12 month long drop in temps wipe out a century of warming
Flutter Girl
Posts: 548
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Also, there was an update posted with this article: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the month of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program.
Here is an article related to the one above-
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm
some more figures-
Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.
Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.
Figure 5: U.S. surface temperature from Figure 4 as compared with total solar irradiance (19) from Figure 3.
Between 1900 and 2000, on absolute scales of solar irradiance and degrees Kelvin, solar activity increased 0.19%, while a 0.5 °C temperature change is 0.21%. This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth's temperature would be reduced by 0.6 °C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2% (18).
Figure 7: Annual precipitation in the contiguous 48 United States between 1895 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review (20). The trend shows an increase in rainfall of 1.8 inches per century – approximately 6% per century.
During the current period of recovery from the Little Ice Age, the U.S. climate has improved somewhat, with more rainfall, fewer tornados, and no increase in hurricane activity, as illustrated in Figures 7 to 10. Sea level has trended upward for the past 150 years at a rate of 7 inches per century, with 3 intermediate uptrends and 2 periods of no increase as shown in Figure 11. These features are confirmed by the glacier record as shown in Figure 12. If this trend continues as did that prior to the Medieval Climate Optimum, sea level would be expected to rise about 1 foot during the next 200 years.
As shown in Figures 2, 11, and 12, the trends in glacier shortening and sea level rise began a century before the 60-year 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use, and have not changed during that increase. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused these trends.
Figure 8: Annual number of strong-to-violent category F3 to F5 tornados during the March-to-August tornado season in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review (20). During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold, while violent tornado frequency decreased by 43%.
Figure 9: Annual number of Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall between 1900 and 2006 (21). Line is drawn at mean value.
Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical evidence of such an amplification.
Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate – shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so.
There is, however, one very dangerous possibility.
Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.
Figure 10: Annual number of violent hurricanes and maximum attained wind speed during those hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean between 1944 and 2006 (22,23). There is no upward trend in either of these records. During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold. Lines are mean values.
Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient to meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Also, there was an update posted with this article: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the month of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program.
Here is an article related to the one above-
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm
some more figures-
Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.
Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.
Figure 5: U.S. surface temperature from Figure 4 as compared with total solar irradiance (19) from Figure 3.
Between 1900 and 2000, on absolute scales of solar irradiance and degrees Kelvin, solar activity increased 0.19%, while a 0.5 °C temperature change is 0.21%. This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth's temperature would be reduced by 0.6 °C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2% (18).
Figure 7: Annual precipitation in the contiguous 48 United States between 1895 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review (20). The trend shows an increase in rainfall of 1.8 inches per century – approximately 6% per century.
During the current period of recovery from the Little Ice Age, the U.S. climate has improved somewhat, with more rainfall, fewer tornados, and no increase in hurricane activity, as illustrated in Figures 7 to 10. Sea level has trended upward for the past 150 years at a rate of 7 inches per century, with 3 intermediate uptrends and 2 periods of no increase as shown in Figure 11. These features are confirmed by the glacier record as shown in Figure 12. If this trend continues as did that prior to the Medieval Climate Optimum, sea level would be expected to rise about 1 foot during the next 200 years.
As shown in Figures 2, 11, and 12, the trends in glacier shortening and sea level rise began a century before the 60-year 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use, and have not changed during that increase. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused these trends.
Figure 8: Annual number of strong-to-violent category F3 to F5 tornados during the March-to-August tornado season in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review (20). During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold, while violent tornado frequency decreased by 43%.
Figure 9: Annual number of Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall between 1900 and 2006 (21). Line is drawn at mean value.
Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical evidence of such an amplification.
Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate – shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so.
There is, however, one very dangerous possibility.
Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.
Figure 10: Annual number of violent hurricanes and maximum attained wind speed during those hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean between 1944 and 2006 (22,23). There is no upward trend in either of these records. During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold. Lines are mean values.
Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient to meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I really hate cherry pickers...you do realise how idiotic you come off to anyone who actually bothers to read it, don't you?
I've said before climate change is real. It's been real since the day the earth began to spin. Oh but I suppose we are somehow resposible for all the climate changing before the dawn of man as well, aren't we... :roll:
I posted a link to the site with all these charts on them (my favorite is the solar activity\artic temperature\hydrocarbon chart) sometime early last year and was met with equally "enthusiastic" responses.
Brace yourself.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I don't get the one you are talking about..figure 2 right? None of the ones with that chart. My brain can't function right now, maybe I need to go back and have another look when I'm feeling better LoL..
Right now my fave is deffo the latest chart with the dramatic drop LoL priceless.
I love that it's now "global climate change" instead of "global warming." This is simply done to cover one's ass:
"Hey it's getting warmer! It's global warming!"
or "Hey it's getting colder! It could still be global warming!"
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
www.seanbrady.net
Al gore has made himself a pretty penny with all his Global scare tactics. Remeber the Plant has a fever in his Mr. Rogers voice. That guy is such a fraud. This is also a billion dollar business for the Major corporations. I think in 1972 or 74 time mag had a cover forcasting the coming ice age. Hey in summer time it gets hot deal with it.
Figure 3.
Artic Temp on left side. Time on bottom. Hydrocarbons on right side.
Graph of hydrocarbons on the bottom. and Graph of Solar Radiation AND ARtic Temp on the Top.
That one looks pretty "conclusive" to me. The temperature is correlating with the sun, not the linear hydrocarbon ramp.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
ah yea..no I got that one...it's figure 2 that confused me-
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide2.png
The temperatures worldwide are expected to drop this year because of the La Nina current in the Pacific Ocean. This has prompted some scientists to question the existence of global warming.
Weather experts say that La Nina current will last into the summer – meaning world temperatures will not have risen since 1998. A small group of scientists argue that since the temperature of earth has not risen since 1998 it means that the world has grown resilient to the greenhouse gases contrary to what was predicted.
But the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record and forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
Over the last century the world’s average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the WMO, said: “When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year.
“You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
“La Nina is part of what we call ‘variability’. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina.”
Scientist Adam Scaife, of the Hadley Centre in Exeter, says, “What’s happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended.”
Scientists have found the reason for a sharp cooling in observed global sea temperatures at the end of the Second World War which had previously mystified students of climate change.
By using a new technique to remove temporary fluctuations they identified a number of sudden drops in global temperature, most of which coincided with major volcanic eruptions.
But the largest drop, occurring towards the end of 1945, was unrelated to any known eruption. Unlike the others, it was only apparent over the sea.
Researchers have now concluded that this drop is largely artificial.
It arises from the different methods used to measure sea-surface temperature on ships by the United States and Britain.
During the later part of the war, most of the available observations are from US ships, according to the joint study by scientists from Colorado State University, Washington University, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
A sudden increase in the frequency of observations from British ships in 1945 caused the apparent temperature drop. The initial drop is large, but it is temporary, according to the paper published in the journal Nature this week.
Scientists looked into the possible reason for the differences and found that British ships were measuring water temperature in special buckets, hauled up over the side, while the US ships were measuring temperature as the water was drawn in to cool the engines. The British method meant the water was cooled slightly by the wind before the temperature was measured.
The "drop" in global temperature caused by the differences in methods of recording added up to an apparent global average temperature difference of 0.3ºC.
By the 1960s the observing fleet was more varied and the differences between methods - which need to be corrected in climate models - are smaller.
David Thompson of Colorado State University, one of the authors, said: "I was surprised to see the drop so clearly in the filtered data, and working in partnership with others realised that it couldn't be natural."
Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia said: "The study highlights how climate records need to be pieced together from measurements that were not designed to measure long-term trends and that the corrections required are an ongoing effort. It is just as vital to know how the measurements were taken as the values themselves."
John Kennedy of the Met Office's Hadley Centre said the latest finding would spur new research looking at automated ocean buoys which were also likely to have discrepancies.
The researchers say that the research gives further confirmation of the upwards trend in global temperatures over the past 150 years but the curve of variations has been smoothed out.
In anycase, it was worthless to post as the data I posted showing the dramatic drop was from Jan2007-Jan2008. Not this year. :roll:
Tho temps do continue to drop.
The second post was about data from ages ago. It has nothing to do with now. Another pointless post in a desperate failed attempt to "prove" the alarmist propoganda you are so fond of.
You can call it propaganda all you want. The graph you posted shows a major spike in temperatures around Jan 07 and then the temperatures fall (remaining above average) till after half way through the year. Then there is a major drop till Jan 08. This drop is referred to as "For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down." <---- Yes cause that sounds very normal in itself.
The article is saying wait till this phase is gone and temperatures are recorded for the year 2009 and if its still at the levels of 2008 then fine I will say I'm wrong but they are expecting a dramatic rise once again after El nina is gone.
As for the second article, obviously you did not understand it. After the recalculation of the old data to include the wrong measuring techniques during 1945.. "the curve of variations has been smoothed out" meaning your curves have been fixed.
Major spike my ass. Jan.2007 started near the top of that spike.
Which curves..I posted 8 graphs. Regardless, neither side accounts for corrupted data in the 90's, and none of what you posted changes how drastic the temp drop was between 2007-2008.
Go look at your own graph again.
Wrong. The Nature article I posted in the other thread accounts for this in their model. As I stated before and I will state again scientists have given you a reason for that drop, not to mention your own article's words saying "its the biggest temperature change they've ever recorded".
That Nature article is crap. That nature article shows a possibility from a made up scenario. You are relying heavily on something that is not worth the time of day, and you and your fellow alarmist buddy on here are the only 2 who buy into it. Everyone else is showing they don't buy the bullshit.
if your hands are too cold to type in Miami that should at least give you pause.
maybe we're the ones fucking it up? maybe...
You have nothing to add to this conversation except accusations now. Go tell any scientist that Nature publishes crap and see the look on their face. Look at the quote below and understand that you have read the article wrong.
Eric J. Steig is the lead author of a paper to be published today in the journal Nature. The team of US scientists base their scientific work on combined data from land stations with satellite readings. "We have at least 25 years of data from satellites, and satellites have the huge advantage that they can see the whole continent. But the [land] stations have the advantage that they go back much further in time. So we combined the two and what we found, in a nutshell, is that there is warming across the whole continent, it's stronger in winter and spring, but it is there in all seasons," said Eric Steig according to the BBC.
..actually she has used so few words hahaha
What we've learned in 2008
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901 ... 8.142.html
Check out number (4)
As we say goodbye to 2008 and look forward to 2009, we already have received the less-than-satisfying news that researchers think that 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. So, you know, buy more tank tops.
British Reuters (which is just like our Reuters but far more polite) reports that 2009 will most likely be the warmest year since 2005, even though global climate patterns suggest temperatures should be going the other way.
"The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina."
The article doesn’t say exactly how warm researchers expect the earth to be, but let’s see if we can’t figure it out from some quotes in the text, but it looks to be somewhere around 14.4 degrees Celsius, while the long-term average is 14 degrees Celsius. To put that into American numbers (what?), the long-term average is 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit, while 2009’s global temperature will be around 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, that may not seem like a huge jump, but I’m pretty sure it means we’re heading in the wrong direction.
You 2 are just hell-bent on it being our fault, aren't you? Puny little us. Again, explain all the erratic weather that occured before our arrival. All current data shows our weather changes are correlated with sun storms, not GHG's. We pollute. That would not cause warming. Quite the opposite. Pollution like smog blocks out the sun, making it cooler.
Ah how nice it would be if we could predict the weather that far into the future in a time when meteorologists often can't even get right what the weather will be like a week from now.
And #4 doesn't explain how if it is the warmest now than any point in recent history, then how come the vikings could grow grass in Greenland, but it's too icy to do that today? The data doesn't jive with historical facts.
Sorry I'm going to have to take the word of the leading scientists in the study, the reviewers of the article and the Journal editors who accepted the article over your word, a person who hasn't even studied the field.
I am not hell bent on anything. We have both stated several times our willingness to discuss things, yet it is you who continues to label us as some kind of extremists. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a possibility YOU and your sceptic buddies can be wrong.
Of the other 5, 2 have nothing to do with temps, they show rain and hurricane data.
Of the other 3, one has no focus on that period of time, it's purpose is to highlight the temps prior to industrialisation, and specifically during the medieval and little ice age periods, during all of which, modern measuring instruments did not exist, it's measured by historical data and ice core samples.
And the last 2 are actually essentially just one, 2 almost identical graphs..And in both of them the temps measured during the 30's and 40's is not really relevant to what is being highlighted. In fact the new data being brought to light by what is in your article means that with the corrections, the temps actually correlate more precisely with solar activity than previously thought. Thank you for pointing that out
Now take a look at #5 on the page you linked to. I now find it extremely difficult to take that page seriously. Politicians are not scientists so who cares what they "admitted."
Near universal consensus is a sham initiated by Gore. Just ask Doctors Iain Murray, Richard Lindzen, Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson, Willie soon, Marlo Lewis (who identified 50 clear lies in Gore's film), Paul Driessen, Ron Bailey, Aaron Wildavsky, Petr Chylek, William Gray, Joel schwartz, Mike Hulme, R.J.smith, Christopher Horner, Henrik svensmark, Dennis Bray, Robert Giegengack, Bob Carter, William Happer, Michael Gough, Bjorn Lomborg, Owen Mcshane, Max Mayfield, Freeman Dyson(who would also readily tell you what crap GCM's are, actually so would Murray, Lindzen, Lewis, and Horner, for certain, but no doubt, the other's would too..), Lubos Motl, Igor Polyakov, syun-Ichi Akasofu, and 7 of their colleagues from the IARC (who prefer not to be named) Robert Balling, Kerry Emanuel, Richard Anthes, Judith Curry, James Elsner, Greg Holland, Phil Klotzbach, Tom Knutson, Chris Landsea, Peter Webster, Roger Pielke Jr., P.J.Polissar, G.Kaser, Jack Hollander, Martin Hoffert, Peter Doran, Gerd Wendler, Patrick Michaels..
That's 53 out of 80 climate scientists in America...thus far..I intend to contact the other 27 to know where they stand as well. Only one of the 80 actually signed the 'consensus' that was passed around. One.
I also intend to find out exactly how many climate scientists there are in the world. Though I know there are less than 1000.
The 'near universal consensus' boasts 2600 signatures. 60% of them are from folk who are not even scientists. And all but one of the rest belong to scientists who have not studied in the field of climate science, and therefore have no authority on the subject.
Roger Revelle and s.Fred singer must be mentioned as Revelle was Gore's hero who guided him towards the light that is gw. Except he didn't. The opposite in fact. And after Revelle came out and said as much he went from hero to drooling old fool unfit to comment on the issues, despite his having remained active in the feild till his death. And singer needs noting cos he went out there with Revelle, as his colleague (you can find the 1991 article from them in the very first Cosmos journal..).
Documents show, on Gore's orders, his aides and associates slandered singer into oblivion. And much later it was shown that Revelle, had published a paper that concluded there was no evidence that GHG's cause warming.
What did Gore go by?
"A survey of more than 928 [meaning 929 :roll:] scientific papers in respected journals shows 100% agreement."
Actually that represents less than one-tenth of the relevant scientific literature on the topic. Furthermore, the cherry-picked articles are in no way unanimous on the issue at hand.
The relevant scientific literature amounts to over 11,000 articles. Making #5 an out right lie. It only takes one to bring into question the honesty behind the rest.
Oh yea, and Nature magazine began losing credibility with legitimate climate scientists after publishing that the hockey stick model was correct, despite it not having gone up for peer review again before being published. Peer reviews are what kept it from getting published in other journals like Journal of Geophysical Research, and International Journal of Climatology.
Why has it been rejected elsewhere? Cos Mann refused to show all his "research."
After complaints started filing in from other climate scientists due to his erasing the medieval warming period and little ice age from his "data" making his graph look like we previously had a fairly stable climate before the heat hit, the National Academy of sciences launched an investigation. The panel inescapably indicted the Hockey stick, the UN IPCC, and the Mann team itself. The panel specifically accused the IPCC of misrepresentation, and specifically accused the Mann team of downplaying historical uncertainties.
It was after this report was published that Nature published the hockey stick as "accurate" and even headlined the article as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph," An outright lie.
still want to call them respectable?