manipulation of observational data in order to promote a particular point of view seems to be the norm with the IPCC, seems to be the norm for AGW warmists in general for that matter
Quote:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.
manipulation of observational data in order to promote a particular point of view seems to be the norm with the IPCC, seems to be the norm for AGW warmists in general for that matter
Quote:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.
lets see how long it takes the apologists to come into this thread and start making excuses
This is old news. IPCC's work is not flawless. You cannot have perfect consensus when so many people are working on the same subject. In a science this broad and complex, you cannot expect perfection. But the vast majority of scientists (and these are the best in the field) working on the subject STRONGLY agree that earth's overall temperature is not only rising, but that this warming is anthropogenic. If you read through the sound scientific studies in articles found in the link that follows, you'll see that the discrediting of IPCC's work is fostered by people who have interests other than learning the truth about climate change. As I've said previously, this is difficult reading about a difficult and complex subject and you cannot rely on conventional media for the truth on this subject. The discrediting of IPCC is old news, dead in the water so-to-speak.
This is old news. IPCC's work is not flawless. You cannot have perfect consensus when so many people are working on the same subject. In a science this broad and complex, you cannot expect perfection. But the vast majority of scientists (and these are the best in the field) working on the subject STRONGLY agree that earth's overall temperature is not only rising, but that this warming is anthropogenic. If you read through the sound scientific studies in articles found in the link that follows, you'll see that the discrediting of IPCC's work is fostered by people who have interests other than learning the truth about climate change. As I've said previously, this is difficult reading about a difficult and complex subject and you cannot rely on conventional media for the truth on this subject. The discrediting of IPCC is old news, dead in the water so-to-speak.
Every study shows a lag between temperature and CO2 (green house gasses) With temperature rising first, then CO2. What is causing the temperature to rise (anthropogenicly) if CO2 is not the cause?
Same with ocean temperatures, with the testing methods how could there be any conclusion made concerning the ocean temperatures (rising)?
no need to be skeptical at all, its "settled" and "complex", ok
Climate Alarmists Backpedal: China Now Responsible for Global Cooling
By Aubrey Vaughan | July 05, 2011 | 16:16
Frustrated climate alarmists, who have failed to match global temperature trends to their dramatic global warming predictions for years, have come up with a counterintuitive study to explain the lack of global warming since 1998: China's excessive burning of coal during its rapid growth had a cooling effect on the earth's temperature.
The new study, based on Fox News global warming skepticism, contradicts much of the anti-coal sentiments held by environmentalists. While it explains that burning coal does emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it also releases heat-reflecting sulfur into the atmosphere, and the two work to cancel each other's effects out.
This study comes after global warming skeptics questioned lead researcher Robert Kaufmann about the lack of global warming over the past decade. As Kaufmann explained to BBC News:
Two years ago, I gave a talk to a general audience in New Jersey about climate change.
And an older gentleman asked me 'why should I believe in this climate change - I was watching Fox News and they said the earth's temperature hasn't changed in 10 years and has actually gone down.'
At that stage I wasn't paying much attention to climate change - I'd returned to working on oil markets - so I went back and checked the data and found that was just about right.
As it turns out, China, which climate alarmists have long blamed as a major and unregulated contributor to global warming, may surprisingly be responsible for keeping the earth at cooler temperatures over the last decade due to its emission of sulfur into the atmosphere.
Because of other indications that sulfur emissions are bad for the environment, though (it is a major contributor to acid rain), environmentalists pressured China to enact regulations to scrub sulfur from coal-fired boilers to prevent its release into the atmosphere. Without the counterweight of sulfur, the unbalanced release of carbon dioxide may indeed have the exact effect environmentalists seek to prevent.
There have been similar periods of global temperature plateaus in the past during times of industrialization. Piers Forster, a climate professor at Leeds University in England, explained the phenomenon to BBC.
The masking of CO2-induced global warming by short term sulfur emissions is well known - it's believed that the flattening off of global mean temperatures in the 1950s was due to European and US coal burning, and just such a mechanism could be operating today from Chinese coal.
Environmentalists like Forster argue that as soon as the sulfur emission masks are removed, warming continues in an upwards direction.
Ironically, just two weeks ago, global warming fear monger Al Gore praised the idea of population control, most famously used in China, as a means to curb pollution. Now it looks like Gore can praise China for a different reason: their coal-powered industrial growth preventing global warming since 1998.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Every study shows a lag between temperature and CO2 (green house gasses) With temperature rising first, then CO2. What is causing the temperature to rise (anthropogenicly) if CO2 is not the cause? Same with ocean temperatures, with the testing methods how could there be any conclusion made concerning the ocean temperatures (rising)?
dude ... every study DOES NOT show that ... only the ones you choose to view ...
here is a simplified website for you to peruse - feel free to contradict any of it ...
absurd???? i dont think so. i want to see that the cycle the earth is going through now hasnt happened before. and that seems reasonable to me.
we are on the same side polaris.. im sure you realise that. i am not ignoring the science, i am questioning it.. and i will continue to question it til someone shows me that what we are currently experiencing isnt a repeated pattern. i do not think that is unreasonable. but until someone does i will continue to live as my conscious dictates by stepping lightly and leaving as minimal footprint as i can.
It doesn't take much effort, cate, to look up the cyclical patterns that are documented to see the earth's pattern over several hundred years. You're not just "questioning science" here, you're blatantly refusing to look at the graphs that prove that the earth moves in temperature cycles and that the last 50 are warmer and not fluid to the rest of the data. National Geographic has released these graphs numerous times. Look it up.
I am not skepitcal at all its "settled" and "complex"
California’s long-term cooling trend cited as evidence FOR global warming
Want to know why global warming alarmists and climate scientists in general have lost credibility with the American public? Consider a new study released today — and the unintentionally hilarious weasel words of its author — as Exhibit A.
As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle today, a meteorologist did a 30-year survey of temperature and precipitation data for most of the largest cities up and down the state of California. Conclusion? In 75% of the sites, the weather has grown colder and rainier than it used to be:
(To see the complete illustration from which this graphic was excerpted, see the SF Chronicle‘s version here.)
Of course, this “inconvenient truth” was not what either the study’s author nor the Chronicle‘s reporter wanted to see, so the spin cycle goes into overdrive right from the headline, which manages to use the word “warmer” first despite there being only two warmer cities in the entire study: “CA climate: inland warmer; coast cooler and wetter.” Uh-huh. But that’s just the aperitif. How does the author, a meteorologist named Jan Null who also happens to be on the global warming bandwagon, explain away the trend he uncovered? Behold:
The data may appear to bolster the arguments of global warming skeptics, but Null said the findings actually fit in with the predictions of scientists who believe the climate is changing as a result of human-caused carbon emissions.
“People say, ‘Wait a minute, what about global warming? Shouldn’t it be warmer?’ ” Null said. “Well, if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas. That certainly does not contradict any of the models about global warming. This is what is to be expected.”
That always say that: Whenever evidence of cooling is found in the data, it somehow magically becomes confirming proof of global warming, because cooling is “expected” in the forecasts. Of course, whenever localized warming trends are found, those too are cited as evidence of global warming.
Which leads me to my Global Warming Spin Axiom:
Hot we win, cold you lose!
What’s most astounding is that Null, who claims to be a world-class expert on California meteorology, uncorked the whopper “if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas,” which as anyone who lives in Northern California knows is complete balderdash. Hot days in the Central Valley are generally caused by high-pressure systems settling over the area, which also cause off-shore (i.e. reverse of normal) winds and higher temperature at the coasts. Incoming low-pressure fronts cause cold temperatures at the coasts and cooling inland. To say that warm temperatures inland somehow induce cold and rain on the coast is wrong in more ways than I can count. And Jan Null knows that, so he must be purposely obfuscating to undermine the conclusions of his own unfortunate study.
One thing I will say in Null’s favor, though: At least he released the stats he uncovered, rather than burying them once he realized that they undermined his favored thesis (as other researchers have done, we now know). But he would have been wiser to just release them and make no further comment, because every time a climatologist cites cooler temperatures as proof of global warming, another angel dies in heaven and another thousand Americans lose faith in the global warming mania.
Posted at 11:12 am on July 6th, 2011 by
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
I'm still wondering if any of you who are global warming deniers have read the articles I linked at realclimate.org?
It would be nice to think the planet is not heating up. It would also be nice to think that there is no war, no poverty, no hate crimes, and no toxicity in our food. Sorry, but wishing these things away just doesn't work.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm still wondering if any of you who are global warming deniers have read the articles I linked at realclimate.org?
It would be nice to think the planet is not heating up. It would also be nice to think that there is no war, no poverty, no hate crimes, and no toxicity in our food. Sorry, but wishing these things away just doesn't work.
A: no ... they only copy and paste from their "trusted" sources ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
I'm still wondering if any of you who are global warming deniers have read the articles I linked at realclimate.org?
It would be nice to think the planet is not heating up. It would also be nice to think that there is no war, no poverty, no hate crimes, and no toxicity in our food. Sorry, but wishing these things away just doesn't work.
A: no ... they only copy and paste from their "trusted" sources ...
Sad but true and though it does seem futile to keep trying, I believe that if I didn't try to encourage people to dig deeper into this and similar subject, my grandchildren would curse my bones for not at least making an attempt to make a difference. So yes, I keep turning up here like a bad penny.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Sad but true and though it does seem futile to keep trying, I believe that if I didn't try to encourage people to dig deeper into this and similar subject, my grandchildren would curse my bones for not at least making an attempt to make a difference. So yes, I keep turning up here like a bad penny.
i've been trying for years to get these folks to just read up on the greenhouse effect ...
If my die-hard Republican father in law can see the light, I believe that everyone has a chance of changing face on learning the effects of climate change. (And I've never met a closed mind as tightly shut as my Father in law) But one has to want to learn. How do we get more people curious?
If my die-hard Republican father in law can see the light, I believe that everyone has a chance of changing face on learning the effects of climate change. (And I've never met a closed mind as tightly shut as my Father in law) But one has to want to learn. How do we get more people curious?
i think it's easier with family members because there is certain amount of respect that supersedes biases ... so, you can tell someone like him that he is out to lunch without offending him personally ... on a message board - it is much more difficult - especially when the discussion has been going on for some time now ... people get locked in ...
i also think that the majority of people that read these posts are fairly objective and the few that continue to post the same things are somewhat indoctrinated by their sources ... also, as mentioned in other threads - the ability to think critically is fast becoming a lost art ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
UCS is comprised of dedicated people who work hard to educate the public about climate change and environmental issues- not for their own personal gain, but for the overall benefit of everything earth.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
If my die-hard Republican father in law can see the light, I believe that everyone has a chance of changing face on learning the effects of climate change. (And I've never met a closed mind as tightly shut as my Father in law) But one has to want to learn. How do we get more people curious?
I'm changing...I believe in climate change more and more...just a little skeptical on the cause...but I now believe more than ever that we do contribute, now I'm more curious about why more is done to reverse it or slow it down. My wife and I both do our part, have energy efficient appliance's, energy efficient light bulbs, don't leave lights on, both of drive fuel efficient cars, only drive when necessary...we do all kinds of things...but why isn't more effort being done?
I also admit that I was dead set in believing in climate change...but If you do the reading and listening of the facts then you'll see that climate change does exist...
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I'm changing...I believe in climate change more and more...just a little skeptical on the cause...but I now believe more than ever that we do contribute, now I'm more curious about why more is done to reverse it or slow it down. My wife and I both do our part, have energy efficient appliance's, energy efficient light bulbs, don't leave lights on, both of drive fuel efficient cars, only drive when necessary...we do all kinds of things...but why isn't more effort being done?
I also admit that I was dead set in believing in climate change...but If you do the reading and listening of the facts then you'll see that climate change does exist...
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
yes ... all it takes is someone to actually care to inform themselves and to think critically ...
as to why more isn't being done ... you can point to the root of all evil ... greed ... when we put our own personal wants above all else - these are the consequences ... global warming is no different than any other global issue ... the rich dictating and exploiting the poor ... it's about the rich taking and taking and the poor suffering more and more ...
if you look at who has and will feel the primary impacts of global warming the most - it will be the poor people of this world ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
Like polaris_X, I too applaud you efforts!
I also often wonder about the bottled water craze. What really gets me is that one of the most popular brands now is Fiji. They market themselves as a "green" company. How sustainable is it to send 500ml water bottles from Fiji to destinations all over the world? This is absurd to and to call this "green" is... well, you know. I think this defines one of the major obsticles to making further progress towards sustainability and reducing effects of global warming- deception in advertising. All I can suggest is to not take the label "green" at face value and when you become aware that something like this is bogus, spread the word.
Meanwhile, kudos lukin2006 for your efforts!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm changing...I believe in climate change more and more...just a little skeptical on the cause...but I now believe more than ever that we do contribute, now I'm more curious about why more is done to reverse it or slow it down. My wife and I both do our part, have energy efficient appliance's, energy efficient light bulbs, don't leave lights on, both of drive fuel efficient cars, only drive when necessary...we do all kinds of things...but why isn't more effort being done?
I also admit that I was dead set in believing in climate change...but If you do the reading and listening of the facts then you'll see that climate change does exist...
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
Look at China and all the companies there from all over the world...they are in China for cheap labor and poor environmental laws...like you said exploiting the poor under the cover where here to improve your lives...
yes ... all it takes is someone to actually care to inform themselves and to think critically ...
as to why more isn't being done ... you can point to the root of all evil ... greed ... when we put our own personal wants above all else - these are the consequences ... global warming is no different than any other global issue ... the rich dictating and exploiting the poor ... it's about the rich taking and taking and the poor suffering more and more ...
if you look at who has and will feel the primary impacts of global warming the most - it will be the poor people of this world ...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
Like polaris_X, I too applaud you efforts!
I also often wonder about the bottled water craze. What really gets me is that one of the most popular brands now is Fiji. They market themselves as a "green" company. How sustainable is it to send 500ml water bottles from Fiji to destinations all over the world? This is absurd to and to call this "green" is... well, you know. I think this defines one of the major obsticles to making further progress towards sustainability and reducing effects of global warming- deception in advertising. All I can suggest is to not take the label "green" at face value and when you become aware that something like this is bogus, spread the word.
Meanwhile, kudos lukin2006 for your efforts!
Thank you...bottle water is just a mystery to me!!!! and I see people leaving the store with case after case... :? :?
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
If my die-hard Republican father in law can see the light, I believe that everyone has a chance of changing face on learning the effects of climate change. (And I've never met a closed mind as tightly shut as my Father in law) But one has to want to learn. How do we get more people curious?
I'm changing...I believe in climate change more and more...just a little skeptical on the cause...but I now believe more than ever that we do contribute, now I'm more curious about why more is done to reverse it or slow it down. My wife and I both do our part, have energy efficient appliance's, energy efficient light bulbs, don't leave lights on, both of drive fuel efficient cars, only drive when necessary...we do all kinds of things...but why isn't more effort being done?
I also admit that I was dead set in believing in climate change...but If you do the reading and listening of the facts then you'll see that climate change does exist...
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
:thumbup: :thumbup: Awesome, lukin! I'm mystified about the bottled water, too. I mean, if we think back before there even was bottled water, what did thirsty people do? They bought iced tea, or Coke. Or just drank it when they saw a water fountain. Where have all those water fountains that were once so numerous go??!! I say bring 'em back, put the (tap) bottled water out of business and focus on conservationism rather than capitalism.
hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.
hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.
Hot weather in the summertime? Inconceivable!
you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it mean.
personally, I'm just tired of reading this everyday: Dangerous heat index. Outdoor exposure should be limited.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
there is drought in many places ... mass flooding has taken the lives of a bunch of people ... it's only gonna get worse ...
I'm observing and taking notes. Per everything I've seen from the climate change people has foreseen this to be the typical weather pattern from now on. I'll check back in a year.
there is drought in many places ... mass flooding has taken the lives of a bunch of people ... it's only gonna get worse ...
I'm observing and taking notes. Per everything I've seen from the climate change people has foreseen this to be the typical weather pattern from now on. I'll check back in a year.
It is a hot mofo today....
foreseen??? so theyre looking into the future to explain the weather today when it goes spazzy. its climate change people! hmmm
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.
Don't worry, the skeptics will be back as soon as fall arrives. What they CHRONICALLY seem to forget (or refuse to acknowledge) is that checking local weather- no matter what it does- is not at all the way to track global climate change/warming. I'm not sure their outdoor thermometers- no matter what they read- will change their mind. The spread of malaria, melting glaciers, shrinking ice caps and rising oceans might change their minds... when it's too late to do anything about it. The price of denial can be a very sad thing.
We've been very lucky here on much of the west coast this year having had (so far) a relativley mild summer. To all the rest of you who are under that nasty blanket of heat (be you a skeptic or otherwise) my thoughts go out to you. I know what it's like to sit in a puddle of sweat with 115 degree temps and humidity. No fun! I hope you're finding a way beat the heat at least a little.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Why do we have to look at the science? Why can we not get on with reversing the trend? Why not spend money on improving things? We don't spend money on trying to prover cancer exists, aids exist? Why still spend money to prove our climate is changing? What's it going to hurt to polluter less, conserve energy, be a little more conscience of the environment? Probably won't hurt at all!!!
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
le sigh .....its a "settled" and "complex" issue....
CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet
The next climate debate bombshell
Share |
(3) Comments | Subscribe | Print friendly | Email Us
- Dennis Avery Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained.
Cosmic rays and solar winds are interesting phenomena—but they are vastly more relevant when an undocumented theory is threatening to quadruple society’s energy costs. The IPCC wants $10 gasoline, and “soaring” electric bills to reduce earth’s temperatures by an amount too tiny to measure with most thermometers.
In 2007, when Fred Singer and I published Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, we weren’t terribly concerned with cosmic rays. We knew the natural, moderate warming/cooling cycle was real, from the evidence in ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. The cycle was the big factor that belied the man-made warming hysteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
When Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger discovered the 1,500 year cycle in the Greenland ice cores in 1984, they knew immediately that it was solar-powered. They’d seen exactly the same cycle in the carbon 14 molecules in trees, and in the beryllium 10 molecules in ice cores. Both sets of molecules are formed when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere. The cycle had produced a whole series of dramatic, abrupt Medieval-Warming-to-Little-Ice-Age climate changes.
The IPCC, for its part, announced that the sun could not be the forcing factor in any major climate change because the solar irradiation was too small. IPCC did not, however, add up the other solar variations that could amplify the solar irradiation. Nor had the IPCC programmed its famed computer models with the knowledge of the Medieval Warming (950–1200 AD), the Roman Warming (200 BC–600 AD), or the big Holocene Warmings centered on 6,000 and 8,000 BC.
The IPCC apparently wanted to dismiss the sun as a climate factor—to leave room for a CO2 factor that has only a 22 percent correlation with our past thermometer record. Correlation is not causation—but the lack of CO2 correlation is deadly to the IPCC theory.
Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute added the next chapter in the climate cycle story, just before our book was published. His cloud chamber experiment showed natural cosmic rays quickly created vast numbers of tiny “cloud seeds” when our mix of atmospheric gases was bombarded with ultra-violet light. Since clouds often cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, a moderate change in cloud cover clearly could explain the warming/cooling cycle.
Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active—and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.
Last year, Denmark’s University of Aarhus did another experiment with a particle accelerator that fully confirmed the Svensmark hypothesis: cosmic rays help to make more clouds and thus could cool the earth.
The CERN experiment is supposed to be the big test of the Svensmark theory. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This is old news. IPCC's work is not flawless. You cannot have perfect consensus when so many people are working on the same subject. In a science this broad and complex, you cannot expect perfection. But the vast majority of scientists (and these are the best in the field) working on the subject STRONGLY agree that earth's overall temperature is not only rising, but that this warming is anthropogenic. If you read through the sound scientific studies in articles found in the link that follows, you'll see that the discrediting of IPCC's work is fostered by people who have interests other than learning the truth about climate change. As I've said previously, this is difficult reading about a difficult and complex subject and you cannot rely on conventional media for the truth on this subject. The discrediting of IPCC is old news, dead in the water so-to-speak.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ence/ipcc/
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Same with ocean temperatures, with the testing methods how could there be any conclusion made concerning the ocean temperatures (rising)?
Climate Alarmists Backpedal: China Now Responsible for Global Cooling
By Aubrey Vaughan | July 05, 2011 | 16:16
Frustrated climate alarmists, who have failed to match global temperature trends to their dramatic global warming predictions for years, have come up with a counterintuitive study to explain the lack of global warming since 1998: China's excessive burning of coal during its rapid growth had a cooling effect on the earth's temperature.
The new study, based on Fox News global warming skepticism, contradicts much of the anti-coal sentiments held by environmentalists. While it explains that burning coal does emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it also releases heat-reflecting sulfur into the atmosphere, and the two work to cancel each other's effects out.
This study comes after global warming skeptics questioned lead researcher Robert Kaufmann about the lack of global warming over the past decade. As Kaufmann explained to BBC News:
Two years ago, I gave a talk to a general audience in New Jersey about climate change.
And an older gentleman asked me 'why should I believe in this climate change - I was watching Fox News and they said the earth's temperature hasn't changed in 10 years and has actually gone down.'
At that stage I wasn't paying much attention to climate change - I'd returned to working on oil markets - so I went back and checked the data and found that was just about right.
As it turns out, China, which climate alarmists have long blamed as a major and unregulated contributor to global warming, may surprisingly be responsible for keeping the earth at cooler temperatures over the last decade due to its emission of sulfur into the atmosphere.
Because of other indications that sulfur emissions are bad for the environment, though (it is a major contributor to acid rain), environmentalists pressured China to enact regulations to scrub sulfur from coal-fired boilers to prevent its release into the atmosphere. Without the counterweight of sulfur, the unbalanced release of carbon dioxide may indeed have the exact effect environmentalists seek to prevent.
There have been similar periods of global temperature plateaus in the past during times of industrialization. Piers Forster, a climate professor at Leeds University in England, explained the phenomenon to BBC.
The masking of CO2-induced global warming by short term sulfur emissions is well known - it's believed that the flattening off of global mean temperatures in the 1950s was due to European and US coal burning, and just such a mechanism could be operating today from Chinese coal.
Environmentalists like Forster argue that as soon as the sulfur emission masks are removed, warming continues in an upwards direction.
Ironically, just two weeks ago, global warming fear monger Al Gore praised the idea of population control, most famously used in China, as a means to curb pollution. Now it looks like Gore can praise China for a different reason: their coal-powered industrial growth preventing global warming since 1998.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/aubrey-vau ... z1RLCKA1Ho
— Socrates
dude ... every study DOES NOT show that ... only the ones you choose to view ...
here is a simplified website for you to peruse - feel free to contradict any of it ...
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/ ... /index.jsp
It doesn't take much effort, cate, to look up the cyclical patterns that are documented to see the earth's pattern over several hundred years. You're not just "questioning science" here, you're blatantly refusing to look at the graphs that prove that the earth moves in temperature cycles and that the last 50 are warmer and not fluid to the rest of the data. National Geographic has released these graphs numerous times. Look it up.
California’s long-term cooling trend cited as evidence FOR global warming
Want to know why global warming alarmists and climate scientists in general have lost credibility with the American public? Consider a new study released today — and the unintentionally hilarious weasel words of its author — as Exhibit A.
As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle today, a meteorologist did a 30-year survey of temperature and precipitation data for most of the largest cities up and down the state of California. Conclusion? In 75% of the sites, the weather has grown colder and rainier than it used to be:
(To see the complete illustration from which this graphic was excerpted, see the SF Chronicle‘s version here.)
Of course, this “inconvenient truth” was not what either the study’s author nor the Chronicle‘s reporter wanted to see, so the spin cycle goes into overdrive right from the headline, which manages to use the word “warmer” first despite there being only two warmer cities in the entire study: “CA climate: inland warmer; coast cooler and wetter.” Uh-huh. But that’s just the aperitif. How does the author, a meteorologist named Jan Null who also happens to be on the global warming bandwagon, explain away the trend he uncovered? Behold:
The data may appear to bolster the arguments of global warming skeptics, but Null said the findings actually fit in with the predictions of scientists who believe the climate is changing as a result of human-caused carbon emissions.
“People say, ‘Wait a minute, what about global warming? Shouldn’t it be warmer?’ ” Null said. “Well, if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas. That certainly does not contradict any of the models about global warming. This is what is to be expected.”
That always say that: Whenever evidence of cooling is found in the data, it somehow magically becomes confirming proof of global warming, because cooling is “expected” in the forecasts. Of course, whenever localized warming trends are found, those too are cited as evidence of global warming.
Which leads me to my Global Warming Spin Axiom:
Hot we win, cold you lose!
What’s most astounding is that Null, who claims to be a world-class expert on California meteorology, uncorked the whopper “if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas,” which as anyone who lives in Northern California knows is complete balderdash. Hot days in the Central Valley are generally caused by high-pressure systems settling over the area, which also cause off-shore (i.e. reverse of normal) winds and higher temperature at the coasts. Incoming low-pressure fronts cause cold temperatures at the coasts and cooling inland. To say that warm temperatures inland somehow induce cold and rain on the coast is wrong in more ways than I can count. And Jan Null knows that, so he must be purposely obfuscating to undermine the conclusions of his own unfortunate study.
One thing I will say in Null’s favor, though: At least he released the stats he uncovered, rather than burying them once he realized that they undermined his favored thesis (as other researchers have done, we now know). But he would have been wiser to just release them and make no further comment, because every time a climatologist cites cooler temperatures as proof of global warming, another angel dies in heaven and another thousand Americans lose faith in the global warming mania.
Posted at 11:12 am on July 6th, 2011 by
— Socrates
It would be nice to think the planet is not heating up. It would also be nice to think that there is no war, no poverty, no hate crimes, and no toxicity in our food. Sorry, but wishing these things away just doesn't work.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
A: no ... they only copy and paste from their "trusted" sources ...
Sad but true and though it does seem futile to keep trying, I believe that if I didn't try to encourage people to dig deeper into this and similar subject, my grandchildren would curse my bones for not at least making an attempt to make a difference. So yes, I keep turning up here like a bad penny.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
i've been trying for years to get these folks to just read up on the greenhouse effect ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
but to no avail ... :(
i think it's easier with family members because there is certain amount of respect that supersedes biases ... so, you can tell someone like him that he is out to lunch without offending him personally ... on a message board - it is much more difficult - especially when the discussion has been going on for some time now ... people get locked in ...
i also think that the majority of people that read these posts are fairly objective and the few that continue to post the same things are somewhat indoctrinated by their sources ... also, as mentioned in other threads - the ability to think critically is fast becoming a lost art ...
http://www.ucsusa.org/
UCS is comprised of dedicated people who work hard to educate the public about climate change and environmental issues- not for their own personal gain, but for the overall benefit of everything earth.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm changing...I believe in climate change more and more...just a little skeptical on the cause...but I now believe more than ever that we do contribute, now I'm more curious about why more is done to reverse it or slow it down. My wife and I both do our part, have energy efficient appliance's, energy efficient light bulbs, don't leave lights on, both of drive fuel efficient cars, only drive when necessary...we do all kinds of things...but why isn't more effort being done?
I also admit that I was dead set in believing in climate change...but If you do the reading and listening of the facts then you'll see that climate change does exist...
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
yes ... all it takes is someone to actually care to inform themselves and to think critically ...
as to why more isn't being done ... you can point to the root of all evil ... greed ... when we put our own personal wants above all else - these are the consequences ... global warming is no different than any other global issue ... the rich dictating and exploiting the poor ... it's about the rich taking and taking and the poor suffering more and more ...
if you look at who has and will feel the primary impacts of global warming the most - it will be the poor people of this world ...
Like polaris_X, I too applaud you efforts!
I also often wonder about the bottled water craze. What really gets me is that one of the most popular brands now is Fiji. They market themselves as a "green" company. How sustainable is it to send 500ml water bottles from Fiji to destinations all over the world? This is absurd to and to call this "green" is... well, you know. I think this defines one of the major obsticles to making further progress towards sustainability and reducing effects of global warming- deception in advertising. All I can suggest is to not take the label "green" at face value and when you become aware that something like this is bogus, spread the word.
Meanwhile, kudos lukin2006 for your efforts!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Thank you...bottle water is just a mystery to me!!!! and I see people leaving the store with case after case... :? :?
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
:thumbup: :thumbup: Awesome, lukin! I'm mystified about the bottled water, too. I mean, if we think back before there even was bottled water, what did thirsty people do? They bought iced tea, or Coke. Or just drank it when they saw a water fountain. Where have all those water fountains that were once so numerous go??!! I say bring 'em back, put the (tap) bottled water out of business and focus on conservationism rather than capitalism.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it mean.
personally, I'm just tired of reading this everyday:
Dangerous heat index. Outdoor exposure should be limited.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
It is a hot mofo today....
foreseen??? so theyre looking into the future to explain the weather today when it goes spazzy. its climate change people! hmmm
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Don't worry, the skeptics will be back as soon as fall arrives. What they CHRONICALLY seem to forget (or refuse to acknowledge) is that checking local weather- no matter what it does- is not at all the way to track global climate change/warming. I'm not sure their outdoor thermometers- no matter what they read- will change their mind. The spread of malaria, melting glaciers, shrinking ice caps and rising oceans might change their minds... when it's too late to do anything about it. The price of denial can be a very sad thing.
We've been very lucky here on much of the west coast this year having had (so far) a relativley mild summer. To all the rest of you who are under that nasty blanket of heat (be you a skeptic or otherwise) my thoughts go out to you. I know what it's like to sit in a puddle of sweat with 115 degree temps and humidity. No fun! I hope you're finding a way beat the heat at least a little.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
let me know when you have decided to study the science and you have something to dispute it ...
otherwise i get it ... earth 4.5 billion years old ... not enough time ... :(
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet
The next climate debate bombshell
Share |
(3) Comments | Subscribe | Print friendly | Email Us
- Dennis Avery Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained.
Cosmic rays and solar winds are interesting phenomena—but they are vastly more relevant when an undocumented theory is threatening to quadruple society’s energy costs. The IPCC wants $10 gasoline, and “soaring” electric bills to reduce earth’s temperatures by an amount too tiny to measure with most thermometers.
In 2007, when Fred Singer and I published Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, we weren’t terribly concerned with cosmic rays. We knew the natural, moderate warming/cooling cycle was real, from the evidence in ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. The cycle was the big factor that belied the man-made warming hysteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
When Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger discovered the 1,500 year cycle in the Greenland ice cores in 1984, they knew immediately that it was solar-powered. They’d seen exactly the same cycle in the carbon 14 molecules in trees, and in the beryllium 10 molecules in ice cores. Both sets of molecules are formed when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere. The cycle had produced a whole series of dramatic, abrupt Medieval-Warming-to-Little-Ice-Age climate changes.
The IPCC, for its part, announced that the sun could not be the forcing factor in any major climate change because the solar irradiation was too small. IPCC did not, however, add up the other solar variations that could amplify the solar irradiation. Nor had the IPCC programmed its famed computer models with the knowledge of the Medieval Warming (950–1200 AD), the Roman Warming (200 BC–600 AD), or the big Holocene Warmings centered on 6,000 and 8,000 BC.
The IPCC apparently wanted to dismiss the sun as a climate factor—to leave room for a CO2 factor that has only a 22 percent correlation with our past thermometer record. Correlation is not causation—but the lack of CO2 correlation is deadly to the IPCC theory.
Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute added the next chapter in the climate cycle story, just before our book was published. His cloud chamber experiment showed natural cosmic rays quickly created vast numbers of tiny “cloud seeds” when our mix of atmospheric gases was bombarded with ultra-violet light. Since clouds often cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, a moderate change in cloud cover clearly could explain the warming/cooling cycle.
Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active—and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.
Last year, Denmark’s University of Aarhus did another experiment with a particle accelerator that fully confirmed the Svensmark hypothesis: cosmic rays help to make more clouds and thus could cool the earth.
The CERN experiment is supposed to be the big test of the Svensmark theory. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.
Stay tuned.
also interesting:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260 ... e-sceptics
— Socrates