freeztar Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Want proof? The IPCC created sophisticated computer models based on their climate theories. Incorrect. First of all, the IPCC is a UN entity comprised of scientists from around the world. The mission of the IPCC is to accumulate and evaluate climate data from scientists globally. There is much debate within the IPCC as to what should make it to the reports. I'm continually perplexed that climate skeptics do not latch on to the internal debates of the IPCC. :) Secondly, climate models are built using real world data. It is not as if the scientists came up with a theory and built the model upon the theory. Rather, the computer sims model different scenarios based upon the data that is inputed. The computer models are a way to test varying theories, not to confirm them. They used these models to project out how changes in our atmosphere will affect global temperatures. Their projections had a max and min range, with uncertainty increasing over time, but basically they showed that if CO2 kept increasing things were going to get a whole lot warmer.Correct. Real world climate has in no way done what the IPCC claimed they would do since they first published their projections in 2001. World temperatures have not in fact increased at all despite a substantial increase in CO2 levels. Global temp *has* increased! Our current planetary temperature is so far below even the lowest IPCC projection that clearly something in their science or methodology is clearly screwed up. What exactly is screwed up then? If you have the vigor to refute the data, then please have the vigor to point out what exactly is wrong with the data. Galapagos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Meanwhile, back in 1922 - Washington Post article: The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. The article being backed up by this research - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf The charts on page 10 give the quik snap shot veiw. I dont know if there are any urban heat island or geothermal effects to the temp records. Looks to me that sudden ups and downs are the norm for climate (and weather) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 freeztar, i'm surprised you hav'nt referenced your graphs/charts :) There is much debate within the IPCC as to what should make it to the reports. I'm continually perplexed that climate skeptics do not latch on to the internal debates of the IPCC Oh, but they have - one reason for the calls for a proper AUDIT of all IPCC sources rather then the mates doing the so-called peer reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 freeztar, i'm surprised you hav'nt referenced your graphs/charts :)I'm always happy to disclose my sources (btw, a right-click and properties will show the originating website URL)It's a NASA link that can be found here:Global Warming : Feature Articles Oh, but they have - one reason for the calls for a proper AUDIT of all IPCC sources rather then the mates doing the so-called peer reviews. I'd be elated to discuss these issues, in another thread (and assuming that the discussion remains scientific). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 btw, a right-click and properties will show the originating website URL Thanks for that - learning all the time :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Global temp *has* increased! What exactly is screwed up then? FT- I couldn't help but note that your temperature graph does not include the 2008 data, where global temperatures return to 0.25 degrees above the 20th century baseline. In fact, if we take out the 1995-2005 El Nino years, it does not really look like much of a rise. Basically, the longer the time series, the less the severity appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 FT- I couldn't help but note that your temperature graph does not include the 2008 data The article was written in May 2007. :) where global temperatures return to 0.25 degrees above the 20th century baseline. So we are judging global climate change in one year increments? In fact, if we take out the 1995-2005 El Nino years, it does not really look like much of a rise. I would very much like to see the data supporting this claim! Basically, the longer the time series, the less the severity appears. Indeed. What is troubling is that climate is on the move *now*!Pick your timeframe. Global temps show an upward trend. Dissecting the trend into larger or smaller parts does not weaken the trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 What is troubling is that climate is on the move *now*!Pick your timeframe. Global temps show an upward trend. Dissecting the trend into larger or smaller parts does not weaken the trend.Interesting. What about this one? Or this one, which assigns causality (or at least correlation) to solar activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engineerdude Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Incorrect. First of all, the IPCC is a UN entity comprised of scientists from around the world. The mission of the IPCC is to accumulate and evaluate climate data from scientists globally. There is much debate within the IPCC as to what should make it to the reports. I'm continually perplexed that climate skeptics do not latch on to the internal debates of the IPCC. ;) Secondly, climate models are built using real world data. It is not as if the scientists came up with a theory and built the model upon the theory. Rather, the computer sims model different scenarios based upon the data that is inputed. The computer models are a way to test varying theories, not to confirm them. Correct. Global temp *has* increased! What exactly is screwed up then? If you have the vigor to refute the data, then please have the vigor to point out what exactly is wrong with the data. Here's what's wrong with the data:IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global WarmingThe chart you reference above was created with the incorrect data. 2008 was the coldest year in a long time, and global temperatures have been in an overall decline since 1996. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engineerdude Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Interesting. What about this one?[ATTACH]2563[/ATTACH] Or this one, which assigns causality (or at least correlation) to solar activity?[ATTACH]2564[/ATTACH] The pro-AGW people will say that because these charts were created by anti-global warming people that we need to disregard them. This is a scientific fallacy called Circumstantial Ad Hominem. I have referenced this data in this thread before, and the pro-AWG people will not acknowledge or bother to critically look at this information. Cedars 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 SpringerLink - Journal Article hmm, wow this is gnarly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Interesting. What about this one? Biochem, is attempting to dispel the idea of anthropogenic global warming by showing a graph of temperatures spanning three thousand years. Indicated in the description of the graph is its resolution: 50 to 100 years. This allows only 2 or 3 data points during which time humans have been contributing any significant carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It is unclear what possible meaning this graph can have on the current topic of discussion. It is also unclear if the surface temperature of the Sargasso Sea is relevant or can be accurately determined from the isotope ratios of marine organism remains in its sediment. For example, notice the difference in temperature in BioChem's graph above between today and the peak around the year 1,000 which it indicates as the medieval climate optimum. The difference is greater than one degree Celsius—that is to say, the temp was greater roughly a thousand years ago by 1 degree Celsius versus today. The graph below is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. Notice the difference again between today and the peak roughly 1,000 years ago: -source The black line represents instrumental (rather than reconstructed) readings. None of the 10 reconstructions show what BioChem offers above. In fact, the temperature today is greater than the peak 1,000 years ago! Or this one, which assigns causality (or at least correlation) to solar activity? Once again, notice this graph is an estimation of "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". This method is unneeded for the past 30 years as we've measured solar irradiance directly using satellites since 1978. -source Notice from 1978 through 2001 there is no appreciable increase in solar irradiance as measured directly. The approximation in BioChem's graph above shows a marked increase over that same time. BioChem's graph is shown faulty by direct measurement of solar irradiance. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 belovelife, i see mention of the IPCC in that link. Looks like even the Greenys are distancing them selves from the IPCC AGW fundamentalism - Via Skeptical Real Climate Science Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC, said, “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen” and “The impacts of global warming are like a weapon of mass destruction”. He claimed that it kills more people than terrorism. The IPCC role was supposedly to “assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” But the scientific reports were edited, and IPCC made the Summary for Policymakers, published before the science, the most important part of their reports. Ben Santer singlehandedly rewrote the principal conclusions of the IPCC's 1995 report:- Where it had once said there was no discernible human influence on climate, it was rewritten to say there was now a discernible influence. This was done without reference back to the scientists who had originally submitted their final draft reaching precisely the opposite conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 modest, what did you make of the research i linked to before - http://lasp.colorado.edu/sdo/meetings/session_1_2_3/presentations/session3/3_06_Palle.pdf (extract) "The climate models fail to reproduce this results. No explanation so far" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Modest,in the chart of the last 3000 years it appears that the Earth was much warmer then than it is now. Does this not have any bearing on current levels of warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Modest,in the chart of the last 3000 years it appears that the Earth was much warmer then than it is now. Does this not have any bearing on current levels of warming? I have no idea. This link talks about it: Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I have no idea. This link talks about it: Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~modest modest, a link to Wikipedia ??? :D Not a very reliable resource it seems - Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics. Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party. And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? | NewsBusters.org I would recomend a google search on "wikipedia false inforemation" and simular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts