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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
351
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, former UN IPCC lead author and reviewer and an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, called fears of man-made global warming "silly" in January 31, 2007 CNN interview. "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves," Lindzen said. "Nobody's arguing that man has zero impact on the climate. But the question is can you distinguish it from all the other stuff going on? And I think the answer is still no," Lindzen told the Weather Channel on January 14, 2007. "Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," he also told the Weather Channel on March 31, 2007. Lindzen dismisses "solutions" to global warming like changing light bulbs to fluorescent or participating in the Kyoto Protocol. "If you had a decision to make which actually would matter, then, of course it would be a very difficult situation," Lindzen said in an April 28, 2007 CBS Chicago TV special "The Truth About Global Warming." "One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a no-brainer," he said. (LINK) Lindzen also explained the UN's IPCC Summary for Policymakers involves only a dozen or so scientists. "It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else...but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit," Lindzen said. "At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform-warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy," Lindzen wrote in the April 16, 2007 issue of Newsweek. (LINK)

0 Replies

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

It is only winter in the northern hemisphere okie.

We had snow falls in the highlands of Australia this month.

Quote:

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you reference only your local weather when talking about global temperatures?

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you reference only flawed studies and corrupt scientists when talking about global temperatures?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus,
The IPCC, poor fellas, probably don't realize Australia is in the southern hemisphere and that it is now summer in Australia.

I assume it's unusual for there to be snow in the summer time in the highlands of Australia.

Probably, the IPCC will recommend you Australians pump more CO2 into the atmosphere over Australia to make the highlands of Australia warmer.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados says this to me, and as part of his argument, he posts a link about grape vines dying because of hot weather during a weekend, ha ha!

parados wrote:

Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you reference only your local weather when talking about global temperatures?

Here is the quote from Parados, rebuttal:
"Grapes vines in the Margaret River region have been destroyed after being burnt during record high temperatures on the weekend."

Sometimes Parados, you can really make yourself look silly.

Please read my next post, Parados, it points out something extremely important, a point that I have attempted to hammer away at numerous times, but so far it has not sunk into global warmers here on this forum so far, but here it is again. What it addresses is the most basic foundational point of any scientific issue, including this entire debate, that being the establishment of reliable data that can be analyzed first before any theories or conclusions can be reached about global warming, let alone any determination of some pie in the sky policy to supposed fix the problem yet to be determined.

1 Reply

@okie,

Every0ne read this, this is huge, and it is key. It addresses the most basic foundational aspect of every scientific issue, that of establishing sound data, reliable and accurate measurements of observed conditions, because without it, it is entirely futile and illusional to assume that any reasonable conclusions can be drawn from a set of data, let alone form any sound theories or plans for fixing some perceived problem.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

" Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?
By Anthony Watts
SurfaceStations.org
Executive Summary
Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts claim the
rise in temperature during the past century was “unprecedented” and proof that immediate
action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin. Other experts say the
warming was very modest and the case for action has yet to be made.
The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this
debate. We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data.
The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network
of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a
department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now,
no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement
environment of those stations.
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically
document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations " nearly 9 of every 10 " fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/
reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.
The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the
twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have
occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows
that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.This report presents actual photos of more than 100 temperature stations in the U.S., many of them demonstrating vividly
the siting issues we found to be rampant in the network. Photographs of all 865 stations that have been surveyed so far can
be found at www.surfacestations.org, where station photos can be browsed by state or searched for by name."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Probably, the IPCC will recommend you Australians pump more CO2 into the atmosphere over Australia to make the highlands of Australia warmer.

Well it would scare the **** out of me if they did, because we also had summer scorchers in other parts of Australia. Yes it is extremely unusual to have snow in summer in Australia, though Spring and Autumn snow falls do occur.
To talk about an average rise in temp I think is bizarre, as in the north we have cyclones driven by heat but they cool with flooding rains. In the south we can have high pressures causing heat waves whilst we can also have low pressures blow in off the Great Southern ocean. A recent heat wave of 43 deg C plummeted to 22 deg C in an hour with a cold change blowing in.
IT IS A SELF CORRECTING SYSTEM but I never hear that explained by the Global Warming Thuggees. They go with the line that poor-delicate-mother-nature-must-be-saved .

0 Replies

@okie,

Huge bold letters doesn't make it huge okie. It only means you are trying to make it huge.

If you think the temperature record is unreliable, then you should be able to explain why the following are all happening..
1. the ice on lakes is going out earlier than in previous decades
2. migratory birds are flying south later and north earlier
3. warm weather species are migrating north from their traditional habitats and surviving

Simply claiming the temperature record is unreliable doesn't eliminate all the other evidence that points to warming.

Repeating the same thing over and over without responding to the points disputing it doesn't help you any okie. It only makes you and ican one trick ponies that can't actually discuss the issue. Your only shtik is to throw out crap and hope it confuses people.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

you should be able to explain why the following are all happening..
1. the ice on lakes is going out earlier than in previous decades
2. migratory birds are flying south later and north earlier
3. warm weather species are migrating north from their traditional habitats and surviving

What makes you think any of your claims are reliable?

Average global temperatures--northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere--have been reported to be leveling off or declining over approximately the last decade. See graphs in my earlier post. I notice that in the graph you favor, the average global temperature does not appear to be plotted for 2008 thru 2009.

0 Replies

@parados,

ican is correct, your points 1 thru 3 are evidenced by what and who, parados? The points or assertions are nothing but anecdotal observations, which even you claim time and again to be worthless. Along with your birds flying north earlier, how about the recognition that I have worn a heavier coat much more often to work during the last couple of years.

Unless you can cite solid evidence of your assertions from a reputable source, your claims are worthless. And the source must be able to prove they used sound and reliable data gathering methods.

2 Replies

@okie,

When data is compiled and kept over a period of time, it isn't anecdotal.

Did you keep records of your coat okie?

I provided records of ice out on lakes. Did you bother to look at it?

The Audubon Society keeps records of birds
http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/hr/index.html
which shows they have moved farther north over time

Now about your sound and reliable data gathering methods okie....

1 Reply

@okie,

By the way okie..
Since you keep trotting out Watts comments on the temperature devices in the US. Can you tell us what standards you used to confirm Watts used sound and reliable data gathering methods to check the sites.

Do you think allowing persons you don't know send you pictures is a sound a reliable data method since I could photoshop anything I want to in a photo.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

When data is compiled and kept over a period of time, it isn't anecdotal.

Did you keep records of your coat okie?

I provided records of ice out on lakes. Did you bother to look at it?

The Audubon Society keeps records of birds
http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/hr/index.html
which shows they have moved farther north over time

Now about your sound and reliable data gathering methods okie....

Pretty interesting, Parados, but I think your evidence gets at least a "D", if not an "F". First of all, I used to be an amateur birdwatcher, and I kept bird lists as a hobby when young. And although I am not a member of some birdwatching society as Audubon now, but I have seen them several times walking around on local trails in their khaki shorts and binoculars counting birds. They are sort of a humorous lot of people, to be perfectly honest.

Now maybe you claim such casual or amateur sightings of birds can be scientifically sound enough to make some grand pronouncements of global warming, but I do not. Having done quite a bit of this sort of thing, and frankly I can still identify most common species, I would caution you about how accurate the identifications of species actually are by such people, and I would also put a big asterisk by the numbers of birds observed. Such is far from representing an accurate and precise record of some phenomena. I think for example that an accurate thermometer can measure temperature very precisely, alot more precisely than an amateur birdwatcher walking around with a pair of binoculars identifying and counting birds some morning or afternoon. That is far from being a controlled and standardized measurement that is very precise, Parados, you have to be kidding when you propose that it is? And the kicker to this whole debate is that if the experts cannot even site a weather station according to decent standards, how can you expect a tree hugging Audubon amateur bird watcher to deliver accurate and unbiased observations with a pair of binoculars?

In regard to your ice out on lakes, no I did not look at it, or if I did, I forgot about it, it must not have been very impressive. Post it again and I will look and see if it amounts to a hill of beans.

Now, about wearing a coat to work, I go at about the same time every single day, so if the winter is warmer or colder, I think it might make a pretty distinct mark in my mind, in terms of how cold has the winter been. Look, I am not proclaiming this to be scientifically sound, but it is probably just as good as a bunch of amateur birdwatchers walking around, different people at different times, different people with different skills that identify or mis-identify different birds and count them differently, I do not think such a collection of data should be taken very seriously as regards to telling us much about global warming. It is essentially anecdotal, and besides, populations of birds can also be cyclical in terms of numbers and species, somewhat apart from climatic or weather conditions. Birds are dependent upon many more things than temperature, one obvious one of many would be West Nile Virus. Use some common sense, Parados.

3 Replies

@okie,

That is quite funny okie..

You don't accept different people at different times counting birds but you are more than willing to accept different people at different times rating weather stations as failures.

In the case of the Audubon society, the same people do the same thing year after year. In the case of looking at weather stations, they look at them once.

2 Replies

@okie,

http://able2know.org/topic/44061-761#post-3873828

Here is my post with the link to the lake ice database.

Some of the lake data in Japan goes back to 1440, although it isn't very complete back that far.

0 Replies

@parados,

You are getting funnier, Parados. Would you know a Robin if you saw one, or a Magpie, or a Blue Jay? You are comparing two totally different situations, one being reading a scientific instrument, the other is a subjective judgement of what kind of bird one is observing, which can vary alot more I believe than it would with the people reading an instument?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

And the kicker to this whole debate is that if the experts cannot even site a weather station according to decent standards, how can you expect a tree hugging Audubon amateur bird watcher to deliver accurate and unbiased observations with a pair of binoculars?

You know okie, I have seen Tea Baggers walking around that took pictures of weather sites. They can barely even talk let alone take measurements or ascertain what is a heat source so your data gets an F based on your standards.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

In the case of the Audubon society, the same people do the same thing year after year.

Frankly I don't wish to call you a liar, but I greatly doubt your assertion, Parados. Common sense alone would say otherwise.

1 Reply

@okie,

Reading scientific instruments? ROFLMAO..
You are claiming the use of scientific instruments in describing weather stations as deficient? What scientific instrument was used to determine those stations are deficient?

You honestly think that a bird watcher would confuse a Robin with a Blue Jay? And you claim you used to bird watch? If you want to talk species of finches, then you might have an argument okie but I doubt that is what we are talking about here.

1 Reply

@okie,

Common sense tells you that bird watchers only do it for a year?
Obviously you don't know any avid bird watchers.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know