Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Research Physicist, Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Chief Science Adviser at the Frontiers of Freedom's Center for Science and Public Policy which was set up after a $100,000 ExxonMobil grant in 2002. Former Science Director, Tech Central Station. Former Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute.Dr. Soon is a leading climate change skeptic and has published multiple climate-related studies with fellow George Marshall and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Sallie Baliunas. Soon contends that climate change has been greatly exaggerated, and is not caused by human activity, and that any changes in global temperature are natural. One of his primary arguments is that solar activity causes climate temperature fluctuations.
Willie Soon is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is an independent research scientist in the Harvard Department of Astronomy, and an astrophysicist at the Mount Wilson Observatory.
Click to expand...

:dl:

not compromised in the least.....

on the other hand CURRENT science :rolleyes:

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows

ScienceDaily (May 12, 2009) — With the U.S. Congress beginning to consider regulations on greenhouse gases, a troubling hypothesis about how the sun may impact global warming is finally laid to rest.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

The sun variations have a role...a minor one....

care to answer this yet/??

Originally Posted by Myriad
As one of those non-experts on climatology, but possessing a passing knowledge of basic physics, here's my take on all the "things I may not know about climate change."

There is a gray box, which represents the earth's surface. Specifically, a region encompassing the atmosphere, the ocean, the soil, and the top few meters of bedrock. This overlaps substantially with the biosphere but is not necessarily the same, so rather than possibly misuse the term (or some other) I'll invent my own and just keep calling it the "gray box."

The gray box contains a certain amount of heat.

There are two significant heat influxes to the gray box: solar radiation, and heat conducted and convected to the surface from the earth's interior.

There is one significant heat efflux from the gray box: radiation into space.

(There are in addition a number of other heat influxes, which I judge to be insignificant. These include kinetic energy of meteors, tidal friction, radiation from the moon and other astral bodies, and nuclear reactions occurring on or near the surface.)

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases the rate of thermal radiation into space.

Therefore, additional heat will accumulate in the box and its temperature must increase.

"But it's more complicated than that," say the "global warming skeptics." And then proceed to describe all kinds of things going on inside the gray box. Ocean currents, water vapor, ice, plant cover, soil microbes, and so on endlessly.

And I think, no it's not more complicated than that. Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up.

If anyone wants to convince me that AGW is not a real concern warranting measures to reduce it, they must show compelling evidence of one or more of the following hypotheses:

1. That greenhouse gases are not accumulating in the atmosphere due to manmade causes.

2. That greenhouse gases do not decrease the thermal radiation efflux from the gray box.

3. That something will cause (or is causing) a decrease in heat influx (either solar radiation or heat from the earth's interior) to the gray box that balances the expected decrease in heat efflux.

4. That despite an accumulation of heat energy inside the gray box, its temperature will not rise.

5. That an increase in the temperature in the gray box is not a concern.

Number 1 appears to be contradicted by direct measurements. Number 2 appears to be contradicted by basic rules of optics. Number 3 requires a complete description of the mechanism, and strong evidence confirming that it exists. Number 4 appears to be contradicted by basic laws of thermodynamics. Number 5 requires addressing each of the obvious expected consequences of a temperature increase including melting ice, shifting climate zones, redistribution of fresh water supplies, and threats to locally adapted flora and fauna, in a quantitative way.

Number 5 is the only one that requires looking in detail inside the gray box. So, the best chance for making a convincing argument for #5 would be to work with and build upon the expertise and tools developed within the field of climatology.

The problem for most "AGW skeptics" is that they dismiss climatology in the mistaken belief that climatologists being wrong about aspects of climatology would somehow argue in favor of hypotheses 1, 2, 3, or 4. This is futile because nothing we don't know (or might be wrong about) concerning what happens inside the gray box can refute "Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up."

Abandoning the discipline of climatology leaves them with only handwaving of the "maybe the heat only heats up things whose temperature doesn't matter" or "maybe the temperature increase will be so slow that we won't notice" variety to bring to hypothesis 5.

So, back to the "AGW skeptics": what don't I know about climate change that supports hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oh wait did Mac just quote Exxonsecrets?

Exxon Secrets

$$$ Funded by Greenpeace

- Greenpeace (Discover the Networks)

Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...]

In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity."

According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]

An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.

Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.
Click to expand...

- Greenpeace (Activist Cash)

Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.

Here in the United States, however, Greenpeace is a relatively modest activist group, spending about $10 million per year. And the lion’s share of that budget in recent years has gone to outrageous attempts to smear agricultural biotech products and place doubts about the safety of genetically improved foods in the minds of American consumers. [...]

Patrick Moore was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of a Unitarian Church in Vancouver. Within 7 years, the organization had footholds in over two dozen countries and a $100 million budget. As eco-activists in general found themselves suddenly invited into the meeting-places of business and government, Greenpeace made the decision to take even more extreme positions, rather than being drawn in to collaboration with their former enemies.

Moore broke with his comrades during this period, and has emerged as an articulate critic of his former brainchild. Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”

Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”
Click to expand...
 
Poptech you are a laugh riot. A source is only compromised if it is compromised by your political foes. If a source is compromised by your political allies, it is given a complete pass. How do you expect us to take you seriously? You are your own worst enemy.

Thank you for smoking.
 
BenBurch said:
"Physical Geography" is a place to peer review a climatology result?
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Why not? Climatology is a part of physical geography, and it's one of the topics that journal covers.

http://bellwether.metapress.com/content/q761v1hu543t/?p=15fddd6373ed41b1b2ccf295e9c11155&pi=0

D'rok said:
Soon has been fatally compromised:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348723

Thank you for smoking.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. To be honest, that article doesn't do much compromising. The most damning thing is that he received some funding from the oil industry. The rest is just vague attacks on his work with no details.

I'm not saying his work was or wasn't crap, but that article doesn't convince me either way. This looks much more solid:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/
 
sol invictus said:
Hmmm. To be honest, that article doesn't do much compromising. The most damning thing is that he received some funding from the oil industry. The rest is just vague attacks on his work with no details.

I'm not saying his work was or wasn't crap, but that article doesn't convince me either way. This looks much more solid:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/
Click to expand...

Uh-oh....you probably just triggered a Poptech linkdump by citing realclimate.org.

The article I posted also notes that Soon is a paid consultant for a conservative anti-AGW lobby group.
 
Actually it's more damning that 4 reviewers resigned from the journal, and the editor said that the reviewers failed to pick up methodological flaws...
 
Subduction Zone said:
If there were methodological flaw what were they?
Click to expand...

Didn't read the paper, so can't tell for sure. But there's some info from here

In an unprecedented (to our knowledge) act of protest, chief editor Hans von Storch and 3 additional editors subsequently resigned from Climate Research in response to the fundamental documented failures of the editorial process at the journal. A detailed account of these events are provided by Chris Mooney in the Skeptical Inquirer and The American Prospect, by David Appell in Scientific American, and in a news brief in Nature. The journal’s publisher himself (Otto Kline) eventually stated that “[the conclusions drawn] cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper”.

...

Next, we consider the paper by Soon et al (2004) published in GRL which criticized the way temperature data series had been smoothed in the IPCC report and elsewhere. True to form, contrarians immediately sold the results as ‘invalidating’ the conclusions of the IPCC, with the lead author Willie Soon himself writing an opinion piece to this effect. Once again, a few short months later, a followup article was published by one of us (Mann, 2004) that invalidated the Soon et al (2004) conclusions, demonstrating (with links to supporting Matlab source codes and data) how (a) the authors had, in an undisclosed manner, inappropriately compared trends calculated over differing time intervals and (b) had not used standard, objective statistical criteria to determine how data series should be treated near the beginning and end of the data. It is unfortunate that a followup paper even had to be published, as the flaws in the original study were so severe as to have rendered the study of essentially no scientific value.
Click to expand...

BTW, I was wrong, it wasn't 4 reviewers resigning, but 4 editors, including the chief editor.
 
Last edited:
Poptech, you're not going to be taken seriously when you keep making vague allegations and hurling insults. If you really wish to convince people you're going to have to be polite and patient.
 
Megalodon said:
Actually it's more damning that 4 reviewers resigned from the journal, and the editor said that the reviewers failed to pick up methodological flaws...
Click to expand...

Megalodon said:
BTW, I was wrong, it wasn't 4 reviewers resigning, but 4 editors, including the chief editor.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is rather telling...

BenBurch said:
Geography in only descriptive. And only descriptive of the EARTH.
Click to expand...

That really isn't the case. You seem to have in mind the kind of geography that's taught in primary school classes. Geography as an academic discipline is much more broad - it incorporates climatology, oceanography, geology, etc., and it's not only descriptive.

Here's wiki's summary:
Physical geography (also known as geosystems or physiography) is one of the three major subfields of geography[1]. Physical geography focuses on understanding the processes and patterns in the natural environment, as opposed to the cultural or built environment, the domain of human geography. Within the body of physical geography, the Earth is often split either into several spheres or environments, the main spheres being the atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and pedosphere. Research in physical geography is often interdisciplinary and uses the systems approach.

Physical geography is that branch of science,which deals with the study of processes and patterns in the natural environment like atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere.
Click to expand...
 
Poptech said:
I have never lied or stole anything, though your desperate attempts to slander me continue.


That was because it was locked and then cut to pieces. After which it lost all semblance of what was going on. I cannot have my responses butchered and expect to continue.
Click to expand...
This is not true, you stopped responding in that thread before it was locked, I wonder can you have a rational discussion? I do not care why you would state such a thing, you stopped posting and responding in that thread begore it was locked.


I even got M. Mozina to respond reasonably. Can you? I have not used ad homs at all with you.
No there will be extensive ad hominem attacks and attempts at ridicule and then slander. Anything in a pathetic attempt to discredit the poster who challenges the religious beliefs of some here.
Click to expand...
I note that you also avoid answering the direct critiques others offer, I can not stop their foolish behavior any more than I can stop yours. I am not using ad-homs, I have chosen to not report bickering in this and a number of threads. It is a nuisance.

How is Rahmstorff data-padding and what do you mean by that?

Where is the first chart you show from?
Really? Prove I was the first one to mention the Arctic in this thread.
Click to expand...
You so funny!

I was responding to your off-topic post and then you complained about people being off-topic. Surely I do not have to explain irony to you?

You take this way too seriously and are being rather rude to me.
Do you even read these threads or just my comments? Why do you not state this to anyone else? Interesting the blatant bias.
Click to expand...

No bias, why are you so hopped up and paranoid? I read both sides and skim the bickering. I was responding to your post, which should go back to the other thread.
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
Are you serious? DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT SARCASM IS? What is clear is I am dealing with people who cannot comprehend simple things.
Click to expand...

Your rude response is noted, and truly is a weak argument to say the least.

Where is the first chart that you posted from, what is the source?

Does it bother you to be asked that?
 
Last edited:
Add to it that it places the end of the observed trend smack in the center of the projection, with the rest of it still well in the upper part...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom