As Glaciers Melt ...
Jay Hanson
November 02, 1998, Monday
As Glaciers Melt, Talks On Warming Face Chill; Discord Looms Over
Climate Pact's Details
Joby Warrick
>From observation posts high in the South American Andes, scientists
this fall are pondering an extraordinary disappearing act: The
great Quelccaya ice cap, home to some of the hemisphere's largest
glaciers, is melting.
The losses were small when first detected 30 years ago, but in the
1990s Quelccaya's retreat turned into a rout. Scientists aren't
sure why, but some suspect global warming. "Where it was shrinking
at three meters a year, it's now up to 30 meters," said Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, a glacier expert and professor at Ohio State
University.
>From the Andes to Montana's Lewis Range, dozens of ancient glaciers
are turning to slush as global temperatures climb to the highest
levels in recorded history. But despite increasingly strong signals
of possible change in the climate, international efforts to slow
global warming are at risk of sliding into a deep freeze.
A year after the world's nations approved the first binding
agreement on climate change in Kyoto, Japan, 180 countries are
gathering today in Argentina's capital to begin deciding how to cut
emissions of greenhouse gases. But Kyoto's sunny optimism has given
way to cold reality in Buenos Aires as diplomats awaken to
formidable technical challenges and steep divisions among nations
over how to apportion the costs.
Governments can point to only paltry progress on climate change
over the last 11 months, and many are dampening expectations for
significant achievements this year. Some observers worry that
Kyoto's consensus will collapse in Buenos Aires, disintegrating
like the great Quelccaya, in nearby Peru.
"For the first time, the glaciers are moving literally faster than
the negotiations," said Christopher Flavin, vice president and
senior climate researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington
think tank. The fear, he said, is that "time could be running out
for both."
The two-week United Nations-sponsored climate conference begins
near the close of a year that will be remembered for its bizarre
weather. For reasons that may or may not be related to global
warming, Mother Nature cranked up the thermostat this year, pushing
global temperatures to records in each of the first nine months.
The year 1998 is on track for being the warmest in at least six
centuries, or about as far back as scientists can reliably read
the weather. Some blame goes to an unusually severe El Nin o, yet
the global heat pump has continued chugging long after El Nin o
fizzled out over the southern Pacific.
"We have never seen a sequence where we broke records every month
in a row," said D. James Baker, administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "It doesn't prove that you
have global warming, but it's absolutely consistent with what you'd
expect."
While climate can shift abruptly without help from humans, most
scientists believe people are contributing to the warming of the
planet. Fossil fuel burning and the destruction of forests are
causing a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which traps
heat from the sun. Over the next century, scientists predict
average temperatures will rise between 1.8 and 6.3 degrees
Fahrenheit, enough to trigger a sea level rise that could swamp
large chunks of coastal areas.
Last year's Kyoto accord was a historic attempt at putting the
brakes on warming. For the first time, the United States and other
industrialized nations agreed to binding limits on greenhouse
gases. By 2012, these countries would be obliged not only to freeze
their pollution output, but to reduce it to an average 5 percent
below 1990 levels.
But while Kyoto set the targets and deadlines, the most difficult
issues -- how to achieve the cuts and how to spread the costs --
were largely papered over, to be debated later. These are the
questions that now lurk in ambush for government ministers
attempting to put flesh on Kyoto's flimsy bones.
"This has all the makings of an old-time East-West free-for-all,"
said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who will lead a delegation of U.S.
Senate observers at the talks. "Buenos Aires could disintegrate
into a name-calling process, with the West being blamed for all the
evil, problems and difficulties in the world."
Aware of the risks, conference leaders are setting modest goals.
Officially, the ministers are not required to answer all the
questions in Buenos Aires but only to begin a process that will
yield solutions in years to come. If Kyoto "created the
architectural structure," then Buenos Aires will "create a process
for installing the interior plumbing and circuitry," said Stuart
Eizenstat, the undersecretary of state who will serve as chief U.S.
negotiator.
But international fault lines that opened in Kyoto have only
solidified in the past year. Complicating matters is the deepening
economic turmoil in Asia, which Eizenstat acknowledges caused
"setbacks" in the critical task of persuading developing countries
to restrict the growth of their emissions.
To many observers, the peril in Buenos Aires is that nations will
fail to agree even on the rules for settling their differences.
With the clock ticking on deadlines set in Kyoto, a breakdown in
Argentina could strip the process of its political momentum and
delay action on climate for years -- a prospect treaty opponents
are already savoring.
The treaty is on shaky political ground in a number of world
capitals. As of last month, only 55 countries have signed the
accord and only one -- Fiji -- has ratified it. President Clinton,
as leader of the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has
said he will sign the treaty before the March 1, 1999, deadline,
and aides say he may do so this month to give the Buenos Aires
conference a symbolic boost.
The White House insists the accord will not be submitted for Senate
ratification for at least another year, or until U.S. negotiators
win assurances on flexible rules and solid commitments from key
developing countries. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have pledged
a bitter fight against the United Nations-brokered Kyoto agreement,
which they believe would harm the nation economically. The
congressional delegation to Buenos Aires is dominated by lawmakers
who are skeptical not just of the treaty but of global warming
itself. One member, Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), introduced
legislation this year that would have imposed a de facto gag order
on the Clinton administration, prohibiting even educational
seminars on climate change.
"Opponents are hoping Buenos Aires will be Heartbreak Hill, that
it will founder on the tensions they have worked so hard to
foster," said Alden Meyer, director of government relations for the
Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group. Supporters,
he said, can only hope the conference will yield enough progress
to avoid the appearance of standing still.
"Kyoto was a high-wire act," Meyer said. "Buenos Aires will be
three yards and a cloud of dust."
There are many hidden mines that could blow the Buenos Aires talks
off track. One of them could explode as early as theopening day,
when Argentina will try to insert into the agenda a plan to allow
developing countries to voluntarily accept commitments to limit
their own greenhouse gas emissions, setting their own goals and
timetables.
Voluntary cuts -- an idea strongly supported by the Clinton
administration and a few developing countries with close ties to
the United States -- may seem innocuous enough. But other
developing countries are opposed even to discussing Argentina's
plan, U.N. officials said last week.
"Argentina stuck its neck out," said Michael Zammit Cutajar, the
U.N. executive secretary who presides over the climate talks.
"Other countries, such as Mexico and [South] Korea, may look at
this positively. But after that it becomes quite speculative."
The role of developing countries had become a flash point in the
climate debate. Because most of the world's greenhouse gases
historically came from North America and Europe, poorer nations
insist that the West goes first.
But wealthier countries say they can't solve the problem alone.
Already, modernizing countries such as China and India are on their
way toward eclipsing the developed world as the biggest polluters,
and any climate strategy that excludes them would fail in the long
run. Both the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans
say they will not support U.S. ratification of the Kyoto accord
without "meaningful participation" from key developing countries.
Another battle, pitting industrialized countries against each
other, is looming over rules for emissions trading programs that
would allow developed countries to cut their costs by buying and
selling pollution credits. Europeans favor imposing "caps" or
limits on such trading to force each country to make most of its
emissions cuts at home. The Clinton administration strongly opposes
caps, arguing that any restrictions would raise the cost of
compliance. Eizenstat warned last week that the European Union's
actions "threaten to undo the Kyoto agreement."
"We will adamantly oppose efforts to set limits on trading," the
U.S. delegation leader said.
But while the U.S. position may sway moderates in the Senate, it
leaves the White House open to criticism in Buenos Aires.
Europeans, already suspicious that the United States intends to
"buy" its way out of its treaty obligations by purchasing pollution
credits, will likely point to the meager progress the Clinton
administration has made on fighting climate change at home over the
past year.
President Clinton's request for $ 6.3 billion in investments and
tax credits for energy-efficient technology was largely ignored by
Congress, as was his initiative to build 1 million solar roofs over
the next century. A Department of Energy report next week is
expected to show continued, if moderate, increases in U.S. carbon
dioxide emissions over the past 12 months.
Still, the White House did secure $ 1 billion in funding for
climate programs last month -- a hard-won concession that White
House officials say reflects climate's top rating on the
administration's list of priorities.
To David Sandalow, White House associate director for the global
environment, the money represents solid, if modest, progress. And
U.S. negotiators can only hope to do as well in Argentina.
"We haven't filled all the blanks on the Kyoto protocol, but that's
not a big surprise -- this is the most complicated set of
international negotiations ever," Sandalow said. "While recognizing
the urgency of the problem, we must be realistic in understanding
what it will take to move this ocean liner forward."
Jay
-------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> The Washington Post
> November 02, 1998, Monday
>
> As Glaciers Melt, Talks On Warming Face Chill; Discord Looms Over
> Climate Pact's Details
> Joby Warrick
>
> >From observation posts high in the South American Andes, scientists
> this fall are pondering an extraordinary disappearing act: The
> great Quelccaya ice cap, home to some of the hemisphere's largest
> glaciers, is melting.
What a shock, ice melting in the SUMMER!!!
Frank Ormel
Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote in article
<36459620...@uic.edu>...
: Jay Hanson wrote:
: >
<cut>
: What a shock, ice melting in the SUMMER!!!:
You can't be that stupid... at the end of winter/early spring is the
time when glaciers are generally largest. But ALL scientists take
summer melting into account. Any report that a glacier is disappearing
is being generally a study over many years trying to find a trend.
There are many measuring times and places, but especially after winter
(when the glacier is supposed to grow again) is a usefull time. After
processing the data and having a look at it it is well into spring when
reports come out.
Shawn A. Wilson
Hey, if you want to talk data, how about the fact that global warming
doesn't actually map to CO2 levels over the long run. People say
temperatures have risen x degrees over the last hundred years, and CO2
emissions have increased by Y, but they don't point out that most of the
increase in temperature was before 1950, while the increase in CO2 was
after. Or the unreliability of temperature series over decades. Ya
see, cities are warmer than the country, and weather stations were
located in the country a century ago, but the cities have grown to
encompass those stations since then. And then there's fact that
satellite temperature measurements don't show warming since they've been
available. And finally there's the Earth's own long-term temperature
cycle, which is entering a warming phase entirely unrelated to human
activities.
Harold
>
>
>Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote in article
><36459620...@uic.edu>...
>: Jay Hanson wrote:
>: >
><cut>
>: What a shock, ice melting in the SUMMER!!!:
>
>You can't be that stupid... at the end of winter/early spring is the
>time when glaciers are generally largest. But ALL scientists take
>summer melting into account. Any report that a glacier is disappearing
>is being generally a study over many years trying to find a trend.
Glaciers melted long before humans arrived, they will no doubt melt
again if we kill ourselves off.
Regards, Harold
----
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory
of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing,
in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
--- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado),
current advisor to Pres. Clinton
Peter
>
>Hey, if you want to talk data, how about the fact that global warming
>doesn't actually map to CO2 levels over the long run. People say
>temperatures have risen x degrees over the last hundred years, and CO2
>emissions have increased by Y, but they don't point out that most of the
>increase in temperature was before 1950, while the increase in CO2 was
>after. Or the unreliability of temperature series over decades. Ya
>see, cities are warmer than the country, and weather stations were
>located in the country a century ago, but the cities have grown to
>encompass those stations since then. And then there's fact that
>satellite temperature measurements don't show warming since they've been
>available. And finally there's the Earth's own long-term temperature
>cycle, which is entering a warming phase entirely unrelated to human
>activities.
The global averaged temperature has been rising again since about 1980.
Greenhouse effect skeptics like to point out that so many factors affect climate
that it's extremely difficult to isolate the contribution of greenhouse gasses.
So, why shouldn't the stability of average global tempoerature from 1950 to 1980
be due to other factors mitigating the accumulation of greenhouse gasses? the
urban heat island effect is well known, James Hansen of NASA informed me in an
e-mail that he plans to issue a paper before the end of the year detailing how
he accounts for it. Recently, papers have appeared in "Nature" and "Science"
discussing errors in the satellite MSU measurements. The MSU
data--corrected--shows a slight warming. Furthermore, it is temperature *at the
surface* which concerns us.
Frank Ormel
Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote in article
<3646C5FB...@uic.edu>...
: Frank Ormel wrote:
<snip>
: Hey, if you want to talk data, how about the fact that global warming
: doesn't actually map to CO2 levels over the long run. People say
: temperatures have risen x degrees over the last hundred years, and
CO2
<snip>
OK.. so lets talk data. First of all the discussion was about melting
glaciers. It is indeed hard to measure a trend in the global mean
temperature, and even harder to link this to anthropogenic emissions.
It is therefore that scientist's have been looking for secondary
effects like glaciers melting. All over the world glaciers have been
melting since a few decades, in New Zealand, in Alaska and in Northern
Europe.
The data given in the original posting was that from observation posts
high in the South American Andes, scientists this fall are pondering an
extraordinary disappearing act: The great Quelccaya ice cap, home to
some of the hemisphere's largest glaciers, is melting.
Your reaction to this was: What a shock, ice melting in the SUMMER!!! I
believe that you had forgotten that it was winter there three months
ago. A typical reaction tha shows that at least some people not always
take the time to realise hat is being said before trying to denounce
the results. The first reaction is not unbiased, but negatively
critical. Now being critical is good, as long as it is based on the
facts, not on a bias that climate change is nonsense and therefore
every report about climate change and its effects are nonsense.
I welcome a good discussion, as long as its based on facts. Not on if
you like what you are hearing or not. Now, as far as the temperature
data is concerned: Looking at the data provided in "Climate change and
it impacts"
<http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>. Though I
agree with the critisism that the reference to the IPCC business as
usual scenario is unclear, I have no problem using their temperature
data for 1880 to 1997. Looking at this data you can see that the global
annual mean surface temperature shows no trend until 1920. From 1920 to
1950 the temperature rises about 0.2 degrees C. Even taking the average
over the 50'ies, this rise is only 0.3 degrees C. From 1920 to 1997
there is an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees C. Your claim that
most of the increase happened before 1950 is not accurate according to
this data.
Shawn A. Wilson
> The global averaged temperature has been rising again since about 1980.
Not according to satellite measurements of lower atmosphere
temperatures.
> Greenhouse effect skeptics like to point out that so many factors affect climate
> that it's extremely difficult to isolate the contribution of greenhouse gasses.
> So, why shouldn't the stability of average global tempoerature from 1950 to 1980
> be due to other factors mitigating the accumulation of greenhouse gasses?
What factors? Why are they no longer operating? How did they operate
then? Expensive industrial policy (to wit: reducing CO2 emissions)
should be based on much more than 'well, maybe'.
the
> urban heat island effect is well known, James Hansen of NASA informed me in an
> e-mail that he plans to issue a paper before the end of the year detailing how
> he accounts for it. Recently, papers have appeared in "Nature" and "Science"
> discussing errors in the satellite MSU measurements. The MSU
> data--corrected--shows a slight warming. Furthermore, it is temperature *at the
> surface* which concerns us.
Which happens to be correlated with lower atmosphere temperatures.
Shawn A. Wilson
> OK.. so lets talk data. First of all the discussion was about melting
> glaciers. It is indeed hard to measure a trend in the global mean
> temperature, and even harder to link this to anthropogenic emissions.
> It is therefore that scientist's have been looking for secondary
> effects like glaciers melting. All over the world glaciers have been
> melting since a few decades, in New Zealand, in Alaska and in Northern
> Europe.
> The data given in the original posting was that from observation posts
> high in the South American Andes, scientists this fall are pondering an
> extraordinary disappearing act: The great Quelccaya ice cap, home to
> some of the hemisphere's largest glaciers, is melting.
> Your reaction to this was: What a shock, ice melting in the SUMMER!!! I
> believe that you had forgotten that it was winter there three months
> ago.
No, but you seem to have forgetten that the end of winter is generally
associated with temperatures above freezing. In cold weather the
galciers expand, in warm weather they contract, neither activity
requires global warming.
A typical reaction tha shows that at least some people not always
> take the time to realise hat is being said before trying to denounce
> the results.
I have had more than enough exposure to this issue to denounce the
results.
The first reaction is not unbiased, but negatively
> critical. Now being critical is good, as long as it is based on the
> facts, not on a bias that climate change is nonsense and therefore
> every report about climate change and its effects are nonsense.
As opposed to the bias that climate change is real? I already mentioned
the incredible problems in even MEASURING global temperatures over the
last century, yet you want to take this incredibly bad data and draw
some sort of conclusion from it? Why are you ignoring satellite data,
which doesn't support the hypothesis of gobal warming?
> I welcome a good discussion, as long as its based on facts.
I provided you with facts.
fact 1: long-term global temperature measurement series are unreliable
at best
fact 2: such short but reliable series we do have don't support the
hypothesis of global warming
fact 3: the observed series of CO2 and temperature measurements don't
support anthropogenic global warming
fact 4: the earth has a temperature cycle of its own unrelated to human
activities
fact 5: the Earth's temperature cycle is entering a warming phase.
Not on if
> you like what you are hearing or not. Now, as far as the temperature
> data is concerned: Looking at the data provided in "Climate change and
> it impacts"
> <http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>. Though I
> agree with the critisism that the reference to the IPCC business as
> usual scenario is unclear, I have no problem using their temperature
> data for 1880 to 1997. Looking at this data you can see that the global
> annual mean surface temperature shows no trend until 1920. From 1920 to
> 1950 the temperature rises about 0.2 degrees C. Even taking the average
> over the 50'ies, this rise is only 0.3 degrees C. From 1920 to 1997
> there is an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees C. Your claim that
> most of the increase happened before 1950 is not accurate according to
> this data.
There is very little actual temperature data there, the data I saw were
all temperature change data. Such actual temperature data as I've seen
show a plateau from about 1950 to 1980. CO2 emissions have been
following a rather constant exponential growth pattern since the dawn of
the industial age.
Harold Lindaberry
Frank Ormel wrote:
> Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote in article
> <3646C5FB...@uic.edu>...
> : Frank Ormel wrote:
> <snip>
> : Hey, if you want to talk data, how about the fact that global warming
> : doesn't actually map to CO2 levels over the long run. People say
> : temperatures have risen x degrees over the last hundred years, and
> CO2
> <snip>
>
> OK.. so lets talk data. First of all the discussion was about melting
> glaciers. It is indeed hard to measure a trend in the global mean
> temperature, and even harder to link this to anthropogenic emissions.
> It is therefore that scientist's have been looking for secondary
> effects like glaciers melting. All over the world glaciers have been
> melting since a few decades, in New Zealand, in Alaska and in Northern
> Europe.
> The data given in the original posting was that from observation posts
> high in the South American Andes, scientists this fall are pondering an
> extraordinary disappearing act: The great Quelccaya ice cap, home to
> some of the hemisphere's largest glaciers, is melting.
> Your reaction to this was: What a shock, ice melting in the SUMMER!!! I
> believe that you had forgotten that it was winter there three months
> ago. A typical reaction tha shows that at least some people not always
> take the time to realise hat is being said before trying to denounce
> the results. The first reaction is not unbiased, but negatively
> critical. Now being critical is good, as long as it is based on the
> facts, not on a bias that climate change is nonsense and therefore
> every report about climate change and its effects are nonsense.
> I welcome a good discussion, as long as its based on facts. Not on if
> you like what you are hearing or not. Now, as far as the temperature
> data is concerned: Looking at the data provided in "Climate change and
> it impacts"
> <http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>. Though I
> agree with the critisism that the reference to the IPCC business as
> usual scenario is unclear, I have no problem using their temperature
> data for 1880 to 1997. Looking at this data you can see that the global
> annual mean surface temperature shows no trend until 1920. From 1920 to
> 1950 the temperature rises about 0.2 degrees C. Even taking the average
> over the 50'ies, this rise is only 0.3 degrees C. From 1920 to 1997
> there is an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees C. Your claim that
> most of the increase happened before 1950 is not accurate according to
> this data.
IMHO if the temperature wasn't changing THAT would be a change - one
just needs to look to the past, maybe to the time when the areas that are
now covered with ice were loaded with dinosaurs ass deep in ferns or
perhaps back to when the ice was a mile thick over Yosemite and New York
state while gouging out the great lakes and the finger lakes. There have
been glacial and interglacial periods one we still are in, whether we still
are coming out or getting ready to go in is a question up for grabs but-
one thing for certain mans emissions didn't have any impact on the ones in
the past. If man thinks he can change the course and keep the temperature
at a stable status quo temperature as they say in Japan - ROTS OF RUCK
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Agust Bjarnason
> The MSU
> data--corrected--shows a slight warming. Furthermore, it is temperature *at the
> surface* which concerns us.
> The MSU
> data--corrected--shows a slight warming. Furthermore, it is temperature *at the
> surface* which concerns us.
Please see: http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
The 1997-1998 surge in the chart for monthly temperature changes for the
lower troposphere (surface to 8 km, or 5 miles) is rapidly returning
to normal.
The peak was in April as +0.72°C, but was already down to +0.44°C for September.
Click on the chart to get the numerical data.
It will be interesting to monitor the trend for the next few months !
Maybe there is no global warming at all!
Please note that the trend is not +0.05°C for 1979 to 1997.
It is -0.01°C. The current temperature surge is causing
the temporary upward trend.
Agust
Franz Gerl
:
:
: > The MSU
: > data--corrected--shows a slight warming. Furthermore, it is temperature *at the
: > surface* which concerns us.
:
:
:
: Please see: http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
:
: The 1997-1998 surge in the chart for monthly temperature changes for the
: lower troposphere (surface to 8 km, or 5 miles) is rapidly returning
: to normal.
:
: The peak was in April as +0.72°C, but was already down to +0.44°C for September.
Still a record for that month.
: Click on the chart to get the numerical data.
:
: It will be interesting to monitor the trend for the next few months !
:
: Maybe there is no global warming at all!
:
: Please note that the trend is not +0.05°C for 1979 to 1997.
: It is -0.01°C. The current temperature surge is causing
: the temporary upward trend.
:
It does not make sense to remove the current warm spell,
since there was an equally strong El Nino event at the
beginning of the record. However one should remove the
influence of the Pinatubo volcano explosion, which roughly
doubles the trend.
If the upward trend is temporary, you should be able to
make a prediction, when it will be negative again. We had
La Ninas before.
Franz
Shawn A. Wilson
> It is industrial policy to ignore environmental effects until it
>becomes
>too late to not be expensive to alleviate.
What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> The onus isn't (or shouldn't
>be)
>on the public to prove destructive industrial policy is occuring but on
>the
>industrialist capitalizers to show that their policies and agendas
>aren't
>environmentally and socially destructive.
How does one prove a negative? Even if one could, how much of
destruction is enough? A person can't walk across the grass barefoot
without destroying some part of the environment.
> However, the media,
>controlled
>as it is by the same corporations setting the economic agenda, have spun
>the argument on its head and have accused environmentalists, of all
>people,
>of trying to set industrial policy. How absurd and pathetic.
And true. Envirnmentalist ARE trying to set industrial policy by doing
things like calling for limits on CO2 emissions.
Scott Nudds
: > The global averaged temperature has been rising again since about 1980.
Shawn A. Wilson (swi...@uic.edu) wrote:
: Not according to satellite measurements of lower atmosphere
: temperatures.
Oh yes, even according to these measurements. They show a warming of
about .04'C per decade - a value in good agreement with the increase seen
at the surface. However the period over which the satelite data extends
is not sufficient in itself to draw a conclusion.
"There is no question that the surface temperatures are warmer now than
they were 100 years ago. There is also no question that there is more
CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago." - THE USE OF
SATELLITES IN GLOBAL WARMING FORECASTS * - John R. Christy
: > Greenhouse effect skeptics like to point out that so many factors affect climate
: > that it's extremely difficult to isolate the contribution of greenhouse gasses.
: > So, why shouldn't the stability of average global tempoerature from 1950 to 1980
: > be due to other factors mitigating the accumulation of greenhouse gasses?
: What factors? Why are they no longer operating? How did they operate
: then?
The primary factor is particulate cooling and it is currently at work.
Why don't you know this?
: Which happens to be correlated with lower atmosphere temperatures.
Indeed. Both are rising.
Global Average Temp over time
-----------------------------
15.2| TEMP = Hansen Temperature Index ..
| .
| .
| ..
| .... .
^ | .. ..... .
| | .. ...
T | ..
E | ..
M | .
P | .... .
| .. ..
| .. .
14.6| ... 1940 1970
|-|-------------------|--------|------|--
1872 Year -> 1994
Scott Nudds
: Please note that the trend is not +0.05°C for 1979 to 1997.
: It is -0.01°C. The current temperature surge is causing
: the temporary upward trend.
So Bjarnason's argument is that <if> you throw out data that he doesn't
like, the data shows cooling rather than warming.
By what authority does Bjarnason throw out observations?
We perfer honesty.
Phil. G. Felton
<swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
> > The global averaged temperature has been rising again since about 1980.
>
> Not according to satellite measurements of lower atmosphere
> temperatures.
>
The NASA web site which reports the monthly MSU data states:
> The overall trend in the tropospheric data is approximately steady, at
> about +0.049oC per decade.
Phil.
(rest deleted)
Joshua Halpern
> Frank Ormel wrote:
> > Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote in article
> > <36459620...@uic.edu>...
> > : Jay Hanson wrote:
> > <cut>
> Hey, if you want to talk data, how about the fact that global warming
> doesn't actually map to CO2 levels over the long run.
Because of overlaps with the spectral lines of other molecules,
and the fact that the stronger CO2 lines are saturated, one
would expect a slower than linear response, but a strong
correletion, which is observed if you look at 150-200 years
of data.
josh halpern
Shawn A. Wilson
Not even remotely close. CO2 levels aren't measured by spectroscope.
Agust Bjarnason
Franz Gerl wrote:
> Agust Bjarnason (ag...@rt.is) wrote:
> :
> :
> : > The MSU
> : > data--corrected--shows a slight warming. Furthermore, it is temperature *at the
> : > surface* which concerns us.
> :
> :
> :
> : Please see: http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
> :
> : The 1997-1998 surge in the chart for monthly temperature changes for the
> : lower troposphere (surface to 8 km, or 5 miles) is rapidly returning
> : to normal.
> :
> : The peak was in April as +0.72°C, but was already down to +0.44°C for September.
>
> Still a record for that month.
>
> : Click on the chart to get the numerical data.
> :
> : It will be interesting to monitor the trend for the next few months !
> :
> : Maybe there is no global warming at all!
> :
> : Please note that the trend is not +0.05°C for 1979 to 1997.
> : It is -0.01°C. The current temperature surge is causing
> : the temporary upward trend.
> :
> It does not make sense to remove the current warm spell,
> since there was an equally strong El Nino event at the
> beginning of the record. However one should remove the
> influence of the Pinatubo volcano explosion, which roughly
> doubles the trend.
> If the upward trend is temporary, you should be able to
> make a prediction, when it will be negative again. We had
> La Ninas before.
>
> Franz
---
It is clear that we need much larger time of observation in order
to be able to remove the natural temperature fluctuations
like the large volcanic eruptions in El Chichon 1982, Mt. Pinatubo 1991,
Solar max ~1990 and ~1995, Solar min ~1987 and ~1995
El Nino 1983, 1987, 1995, 1997/8 and LaNina 1988 and 1996.
Also the "North Atlantic's ElNino"; that is the NAO-North Atlantic Oscillation,
which has considerable effect on the climate.
In the Sun we have the ~11 year solar cycle, the ~90 year Gleissberg cycle,
and the ~300 year cycle that caused the Maunder and Spoerer minimums.
On the ground we have the "urban effect" which disturbs normal surface
temperature measurements.
All these effects make evaluation of the real CO2-temperature effect
very difficult, if not impossible.
Regards
Agust Bjarnason
Agust Bjarnason
Franz Gerl wrote:
It is clear that we need much longer time of observation in order
to be able to remove the natural temperature fluctuations
like the large volcanic eruptions in El Chichon 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo 1991;
Solar max ~1979 and ~1990, Solar min ~1985 and ~1995;
El Nino 1983, 1987, 1995, 1997/8 and La-Nina 1988 and 1996.
Also the "North Atlantic's El-Nino"; that is the NAO-North Atlantic Oscillation,
which has considerable effect on the climate.
Sometimes two effects more or less cancel each other like the 1982
eruption (cooling) and 1983 El-Nino (warming)
In the Sun we have the ~11 year solar cycle, the ~90 year Gleissberg cycle,
and the ~300 year cycle that caused the Maunder and Spoerer minimums.
On the ground we have the "urban effect" which disturbs normal surface
temperature measurements.
All these effects make evaluation of the real CO2-temperature effect
very difficult, if not impossible.
The natural "noise" is too much.
Regards
Agust Bjarnason
--
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> >
> > In sci.environment Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> > > Frank Ormel wrote:
> > > > Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote in article
> > > > <36459620...@uic.edu>...
> > > > : Jay Hanson wrote:
> > > > <cut>
> > > Hey, if you want to talk data, how about the fact that global warming
> > > doesn't actually map to CO2 levels over the long run.
> >
> > Because of overlaps with the spectral lines of other molecules,
> > and the fact that the stronger CO2 lines are saturated, one
> > would expect a slower than linear response, but a strong
> > correletion, which is observed if you look at 150-200 years
> > of data.
> >
OK, you lose. Here is a rough explanation of how the greenhouse
effect works. Light from the sun reaches the earth. Some
of this light is absorbed in the atmosphere, a lot reaches the
ground and is absorbed. The absorbed light heats wherever it
is absorbed and is re-emitted as infrared light. If this light
simply passed through the atmosphere back into space, the earth
would be much colder than it is. However, some molecules that we
find in the atmosphere, principally water vapor, CO2, oxides of
nitrogen, and increasingly methane and halogenated hydrocarbons
absorb IR light at the same frequencies as one measures
in the lab. The excited molecules then give the energy up
to nearby molecules by collision. The net effect is to heat
the atmosphere. A complicated cycle of absorption and
re-emission in the atmosphere traps energy. Energy does
leak out through the top of the atmosphere eventually, but
an equilibrium is established between energy flowing in
from the sun, and out of the atmosphere, roughly, 20-30 C
higher at the surface than it would be without the greenhouse
effect.
For H2O and CO2, in particular, there is
so much in the air, that for the strongest lines, adding more
H2O or CO2 has little effect (If 99.999% of the light is absorbed
in 1 meter, than for the purposes of modeling energy flow, if
99.9999999% were absorbed it would make little difference.)
Such lines are said to be saturated. However, there is an
effect on weaker absorption lines. The concentration of H2O
is controlled by the temperature of the surface layer of the
oceans and the temperature of the coldest point of the
troposphere (the tropopause). Thus adding or taking water
vapor from the atmosphere will have little effect
CO2 has no such regulatory mechanism although some
will argue that the CO2 fertilization effect functions
as such (another longer and more technical discussion).
Aerosols (clouds) play an important role because they have
very broad absorptions.
That's one. Everyone get's one freebee.
josh halpern
John Alway
[...]
> What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
The big lie is here! Notice, the enemy is weak intellectually, but
strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
handers. Now you know how those in Nazi Germany felt when they tried to
deal with the same thing. In fact, I have an excellent article about a
German intellectual during that era who wrote of how concerned he was
over the thinking of so many people, but he was essentially powerless.
The difference is that there were probably far fewer people back then in
Germany as a percentage of population who were aware of the problem than
there are in the U.S. today who are aware of the backwardness of
environmentalists. This gives us more of a chance! (The rest of the
world seems more enamored of this bad science than are Americans, from
my observations. So, I hold less hope out for them.)
Anyway, here's another scientist on the subject, as if the thousands
who have pointed out the absurdity of the whole thing aren't enough!
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/taylor.htm
...John
Phil. G. Felton
<swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> >
> > In sci.environment Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> > > Frank Ormel wrote:
> > > > Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote in article
> > > > <36459620...@uic.edu>...
> > > > : Jay Hanson wrote:
> > > > <cut>
> >
> > > Hey, if you want to talk data, how about the fact that global warming
> > > doesn't actually map to CO2 levels over the long run.
> >
> > Because of overlaps with the spectral lines of other molecules,
> > and the fact that the stronger CO2 lines are saturated, one
> > would expect a slower than linear response, but a strong
> > correletion, which is observed if you look at 150-200 years
> > of data.
> >
> > josh halpern
>
>
> Not even remotely close. CO2 levels aren't measured by spectroscope.
No-one is suggesting that they are, the absorption of IR light by those
spectral lines is what leads to the GH effect which is why the saturation
or otherwise is important for the response dependance.
phil.
Franz Gerl
[...]
: Now you know how those in Nazi Germany felt when they tried to
: deal with the same thing. In fact, I have an excellent article about a
: German intellectual during that era who wrote of how concerned he was
: over the thinking of so many people, but he was essentially powerless.
[...]
I hereby invoke Godwin's law and declare this thread ended.
You brought up Nazis in an otherwise relatively civil thread,
and therefore your side lost.
Franz - who still thinks it is funny that people from the
far right would start to compare their opponents to Nazis
to hide their extremist anti-scientific views.
James G. Acker
: Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
:
: [...]
:
: > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
: > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
This is incorrect. Credible measures of global surface
temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
1850.
: The big lie is here! Notice, the enemy is weak intellectually, but
: strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
: handers....
And of course you never address any peer-reviewed scientific
research in your diatribes.
: Germany as a percentage of population who were aware of the problem than
: there are in the U.S. today who are aware of the backwardness of
: environmentalists. This gives us more of a chance! (The rest of the
: world seems more enamored of this bad science than are Americans, from
: my observations. So, I hold less hope out for them.)
: Anyway, here's another scientist on the subject, as if the thousands
: who have pointed out the absurdity of the whole thing aren't enough!
:
: http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/taylor.htm
Alway, you don't have a scientific leg to stand on. You ran
and hid the last time real data was presented to you. Taylor's Letter
to the Editor is actually a worthwhile contribution, because it points out
what most reputable climate scientists will tell you -- you can't detect
global warming effects based on year-to-year weather variability, and
that includes hurricanes. The IPCC reports make similar statements.
However, let's see what SCIENTISTS actually say. I invite
you to present your informed criticism of the following Web page:
http://www.gfdl.gov/~rt/glob_warm_hurr.html
You may criticize the page or the article in the journal
_Science_. The reference is given on the Web page.
I would also like to know why the esteemed George Taylor, President
of the American Association of State Climatologists, would not consider
a study such as this "credible evidence". I would also like to know
if Steven Milloy considers such modeling efforts "junk science". Isn't
it interesting that neither Taylor nor Milloy has the chutzpah to take
on a peer-reviewed article in a scientific publication, and instead
direct their fire against an article in a newspaper?
By the way, despite what Taylor thinks, the insurance industry
is worried about the threat of more and stronger hurricanes.
http://cnnfn.com/news/9605/17/global_warm_pkg/index.htm
C'mon Alway, you posted this to sci.environment. You talk
the talk, but can you walk the walk?
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
John Alway
>
> John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> :
> : [...]
> :
> : > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> : > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
>
> This is incorrect. Credible measures of global surface
> temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
> 1850.
Nobody disputes that! That rise, however, occurred before the bit
increases in CO2 and it occurred from 1850 to about 1940 as we were
coming out of "the little ice age". Since that point there is no clear
evidence of a trend up or down, and, in fact, satellite data shows a
small downward trend over the last twenty years.
I'm a bit tired of responding to this deliberately deceptive way of
presenting the facts.
> : The big lie is here! Notice, the enemy is weak intellectually, but
> : strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
> : handers....
> And of course you never address any peer-reviewed scientific
> research in your diatribes.
This is yet another lie. The fact is that thousands of top flight
scientists have put their names on record (and it's been years, so there
is no excuse any more for not knowing this), and have presented solid
science in support of their claims, which is more than can be said for
those who wish for global warming.
> : Germany as a percentage of population who were aware of the problem than
> : there are in the U.S. today who are aware of the backwardness of
> : environmentalists. This gives us more of a chance! (The rest of the
> : world seems more enamored of this bad science than are Americans, from
> : my observations. So, I hold less hope out for them.)
>
> : Anyway, here's another scientist on the subject, as if the thousands
> : who have pointed out the absurdity of the whole thing aren't enough!
> :
> : http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/taylor.htm
> Alway, you don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
Science doesn't means starting with conclusions, i.e. "there is man
caused global warming and we're all going to die" (and this was the
starting point), and then searching for evidence and evading it.
Science means looking at the evidence, forming a tentative hypothesis,
checking the hypothesis against the evidence, forming new hypotheses,
etc, and the cycle continues. Now, if you find that the hypothesis
can't stand the weight of the evidence, you scrap it. This is what
needs to be done.
> You ran
> and hid the last time real data was presented to you.
I did no such thing. You are confusing my desire to enjoy life and
live it (because I don't like spending too much time talking to those
who are clearly closed to reason and the evidence), with running. The
only reason I take on environmentalists is because their philosophy is
deadly and threatening to my life (see the pin heads in Kyoto, who
dishonestly signed onto world control of fossil fuel burning). So I
have some obligation.
> Taylor's Letter
> to the Editor is actually a worthwhile contribution, because it points out
> what most reputable climate scientists will tell you -- you can't detect
> global warming effects based on year-to-year weather variability, and
> that includes hurricanes. The IPCC reports make similar statements.
Taylor simply supports the contention that there is no evidence of
global warming. Which was the central point I wanted to make anyway.
> However, let's see what SCIENTISTS actually say. I invite
> you to present your informed criticism of the following Web page:
MOST SCIENTISTS, and the very best in the field of atmospheric science,
say global warming is bunk. The petition is strong evidence of that.
Hell, I don't know what else can be done.
> http://www.gfdl.gov/~rt/glob_warm_hurr.html
> You may criticize the page or the article in the journal
> _Science_. The reference is given on the Web page.
I criticize this sort of science because I believe it's sloppy.
Modeling of whether systems is simply not good science yet. It requires
much more understanding.
> I would also like to know why the esteemed George Taylor, President
> of the American Association of State Climatologists, would not consider
> a study such as this "credible evidence". I would also like to know
> if Steven Milloy considers such modeling efforts "junk science". Isn't
> it interesting that neither Taylor nor Milloy has the chutzpah to take
> on a peer-reviewed article in a scientific publication, and instead
> direct their fire against an article in a newspaper?
Milloy is not a climatologist. However, Lindzen is, and he would tell
you that the models are simply tools that are being forged right now,
and should not be used as predictors. They are far too primitive for
that. Hoyt, a seasoned atmospheric scientist, on his web site, has
pointed out how the modelers have been wrong not just in magnitude, but
in direction wrt global warming. They haven't even been close.
> By the way, despite what Taylor thinks, the insurance industry
> is worried about the threat of more and stronger hurricanes.
> http://cnnfn.com/news/9605/17/global_warm_pkg/index.htm
> C'mon Alway, you posted this to sci.environment. You talk
> the talk, but can you walk the walk?
Taylor's point speaks for itself. There is no evidence of increased
number of hurricanes. His point is prima facia true. Do you look at
the real world?
...John
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> : Peter wrote:
> : > The global averaged temperature has been rising again since about 1980.
>
> : temperatures.
>
> about .04'C per decade - a value in good agreement with the increase seen
> at the surface. However the period over which the satelite data extends
> is not sufficient in itself to draw a conclusion.
Well, my source says otherwise.
From: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307.html
"A look at the trends in the satellite data--our only truly global
record of lower atmosphere temperature--is remarkably revealing. A
statistically significant global cooling trend (Figure 4) exists over
the 18.8-year period of record. Monthly average global temperature
departures from the 1982-91 means as measured by satellites show a
statistically significant decline since measurements began in 1979. That
has occurred during a period when the earth should have warmed 0.6oC
according to greenhouse global climate models and 0.35oC according to
sulfate-greenhouse global climate models. "
> "There is no question that the surface temperatures are warmer now than
> they were 100 years ago. There is also no question that there is more
> CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago." - THE USE OF
> SATELLITES IN GLOBAL WARMING FORECASTS * - John R. Christy
Actually, there IS question.
>
> : > Greenhouse effect skeptics like to point out that so many factors affect climate
> : > that it's extremely difficult to isolate the contribution of greenhouse gasses.
> : > So, why shouldn't the stability of average global tempoerature from 1950 to 1980
> : > be due to other factors mitigating the accumulation of greenhouse gasses?
>
> : What factors? Why are they no longer operating? How did they operate
> : then?
>
> The primary factor is particulate cooling and it is currently at work.
>
> Why don't you know this?
Again from: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307.html
"The IPCC is presenting two alternative hypotheses: Either the amount of
warming was simply overestimated, or some other anthropogenic emission
is preventing the warming from being observed. Which is more likely to
be true?
"Are sulfate aerosols responsible for the now-admitted dearth of
warming? Several attempts have been made to demonstrate that they are.
The most prominent, which appeared in Nature on July 4, 1996, seemed to
bolster the argument that sulfates were masking the expected warming.(9)
"That study relied on annual weather balloon data from 1963 through
1987. The most striking characteristic of the data was a rapid warming
of the lower atmosphere of the middle of the Southern Hemisphere, where
virtually no sulfates exist to counter greenhouse warming. That
particular paper received widespread publicity because it was published
a mere week before an important UN meeting on climate change in Geneva.
At that meeting Under Secretary of State Timothy Wirth stated, largely
because of the Nature article, that "the science is convincing" on
global warming.(10)
"However, if the entire record of weather balloon data, from 1958
through 1995, is used, the middle of the Southern Hemisphere exhibits no
change whatsoever.(11) Figure 2 shows the warming observed by B. D.
Santer et al. from 1963 to 1987 (top). The highlighted region in the
Southern Hemisphere shows the strong observed warming. The entire
temperature history over the same region from 1957 to 1995 shows no
significant warming trend (bottom). However, the period that was chosen
for study by Santer et al. (filled circles) warms dramatically.
"The senior author of the original study told the December 1996 meeting
of the American Geophysical Union that the correspondence between the
sulfate-greenhouse model and reality vanished because greenhouse warming
in the Northern Hemisphere had overwhelmed sulfate cooling since 1987.
That was reiterated in the July 16, 1997, issue of New Scientist.(12)
However, because no net change exists in any of the temperature records
in the past decade (Figure 1), that statement is clearly wrong."
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
>
> strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
> deal with the same thing.
Are you calling me a Nazi? If so, what on Earth does that have to do
with global warming?
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> :
> : [...]
> :
> : > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> : > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
>
> temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
> 1850.
Global temperature measures in 1850? Who are you trying to kid?
James G. Acker
: James G. Acker wrote:
: >
: > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
: > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
: > :
: > : [...]
: > :
: > : > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
: > : > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
: >
: > This is incorrect. Credible measures of global surface
: > temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
: > 1850.
:
: Nobody disputes that! That rise, however, occurred before the bit
: increases in CO2 and it occurred from 1850 to about 1940 as we were
: coming out of "the little ice age". Since that point there is no clear
: evidence of a trend up or down, and, in fact, satellite data shows a
: small downward trend over the last twenty years.
So someone says "Global warming hasn't even been established",
and you support the statement, calling global warming a lie. But when the
facts are stated, you say that nobody disputes it.
Plus, it's probably been quoted to you several times that the
satellite data study you're quoting has been called into question, and
two separate research groups analyzing the same data find that it shows
a warming trend. So you'd be wise to give up that propaganda point.
And if you closely analyze the temperature curves, there was a
plateau from about 1940-1970, which can be modeled on the basis of sulfate
aerosol radiance absorption. This decade has consistently shown the
highest global temperatures ever recorded, with 1998 leading the way.
How much more data do you want?
: I'm a bit tired of responding to this deliberately deceptive way of
: presenting the facts.
It's deceptive to claim that there is "no global warming", when
in fact there is. Causality has yet to be well-established, but
anthropogenic forcing is strongly implicated.
: > : The big lie is here! Notice, the enemy is weak intellectually, but
: > : strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
: > : handers....
:
: > And of course you never address any peer-reviewed scientific
: > research in your diatribes.
:
:
: This is yet another lie. The fact is that thousands of top flight
: scientists have put their names on record (and it's been years, so there
: is no excuse any more for not knowing this), and have presented solid
: science in support of their claims, which is more than can be said for
: those who wish for global warming.
Let's discuss one. Lindzen, your choice below. Even he admits the
likelihood of a 0.3-0.5 deg C warming in the next century, only slightly
lower than the minimum IPCC estimate. His research is focused on cloud
climate feedbacks, which is the number one unknown in all of the current
climate models.
Your response?
: > : Germany as a percentage of population who were aware of the problem than
: > : there are in the U.S. today who are aware of the backwardness of
: > : environmentalists. This gives us more of a chance! (The rest of the
: > : world seems more enamored of this bad science than are Americans, from
: > : my observations. So, I hold less hope out for them.)
: >
: > : Anyway, here's another scientist on the subject, as if the thousands
: > : who have pointed out the absurdity of the whole thing aren't enough!
: > :
: > : http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/taylor.htm
:
: > Alway, you don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
:
: Science doesn't means starting with conclusions, i.e. "there is man
: caused global warming and we're all going to die" (and this was the
: starting point), and then searching for evidence and evading it.
: Science means looking at the evidence, forming a tentative hypothesis,
: checking the hypothesis against the evidence, forming new hypotheses,
: etc, and the cycle continues. Now, if you find that the hypothesis
: can't stand the weight of the evidence, you scrap it. This is what
: needs to be done.
Agreed. The weight of evidence indicates anthropogenically-forced
global warming. Find me your favorite peer-reviewed article in opposition
and let's discuss it. Can you do that?
: > You ran
: > and hid the last time real data was presented to you.
:
: I did no such thing. You are confusing my desire to enjoy life and
: live it (because I don't like spending too much time talking to those
: who are clearly closed to reason and the evidence), with running. The
: only reason I take on environmentalists is because their philosophy is
: deadly and threatening to my life (see the pin heads in Kyoto, who
: dishonestly signed onto world control of fossil fuel burning). So I
: have some obligation.
:
:
: > Taylor's Letter
: > to the Editor is actually a worthwhile contribution, because it points out
: > what most reputable climate scientists will tell you -- you can't detect
: > global warming effects based on year-to-year weather variability, and
: > that includes hurricanes. The IPCC reports make similar statements.
:
: Taylor simply supports the contention that there is no evidence of
: global warming. Which was the central point I wanted to make anyway.
And as you said, "nobody disputes it". Point made. You admitted
to the evidence.
Taylor's letter is criticizing the point that Hurricane Mitch,
an intense Cat 5 hurricane, is the type of thing that scientists tie
to global warming scenarios. He pointed out that year-to-year hurricane
numbers are not evidence of global warming. But I'll bet the article
was actually about hurricane _intensity_, which the reference I gave
you does relate to global warming.
: > However, let's see what SCIENTISTS actually say. I invite
: > you to present your informed criticism of the following Web page:
:
: MOST SCIENTISTS, and the very best in the field of atmospheric science,
: say global warming is bunk. The petition is strong evidence of that.
The petition is no evidence of informed consideration of the
topic. And the skeptics have been caught putting out deceptive petitions.
: Hell, I don't know what else can be done.
:
: > http://www.gfdl.gov/~rt/glob_warm_hurr.html
:
:
: > You may criticize the page or the article in the journal
: > _Science_. The reference is given on the Web page.
:
: I criticize this sort of science because I believe it's sloppy.
: Modeling of whether systems is simply not good science yet. It requires
: much more understanding.
That's informed. It's "sloppy". Why? What's wrong with the model?
Are you disputing that higher sea surface temperatures wouldn't lead to
more intense hurricanes?
Your beliefs are not under discussion here. The data and the
published scientific results are what we should be discussing. A signature
on a petition gives no indication of whether or not anyone has actually
investigated the issue.
: > I would also like to know why the esteemed George Taylor, President
: > of the American Association of State Climatologists, would not consider
: > a study such as this "credible evidence". I would also like to know
: > if Steven Milloy considers such modeling efforts "junk science". Isn't
: > it interesting that neither Taylor nor Milloy has the chutzpah to take
: > on a peer-reviewed article in a scientific publication, and instead
: > direct their fire against an article in a newspaper?
:
: Milloy is not a climatologist. However, Lindzen is, and he would tell
: you that the models are simply tools that are being forged right now,
: and should not be used as predictors. They are far too primitive for
: that. Hoyt, a seasoned atmospheric scientist, on his web site, has
: pointed out how the modelers have been wrong not just in magnitude, but
: in direction wrt global warming. They haven't even been close.
Hoyt quotes the satellite temperature record study (MSU) that
has been shown to be erroneous. He had to update the Web page.
And read this section:
http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex5.htm
Quoting: "a doubling of greenhouse gases will probably cause a
global warming between 0.5 and 0.9 degrees C".
Evaluation: The skeptics are still admitting to warming, up to
about 1 degree C. The mainline climate scientists are calling for 2-3
deg C. All of this is _anthropogenically forced_. So, do you admit
that anthropogenically forced global warming is probably occurring, and
will probably occur in the next century?
If not, you're disputing Hoyt, the reference you gave. At least
try to be consistent.
: > By the way, despite what Taylor thinks, the insurance industry
: > is worried about the threat of more and stronger hurricanes.
:
: > http://cnnfn.com/news/9605/17/global_warm_pkg/index.htm
:
: > C'mon Alway, you posted this to sci.environment. You talk
: > the talk, but can you walk the walk?
:
: Taylor's point speaks for itself. There is no evidence of increased
: number of hurricanes. His point is prima facia true. Do you look at
: the real world?
Like I said, his point probably wasn't addressing the subject
of the article. Note that he says "Nor is there any credible evidence
that in a greenhouse-warmed world, if it were to occur, would have
more or stronger hurricanes". The article that I quoted is in direct
conflict with his statement about hurricane strength. So, is he
right or wrong -- is there credible evidence for the likelihood of
more intense hurricanes in a greenhouse-warmed world? And if he's
wrong on that, how much weight do we give his opinion?
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
> >
> > Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> > > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> >
> > strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
> > deal with the same thing.
>
> Are you calling me a Nazi? If so, what on Earth does that have to do
> with global warming?
Not at all. I was making comparisons between the propaganda spewed in
Nazi Germany and that being spewed out by environmentalists on global
warming, etc. Propaganda supported by a popular ideology is a tough
thing to fight.
...John
Steven
James G. Acker <jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:72icvm$s...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov...
> Hoyt quotes the satellite temperature record study (MSU) that
>has been shown to be erroneous. He had to update the Web page.
>And read this section:
>
>http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex5.htm
>
> Quoting: "a doubling of greenhouse gases will probably cause a
>global warming between 0.5 and 0.9 degrees C".
>
At least get the complete context correct:
"Bottom line: A doubling of greenhouse gases will probably cause a global
warming between 0.5 and 0.9 C. Since 60% of the warming should have already
have occurred, the remaining 40% of the warming will be between 0.2 and 0.4
C, which will occur over the next 70 years. This warming is equivalent to
about 0.03 to 0.06 C/decade. The rate of change is less than previous
climate changes; its total magnitude is small; and ecological systems can
adapt as they have in the past."
Notice what he says, that the expected warming from a doubling would be less
than previous climate changes, hardly the making of a catastrophe.
Your quoting out of context is evidence enough of your deception.
Phil Hays
> Well, my source says otherwise.
So? Your source is _wrong_.
Get the latest MSU data.
ftp://wind.atmos.uah.edu/msu/test/t2ltglhmam.d01
Note the current trend at the end of the data.
Want to learn more? Get a book on statistics or buy a software package
that does statistics. Then pick any end points in this data and
calculate trends and the statistical significance of the trends. Do the
18.8 year term for special chuckles.
Extra Special Bonus Points: get the ENSO data and find how much of this
record is related to El Nino and La Nina. Remove that from the record
and recalculate trends and significance. Also: get estimates of
stratospheric volcanic sulpher loading, work out how much of this record
is due to volcanic action, then remove from the record, recalculate
trends and significance.
--
Phil Hays
"Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what
we can do, even in principle." Carl Sagan
Joshua Halpern
> James G. Acker wrote:
> > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > : [...]
> > you to present your informed criticism of the following Web page:
> MOST SCIENTISTS, and the very best in the field of atmospheric science,
> say global warming is bunk. The petition is strong evidence of that.
> Hell, I don't know what else can be done.
Well, if you are referring to the OISM petition, after going
through most of the A's I found about 3-4 people out of
300 who might have a clue. Then I took a look at the
selected list of physicists, climatologists, etc, and
the landscape was about as desolate. That petition had
about as much climtological and related area expertise
as what you can get on the street for any petition
against nuclear energy
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> Franz Gerl wrote:
> > Agust Bjarnason (ag...@rt.is) wrote:
> > :
> All these effects make evaluation of the real CO2-temperature effect
> very difficult, if not impossible.
> The natural "noise" is too much.
The drivers you refer to are not noise, are understood
or measured to varying degrees and their effects
can be extracted with some precision. If what is left
shows the expected (modelled from well understood physics)
variation with CO2 concentration, that is reasonable
evidence of an anthropogenic driven effect.
We can do better, and we are trying, very.
josh halpern
John Alway
>
> John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : James G. Acker wrote:
> : >
> : > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> : > :
> : > : [...]
> : > :
> : > : > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> : > : > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> : >
> : > This is incorrect. Credible measures of global surface
> : > temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
> : > 1850.
> :
> : Nobody disputes that! That rise, however, occurred before the bit
> : increases in CO2 and it occurred from 1850 to about 1940 as we were
> : coming out of "the little ice age". Since that point there is no clear
> : evidence of a trend up or down, and, in fact, satellite data shows a
> : small downward trend over the last twenty years.
> So someone says "Global warming hasn't even been established",
> and you support the statement, calling global warming a lie. But when the
> facts are stated, you say that nobody disputes it.
Of course the issues were always: 1> man caused global warming, and 2>
catastrophic global warming. The little ice age was a period of unusual
coldness which we came out of, and, of course there have been warmer
periods over the last 3000 years. That this was man caused is highly
unlikely, and scientifically there is no evidence for it. So, when I
say it's a lie I mean that "man caused catastrophic" global warming is a
lie.
For those who are interested, here is an overview of the science of
global warming as presented by the petition project and signed by 17,000
scientists, including Lindzen, Michaels, et al. This de facto, btw,
makes it peer reviewed.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
The poster claims that the satellite data shows warming now. This is
amazing to me, for it is just too far fetched to believe. What we had
was a strong correlation between the balloon and satellite data, both of
which showed a slight cooling. The much noisier surface data also
showed the same thing where there were less confounding factors, or
where the confounding factors were taken out.
Also the surface record from 1940 on is too noisy to find a trend. The
MIT record showed this, for instance.
As to projections, the Lindzen projections of temperature increases are
tiny in comparison with the huge increases projected by the initial IPCC
report. These sort of increases are laughably small, so much so that
it's lunacy to worry about them. There are _real_ problems in the
world to be concerned with in the world, after all.
Finally, as a bonus, here is an article on climate variance by Dr.
Balling, an atmospheric scientist:
http://www.nhes.com/current_issue/cutting_edge.html
...John
Amos Keppler
>
> Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> > > > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> > >
> > > strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
> > > handers. Now you know how those in Nazi Germany felt when they tried to
> > > deal with the same thing.
> >
> > Are you calling me a Nazi? If so, what on Earth does that have to do
> > with global warming?
>
> Not at all. I was making comparisons between the propaganda spewed in
> Nazi Germany and that being spewed out by environmentalists on global
> warming, etc. Propaganda supported by a popular ideology is a tough
> thing to fight.
>
> ...John
Supported? What a laugh riot claim. It's you and other associate
industry lobbyists, who have the whole propaganda machine at your
disposal. To even try to give an impression of anything else, beats most
foolish claims I've seen today...
Amos
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< My virtual, wilderness community address is: >
< http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6010/ >
< My address at midnight: >
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
The Dark Lodge is waiting for you to discover it.
Feel the heat of Firewind
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/firewind.html
Experience TUMOR the (hidden) history of CIVILIZATION
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/tumor.html
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/civlizat.html
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
> >
> > Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > John Alway wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> > > > > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> > > >
> > > > The big lie is here! Notice, the enemy is weak intellectually, but
> > > > strong politically. They appeal to the uneducated, and the second
> > > > handers. Now you know how those in Nazi Germany felt when they tried to
> > > > deal with the same thing.
> > > Are you calling me a Nazi? If so, what on Earth does that have to do
> > > with global warming?
> > Not at all. I was making comparisons between the propaganda spewed in
> > Nazi Germany and that being spewed out by environmentalists on global
> > warming, etc. Propaganda supported by a popular ideology is a tough
> > thing to fight.
> > ...John
> Supported? What a laugh riot claim.
Perhaps this poster had better go back and reread the posting where I
point out the darkness of an environmentalist's soul. If the very words
of environmentalists are not enough to convince him of the purpose of
this movement, then I'm afraid his mind is closed too shut for anyone to
get through to him.
> It's you and other associate
> industry lobbyists,
This is a lie. Nothing more can be said about it. I stand up
against any form of tyranny. If the poster doesn't believe he supports
tyranny, then he is simply naive as to the power of ideas, and the
fragility of freedom. If he does not recognize individual rights, if
he laughs at the idea of property rights, and despise a man's selfish
desire to pursue happiness, and he promotes policies that trample over
these things, then he is an enemy of every man on the face of the
planet, whether he knows it or not.
*Ideas*, poster, are what made freedom possible to start with. The
ideas of brilliant men who had to suss these things out by a tremendous
process of reasoning thought. *Ideas* which don't support liberty will
kill it. If you don't take this issue seriously, then this tells me
quite a bit about how seriously you take life, i.e. not much at all.
I believe the poster hasn't learned from history, so he is doomed to
repeat it.
> who have the whole propaganda machine at your
> disposal.
I present _ideas_. Ideas that don't require anything but an honest
mind to evaluate by a process of reason.
> To even try to give an impression of anything else, beats most
> foolish claims I've seen today...
Everything I stated flows from logic and my value for my life and all
it entails. Iows, my philosophy is life promoting at its very core. I
_love_ my philosophy of life. It is moral, and it is good, and I can
defend it fully by a process of reason. Sadly, I can't say that about
your philosophy.
...John
Take The Capitalism/Objectivism Tour:
http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/tour/index.html
Visit the Capitalism FAQ:
http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/index.html
Shawn A. Wilson
Well, those models "modelled from well understood physics" were so good,
why have they done such a poor job of predicting what we already know?
If they can't predict LAST YEAR'S temperature accurately, based on their
"well understood physics", why should we believe they'll model next
year's any better?
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : James G. Acker wrote:
> : >
> : > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> : > :
> : > : [...]
> : > :
> : > : > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> : > : > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> : >
> : > This is incorrect. Credible measures of global surface
> : > temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
> : > 1850.
> :
> : Nobody disputes that! That rise, however, occurred before the bit
> : increases in CO2 and it occurred from 1850 to about 1940 as we were
> : coming out of "the little ice age". Since that point there is no clear
> : evidence of a trend up or down, and, in fact, satellite data shows a
> : small downward trend over the last twenty years.
>
> So someone says "Global warming hasn't even been established",
> and you support the statement, calling global warming a lie. But when the
> facts are stated, you say that nobody disputes it.
> Plus, it's probably been quoted to you several times that the
> satellite data study you're quoting has been called into question, and
> two separate research groups analyzing the same data find that it shows
> a warming trend. So you'd be wise to give up that propaganda point.
Reality check time.
From: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA218.html
The biggest salvo in the war on the satellites occurred in August 1998
when physicists Frank Wentz and
Matthias Schabel published an article in the science journal Nature
claiming that the satellite temperature readings are flawed. Wentz and
Schabel argued that, as the satellites lose altitude while orbiting the
earth, this causes them to "see" a smaller area of the earth's surface,
which in turn causes the satellites to record a slight but false
cooling. The authors calculated that adjusting for this orbital decay
would show a warming of .1· F since 1979. Originally, the satellites
were showing a cooling of .07· F. Vice President Gore was reported to be
nearly ecstatic when informed that the satellite nuisance had been
seemingly dispensed with.5
However, the Vice President got his hopes up for nothing. John Christy
and Roy Spencer, the scientists
who developed the satellite monitoring method, reviewed Wentz and
Schabel's study. They agreed that the
data should be adjusted for orbital decay. However, after incorporating
orbital decay into their data
analysis, Spencer and Christy concluded that Wentz and Schabel were
wrong. While Wentz and Schabel
adjusted their data to take into account "false cooling" due to
declining satellite altitudes, they failed to adjust their data for
"false warming." Instead of a warming of .1· F, Spencer and Christy
still record a cooling of .02· F since 1979. 6 Of course, these are
relatively miniscule temperature variations. The bottom line is that the
latest attempt to debunk the satellite data failed.
In criticizing the satellite data collection method, global warming
proponents also fail to address the fact that the satellite data is
independently corroborated by weather balloons which are launched twice
a day at points all around the globe. The findings of the weather
balloons match almost perfectly with the satellite findings.
(end quote)
> : I'm a bit tired of responding to this deliberately deceptive way of
> : presenting the facts.
>
> It's deceptive to claim that there is "no global warming", when
> in fact there is. Causality has yet to be well-established, but
> anthropogenic forcing is strongly implicated.
Causality hasn't been established because even the idea of warming
hasn't been established. For all that you wish it were otherwise, the
satellites show COOLING.
> : Science doesn't means starting with conclusions, i.e. "there is man
> : caused global warming and we're all going to die" (and this was the
> : starting point), and then searching for evidence and evading it.
> : Science means looking at the evidence, forming a tentative hypothesis,
> : checking the hypothesis against the evidence, forming new hypotheses,
> : etc, and the cycle continues. Now, if you find that the hypothesis
> : can't stand the weight of the evidence, you scrap it. This is what
> : needs to be done.
>
> Agreed. The weight of evidence indicates anthropogenically-forced
> global warming. Find me your favorite peer-reviewed article in opposition
> and let's discuss it. Can you do that?
How about the one I quoted above? Or the one I quoted in another post?
Amos Keppler
>
> Amos Keppler wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Alway wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> > > > > > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> > > > >
Yes, you're Saint John deluxe.
Ideas? Individual rights? You wouldn't know what these things are if
you were hit on the head with them. You yourself, by your verynature,
presents evidence that it is today the attack on Freed om are at its
worst. Your denisity speaks of brainwashing from here to Antractica.
And as a good slave you participate in your own caging and also in
others, a willing tool for the masters, the tyrants.
Russell Martin
>
> In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > James G. Acker wrote:
> > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > : [...]
> > > you to present your informed criticism of the following Web page:
>
> > MOST SCIENTISTS, and the very best in the field of atmospheric science,
> > say global warming is bunk. The petition is strong evidence of that.
> > Hell, I don't know what else can be done.
>
> through most of the A's I found about 3-4 people out of
> 300 who might have a clue. Then I took a look at the
> selected list of physicists, climatologists, etc, and
> the landscape was about as desolate. That petition had
> about as much climtological and related area expertise
> as what you can get on the street for any petition
> against nuclear energy
>
> josh halpern
Yes, if you accept most of those people as experts on global warming,
you'll go to to podiatrist for brain surgery.
Regards,
Russell Martin
John Alway
> > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > : [...]
> > > you to present your informed criticism of the following Web page:
>
> > MOST SCIENTISTS, and the very best in the field of atmospheric science,
> > say global warming is bunk. The petition is strong evidence of that.
> > Hell, I don't know what else can be done.
>
> through most of the A's I found about 3-4 people out of
> 300 who might have a clue. Then I took a look at the
> selected list of physicists, climatologists, etc, and
> the landscape was about as desolate. That petition had
> about as much climtological and related area expertise
> as what you can get on the street for any petition
> against nuclear energy
LOL... yes, of course.
Luckily, Joshua, I have no reason to take your opinion seriously.
...John
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> In article <36481D0B...@uic.edu>, "Shawn A. Wilson"
> <swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
>
> > Peter wrote:
> >
> > > The global averaged temperature has been rising again since about 1980.
> >
> > temperatures.
> >
>
>
> > The overall trend in the tropospheric data is approximately steady, at
> > about +0.049oC per decade.
>
> Phil.
>
> (rest deleted)
Uh, no.
From: http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
"This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower
troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles
up. The temperature in this region is more strongly influenced by
oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena,
which originate as changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulations in
the tropical Pacific Ocean. Like the upper plot, the overall trend in
the data is downward, about 0.06 degrees C per
decade." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here's a hint for the future: URLs
John Alway
>
> In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
>
>
> signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
>
> Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
>
> josh halpern
There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
...John
Russell Martin
>
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> >
> > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> > names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> >
> > Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
> >
> > josh halpern
>
>
> There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
>
> ...John
Yes, but the As will give you a reasonable statistical sample.
Otherwise, do a random sample yourself. Actually several months
ago someone went through to the Cs, I think it was, and didn't find
too many climatologically qualified signers. And as for the four
you mentioned, I'll even let you include them. It should about
double the number you'll get.
Regards,
Russell Martin
Harold Lindaberry
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > James G. Acker wrote:
> > > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
>
> > Luckily, Joshua, I have no reason to take your opinion seriously.
>
> Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
>
> Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
IMHO I wonder who has the smarts enough to judge qualifications on who is
or is not qualified and and what the basis of this decision is made - The
entire field of climatology seems iffy if one is to base their past data
corrections and prediction modifications. and it would seem that input from
as many sources as possible might be in order. Running around with a
thermometer seems not to be the entire answer to getting the answer.- since
major climate changes have taken place long before the invention of the
thermometer. and looking at just physical aspects without regard to
biological aspects is in err - that may be the missing link to sinks and
sources that drive the whole system( I'm not just talking about burning
fossil fuel which seems to be the main focus of most )
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> josh halpern
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
> >
> > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > >
> > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> > > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > > who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> > > names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> > > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> > >
> > > Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
> >
> > ...John
>
> Yes, but the As will give you a reasonable statistical sample.
> Otherwise, do a random sample yourself. Actually several months
> ago someone went through to the Cs, I think it was, and didn't find
> too many climatologically qualified signers. And as for the four
> you mentioned, I'll even let you include them. It should about
> double the number you'll get.
Well, as usual, environmentalists hide behind anything they can find.
The fact is I'm sure that the vast majority of those scientists are more
than qualified to assess data.
However, here's a declaration on global climate change, which makes
essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate
Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
The URL is here:
http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html
The list of signers is at the end of the web page, or to go right to
them click here:
http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
...John
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
Onar Ĺm
meteorologists. And only about 10 of them can be considered world class
scientist. (Lindzen signed I believe, as did Michaels, Singer, Seitz and
Balling) The fact that 17,000 highly educated people who are used to assess
evidence, signed this document doesn't mean that the skeptics are right
(many of the signers oppose Kyoto, not necessarily the science). But it
DOES shatter this myth about
scientific consensus. The notion of consensus is a term adopted from
politics, and such
a consensus was forced in the IPCC process. The science presented in the
IPCC reports is
approximately correct, but the most important point made in the reports was
that the
science was incomplete. I think you find that most climate scientists
acknowledge that years, even decades of research is needed to significantly
reduce the uncertainties in the projections. As such a consensus is
virtually meaningless. It's like forcing the statement "we agree that we
have insufficient understanding" and then tout that there is scientific
consensus about climate science! It's freaky!
Onar.
russell martin
> Russell Martin wrote:
> >
> > John Alway wrote:
> > >
> > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > > > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > James G. Acker wrote:
> > > > > > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > > > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Luckily, Joshua, I have no reason to take your opinion seriously.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> > > > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > > > who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> > > > names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> > > > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > josh halpern
> > >
> > >
> > > There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> > > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
> > >
> > > ...John
> >
> > Yes, but the As will give you a reasonable statistical sample.
> > Otherwise, do a random sample yourself. Actually several months
> > ago someone went through to the Cs, I think it was, and didn't find
> > too many climatologically qualified signers. And as for the four
> > you mentioned, I'll even let you include them. It should about
> > double the number you'll get.
>
> Well, as usual, environmentalists hide behind anything they can find.
I'm an environmentalist? Shows what you know. I'm a scientist.
> The fact is I'm sure that the vast majority of those scientists are more
> than qualified to assess data.
>
Then you need to purchase a clue, or ask Santa to give you onefor Christmas.
> However, here's a declaration on global climate change, which makes
> essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate
> Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
>
> The URL is here:
> http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html
>
> The list of signers is at the end of the web page, or to go right to
> them click here:
>
> http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
>
> ...John
Not nearly 17000 on this petition. Some of them are have qualifications
such as *name deleted*, Professor, *university deleted*. Professor of
what, one wonders?
I can yell from my office and get practically that many qualified climate
scientists to come and disagree with them. But science is not done by
petition, so we'll see what happens.
Regards,
Russell Martin
The opinions expressed are my own. But they are on sale
this week only for 25% off. Beat the Christmas rush!
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
SNIP....
> > The drivers you refer to are not noise, are understood
> > or measured to varying degrees and their effects
> > can be extracted with some precision. If what is left
> > shows the expected (modelled from well understood physics)
> > variation with CO2 concentration, that is reasonable
> > evidence of an anthropogenic driven effect.
> >
> why have they done such a poor job of predicting what we already know?
> If they can't predict LAST YEAR'S temperature accurately, based on their
> "well understood physics", why should we believe they'll model next
> year's any better?
Subject: Re: As Glaciers Melt ...
Newsgroups: sci.bio.ecology,sci.econ,sci.environment
References: <36450C3E...@igc.apc.org> <36459620...@uic.edu> <01be0bb8$18a66a80$890c...@p1488.ecn.nl> <3646C5FB...@uic.edu> <727c4u$h...@drn.newsguy.com> <36487F40...@rt.is> <72ad8i$f2f$1...@gwdu19.gwdg.de> <364AFF9A...@rt.is> <72
k5vp$i...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <364E058A...@uic.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Lines: 43
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961025]
In sci.environment Shawn A. Wilson <swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > SNIP.....
> Well, those models "modelled from well understood physics" were so good,
> why have they done such a poor job of predicting what we already know?
> If they can't predict LAST YEAR'S temperature accurately, based on their
> "well understood physics", why should we believe they'll model next
> year's any better?
Your statement is ignorant blather without a definition of what you
mean by poor or accurate and a source reference where one can make
the actual comparison. Further, models pre(post)dict many more
properties than global temperature (quite accurately, at least
in presentations that I have recently seen:). The NASA GISS
site is probably a good place to start.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> >
> > Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
> IMHO I wonder who has the smarts enough to judge qualifications on who is
> or is not qualified and and what the basis of this decision is made - The
> entire field of climatology seems iffy if one is to base their past data
> corrections and prediction modifications. and it would seem that input from
> as many sources as possible might be in order. Running around with a
> thermometer seems not to be the entire answer to getting the answer.- since
> major climate changes have taken place long before the invention of the
> thermometer. and looking at just physical aspects without regard to
> biological aspects is in err - that may be the missing link to sinks and
> sources that drive the whole system( I'm not just talking about burning
> fossil fuel which seems to be the main focus of most )
Well, suggest another methodology. I looked for web pages, web cites,
and other indications of publication in relevant areas, or practice.
I got hits for a bit over half the people on the list. Of the
hits, with rare exception, the folk were working in fields with
no relevance to atmospheric science, such as high energy physics,
etc. I published the postitions of those that I found without
comment and no one objected that my evaluation was wrong. Finally
I did not claim that my method was a perfect tool, merely an order
of magnitude estimator, and the order of magnitude was at best
a few percent, if not much worse. As they say, you could look it up
> “ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
> Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quantum mechanics is stranger than you can think.
josh halpern
> >
> >
> > josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
>
> certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
4/17,000 and you would get an argument on the motivations of
Michaels and Singer. Finally, there are a fair number of
qualified solid state physicists, and physiologists on the
list whose qulifications don't mean diddly when it comes
to atmospheric science.
Fine. Pick any 100 contiguous names on the general list.
Tell us which of those 100 are qualified and indicate
the nature of that qualification. Have fun.
josh halpern
James G. Acker
:
: James G. Acker <jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
I never, never, never said anything about a catastrophe. Go
back and read everything in this thread. What I am pointing out, and
what I will CONTINUALLY point out, is that increasing CO2 in the
atmosphere will change the atmosphere's radiative characteristics
such that there will be global warming consistent with what has
already been observed. The question is whether or not increasing
concentrations will lead to an accelerated amount of warming due to
positive feedback effects or a minimal amount of warming (as Lindzen,
Hoyt, and Idso among others advocate) due to negative feedback effects.
The bottom line is that there has been warming, and there
will be more warming. The question is the magnitude.
Don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me of deception.
James G. Acker
"Shawn A. Wilson" (swi...@uic.edu) wrote:
: "James G. Acker" wrote:
: >
: > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
: > : >
: > : > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
: > : > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
: > : > : [...]
: > : > :
: > : > : > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
: > : > : > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
: > : > This is incorrect. Credible measures of global surface
: > : > temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
: > : > 1850.
: > :
: > : Nobody disputes that! That rise, however, occurred before the bit
: > : increases in CO2 and it occurred from 1850 to about 1940 as we were
: > : coming out of "the little ice age". Since that point there is no clear
: > : evidence of a trend up or down, and, in fact, satellite data shows a
: > : small downward trend over the last twenty years.
: >
: latest attempt to debunk the satellite data failed.
Reference check time:
"Global warming deduced from MSU" by C.Prabhakara, R. Iacovazzi,
Jr., J.-M. Yoo, and G. Dalu. June 1998, Geophysical Research Letters.
Basically, another way of doing the MSU analysis. Finds a
0.11 C increase per decade. Quoting the abstract "the global temperature
trend derived from the satellite data and the conventional data
agree closely."
So the current score is Spencer and Christy 1, Opponents 2.
**** By the way, as was pointed out a few weeks ago on
sci.environment, the uncertainties in the MSU record bring up
two points: One, is the MSU really a reliable measurement of
global temperatures? Getting a temperature value out of MSU data
requires several processing steps, and as the discussion shows,
the derivation is fraught with error. Two, everyone who is using
the MSU data to derive the temperature signal gets a warming or
cooling trend that is _less_ than the uncertainty in the measurement!
I.e., the values being quoted are 0.1 +/- 0.6 deg C per decade.
This is not to say that it is not valid to try and extract a measurement,
but that the value is so uncertain (due partly to the short length of
the record) that it has to be evaluated realistically. Skeptics
have been touting the satellite record over and over again because
it is the only record of any kind that doesn't show warming of the
global environment. The reliability of this "no signal" report has
been called into question by two separate studies. If you're weighting
all of the data available, this means you should assign the MSU data
(whatever it says) a lower weight.
Harold Lindaberry
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> In sci.environment Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote:
> > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> > > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> > >
I suspect that biological interactions are equally complex - since biological
activity seems to be and has done most of energy conversion and storage on this orb
perhaps Quantum mechanics isn't the only fish in the pond or perhaps even not as
big a fish as it thinks it is.
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
>
> josh halpern
>
> > >
> > >
> > > josh halpern
Harold Lindaberry
James G. Acker wrote:
Even though the MSU study is short how does it compare with other measurements
over the same period ? As I recall ballon studies seem to agree more closely with
MSU data ?
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
> . Skeptics
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > Russell Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > John Alway wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > > > > > > James G. Acker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > > > > who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> > > > > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> > > > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > > > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > > > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but the As will give you a reasonable statistical sample.
> > > Otherwise, do a random sample yourself. Actually several months
> > > ago someone went through to the Cs, I think it was, and didn't find
> > > too many climatologically qualified signers. And as for the four
> > > you mentioned, I'll even let you include them. It should about
> > > double the number you'll get.
> >
> > Well, as usual, environmentalists hide behind anything they can find.
>
> I'm an environmentalist? Shows what you know. I'm a scientist.
Do I have to point out the logical error in this?
> > The fact is I'm sure that the vast majority of those scientists are more
> > than qualified to assess data.
> Then you need to purchase a clue, or ask Santa to give you onefor Christmas.
I've just got done pointing out several big names on the list, then I
pointed out a parallel list where there were only climatologists are on
the list to bolster the point.
> > However, here's a declaration on global climate change, which makes
> > essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate
> > Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
> > The URL is here:
> > http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html
> > The list of signers is at the end of the web page, or to go right to
> > them click here:
> > http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
> > ...John
>
> Not nearly 17000 on this petition.
No question, but you are not evaluating this rationally. What this
does is _bolster_ the bigger list.
> Some of them are have qualifications
> such as *name deleted*, Professor, *university deleted*. Professor of
> what, one wonders?
The vast majority have their names and degrees right there to be
seen. You are simply fooling yourself.
> I can yell from my office and get practically that many qualified climate
> scientists to come and disagree with them.
To *disagree* with you, I'm sure you're right. But you are only
engaged in sophistry, which makes me wonder how you could possibly value
anything you say.
>But science is not done by
> petition, so we'll see what happens.
This is absolutely true, but what it does is break the endless myth put
forward by environmentalists that there is no scientific opposition to
the global warming hysteria. The fact is that the science has never
been on the side of the warming hysteria types, which is why they've
been able to garner so many names on the petition, and on the other
list.
...John
John Alway
>
> In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> > > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > > who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> > > names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> > > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> >
> > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
>
> Michaels and Singer.
You'd get an argument about the movtivations of _anyone_.
> Finally, there are a fair number of
> qualified solid state physicists, and physiologists on the
> list whose qulifications don't mean diddly when it comes
> to atmospheric science.
It is quite meaningful. Not as meaningful as knowing the specific
science itself, to be sure, but these men can suss good from bad science
by reading literature and comparing.
> Fine. Pick any 100 contiguous names on the general list.
> Tell us which of those 100 are qualified and indicate
> the nature of that qualification. Have fun.
Let's put it this way, they blow away any science the opposition has to
offer. The opposition has the government money and the post-modern,
anti-man philosophy (aka enviromentalism) as being promoted by the
universities. This is why the real battle is philosophical, not
scientific.
Anyway, here's a declaration on global climate change, which
makes essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global
Climate Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
The URL is here:
http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html
The list of signers is at the end of the web page, or to go
right to them click here:
http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
There are your names.
...John
James G. Acker
been flaky today, and I've lost two replies to this message already.
James G. Acker wrote:
>
> John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : James G. Acker wrote:
> : >
> : > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> : > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> : > :
> : > : [...]
> : > :
> : > : > What environmental effects? Global warming hasn't even been
> : > : > established, let alone anthropogenic global warming.
> : >
> : > This is incorrect. Credible measures of global surface
> : > temperatures indicate an approximate 0.6 deg C increase since
> : > 1850.
> :
> : Nobody disputes that! That rise, however, occurred before the bit
> : increases in CO2 and it occurred from 1850 to about 1940 as we were
> : coming out of "the little ice age". Since that point there is no clear
> : evidence of a trend up or down, and, in fact, satellite data shows a
> : small downward trend over the last twenty years.
> So someone says "Global warming hasn't even been established",
> and you support the statement, calling global warming a lie. But when the
> facts are stated, you say that nobody disputes it.
Alway:
Of course the issues were always: 1> man caused global warming, and 2>
catastrophic global warming. The little ice age was a period of unusual
coldness which we came out of, and, of course there have been warmer
periods over the last 3000 years. That this was man caused is highly
unlikely, and scientifically there is no evidence for it. So, when I
say it's a lie I mean that "man caused catastrophic" global warming is a
lie.
***** It's always a good idea to clarify your meaning so that
you won't be misinterpreted.
However, even the global warming skeptic cabal of Michaels,
Lindzen, Balling, Idso, and their supporting cast (such as Hoyt) all admit the
likelihood of anthropogenically forced global warming in the next century as
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere doubles. The skeptics admit to only
minimal warming, the mainline climate scientists admit to about double the
skeptic's value, and the scare-tactic environmentalists focus on catastrophic
scenarios with the greatest amounts of warming.
This much is true: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing
at an unprecedented rate. When it doubles the present-day value, that will
be higher than any time in Earth's history since the Cretaceous. The
rapidity of rise is quite hard to model, but destabilizing feedbacks such
as cessation of North Atlantic Deep Water formation remain an outcome in
some models. So the possibility of catastrophic climate changes is not a
lie, it's just a possibility. So, if we're on a science newsgroup, let's
not accuse anyone of lying. Let's discuss the data, the model outcomes,
and the various interpretations.
Alway:
For those who are interested, here is an overview of the science of
global warming as presented by the petition project and signed by 17,000
scientists, including Lindzen, Michaels, et al. This de facto, btw,
makes it peer reviewed.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
***** It's somewhat disconcerting to me that you cite a Web page
sponsored by a group of global warming skeptics and authored by the most
notable global warming skeptics and claim that this is "peer-reviewed".
It's certainly not peer-reviewed in the same manner that a submission
to _Geophysical Research Letters_ (as an example) is peer-reviewed.
It would be nice if you could assure me that you knew what peer review
really means.
Alway:
The poster claims that the satellite data shows warming now. This is
**** Two independent analyses of the MSU data show a warming signal.
Wentz and Schabel, and Prabhakara et al. in Geophysical Research Letters,
June 1998.
amazing to me, for it is just too far fetched to believe. What we had
was a strong correlation between the balloon and satellite data, both of
which showed a slight cooling. The much noisier surface data also
showed the same thing where there were less confounding factors, or
where the confounding factors were taken out.
**** Skeptics have always clung to the satellite/balloon correlation
because it's the only measurement that doesn't show warming. Part of the
problem is the length of the record. Because it's short, the apparent trends
(positive or negative) are much smaller than the inherent uncertainty. So
if you're going to point out noise in other records -- which are longer term
and thus have less inherent uncertainty -- you should be honest and evaluate
the uncertainty of the MSU data in the same manner.
Alway:
Also the surface record from 1940 on is too noisy to find a trend. The
MIT record showed this, for instance.
***** Full citation, please? In turn, I'll provide citations to
the Hadley Centre that show some pretty significant trends since 1940.
You go first.
Alway:
As to projections, the Lindzen projections of temperature increases are
tiny in comparison with the huge increases projected by the initial IPCC
report. These sort of increases are laughably small, so much so that
it's lunacy to worry about them. There are _real_ problems in the
world to be concerned with in the world, after all.
***** Such as biodiversity losses and threats to fresh water
resources? We concur, there are real problems.
Alway:
Finally, as a bonus, here is an article on climate variance by Dr.
Balling, an atmospheric scientist:
http://www.nhes.com/current_issue/cutting_edge.html
**** Despite the fact that this isn't peer-reviewed, and it's found
on Patrick Michaels' Web site (which is unlikely to be unbiased) Balling
at least talks about an article in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, since
you have done so, I'll do the same:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/delgenio.01/
russell martin
> russell martin wrote:
> >
> > John Alway wrote:
> >
> > > Russell Martin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Alway wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > > > > > > > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > James G. Acker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > John Alway (jal...@icsi.net) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > : Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Luckily, Joshua, I have no reason to take your opinion seriously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> > > > > > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > > > > > who you think qualified to comment, and then post their
> > > > > > names and qualifications. (Only names are posted, but you
> > > > > > can use search engines to trace postions, that's what I did)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Otherwise, you can go back and read my posts on the subject.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > josh halpern
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> > > > > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > > > > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > > > > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...John
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the As will give you a reasonable statistical sample.
> > > > Otherwise, do a random sample yourself. Actually several months
> > > > ago someone went through to the Cs, I think it was, and didn't find
> > > > too many climatologically qualified signers. And as for the four
> > > > you mentioned, I'll even let you include them. It should about
> > > > double the number you'll get.
> > >
> > > Well, as usual, environmentalists hide behind anything they can find.
> >
> > I'm an environmentalist? Shows what you know. I'm a scientist.
>
> Do I have to point out the logical error in this?
Please do. Is it that all scientists are environmentalistsin your view? If so that is
your logical error. If it is
that you did not explicitly say I am an environmentalist,
then I'll leave it up to the readers to figure out what you
did imply. Please be more clear in the future.
>
>
> > > The fact is I'm sure that the vast majority of those scientists are more
> > > than qualified to assess data.
>
> > Then you need to purchase a clue, or ask Santa to give you onefor Christmas.
>
> I've just got done pointing out several big names on the list, then I
> pointed out a parallel list where there were only climatologists are on
> the list to bolster the point.
As I pointed out, it was impossible to tell *what* field some of
the people on that list are in. Your supporting list suffers from
the same flaws as the list it is to support.
>
>
> > > However, here's a declaration on global climate change, which makes
> > > essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate
> > > Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
>
> > > The URL is here:
> > > http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html
>
> > > The list of signers is at the end of the web page, or to go right to
> > > them click here:
>
> > > http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
>
> > > ...John
> >
> > Not nearly 17000 on this petition.
>
> No question, but you are not evaluating this rationally.
Sure I am. I looked at the petition and the list, evaluatedits value as evidence, and
found it wanting. Did I say
it was worthless? No, I said it is flawed. This seems
like a rational approach to me.
> What this
> does is _bolster_ the bigger list.
No, it just provides another list, smaller than the first, with namesof people, some with
no field of expertise identified, just like
the first. It is nowhere near 17000 names, and some are
on both lists, possibily most, I didn't check all 17000. That is
little to perhaps no additional, independent evidence of what
the scientific community thinks on this subject, if that is of
importance to determining the facts, which it is not.
>
>
> > Some of them are have qualifications
> > such as *name deleted*, Professor, *university deleted*. Professor of
> > what, one wonders?
>
> The vast majority have their names and degrees right there to be
> seen.
Yes, but they all don't. Why not? If their support of this
petition is to have validity as evidence of what scientists
believe, we should know what their fields of expertise are.
> You are simply fooling yourself.
No, I am being true to myself by looking at andevaluating the evidence. BTW thanks for
the
evidence. Keep looking. If you find something
that I think is convincing, I'll let you know. Unlike
some people, I do try to keep an open mind.
> > I can yell from my office and get practically that many qualified climate
> > scientists to come and disagree with them.
>
> To *disagree* with you, I'm sure you're right.
How very amusing. ha...ha Did you learn this debating
method in kindergarden or first grade?
> But you are only
> engaged in sophistry, which makes me wonder how you could possibly value
> anything you say.
That's your opinion, but it is a fact, it is not sophistry.
However to play your game for a moment, you post
such weak evidence that I wonder how you can believe
anything you say. Now can we get back to serious
discussion?
>
>
> >But science is not done by
> > petition, so we'll see what happens.
>
> This is absolutely true, but what it does is break the endless myth put
> forward by environmentalists that there is no scientific opposition to
> the global warming hysteria.
So why are you arguing with me about this? I never said that
there was no scientific opposition to global warming. I said
that the evidence that you posted concerning the level of
opposition is weak. There is always some opposition to
any scientific position. There are still some people who claim
the earth is flat.
> The fact is that the science has never
> been on the side of the warming hysteria types, which is why they've
> been able to garner so many names on the petition, and on the other
> list.
>
> ...John
Well, we've already discussed the value of signatures ona petition as a method of
scientific research and agree, I
think, that it is approximately zero. We disagree on the
validity of the signatures on these petitions as an indication
of what the majority of the scientific community, especially
those with serious knowledge of the subject, believes. I
happen to prefer the direct sample of opinion I have from
personal experience since I know my colleagues' degrees,
expertise, experience, and competency first hand. It has
its sampling biases, but so does any Internet petition. I also
prefer trusting my own reading of the scientific literature,
and my day to day exposure to the data as it comes rolling
in, to either of those samples.
Regards,
Russell Martin
The opinions expressed are mine. You can borrow
them, but please put them back where you found them
when you are done.
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > In sci.environment John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> > > > Sometimes one just gets lucky. Tell you what. The list of
> > > > signers is posted. Go through the A's and pick out those
> > > There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> > > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
Have you checked that all four of these have signed the OISM petition??
> >
> > Finally, there are a fair number of
> > qualified solid state physicists, and physiologists on the
> > list whose qulifications don't mean diddly when it comes
> > to atmospheric science.
> It is quite meaningful. Not as meaningful as knowing the specific
> science itself, to be sure, but these men can suss good from bad science
> by reading literature and comparing.
And, of course you are certain that they have. Let me inject here
that as a physicist who works in a chemistry department, there
are lots of physicists who don't have a clue about chemistry
or atmospheric science and visa versa....
> > Fine. Pick any 100 contiguous names on the general list.
> > Tell us which of those 100 are qualified and indicate
> > the nature of that qualification. Have fun.
> Let's put it this way, they blow away any science the opposition has to
> offer. The opposition has the government money and the post-modern,
> anti-man philosophy (aka enviromentalism) as being promoted by the
> universities. This is why the real battle is philosophical, not
> scientific.
Contentious blather, which starts by postulating a conclusion.
> Anyway, here's a declaration on global climate change, which
> makes essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global
> Climate Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
> The URL is here: http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html
> There are your names.
Interesting. If you cross-correlate the two lists of signers you find that
of the 80 scientists who signed the Leipzig Declaration, only 19 signed the
OISM petition. Since it appears that the OISM petition was only circulated
in North America, that is 19/53 North Americans signed both documents. or
aqbout 36%.
A real strong endorsement....\
josh halpern
Steven
So what, you deliberately quoted out of context to support your point that
even the skeptics support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis and failed to
frame this support properly. I called your hand on it and you went postal.
What we are really talking about is potential energy in the climate system.
Positive feedbacks reach some upper limit of disturbance of all climate
factors, temperature, precipitation, etc. over timescales of perhaps
centuries and then begin to settle back to what the strict radiative
potential of the atmosphere is absent positive feedbacks. I think Hoyt
challenges the amount of potential energy in the climate system by
postulating a different kind of heat transfer within the climate system and
further postulates a larger role for solar irradiance within the context of
solar variability to explain climatic variability on shorter timescales of
decades.
What we disagree on is the exact role that positive feedbacks will have on
global temperature over the next centuries not the final steady state of the
climate system. I view the future variability from peak to trough to be
much less severe though you have a perspective from modelling the atmosphere
day to day and I should probably, absent the politics, accept your point of
view, but I find compelling arguments for less variability in the future
from Balling, Lindzen, Michaels and Hoyt.
>
> The bottom line is that there has been warming, and there
>will be more warming. The question is the magnitude.
>
> Don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me of deception.
You were deceptive in your original response, imo. If that was not your
intent I withdraw my comment.
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > russell martin wrote:
> > >
> > > John Alway wrote:
> > >
> > > > Russell Martin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > John Alway wrote:
[...]
> > > > > > There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> > > > > > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > > > > > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > > > > > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
> > > > > > ...John
> > > > > Yes, but the As will give you a reasonable statistical sample.
> > > > > Otherwise, do a random sample yourself. Actually several months
> > > > > ago someone went through to the Cs, I think it was, and didn't find
> > > > > too many climatologically qualified signers. And as for the four
> > > > > you mentioned, I'll even let you include them. It should about
> > > > > double the number you'll get.
> > > > Well, as usual, environmentalists hide behind anything they can find.
> > > I'm an environmentalist? Shows what you know. I'm a scientist.
> > Do I have to point out the logical error in this?
> Please do. Is it that all scientists are environmentalistsin your view?
Come now. One can be an environmentalists and a scientist.
Or, in Aristotelian terms, the class of all environmentalists can
overlap with the class of all scientists.
> > > > The fact is I'm sure that the vast majority of those scientists are more
> > > > than qualified to assess data.
> > > Then you need to purchase a clue, or ask Santa to give you onefor Christmas.
> > I've just got done pointing out several big names on the list, then I
> > pointed out a parallel list where there were only climatologists are on
> > the list to bolster the point.
> As I pointed out, it was impossible to tell *what* field some of
> the people on that list are in. Your supporting list suffers from
> the same flaws as the list it is to support.
You point out things which have zero merit. The vast majority of the
list gives full names and credentials, that some don't doesn't effect
this. This is simple, straight-forward logic.
> > > > However, here's a declaration on global climate change, which makes
> > > > essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate
> > > > Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
> > > > The URL is here:
> > > > http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html
> > > > The list of signers is at the end of the web page, or to go right to
> > > > them click here:
> > > > http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
> > > Not nearly 17000 on this petition.
> > No question, but you are not evaluating this rationally.
>
> Sure I am. I looked at the petition and the list, evaluatedits value as evidence, and
> found it wanting.
See below.
> Did I say
> it was worthless? No, I said it is flawed. This seems
> like a rational approach to me.
It's not, because you are not thinking about this correctly. There is
a fundamental question here which I was answering, namely, "Are there
are qualified scientists who don't agree with the global warming
claims?" I provided a list of clearly qualified scientists. What did
you *focus* on? Those who may not be qualified! (They are all likely
qualified, since the list is checked for precisely that, but that's not
important here). This means that you are shifting the premise of the
whole discussion!
It's akin to this, I tell you there are some red birds in the jungle.
You go into the jungle and see several red birds and a few that you
can't distinguish the color of. You then come back to me and say that
my point is flawed because you saw some birds you couldn't determine the
color of. But that there are red birds is a fact which has been
established, so my point is proven, your protestations to the contrary
not withstanding.
> > What this
> > does is _bolster_ the bigger list.
>
> No, it just provides another list, smaller than the first, with namesof people, some with
> no field of expertise identified, just like
> the first. It is nowhere near 17000 names, and some are
> on both lists, possibily most, I didn't check all 17000. That is
> little to perhaps no additional, independent evidence of what
> the scientific community thinks on this subject, if that is of
> importance to determining the facts, which it is not.
It bolsters the big list.
Roger, wilco and out.
...John
russell martin
> russell martin wrote:
> >
> > John Alway wrote:
> >
> > > russell martin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Alway wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Russell Martin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Alway wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > > > There are over 17000 names, not just the "As", and of those 17,000 I'm
> > > > > > > certain there are very qualified scientists and atmospheric scientists,
> > > > > > > since some of them are high profile. Michaels, Balling, Lindzen, and
> > > > > > > Singer are certainly qualified, for instance.
>
> > > > > > > ...John
>
> > > > > > Yes, but the As will give you a reasonable statistical sample.
> > > > > > Otherwise, do a random sample yourself. Actually several months
> > > > > > ago someone went through to the Cs, I think it was, and didn't find
> > > > > > too many climatologically qualified signers. And as for the four
> > > > > > you mentioned, I'll even let you include them. It should about
> > > > > > double the number you'll get.
>
> > > > > Well, as usual, environmentalists hide behind anything they can find.
>
> > > > I'm an environmentalist? Shows what you know. I'm a scientist.
>
> > > Do I have to point out the logical error in this?
>
> > Please do. Is it that all scientists are environmentalists in your view?
>
> Come now. One can be an environmentalists and a scientist.
>
> Or, in Aristotelian terms, the class of all environmentalists can
> overlap with the class of all scientists.
>
You didn't read what I wrote. Please pay attention.I asked if you thought that the class of
scientists is
completely included in the class of environmentalists, not
whether there is some overlap.
> > > > > The fact is I'm sure that the vast majority of those scientists are more
> > > > > than qualified to assess data.
>
> > > > Then you need to purchase a clue, or ask Santa to give you onefor Christmas.
>
> > > I've just got done pointing out several big names on the list, then I
> > > pointed out a parallel list where there were only climatologists are on
> > > the list to bolster the point.
>
> > As I pointed out, it was impossible to tell *what* field some of
> > the people on that list are in. Your supporting list suffers from
> > the same flaws as the list it is to support.
>
> You point out things which have zero merit.
In your opinion.
> The vast majority of the
> list gives full names and credentials, that some don't doesn't effect
> this.
No, it means exactly what I and you said, that some don't givefull names and credentials. See,
we agree.
> This is simple, straight-forward logic.
As is the simple, straight-forward logic of what I said, which
isn't what you wanted to hear, that while some of the signatories
are qualified, others have not been proven to be, and that two
list with overlapping sets of signatoires are not completely
independent, which are the points I am making.
snipped for brevity
> > > No question, but you are not evaluating this rationally.
> >
> > Sure I am. I looked at the petition and the list, evaluated its value as evidence, and
> > found it wanting.
>
> See below.
>
> > Did I say
> > it was worthless? No, I said it is flawed. This seems
> > like a rational approach to me.
>
> It's not, because you are not thinking about this correctly.
No, I'm not thinking about it in the same way as you are.
That is the difference, and mine is as good as yours. We
are both correct, so why are you wasting bandwidth arguing?
> There is
> a fundamental question here which I was answering, namely, "Are there
> are qualified scientists who don't agree with the global warming
> claims?" I provided a list of clearly qualified scientists.
I did not dispute your point on that. I am answering adifferent question, whether all the
signatories are
qualified scientists in the area of climate studies. There
is plenty of data suggesting they are not. Since you
don't own the Internet or this thread, I'll ask the question
and answer it if I want to.
> What did
> you *focus* on? Those who may not be qualified! (They are all likely
> qualified, since the list is checked for precisely that, but that's not
> important here). This means that you are shifting the premise of the
> whole discussion!
I did not shift the premise, I just added a new one for consideration.You do not *own* the
discussion, despite the fact that you act like
you do, so I'll add a premise if I want to.
> It's akin to this, I tell you there are some red birds in the jungle.
> You go into the jungle and see several red birds and a few that you
> can't distinguish the color of. You then come back to me and say that
> my point is flawed because you saw some birds you couldn't determine the
> color of. But that there are red birds is a fact which has been
> established, so my point is proven, your protestations to the contrary
> not withstanding.
I never said that your point wasn't proven. I wasn't
debating the color of the red birds, but I was pointing
out that, intrepreted as a census of bird color, your data
is flawed. That does not mean I said there are no red
birds, just that from that data you presented the percentage
is not well determined. If you present data you have to
expect it to be examined and used to test other hypotheses,
whether they are the ones you are interested in or not.
That's the way science works.
> > > What this
> > > does is _bolster_ the bigger list.
> >
> > No, it just provides another list, smaller than the first, with namesof people, some with
> > no field of expertise identified, just like
> > the first. It is nowhere near 17000 names, and some are
> > on both lists, possibily most, I didn't check all 17000. That is
> > little to perhaps no additional, independent evidence of what
> > the scientific community thinks on this subject, if that is of
> > importance to determining the facts, which it is not.
>
> It bolsters the big list.
Not if they are all the people on the short list are on
the long list. You have not proven that there is a
person on the short list that is not on the other. That
is the test that will strictly prove your point about
bolstering. But I'm generous, so I won't ask you to
do that. But my point that certain signatories have no
apparent qualifications in climate science stands. This
is a testable hypothesis. If you wish to disprove it, please
provide a list of the qualifications of all signatories of
both lists and the reasons you think they are qualified.
> Roger, wilco and out.
>
> ...John
I can only hope.
Regards,
Russell Martin
The opinions expressed are my own.
Joshua Halpern
SNIP
> >
> > > “ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
> > > Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
> > Quantum mechanics is stranger than you can think.
> I suspect that biological interactions are equally complex - since biological
> activity seems to be and has done most of energy conversion and storage on this orb
> perhaps Quantum mechanics isn't the only fish in the pond or perhaps even not as
> big a fish as it thinks it is.
It's not just complexity, to understand quantum mechanics you have
to give up causality (Einsteins' spooky ghosts), that's eerie. OTOH,
I think it's Penrose who argues that intelligence is the product
of such effects in his expositions on why artifical intelligence
won't happen. Oh well
Josh Halpern
James G. Acker
: James G. Acker wrote:
: > **** By the way, as was pointed out a few weeks ago on
: > sci.environment, the uncertainties in the MSU record bring up
: > two points: One, is the MSU really a reliable measurement of
: > global temperatures? Getting a temperature value out of MSU data
: > requires several processing steps, and as the discussion shows,
: > the derivation is fraught with error. Two, everyone who is using
: > the MSU data to derive the temperature signal gets a warming or
: > cooling trend that is _less_ than the uncertainty in the measurement!
: > I.e., the values being quoted are 0.1 +/- 0.6 deg C per decade.
: > This is not to say that it is not valid to try and extract a measurement,
: > but that the value is so uncertain (due partly to the short length of
: > the record) that it has to be evaluated realistically
:
: Even though the MSU study is short how does it compare with other
: measurements over the same period ? As I recall ballon studies seem to
: agree more closely with MSU data ?
Excellent question. Even Spencer and Christy will tell you
that there is an apparent decoupling. Surface measurements show
0.1 to 0.15 deg C warming per decade, in contrast to their MSU
satellite record and the balloon temperature measurements over 1979-1998.
Interestingly, the balloon temperature measurements show a warming
trend prior to 1979 and no appreciable warming since.
Bizarre. And not yet explained. But I did find this:
http://civic.net/sustainable-development.archive/199702/msg00004.html
focused on Dr. Roy Spencer.
To Spencer, it's a modeling problem. Neither the surface
measurements nor the satellite/balloon measurements are wrong, but
the coupling of surface to lower troposphere isn't direct, as the models
would like it to be.
Note that this conclusion substantially reduces the importance of
ANY trends in the MSU satellite data, up or down. And that's why I thank
you for asking such an excellent question. As skeptics cling to
this data set, they may find out that their lifeline is frayed at the
top.
Now I'm gonna speculate. But it's not unfounded speculation.
The excess heat is going into the oceans. As support, read this
Web page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.03/
Concentrate on everything after the phrase "Still a
third conclusion..."
Now for my prediction. El Nino events will become more frequent
and more severe during the next two decades. Events similar in magnitude
to last year's El Nino will occur on an average of every three years.
(To see if I might be right, do a little checking on what happened in
the Pacific from 1991-1994.)
Then check back with me in 2019.
Onar Ĺm
>
> "Global warming deduced from MSU" by C.Prabhakara, R. Iacovazzi,
> Jr., J.-M. Yoo, and G. Dalu. June 1998, Geophysical Research Letters.
>
> Basically, another way of doing the MSU analysis. Finds a
> 0.11 C increase per decade. Quoting the abstract "the global temperature
> trend derived from the satellite data and the conventional data
> agree closely."
>
> So the current score is Spencer and Christy 1, Opponents 2.
Wrong again. The MSU record is highly consistent with TWO independent
measurement sources. 1) the balloon borne thermistor measurements and
2) the balloon borne atmospheric pressure half-point measurements.
Though 1 and 2 both are performed by balloons they are absolutely
independent of each other. The first measures a temperature colomn through
the atmosphere, which is integrated into a single value. The second
measures the height at which the atmospheric pressure is halved. This
height is, as you know, a function of the temperature of the air masses
below. Thus, this measure can be used to deduce temperature trends: a
warming of the lower air masses should turn up as an increase in the
half-point height. Remarkably, this data set is in perfect agreement
with both the thermistor data AND the MSU data. Now, the odds that
three absolutely independent data sets should have the same trend errors
is absolutely microscopic. This is extremely strong evidence in support
of Spencer and Christy's data.
Spencer & Christy 3, Opponents 2.
> Skeptics
> have been touting the satellite record over and over again because
> it is the only record of any kind that doesn't show warming of the
> global environment.
I choose to believe that this statement is based on ignorance rather
than denial. As I've shown above, there are not two but THREE independent
global data sets which support the skeptics.
> If you're weighting
> all of the data available, this means you should assign the MSU data
> (whatever it says) a lower weight.
In my book coherence between independent measurements mutually strengthens
the reliability of those measurements.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
>
> The excess heat is going into the oceans. As support, read this
> Web page:
>
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.03/
>
> Concentrate on everything after the phrase "Still a
> third conclusion..."
>
> Now for my prediction. El Nino events will become more frequent
> and more severe during the next two decades. Events similar in magnitude
> to last year's El Nino will occur on an average of every three years.
> (To see if I might be right, do a little checking on what happened in
> the Pacific from 1991-1994.)
> Then check back with me in 2019.
Ok, here's my speculation: solar cycle 22 was certainly the strongest one
since the medieval optimum. It was so strong that the cosmic ray count was
lower at the cycle 22 MINIMUM than it has been at the MAXIMA of any
preceding
cycle on record!!! According to Svensmark and Friis-Christensen a low
cosmic
ray count means less cloud cover, especially over the oceans. Less cloud
cover over the oceans means that the oceans absorb more sunlight. The
increase
in El Nino frequency could very well be a result of this phenomenon.
In any case, it's worth noting that the temperature in the pacific ocean
rose sharply during a 7 month period in 1977, and have stayed at that level
since. This abrupt warming coincides with the observed warming in the
surface
data as well as in the balloon data. Obviously some structural change
occured
in the pacific ocean back then. We don't know the cause, but such a steep
warming
in seven months couldn't possibly be due to absorption of greenhouse
warming
since at the time the global temperatures were cooling.
Onar.
James G. Acker
: >: >has been shown to be erroneous. He had to update the Web page.
: >: >And read this section:
: >: >
: >: >http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex5.htm
: >: >
: >: > Quoting: "a doubling of greenhouse gases will probably cause a
: >: >global warming between 0.5 and 0.9 degrees C".
: > I never, never, never said anything about a catastrophe. Go
: >back and read everything in this thread. What I am pointing out, and
: >what I will CONTINUALLY point out, is that increasing CO2 in the
: >atmosphere will change the atmosphere's radiative characteristics
: >such that there will be global warming consistent with what has
: >already been observed. The question is whether or not increasing
: >concentrations will lead to an accelerated amount of warming due to
: >positive feedback effects or a minimal amount of warming (as Lindzen,
: >Hoyt, and Idso among others advocate) due to negative feedback effects.
:
: So what, you deliberately quoted out of context to support your point that
: even the skeptics support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis and failed to
: frame this support properly. I called your hand on it and you went postal.
Look, friend, at what I did, exactly. I supplied the URL from
whence I got the quote. Anybody with WWW access could have gone there
and read the entire context. It would have been deceptive to bring up
the quote without the reference -- but I didn't do that. The quote
was intended to focus people on that section, if they care to read it.
I don't have time to type in all the text, and I am not using a
mailer/poster that allows me to cut+paste text. So I am really tired
of the accusation that I quoted out of context. The reference *is*
the context.
: What we are really talking about is potential energy in the climate system.
: Positive feedbacks reach some upper limit of disturbance of all climate
: factors, temperature, precipitation, etc. over timescales of perhaps
: centuries and then begin to settle back to what the strict radiative
: potential of the atmosphere is absent positive feedbacks. I think Hoyt
: challenges the amount of potential energy in the climate system by
: postulating a different kind of heat transfer within the climate system and
: further postulates a larger role for solar irradiance within the context of
: solar variability to explain climatic variability on shorter timescales of
: decades.
:
: What we disagree on is the exact role that positive feedbacks will have on
: global temperature over the next centuries not the final steady state of the
: climate system. I view the future variability from peak to trough to be
: much less severe though you have a perspective from modelling the atmosphere
: day to day and I should probably, absent the politics, accept your point of
: view, but I find compelling arguments for less variability in the future
: from Balling, Lindzen, Michaels and Hoyt.
That's fine. What I'll point out from my oceanographic standpoint
is that the oceans are the main climate driver on Earth, not the atmosphere,
and any work that doesn't well-characterize ocean/atmosphere interaction
is incomplete.
: You were deceptive in your original response, imo. If that was not your
: intent I withdraw my comment.
I will consider it withdrawn, and thank you. Let's clarify,
though:
Quoting out of context:
Erwin P. Blowhard, Ph.D. says "The oceans will catch fire in
100 years."
Quoting:
Erwin P. Blowhard, Ph.D. says "The oceans will catch fire in 100 years"
in his science-fiction story "Smoke on the Water", published in 2002 by
BadSFBooks, Ltd.
See the difference?
James G. Acker
: > Reference check time:
: >
: > "Global warming deduced from MSU" by C.Prabhakara, R. Iacovazzi,
: > Jr., J.-M. Yoo, and G. Dalu. June 1998, Geophysical Research Letters.
: >
: > Basically, another way of doing the MSU analysis. Finds a
: > 0.11 C increase per decade. Quoting the abstract "the global temperature
:
: > trend derived from the satellite data and the conventional data
: > agree closely."
: >
: > So the current score is Spencer and Christy 1, Opponents 2.
:
:
: Wrong again. The MSU record is highly consistent with TWO independent
: measurement sources. 1) the balloon borne thermistor measurements and
: 2) the balloon borne atmospheric pressure half-point measurements.
: Though 1 and 2 both are performed by balloons they are absolutely
: independent of each other. The first measures a temperature colomn through
: the atmosphere, which is integrated into a single value. The second
: measures the height at which the atmospheric pressure is halved. This
: height is, as you know, a function of the temperature of the air masses
: below. Thus, this measure can be used to deduce temperature trends: a
: warming of the lower air masses should turn up as an increase in the
: half-point height. Remarkably, this data set is in perfect agreement
: with both the thermistor data AND the MSU data. Now, the odds that
: three absolutely independent data sets should have the same trend errors
: is absolutely microscopic. This is extremely strong evidence in support
: of Spencer and Christy's data.
:
: Spencer & Christy 3, Opponents 2.
Onar,
That's good, that's really good. You also read what I found
where Spencer attributed the discrepancy to modeling, i.e. there is
a problem with models of atmospheric structure because warming at
the surface isn't causing warming of the lower troposphere where the
balloon measurements and the satellite measurements are taken.
Simplified models apparently "connect" the surface to the lower
troposphere more readily.
WHAT'S the bottom line here? According to what I think is
Spencer's evaluation, the MSU+balloon record is not telling the whole
story, and neither is the surface temperature record. Spencer and
Christy constantly reiterate the validity of the surface temperature
record showing warming. They defend their MSU record and correlate
it with the balloon data, which is what they should be doing.
In light of all of this, it is disingenuous of global
warming skeptics to concentrate on this data set and claim that
because there is no warming signal in the lower troposphere, there
is no global warming _at all_. That's an inaccurate, shortsighted,
and dangerous attitude (but not one that I'm surprised by).
Harold Lindaberry
held at a condition that we feel is optimum is a gross over exaggeration of the
power of man - the climate has been oscillating between ice ages long before man
entered the picture and probably will do so long after man has exited the scene.
All I can say about maintaining status quo temperature as they say in Japan "
ROTS OF RUCK "
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
James G. Acker wrote:
Shawn A. Wilson
> Reference check time:
>
> "Global warming deduced from MSU" by C.Prabhakara, R. Iacovazzi,
> Jr., J.-M. Yoo, and G. Dalu. June 1998, Geophysical Research Letters.
>
> Basically, another way of doing the MSU analysis. Finds a
> 0.11 C increase per decade. Quoting the abstract "the global temperature
> trend derived from the satellite data and the conventional data
> agree closely."
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
If you want to show global warming, the way to do it is to take a series
of agreed upon temperature measurements, regress them against time, show
a negative sign on the time coefficient AND show a t-statistic that
indicates significance. All this going back and forth about whose
measurements are better is boring AND pointless.
Shawn A. Wilson
> > Well, those models "modelled from well understood physics" were so good,
> > why have they done such a poor job of predicting what we already know?
> > If they can't predict LAST YEAR'S temperature accurately, based on their
> > "well understood physics", why should we believe they'll model next
> > year's any better?
>
> Your statement is ignorant blather without a definition of what you
> mean by poor or accurate and a source reference where one can make
> the actual comparison.
From what I've seen, the models, when used to predict last year rather
than next, predict that a 0.5C to 1.0C warming should ALREADY taken
place due to rising CO2 levels. Actually, no warming is observed.
That's a major red flag that the models are WRONG.
Further, models pre(post)dict many more
> properties than global temperature (quite accurately, at least
> in presentations that I have recently seen:). The NASA GISS
> site is probably a good place to start.
I don't care if they predict rainfall to ten digit accuracy, they DON'T
accurately predict temperature.
Onar Ĺm
> Spencer's evaluation, the MSU+balloon record is not telling the whole
> story, and neither is the surface temperature record. Spencer and
> Christy constantly reiterate the validity of the surface temperature
> record showing warming.
Spencer has also expressed some frustration over the fact that the
satellite
data are under constant attack while the surface data are left virtually
unscrutinized. He doesn't mind that the satellite data are being
scrutinized.
This just strengthens their scientific validity. What he seems to irritate
him is the fact that almost every single MSU critical paper has been
followed
by massive media announcements that the satellite data "now show warming"
or
"now is consistent with the ground data." In other words, there is
definitely
people out there that are itching to make the MSU data go away.
> In light of all of this, it is disingenuous of global
> warming skeptics to concentrate on this data set and claim that
> because there is no warming signal in the lower troposphere, there
> is no global warming _at all_. That's an inaccurate, shortsighted,
> and dangerous attitude (but not one that I'm surprised by).
I completely agree. I think that the discrepancy between the ground data
and the satellite data largely is due to a real decoupling between the
two. The most natural way to compare the model predictions with the
observed
reality, however, is to integrate the predicted accumulation of heat from
the surface up through the troposphere and compare this with the observed
accumulation of heat. When we do this there is absolutely no doubt that the
atmosphere as a whole has warmed much, much less than predicted. No
good explanation to this phenomenon has been provided. That the lowest
kilometer
has warmed does not explain why the air masses above it hasn't. (The
half-point
pressure height data is precisely such an integral of heat down to the
surface.
The fact that this data set does not show any warming trend suggests that
the
warming of the ground, if any, at most has penetrated a kilometer or two
into the
atmosphere.) I'm open to suggestions of what could be the cause of this
phenomenon.
In the mean time land use change and urban warming springs to mind as
likely
explanations.
Onar.
Bob Taylor
> Yadda, yadda, yadda.
>
> If you want to show global warming, the way to do it is to take a series
> of agreed upon temperature measurements, regress them against time, show
> a negative sign on the time coefficient AND show a t-statistic that
> indicates significance. All this going back and forth about whose
> measurements are better is boring AND pointless.
Two points:
1. Your statistical procedure is inferior to (a) the development of an
exhaustive array of statistical models that include time-dependent components,
both oscillatory and trend, and (b) searching for the best-fitting and most
parsimonious of these by use of a best-model index such as the Akaike
Information Criterion.
2. The measurement issue is neither boring nor pointless. Ask yourself this:
what if the upper and lower atmosphere oscillated out of phase. How would you
measure change in such a system?
Peter
>
>> WHAT'S the bottom line here? According to what I think is
>> Spencer's evaluation, the MSU+balloon record is not telling the whole
>> story, and neither is the surface temperature record. Spencer and
>> Christy constantly reiterate the validity of the surface temperature
>> record showing warming.
>
>Spencer has also expressed some frustration over the fact that the
>satellite
>data are under constant attack while the surface data are left virtually
>unscrutinized.
invalid because of the urban heat island effect.
James G. Acker
:
: > Reference check time:
: >
: > "Global warming deduced from MSU" by C.Prabhakara, R. Iacovazzi,
: > Jr., J.-M. Yoo, and G. Dalu. June 1998, Geophysical Research Letters.
: >
: > Basically, another way of doing the MSU analysis. Finds a
: > 0.11 C increase per decade. Quoting the abstract "the global temperature
: > trend derived from the satellite data and the conventional data
: > agree closely."
: Yadda, yadda, yadda.
: If you want to show global warming, the way to do it is to take a series
: of agreed upon temperature measurements, regress them against time, show
: a negative sign on the time coefficient AND show a t-statistic that
: indicates significance. All this going back and forth about whose
: measurements are better is boring AND pointless.
Well, that's one way of looking at the issue. After participating
in this discussion for a few days, I've come to the conclusion that
using the MSU satellite data to either prove "global warming" is or
isn't occurring is not a good exercise.
But here's one problem with your concept: it doesn't address
abrupt temperature excursions. During the Younger Dryas event at the
end of the last glacial, global temperatures were much colder than now,
due to the fact that North Atlantic Deep Water formation had ceased.
When NADW formation was re-established, global temperatures increased
rapidly, i.e., 5-10 C in less than a decade. Prior to the initiation
of NADW formation, global temperatures may have been increasing very
slowly -- the argument could have been made that "no global warming was
occurring". A decade later, that would have been very incorrect.
I'm not about to say that global temp will jump up dramatically
anytime in the coming century. BUT, if heat is being stored by the
oceans, global temp could increase intermittently, rather
than linearly and smoothly. Five years from now we could be talking
about global temps that are "suddenly" 0.3 C higher than right
now -- and all of that warming could take place in 2003. Ocean
circulation is a major climate driver and it is not a linear, laminar
system.
So, to try and figure out what could happen, attempts should be
made to determine what *is* happening (and what has happened in the past).
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yadda, yadda, yadda.
> >
> > If you want to show global warming, the way to do it is to take a series
> > of agreed upon temperature measurements, regress them against time, show
> > a negative sign on the time coefficient AND show a t-statistic that
> > indicates significance. All this going back and forth about whose
> > measurements are better is boring AND pointless.
>
>
> 1. Your statistical procedure is inferior to (a) the development of an
> exhaustive array of statistical models that include time-dependent components,
> both oscillatory and trend, and (b) searching for the best-fitting and most
> parsimonious of these by use of a best-model index such as the Akaike
> Information Criterion.
Being three weeks from my finals in a graduate time series course, I
don't need lectures from you on methodology. My purpose wasn't to
exhaust the methodology, it was to give an idea of what was necessary.
Bob Taylor
Shawn A. Wilson wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Yadda, yadda, yadda.
> > >
> > > If you want to show global warming, the way to do it is to take a series
> > > of agreed upon temperature measurements, regress them against time, show
> > > a negative sign on the time coefficient AND show a t-statistic that
> > > indicates significance. All this going back and forth about whose
> > > measurements are better is boring AND pointless.
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1. Your statistical procedure is inferior to (a) the development of an
> > exhaustive array of statistical models that include time-dependent components,
> > both oscillatory and trend, and (b) searching for the best-fitting and most
> > parsimonious of these by use of a best-model index such as the Akaike
> > Information Criterion.
>
> Being three weeks from my finals in a graduate time series course, I
> don't need lectures from you on methodology. My purpose wasn't to
> exhaust the methodology, it was to give an idea of what was necessary.
>
>
Being 26 years post-Ph.D. with a number of statistical courses, publications, and
extensive consulting experience, you will forgive me if I sometimes get sceptical of
the level of statistical sophistication shown in this group. If you are as far
along as you claim to be, then I suggest you start developing a healthier scepticism
toward hypothesis testing as both a necessary and sufficient approach to such
questions. The issue here is fundamentally one of the processes involved.
Phil. G. Felton
<swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> "Phil. G. Felton" wrote:
> >
> > In article <36481D0B...@uic.edu>, "Shawn A. Wilson"
> > <swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Peter wrote:
> > >
> > > > The global averaged temperature has been rising again since about 1980.
> > >
> > > Not according to satellite measurements of lower atmosphere
> > > temperatures.
> > >
> >
> > The NASA web site which reports the monthly MSU data states:
> >
> > > The overall trend in the tropospheric data is approximately steady, at
> > > about +0.049oC per decade.
> >
> > Phil.
> >
> > (rest deleted)
>
>
> Uh, no.
>
> From: http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
>
> "This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower
> troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles
> up. The temperature in this region is more strongly influenced by
> oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena,
> which originate as changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulations in
> the tropical Pacific Ocean. Like the upper plot, the overall trend in
> the data is downward, about 0.06 degrees C per
> decade." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Here's a hint for the future: URLs
Uh, YES.
I was laboring under the misapprehension that there was only one site where
the data was presented, mea culpa.
Here's the URL you requested:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
Note that it was updated on: October 8, 1998
whereas the site you referenced has apparently not been updated since:
July 31, 1997.
Consequently Spencer's opinion last month was as I stated:
"The overall trend in the tropospheric data is approximately steady, at
about +0.049oC per decade."
not -0.06oC per decade as he stated last year.
The change is in part due to corrections to the technique as suggested by
others and to the extremely strong warming over the last year (the shortness
of the MSU record leads to rather high volatility).
A hint for the future: sell-by date (last update date)
Good luck with your exams Shawn.
Phil.
Scott Nudds
> In criticizing the satellite data collection method, global warming
> proponents also fail to address the fact that the satellite data is
> independently corroborated by weather balloons which are launched twice
> a day at points all around the globe. The findings of the weather
> balloons match almost perfectly with the satellite findings.
What Shawn A. Winson doesn't want people to know is that the balloon
data shows warming as well, and it always has showed warming.
The satellite data has betrayed global warming denialists, who are now
stuck with conceding that at best the data shows no cooling - contrary
to their initial hopes, and in fact shows warming a slight warming
according to Christy.
"The last six months of our adjusted satellite record (February through
July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year record. The updated trend is
now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected
warming rate)." - John Christy - Aug 14, 98
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> I choose to believe that this statement is based on ignorance rather
> than denial. As I've shown above, there are not two but THREE independent
> global data sets which support the skeptics.
Well, lets see here. The satellite data shows warming. The Satellite
data doesn't measure surface temperature, the Balloon data shows
warming, the surface temperature measurement show warming.
What are these three data sets that you are referring to?
Scott Nudds
> IMO to think that the temperature or climate is a static thing and
> can be held at a condition that we feel is optimum is a gross over
> exaggeration of the power of man - the climate has been oscillating
> between ice ages long before man entered the picture and probably will
> do so long after man has exited the scene. All I can say about
> maintaining status quo temperature as they say in Japan " ROTS OF RUCK"
True enough. Does Lindaberry therefore propose that man act in a
manner that brings on a new ice age, or something equally destructive -
simply because the earth has endured such events in the past?
That wouldn't be rational now would it?
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> > about .04'C per decade - a value in good agreement with the increase seen
> > at the surface. However the period over which the satelite data extends
> > is not sufficient in itself to draw a conclusion.
"Shawn A. Wilson" <swi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> Well, my source says otherwise.
> From: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307.html
The word "cato" explains everything. Your information is coming from
a political organization that will say or do almost anything to protect
its industrial contributors.
Basically you can take everything produced by organizations like Cato
and flush it down the toilet.
Lets go to the horses mouth shall we? What do the scientists who have
analyzed the satellite data say about the issue of warming or cooling.
Here are two quotes.
"There is no question that the surface temperatures are warmer now than
they were 100 years ago. There is also no question that there is more
CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago." - THE USE OF
SATELLITES IN GLOBAL WARMING FORECASTS * - John R. Christy
---
"The last six months of our adjusted satellite record (February through
July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year record. The updated trend is
now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected
warming rate)." - John Christy - Aug 14, 98
Cato wrote:
> "A look at the trends in the satellite data--our only truly global
> record of lower atmosphere temperature--is remarkably revealing. A
> statistically significant global cooling trend (Figure 4) exists over
> the 18.8-year period of record.
Not according to the very scientists that collected the data.
Why is Cato lying?
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> That rise, however, occurred before the bit
> increases in CO2 and it occurred from 1850 to about 1940 as we were
> coming out of "the little ice age". Since that point there is no clear
> evidence of a trend up or down, and, in fact, satellite data shows a
> small downward trend over the last twenty years.
I see that Alway is continuing to repeat his lies. The warming
observed since the mid 1800's is not related to the "little ice age" of
course, and the warming seen since the 1940 cooling period - almost
certainly caused in part by sulphate aerosol cooling, shows a strong
upward trend - as the plot below clearly shows.
Global Average Temp over time
-----------------------------
| .~< 1998
15.2| .. Warmest year
| . on record?
| .^
| .. Pinatubo
| .^
^ | . Chicon
| | ...
T |
E | Hansen Temperature Index
M |
P |
|
|
14.6|1970
|--|------|--
2000
* View with fixed spaced font *
That Alway would characterize the above rapid and nearly linear rise
in temperature as a "no clear evidence of a trend" and a "slight
downward trend", is stark testament to his level of stupidity and/or
deceit.
Alway wrote:
> I'm a bit tired of responding to this deliberately deceptive way of
> presenting the facts.
I am quite tired of Alway's lies.
"There is no evidence of any global warming." - John Alway - Dec, 12, 97
"There is no evidence of global warming." - John Alway - Dec, 1, 97
Alway wrote:
> This is yet another lie. The fact is that thousands of top flight
> scientists have put their names on record (and it's been years, so there
> is no excuse any more for not knowing this), and have presented solid
> science in support of their claims, which is more than can be said for
> those who wish for global warming.
Qualifications of the Leipzig Declaration signatories - July 29, 98
-----------------------------------------------------
St. Petersburg Times
--------------------
- DAVID OLINGER - John Martin (Times) contributing -
Maybe you haven't noticed it yet, but scientists are telling us
global warming has arrived. They expect we'll start to feel the
difference any decade now.
Many atmospheric scientists agree Earth's temperature is creeping
upward, with potentially dangerous times ahead. Glaciers could melt, and
sea levels rise. Rainfall might shift with temperatures, deluging
deserts and parching forests.
About 2,500 researchers considered the threat serious enough to work
together on a comprehensive global warming report. They expect average
temperatures in the next century to rise at a rate unseen in at least
10,000 years.
The authors called this report a consensus of the world's climate
scientists.
Now, along come 84 men and women in the United States and Europe who
say that's not so. They signed a declaration of concerned scientists
asserting there is no "scientific consensus" about the dangers of global
warming.
Who are these rebels?
Some are scientists by anyone's definition, and some are scientists
by their own definition.
One signatory is Tampa Bay's own Roy Leep, the weatherman at Channel
13. Another runs Dick's Weather Service, where callers can get
yesterday's temperature and rainfall in Springfield, Ohio. Another gives
weather reports on Channel 5 in San Francisco.
Leep, who attended Florida State but never graduated, said he doesn't
consider advanced academic training necessary to qualify as a scientist.
"I've been a meteorologist for 45 years," he said. "I have a background
in meteorology."
The declaration Leep signed - formally, the Leipzig Declaration on
Global Climate Change - has been distributed to news organizations
around the world as evidence that many scientists are skeptical about
global warming and oppose constraints on oil and coal use.
Global warming is a complicated topic. Scientific discussions about
it get terribly technical, burdened with caveats, reliant on climate
models spun out by supercomputers - and fraught with immense political
and economic consequences.
Overrate the risks of global climate change, and we could find
ourselves pumping high-priced gas into tiny cars because an
international treaty rationed fossil fuels for no good reason.
Understate them, and the price of inaction could range from drowned
condos on the Florida coast to droughts in the farm belt and tropical
diseases invading the world's temperate zones.
The Leipzig declaration grew out of a November 1995 meeting of
scientists who say the risks are overrated.
"Contrary to conventional wisdom," it states, "there does not exist
today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse
warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide." All who signed it are
identified as scientists.
In the United States, this declaration was circulated by S. Fred
Singer, an atmospheric physicist known to buck the mainstream on
environmental issues.
Global warming? Singer has called it a problem manufactured by
activists. Ozone depletion? He doubts Freon and its chemical cousins are
at fault, and criticized the Nobel Prize awarded to the scientists
credited with discovering the problem as "political."
About 45 Americans signed his global warming declaration. Some have
well-established national reputations. Former National Hurricane Center
director Neil Frank. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National
Academy of Sciences. David Aubrey, a coastal research scientist at the
prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
"One of my concerns has been the one-sided nature of at least a
portion of the government's discussions about global climate change,"
Aubrey said.
Many other names on the Leipzig list are unrecognizable to leading
climate researchers. Several are scientists whose daily bread has been
buttered by industries that produce greenhouse gases.
Chauncey Starr of the Electrical Power Research Institute endorsed
the declaration. So did Patrick Michaels, the global warming critic
whose newsletter is financed by the Western Fuels Association. So did
Robert Balling, the Arizona State University climate scientist whose
research has been supported by coal companies and Kuwait.
So did Richard F. Groeber, whose scientific credentials do not
include a college degree. In Springfield, Ohio, Groeber is better
known as the operator of Dick's Weather Service. He tracks weather data
at his private station, but avoids the trickier job of forecasting. A
long-time observer of Ohio weather, he suspects global climate trends
are related to sunspots, not greenhouse gases.
Is Groeber a scientist?
"I sorta consider myself so," he said. "I had two or three years of
college training in the scientific area, and 30 or 40 years of
self-study."
At WTVT in Tampa, Roy Leep has a sophisticated array of
meteorological equipment, a longstanding reputation for reliable
forecasts and a seal of approval from the American Meteorological
Society. A brief version of his forecast appears each day in the Times.
What Leep doesn't have is a Ph.D. in any scientific field, or for
that matter, a bachelor's degree. He was taking meteorology courses at
Florida State University and broadcasting radio weather reports when
WTVT hired him in 1957.
Leep signed the Leipzig declaration partly because he thinks
government money invested in global warming research would be better
spent on other things, such as hurricane research. "As a taxpayer, I can
see a lot more pressing areas of interest," he said.
In San Francisco, the "scientist" who signed the declaration is KPIX
weatherman Brian Sussman, who thinks "the jury is still out" on global
warming. He has a bachelor's degree in meteorology.
The latest round in the global warming debate began with a thick
report from the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change that was supposed to achieve a global consensus among
climate scientists.
Its authors found evidence of "a discernible human influence" on
today's climate. They expect this influence to grow with the buildup of
greenhouse gases, potentially changing coastlines, agricultural areas
and infectious disease rates.
Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project responded with a
list of scientists who find "drastic control policies - lacking credible
support from the underlying science - to be ill-advised, premature" and
perilous to a world that runs on coal and oil.
"What we're trying to do is bring to the attention of the American
public that there is strong scientific disagreement about the conclusion
of this U.N. report," Singer said. "The people who run this business are
trying to marginalize us. Calling us a tiny minority."
Singer solicited signatures from scientists by sending the
declaration to members of the American Meteorological Society and the
American Geophysical Union.
In fact, membership in the American Meteorological Society is open to
people without any degree; all you need is substantial experience in the
weather field and 20 semester hours of college science classes. Does
it bother Singer that people without a scientific degree would sign a
declaration that begins, "As scientists . . ."?
Not greatly. "To me, that is not as important as the fact that we can
demonstrate that 100 or so scientists would put their names down" as
dissenters from the U.N. report.
Singer contends that more scientists wanted to sign his declaration,
but feared they could jeopardize their government jobs or federal
research grants.
One government scientist who signed is Nathaniel Guttman at the
National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina. He said he signed it as
a private citizen who doubts weather records are adequate to reach
conclusions about global warming. As a federal employee, "I'd prefer not
to comment."
Some names on the Leipzig list baffle climate researchers. Even
scientists in the same town can't place them.
Take Boulder, Colo., for example. It's the headquarters of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading institution of
global climate research.
It's also the home of two signers of the Leipzig declaration - John
E. Gaynor and J.P. Lodge. A third, George E. McVehil, is in nearby
Englewood. Kevin Trenberth, the climate analysis chief at the Boulder
center, doesn't recognize any of them.
"None of them is known professionally at all in climate research," he
said. "They are nonentities."
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> why have they done such a poor job of predicting what we already know?
> If they can't predict LAST YEAR'S temperature accurately, based on their
> "well understood physics", why should we believe they'll model next
> year's any better?
I am amused that global warming denialists are still jabbering
nonsense about predicting "yearly" temperatures when they have been
repeatedly told that Climatology is the study of long term averages in
weather not short term fluctuations.
On average, we know the location of most Americans with great
precision. They are either at home or at work. At any one instant,
however, we can say less about their location.
The same is true of Climate. More can be said with assurance as the
time scale considered, increases.
I suppose the denialists are making progress though. They are no
longer jabbering the same objections using monthly predictions rather.
It's quite funny - when you think about it.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> Perhaps this poster had better go back and reread the posting where I
> point out the darkness of an environmentalist's soul.
Is this the same Alway who has been seen referring to people on
welfare as "parasites" and "vermin"? Presumably worthy only of
extermination.
I can't speak for the "soul" of every environmentalists, but it is
abundantly clear that as a group, they are people concerned with the
general welfare of the biosphere, people who seek to minimize the impact
man has on his natural surroundings for both the long term benefit of
man, and the long and short term benefit of other living things.
This runs counter to the philosophy held by extremists like Alway and
his brethren who insist that every living thing exists for the
consumption - however brutal or painful - of man - even to the point of
extinction.
Hate filled extremists like Alway like to mischaracterize the
environmental movement. For example the opposition to the uncontrolled
rape of the worlds forests is characterized by them as a refusal of
environmentalists to allow forestry.
Of course nothing could be further from the truth. The opposition to
uncontrolled forestry is a result of the instance that the production
be uncontrolled.
Environmentalists in general have <NO> problem with the harvesting of
any forest - <provided> that it is done in an environmentally benign
manner, and <provided> that there is a replacement for the forest that
will be harvested. And with the word "replacement" read a true
replacement, a forest capable of supporting the same wildlife that is
extinguished through the harvesting of the original forest.
The argument then is over the <rate of consumption> - as it is with
virtually every other environmental issue.
Alway and his brethren would just love to open the environment up to
unrestricted dumping of toxic chemicals into the air and water. Their
opposition to any regulation of emissions is ample proof of this.
In contrast, and contrary to the hate filled rantings of Alway and his
Conservative brethren, environmentalists are <NOT> opposed to the
emission of toxic materials into the environment. They <ARE> however,
opposed to rates of emission that are environmentally damaging.
Alway wrote:
> I stand up against any form of tyranny.
But not the tyranny of the marketplace. Alway is a firm believer that
the powerful should enslave those who are less powerful. Alway believes
that it is impossible to enslave men economically, that the marketplace
always allows those in debtors prison to work their way back to
prosperity - even if the laws of compound interest make it an
impossibility.
To Alway and company, it is an abuse of personal rights to physically
coerce the weak but not only acceptable - but a moral imperative - to
economically coerce the poor.
As they say - Greed is a gift from God.
Alway wrote:
> If he does not recognize individual rights, if
> he laughs at the idea of property rights, and despise a man's selfish
> desire to pursue happiness, and he promotes policies that trample over
> these things, then he is an enemy of every man on the face of the
> planet, whether he knows it or not.
This is nothing more than extremist claptrap of course. All
societies, no matter how restrictive have recognized individual rights
to one degree or another, and will always do so.
Alway paints an extremist picture, that either you demand absolute
freedom, or perfect slavery - quite childish.
Here in the real world - and even Alway knows this - there are no
absolute rights - and nor should there be. Rights must be limited by
circumstance. Depending on circumstance, even the most fundamental
right - the right to life must be forfeit.
Again, rejecting the childishly extremist view of Alway and his
conservative brethren, the issue is not one of recognizing individual
rights, but defining what the precise extent of those rights are.
Alway wrote:
> *Ideas* which don't support liberty will kill it.
More nonsense of course. Ideas that oppose liberty must exist in
order to define what liberty is.
What Alway is really trying to do here is advance his own sick
personal philosophy, by arguing that if you have any concern other than
liberty than you are an enemy of liberty. Its the same kind of mindless
dogma that gave us the "Better dead than red.", "America can do no
wrong." mentality.
Thinking individuals know better.
Alway wrote:
> If you don't take this issue seriously, then this tells me
> quite a bit about how seriously you take life, i.e. not much at all.
And now a stronger appeal. If your only concern is not liberty than
you are not <serious> about life.
Well, for most mentally stable people, life is not exclusively about
liberty. Its about joy, and service, obligation, and responsibility,
its about credit and debt, good and evil, selfishness and selflessness,
and everything in between.
Life is about liberty only to psychopaths, and one track minds who
always seem to be living in some kind of self imposed fantasy - and who
spend their time casting hate upon those of us who live in the real world.
Alway wrote:
> Everything I stated flows from logic and my value for my life and all
> it entails.
That's hard to believe, since very little that you say has any
connection with reality, and the "ideas" you claim to present appear to
be logically disconnected from each other.
Of course, this is a typical problem with extremist conservatives.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> However, here's a declaration on global climate change, which makes
> essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate
> Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
Oops... There goes Alway, telling lies again. Repeating the same lies
year after year, now for nearly 3 years running. Lipzeig is a joke.
Some of the "claimed" signatories don't even exist. The names are
forgeries.
We keep telling Alway this, and he keeps repeating the same lies over
and over again.
But this is the nature of closed minded conservatives now isn't it?
Scott Nudds
> Spencer has also expressed some frustration over the fact that the
> satellite data are under constant attack while the surface data are
> left virtually unscrutinized.
The reality of course, is that the surface temperature set is the most
scrutinized data set in history.
And of course the surface temperature record is confirmed by bore hole
measurements, tree ring studies, and a host of other methods that
denialists always seem to ignore.
"Our results essentially confirm the earlier works of Jones [1988],
Jones and Kelly [1983], Jones et al. [1986a, b], Jones and Briffa
[1992], Hansen and Lebedef [1987, 1988], Vinnikov et al. [1987, 1990],
and Bottomley et al. [1990] as updated and combined in the IPCC reports
[Folland et al., 1990, 1992]. The fact of global warming in the past
century is beyond dispute even though the precise amount is certainly
not. On theoretical grounds a likely contributory cause of the warming
is the rise in greenhouse-gas concentrations, but despite some
similarities between the most recent oceanic surface temperature
anomalies and those modelled by Manabe et al. [1991, 1992] and Meehl et
a1.[1993], it is definitely premature to ascribe all or most of the
warming to this particular cause [Houghton et al., 1992]." - D.E.
Parker, P.D. Jones, C.K. Folland and A. Bevan- Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research
"Onar Ĺm" <on...@netpower.no> wrote:
> He doesn't mind that the satellite data
> are being scrutinized. This just strengthens their scientific validity.
Great, his partner in the satellite analysis project has the following
to say about the satellite data.
"The last six months of our adjusted satellite record (February through
July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year record. The updated trend is
now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected
warming rate)." - John Christy - Aug 14, 98
Onar wrote:
> What he seems to irritate him is the fact that almost every single MSU
> critical paper has been followed by massive media announcements that
> the satellite data "now show warming" or "now is consistent with the
> ground data." In other words, there is definitely people out there that
> are itching to make the MSU data go away.
You know. I don't remember seeing any "massive media announcement"
proclaiming that the satellite data shows warming.
I do however, remember a fake NAS petition distributed by Fred Singers
group, and a truly massive media campaign by Oil producers who argue that
global warming is a scam - for the express purpose of making sure that
their product is consumed wastefully.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> Of course the issues were always:
> 1> man caused global warming,
An absolute reality, unless you deny basic radiative physics.
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> and
> 2> catastrophic global warming.
To some fools, even another ice age wouldn't be a global catastrophe,
or even an asteroid impact since bacteria would undoubtedly survive.
I believe you have made such statements haven't you Mr. Alway?
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> The little ice age was a period of unusual
> coldness which we came out of, and, of course there have been warmer
> periods over the last 3000 years.
Lets check..
| Vostock Ice Core Temperature data Temp 'C vs Time
|
'C | 9,000 years ago .
| | .
1-| . ..
0-|.... .
-1-| . ..
-2-| .
-3-| . . . .
-4-| . . . ..
-5-| . . ... . .
-6-| . . . . .. . . .
-7-| .. . . . .. .
-8-| . . .. . ... . ..
-9-| .. . ......
|------------------------------------------------------------------|-
(0) Present <- Year -> 164300
View with mono-spaced font
Ohhh. Looks like 9,000 years ago it was about 1'C warmer than present.
The warming to come over the next century will certainly be well over
that, and unprecedented in the last 160,000 years.
Given the decades it will take to make the transition from fossil to
more environmentally benign forms of energy generation, and given that
the rate of consumption continues to grow, it is easy for any thinking
individual to appreciate that in order to avoid being warmer than at any
time in the last 160,000 years, emission reductions should start
immediately.
Alway wrote:
> For those who are interested, here is an overview of the science of
> global warming as presented by the petition project and signed by 17,000
> scientists, including Lindzen, Michaels, et al. This de facto, btw,
> makes it peer reviewed.
Of course this petition that Alway is talking about was a fake -
forged - National Academy of Sciences document, perpetrated by Fred
Singer, a former scientist who is now a paid shill for various oil and
coal companies.
Here is the NAS response to the forged document...
STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION
April 20, 1998
The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about
the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a
former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science
underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto
Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks
scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The
petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal
and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of
scientific articles published in the _Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences_. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that
this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences
and that the manuscript was not published in the _Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences_ or in any other peer-reviewed journal.
The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the
Academy.
In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering
(NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus
study on this issue, entitled _Policy Implications of Greenhouse
Warming_ (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that "...even given the
considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena,
greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt
responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance
protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of
dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change
Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS
and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research
issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated
with global change phenomena, including climate change.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
COUNCIL
Bruce Alberts (president)
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.
Jack Halpern (vice president)
Louis Block Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Department of Chemistry
University of Chicago
Peter H. Raven (home secretary)
DirectorMissouri Botanical Garden
St. Louis
F. Sherwood Rowland (foreign secretary)
Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System Science
Department of Chemistry
University of California
Irvine
Ronald L. Graham (treasurer)
Chief Scientist
AT&T Laboratories
Florham Park, N.J.
Mary Ellen Avery
Professor of Pediatrics
Harvard Medical School
Boston
Ralph J. Cicerone
Chancellor-Designate
Dean, School of Physical Sciences, and Daniel G. Aldrich Professor of
Earth System Science
Department of Earth System Science
University of California
Irvine
Edward E. David Jr.(1)
President
EED Inc.
Bedminster, N.J.
Marye Anne Fox
Chancellor-Designate
North Carolina State University, and
Vice President for Research and M. June and J. Virgil Waggoner Regents
Chair in Chemistry
Department of Chemistry
University of Texas
Austin
Ralph E. Gomory(2)
President
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
New York City
David M. Kipnis
Distinguished University Professor
Department of Internal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis
Daniel E. Koshland Jr.
Professor in the Graduate School
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California
Berkeley
Mary-Lou Pardue
Boris Magasanik Professor
Department of Biology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge
Luis Sequeira
J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus
Department of Plant Pathology
University of Wisconsin
Madison
I.M. Singer
Institute Professor
Department of Mathematics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge
Robert H. Wurtz
Chief
Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research
National Eye Institute
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Md.
Richard N. Zare
Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor
Department of Chemistry
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.
___________________________________
(1) abstained
(2) unable to participate
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> The opposition has the government money and the post-modern,
> anti-man philosophy (aka enviromentalism) as being promoted by the
> universities.
Funny, I thought that the real philosophy being presented by the
universities is secular humanism. Isn't that what your conservative
brethren have been complaining about for the last several decades Alway?
John Alway wrote:
> This is why the real battle is philosophical, not scientific.
Absolutely, the scientific debate is long over. Global warming is a
reality. A reality that closed minded conservative extremists like
yourself find themselves intellectually incapable of accepting.
You know.... We don't care.
What do the skeptics think...
"Is there any common ground? Of all people, Michaels insists there could
be. "When it comes to it, the modelers and the skeptics are not so far
apart," he says. Indeed, if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and
other skeptics suggest a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise
average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 'C. And 1.5 'C is the bottom
end of the modelers' range of predictions." - NEW SCIENTIST: 19 July
1997
John Alway wrote:
> Anyway, here's a declaration on global climate change, which
> makes essentially the same point: The Leipzig Declaration on Global
> Climate Change. This one is chockfull of clearly qualified scientists.
And just to once again show that Alway is just another extremist
conservative liar, I will post the following...
Please note that many of these "qualified scientists" that Alway
refers to were actually forged signatures. Forged by who, we don't
know, but certainly forged by someone with a political policy to
advance. A policy that carbon industry shills like Fred Singer - the
origin of the declaration is paid to advance.
Now isn't that a coincidence?
David Gossman
>
> "Shawn A. Wilson" wrote:
> > From what I've seen, the models, when used to predict last year rather
> > than next, predict that a 0.5C to 1.0C warming should ALREADY taken
> > place due to rising CO2 levels. Actually, no warming is observed.
>
> warming has been observed.
>
> What kind of cement is Conservative Wilson using for brains these days?
>
> Look John Boy... The global temperature has been observed to have
> warmed from 14.6 to 15.2'C. - Your denial of reality makes me laugh.
>
> Global Average Temp over time
> -----------------------------
> | .~< 1998
> | . on record?
> | Agung .^
> | | .. Pinatubo
> | .... v .^
> ^ | .. ..... . Chicon
> | | .. ...
> T | ..
> E | Krakatoa ..
> M | | .
> P | v .... .
> | .. ..
> | .. .
> 14.6| ... 1940 1970
> |-|-------------------|--------|------|--
> 1872 Year -> 1994
>
> * View with fixed spaced font *
>
> Part 1.2 Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
>
Nudds ignores the post's reference to CO2 induced warming and provides a
graph of data where half the increase in temp occurred prior to
significant increases in CO2. Typical Nudds.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Onar Ĺm
Scott Nudds <af...@james.hwcn.org> wrote in article
<73hn52$1...@james.hwcn.org>...
> "Onar aam" <on...@netpower.no> wrote:
> > I choose to believe that this statement is based on ignorance rather
> > than denial. As I've shown above, there are not two but THREE
independent
> > global data sets which support the skeptics.
>
> Well, lets see here. The satellite data shows warming. The Satellite
> data doesn't measure surface temperature, the Balloon data shows
> warming, the surface temperature measurement show warming.
William Connolley commented that the fact that an El Nino is able to sway
cooling into warming shows that the data set is too short to infer any
statistically significant trend (cooling or warming). I agree with him.
At the moment the MSU data is very close to USELESS in assessing trends.
That doesn't just go for you, but for all those who try to use the MSU
data to tout a cooling trend. However, the MSU data is good for
*comparative*
purposes, i.e. to identify discrepancies between the surface and the
atmosphere.
> What are these three data sets that you are referring to?
I stated that very clearly: the MSU, the balloon thermistor and
the balloon pressure/height measurements.
> "The last six months of our adjusted satellite record (February through
> July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year record. The updated trend is
> now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected
> warming rate)." - John Christy - Aug 14, 98
And in the three months since July the trend has been updated to 0.06
C/dec.
In the next 6 months we will likely see this trend fall back to baseline
once
more due to the curent La Nina.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
> scrutinized data set in history.
>
> And of course the surface temperature record is confirmed by bore hole
> measurements, tree ring studies, and a host of other methods that
> denialists always seem to ignore.
Tree ring studies are in the last 50 years or so contaminated by the recent
surge in CO2, causing a spurious warming trend due to CO2 fertilization.
I do think that the surface data is mostly correct, but that there is
still significant urban heat and landuse contamination, maybe in the order
of 10-20%.
Onar.
Shawn A. Wilson
> I was laboring under the misapprehension that there was only one site where
> the data was presented, mea culpa.
>
> Here's the URL you requested:
>
> http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
>
> Note that it was updated on: October 8, 1998
> whereas the site you referenced has apparently not been updated since:
> July 31, 1997.
The site, maybe. The data, however, is current through July 98.
>
> Consequently Spencer's opinion last month was as I stated:
> "The overall trend in the tropospheric data is approximately steady, at
> about +0.049oC per decade."
> not -0.06oC per decade as he stated last year.
I really don't understand why climatologists consider themselves
qualified to examine climatological data. Sounds odd, doesn't it? But
when they start talking about trends they are entirely out of their
range of training and expertise. A simple glance at a plot of
temperatures against time shows a cycle. Cycles go up, cycles go down.
Want a cheap and easy way of finding a trend in the direction you want?
Measure trough to peak or peak to trough. You'll get a trend, and it'll
be significant, too. The satellite data starts at a trough. Right now
we're at a peak. The pro-warming crowd is thrilled. Want to do it
right? Without going through ARIMA? (the data itself is AR1 BTW, first
differenced it looks like AR15 (from the ACF)) Measure peak to peak or
trough to trough.
> The change is in part due to corrections to the technique as suggested by
> others and to the extremely strong warming over the last year (the shortness
> of the MSU record leads to rather high volatility).
Too bad they didn't spend any time actually learning any techniques to
analyze the data with. It's really sad that when people who DO know how
to analyze data try to tell them what they're doing wrong, they get
screamed at and called ugly names.
> A hint for the future: sell-by date (last update date)
Here's a hint for you: check the actual last entry in the data to
determine ho old it is.
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> "Shawn A. Wilson" wrote:
> > proponents also fail to address the fact that the satellite data is
> > independently corroborated by weather balloons which are launched twice
> > a day at points all around the globe. The findings of the weather
> > balloons match almost perfectly with the satellite findings.
>
> What Shawn A. Winson doesn't want people to know is that the balloon
> data shows warming as well, and it always has showed warming.
Except of course for when it doesn't.
>
> The satellite data has betrayed global warming denialists, who are now
> stuck with conceding that at best the data shows no cooling - contrary
> to their initial hopes, and in fact shows warming a slight warming
> according to Christy.
It's really sad that you are SO ignorant and so certain at the same
time. You say there's a trend. Well, I know a good amount about
analyzing data for trends. Tell me how you went about finding this
trend. No, the answer isn't 'I used Excell to regress temperatures
against time', not for something to base trillion dollar industrial
policy on. Tell me what ARIMA filter you used.
Shawn A. Wilson
> The word "cato" explains everything. Your information is coming from
> a political organization that will say or do almost anything to protect
> its industrial contributors.
>
> Basically you can take everything produced by organizations like Cato
> and flush it down the toilet.
So, if you can't attack the argument you're going to attack the
speaker? What are you, six? Does CATO have cooties?
> Lets go to the horses mouth shall we? What do the scientists who have
> analyzed the satellite data say about the issue of warming or cooling.
That would be me, for one. No trend.
>
> Here are two quotes.
>
> "There is no question that the surface temperatures are warmer now than
> they were 100 years ago. There is also no question that there is more
> CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago." - THE USE OF
> SATELLITES IN GLOBAL WARMING FORECASTS * - John R. Christy
I see no data, I see nothing about methodology, I see an opinion.
> Cato wrote:
> > "A look at the trends in the satellite data--our only truly global
> > record of lower atmosphere temperature--is remarkably revealing. A
> > statistically significant global cooling trend (Figure 4) exists over
> > the 18.8-year period of record.
>
> Not according to the very scientists that collected the data.
>
> Why is Cato lying?
Better yet, why are climatologists lying about having the skills
necessary to perform trend analysis?
Shawn A. Wilson
>
> "Shawn A. Wilson" wrote:
> > than next, predict that a 0.5C to 1.0C warming should ALREADY taken
> > place due to rising CO2 levels. Actually, no warming is observed.
>
> The strong positive slope of the following graph, clearly shows that
> warming has been observed.
Neat how you cut the bottom off your graph to make your trend look
better.
How to Lie With Statistics 101: cut the bottom off graphs to magnify
small changes.
>
> What kind of cement is Conservative Wilson using for brains these days?
Ah, I see. People who disagree with you are bad by definition. Well,
not only am I not bad, I'm not even conservative. What I am is a
fucking STATISTICIAN!
>
> Look John Boy... The global temperature has been observed to have
> warmed from 14.6 to 15.2'C. - Your denial of reality makes me laugh.
Sorry, non-satellite data isn't considered reliable because of changing
local conditions at the measuring station and the fact that old
measurements aren't anything like global, in that they generally only
cover Europe and North America.
How to Lie With Statistics 101: when the data has a cylic pattern,
measure peak to trough or trough to peak to get the trend you want.
The satellite data starts at a trough. We are currently at a peak.
There have been five other peaks and five troughs in the data over its
20 year span.