- Joined
- 23 September 2008
- Posts
- 919
- Reactions
- 174
I left one thing off the list: Delusional Assertions
Reference?.
It is sobering but what also concerns me is how many, many people won't actually view the figures or if they do, find a way to deny the implications or even the possibility we are facing a serious problem.
Less than 1 degree globallyI was really taken by how temperatures have increased over the last 120 years
Well Logique it's probably worth recognising the whole quote even for such a short story.Yes amazing weather for a NSW December. Two jumpers today. Plenty of rain too. I know we're starting to cover old ground in this long thread, but if anyone felt inclined to read it again, something in the piece for both warmists and sceptics:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5
June 2011
"EARTH may be heading for a "Little Ice Age", according to scientists at two leading US research institutions.
Researchers from the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory were considering today whether a decline in solar activity could lead to a period similar to the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, when there were virtually no sunspots for 70 years.
During this period, known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped and up to 28cm of ice formed in Europe.....Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ge/story-e6frfku0-1226076791684#ixzz1feAZ8WT5
Take that Europe, economic tumult and 28cm of ice!
For anyone who would like to examine what Joanna Haigh is saying check out the presentation by Ian DunlopDr Frank Hill, of the NSO's Solar Synoptic Network in Sunspot, New Mexico, said, "The fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation".
However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said that global warming could reverse a cooling effect.
"Even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario, and, in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary," she said. "When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
And now for something completely different.... (but perhaps not)
Is it possible for an industry that is producing a legal but dangerous product to disregard its own research, fake its own science and come up with a relentless, creative advertising campaign to ensure it's financial survival ?
This of course is the tobacco industry. Have a look at the types of advertising that was used to gloss over any health concerns and keep smoking at the centre of culture.
You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.
And remember that the industry was well aware of smokings effects from the early 50's.
http://lne.stanford.edu/tobacco/index.html
But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby.
The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.
gg
But bas, the Global Warming Industry is just as perverse as the Smoking Lobby.
The same advertising, the same shambolic studies, the same supposed health benefits, and the same John Wayne aka Al Gore advertisements as the Tobacco Industry.
gg
Total, complete and utter BS GG.
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that “there is strong evidence” of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: “Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data... This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century.”
Almost every word of this is untrue. Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.
In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: “We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”
This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate.
And now for something completely different.... (but perhaps not)
..........
You can even see the special pseudo science claims made on behalf of cigarettes as well as the extensive health benefits as noted by the medical profession.
We can already see a notable difference between modern warming and the MWP: modern temperatures are hotter. The warmest single year in the northern hemisphere is 2005, with temperature anomaly (relative to the 1961-1990 reference period) 0.90 deg.C, while the warmest single year in the Moberg reconstruction is 1105, at temperature anomaly 0.37 deg.C. So the warmest modern year is 0.53 deg.C hotter than the warmest medieval year, according to Moberg.
The eye suggests another possible difference: modern warming is steeper than medieval warming. The “modern global warming era” covers about the last 30 years. How does the modern warming rate compare to what was observed in medieval times?
I computed the rate of warming for every possible time span, from each year to 30 years later, in the Moberg reconstruction. The fastest warming occured from 867 to 897, at a rate of 0.0183 deg.C/yr. I also computed the rate for every similar-length time span in the thermometer record; the fastest warming is from 1976 to 2006 (which is the most recent, by the way, since 2007 isn’t over yet) at a rate of 0.0300 deg.C/yr. That’s quite a lot bigger than 0.0183; in fact it’s 64% bigger.
The BEST team which reported back a few months ago and remeasured and re calibrated all global waring temperatures came to the same conclusion - the earth is warming very rapidly.
You can see the graphs and discussion at the following url
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html
Of the 39028 sites listed in the data.txt file, arbitrarily counting only sites with 60 months of data or more, 34 had temperature blips of greater
than +/- 50 degrees C, 215 greater than +/- 40 C, 592 greater than +/- 30 C, and 1404 greater than +/- 20 C. That is quite a large number of faulty temperature records, considering that this kind of error is something that is so easy to check for. A couple hours work is all it took to find these numbers.
In the engineering world, this kind of error is not acceptable. It is an indication of poor quality control. Statistical algorithms were run on the data without subsequent checks on the results. Coding errors obviously existed that would have been caught with just a cursory examination of a few site temperature plots. That the BEST team felt the quality of their work, though preliminary, was adequate for public display is disconcerting.
Good to see us getting back to some science analysis of global warming.
I'm not quite sure why Ozzie wants to try and say the Mann hockey stick is a a fraud. After all it has been a measure of the sharp increase in current global temperatures as compared to all recent historical records (say the last few thousand years).
References?Manns hockey stick analysis has been verified many times.
Change 50 to 100 and your strawman statement still holds.Trying to find "evidence" that the world has not warmed by around .8C in the last 50 years is grasping at delusional straws.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?