Shunned For Over 10yrs For Denying Climate Change.

reply to post by jakyll

Hi,and thanks for the informative posts.

Hello back atcha'.

I was actually going to thank you for the exact same thing, namely the information about the condition of the thermometers used to determine average global temperature. Perhaps you should start a thread about that particular subject, and allow ATS users to comment on what they see in these areas.

Oops, maybe I shouldn't have suggested that here. Wouldn't want to upset mel with all those facts...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
We also have been adding huge sections of concrete, which definitely absorbs solar radiation (and is even used in some solar heat collectors for this very purpose). We have been deforestating huge areas of the planet and converting them to farmland (or in some cases, concrete jungles). Yet no one has mentioned those possibilities. Why?

Heh, your jig is exquisite.

No-one ignores them. The urban heat island attracted attention, indeed, it still does in certain quarters. The land use issue isn't ignored. It might just be underestimated, if you buy the arguments of the likes of Pielke Sr.

What I want is a collective, reasonable approach to the problem. Firstly, is there a problem? If there is, how serious is the problem? How long do we have to correct the problem? What are the variables involved in the problem? How can we correct the problem in the easiest, most efficient manner in the time allotted by our investigation?

Honestly, RD. This game has been played for over 30 years. It's not like this issue suddenly appeared a decade or so back.

And over time the group saying 'lets study it more, lets wait and see, lets not be hasty' gets smaller and smaller, until it is now a fringe group of scientists, right-wing libertarians, and other denialists.

I was reading the Charney report from 1979 t'other day, they suggested a doubling of CO2 would result in 3'C warming (+/-1.5) but we would need more research. Almost 30 years of research later and millions of dollars/punds/yen/euros, we now have an estimate for CO2x2 of 2-4.5'C with a best estimate of 3'C.

Well spent.

Instead, we apparently have a slightly different approach: Might there be a problem? If so, how fast can we convince people we have to fix the problem? How much money can we make fixing the problem?

Considering people like Arrhenius were suggesting there was a problem in the 19th century, I guess it has taken over 100 years to convince the majority.

The last question is laughable.

Let's face it, if I came to you and told you there was an invisible evil around you that would kill everyone in the vicinity, but I could cure you of this if you paid me big bucks, what would your response be? No doubt I would find myself lying on a sidewalk flat on my back. As I should, in that situation. So why, when a similar line is used on you by someone else, do you believe them completely?

TheRedneck

Wouldn't want to upset mel with all those facts...

lolwut

Yeah, you should get the 'fact' of UV being the major factor in the greenhouse effect out to the scientific community, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Could get you a Nobel.

Oh well. Some things never change. Probably see ya around.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by jakyll
Which can be disputed.

I guess you never read the stuff you posted.

11 of the last 13 years have been the warmest in the global record. I think it makes sense to look a bit further than one slice of one single continent.

Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand.

The evidence is clear -- the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler.

You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Niño. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Niña. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded.

Average global temperatures are now some 0.75°C warmer than they were 100 years ago. Since the mid-1970s, the increase in temperature has averaged more than 0.15°C per decade.

linky





[edit on 11-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Considering people like Arrhenius were suggesting there was a problem in the 19th century, I guess it has taken over 100 years to convince the majority.

Perhaps. But in the 1970s/1980s the concern was global cooling.

I suppose I could research back through the archival writings of men and women of science and find someone who supported about anything. I believe it was Galileo who designed a helicopter way back before the Wright Brothers were a twinkle in the eye of Mr. Wright. But I really don't have the time free to undertake such a moot endeavor. What is important is not what men think, but what is true. We are not limited by the sound barrier to velocities less than Mach 1, regardless of what scientists once believed. Blood is necessary for a patient to heal, regardless of how fervently doctors once argued for bleeding as a cure for illness. And Chris Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the world as quite a few in his time swore he would do.

I'm very glad you are so comfortable memorizing faces and journal entries. I tend to take a harder route to discovery, that of informed critical thought. Yeah, it's a bit of overkill, but then again, what else would you expect from just a dumb old redneck?

Take care, and I'll see you around as well. Maybe next time I'll have a bit more time available from my work to amuse you.

TheRedneck

reply to post by melatonin

I guess you never read the stuff you posted.

I try not to.I find it gets in the way of my opinions.

I used that link to show that if they're not taking proper readings in one year then you an assume that is same for the other years,and maybe even some other places round the globe who use similar equipment etc.




TheRedneck.

Feel free to use that information to start a thread yourself. I'm a bit preoccupied with other threads at the moment so i don't mind at all.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Perhaps. But in the 1970s/1980s the concern was global cooling.

To a handful of scientists.

The two situations are in no way comparable.

I suppose I could research back through the archival writings of men and women of science and find someone who supported about anything. I believe it was Galileo who designed a helicopter way back before the Wright Brothers were a twinkle in the eye of Mr. Wright. But I really don't have the time free to undertake such a moot endeavor. What is important is not what men think, but what is true. We are not limited by the sound barrier to velocities less than Mach 1, regardless of what scientists once believed. Blood is necessary for a patient to heal, regardless of how fervently doctors once argued for bleeding as a cure for illness. And Chris Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the world as quite a few in his time swore he would do.

Yeah, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the Wright brothers...

...and they also laughed at Coco the Clown.

Did you actually set me up for that?

lol

Originally posted by jakyll
I used that link to show that if they're not taking proper readings in one year then you an assume that is same for the other years,and maybe even some other places round the globe who use similar equipment etc.

That wasn't the issue for the US data. It was a processing flaw, the bit after collecting data to compile a more extensive time series.

But yeah, right. I see. Throw the baby out with the bathwater because some dufus failed to correct an error knitting together data sources which led to a small correction for the time series for one data set for several years in one area of one continent on the earth. Global warming no longer exists, it was a Y2K error, lol. Look! It's gone!



Sheesh, you guys are desperate. You jump around from Bellamy being a martyr to obfuscating and wildly incorrect physics to greenland to 'no warming since 1998' to a small processing error to discarding the whole temperature series. I like the scatter-spudgun denialism.

Anyway, you do know about Bellamy and his legendary error? Guess we'll have to discard his life's work now, and lets not even think about talking about Watt and his errors....

See ya later, dudes. You all get more and more like creationists every day. Totally irrelevant to the issue.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

To a handful of scientists.

The two situations are in no way comparable.

Ummm... no.

I am no kid, melatonin; I was there. I did not read about the global cooling scare; I lived it. And it was every bit as much of a consensus as today's debate about global warming. The only thing that differentiated it from today's scare was the direction that future temperatures were to take.

How about the ozone scare? Oh, I was alive for that one too. We were all going to die from skin cancer because the ozone was going to stop existing due to CFCs. I haven't heard much about the ozone hole in the last decade or so. I suppose, in this obviously flawed redneck logic I use, that the reason is there was no catastrophe about to befall humanity. The hole closed back up, commencing before CFCs were outlawed. But, hey, DuPont got what they wanted; a new patentable refrigerant to replace the CFC-based one that the patent was expiring on.

So today, Al Gore is trying the same thing with carbon credits. Now exactly how is it a totally different situation? Other than the fact you agree with the findings this time?

I really should apologize. I normally try to give you some jollies over this subject, as I realize you only engage me on it to watch my emotional involvement and laugh. I wish I could have assisted you a bit more with your recreation, but I was really busy the last few days. You may have noticed the lack of links, as it is simply faster to rattle things straight out of my head (and usually as accurate). But...

Did you actually set me up for that?

maybe you got one good laugh out of it.

Back to the issue...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

To a handful of scientists.

The two situations are in no way comparable.

Ummm... no.

I am no kid, melatonin; I was there. I did not read about the global cooling scare; I lived it. And it was every bit as much of a consensus as today's debate about global warming. The only thing that differentiated it from today's scare was the direction that future temperatures were to take.

redneck, this is simply not true. There has been studies done looking at the scientific literature and work published during this period, and there was no consensus, nor even a serious presence of science pointing at a mini ice age. I think the media may have had a field day with this issue, but the scientific community did not. In fact even then, the scientific community were saying "warming, hello, warming". The media on the issue of GW has not reported fairly, giving the science and opinion attacking GW equal, if not greater presence, in comparison to science and opinion supporting GW as anthropogenic, even though the later has far more presence and acceptance within the scientific world. There is no comparison between the two issues.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Centre surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

Link to news report on the study

"People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming."

Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

How about the ozone scare? Oh, I was alive for that one too. We were all going to die from skin cancer because the ozone was going to stop existing due to CFCs. I haven't heard much about the ozone hole in the last decade or so. I suppose, in this obviously flawed redneck logic I use, that the reason is there was no catastrophe about to befall humanity. The hole closed back up, commencing before CFCs were outlawed. But, hey, DuPont got what they wanted; a new patentable refrigerant to replace the CFC-based one that the patent was expiring on.

So why have we not seem more environmental scares as patents continuously expire. I mean if it was that easy, would we not see them all the time. Who has the patent for GW.

Redneck, what planet are you living on, I can't believe you really think the above, as the level of ignorance displayed is highly unusual for a poster of your fine ilk, Come on dude, this is not your game. The hole still exists. It has not closed up over the Antarctic. BTW Australia(ummm not that far from the Antarctic has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. Way higher than most, if not all nations.

The way to stop the formation, growth and spread of ozone thinning is to reduce the production of those chemicals that cause the destruction of ozone, namely CFC's and nitrogen oxides.

In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed by many nations whereby those nations that signed agreed to reduce their emissions of CFC's to a half (of the 1987 levels) by 2000.

Potential problems come from nations that do not see the reduction of CFC's to be a priority, and also from the huge quantity of refrigeration and air conditioning systems in the world that still contain CFC's. If they are not disposed of correctly, then the CFC's will escape into the atmosphere and continue to destroy ozone.

The problem is far from settled and is under investigation by research teams all over the world. The latest estimates are that as long as production and release of CFC's is regulated properly, global ozone levels should recover by 2050.

CoolOzone site

NASA Earth Observatory-On September 12, 2008, the Antarctic ozone hole reached its maximum size for the year. Represented by blues and purples in this image from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s Aura satellite, the ozone hole covered about 27 million square kilometers, making it larger than North America, which is about 25 million square kilometers. Though larger than it was in 2007, the 2008 ozone hole was still smaller than the record set in 2006.

cool site

In an earlier post I linked a video from a lecture on the Denial of GW in America. The same people behind the movement to spread doubt and uncertainty on the science of GW also tried to do the same with CFC's in the 80's.

So today, Al Gore is trying the same thing with carbon credits. Now exactly how is it a totally different situation? Other than the fact you agree with the findings this time?

Al Gore is non-existent in this argument in most countries, this is a US issue. He is seen as a spokes person on climate change and he was in an incredibly popular documentary. Which some people need to get over.

Back to the issue...

TheRedneck

Yes, and not clouding them.

reply to post by atlasastro

Again, I was there. You can produce mountains of studies, mountains of 'evidence', have it all notarized and entered into the Library of Congress, but if it does not jibe with actual events, it is still not true.

I remember going to work and standing around the coffee pot talking about how cold it was going to be in ten years. I remember watching documentaries on TV showing how we would have to adapt in order to survive. I remember news stories talking about how every abnormality of weather was attributed to, and therefore 'proof' of, the coming ice age.

All a 'scientist' needs do to create the evidence you mention is write it down and have it published. Fiction writers do it all the time. The difference is supposed to be peer review and open discussion in order to prevent such from happening, but there is a tremendous amount of money being made from spoon-feeding incomplete and/or inaccurate information to the public. What is published and what is not is more usually an indication of what people are supposed to believe than anything else. And here we have my real peeve on this subject: not that some believe the planet is warming out of control, not that studies are being performed in a haphazard way, but that fact is being manufactured in the public mind without regard to truth. That is not science; it is manipulation. As I have aged and matured somewhat, I have come to see the dangers inherent in such activity.

It was a consensus that led us into the Iragi War. Oops, that contained some false data... sorry, but we got to set up military presence in the area anyway. It was a consensus at one time that life on the planet would be wiped out because that ozone hole was going to spread until it covered the planet... oops, didn't happen, but it sold a lot of sunscreen (I doubt you remember before sunscreen was widely used as I do) and helped DuPont out. Remember when eggs were deadly? I do. How about when milk was a carcinogen? I remember that one too, lasted about a week, waited a couple of days, then went for another week. Here's one you might remember: when the Patriot Act and NAFTA were good things. Yeah, that really proved out true.

The very fact that now, this soon after it happened, while those who remember it are still alive, the global cooling scare is claimed to not even have existed should scare any sane person. I always thought rewriting of history required waiting until at least most of those who remembered it were dead. But, like so many other things I have been told throughout my life, apparently not.

The stated purpose of ATS is 'deny ignorance'. Enjoy your propaganda.

TheRedneck

reply to post by melatonin

But yeah, right. I see. Throw the baby out with the bathwater because some dufus failed to correct an error knitting together data sources which led to a small correction for the time series for one data set for several years in one area of one continent on the earth. Global warming no longer exists, it was a Y2K error, lol. Look! It's gone!

These surface stations have not been in place for just a cpl of years,they've been there for decades,situated in areas that effect the readings.This means they cannot be used as a totally reliable source.

The man mentioned in the other link has surveyed almost 600 of these stations.His results:

CRN=5.Number.70.13%
CRN=4.Number.289.55%
CRN=3.Number.96.18%
CRN=2.Number.48.9%
CRN=1.Number.23.4%
Rated Total:526.100%
(10 unrated stations due to closure or error)


Climate Reference Network Rating Guide:
Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (= 2C) - Artificial heating sources = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."
Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.
Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.
Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

www.surfacestations.org...


[edit on 12-11-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by jakyll


That very point was brought up several years ago by some scientist that worked for NOAA before Congressional hearings right after Al Gore took up the gauntlet and before he formed all those green corporations hesgetting rich with. The poor guy nearly got his head torn off by Gore supporters because Gore had testified useing these sensors as backup for his claims. I wish I could find a link with the information. It was realy strange at the time. I was watching it on CSPAN and the poor guy halted his testimony and asked to be excused after two congress critters attacked him!

Zindo

Originally posted by jakyll
These surface stations have not been in place for just a cpl of years,they've been there for decades,situated in areas that effect the readings.This means they cannot be used as a totally reliable source.

You are conflating two totally different issues. I started by suggesting that 11 of the last 13yrs are the hottest recorded. You respond with the error in the processing of one small part of the US data which meant 2006 was no longer meant to be the warmest and suggest this shows my claim to not be true. Which it didn't. 11yrs of the last 13 are the warmest on record.

So now we move to throwing the whole temp record out, because Watt and his team of amateur photographers took pictures of temp stations and classed them.

We jump from claims that since 1998 we have cooling and therefore no global warming, via the fact that 11/13 are warmest on record, to the same records being completely unreliable and therefore we should ignore them?

lol

The comical dance you both exhibit is great. You'll get this one, being a Brit, it's like watching Pan's People interpret 'That's what I call denialism: The very worst of'

The man mentioned in the other link has surveyed almost 600 of these stations.

Yeah, I hear trainspotters do something similar.

Here's four sets of temperature data. Two are satellite derived (UAH, RSS), two are surface data (GISS, Hadley):



Of course, the siting of the satellites near AC units is the cause!

[edit on 12-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Check your graph. The period from 2002 - 2008 looks suspiciously flat-line-ish.

Maybe you should turn the AC back on...

TheRedneck

Another piece of data that NASA got wrong - just the same as last year -
here

Kind of makes you wonder what else they are getting wrong.....

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

Check your graph. The period from 2002 - 2008 looks suspiciously flat-line-ish.

Yeah, it looks the same at various points over the last 30 years. It's called natural variation.

In such data we have two things: noise and signal. The signal is the long-term trend. The noise is most obvious at shorter time scales.

Hmm, yeah, you prefer noise, I prefer signal...figures.

You can see it better on the graph earlier, the one above is a bit long...



As you can see, global warming stopped in 1983, 1991, and 1998.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

You are conflating two totally different issues. I started by suggesting that 11 of the last 13yrs are the hottest recorded. You respond with the error in the processing of one small part of the US data which meant 2006 was no longer meant to be the warmest and suggest this shows my claim to not be true. Which it didn't. 11yrs of the last 13 are the warmest on record.

You are still missing my point.

Anyways.
The temperature of the sea is also a factor.But that,like everything else in nature,works on a cycle.

As shown by the historic pattern of PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling,the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years.Each time the PDO mode has shifted from warm to cool or cool to warm,the global climate has changed accordingly.In 1977,the PDO shifted from cool mode to warm mode and set off the global warming from 1977 to 1998,often referred to as the “Great Climate Shift.” The recent shift from PDO warm mode to cool mode is similar to the shift that occurred in the mid-1940’s and resulted in 30 years of global cooling.The global warming from ~1915 to ~1945 was also brought on by a mode shift in the PDO.Every indication points continuation of the PDO patterns of the past century and global cooling for the next 30 years.Thus,the global warming the Earth has experienced since 1977 appears to be over!

wattsupwiththat.com... next-three-decades/


Ice caps melting also factors in the argument,but this graph from the same page shows that the sea ice has been fairly consistent for the last 7 years.




Related links.
Sea ice area approaching the edge of normal standard deviation.
wattsupwiththat.com...

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Reaches "Unprecedented" Levels.
www.climateaudit.org...



[edit on 12-11-2008 by jakyll]

Bit of a naff picture, why don't we look at the anomaly for arctic sea ice, tends to bring out the signal

You are still missing my point.

Your point is clear enough.

Because some data is less than ideal, and the totality shows what I don't like, we throw the lot out.

However, this sort of stuff has been assessed and accounted for. The data is homogenised (i.e., local microsite issues are minimised and swamped by regional effects).

[edit on 12-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

As you can see, global warming stopped in 1983, 1991, and 1998.

Oh, forgive me. I didn't realize CO2 production had stopped during those times.

I know what noise is. It's variations from the long-term curve due to any minor variations in the variables. I also know what signal is. It's the overall trend, found by ignoring any spurious data that can be considered noise.

1983: 'recovery' to a warming trend in 4 years - obvious dip = noise
1991: 'recovery' to a warming trend in 5 years - obvious dip = noise
1998: 'recovery' to a warming trend in 3 years - obvious dip = noise
2002: no 'recovery' to date (6 years and counting) - no obvious dip indicated thus far = maybe noise, maybe signal.

The question of what is noise and what is signal is an interpretation of the available data. If you choose the period from 1986 to present, it is not that difficult to see a nice sine curve, peaking at around 2005-2006. Now what happens to a sine curve when it peaks?

Hint: it turns downward again.

edit to add:
reply to post by melatonin

Yes, a very good indication of the difference between noise and signal. The period of 2006-2007 is obviously noise, but the signal indicates a downward trend until around 2005 now moving in an upward direction.

Thanks for showing us 'dummies' the difference.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I know what noise is. It's variations from the long-term curve due to any minor variations in the variables. I also know what signal is. It's the overall trend, found by ignoring any spurious data that can be considered noise.

Cool.

Well you would know to essentially forget about anything less than 20-30yr scales for truly assessing climate.

1983: 'recovery' to a warming trend in 4 years - obvious dip = noise
1991: 'recovery' to a warming trend in 5 years - obvious dip = noise
1998: 'recovery' to a warming trend in 3 years - obvious dip = noise
2002: no 'recovery' to date (6 years and counting) - no obvious dip indicated thus far = maybe noise, maybe signal.

lol

So, with hindsight, you can see the effect of noise repeatedly, but you still want to look at the current period of noise and hope, just gudammit hope, that the next is not noise. And when it is, we wait for the next 1983, 1991, 1998 for groundhog day.

Dolittle and Delay.

The question of what is noise and what is signal is an interpretation of the available data. If you choose the period from 1986 to present, it is not that difficult to see a nice sine curve, peaking at around 2005-2006. Now what happens to a sine curve when it peaks?

You're still looking at small scales.

We look at the data on long scales, 25, 50, 75, and 100 years...



My Zeus! It's accelerating!

That's a fair interpretation. The data. At face value. Without wishful-thinking.

reply to post by melatonin

My Zeus! It's accelerating!

Yes, it is, if you assume a linear progression. Nature is not linear.

Here's another hint: most trends happen in curves, not straight lines.

TheRedneck