Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science

[RainmanTime]

Here we are at the end of 2008. Take a look at the data from 4 temperature sources over the last 8 years, including a linear regression of those last 8 years:

The last 8 years of data show NO WARMING.

There is no global warming! Repeat it to yourself over and over, because it is true!

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

Data proves this!

RMT

 

[ruthless]

looks like 2007 was hotter than 2002. and it looks like it was hotter, earlier.

 

[Kanigo2]

I have an even more in depth webbie--that I am pretty sure you know about Ray.

But i will post it anyway..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

In fact, he actually has a historical representation on a graph from 1810..enjoy.

 

[RainmanTime]

looks like 2007 was hotter than 2002. and it looks like it was hotter, earlier.

2007 represents a single data point in the time series of a closed-loop, thermodynamic cycle.

Do you understand linear regression, how it works, and why it is so important in time-based analysis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression#Applications_of_linear_regression

<font color="red"> "Linear regression is widely used in biological, behavioral and social sciences to describe possible relationships between variables. It ranks as one of the most important tools used in these disciplines." [/COLOR]

and

<font color="black"> "A trend line represents a trend, the long-term movement in time series data after other components have been accounted for. It tells whether a particular data set (say GDP, oil prices or stock prices) have increased or decreased over the period of time." [/COLOR]

This, coupled with the dataset shown in the graph, shows that the trend in temperatures has been down since 2000.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

I have an even more in depth webbie--that I am pretty sure you know about Ray.

But i will post it anyway..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

In fact, he actually has a historical representation on a graph from 1810..enjoy.

Thanks Kanigo. I know Anthony's blog quite well, you are right. He has more than catalogued all the reasons why AGW is da bunkum...Gore's new religion.

RMT

 

[ruthless]

lol, interesting indeed...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/climate-change-warming.html

 

[RainmanTime]

lol, interesting indeed...

//dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/climate-change-warming.html

So some questions for you:

1) Do you believe this?
2) Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?
3) Do you believe what Al Gore is telling the world?

RMT

 

[ruthless]

"Do you believe this?"

well, i hope its true. im all for warm weather.

"Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?"

ummm... does it really matter that much?

"Do you believe what Al Gore is telling the world?"

last time i heard anything about gore, he was running for president.

i just think its funny how scientists dont agree on facts. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[My_Time]

Firstly I will state that I am no more than an interested layman on this.

I suspect though that the issue of global warming/cooling is a bit more complex than a single graph showing 8 years worth of data. While that graph shows a downward trend it is also a fact that the polar regions are melting.

I think I'll do a bit more reading and join this thread again later. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

I suspect though that the issue of global warming/cooling is a bit more complex than a single graph showing 8 years worth of data.

Precisely why the IPCC's climate models should undergo rigorous Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (which they have not). I have plenty of data that shows their climate models are just plain wrong... especially since they used their models in the late 90s to predict the "hockey stick" temperature trend... and it never manifested. That right there would indicate we should be suspicious of their predictions of unchecked "Anthropocentric Global Warming".

For me, I am all about debating what the data says... the conclusions that some people come to vs. others. IPCC (back by the UN and a bunch of bureaucrats) claims the warming trend (which is no more) is caused by people and us liberating more and more CO2. There are other scientists who point to the clear correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling trends. The IPCC not only disagrees that the sun is the largest impactor of our global weather, they even refuse to address the solar-temp data I am talking about.

While that graph shows a downward trend it is also a fact that the polar regions are melting.

Interesting point. Check out this article on that topic from Anthony Watt's pages:

Sunlight has more powerful influence on ocean circulation and climate than North American ice sheets

It speaks directly to what I am saying that it is the Sun not mankind that is "behind global warming." When you look at ALL the data, not just the data the IPCC uses to make its (weak) case, you will see that we cannot really control global warming cycles. The sun is in charge!

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

"Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?"

ummm... does it really matter that much?

What "the masses" believe could very well affect everyone's lives. If you buy into a lie, it is usually because someone in power somewhere wants you to believe it. Did you know that Al Gore owns a part of a company that would become much more wealthy if his idea of "carbon caps and trading" was adopted? So... doesn't he really have a big conflict of interest?

i just think its funny how scientists dont agree on facts.

It is not the "facts" (data) they are disagreeing about. It is the inferred conclusions they come to based on the facts. One side (the IPCC and Al Gore) claim "the time for debate is over" or "the science is settled....mankind is the cause behind global warming." The other side says "but the data (facts) show a strong correlation between warming (and cooling) to solar cycles."

One group appears to only want to look at part of the data. The other groups wants to look at ALL OF THE DATA. Here are some troubling words that come from the report from which the graphic in my original post came from:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf

<font color="red"> "Chameides’ graph overleaf appears to have been tampered with to exclude the very rapid
cooling that occurred between 2007 (the curve stops in January 2007, when a strong el
Nino artificially but temporarily boosted temperatures) and 2008. The fall in temperatures
between January 2007 and January 2008, carefully not shown on Chameides’ graph, was
the greatest January-January fall since records began in 1880.

Furthermore, Chameides’s graph – instead of presenting a proper five-year running mean
– merely cherry-picks certain points on the running-mean graph (which is not itself
shown) so as to suggest, falsely, that global temperatures are still rising." [/COLOR]

When you only include data that supports your belief, and carefully omit data that counters your belief, then you are guilty of a very unscientific offense called "confirmation bias". For a scientist to "cook the data" to tell a story that represents his personal belief is dangerous. It is what leads to people believing ridiculous (and unsupported) things, such as "9-11 was an inside job".

RMT

 

[ruthless]

"There are other scientists who point to the clear correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling trends. The IPCC not only disagrees that the sun is the largest impactor of our global weather, they even refuse to address the solar-temp data I am talking about."

i agree. i think that solar cycles make up for a big part of it. i think you should put some kind of solar intensity graph next to the other graph. i think there are also other factors involved, but in my opinion, the sun is the biggest culprit. a billion cars running every second of everyday doesent neccesarily help things out though.

let me ask you this: does your data account for pressure systems, cold fronts, wind chill/heat index, and stuff like that? the reason i ask is that because this time last year, it was a comfy 80 degrees. last night it was 40 degrees. i could say that the world must be cooling, but i'd be wrong. its just that a cold front came through and this time last year, it took until well after christmas to get here.

btw, even though i agree, i still think your a gigantic A-hole. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[s19n]

What "the masses" believe could very well affect everyone's lives.

True but can you honestly say that being in a downtown core breathing that air all day is preferable to being out in a middle of nowhere in the country? Combustion engine has to go. I hate Al Gore's lies, his technique, and the fact that they both work. But I'll look the other way while he does his thing unless I'm invested in one of the companies that is going to loose money because burning oil goes out of style ;-)

 

[RainmanTime]

let me ask you this: does your data account for pressure systems, cold fronts, wind chill/heat index, and stuff like that?

Nope. And that is because it is "just data". What you are describing would be termed a "model". But your point is well taken, which is why a great many scientists and engineers are calling for the IPCC climate models to be properly vetted and validated against reality for a whole host of factors (not the least of which are climactic feedback effects...a big point of argument about the validity of their models).

btw, even though i agree, i still think your a gigantic A-hole.

Don't worry, it won't keep me awake at night!

And you know, you could always "put me in my place" by getting that degree.... that would "show me", now wouldn't it? :D

RMT

 

[ruthless]

"Don't worry, it won't keep me awake at night! And you know, you could always "put me in my place" by getting that degree.... that would "show me", now wouldn't it?"

nah, thats a big waste of time. theres far easier ways to "show you." fortunately for me, i dont have time to waste on insignifigant things. now, back to the topic at hand.


"Nope. And that is because it is "just data".

you put the period outside of the quotation marks... :D OK, now i dont have time to waste on insignifigant things. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

i agree that they should take into account all variables. but how can you be sure that you have made the correct assesment without all of the variables?

i would also suggest that you compare day/night temperatures of 1960-70 with 1998-08. i think it will tell an interesting story. i think it will say that nowadays there are hotter days and colder nights. i think it is from a partial loss of atmosphere. call it a hunch.

 

[RainmanTime]

nah, thats a big waste of time.

That's too bad you say that. Folks who can't, or are too lazy, to get their degree often use this as a means of cover. Oh well.

i agree that they should take into account all variables. but how can you be sure that you have made the correct assesment without all of the variables?

Several answers here:

1) The major argument is about whether the globe, as a whole, is warming. Hence, we are more concerned about macroscopic and long-term effects, and temperature is the primary parameter that will either confirm, or deny, the speculations. As such, microcopic and short-term events such as weather patterns passing thru an area end up being averaged-out. (In fact, these short-term, variable events are what are responsible for a lot of the up-and-down, high frequency content you see in the data).
2) As you progress from a "single input/single output" model (again, make the distinction between just taking data and trying to model something) to multi-valued problems, the uncertainty goes way up. This means making conclusions WITHOUT a model that has been verified and validated is dangerous.
3) Summary: I am again stating that your concern is correct. But the answer to your concern is the domain of modeling. And you can't just build a model and issue your conclusions (which is what the IPCC and Al Gore are doing). You have to formally verify and validate that your model predicts reality by comparing your model predictions to what really happens. And so far, the IPCC climate models that predicted a linear temperature rise for the 2000-2020 time frame have been proven to be invalid. So the data clearly shows they are not properly taking everything into account, as you point out. Many climate experts have written papers explaining exactly where they believe the errors are, and it has to do with modeling feedback effects.

i would also suggest that you compare day/night temperatures of 1960-70 with 1998-08. i think it will tell an interesting story. i think it will say that nowadays there are hotter days and colder nights. i think it is from a partial loss of atmosphere. call it a hunch.

Hunches can be wrong. If we were experiencing "loss of atmosphere" (partial or not), we would see this in long term atmospheric pressure readings across the globe. It would be easy to detect. The atmosphere is essentially a closed pressure vessel. (This is why we teach atmospheric modeling in the very first, ARO 101 course). If pressure were "leaking" from the atmosphere, even by a relatively small amount, it would be very obvious.

But hey, I don't expect you to just trust me (seeing as how you think I am a giant A-hole). Take a read of what a Professor Emeritus in atmospheric science says about the whole AGW nonsense:

Over-Hyping of Green
By William M. Gray
The author is a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where he has worked since 1961. He holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in Geophysical Science.

<font color="red"> The US green movement is moving forward with its agenda to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) gas emissions. Colorado Governor Ritter has proposed various CO2 reduction measures. Many US state legislatures are beginning to mandate that various percentages of future electrical energy generated come from renewable energy sources. Renewable energy is currently much more expensive than traditional fossil fuel energy. Many cities and states across the US are starting to implement costly programs to reduce CO2 emissions. I doubt that the public is aware of the heavy economic penalties to be paid by efforts to substantially reduce CO2 gases. These CO2 reduction efforts are beginning to be made just at the time we must start to adjust to the serious economic problems associated with the recent severe stock market downturn.

There is little the US can do about reducing global CO2 amounts. China, India and other third world countries will not agree to limit their CO2 emissions. It is important for our country to maintain its vibrant and growing economy to have sufficient resources to invest in research on new energy sources and in further development of our, as yet untapped, domestic energy supplies. It is more important to make progress on reducing our dependence on foreign energy than reducing CO2. We should not let an organized cabal of environmentalists, government bureaucrats, and liberal media groups brainwash us into going in a direction not in our country's best interest.

I have been studying and teaching weather and climate for over 50 years and have been making real-time seasonal hurricane forecasts for a quarter-century. I and many of my colleagues with comparable experience do not believe that CO2 gas emissions are anywhere near the threat to global climate as the environmental and liberal media groups have led us to believe. Most people are not aware of how flimsy are the physical arguments behind the human-induced warming scenarios. There has yet to be a really open and honest scientific dialogue on this topic among our country's most experienced weather and climate experts. Most knowledgeable global warming skeptics have been ignored and/or their motives questioned. Many have been falsely tagged as tools of the fossil fuel industry – reminding me a bit of the McCarthy period. By contrast, those harping the loudest on the dangers of CO2, such as Al Gore, typically have little real understanding or experience in how the atmosphere and ocean really function.

The Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities on which so much of the warming science scenarios are based have basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe's small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically warming influence from CO2 increases. These GCMs also do not properly model the globe's deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that have been observed. Most GCMs indicate that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 towards the end of the 21st century will lead to global warming of 2-5oC. My best estimate of global warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.3-0.5oC, 5-10 times less than the models estimate. These GCMs have yet to demonstrate predictive skill at forecasting the next few years of global temperature. Why should we believe their predictions 50 to 100 years in the future?

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The summary statements of the IPCC reports are strongly biased to upholding the human influence on climate. The IPCC summaries often do not conform to the material in the reports. Most known warming skeptics, such as myself and a number of my very experienced colleagues were never invited to participate in the IPCC process or even contacted by the IPCC for our views.

It is impossible to objectively separate the small amount of CO2 induced global warming that may have occurred from the large natural induced global temperature changes which are always occurring. There has been little global warming the last 10 years. Due to recent changes in the global ocean circulation that I and others foresee as the basin for a modest cooling of global temperature in the next 10-15 years. This would be similar to the global cooling that was experienced between the mid-1940s to mid-1970s.

Reducing atmospheric CO2 will not by itself solve any of the globe's many environmental problems. A slightly warmer globe due to CO2 increases would, in the net, likely be more beneficial to humankind than a slightly cooler globe. Crop and vegetation growth would be stimulated by higher amounts of atmospheric CO2. We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into costly CO2 reduction programs of little or no real benefit but much economic detriment. [/COLOR]

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

nah, thats a big waste of time ( getting a degree )

Trust me it not a waste of time. I'm approaching 50 and regret not getting one. Don't make the same mistake I did, Ruthless. It is far easier to obtain one when younger, than older. You never know what you might decide to do later on in your life, would be good to keep as many options open as possible.

Whats a couple of years of your time, as opposed to many years of regret ?

And, even if I got one now...most places I would "love" to work, would not hire me because I'm too old.

Another aspect to having a degree...I worked in the Home Improvement Industry for years as a sub-level manager...my bosses were pretty dumb...why they were my bosses ? Because they had a degree in "something", and were hired directly into the upper manager positions, and in the corporate positions, as well.

I also know for a fact, that the road of life is a bit more difficult without any "structured" higher education. There are those who make do without, but those numbers are rather small.

 

[ruthless]

i appreciate your concern, but i doubt that i will ever get the chance to go to school. now ray may tell you that i can make all the excuses in the world, but its still my fault, but i will tell you that i have a choice to make.

i can decide to be a father to my two children and i can choose to try to help my mentally deranged wife through her "living dead girl" routine (she hasnt been home today and is surely out doing deconstructive things). OR i can say screw them and go get my education.

but the fact is, someone has to be there for the kids and my wife is not well off. she has attempted suicide before and at this time, she is very mentally unstable.

so where one man sees excuses, i see a choice.

i made a choice once that i was most important in my life. i finally told my mother that i was going to live my life and i was not going to help her with her problems anymore because it was an endless cycle of stupidity. i told her, "F you." and walked away with a box of clothes and nothing else.

now, i could do the same thing with my wife. i could go and get my box of clothes and leave again. i could go and live the life i dream of living. i could say to her, "im alive too woman. i have a life i want to live too." but i remember what happened with my mother. i never got to speak to her again. she was murdered/commited suicide... hell i dont know what happened, but now she is dead and i will always blame myself for that.

i couldve just ignored what you said to me, and i couldve wrote you this in a pm. but i made the decision to write it publicly and there is a reason. i appreciate the fact that people encourage me to go to school, but the problem is, it hurts more than it helps. i already want to go to school and if i had no morals, i would be in school. if i felt no overwhelming guilt everytime i told my wife, "screw you you cheating whore. its time for me to live my life." i would be in school.

i know that i cant keep on doing this forever, but i have to. it would be nice if i had help, but i know that everyone else in this world puts themselves first. so, from now until the day i die, i will do what i have been doing for the past ten years: pray that god makes it go all away and i can finally, for the first time in my life, live a normal life.

so, until i figure out a way to make it all ok, i will continue to try to reach out to people and i will continue to tell my story, hoping it makes a difference in someones life. maybe a wife or a husband will read this and realize how their spouse feels and they can finally have meaning in their marriage.

i will coninue to hope for the best and learn all i can in my spare time. that is all i can do.

 

[KerrTexas]

I understand. I made an assumption that was incorrect, and for that assumption, I apologize.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your choice, and my respect for you has grown exponentially.

There are lessons to be learned in all circumstances, and the lessons you are learning are of things that no school could ever teach.

In a way, I believe what you have expressed here and the way you have expressed it, demonstrates a type of man that is rare and the world could use more men like you.

I wish I could offer you more, however, all I have to give is my hand in friendship, and my prayers for you and your family.

 

[ruthless]

thank you. not many people have said that to me and i appreciate it. its moments like these that keep me going, that fuels my fire.

thank you.