In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
Graph A
Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
Graph B
As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
Graph C
Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:
The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).
For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.
Graph D
The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any “global warming” not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.
All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.
What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.
The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.
The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.
There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.
Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.
Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!
For more info: Science and Public Policy Institute, Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. Climate change? Not so fast say Scientists, Have it your way - Global warming is baloney, Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 2), Oregon legislature plays Cap-n-Trade shell game, Democrats say Cap and Trade is a big tax, Taxing Carbon designed to fail
Updated to clarify sourcing. All information in this article is directly from SPPI June Report. as is stated in the beginning of article. 8-18-2009 2:02pm Pacific
Comments
Read Roy Spencer, Climate Confusion for a clear, detailed exposition of how the weather dissipates heat build up.
Why is this in Portland Info 101?
This should be under wingnut propaganda 101: conspiracy theory paranoia from the right wing fringe.
FAIL
Next time try to use your own words to clearly articulate your point.
Trotting out some scientists will convince no one. For every one scientist you present the other side can present 10 scientists to refute your conspiracy theory hog wash.
The point the AGW's simply don't understand is that the climate models give projections and not predicitions with disclaimers.
The reason?
They can predict positive feedback which is the warming from a given amount of CO2 but struggle with negative feedback.....thats clouds, rain, volcanic ash, cosmic rays and a number of other things.
If you wish to believe that the climate will not be subjected to all or any of the above over the next 100 years then you believe in AGW and deserve to pay ridiculous taxes and suffer power cuts.
However the rest of us want sanity and a better standard of living.
As regards the new "Holocaust", that is happening now with upwards of 1.5 billion people with no access to fresh drinking water, proper sanitation and cheap power......which is just the sort of thing that people in the western world have had for years.
Funny that people want to insult the author for being truthful and using facts in a news piece. Those that would question your reporting are simply followers of the AGW religion and not those interested in facts.
Well Done.
So Olivia, the ERBE is lying? Hmmm, how's the high level atmospheric heat signature the IPCC says should prove AGW working out for you?
Oh that's right. It doesn't exist.
Right on Patrick.........the trouble is we are dealing with a middle class view of the climate and they get it from thier favourite newspapers or TV channel.
It never occurs to them that their source may be wrong.
You quite correctly point to the absence of warming in the Mid-Troposphere....whilst I point to the lack of realism in the climate models.
Olivia has a dream. A dream that AGW will cause us to abandon our industrial ways, that we will stop living good comfortable lives, that most of us (not Olivia, of course!) will die so that the reduced earth population, cowering in caves, will live in harmony with nature. AGW is the key to getting liberal democracy to destroy itself.
Please don't take Olivia's dream away from her.
Slapping the "study" up on the website of a wingnut pretend think tank is not "publishing" in the sense of having it appear anywhere credible. Lindzen has been flogging tis turkey for years, with and without lipstick, and none of the science community is interested:
just check google.com/cse?cx=012025017748226749983%3A2-w76xgqxhy&ie=UTF-8&q=Lindzen+sensitivity&sa=Search
It turns out the science journals want actual science, not fiction ... who knew?
Greenfyre's psot is hysterical....In making his claims against Lindzen he uses as a refrence with a google address...NOTE: The man he refrences for "scientific" verification against Lindzen is a "progressive activist" who stated mission is to give the "progressive view on science" now THATS funny :) The only thing funnier is these leftist fairy tale peddlers take themselves so seriously :)
Once again Olivia, you have been caught commenting on an article you did not read. Dear, this is Science, it deals with facts. The facts as observed by 15 years worth of Satellite date prove conclusively that 1) Global cooling has been a measurable reality since 2003. 2) Sea Surface temperatures, including as deep as 400 feet, show a cooling of the seas, also a measurable fact.
To anyone who devoutly believes in Global warming, I urge you to fully read this article, and to click the links within it. These are measured facts, not some strange permutation of some obscure equations. Simply facts as measured by satellite and bathythermograph data. You can not argue with facts, they are what they are no matter how thick your tinfoil hat, they say clearly that Global Warming does not exist, and that CO2 is absolutely completely irrelevant in the climate of Earth.
Or don't read the facts, its entirely up to the warmers to make themselves look like complete idiots. Much like Olivia.
Olivia,
It is plain that you have nothing to left to sell,we are tired of the lies and distortions alarmists have been peddling for years.Will it ever stop?
Why are you going to ignore this part?
"The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a m
Greenfyre,
So how does that explain Al Gore, who is about as far from a scientist as you are. Do you know how much money he has made off you simpletons? Al has ZERO credibility. Why, because all of his shtick is done with computer models, NOT real facts. These are real FACTS, not something made up out of thin air that proves your point. Its people like Al, and his supporters who have been yelling about MODELS which do not match facts(!) and you people are simple enough to believe it. Lindzen of MIT is using facts, not made up numbers to put into a computer model. Facts.
The Warmers are worse than the Birthers. The birthers are at least asking for factual documents, the Warmers are trying to kill national economies based on pretty looking stories based on made up numbers and hearsay!
But, but but...isn't the science 'settled'??....isn't the 'debate' 'over'...i mean 'Olivia' says so? it's 10 to 1 apparently (talk about trotting out things....where did you pull that out from, the latest green-mantra koolaid blog??).....the only propaganda is the endless alarmist rhetoric 'trotted out' by the ill informed media & scientifically illiterate politicians. Perhaps Olivia can direct everyone to the peer reviewed study that directly, irrefutably links CO2 as a climate driver with empirical evidence & not software models. Oh, right, there isn't one....how inconvenient.
Greenfyre,
So how does that explain Al Gore, who is about as far from a scientist as you are. Do you know how much money he has made off you simpletons? Al has ZERO credibility. Why, because all of his shtick is done with computer models, NOT real facts. These are real FACTS, not something made up out of thin air that proves your point. Its people like Al, and his supporters who have been yelling about MODELS which do not match facts(!) and you people are simple enough to believe it. Lindzen of MIT is using facts, not made up numbers to put into a computer model. Facts.
The Warmers are worse than the Birthers. The birthers are at least asking for factual documents, the Warmers are trying to kill national economies based on pretty looking stories based on made up numbers and hearsay!
Greenfyre,
So how does that explain Al Gore, who is about as far from a scientist as you are. Do you know how much money he has made off you simpletons? Al has ZERO credibility. Why, because all of his shtick is done with computer models, NOT real facts. These are real FACTS, not something made up out of thin air that proves your point. Its people like Al, and his supporters who have been yelling about MODELS which do not match facts(!) and you people are simple enough to believe it. Lindzen of MIT is using facts, not made up numbers to put into a computer model. Facts.
The Warmers are worse than the Birthers. The birthers are at least asking for factual documents, the Warmers are trying to kill national economies based on pretty looking stories based on made up numbers and hearsay!
Greenfrye,
"Slapping the "study" up on the website of a wingnut pretend think tank is not "publishing" in the sense of having it appear anywhere credible."
This all you got,is name calling and ad hominems?
It is obvious that you never read the posted link,where actual published science papers are referred to.Including Lindzen's,who manage to publish a number of papers over the years.Surprised huh that he can do that and still be in good standing?
I happen to have good communication with a few scientists,who have been level headed on this topic.It is pitiful when alarmists like you offer insults,when you could have done much better.
When are you alarmists going to grow up?
Greenfrye,
"Slapping the "study" up on the website of a wingnut pretend think tank is not "publishing" in the sense of having it appear anywhere credible."
This all you got,is name calling and ad hominems?
It is obvious that you never read the posted link,where actual published science papers are referred to.Including Lindzen's,who manage to publish a number of papers over the years.Surprised huh that he can do that and still be in good standing?
I happen to have good communication with a few scientists,who have been level headed on this topic.It is pitiful when alarmists like you offer insults,when you could have done much better.
When are you alarmists going to grow up?
Dianna -- I looked at the PDF, and the quotes you provide in your article (e.g., "we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate") seem to be from Christopher Monckton, editor of SPPI Monthly CO2 Report, rather than from Richard Lindzen.
Do you have a link to Lindzen's actual report, rather than to the discussion of his report?
Looks like this is the actual study by Lindzen & Choi: www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
I'm not finding in it the quotes you include in your article.
LOL! Poor Olivia - those darn facts won't dance to your armageddon tune - but keep playing it 'cool' with you baby talk of wingnuts that 'fail' - you're so cute when you throw poo...
Yes indeed Ted, the links are in the article, but there are a lot of links to sift through there. It is at: scienceandpublicpolicy(dot)org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09(dot)pdf
The quotes I used are largely comments that accompany the graphs, illustrating the relevance of them. Most of the pdf is graphical data. All the information that is directly quoted is from that source. I usually include direct links to specific references, but given the nature of the material, and the fact 99.9% of this article is derived from that pdf, I did not separately source quotes. If this continues to cause confusion I can list specific page numbers where the quotes can be found if that will help.
I am hoping that a great many read the entire pdf, it is utterly damning to the cause of Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and issues of Climate change due to CO2.
Dianna,
Your article is pretty good. However, your statement that "[CO2] is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water" is incorrect. CO2 is a much more effective "greenhouse gas" compared to water vapor. Its atmospheric concentration is simply so small compared to H2O that any effect gets diluted.
Keep up the good work and try to ignore the ad hom attacks. It's all that AGW supporters have left when the data debunks their position.
Olivia
I was an applied scientist at EPA for 8 years and did a lot of advanced physics-based environmental modeling. Given the choice of between drawing conclusions from IPCC sanctioned models and real data collected from the likes of ERBE or ARGO; hands down I'd go with the real data.
Insulting us doesn't change what these instrument arrays are revealing. Insult away, it only demonstrates that you have nothing constructive to offer to the discussion.
Steve, you are missing a BIG point. Liquid water, and solid water cover 71% of the earth. When that ice melts, it does so because it is absorbing heat. Liquid water becomes a vapor when it absorbs heat and changes state. CO2 is already a gas. The only change of state it could possibly make while absorbing heat is into PLASMA. We don't see that happening do we. Its a simple matter of logic. Water on earth exists in states that allow it to absorb heat.
CO2 does not.
That is why CO2 is a very poor absorber of heat energy. Its not capable of a change of state that would allow it to hold more heat.
Dianna -- Let me be blunt. The quotes you include are from Christopher Monckton, editor of SPPI Monthly CO2 Report, rather than from Richard Lindzen.
Your argument is strong, and the evidence against AGW is strong. But you've misattributed the quotations.
Once again, Olivia and her socialist friends are having a reaction to getting posterized by the Truth. Here's an idea, Olivia, go mix in something called reason -- it's free and would serve your dome well. That is after you get done with your 'five time a day' homage to Al 'I can get rich pushing my crap on humanity' Gore, Barky Obama, and the tree-huggers that dominate your party like whiny defeated third grade girls screaming to their mommies that their candy is in someone else's pie-hole. No one brings up the fact that solar flares have intensified in recent years, global cycles of warming and cooling still occur, and the pesky fact that the Antarctic Ice Shelf is ... wait for it ... THICKENING! Hey, Olivia (or any socialist ... err , liberal), Once you figure out WHY this is, I want to see the amount of steam pouring out of your ears, and that will really be a cause for global warming -- maybe I can see it all the way from Denver.
Steve, you are missing a BIG point. Liquid water, and solid water cover 71% of the earth. When that ice melts, it does so because it is absorbing heat. Liquid water becomes a vapor when it absorbs heat and changes state. CO2 is already a gas. The only change of state it could possibly make while absorbing heat is into PLASMA. We don't see that happening do we. Its a simple matter of logic. Water on earth exists in states that allow it to absorb heat.
CO2 does not.
That is why CO2 is a very poor absorber of heat energy. Its not capable of a change of state that would allow it to hold more heat.
Ted, I have clarified the sourcing. All information that is in this article can be found at the SPPI monthly report for June.
Once again, Olivia and her socialist friends are having a reaction to getting posterized by the Truth. Here's an idea, Olivia, go mix in something called reason -- it's free and would serve your dome well. That is after you get done with your 'five time a day' homage to Al 'I can get rich pushing my crap on humanity' Gore, Barky Obama, and the tree-huggers that dominate your party like whiny defeated third grade girls screaming to their mommies that their candy is in someone else's pie-hole. No one brings up the fact that solar flares have intensified in recent years, global cycles of warming and cooling still occur, and the pesky fact that the Antarctic Ice Shelf is ... wait for it ... THICKENING! Hey, Olivia (or any socialist ... err , liberal), Once you figure out WHY this is, I want to see the amount of steam pouring out of your ears, and that will really be a cause for global warming -- maybe I can see it all the way from Denver.
If you plot CO2 versus global temperature on a 500 million year scale, it's pretty obvious that CO2 is a minor factor, and has no capacity to control global temperatures. There is virtually no relationship between the two factors on the long time scale.
And to add insult to injury, the satellites tell us that sea levels have stopped rising. Sea levels peaked in 2005 and have been meandering sideways ever since. Before that, the rise was only an estimated 3mm per year. Three millimeters is about an eighth of an inch. Does anyone seriously believe we cannot cope with sea levels rising an eighth of an inch per year? That's only about an inch per decade, assuming sea levels start rising again. But don't believe me, just check out sealevel.colorado.edu.
Every day it gets worse and worse for the global warming alarmists, because the data simply refuse to confirm the theory. That's what happens when you base your position on Tinker Toy computer models of complex chaotic phenomena.
Angela,
This is worth your time to read
Franklin
New Findings to be published in Nature find that each carbon dioxide emission "results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs," according to an article in Science Daily. That means we can now predict that X amount of CO2 will result in Y amount of global temperature increase.
The validity of climate models has been an argument of skeptics but an article from Science Daily's website late last year announced "findings published in the online edition of the journal Science shed further light on the fluctuations in greenhouse gases and climate in Earth's past, and appear to confirm the validity of the types of computer models that are used to project a warmer climate in the future."
Richard Lindzen is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center,a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.
Ria is typical of the AGW crowd....Nature has long since been laughed and the big money is made by the AGW governments and their friends.
The planet has started a cooling cycle and you had better get on your bike and take your ignorance and childish attacks on scientists as far away as possible.
Non scientists like Gore and Pachuria are making a fortune out of AGW and poor people all over the world are suffering.
In case you had'nt noticed the Exxon/Mobils are doing very nicely out of AGW with prices going up and up
Ria,
Please explain why, if CO2 and Degree temperature change are directly proportional, why it is that we have not seen a tripping of temperature change given that CO2 Emissions have tripped in the last several decades?
Please explain why it is that global temperatures are decreasing and why Sea surface temperatures are decreasing...
I can tell you why, because the COMPUTER MODEL that the "Nature" team is using is erroneous. Its a model, and they input their own data into it. Real climate science takes actual measured readings and interprets those real numbers. You can sit at a computer model all day and still not be able to reverse predict Earth's climate, even when you use real historical Numbers.
The Global Warming Myth is unraveling faster than a liberal runs towards socialism.
By the way, companies like Exxon have to have real predictions, not faked up models, they are running a real business. Nature gets its funding in part from the same Gov. that is pushing Cap n Trade.
CO2 can't melt polar ice caps. In order for CO2, like any foreign body, to lower the freezing point of a liquid such as water, requires that it be in the liquid at the time of freezing. Because it is physically in the way of the freezing process from molecule to molecule, it takes longer for water to freeze at 32 F. However, if you lower the temp, then the water will freeze, foreign body included. This is what is meant by lowering the freezing temperature. However, if you release pressure, on say a bottle of carbonated water at 32 F, as soon as the CO2 escapes, the water freezes. Since CO2 freezes at - 108 F, as soon as a temp gets above -108 F, the CO2 sublimates to the atmosphere quickly. This leaves the top layer of ice fairly CO2 free, and quite frozen. And there is not documented data, theory, or experiment, that shows that polar caps in contact with less than 1 percent CO2 (current atmospheric concentration, including Man's contribution) can lower the freezing point of water.
Oh good, another one fooled by the global cooling myth which was propagated by the website wattsupwiththat.com. Funny that how your Graph B is claimed to be global cooling -- the same argument that wattsupwiththat.com was making, until the July global temperature anomaly came out. The new data point turned all of their arguments upside down on their head, at which point wattsupwiththat.com changed their argument to: "But the monthly values will vary substantially around this basically flat trend, with individual monthly values saying little, if anything, about the long term direction of global temperature." This is all documented here on comment-172582 of the article is-global-temperature-a-random-walk on wattsupwiththat.com (this website strategically does not allow people to post links, because they don't want to be blatantly disproven).
Admit it, you just got **burned**!
Bollocks........planet cooling and up yours. Inconvenient truth.
Scientists and Engineers, come out, come out wherever you are. It is time for truth telling. Don't be afraid of that man behind the curtain anymore. Time for real science again. Tell the politicians to, to,....to go give a speech or something, and leave science to scientists (NOT Al Gore).
Scientists and Engineers, come out, come out wherever you are. It is time for truth telling. Don't be afraid of that man behind the curtain anymore. Time for real science again. Tell the politicians to, to,....to go give a speech or something, and leave science to scientists (NOT Al Gore).
The data that you publish is not the same as that which NOAA publishes. I trust the NOAA data more. NOAA says that the warmest year on record was in 2005
Unless you believe that the moon landings were also faked and that our government lies to us you will have to admit that YOUR data is wrong and that the US government is correct Global temps can easily be checked by going to the National Climate Data Center at the NOAA main site
Here is what always amazes me when I talk to AWG supporters. Their logic is always as follows; the average global temperature has increased in the last 100 years, CO2 has increased in the last 100 years, therefore this is proof that CO2 causes global warming. Forget global warming for a second and answer the question as if it were part of a deductive reasoning exam. The question could be framed as follows.
1. The average global temperature has increased in the last 100 years
2. CO2 has increased in the last 100 years.
3. Therefore, CO2 causes global warming (True or False)
We know for a fact that the earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles. We also know that CO2 levels have varied in the past, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that they track perfectly together.
As I watch the news, the same type of irrational logic is used in the global warming fear mongering. A few months back a researcher concluded that a recently discovered fungus on Canada's west coast was caused by global warming. Any reasonable person could think of a dozen other reasons why this fungus showed up, but to the researcher and the followers of AWG it's proof of global warming.
Come on people!!! Use your head for something other than a hat rack.
Dianna Cotter writes: "The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that."
Dianna, do you know what "cherry pick" means? Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Example: Your graph B, from 2002 until June of 2009. In your case, it is particularly convenient for your cause to start at a particularly hot year (2002), and end at a point with about a year and a half after el Niño but not including the latest July temperature anomaly. Now that's a cherry pick.
Oh, you do understand the significance of el Niñoin the global average temperature, don't you? You seem very confident about yourself Dianna, so why not come here and try to respond to my points? Or are you chicken?
Dianna,
I will not debate on the actuall effect of the [CO2] in the athmosphere - I'm still just a student of geology and geohazards. I will just comment your article and point out some opinions of mine.
You point out some trends and measurements that may be important. Your data say that some statements of the IPCC are proven wrong - but remember you are talking about a period of 15 years and less. In the question of global warming this seems a bit like jumping to conclutions. You point out a trend for shure, but in a hundred years this might just be a small exception in the big picture.
The debate of global warming may often seem a bit one sided, and for that reason I was glad to see this article. I thougt the article was good - unntill it came clear evident political points of wiew. In my opinion the credibility of this article droppet at this point. Science should not be mixed up with politics. Sadly it seems to be - in too many cases.
If you look on Google for the composition of the atmosphere, you will note that CO2 makes up just 6/100 percent of the total atmosphere. Moisture ranges up to 4%. Lack of moisture is why Arizona cools quickly after the sun goes down. The other fact to note is the ice caps on Mars are melting, probably due to increased solar output.
I really think both sides are guilty of cherry picking. It becomes who can cherry pick the best to support their argument. And let's not forget that many of the IPCC scientists have political leanings as well. Also the big money is in being a AGW supporter, show any skepticism and you will soon be on the outside looking in. There is really no free market demand for climate scientists, the majority rely on government funded research. This in itself should raise a red flag about their objectivity.
The global warming theory is about long term trends, not about short term variations. Funny how people who tell us that it is cooling choose short term data points which are cut off right before news like this happens:
July was the hottest the world's oceans have been in almost 130 years of record-keeping.
The average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the branch of the U.S. government that keeps world weather records. That was 1.1 degree higher than the 20th century average, and beat the previous high set in 1998 by a couple hundredths of a degree.
The heat is most noticeable near the Arctic, where water temperatures are as much as 10 degrees above average.
Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land, because water takes longer to heat up and does not cool off as easily as land.
Mario Andretti,
You just lectured us about using short term variations rather than long term trends, then you turn around and quote a one month ocean temperature as proof of global warming. Records mean nothing, they are broken every day somewhere. Many parts of Canada has had one of the coldest years on record, I would be the last one to claim it has any significance.
For more than a decade, Einstein e=mc2 was considered a theory. It wasn't until conclusively proven (not modeled) that it became fact. Can anyone direct me to the scientific experiment that objectively proved Man Made global warming?
I agree Bamdatti, there is no proof. It's impossible to test the theory because the earth's atmosphere can not be re-created anywhere. We don't have the luxury of increasing/decreasing the CO2 concentrations and watching for results. Computer models only work when they are continually tweaked to make the model fall in line with what is actually happening.
One of the big questions I have never seen answered is; what is the correct global temperature?, and what is the correct CO2 concentration?
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!