PDA

View Full Version : Ignoring Science



Slow
07-25-2009, 04:26 PM
"The true believers will not be moved by the peer-reviewed findings of Chris de Freitas, John McLean and Bob Carter, scientists at universities in Australia and New Zealand.

Warming advocates have too much invested in perpetuating the myth. (And are probably having too much fun calling those who don't agree with them "deniers" and likening skeptics to fascists.)

But these scientists have made an important contribution to the debate that Gore says doesn't exist.

Their research, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, indicates that nature, not man, has been the dominant force in climate change in the late 20th century.

"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Nino conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Nina conditions less likely" says co-author de Freitas.

"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis."

These findings are largely being ignored by the mainstream media. They simply don't fit the worn narrative that man is dangerously warming the Earth through his carbon dioxide emissions and a radical alteration of Western lifestyles mandated by government policy is desperately needed.

They will be ignored, as well, by the Democratic machine that is trying to ram an economy-smothering carbon cap-and-trade regime through Congress.

Despite efforts to keep the global warming scare alive, the growing evidence that humans aren't heating the planet is piercing the public consciousness and alarmists are becoming marginalized.

Sharp Americans are starting to understand H.L. Mencken's observation that "The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it." That pretty much sums up the modern environmentalist movement."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333327577562530

Blunt
07-25-2009, 04:55 PM
"Sharp Americans are starting to understand H.L. Mencken's observation that "The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it." That pretty much sums up the modern environmentalist movement." "

Hmmmm, very interesting! I agree!

Now, what other institutions are trying to rule humanity under the pretense of trying to save it? ;)

Slow
07-25-2009, 05:01 PM
"Sharp Americans are starting to understand H.L. Mencken's observation that "The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it." That pretty much sums up the modern environmentalist movement." "

Hmmmm, very interesting! I agree!

Now, what other institutions are trying to rule humanity under the pretense of trying to save it? ;)

Not sure.

I know Christianity is interested in each individual, so it certainly would not fit in this case.

Jack Butler
07-25-2009, 06:23 PM
Wow, what a waste of space!
Another GW thread, talk about obsessed......yawns!

Slow
07-25-2009, 10:56 PM
Are you upset you bought into a lie, Jack?

Jack Butler
07-26-2009, 08:46 AM
No, I just wonder how to get this time back.
You are, "The Fly"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slow
07-26-2009, 12:32 PM
"‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in [crap], collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’"

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/part_3/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Jack Butler
07-26-2009, 12:52 PM
Ya....whatever!

Slow
07-26-2009, 05:28 PM
"1,044 daily record low temperatures have been broken this month nationwide according to NCDC --

The period of July 17-20 was the worst, with over 1,600 stations breaking records. It's worth noting that these stats include all records across the nation"

http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=weathermatrix&partner=&pgUrl=/mtweb/content/weathermatrix/archives/2009/07/1000_low_temp_records_set_this_july.asp

Hans
07-26-2009, 05:53 PM
I will solve the mystery of the "cool summer" for you. Here it goes :

- Global warming is the warming up of the surface of the earth, including the air and ocean.
- Science magazine reported that the temperature of the air is not increasing as much as
the temperature of the ocean water.
- Warmer oceans generate more clouds which deflect the sunshine away from the Earth
and produce cloudy, cool and rainy weather.

http://www.kernel.uky.edu/2000/text/0330/06a_news.shtml

See how easy it is once you understand the definitions of global warming, weather and climate?

Slow
07-26-2009, 06:43 PM
LOL!!!!

There are six people left in the world who believe this man-made Global Warming garbage...and one of them is here, on Soonet!! :)

Slow
07-26-2009, 06:44 PM
I will solve the mystery of the "cool summer" for you. Here it goes :

- Global warming is the warming up of the surface of the earth, including the air and ocean.
- Science magazine reported that the temperature of the air is not increasing as much as
the temperature of the ocean water.
- Warmer oceans generate more clouds which deflect the sunshine away from the Earth
and produce cloudy, cool and rainy weather.

http://www.kernel.uky.edu/2000/text/0330/06a_news.shtml

See how easy it is once you understand the definitions of global warming, weather and climate?

Why wasn't this 'obvious' fact ever talked about until now? Seems to me if all those smart people knew what would occur, they would have given us a 'heads up'

Slow
07-26-2009, 06:55 PM
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).

It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative -- strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity.

According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

Slow
07-26-2009, 06:56 PM
...Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980's, global cooling in the 1970's, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

References:

Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.

Douglass,D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.

Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.

Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.

Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-1722.

Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.

Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288

Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.



Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

KDawg
07-26-2009, 06:58 PM
I love this.

Global warming causes warming of the earth's temperatures.
Global warming causes the cooling earth's temperatures.

These "facts" are presented with a straight face.

Morons.

Slow
07-26-2009, 07:01 PM
Global warming causes warming of the earth's temperatures.
Global warming causes the cooling earth's temperatures.



They cover all bases, hoping to negate any discussion or criticism.

It really is indicative of how panicked they have become. If they were to truly, truly stand back and read some of the stuff they post, they would no doubt shake their heads in shame. Many already have. But the most hard-headed among them (and we have one or two here) will not admit they were so fundamentally wrong on this issue. Because let's face it, if they bought this lie, they'll buy just about any lie.

Jack Butler
07-26-2009, 08:53 PM
That's quit an obsession.
You obsess over a lot of things!
.....you're preaching to the choir.

Hans
07-26-2009, 11:04 PM
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html

dancingqueen
07-27-2009, 02:49 AM
I love this.

Global warming causes warming of the earth's temperatures.
Global warming causes the cooling earth's temperatures.

These "facts" are presented with a straight face.

Morons.

I love how you put that... lol
but really, there is an excuse, and a reason for everything... you can make stats say just about anything you want them to say, just word everything the right way. In fact, I'm certain they pay people to do just that.

NewCasa
07-27-2009, 03:04 AM
LOL!!!!

There are six people left in the world who believe this man-made Global Warming garbage...and one of them is here, on Soonet!! :)

Make that at least 2. What Hans described is otherwise known as 'the greenhouse effect' and has been known as that for several years. The result is that the polar ice caps shrink and, closer to home, glaciers melt at higher rates. An example of this is the glacier that feeds the Bow River in Alberta, which is melting at a much higher rate than in previous years.

Slow
07-27-2009, 12:27 PM
1. It's cyclical.

2. There is no evidence man is speeding up the process.

Hans
07-27-2009, 12:38 PM
What is this process you refer to, and how does it work?

NewCasa
07-27-2009, 12:43 PM
Before you attack this article I will admit it is non-conclusive, however I found it quite interesting and maybe you will too:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/the-science-of-ozone.html

Slow
07-27-2009, 12:45 PM
What is this process you refer to, and how does it work?

The earth warms and cools periodically.

Hans
07-27-2009, 01:44 PM
Exactly how does it do this?

riggs
07-27-2009, 02:14 PM
1. It's cyclical.

2. There is no evidence man is speeding up the process.


It's true the evidence can be disputed,distorted and manipulated no matter what side of the fence you're on.I also believe the "Carbon Tax" was just another revenue grab.But in the end, no matter what umbrella they put CO emissions under, we've decided it's better to argue the point rather moving in a direction to change what we have control over.No one will argue that making these changes will have a notable and positive effect.

The arguement is moot as it remains academic.....therefore we all lose.

Konig-OV
07-27-2009, 03:54 PM
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

I love this statistical data. It argues it's own points. Look at the graphs, then back and read. That graphs show that we are just in a warming period of a natural cycle, then they go on to explain that it's man-made. If you were to look at the data over millions of years, we are in a natural cycle. This does not dismiss the man-made factors, but man is not the cause of a million year warming-cooling cycle.

Man compares everything to the last 150 years. Sure this is a drastic change for 150 years, or even 20 years. On a broad scale, when the earth is a million times older than 150 years, we are in a natural cycle.

Jack Butler
07-27-2009, 04:05 PM
It's true the evidence can be disputed,distorted and manipulated no matter what side of the fence you're on.I also believe the "Carbon Tax" was just another revenue grab.But in the end, no matter what umbrella they put CO emissions under, we've decided it's better to argue the point rather moving in a direction to change what we have control over.No one will argue that making these changes will have a notable and positive effect.

The arguement is moot as it remains academic.....therefore we all lose.

Ha, Ha, Ha......now you're talking!

Konig-OV
07-27-2009, 05:03 PM
By positive and notable effect, do you mean that we can reverse the effects of global warming, or reverse the effects of a natural cycle that happens? Or do you simply mean we won't make it any worse?

Hans
07-27-2009, 05:28 PM
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

I love this statistical data. It argues it's own points. Look at the graphs, then back and read. That graphs show that we are just in a warming period of a natural cycle, then they go on to explain that it's man-made. If you were to look at the data over millions of years, we are in a natural cycle. This does not dismiss the man-made factors, but man is not the cause of a million year warming-cooling cycle.

Man compares everything to the last 150 years. Sure this is a drastic change for 150 years, or even 20 years. On a broad scale, when the earth is a million times older than 150 years, we are in a natural cycle.

How was the data collected for the millions of years period you speak about?

Konig-OV
07-28-2009, 11:20 AM
How was the data collected for the millions of years period you speak about?

It explains it in the article you obviously didn't read. They take oxygen samples, bacteria, and whatever evidence they can find. Much like coring a tree to count the rings to see how old it is.

Hans
07-28-2009, 12:36 PM
So it's not actual measurements like we have done over the past 50 years or so, but a scientific approach?

Konig-OV
07-28-2009, 02:05 PM
When you have a piece of property, like earth. You can't accurately measure temperature changes when you are dealing with millions of years. To say we have a huge jump in temperature in the last 50 years, without knowing what has happened last 50 million years, you will not know if this is normal or not. Like I said before, i'm not dismissing man-made problems, but I am dis-missing that man is the root cause of the temperature change. If there is a pattern, like there is, how can you dismiss that?

Hans
07-28-2009, 09:08 PM
I am confused. You first state : "That graphs show that we are just in a warming period of a natural cycle, then they go on to explain that it's man-made."

Now you are stating that you can't accurately measure temperature changes when you are dealing with millions of years.

So how do you accurately know, using oxygen samples, bacteria, and whatever evidence they can find, that there's a natural cycle and we are currently in the warming period of it?

It sounds to me you are mixing and matching to suit your theory : you use various methods to conclude there's a natural cycle that has occurred for millions of years, followed by the warming period from the past 50 years or so that we know for sure due to real data collection, and conclude we just happen to be in the "warming period of a natural cycle".