Originally posted by DeepThought"Including them would make the warming effect worse, not better, so the effects in the wrong direction for his argument."
I've read the post. This stuff about they're not being dishonest, they're only human is straightforward rhetoric. I read something about the satellites he's on about and there was a good reason to leave them out. Including them would make the warming effect worse, not better, so the effects in the wrong direction for his argument.
This guy did a Ph ...[text shortened]... lf invalidate his point of view, but doesn't make him an unimpeachable authority either.
What is your source of information?
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat's a mistake on my part, I'd read a lot about this the day before and confused two things. I was thinking of an article on data from weather stations that was omitted, and they indicate slightly increased warming when included. This also happens with the satellite data, but the subject is somewhat more murky. I should have rechecked the reference, but what happens is a quick post turns into an hour's research.
"Including them would make the warming effect worse, not better, so the effects in the wrong direction for his argument."
What is your source of information?
On his claim that satellite data show cooling I assume he's talking about data from the POES NOAA satellites. He claims it is the best data, for various reasons it's not. They have a number of sensors including what amounts to an visible + IR TV camera for short range weather forcasting and a microwave detector for atmospheric temperature measurements. The atmospheric temperature detector detects microwaves emitted by oxygen throughout the atmosphere. They have to correct for a cooling from the stratosphere. There is a collection of calibration and data analysis issues, especially for the earlier satellites. The latest one claims to have good vertical resolution (http://www.osd.noaa.gov/Spacecraft%20Systems/Pollar_Orbiting_Sat/NOAA_N_Prime/NOAA_NP_Booklet.pdf). The orbits vary and decay and this has to be taken into account. The ground based stations do not suffer from this.
The satellite data, provided the cooling effect of the stratosphere is corrected for (the exact answer depends on the method of analysis), agree with surface measurements and model predictions - except at the poles. They are wary of including it because it's a work in progress. Not all data series take into account stratospheric cooling and they are the ones Singer is relying on.
His claim that they ignore inconvenient data is just not true. The IPCC do talk about satellite data in section 3.4.1 of: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
Originally posted by DeepThought"His claim that they ignore inconvenient data is just not true. The IPCC do talk about satellite data in section 3.4.1 of: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf"
That's a mistake on my part, I'd read a lot about this the day before and confused two things. I was thinking of an article on data from weather stations that was omitted, and they indicate slightly increased warming when included. This also happens with the satellite data, but the subject is somewhat more murky. I should have rechecked the reference ...[text shortened]... section 3.4.1 of: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
This is not the IPCC publication he was referring to. The interview with Singer happened years ago. I would like a more recent interview so it is up to date but I am not sure there is one. You will not hear his point of view on the news because they simply do not want people to hear it. Government will not be able to raise taxes with the carbon tax scam if the people know this issue is more complex than they currently believe.
The fact that you are so quick to make false claims says a lot about you. Your bias does not serve the truth well.
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf you are going to post old stuff please say it is old. I assumed that this was written recently and I take offence at being called a liar for it. Once I'd realized my error with the station/satellite thing I corrected it. I also made clear that I'd made an error and explained why I'd made the mistake. I could quite easily have covered that up since the most recent analyses of the data do actually say the troposphere is warming. I've never seen you, or any other climate skeptic on these forums do that. This is not an error from me since I can't reasonably be expected to know when his comments are from and you failed to say they were old. If this is from the mid-2000's then they probably omitted satellite data because of the rather large uncertainties with it. It will simply take too long for me to do the historical research to find out if they did make a statement on it at the time - but did you check what they said in the full report at the time, or did you just take Singer's word for it?
"His claim that they ignore inconvenient data is just not true. The IPCC do talk about satellite data in section 3.4.1 of: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf"
This is not the IPCC publication he was referring to. The interview with Singer happened years ago. I would like a more recent interview so it is up to date ...[text shortened]... e so quick to make false claims says a lot about you. Your bias does not serve the truth well.
Global warming is a myth as the Earth does go through cycles that can last for thousands of years. It rotates not just around its axis for the days, its axis also rotates just like a spinning top. Now, couple this with magnetic pole shift, fluctuations in the magnetosphere which is Earth's primary natural defence against solar flares, wind, radiation etc such affects upon our weather would be huge.
I'm not saying that some of the environmental pollution by man hasn't played its part but I believe it is grossly over-stated and exaggerated to simply create "Green Taxes" - it wouldn't surprise me if the air we breathe is one day taxed plus VAT.
Originally posted by UniReCyclopsHow 'huge' would all these effects be?
Global warming is a myth as the Earth does go through cycles that can last for thousands of years. It rotates not just around its axis for the days, its axis also rotates just like a spinning top. Now, couple this with magnetic pole shift, fluctuations in the magnetosphere which is Earth's primary natural defence against solar flares, wind, radiation etc such affects upon our weather would be huge.
Shouldn't we be concerned about the changes they will bring about? Warming is affecting us whether it is man made or not.
I'm not saying that some of the environmental pollution by man hasn't played its part but I believe it is grossly over-stated and exaggerated to simply create "Green Taxes" - it wouldn't surprise me if the air we breathe is one day taxed plus VAT.
I am guessing you are an American who thinks that the whole world is the USA. I have known about global warming since I was a child, and the US was one of the few countries to try and pretend it wasn't happening. Its only a some americans who think Al Gore invented it and that its an invention to create taxes.
I bet that if you were told that you would get a tax cut if there was global warming you would suddenly change your whole stance on the matter.
What you should really be worrying about is what taxes your children will be paying to pay for the consequences of your selfishness. But I guess you either don't have children or don't care about them.
Originally posted by UniReCyclops
Global warming is a myth as the Earth does go through cycles that can last for thousands of years. It rotates not just around its axis for the days, its axis also rotates just like a spinning top. Now, couple this with magnetic pole shift, fluctuations in the magnetosphere which is Earth's primary natural defence against solar flares, wind, radiation et e "Green Taxes" - it wouldn't surprise me if the air we breathe is one day taxed plus VAT.
the Earth does go through cycles that can last for thousands of years.
what could that got to do with the relatively sudden warming we are experiencing now that is occurring not over thousands of years but over just the last few decades?
such affects upon our weather would be huge.
How do you know this? Are you a climate scientist that models climate change? And how would you know that this accounts for most of the recent warming? And why are more than ~99% of climate scientists across the world in every country, including all those that have no real financial interest in claiming one way rather than another way, that know vastly more about the subject than you or me, are claiming and believe from their models that most of the warming over the last few decades is man made?
I mean, if it was all a big myth, most of those climate scientists would be falling over each other to make a big name for themselves by being the first ones to shout out its all a big lie! If it was a huge myth and a mass conspiracy, any scientists that is the first to blow a huge myth like that would become world famous! -surely a huge incentive for vast numbers of them to try and do just that! and yet this still hasn't happened so how can you explain that?
I am NOT a yank I'm British and proud of it!
If you research the process of cyclic change you will find out some startling information that indicates this is part of a natural process - just like ice ages, severe flooding and drought, continental drift alters the landscape over expanses of millions of years and, yes, these all do play a part.
But also I am one of those in the camp that believes in a global agenda controlled by an elite comprising of banking cartels (banksters!), big business such as oil, power and water supplies, under the auspices of an extra-territorial Nazi state that survived WWII in South America. It has been shown that Martin Bormann made it to Brazil in 1945 with an estimated $800m, in '45 that was a real hefty chunk of change. In order to launder this loot Bormann realised that help from outside the Nazi hierarchy and so the Bilderberg group was created.
"Germany shall bring together the nations of Europe" - ADOLF HITLER
It's now 68 years on and if you look at the economical might of Germany and how they are bailing out whole nations, Hitler's intended method was different but the result is the same.
Originally posted by UniReCyclopsWell I am British also. But that doesn't answer our questions we put to you.
I am NOT a yank I'm British and proud of it!
If you research the process of cyclic change you will find out some startling information that indicates this is part of a natural process - just like ice ages, severe flooding and drought, continental drift alters the landscape over expanses of millions of years and, yes, these all do play a part.
But ling out whole nations, Hitler's intended method was different but the result is the same.
And I don't know how on earth you managed to somehow connect the issue of global warming to "ADOLF HITLER"!!! -I think that's pretty wild to say the least.
If man made global warming was a myth then that myth would not last a single day for the reasons I just explained.
Within a single day, we would hear it all over the world news of climate scientists coming forward to publicly announce, in front of an eager press and lots of flashing cameras, its all just a big myth. And each of them would want to claim they personally were the first to expose it as being a big myth to take full credit for blowing such a massive myth. And yet this hasn't happened -why not?
over expanses of millions of years
what could the recent warming we are experiencing over just only the last few decades got to do with fluctuation in climate that take thousand or even millions of years to occur?
Originally posted by UniReCyclopsSo you're OK with the UK being buried under glaciers or turning into tropical rain forest, so long as you don't have to pay any taxes?
If you research the process of cyclic change you will find out some startling information that indicates this is part of a natural process - just like ice ages, severe flooding and drought, continental drift alters the landscape over expanses of millions of years and, yes, these all do play a part.
Its not really clear what you are claiming. You seem to be saying "yes its warming, but its not my fault so I shouldn't pay tax." Surely if it is warming, then we should do something about it regardless of whose fault it is?
The fact is that global warming is very costly, and the sooner we invest in a solution the better.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by UniReCyclopsI'm British and embarrassed to be in the same country as you.
I am NOT a yank I'm British and proud of it!
If you research the process of cyclic change you will find out some startling information that indicates this is part of a natural process - just like ice ages, severe flooding and drought, continental drift alters the landscape over expanses of millions of years and, yes, these all do play a part.
But ...[text shortened]... ling out whole nations, Hitler's intended method was different but the result is the same.
I HAVE researched this issue, and more importantly so have the climate
scientists, and the evidence on this topic is overwhelming.
You have gone so far over to the fruitcake side of the conspiracy world that
the line has disappeared in your rear-view mirror.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's an insulator. This is a known fact that can be tested
and proved in the lab.
CO2 in the atmosphere is what makes the difference between the earth being a
solid frozen ball of ice, and the liveable world we see today. This is also a known fact.
The world did once completely freeze over, and it was building levels of CO2 from
volcanoes (that were not weathered away, or sequestered by plants when the world was
frozen) that warmed the planet up and melted the ice.
We can measure the energy coming in from the sun and radiating back out and
see the energy being absorbed by various gasses in the atmosphere including CO2.
Burning fossil fuels emits CO2. This is a fact.
We burn lots and lots of fossil fuels, and consequently have raised CO2 levels from
around 270 ish ppm from the start of the industrial revolution to around 400ppm
today. This is also a fact.
We also know that we are nowhere near the limit for effectiveness of CO2 as an insulator
as we can see the effects of large amounts of CO2 on Venus.
Despite it's incredibly reflective clouds meaning that much less energy reaches the surface
or lower atmosphere than on the Earth. The surface temperatures on Venus are enough to
melt lead. And that is entirely due to the effectiveness of the insulation produced by its
greenhouse gasses.
It makes sense that increasing the amount of insulation around an object will increase
its temperature.
And while it's possible for complex systems like our climate to have all kinds of complicated
feedback systems that can lead to unintuitive and unexpected results, this is still less likely
a priori than the obvious that increasing insulation will increase heat retention.
And this is what we observe.
Over the last 60 years or so since global warming was first suggested, we have built more
and more sophisticated models accounting for more and more potential factors that might
prevent the intuitive answer being the right one.
And every time the evidence and experimentation and modelling has shown that the world
is warming, and that this warming is being driven by CO2 increases caused by human
activities.
This is not in an scientific doubt. At all.
And hasn't been since before I was born.
If you want a real life conspiracy then look to the mega rich oil companies that fund political
election campaigns and a huge denial industry for sowing seeds of illegitimate doubt so
that they can keep drilling and selling oil/gas/coal for immense profits.
THAT is the reality. Wake up and smell the crude.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIts a bit older than that:
Over the last 60 years or so since global warming was first suggested, ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall[56] and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[57]
Also see:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, Sorry, I was talking about the modern era stemming from the 50's after
Its a bit older than that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmingThe greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall[56] and was first investigated q ...[text shortened]... te Arrhenius in 1896.[57]
Also see:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
which point it's always been an issue under serious research and consideration
as opposed to having the occasional paper published on the subject.
But I in no way made that clear. Thanks for the pickup.
It does go to show however that this is in no way new.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"😉, which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"😉. Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97😵 of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.GRl9HNrU.dpuf
Originally posted by UniReCyclopsYour myths have all been stated before, and refuted, in this and the other trillion threads on this subject. None of them are myths. I'll deal with myth 1, air temperature depends on short term weather events such as the el nino cycle; the temperature of the sea, which is the more important heat reservoir, has been steadily rising all that time. The rest of them aren't true either, don't rely on climate skeptic websites for all your information, they are highly biased.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 19 ...[text shortened]... re at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.GRl9HNrU.dpuf