Page 2 of 115 < 1 2 3 4 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#797055 - 18/11/2009 15:44 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Vlasta]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Quote:
Here is all the evidence needed to disprove water vapor positive feedback.
The satellite measurements of upper troposphere water vapor are shown by the red line. They are decreasing! The Enhanced AGW theory requires them to be increasing. The evidence speaks for itself! (from climate4you.)
Please post a graph of claimed increased water vapor if you have one, or concede!


As with the last time this was posted, I ask again...where is this graph from (as in sampled location)? What data is it based on? IIRC this is a convient bit of sampling ive seen on a site. If one selects the right location anyone can get a graph like this...and whats more the instrumental measurement method has been questioned before. Lets review this...your argument is that because this one aspect might be flawed the whole thing is codswallop? Sorry...but if we look at things that way its not science its media interpretation. And incidentally science would not exist without research.

Some reference material for the vapour:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

And some other stuff for how an actual trend is calculated for the warming which is evidence of a warming over the last ten years(not endpoint, trend based on each graph point).
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#797123 - 18/11/2009 18:08 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
ST, you really will have to do a whole lot better than to quote from Real Climate.

Anybody who is any way questioning or doubtful about the claimed effects of CO2 on global temperatures and that includes the fence sitters who don't quite know who to believe but who have been around for a while, will know that Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate does not allow any serious questioning or significant debate about the claimed seriously damaging warming effects of increases in global CO2 levels.
And some very respectable and very qualified climate researchers are even banned by Schmidt.

Any questioning or any arguments raised about the Real Climate claims of the CO2 warming effects is simply moderated out as so many, even non skeptics, have experienced in the past and some of those non skeptical AGW believers have been pretty vocal about Schmidt's attitude.
Gavin Schmidt is of course a IPCC modeler and like all the members of [ Hockey ] Team simply does not accept that his work should be questioned by any skeptics or anybody else for that matter.

But even Gavin Schmidt may just possibly only be doing his master's bidding in the Real Climate blog!
Real Climate is fully funded through a large but low profile environmental public relations company with huge funds available for lobbying of politicians and any other organisations including the full range of the media, that are open to manipulation.
An interlocking group of these environmental lobbying and black propaganda organisations which are used to discredit other company's products on so called environmental grounds are closely linked to the left wing multi billionaire George Soros.
Soros is believed to provide all the funds necessary to run Real Climate through these other organisations at no cost to any of the RC front men.
Why?
Soros being Soros no doubt has some huge investments in Carbon Trading companies and brokerages so keeping the pot boiling over the dangerous CO2 and the need to "mitigate CO2 emmissions " through a carbon trading scheme will make an awful lot more money for Soros.

And just for icing, RC's traffic count is apparently very slowly deteriorating as well as posters and readers steadily drift away to other more accountable and more open sources that are far more respecting of posters with alternate views of climate and are prepared to allow posting of those alternate views.

Top
#797126 - 18/11/2009 18:15 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
windyrob Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/12/2007
Posts: 484
Loc: edithvale
Its from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. Location earth smile while a satellite changeover did occur during the critical moment there is plenty of over evidence for a climate shift at this point, including a massive increase in pacific warm pool and changes in convection.
By the way I don't consider Realclimate reference material. You can show me something from the IPCC if you can find it, since clearly they must have some evidence that water vapour is increasing in the upper troposphere to make their claims. Maybe they can extract a signal from some wind data, lol.

Top
#797157 - 18/11/2009 19:42 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: windyrob]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Ive been working on a few little things so here we go.

Reply: The MWP
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth, Europe for example, but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like Norse farmers in Greenland can never tell you a global story.

NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these can be found at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
NOAA has this to say about the MWP:

"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

Reply: On the consensus
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend that is beyond the range of natural variability.
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2
* the rise in CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning.
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century the warming will continue
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment

While theories and alternate view points in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents are in a very small minority. If one requires unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1). This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world..

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by:

* Academia Brasiliera de Cięncias (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

in either one or both of these documents: [PDF] [PDF]

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If that isnt a consensus then what is?

Right and so Simmosurf, and your own references from Watts up with That or any of those other garbagy sites is any better...not to mention numerous graphs which dont actually statistically analyses anything? Well theres the duality ive come to expect. The funding by other sources is no less pronounced for those of the other side so get off your high horse. If you really want to debate this issue how about you acknowledge that skeptics (and I use this term with its full meaning here) actually have no idea why the planet is warming (as Arnost has stated...it is an acknowledged fact unless you want to take poor statistics), cant explain it and so look to pick holes in any argument by various technicalities. The truth is I havent seen anything achieved by those against in the form of any sort of report which explains the problem....Of course if we stick to peer reviewed literature the arguments are in trouble as many of the "referenced" papers are selectively quoted or misrepresented.

Reply: The Hockey or not So Representative Stick
And the hockey stick...clearly the representations of two papers are representative of a whole field....nice work...good "science" there. The mischaracterization of this pair of paleoclimatic studies as the "foundation" of Global Warming theory couldnt be more wrong.

To Windyrob:
So i assume from earth (duh) you mean that its a climatological value...taken on a single day of the year, from a mean earth representation and daily mean thereof...or is it a singular selection point as I made clear in my prior post? Fantastic Source you have there from Climate4you. If you really want to play hardball heres some material and peer reviewed stuff...which uses good satellite data to prove the models are right. The problem with the data youve selected there is that it is known to have problems. OOOPS. For example this is measured on a particularly difficult level using backscattered radiation from atmospheric water vapour...which is terribly unreliable and subject to larger error.

How about this stuff:
There is no climate model or climate textbook that does not discuss the role water vapor plays in the Greenhouse Effect. It is the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 36% - 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the Earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation. This has the interesting consequence that if one could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will finish absorbing any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to the CO2, the humidity rises and the increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2 driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

Heres some actual peer reviewed references:
Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. KE Trenberth, J Fasullo, L Smith - Climate Dynamics, 2005

Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming
IM Held, BJ Soden - Journal of Climate, 2006


OR maybe this
Science 4 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5749, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1115602
The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening
Brian J. Soden,1* Darren L. Jackson,2 V. Ramaswamy,3 M. D. Schwarzkopf,3 Xianglei Huang4

Water Vapor Feedback in Climate Models
Robert D. Cess (4 November 2005)
Science 310 (5749), 795. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1119258]
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#797175 - 18/11/2009 20:26 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
When using all that vast array of knowledge you have so proudly placed before us ST, proving just how wrong and how little the skeptics really know , it might just be wise to consider a couple of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes;

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Albert Einstein
[ This one hung in Einstein's office ]


Edited by ROM (18/11/2009 20:30)

Top
#797197 - 18/11/2009 21:22 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
ROM...I have no problem with "skeptics" having their problems with current theory, however I do have a problem with misrepresentation and using poor science or and falsities to attempt to sway others. I try and present here why current AGW seems to be the best theory out there....but I still havent seen any experiment which incontravertibly disproves that there is any sort of human influence on global warming. I dont see a single peer reviewed experiment that would be the evidence such as Einstein referred to in general.

While we can't do a perfect job, I fail to see any evidence suggesting that we dont have the least idea...in fact the evidence is to the contrary.

I know I wont convince you to have my views, as your minds are shut and your wont actually discuss in reasonable terms, but just maybe ill keep someone from becoming a victim of misinformation.


Edited by Severely Tall (18/11/2009 21:23)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#797225 - 18/11/2009 22:44 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
ST:
Quote:
…however I do have a problem with misrepresentation and using poor science or and falsities to attempt to sway others


I also have a problem with misrepresentation and using poor science or falsities to change history.

Quote:
Reply: The MWP
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today.


Hmmm… I beg to differ as I think there is good evidence for just that.

There are literally hundreds of studies showing that there was a global warm period then. Me thinks that the statement "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" will most likely itself turn out to be incorrect…

As ROM pointed out – and paraphrasing Einstein: “All it takes is one fact to prove this wrong”. So here are two things impossible in today’s climes (one for each side of the globe).

Viking farm / settlement excavated out of permafrost - Gĺrden under Sandet

Elephant seal breeding colony on the shores of Antarctica a 1000 – 500 years ago: (PNAS Article)


Trying to get rid of or downplay the MWP appears to be nothing but an attempt to re-write history. For every proxy study with mangled stats showing no warming, I’ll show you a picture:


You can’t tell me that a couple of tons of elephant seal is going to haul it’s ass over kilometers of ice to a breeding ground… Just as you can’t tell me that a dendochronologist will do a field study and sample just 12 trees…!

And another thing on rewriting history… A Wiki page on the Roman Warming Period just can not be created – even the discussions on why it should be created have just been deleted. And they call us deniers…!

Oh yes – the hundreds of studies: Medieval Warm Period Project

Quote:
…as your minds are shut and your wont actually discuss in reasonable terms...




Edited by Arnost (18/11/2009 22:49)
Edit Reason: sp.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#797230 - 18/11/2009 22:54 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
ST Please post me the actual evidence (experiments and who did them) that proves CO2 will cause the catastrophe that is about to befall us.. I can only find evidence that the first 20ppm causes warming then begins to saturate, as has been posted a million times.
"I try and present here why current AGW seems to be the best theory out there...." So its got to be right then eh??? Open up your mind matey!!

Top
#797234 - 18/11/2009 23:16 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
Simmo he cant as kinda we would know about it . And the lenghty explanations of AGW from "scientists" and take it as own stance , come on . I have read it before .
Have a look on R. Spencer site ( be prepared for hours of reading)and tell me then how ilogical his stance is ?
That guy doesnt rely on any grants as he is UHA scientist.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/page/2/


Edited by Vlasta (18/11/2009 23:17)

Top
#797238 - 18/11/2009 23:23 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Vlasta]
teckert Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 27/05/2001
Posts: 17592
Loc: NE suburbs, Adelaide, South Au...
Another reminder to refrain from forcing one's own beliefs on another.
This thread is for discussion on the science in climate change & is not to be used for trying to 'convert'.

Top
#797266 - 19/11/2009 08:14 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Locke]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3307
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Locke
Why was the potential 20 years of cooling not spoken about when the "hockey stick" was first rolled out?

Why has the possiblity of 20 years of cooling only been raised in recent times. I had long been a firm believer in AGW but I can't recall ever being told well we might have a couple of decades of cooler temps several years ago when I first started looking into this.

Can someone please point me to any AGW material over 2 years old which suggests that natural causes might override AGW for a decade or 2 because I don't think I ever saw it.





Hansen in 1981 wrote this paper which clearly states that natural variation is strong enough that Co2 could take up to 20 years to overcome it. The only difference is today Co2 warming is stronger, so it should take a bit les than 20 years.

More recently Real climate have written a post on model variability estimating up to 15 years time to break a temperature record. And showing these individual model runs:

Top
#797358 - 19/11/2009 14:07 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
Mike
Can you please answer some questions on behalf of Hansen ?
As he is so busy waiting for replies from most heads of states to whom he sent letters "soon there wont be time to act'

I give Hansen a big credit for removing UHI stations from his data sets .
But what he doesnt know that UHI has no effect on global temperaturs ( as it must be less than 0.01% of earths surface)
Unfortunately about 30% of weather stations are inside UHI !!
Thatswhy GISS has 0.3C adjustment for it .
My question is who decided on the 0.3C ? general consensus ?
Nope . Most "scientists" who work with GISS,s graphs wouldnt even know there is such adjusmtent . How about 0.5C adjustment , those graphs would look diffrent wouldnt they?

See the point ? One man (hansen) drives the whole policy.
No less than 8 posters posted beliefs about UHI and support my claim , that there is no global warming or better put, not as much as we are told .
On page 3 of this article you can see what happens to graph , when NOAA removed UHI adjusment
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAMAY.pdf

On their website then we see how many months this year were almost the hottest on record . I wonder why ? Wouldnt it be because of the removal of UHI adjusment ? Any science in this ?
Perfect example Melbourne's La Trobe station. Hansen removed it (correctly) as we know UHI is aprox 2C maybe more at night, and replaced it by Melbourne ap. There we get even higher day time temps , but fortunatly lower minima. Good on him . Airport stations originaly were build for aviation purposes and not for climatology.

We could over night cut emissions by 100% by simply have 2 hours rations of electicity . As retired I support such drastic move back to stone age

Top
#797393 - 19/11/2009 15:04 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Vlasta]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3307
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Vlasta
Mike
Can you please answer some questions on behalf of Hansen ?
As he is so busy waiting for replies from most heads of states to whom he sent letters "soon there wont be time to act'

I give Hansen a big credit for removing UHI stations from his data sets .
But what he doesnt know that UHI has no effect on global temperaturs ( as it must be less than 0.01% of earths surface)
Unfortunately about 30% of weather stations are inside UHI !!
Thatswhy GISS has 0.3C adjustment for it .
My question is who decided on the 0.3C ? general consensus ?
Nope . Most "scientists" who work with GISS,s graphs wouldnt even know there is such adjusmtent . How about 0.5C adjustment , those graphs would look diffrent wouldnt they?

See the point ? One man (hansen) drives the whole policy.
No less than 8 posters posted beliefs about UHI and support my claim , that there is no global warming or better put, not as much as we are told .
On page 3 of this article you can see what happens to graph , when NOAA removed UHI adjusment
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAMAY.pdf

On their website then we see how many months this year were almost the hottest on record . I wonder why ? Wouldnt it be because of the removal of UHI adjusment ? Any science in this ?
Perfect example Melbourne's La Trobe station. Hansen removed it (correctly) as we know UHI is aprox 2C maybe more at night, and replaced it by Melbourne ap. There we get even higher day time temps , but fortunatly lower minima. Good on him . Airport stations originaly were build for aviation purposes and not for climatology.

We could over night cut emissions by 100% by simply have 2 hours rations of electicity . As retired I support such drastic move back to stone age


You are wrong about there being a 0.3 degree adjustment to GISS for UHI. GISS adjusts for UHI on a station by station basis, with different adjustments at different stations, and different adjustments at different time. If you don't trust all these complicated adjusments, then trust the satellite data instead which is immune to UHI influence, and shows exactly the same warming trend as GISS.

Top
#797434 - 19/11/2009 16:16 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: windyrob]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3307
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: windyrob
Here is all the evidence needed to disprove water vapor positive feedback.
The satellite measurements of upper troposphere water vapor are shown by the red line. They are decreasing! The Enhanced AGW theory requires them to be increasing. The evidence speaks for itself! (from climate4you.)
Please post a graph of claimed increased water vapor if you have one, or concede! smile



I've had a look at both the cliamte4you page, and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project sites and cannot find anything on water vapor. It could be somewhere there I didn't find of course.

Here is a link to a peer reviewed analysis on water vapor content which confirms an increasing atmospheric water vapor content as predicted by climate models. This paper is referenced in the IPCC fourth assessment report.

The chart looks very suspicious in the severity of the change in water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Water vapour dominates greenhouse warming, and the upper atmosphere dominates the water vapor effect. From memory, without looking up values, the greenhouse effect is around 30 degrees, water vapour at least 50%, and the upper atmosphere at least 50% of that, so more than 7 degrees due to upper atmospheric water vapour. Your chart shows a reduction in upper atmospheric water vapour of around 25%, which should have caused a cooling of close to 2 degrees.

This amount of reduction in water vapour just does not make sense.


Edited by Mike Hauber (19/11/2009 16:18)

Top
#797487 - 19/11/2009 17:37 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1904
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Quote:
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth, Europe for example, but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like Norse farmers in Greenland can never tell you a global story.


Quote:

Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. Note: Figure 1 data are available in a CSV file.

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file.

Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

Copyright © 2007 by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. Article posted on this website with permission.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025




RE the rest of your post Severely Tall are you brewskie or did you just lift it from him here? http://landandpeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/senate-skeptics.html

Top
#797495 - 19/11/2009 17:52 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Whoever he is, he's suffering furorem scribendi.

Top
#797595 - 19/11/2009 20:39 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1904
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: ROM
When using all that vast array of knowledge you have so proudly placed before us ST, proving just how wrong and how little the skeptics really know , it might just be wise to consider a couple of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes;

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Albert Einstein
[ This one hung in Einstein's office ]


Quote:
The causes of global warming—the
increase of approximately 0.8±0.1 °C in
the average global temperature near
Earth’s surface since 1900—are not as
apparent as some recent scientific publications
and the popular media indicate.
We contend that the changes in
Earth’s average surface temperature are
directly linked to two distinctly different
aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the
short-term statistical fluctuations in the
Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term
solar cycles. This argument for directly
linking the Sun’s dynamics to the response
of Earth’s climate is based on
our research and augments the interpretation
of the causes of global warming
presented in the United Nations
2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report.1
The most debated issue in contemporary
science is the cause or causes of
global warming, with the popular
media contending that the issue has
been resolved and that the majority of
scientists concur. The “majority opinion”
is based on the analysis of global
warming done using large-scale computer
codes that incorporate all identified
physical and chemical mechanisms
into global circulation models (GCMs)
in an attempt to recreate and understand
the variability in Earth’s average
temperature. The IPCC report1 concludes
that the contribution of solar
variability to global warming is negligible,
to a certainty of 95%. It is reported
that the “majority” believes the average
warming observed since the beginning
of the industrial era is due to the increase
in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere.


Nicola Scafetta is a research associate in the Duke University physics department. Bruce West is chief scientist in the mathematical and
information science directorate, US Army Research Office, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.


http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

The biggest influence in our Galaxy causing Warming on Earth ? OR Cooling ?NO WAY!!!
Quote:
sunspot number: 29
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 18 Nov 2009

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2009 total: 243 days (76%)
Since 2004: 754 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
explanation | more info
Updated 18 Nov 2009
http://www.spaceweather.com/


Edited by marakai (19/11/2009 20:46)
Edit Reason: to fix link

Top
#797671 - 19/11/2009 22:31 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1904
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Quote:
Those listed here have, since the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, made statements that conflict with at least one of these principal conclusions. Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys. In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of a Fourth Assessment Report, which contains similar conclusions. All statements in opposition to the consensus were made following the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement.

For the purpose of this list, a scientist is a person who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field relevant to climate.

SNIP

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view


Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[17]
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[19]
* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[20]
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24]
* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[25]
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[26]
* William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[27]
* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[28]
* Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]
* Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[32]
* Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".[33]
* Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."[34]
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[35]
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[36][37] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[38]
* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[39]
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[40]
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[41]
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[42]
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[43]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci..._global_warming


0.038%... The total % of Co2 in the Atmosphere.

Quote:
Occam's razor

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.

For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.

SNIP

However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.



http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.htm

Just what are the statistical odds that something that account's for less than half of one percent of the total atmosphere of our Planet being the driving force behind a rise of (insert number here) deg C over the next century or a sea level rise of (insert number here)?.

Compared to the forces of the Sun, Orbit, Tilt, Wobble to name but a few? just the Tilt alone gives us our Seasons, enough to bring snow and ice to formerly sunny climes. 0.038 %????

I for one do just not buy it, Sure there is warming, but there is also Cooling. But the Earth has been there and done that many times before.

Top
#797711 - 20/11/2009 00:37 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
Long Road Home Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 08/10/2007
Posts: 8575
Loc: Northern Beaches Syd
Well said.. those other forces have a much greater influence than some gas that doesnt even occupy a 20th of a percent of the atmosphere and here we have another heatwave starting to become aimlessly blamed on AGW like we never had one before.


Edited by eternal-rain (20/11/2009 00:40)

Top
#797712 - 20/11/2009 01:14 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: marakai]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
Mike

Most of data's and graphs on climate4you are from Hadcru. Now I uderstand a bit more to questions I asked 2 pages back .
But I dont understand why water vapor would have so dramatic effect on temperatures . On the same page as were water vapor graphs also are clouds cover changes . And we all understand albedo. Had water vapor had so big effect we would have boiled all water when Vikings were farming Greenland.
And to GISS adjustments comment you are right . I just wonder the formula for those adjustments. Melbourne ap is classified as populated area . We know that day time temperature is say same as Melbourne. So it qualifies for 2C UHI. Minima are much lower at Melbourne ap.and it falls into category 'rural'.
How do you make adjusments to only one station from XXX remaining on GISS'data sets one by one ?
Here is the GISS's page , where anybody can check any Hansens' station and data

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/





Edited by Vlasta (20/11/2009 01:20)
Edit Reason: amnesia lol

Top
Page 2 of 115 < 1 2 3 4 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
13 registered (logansi, Foehn Correspondent, wetdreams, Corretto, Hailin, Chookie, TrentG, Steve O, StormCapture, snoopydoo, Petros, 2 invisible), 384 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
alby, controler, NCSC - Antonio, puca
Forum Stats
29681 Members
32 Forums
23981 Topics
1501055 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image