Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

I think that

a) the description from the site you link admits its own graph is conjecture and therefore inconclusive . . . it says "It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair representation of the range of results appearing in the published scientific literature."

and

b) the graph stops at least four years short of now.

We have previously posted gobs of material on this thread showing that various data has been adjusted and changed up or down as new information has become available over the last four years.

So I guess I still don't know if that previous statement is accurate though the very well credentialed numbers that Ican just posted would suggest that it is.

1 Reply

This is kind of funny, these guys trying to go to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming, fail, again, due to .... you guessed it: extreme cold.

"Battered by a plane and cold, Arctic explorers give up

Then it got colder at night than even they had anticipated, possibly as low as -103 degrees outside their tent and -58 inside. In cold like that, they couldn't do much to warm up Arnesen's battered toes.

"We've had a tough time, because of the cold, because of our gear," Bancroft said in an audio message posted Saturday on the Internet. "And so we're struggling."

Monday, expedition coordinators announced that the two explorers had determined it was too dangerous to keep going. Bancroft, of Scandia, Minn., and Arnesen, of Oslo, Norway, had skied back to the island over the weekend and were being flown Monday to civilization.

It was the second time in two years that Bancroft, 51, and Arnesen, 53, had tried unsuccessfully to trek the Arctic Ocean together."

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Since you feel NONE of the scientific reconstructions are valid that means there is NO support for the claim that it was warmer 1000 years ago.

What numbers did Ican post? he didn't post any numbers for 1000 years ago and if he had he would have either made them up or used one of the scientific reconstructions you claim is NOT accurate.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Since you feel NONE of the scientific reconstructions are valid that means there is NO support for the claim that it was warmer 1000 years ago.

What numbers did Ican post? he didn't post any numbers for 1000 years ago and if he had he would have either made them up or used one of the scientific reconstructions you claim is NOT accurate.

Just once could you honestly repeat what I do say and argue against that instead of making up what you want me to have said?

No, Ican does not have temperature measurements from 1000 years ago and neither does anybody else. But the numbers he did post suggest that the sharp upward spike in your graph probably need some adjustment. And your graph does not include four of the years that Ican's numbers include.

I drew no conclusions other than the numbers Ican posted support a theory re current temperatures versus 1000 years ago better than that concept is supported by your graph. If you have something to rebut his numbers from a source as authoritative as his, post them.

I don't KNOW whether it is cooler now than it was 1000 years ago. I was just curious about that statement that somebody else--none of us--made.

1 Reply

@okie,

You don't understand Okie. In the religiospeak of the environmentalism, two years of extreme cold is proof positive of global warming. Smile

0 Replies

Another interesting and funny story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html

"Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather
Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.

The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported.

With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team is was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported.

"It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on."

The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May."

0 Replies

mockery is an ugly thing - and you don't get much uglier than fox news

0 Replies

It's the North Pole. It's still an ice cap, at least for a couple more decades. What do you expect? Miami?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Well according to the AGW religionists, the ice pack is certain to disappear altogether shortly. Those damn -100 degree temperatures are so inconvenient to that theory though, but there will always be setbacks to every good theory I'm sure.

0 Replies

It;s winter at the North Pole, fox. It gets cold there. But the ice melt in the summer is still unprecedented. And that's what the climate change science says will happen. It's got nothing to do with "religion". There is no such thing as an AGW"religionist". That's purely your fantasy.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

parados wrote:

Since you feel NONE of the scientific reconstructions are valid that means there is NO support for the claim that it was warmer 1000 years ago.

What numbers did Ican post? he didn't post any numbers for 1000 years ago and if he had he would have either made them up or used one of the scientific reconstructions you claim is NOT accurate.

Just once could you honestly repeat what I do say and argue against that instead of making up what you want me to have said?

No, Ican does not have temperature measurements from 1000 years ago and neither does anybody else. But the numbers he did post suggest that the sharp upward spike in your graph probably need some adjustment. And your graph does not include four of the years that Ican's numbers include.

I drew no conclusions other than the numbers Ican posted support a theory re current temperatures versus 1000 years ago better than that concept is supported by your graph. If you have something to rebut his numbers from a source as authoritative as his, post them.

I don't KNOW whether it is cooler now than it was 1000 years ago. I was just curious about that statement that somebody else--none of us--made.

Since I ONLY responded to your statement about the 1000 years ago being warmer, who introduced the last few years? You ask a question about whether it was warmer 1000 years ago or not. I post all a graph that lists the temperature predictions from all the scientific literature. You claim you distrust what I posted and prefer Ican's numbers. I point out Ican didn't have any numbers from 1000 years ago.

Now you make 2 statements that are so contradictory, I wonder if you are losing your mind.

Quote:

No, Ican does not have temperature measurements from 1000 years ago

Quote:

the numbers Ican posted support a theory re current temperatures versus 1000 years ago better

Since Ican posted NO numbers from 1000 years ago how can his numbers support anything concerning what the temperature was then? Geez, talk about sheer lunacy on your part.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It;s winter at the North Pole, fox. It gets cold there. But the ice melt in the summer is still unprecedented. And that's what the climate change science says will happen. It's got nothing to do with "religion". There is no such thing as an AGW"religionist". That's purely your fantasy.

I honestly thought we had coined the phrase here on this thread, MJ, because it was here that the skeptics recognized the religious (and irrational) fanaticism related to global warming. Turns out, however, that we weren't the only ones. Just a small sampling:

Quote:

The New Religion is Global Warming
by Tom DeWeese (February 16, 2005)
The UN finally got what it wanted. The Kyoto Climate Change treaty becomes 'international law' this month on Wednesday. The treaty went into full effect with the approval by the Russian Federation, even without the support of the United States. Time will tell if and when the treaty will begin to affect the U.S. economy. What is certain is that truth and reason had no part in the process.
Global warming has become a new religion. No one is supposed to question whether it is a fact. I did and for my trouble I was labeled a "moron," a "liar;" one who wants to "blow up the world," and just plain "evil" to name a few from a mass of mail I received.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4139

Quote:

The Religion of Global Warming
By Jack Dini, 12/1/2008 8:16:01 AM Do you want to position yourself as a humanitarian concerned with the grandest issue of the planet’’s survival and capture the high ground as a defender of the interests of humanity? If so, embrace global warming. And if you seek even a higher level, allow global warming to be your new religion.
Why? In the words of Dean James P. Morton of the Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, ““the environment is not just another issue but an inescapable challenge to what it means to be religious.””(1) Global warming provides a cosmic scenario that has found expression in almost all religions of the world, from the Jewish legend of Noah and the Christian vision of the Apocalypse to the world-ending Ragnarok of the Norse sagas and the Teutonic Gotterdammerung, the twilight of the gods,”” report Christopher Booker and Richard North.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d0a74c45-c601-400a-9b15-213c79ff2b30

Quote:

Global Warming as Religion and not Science
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal
It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.
Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.
The activists now prefer to call it ““climate change””. This gives them two advantages:
It allows them to seize as ““evidence”” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
The climate is always changing, so they must be right.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Quote:

Global warming: The new religion
Monday, December 27, 2004

History says the rise of reason and revulsion stopped religious witch-burning. Or maybe they just got all the witches.

Likewise, the global warming hysterics of today may run out of steam when reason prevails. Or when they get all the capitalists.

MIT professor Richard Lindzen, heretical scientist, has an insight into the global warming industry.

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question," he said at the National Press Club this month. But it keeps a lot of preachers of the faith employed and the folks stirred up.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_286440.html

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados I'm not going to get into one of these shifting sands and moving target arguments with you. I said what I mean and I meant what I said. I find the stuff Ican is posting to more often be better sourced and more credible than the stuff the AGW religionists are posting.

I don't expect you to agree with, acknowledge, or appreciate his sources or my conclusions about them. Let's just let it go at that, okay?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Listened to an interview with one of Europe's most famous ornithologists, explaining how birds know when and where to go back etc.

One of the most known German spring folksongs starts with these lines:
All the birds are already here,
All the birds, all!
What singing, music playing,
Whistling, chirping, trills!
Spring wants to arrive now,
It comes with song and sounds.

How cheerful they all are,
They move, nimble and gay!
Blackbird, thrush, chaffinch and starling,
... ... ...

The text was written about 1835.

Balckbirds stay here now to 95% (40% around 1960, what I still remember). Starling nearly 70% (I remember that none stayed here). Thrushes about 30%. Chaffinches more than 90%. (In southern Germany, the numbers of birds staying there are higher.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

But since when, Walter? The climate is not a static permanent thing on Planet Earth. It never has been. How long have folks been counting and tracking the birds there? I think bird counts is a relatively new thing in the scheme of things.

When we moved back to New Mexico in 1984, we moved out on the mountain at a high altitude. The first autumn snows might melt off, but once the first serious winter snow came, the snow remained on the ground for the winter. The cassein finches came down from the high country to winter in our back yard - the mountain bluebirds, doves, flickers, and grosbeaks always left for the winter.

Now, 25 years later, we live in town but still have friends on the mountain. The winter snows don't stay on the ground up there year round these days, and there are more winter sightings of birds that used to migrate and don't bother these days. And we're in about our 14th year of drought.

Is this unusual? Not according to the history books and the old timers that have lived up there for like forever or the forestry people who study tree rings.

We humans apparently have long had to adapt to changing climate and that was going on long before the industrial age. The Anazazi Indians in northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado apparently left many hundreds of years ago when they could no longer sustain their way of life due to prolonged drought. And elsewhere in the world, the record apparently shows people moving in and inhabiting places that were once too climately inhospitable to live.

The AGW religionists want to ignore all such observations. The skeptics think it wise to at least consider them before we allow the religionists to take away some of our choices, freedoms, opportunities, and prosperity in the name of the great god, anthropomorphic global warming.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Ican uses the GISS and the HADCRUT3 numbers so he is using good sources sometimes when he posts numbers.

The problem is ican makes conclusions not supported by the data he presents. For instance ican claims GISS and HADCRUT3 show cooling but they don't using any standard scientific or mathematical progression. He makes up stuff and posts a lot of numbers hoping those that don't know anything will accept his conclusions.

As for "shifting sands and moving targets", that would be what you do Fox. You asked a question. It was answered and you shifted away from what you asked and attacked the answer to your original question by moving the target. GISS and HADCRUT3 do NOT give temperature data from 1000 years ago. The increases in both of those data sets compared to the other reconstructions that coincide with modern data would imply it was not warmer 1000 years ago.

I realize you said what you meant. That was not the issue. I only pointed out that there isn't much logical basis for what you said or what you meant. Ican can't be providing better data when he provides no data. That is just not logical by any stretch of the imagination.

I also use HADCRUT3 and GISS data so to somehow claim Ican's use is better sourced is rather silly.

Let's see what ican has done with his numbers.
He used Lean's TSI numbers. Lean's numbers end in 2001 when her paper was published. ican claimed Lean was his source to show that TSI decreased from 2001-2008. Perhaps you can explain to us FOX how you can find a trend in numbers that don't exist.

ican claims there has been cooling since 2000 based on GISS numbers but I have posted how to check the trend using excel which clearly shows it is NOT cooling using those numbers. Ican posts numbers repeatedly. The problem is that ican's numbers refute his claims when someone has the ability to actually look at the numbers. Something you have said repeatedly you are not capable of doing because you don't have the expertise. So in other words you are not checking any data, you are just believing what you want to believe.

You say what you mean and mean what you say. It's just that you say and mean absolute nonsense.

1 Reply

@parados,

Your opinion is noted Parados.

0 Replies

Will the decline in SI from 1366.67 in 2000 to 1365.60 in 2008 continue?

Will the decline in AAGT from 287.542 in 2005 to 287.384 in 2008 continue?

Meanwhile CAD has increased steadily from 352.16 in 1988 to 386.33 in 2008.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
YEAR . CAD /\ only SI /\ & \/ A-AAGT /\ & \/ AAGT /\ & \/

1988 352.16 1366.09 0.180 287.240
1989 353.56 1366.66 0.103 287.163
1990 355.15 1366.56 0.254 287.314
1991 355.91 1366.45 0.212 287.272
1992 356.27 1366.31 0.061 287.121 LOWEST TEMP
1993 357.59 1366.04 0.105 287.165
1994 359.65 1365.81 0.171 287.231
1995 361.29 1365.71 0.275 287.335
1996 362.78 1365.62 0.137 287.197
1997 364.89 1365.62 0.351 287.411
1998 367.61 1365.75 0.546 287.606 HIGHEST TEMP
1999 368.59 1366.11 0.296 287.356
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270 287.330
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409 287.469
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464 287.524
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473 287.533
2004 378.31 1365.91 0.447 287.507
2005 380.87 1365.81 0.482 287.542
2006 382.64 1365.72 0.422 287.482 DECLINING TEMP
2007 384.64 1365.66 0.405 287.465 DECLINING TEMP
2008 386.33 1365.60 0.324 287.384 DECLINING TEMP
CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMERATURE,1901-2000, in °K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2

CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM

2 Replies

NO, ican, SI WILLNOT CONTINUE TO DECLINE. Haven't you absorbed ANYTHING?
what youcall a decline is part of the (nominally) 11 year sunspot cycle )actually around 12 years for the last one), from the max around 2000 to the minimum lasst year. Now it goes back up again for several years and then it will decline again for a few more years (the increase takes less time than the decline)and then it'll go back up again, and so on.....It;s CYCLIC. After the cycle, it';s back to where it started. The decline cancels out the rise, and vice-versa.

0 Replies

And GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS NOT LEVELLED OFF SINCE 1998, NOR IS IT DECLININ G. According to NASA, 2005 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 1998, 2007 was on track to be the hottest year since records have been kept until a la Nina set in late in the year, which continued to 2008 (since they start in the fall and last between 6 and 9 months usually, they impact two years of global temp). f

If you have been paying any sort of attention, ican, which you show no evidence of having done, you should realize by now that only a total ignoramus would contend that the only two variables having an effect on global temp are TSI and CO2. In point of fact, as virtually any climate scientist will tell you, El Nino-la Nina-ENSO , which is the largest sing le weather event in the world, affect global temps over roughly a third of the globe, but only for the months it is happening. Since it's a redistribution of heat already in the system, when it's over, the system reverts toward the average temp. 1998 was the strongest el Nino on record, and the global temp went up for that year. 2005, with a much weaker el Nino surpassed 1998. 2008 was a la Nina (cool) year, according to NASA and above the 20th century mean, but the coolest year sincde 2001 (and 2001 was, guess what, a la Nina year).

It is completely illegitimat to try to draw conclusions about what is happeningwith the system without taking into account all the major variables in the system. You do not take them into account, which is why you keep producing garbage.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know