but your statement is a pretty good definition for the a-mill. x-millennial viewpoints relate the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Messiah Jesus to the Millennial Messanic Reign of Jesus on the Throne of David. I just cannot see any thing but a physical & literal Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Messiah Jesus before a physical & literal Millennial Messanic Reign of Jesus.

That's certainly the most convenient approach, free of all that Tribulation misery. I used the pre-, a-, and post-millennial approaches in a book recently finished and even threw in the Islamic equivalent of AntiChrist, something called the Dajjal and coopted, of course, by Mohammad or maybe one of his wives mostly from Revelation. Taliban Head Honcho Mullah Omar could fit that worthy since Islam describes the Dajjal as having one eye and a terrible mark on his forehead. Omar lost an eye fighting the Soviets in the 80s and incurred a terrible wound leaving a horrible scar on his forehead, so you can see how he could be made to fit the bill today by a novelist needing an angle. This is not an advertisement (perish the thought) else I would be banned for rule-breaking, something of which I would never even dream of doing.

Believing in the pre-millennial viewpoint, I think we aught to save some of earth's oil for the folks on earth during the time of a physical & literal Millennial Messanic Reign of Jesus. Amen.

I have the notion that any shortage could be seen to immediately and miraculously during that reign without any help from us. Besides, what need would there be for fuel in a Paradise?
Jim
 
Posts: 3597
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Mon May 31, 2010 5:44 am

.
.
May 29, 2010
Are Climate Alarmists losing the Mainstream Media?
Marc Sheppard

In the past week, two mainstream media giants have apparently recognized that the debate over manmade global warming is far from over.

On Monday, the NY Times broke with years of blatant warmist bias in reporting that Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons. The article cited a February BBC survey which “found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that ‘climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,’ down from 41 percent in November 2009.” The Times attributed the public opinion swing in Great Britain and similar shifts in Germany and the US to what it referred to as “a series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November.” In other words, the climate fraud uncovered at the University of East Anglia (aka Climategate) and the multitude of errors uncovered in the latest IPCC (AR4) report.

Continue reading...

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:47 am

.
.
          Image
So much for the alarmist myth about rapidly melting Arctic ice. The Arctic ice volume has increased 25% over the past two years. In 2008, less than half of the ice (47%) was greater than two meters thick. Now, more than 75% of the ice is greater than two meters thick. (Read about it here...).
.



396
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby KeithE » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:02 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
          Image
So much for the alarmist myth about rapidly melting Arctic ice. The Arctic ice volume has increased 25% over the past two years. In 2008, less than half of the ice (47%) was greater than two meters thick. Now, more than 75% of the ice is greater than two meters thick. (Read about it here...).
.



396


Now the true story here and here. The latter from real scientists at National Snow and Ice Data Center who say:
Mark Serreze of the center forecast the ice decline this year would even break 2007’s record.


What I notice about David's article is that it is all based on May 27 data in 2008 vs May 27 2010. And it excludes portions of the Arctic. Anthony Watts has no shame. He parses the data to find any point he can but does not look at all of it.

Real scientists look at all the data while political pundits partition it into subareas (even a single day) to make their point and dupe the eager denailist public.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:26 am

.
.
        Image
UN IPCC Scientist: 'The Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism Continues...On every front, climate alarmists are losing'

.
.418
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Ed Edwards » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:50 pm

Kenneth P. Green (the pointer is in the last post) has an interesting opinion. But it is just an opinion. Opinions are good, I have two or three myself :-)
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:53 am

.
.
An interesting article about the British Royal Society, which for years has acted as cheerleader for the AGW lobby but has now been forced to backtrack after complaints from 43 of its members that it has been exaggerating the scientific certainty about the existence of ManBearPig.
        (I will encourage the reader to do his/her own Wikipedia research on "ManBearPig")


The Royal Society: too little, too late

By James Delingpole
May 29th, 2010

The other night I had the great pleasure of dinner with Professor Bob Carter. He told me that when he goes on speaking tours, there’s only one question he ever gets asked to which he is unable to provide a satisfactory answer. It goes something like this:

“Thank you Professor Carter, that was all very interesting. But please can you tell me why you expect us to take your opinion seriously when it is contradicted by most of the world’s leading scientific organisations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society?”

Funnily enough, I replied, that’s exactly what I’m planning to write a book about. “How did a scientific theory so feeble and ill-supported by any hard evidence yet become the dominant political idea of our age with so much support from people who really ought to know better?”

One thing’s for certain. When the history of this outbreak of mass hysteria comes to be written, few organisations will emerge with more egg on their face than the standing joke that is the Royal Society.

For years it has acted as cheerleader for the AGW lobby but has now been forced to backtrack after complaints from 43 of its members that it has been exaggerating the scientific certainty about the existence of ManBearPig. Its current president Lord Rees is trying to salvage what dignity he can be making out that this rethink of its position was always part of the plan:

(Continue reading...)
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:53 am

.
.
I'm continuing to collect internet articles that mention global warming "tipping points." When I began documenting these articles a year & a half ago (January, 2009), articles were being written at the rate about 30 per week. After the breaking of Climategate (November, 2009) interest in AGW tipping points dropped off to a mere trickle. Hardly anyone is writing articles now. Currently I'm locating about 2-5 articles per week. Many of the recent articles are being written by skeptic authors. Although it was written in the middle of February, I found this one a couple of weeks ago...
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:52 am

.
.
. . .The Medieval Warming Period was Warmer than the Present
So much for the alarmist notion that global warming from 1980 to the present was "unprecedented" (never mind the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998), a 2010 Antarctica peer-reviewed research of ice core data confirms that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the present...


. . .An AGW Fanatic Attacks Climategate Book without Reading It
A blogging AGW-believer attacks a Climategate book written by T. Fuller and S. Mosher, and does so without ever reading the book. This is a classic example of the AGW fanatic belief system - simply put, facts don't matter to the "believers." The facts are viewed as irrelevant and inconvenient to the fundamentalists.

.
.446
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Jim » Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:16 am

Non-reading (translated ignorance) has become the accepted modus operandi within the government, as well. Nobody in Congress had read the stimulus bill but passed it anyway. Even Speaker Pelosi said we wouldn’t know what was in the healthcare bill until it was passed…she hadn’t read it apparently (nor had most Congresspersons). The House passed cap/trade without its members having read the bill, which wasn’t even finished until the night before passage. The president and attorney general castigated the Arizona Immigration bill admittedly without having bothered to read it. The prez accused policemen of acting stupidly without ever bothering to discover (translated read) the facts. It’s obvious that lawmakers (at least in the House) haven’t bothered to read what knowledgeable military leaders have said regarding the DADT policy. It’s obvious that the president has read virtually nothing that this country’s top climatologists have said about global warming. Neither have perhaps the majority of Congresspersons (including in the House), but there may yet be hope for them, though they won’t have time in an election year. And so it goes, government via ignorance.
Jim
 
Posts: 3597
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby KeithE » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:10 am

Jim wrote:Non-reading (translated ignorance) has become the accepted modus operandi within the government, as well. Nobody in Congress had read the stimulus bill but passed it anyway. Even Speaker Pelosi said we wouldn’t know what was in the healthcare bill until it was passed…she hadn’t read it apparently (nor had most Congresspersons). The House passed cap/trade without its members having read the bill, which wasn’t even finished until the night before passage. The president and attorney general castigated the Arizona Immigration bill admittedly without having bothered to read it. The prez accused policemen of acting stupidly without ever bothering to discover (translated read) the facts. It’s obvious that lawmakers (at least in the House) haven’t bothered to read what knowledgeable military leaders have said regarding the DADT policy. It’s obvious that the president has read virtually nothing that this country’s top climatologists have said about global warming. Neither have perhaps the majority of Congresspersons (including in the House), but there may yet be hope for them, though they won’t have time in an election year. And so it goes, government via ignorance.

Staffers prepare summaries of key points quite faithfully. Your cynicism is extreme. I'm often asked to review staffers summaries of defense appropraitions bills and find them very accurate and fair.

If you really want know about what's in the Health Care bill (and how we got there) read Landmark. But I believe you would rather rale in your cynicism.

The Top Climatologists practically unanimously believe in human caused GW - the more they ae intimately involve in studying the science/data, the more strongly they believe in AGW.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
Image

Thank God we have young, truthful analysts working as staffers and not propaganda regurgatitors or cynical minds.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:20 am

KeithE wrote:The Top Climatologists practically unanimously believe in human caused GW - the more they ae intimately involve in studying the science/data, the more strongly they believe in AGW.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
Image

Keith, the article containing the graph above (this article) is filled with alarmist propaganda and simply isn't true. In the first place, the graph itself is based on data from an ancient Gallup poll. The data is from a poll taken in 2008, which antedated the breaking of the Climategate scandal by a full year. In 2008, global warming alarmism was reigning supreme and the general public was still being duped alarmist propaganda.

Secondly, the notion that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming is totally bogus. It's a myth which the AGW alarmists are still trying to perpetuate. There never was (and never will be) 97% of active climatologists who agree that global warming was manmade. The notion that there was a 97% consensus that global warming is man-made is totally bogus.

Thirdly, Tim Lambert, the author of the article you posted was quoting an article written in Eos by a couple of alarmists who refrained from listing (providing names of) active climatologists.
    Lambert wrote:Eos has just published the results of a 1survey of 3146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman.
    [...]
    The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey. Doran and Zimmermann say:

      2While respondents' names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.
    I'm guessing that Lindzen and Spencer are the two that said "no".

    1) The data for the bogus conclusion was based on a 2008 Gallup Poll, which antedated the Climategate scandal by a full year. It is now well known that there were nowhere near 3146 earth scientists who actually agreed that global warming is man-made. The actual figure on that is only a few dozen rather than the thousands touted by the no-name IPCC. Here's what one Climategate scientist from UAE CRU says:
    A forthcoming paper by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, from which the Climategate emails emerged, admits that the actual group involved in the "consensus" that "human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" was in fact "only a few dozen," rather than the thousands invoked by the IPCC. 3rd paragraph @ this source...

    2) It's typical slick alarmist propaganda to claim that 75 of 77 climate scientists agree on something and not provide names of the same. Yes, he pokes a guess at Lindzen & Spencer as being "deniers" but hides the 75 "true believers" behind a shroud of privacy. Typical slick alarmist propaganda.
The article below is truth rather than propaganda...
Wednesday, Jun. 16, 2010

Climate junk hard to dump

By Peter Foster

The past six months has seen a series of unprecedented setbacks for the cause of catastrophic man-made climate change: the collapse of the Kyoto process; the release of incriminating Climategate emails; the discovery of the shoddy standards of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the mounting evidence that a job-creating green industrial revolution is a fantasy; and the growing suspicion by the public that it has been sold a bill of goods.

The British Royal Society recently released a statement that "Any public perception that the science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect," thus contradicting its own former president, and true believer, Lord May. And if the science isn't settled, there can hardly ever have been "consensus" on the issue.

Continue reading here...

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby KeithE » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:03 am

Since when did "Ancient" mean 2008.

If you think Climategate changed many climatologist's minds, it is up to you to prove that point; not just make yet another argument based on your assessment of an article being "alarmist" (your points 1 &3) or claim a notion is "bogus" (point 2). Investigations have said there is no compromise in the thermometer data of near surface temps and besides it is confirmed by 2 indepenednt sets of satellite data at about +0.13 deg/decade rise.

And btw only the public's view was a Gallup poll (the survey of 3146 scientists was conducted by Doran/Zimmerman).

Let's wait to see Hulme's newest book (and the context around that quote) instead of quoting an article about it by a clearly denialist source. Denialists work on planting seeds of doubt and usually do not produce data to make their points. Merely saying there are only a few dozen scientists developed this "concensus of AGW" is quite frankly disproved by the 2008 data I gave above as well as the many diverse skills that agreed with the IPCC reports in 2001, 2007.

Since July 2009 and DATA shows increased near surface air temps (about 0.2-0.3C higher than the highest years ever - 1998 or 2005). Study it yourself. Or look at the ground temp measurements data here. Read instructions at both sites.

I look at DATA not rhetoric.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:19 pm

.
.
Roy Spencer wrote a blog article yesterday (6/18) about cooling sea surface temperatures. The last paragraph was...
Roy Spencer wrote:At this pace of cooling, I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.


Read the entire article here. And the cooling trend continues much to the chagrin of the AGW alarmists... :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby KeithE » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:48 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
Roy Spencer wrote a blog article yesterday (6/18) about cooling sea surface temperatures. The last paragraph was...
Roy Spencer wrote:At this pace of cooling, I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.


Read the entire article here. And the cooling trend continues much to the chagrin of the AGW alarmists... :D


The Sea Surface Temperature (SST) extracted from satellite data has to make a big assumption - that of constant ocean emissivity. It is not as reliable as the direct ocean thermometer data or a two waveband sensor extracted "color temperature". And in fact in Spencer's third plot down, it shows the reflectivity going up substantially and that means the emissivity is not constant.

Image

Curiously he does not even talk about the increase (~0.4C) in global SST (blue line / 10 ) seen clearly in his plot above from Jan 2008 to Feb 2010 while emphasizes the much smaller decrease (~0.1C) since Feb 2010. That's cherry picking to say the least. (Note that his blue line plot is multiplied by 10.)

I will also point out that by going to the AMSU site and plotting the SSTs of all available years (which for some reason he only has data available from 2003 on when the sensor has been operating since 1979!) you will find that 2010 has been extraordinarily high - it is higher than all other years for almost all of the period Jan - June 2010 which is unheard of. Check it all out here. Follow the instructions. You know that place I have asked David to look at probably 10 times but he refuses to actually look at the DATA (or at least admit to since it does not support his stromg bias)

In addition the SSTs are not the driving factor in climate change or sea rise. It's the near surface temperatures (NSTs) that are the major data for judging climate change (strength of storms/hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, glacier melts). Ocean temperatures (and that not just at teh surface) and heat content are the driving factors in sea level rise (glaciers melts being also important).

If you look at the NSTs at the site above (changable at the drop down box at the left bottom), you will see a large increases in the NSTs since June 2009. Again plot all the availble years and hit "Redraw". For instance, on 6/18/2010 (my 60th birthday btw), the NST is 1.38F higher than 6/18/2009. That is 0.77C higher. But that would be an exaggeration - averaged over the last year (June 2009-May 2010) the AMSU NST is 0.26C higher (extraordinary change given the temp rate of change since 1975 is ~ 0.13C/decade). That's 2 decades worth of increase in one year. See plot below that shows agreement by both satellite sensors (the UAH AMSU included) and direct measurements as to temp rise rate since 1975.
Image

I'll check on the ocean temperatures (at the surface and at depth) via the much more reliable direct temperature measurements sometime tomorrow or at least soon.

Also Spencer's last sentence says we are in a "cooling trend" - nonsense (only the SST has declined and that very very recently). His own data shows him wrong. Spencer is playing to his denialist (rush limbaugh) crowd with very selective misinformation.

One of his points may be right however, that the strong El Nino may end soon (the low latitudes over the Pacific have dropped which does portend a drop in near surface airtemps in the near future). But it does not change the fact that the last year (June 2009- May 2010) is the highest near surface air temps ever by 0.26C (two decades worth of increase! - kinda wipes out the leveling off in the 2000's when La Ninas were prevalent). Now the GISS or Hadley thermometer data increase is not as pronounced; but June 2090-May 2010 has been seen increases in the direct thermometer readings over all other years on the order of 0.1C.

More than any of you wanted to know.

Do not believe the selective stuff David links directly from the denailst machine cherry picking minutia.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby David Flick » Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:13 am

.
.
KeithE wrote:Do not believe the selective stuff David links directly from the denailst machine cherry picking minutia.

That quote brings a chuckle my way. :lol: It's worth a nice Golden Spur.
        Image

I'm currently busy with some other activities, but I'll take time respond to your post (above) in a day or so. Meanwhile back at the ranch, here's another gem from my "selective stuff of denailst machine cherry picking minutia".

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby KeithE » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:08 am

KeithE wrote:I'll check on the ocean temperatures (at the surface and at depth) via the much more reliable direct temperature measurements sometime tomorrow or at least soon.

Here is an article about ocean temperatures and heat content.

New research suggests that ocean temperature and associated sea level increases between 1961 and 2003 were 50 percent larger than estimated in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.


Like I've been saying the IPCC is really quite restrained.

And this data of direct temperature measurements Land-Ocean Surface Data from GISS shows that Mar, April and May 2010 have been highest months since 1990 for the combination of land and ocean surface temp data while the satellite data from Spencer shows a drop off during these periods (i believe caused by non-constant emissivity and perhaps cloud interference with the satellite measurements)
Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 ˚C (base period: 1951-1980)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
1990 31 28 66 47 37 30 47 28 17 39 42 36 37 37 28 50 35 33 1990
1991 34 44 27 44 30 49 48 38 39 20 18 24 35 36 38 34 45 26 1991
1992 40 35 36 13 21 15 1 1 -11 -4 -10 12 12 13 33 23 6 -8 1992
1993 26 28 28 16 16 11 13 3 -1 15 2 4 13 14 22 20 9 5 1993
1994 23 -5 19 28 15 33 22 17 30 38 34 25 23 22 7 21 24 34 1994
1995 42 70 42 38 7 35 48 37 22 43 37 23 37 37 45 29 40 34 1995
1996 26 45 32 25 18 17 36 43 24 16 34 31 29 28 31 25 32 25 1996
1997 26 30 46 31 31 50 26 36 39 50 55 52 39 37 29 36 37 48 1997
1998 52 80 56 55 63 69 68 63 42 40 43 48 56 57 61 58 66 41 1998
1999 39 59 25 24 21 34 31 27 28 31 28 33 32 33 49 23 31 29 1999
2000 17 51 47 52 28 35 33 36 31 17 25 21 33 34 34 42 35 24 2000
2001 38 40 54 40 50 45 51 46 48 44 66 51 48 45 33 48 48 52 2001
2002 71 70 85 55 56 46 56 44 49 49 50 36 56 57 64 65 49 49 2002
2003 65 49 49 48 52 39 49 63 60 66 48 67 55 52 50 50 50 58 2003
2004 52 66 59 51 35 32 20 42 47 58 65 51 48 49 62 48 32 57 2004
2005 68 57 71 62 54 59 56 56 68 72 63 60 62 61 59 62 57 68 2005
2006 43 54 57 46 41 53 42 60 55 58 62 69 53 53 53 48 51 58 2006
2007 87 62 62 66 59 51 53 55 50 53 47 39 57 60 73 63 53 50 2007
2008 14 27 67 43 41 36 53 37 53 54 57 47 44 43 27 50 42 55 2008
2009 53 45 46 48 55 64 64 55 65 60 68 58 57 56 49 50 61 65 2009
2010 69 72 83 73 63 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** *** 66 73 **** **** 2010
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

Divide these numbers by 100 to get the temp anomalies in Deg C.

So you can see as far as the preferrred direct surface temp measurements goes, there is no recent cooling; in fact it is the hottest Mar/Apri/May ever. Satellite data hosed due to non-constant emissivity.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Ed Edwards » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:09 pm

Consider the following source titled: Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... S_20100624

Personally I read a 1954 book about climate (Climateology - came across it used in 1974) and a 2085 book about Geology (Geology - bought a reprint in 2005). I also took a Stats course in College (after Integral Calculus in 1969) and a have some training on testing stats (1986-1998): how to collect data, how to read data, etc.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Ed Edwards » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:42 pm

May 24th blog entry at:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

Here is the definition (types of denialism) discussed:

The New Scientist Debates Denialism
Category: Denialism • General Discussion • Global Warming Denialism • HIV/AIDS denialism • Holocaust Denial


These items are quoted at that sourece:
How to be a denialist
Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2).


1. Allege that there's a conspiracy.
Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.


2. Use fake experts to support your story.
"Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.


3. Cherry-pick the evidence:
trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.


4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread VIII

Postby Ed Edwards » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:45 pm

5. Use logical fallacies.
Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.


6. Manufacture doubt.
Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest