Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns

quote:

---

I think the weather is getting hotter as a result of natural fluctuations in the global mean temperature, not 'Global Warming'.
  —cath scientist

---

Well a lot of scientists, like the 17,000 who signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol, might agree with you that the 'evidence' of greenhouse gasses causing global warming is scant.A look at this graph should make most rational thinkers scratch their heads and think: 1-If greenhouse gasses cause global warming, then why did the mean global temperature decline for nearly thirty years from 1940 to 1970? Shouldn't it have been increasing? Yet it declined nearly .2 degrees celsius.2-As to the global warming that has occurred since 1880, we are talking an increase of 0.6 degrees celsius. The mean temperature of the planet increasing by barely more than half a degree doesn't seem to be the environmental crisis it's advertised to be. And that is just the surface temperature folks. Not very compelling.3-Why isn't the atmosphere increasing in temperature? Since 1979 our satellites have measured ZERO increase in atmospheric temperature.4-What is the margin of error for this data? How accurate could measurements from manned weather stations in 1880 be? Within a tenth of a degree? Within a degree?5-How realistic is a computer model projection based on 120 years of climatological measurements? We're lucky if our local five day forcast is correct, but ten years out? Fifty years out? How accurate could those projections be? Just thirty years ago climatologists were predicting an ice age for goodness sakes.Does this mean we should ignore the data and do nothing at all? I'm not suggesting that. I am suggesting that we need to filter out the chicken little histrionics and focus on actual facts.I think the honest answer is that we just don't know what a .6 degree increase in global surface temperature means and pretending we do, one way or the other, is irresponsible science.This message has been edited by custard, 02-23-2005 22:05 AM

Wow, lots of pretty colors. Too bad that data is about as useful for predicting climate change as Nostrodamus' quatrains.1-Where did this data come from? (source)
2-Who collected it?
3-What quality control measures where taken to ensure accuracy?
4-Where were the measurements taken?
5-What device(s) were used to measure the temperature?
6-What is the margin for error?Give me a break. Ten to one your wikipedia graph is based on 'projections' and 'estimations' and not actual measurements. If a single scrap of that data was in any way reliable, it would have been presented in the Kyoto Protocol and would be cited right and left in scientific papers.Frankly I have my doubts about the data collected since 1880, and that's the most accurate data we have.Try again.

Caps? Gary, I thought the Ant-arctic ice cap was actually thickening, not melting.

Frog,The source data in the Wikipedia graph is a 'reconstruction' which comes from "Proxy types [which] include tree rings, ice cores, corals, and historical documents."I'm sorry, none of those have been demonstrated to be particularly reliable in their own rights. The authors 'P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett' don't even mention HOW they reconstructed these temperatures and where they do show which proxy types are used, they aren't consistent. Some years use some proxy types, and some years use others - they aren't consistent.Regardless, this data does not support thewhen greenhouse gas argument which claims the increase of CO2 levels from INDUSTRIALIZATION are causing global warming. If anything, your graph demonstrates that the world has been experiencing a warming trend seven centuries BEFORE industrialization.Using your graph, I can easily argue that the affect of industrialization is negligible and global temperatures have been on the rise IN SPITE of man, not because of him.If you use the Wikipedia definition for Global Warming Theory, you'll see that "The current scientific consensus is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." By this criteria all the data collected before 1950 is irrelevant to the argument.Either way, the 1000 year graph, even if it could be trusted, does not support the argument that global warming is occuring due to the actions of mankind.So lets look at the last fifty years. The 2001 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report states

quote:

---

"The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate"

---

What the hell does that mean?If you look at the 'details' of the report we find the evidence is as follows:1-The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6CWhoop de do. 0.6 degrees. I'm terrified.2-Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climateAlthough they don't say what these are.3-Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased As I said, we can't predict the weather TEN DAYS in advance, let alone ten years. Computer models are extremely subjective - especially in a field like climatology where we barely understand what causes weather patterns let alone predict them. Even the IPCC admits

quote:

---

The IPCC concedes that there is a need for better models and better scientific understanding of some climate phenomena, as well as the uncertainties involved. Critics assert that the available data is not sufficient to determine the real importance of greenhouse gases in climate change. Sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be over-estimated or under-estimated estimated because of some flaws in the models and because the importance o some external factors may be misestimated.

---

Read that last line again.Sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be over-estimated or under-estimated estimated because of some flaws in the models and because the importance o some external factors may be misestimated.4-There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities And these would be...5-Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century This is conjecture.And finally6-Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios Remember that line about how the computer models may misestimate factors? Well since 2001 the sea levels HAVE NOT risen any faster than they have since the last ice age.Scrutinizing the data and questioning the conclusions drawn by global warming proponents is not putting one's head in the sand and hiding from the inevitable, there is no compelling data to support global warming theory. At least none presented in the Kyoto Protocol and none that I can find.The emporer simply has no clothes.

Gary,thanks I saw similar articles. I was aware that the Antarctic peninsula was melting, but that is a tiny fraction of the entire polar cap. Satellite data reported by Ian Joughin, of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California(Journal Science), show the Ross ice cap is actually thickening.This is absolutely counter to what was predicted by the IPCC computer projections and seems to fly in the face of global warming theory.Additionally, I found the article you clearly states:

quote:

---

"It is not known whether the melting is the result of a natural event or the result of global warming."

---

Hardly a compelling for global warming.

I have to thank Crashfrog for the wikipedia link, it has a lot of information there.I encourage anyone interested in this debate to read the pros and cons of the IPCC and their reports and make your own conclusions. Most authors of the IPCC reports are in agreement, but some authors of previous versions have been very vocal in their dissent.For example:

quote:

---

In January of 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

---

and

quote:

---

Ecologist and professor Philip Stott, condemns the IPCC reports for being modelling not reality

​

Stott has also been quoted in a BBC interview, talking about a fundamental "contradiction" of the Kyoto Protocol: "that climate is one of the most complex systems known, yet that we can manage it by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions. Scientifically, this is not mere uncertainty: it is a lie."

---

Not I disagree, not I strongly disagree, but IT IS A LIE.This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 00:22 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 00:23 AM

What global warming theory tells me NOT to expect is for the largest ice cap in Antarctica to be accumulating more ice, yet it is.Strike one for global warming theory. And we know that glaciers are also growing. It depends on the glacier. There are over 20,000 glaciers in the world. Have scientists investigated every one of them? I doubt it. Which it has been since the last ice age. In fact the rate at which it is rising seems to have been steady since the last ice age. Global warming theory predicts that sea levels should be rising more rapidly than in the past. They aren't.Strike two. Yes, yes, and yes. No one is arguing very strongly that the surface temperature of the earth isn't increasing, they are arguing as to the significance of this phenomenon. Is it natural or manmade? Is it detrimental or benign? How long will it last?The answer to all these questions is WE DON'T KNOW. We don't understand global climatology well enough to predict whether a .6 degree increase is good, bad, or negligble.Heck we don't even know if greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2 will INCREASE cloud cover or DECREASE cloud cover. One would have completely different results than the other. But that's the point, WE DON'T KNOW if decreasing CO2 emissions will have any effect on our climate, but we do know it will affect the industrialization efforts and economies of many countries, potentially affecting billions of people.Overreacting to a non-threat can have just as detrimental effects as failing to react to a real one.The data doesn't support IPCC's position. Keep studying and observing yes, but we need to stick to hard facts and scientific method and not politics and polemic.This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 01:08 AM

Yeah? Which colored line were you referring to? There is nothing 'clear' about that graph; it resembles a kindergartner's art project. Spare me the histrionics. I never contested the recent warming trend, in fact the data I presented already established that. YOU were the one who thought 120 years was inadequate for your purposes so you went and dug up a graph with the last ten centuries on it. yet now you claim you really only care about the last 100 years. Which is it frog? The last century, or the last millenium? Argument from authority fallacy? Please. I would if we had any evidence of the ATMOSPHERE getting warmer. Both your graph and my graph show a SURFACE temperature increase. As I previously stated, satellite readings since 1979 have shown ZERO increase in atmospheric temperature. Your hypocrisy is indeed amusing.
You do EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing here: here: here: and here: I commend you on your glibness, but you are too ignorant about this subject to argue it meaningfully; you demonstrate this admirably with this gem: Should I really have expected more from someone who criticizes books he has never read? Probably not, but since you have shown glimmers of insight and intelligence from time to time in other posts, I was hoping for a meaningful discussion. Unfortunately this does not appear to be forthcoming, and I find sophmoric contrarianism isn't as challenging for me as it once was.If anyone (Gary, etc), wants to particpate in an actual exchange of ideas and information I'm up for it. This message has been edited by custard to change 'book' to 'books', 02-24-2005 04:25 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 04:26 AM

That argument certainly has merit. I would counter by saying "yes, only if the cure (in this case the reduction of increased CO2 emissions) had no other deleterious effects."If you could show that inhibiting the number of allowable emissions per country would not have a negative affect on the US economy or industry, then I would wholeheartedly agree.What I do object to, however, is that the current environmental dogma being served up is based on a paucity of data. From what I have read, the threat of global warming seems much less imminent or detrimental than we are lead to believe.I'm told the earth is warming at a such a rate that it could cause cataclysmic changes in our environment such as melting ice caps and rising sea levels.Well an increase of 0.6, and depending on your source the range could be as low as 0.3, degrees over 120 years on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old seems to be very little to get worked up about. Add to that the fact the seas ARE NOT rising faster than ever before and that the ice caps are NOT both melting, but one, the largest by far, is in fact growing, and I have to question the conclusions drawn by global warming theorists.This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 03:00 AM

Let me try to answer this better by comparing the choices of the Toasty Earth Wager to Pascal's Wager. (some sources from wikipedia)Pascal's Wager: Toasty Earth Wager: OK. Let's work with that. Pascal's possible outcomes were: Analagous Toasty Earth possibilities would be: A major difference between Pascal and the Toasty Earth wagers is outcome 2. The steps proposed by the Kyoto Protocol and other scientists to reduce or prevent global warming will have an enormous negative impact on every industrial country in the world and would affect the majority of the population economically (higher costs for production, reduced production, etc).Also there are two key assumptions being made in the TE wager which make it more complex than Pascal's: Where is the compelling data for number 1? What if global warming reaches a critical level that is far below the dire estimates bandied about - say it levels off after a three or five degree overall increase? Is that actually a BAD thing for the entire world? [joke tag]Obviously it sucks if your primary residence is an atoll, but Greenland might become a new vacation spot.[/joke]And what about 2? Say we're wrong about man's contribution to global warming and it continues despite our efforts to reduce industrialization, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Wouldn't all those misallocated resources we've spent to prevent global warming have been better used somewhere else? Like finding the true cause?This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 17:25 AM

Ned, not to sound naive, but HOW do we know 'we are warming the earth' as a result of CO2?If the increase of CO2 leads to a direct increase in earth temperature, then why did the mean surface temperature of the earth DECREASE between 1940 and 1970? (see graph in earlier post 6 - sorry can't get it to link directly to post)The explanation I read on almost every site that attempts to explain this in within the context of global warming theory reads like this:
"there are other climatology factors that may cause temporary cooling - we just don't know all the variables as climatology is extremely comlex."I'm sorry, but as an all around skeptic that type of explanation doesn't sit well with me. If as you say, we KNOW that we are warming the earth because of greenhouse gasses, why don't we know why it cooled during that thirty year period?It's these kinds of inconsistencies that make me question the conclusions I am being presented with about global warming.Here's another question. Will more CO2 in the atmosphere cause MORE cloud cover, or less? Quick answer, we don't know for sure, we don't have the data. But ever computer model (I've heard of) that predicts environmental disaster due to global warming assumes that more CO2 DOES cause more cloud cover.Hey, I'm not saying global warming theory is wrong, I'm saying that data I see used to support global warming theory doesn't make sense to me - and not because I'm not a climatologist, but because of obvious inconsistencies in the way conclusions have been drawn based on the data.I'm not the only one who feel this way Ned. Apparently 17,000 scientists (Oregon Petition) feel that the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions was based upon flawed ideas. Read that last line again: So 17,000 scientists don't agree that 'we know CO2 is warming the planet' or that it increased levels of CO2 are detrimental to the environment.Are ALL these people paid shills for the govt and big business? I really have a hard time believing this.This message has been edited by custard to fix all sorts of db errors , 02-27-2005 19:19 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 02-27-2005 19:25 AM

Ned, you make some good points. Before I respond to the first few, I want to research my graph a bit more. I was under the impression that it was the same one used by those scientists presenting the Kyoto Protocol conclusions.I would prefer to use the same data they did since this was they data they claimed was compelling enough to reach their conclusions, and because they obviously accepted the validity of the data. I can't say how valid they would find the wikipedia, or any other, graph we use. I'll do some checking on that. I posted the link to the actual petition and what it says. Here is a link that gives an overview of the petition and lists some criticisms of it. Oregon Petition - WikipediaHere is what the Oregon Petition stated: It doesn't go into detail about what those beneficial effects are, but I have read that they relate to increased arable land, higher CO2 levels being beneficial to plants etc. No idea how valid that is, only that the people who signed this petition agreed with the statement.Here is the criteria of the petition (from wikipedia again): Looks like 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. Do you know where I could find this evidence? I'm not being snotty and saying the evidence isn't out there, but I haven't found any NEW evidence to bolster the conclusions and predictions of global warming theory. In fact, several predictions that were made HAVE NOT come true:1- the troposphere temperature should be increasing at a greater rate than the surface temperature.Maybe. Depends on the satellite data you look at. But if you look at El Nino as an unusual event, then the atmosphere is actually cooling.2- accelerated rise sea levels.In 1997 they weren't rising any faster than a rate of 18cm/year. The same rate as 1897. The same rate as today. You imply that people who disagree with the conclusions of pro-global warming theory advocates are NOT 'moderate' and seems biased to me. Can you back this up at all? Why wouldn't the folks who signed the Oregon Petition be considered 'moderate?' Could you clarify what criteria you use make this distinction?Finally, I want to make one thing clear to everyone: I believe in conservationism and environmentalism. It's pretty stupid to crap in your own nest; and for years I just accepted that global warming theory was true because so many other people accepted it. Hell I've basically been told this was happening since I was a child.I was shocked to find how little hard data is actually out there to support the conclusions of global warming theory. Quite frankly I feel the same indignation about this that I felt when I realized that I'd been lied to about religion. I don't appreciate anyone manipulating facts in order to manipulate me.If there is actual data that makes a compelling argument for global warming theory, I'm willing to believe it. My point is, I can't FIND it; and what I have found, the data and conclusions that are shaping the political and economic policies of our world, I find are extremely unsatisfying if not plain wrong.This message has been edited by custard, 02-27-2005 22:44 AM

I absolutely agree. Well I don't have the bias of disbelieving the US govt's motives, but maybe I haven't heard the same rhetoric from that camp as you have. I do believe that both sides of the issue have become highly politicized - we are talking about something that will have a major impact on the world, one way or another - so I am skeptical of unsubstantiated claims from either camp.I don't really agree with your definition of 'moderate' insomuch as it conveniently tips the balance of credibility in one direction. I could just as easily define it as:Best case scenario: increased greenhouse gases are beneficial for plant and animal growthMiddle of the road: global warming will have no impact either wayWorst case: global warming will have a negative impactWhat I'm really curious to investigate are the best case scenario claims that increased greenhouse gases might be beneficial. That REALLY seem weird and contrary to everything I've learned.Overall you made some great points Ned. Now I have lots of stuff to look up.Thanks

I just ran across this site, http://www.junkscience.com/, anyone else seen it or know anything about it?This site has all sorts of links to articles (reuters to the economist) it identifies as potentially 'junk science.' Stuff on silicon breast implants, salt, etc. Reminds me of the drudge report site somewhat.What I found interesting was the Kyoto Count UP clock which tries to show in US dollars the amount of money the world has spent due to the regulations of the Kyoto Protocol as well as the potential temperature saving by 2050.The dollar amount spirals up like crazy. At the time I am writing this the clock claims that the world has spent over
US$ 4,884,692,342 for a potential temperature savings by 2050 of a whopping 0.000050663 C.There is also a Global Warming at a Glance page that shows the current global mean temp of the troposphere.Haven't made my mind up about the site yet, but the few articles I did read didn't seem like shameless propaganda to me - but I realize that propaganda is often in the eye of the beholder.I've never heard of the guy who runs the site - Steve Milloy.

Neither CF, nor anyone else, has posted anything regarding cloud cover or storm patterns. Out of curiosity, do you have actual data to back that up? Well you and CF certainly seem to agree on that point. But a redundant graph of the surface temperature of the earth and Revelation 16 aside, I'm not seeing much evidence to support your positions. Certainly nothing to counter what I have presented so far.