Global confusion

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
4,260
554

Main Question or Discussion Point

Im, sure global warming has been debated many times, but have we
learnt anything from all the data recordings taken all over the world,
surly they would show a weather, "trend", in the UK we have had local
record breaking weather conditions, rain fall, temperature and wind
speed.
.But thats nothing compared to say the flooding in Bangladesh and other
parts of the world, so is the earth getting hotter? if it is then is it a natural
or man made phenomena?
I think the best evidence for the past weather conditions would be the
ice core samples and" dendrenology"--spelling? taken over the years.
if a match is found from the samples taken, then surly we could see at
least a 1000 yrs weather trend.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
4,464
65
Hey, wolram, check the other thread, there is your answer.
 
  • #3
wolram
Gold Member
4,260
554
Andre said:
Hey, wolram, check the other thread, there is your answer.
I have read the other thread, but its not convincing, we are constantly
shown conflicting facts, who is providing and interpreting these facts?
Which of these should we listen to?
 
  • #4
4,464
65
Well whenever you're suspicious of any of the parties, get active and calculate. Check it all yourself. I spend on the average four hours in the evening doing that and I'm getting results.

You may notice that one party uses sentimental techniques with little refence to real hard data back ups whilst others can't stop pointing to clear accepted formal datasets like http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/ [Broken].

Starting here you can make your complete assesment of the global temperature in the last century.

Hint: check the difference between cities and rural stations in their proximity and you may understand the origin of the global warming hype.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
4,464
65
Then again you could check a new thread
 
  • #6
104
0
Andre do i understand you right when i say you solely depend on figures to make statements on the subject?
IHMO this is to complex of a subject to make statements about with just several datasets to work with.
 
  • #7
4,464
65
Natuurlijk niet, Marijn

How about a lot of studies that are conflicting in the first place, like MBH98 versus M&M. The antipersistency study of the atmosphere of Olavi Kärner directly disputes the alledged role of CO2 . That's when you start checking the numbers I guess.
 
  • #8
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
wolram said:
so is the earth getting hotter? if it is then is it a natural
or man made phenomena?
From what I hear, it's a fact that the average global temperature has risen a little since the Industrial Revolution (0.5 Celcius? Andre?)...also a fact that the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases have increased since that time...however, it's a big debate as to whether the warming (and any future warming) is attributable to humans.

I look forward to a good discussion on this. (at the moment, I'm still trying to look into Andre's points...it would be nice to have a climate scientist here at PF)
 
  • #9
4,464
65
All, First of all,

The retreat of GW continues: A serious attack right in the middle of the Lions Den, since Dutch policymakers have been on the cutting edge of the hype.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072004B.html

Time is running out to beat about the bush. The man-made global warming paradigm is about to collapse. In its wake the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) process will have to change tack. In the mean time, the Kyoto Treaty seems to be moribund.

(...)
During the same period, in personal discussions with scientists, one of them confided to me that man-made global warming was the greatest scientific swindle of the 20th century. Since I had already acquired the same feeling, I asked him whether I could quote him in my publications. But he declined. Apparently this issue did not lend itself to freedom of speech.
This is how far it has got. The man's life would be in danger, it would not have been the first political murder of this century in The Netherlands.

At that time it was still pretty difficult to pinpoint where things went astray. But in the course of my further investigations I came across many instances of invocation of scientific authority to 'prove' points, illogical reasoning, political pressure, refusal to take cognizance of contrarian views, derision of opponents, suppression of crucial information, falsification and manipulation of scientific data, intimidation and even expulsion of scientists who did not adhere to the man-made global warming paradigm, etc. In short, all the tricks in the book, which looked so familiar to me in the light of experience that I had gained during earlier parts of my career in a totally different field.
I may have mentioned some of those.


(...)
'Basically, none of the assertions made in the Kyoto Protocol and the 'scientific' theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based has been borne out by actual data. We are not seeing any high frequency of emergency situations or events. There has been no increase in the number of floods. Just as there has been no increase in the number of droughts. We can see that the speed of the wind in the hails in some areas is decreasing contrary to the statements made by the people who support the Kyoto Protocol. We are not witnessing a higher incidence of contagious diseases, and if there is a rise, it has nothing to do with climate change. If there is an insignificant increase in the temperature it is not due to anthropogenic factors but to the natural factors related to the planet itself and solar activity. There is no evidence confirming a positive linkage between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. If there is such a linkage, it is a reverse nature. In other words, it is not carbon dioxide that influences the temperature on Earth, but it just the reverse: temperature fluctuations are caused by solar activity influence the concentration of carbon dioxide.'

After having complained about the behaviour of the British delegation, headed by Sir David King, who - unsuccessfully - tried to exclude certain 'undesirable' scientists from taking the floor,....
And in the process proving exactly the methods of the alarmists
(...)
How come that so many honorable and highly reputed scientists have so long put their faith in man-made global warming paradigm? Were they victims of inadvertence? Misjudgement? Prejudice? Tunnel vision? Cognitive dissonance? Self-deception? Is the man-made global warming paradigm indeed the greatest scientific scam ever?

The dénouement is imminent. In the very near future we will know which of the preceding question marks we may drop. As inspector Morse used to say to his associate: 'It has been staring us in the face all the time, Lewis! And we have overlooked it!
Unfortunately, its not really that easy. The main witnesses for the global warming are the ice age evidence and the Venus alleged runaway or wet greenhouse effect heating. Those have logically driven the scientific part of the AGW myth. But the Venus and ice age stories are totally different, I know now, but the required paradigm shift will likely be way too big to be acceptable.

Phobos,

The average number used to indicate the warming trend from 1850 to now is 0.7 degrees per century. But we see strong occilations. Conveniently enough for the alarmists the temperatures increased some 0.3 degrees between 1990 and 1998. But the warming has leveled off after that.

So what is really happening?
Using the Stefan Bolzman relation the 30% increase in Carbon dioxide may have caused a real Greenhouse warming increase of about 0.2 degrees between 1850 and 2004, or 0.13 degrees per century

Cities are usually some degrees warmer than the rural areas. Alarmist have argued that this Urban Heat Island effect is accounted for. But that's only true for the steady states and not the trends, whilst growing cities getting increasingly warmer, rural areas do not. These are the virtual -ghost- trends that we see disguised as part of the global warming. As many rural stations have been closed in most continents in the 1980/1990 era we see the strong trend up starting there. But in the USA the rural stations remained active. Consequently little or no warming in the States. I´m busy inventarising all the data and try to produce a report about it. But it will certainly take some months.

My current modestly sophisticated gestimate for rural heat island effect is 0.3-0.5 degrees per century.

And then there is solar output fluctuation, albedo changes, soot, haze, volcanoes etc. The sum of effects may cancel out the Stefan Bolzman factor.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Global confusion

  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
3K
Top