• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming

a_unique_person said:
A jumped up self important 'noble' who has taught himself all about the science of global warming, or a PhD Physicist who is in agreement with the majority of scientists researching climate change.

Hmmmmm, tough choice.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK)
“We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005,” the abstract of the study read.
The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters, found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland, “the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930’s and 1940’s.” The study further continued, “Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average.”
In addition, the Chylek led study explained, “Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990’s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].”
“To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.” The co-authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada.

Explicitly denies AGW. See, if CO2 doesn't drive climate then NO model is correct.
Another problem for predictions of catastrophic sea level rise due to polar ice melt is Antarctica is not cooperating with the man-made catastrophic global warming models. “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models,” reads the February 15, 2007 press release announcing the findings of David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. (See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions LINK)
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” Bromwich explained. The release explains that Bromwich’s research team found “no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.”

Self explanatory. Models says that AGW is HAPPENING right now. Also gave some predictions that failed.


1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK)

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed study shows that the recent climate changes have no man made components.

 2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK)
EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. If CO2 plays no role warming earth, then all AGW models will fail predicting global trends, which is the case (see all the other studies who falsify model outcomes and predictions)



 4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK)
EXPLICITLY DENIES validity of agw models. See, if cloud effects are omitted, then the models would have fails and won't predict anything.


5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed paper finds causes other than man made CO2 emissions.
8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,” the two scientists concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW (read the pdf, they predict a cooling). If there is a cooling in the next years, as those guys predict in this peer rebviewed study, then by definition there is no AGW.

 10) A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.” (LINK)

There is not even a warming anomaly, so no AGW. See, if there are no 20 century anomalies then all models are wrong (again, that's why I posted so many papers that say that the models haven't passed reality check)
A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – (LINK) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. Is consistent with the paper above and not with IPCC.

Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK) & (LINK) A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - (LINK) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. See above.
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Sorry Guys but I dont really understand your posts/arguments.

So what I wrote is wrong and can someone please explain why its wrong? In a simple way pls :)
Click to expand...

That's the problem we have, isn't it? As an ordinary member of the public who has been trying to understand this issue for several years now, the more I learn, the more I realise I don't understand.

This is a very complex issue. You could try to understand all that is going on out there in this area of research, but I don't think that's humanly possible. Certainly the scientists themselves have their own specialist areas of research and knowledge, that's how modern science has to work these days.

Now a good scientist in this area could probably give you exactly the explanation you want, but they don't tend to hang around the internet too much debating these topics with the general public. I have a friend who does modelling with the CSIRO, and he told me he tried debating people on the internet, realised they had closed minds and were never going to believe any evidence he came up with, and he just gave it up. He's pretty smaert, so he made the most logical decision you could make in that circumstance, he stopped debating people who weren't actually having a debate. He's got plenty of research to do as it is, and real debates to have with informed scientists on the topic.

Second best is to read the IPCC reports, and then Realclimate. These are the proucts of work by scientists who specialise in these areas of research.

The IPCC reports take years to produce, and you don't get responses from them. Realclimate does respond to the day to day issues raised in the press and internet, but the responses, of course, are opinions, not scientific papers, although they do refer to the research the opinions are based on.

Now, the problem is, how to get a simple response to a very complex problem. You won't get it, because there aren't dedicated teams of scientists out there who are experts in this field who can explain things well who have time to spare cruising all the internet forums answering all kinds of questions.

So you wind up with me, or if you are lucky, someone else who knows more than me but happens to be reading this and feels like answering the question.

I have provided a link to exactly this topic on realclimate, and if you don't understand the answer, then I'm afraid I can't help you much because I don't understand it very well either, so I'm not going to be able to explain it all that well, although I do think I get the gist of it. :)

In this state of confusion, there will however be plenty of people who can give you very simple and plausible answers that will help you doubt the science. This is a very simple thing to do.

FWIW, the link refers to what is called the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect. It refers to the extra CO2 contributing absorption of extra radiation in the atmosphere because it will act in parts of the atmosphere that weren't absorbing radiation before, due to the lower CO2 concentrations. The scientific study started due to observations first made some 50 years ago, and it has come along slowly since then, till about 20 years ago when it was realised it would have a significant impact on the ecology of the planet, not just a minor one.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
It shouldn't be



Explicitly denies AGW. See, if CO2 doesn't drive climate then NO model is correct.
Click to expand...

No, global warming was already happening back then, it was put on hold for a decade or two due to particle pollution having a cooling effect.

Self explanatory. Models says that AGW is HAPPENING right now. Also gave some predictions that failed.
Click to expand...

The antarctic is a special case, due to the polar vortex, that creates a localised climate. The models are not perfect, and there was never any claim they were. The global temperature is rising, as predicted, the Antarctic peninsula is heating, as predicted.

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed study shows that the recent climate changes have no man made components.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. This is the sort of thing that happens when you let children play with razor blades. Tsonis is talking about stable states in chaotic systems. He agrees that global warming is real

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. If CO2 plays no role warming earth, then all AGW models will fail predicting global trends, which is the case (see all the other studies who falsify model outcomes and predictions)
Click to expand...

Water vapour is not a forcing, CO2 is. Water vapour is going to rise, as the atmosphere heats up, giving us a positive feedback effect. The direct CO2 forcing is being amplified by water vapour, changes in albedo, et.
[/quote]

etc, etc.
 
a_unique_person said:
No, global warming was already happening back then, it was put on hold for a decade or two due to particle pollution having a cooling effect.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, this is a 2006 study, “To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.” The supposed cooling effects were taken into account.
The antarctic is a special case, due to the polar vortex, that creates a localised climate. The models are not perfect, and there was never any claim they were. The global temperature is rising, as predicted, the Antarctic peninsula is heating, as predicted.
Click to expand...

You are killing your own models. No big sea level rise, no need to worry.
Also, the antartic already had special treatment in the models, but they still fail. look again : "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” Bromwich explained. The release explains that Bromwich’s research team found “no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.


Rubbish. This is the sort of thing that happens when you let children play with razor blades. Tsonis is talking about stable states in chaotic systems. He agrees that global warming is real
Click to expand...
Again the conclusion:
The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century



Water vapour is not a forcing, CO2 is. Water vapour is going to rise, as the atmosphere heats up, giving us a positive feedback effect. The direct CO2 forcing is being amplified by water vapour, changes in albedo, et.
Click to expand...


Again, the conclusion:

The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it"
etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Easy way to scape ..... the "etc" argument.
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Sorry Guys but I dont really understand your posts/arguments.

So what I wrote is wrong and can someone please explain why its wrong? In a simple way pls :)
Click to expand...

Lennart, here is the straight and skinny. What you are referring to is called "climate sensitivity" - what happens to temperatures if CO2 concentration is doubled.

People that think global warming is serious believe that doubling CO2 will cause global average temperatures to increase somewhere from 2C to 6C, and these people often quote a "middle of the road" estimate of 2.5C.

Many other people (like me) think that doubling CO2 will cause only a small increase such as 0.5 to 1.0C.

This is debated back and forth, and it's a bit complicated cause politics gets involved. People call each other names and insult each other quite a bit.
 
Key Tenets Of Agw Belief System

What are the key premises underlying AGW? Offhand I can think of -

1. Climate sensitivity is 2-6C midpoint 2.5C with 2x CO2
2. Tropospheric equatorial hot spot is predicted
3. There is no urban heat island effect
4. Land based global temperature measurements are accurate
5. Greenland is melting due to AGW
6. Polar bears survival is threatened due to AGW
7. Arctic ice is melting due to AGW
8. South pole is melting (or should melt) due to AGW
9. Animals and birds are migrating northward due to AGW
10. Sea levels are and will rise and flood low lying areas.
11. Natural variability is low for global temperature since the main driver is man made CO2.
12. Solar influence in the last 30 years has not been a factor in AGW.
13. Cooling period 1940-1970 was due to man made pollution; we fixed that by restricting pollution.
14. Temperature rise since 1900 is due to man made CO2 in the atmosphere.
15. No CO2 measurements by chemical or other means taken before 1955 are valid.

Anything else? Anything I've got inaccurate?
 
Harpoon said:
It looks like you've kicked Monckton around sufficiently. But I found EcoWorld's editor's preface to running Monckton's inconvenient list refreshing. http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446
Click to expand...

Yes, Indeed.

Just quickly going through a half dozen of the articles, Ecoworld appears to be a credible, unbiased information source. One example follows.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Glacial Acceleration[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]- Paul Brown
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]We only want a revitalized and reasoned debate regarding the extent and the causes of climate change - and what to do about it. We recommend the CO2 alarmists turn some of their wonderful and well-intentioned passion to stopping the catastrophe unfolding as we decimate the rainforests of the Americas, Africa and Asia to grow fuel. If Greenland's icecap does melt someday soon - perhaps it will be because within a few short decades we dried and heated the millions of square miles of equatorial land mass, because we cut down the tree canopy for biofuel plantations, because someone thought that would actually reduce CO2 emissions...[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Harpoon said:
It looks like you've kicked Monckton around sufficiently. But I found EcoWorld's editor's preface to running Monckton's inconvenient list refreshing. http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446
Click to expand...

Classic piece of misdirection and a false dichotomy. Whatever you want to call CO2, it's doing what it does in several ways. Selenium can be good for you, too much and it's bad for you. It's not an either or.
 
mhaze said:
Yes, Indeed. Just quickly going through a half dozen of the articles, Ecoworld appears to be a credible, unbiased information source.
Click to expand...

Oh, oh. I thought it was a 'greenie' willing to continence an opposing view. But if you think it's a credible, unbiased information source, it must be a sock puppet for right-wing, neo-con deniers.;)
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Yes. Seeking true comedy (of errors) look to Bali.
Click to expand...

You're hot for Monckton, and this is your comment on Bali? That's comedy.

eta : I notice Al Gore's back. Once that monkey's on your back, I guess you just can't kick it of. At times of stress, bam, it's back.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The antarctic is a special case, due to the polar vortex, that creates a localised climate. The models are not perfect, and there was never any claim they were. The global temperature is rising, as predicted, the Antarctic peninsula is heating, as predicted.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's back in town. The red highlights gvies it away. It takes him a while to scavenge this stuff up, I notice.

The Antarctic, a contrarian refuge of choice. It is, apparently, treated differently by models, which is hardly surprising given that's a continental landmass at a pole with some humungous mountains in the centre of it. That's what I call different.

The Arctic is treated differently again by models, from what I've heard. Very suspicious :rolleyes:.

Rubbish. This is the sort of thing that happens when you let children play with razor blades. Tsonis is talking about stable states in chaotic systems. He agrees that global warming is real
Click to expand...

And Tsonis and all and ... I can't really be bothered. I'm more interested in why 180-odd countries signed-up to taking AGW serously at Bali, despite Lucifage Rocifale's spoon-fed science and the esteemed Monckton. It's all out there in the public arena, after all. They must have heard about it, yet remain unpersuaded.

etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Quite.

Notice who's not that bothered about AGW? Canada and Russia are in there, and sod the Southern Hemisphere. The Japanese are in there as well, and the Pacific laughs at hemispheres ... And then, of course, you've got Indonesia as a neighbour.

Glad to hear about the drizzle, but I can't stress enough how much I think you and yours should liquidate and decamp, starting the process as soon as possible. You can rip-off the Japanese about now, but that window of opportunity is closing.

Old South Wales is a refuge in comparison.
 
Harpoon said:
Oh, oh. I thought it was a 'greenie' willing to continence an opposing view. But if you think it's a credible, unbiased information source, it must be a sock puppet for right-wing, neo-con deniers.;)
Click to expand...

I figured it to be the work of right wing, neo-con, heavy drinking, pickup truck driving, Bush loving oil company shills, operatives who for years gained the trust of unsuspecting, naive, gullible greenies, but whom secretly were awaiting the signal, upon which they would rise up.

Oops. Someone already came up with that conspiracy theory.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom