Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by North Carolina Tentmaker, Oct 20, 2008.
From the link:
There is no doubt the climate change issue is largely junk science that is unreliable and is used as a political tool to accomplish a communist agenda.
That's the same conclusion that the Republican study groups funded by exxon came to.
The grey lines are from "The University of Alabama in Huntsville" for the "global temperature anomaly". However, the "Global trend line" has been inserted by parties unknown. That kind of deception is trying to make someone probably unqualified to make such a line.
The selection of the "Lower Troposphere Global Temperature" is frequently used when someone wants to 'prove' NOT Global Warming. Better data is available all over the place.
Consider this statement (also not on the UofA charts): "Since 2005, global temperatures have given back most of the warming that had occurred since 1980". That statement is also deceptive. What the chart really shows is "Since 2005, global temperatures have gone back to where they were in 1980." 'Temperature' and 'heat' are two different things. Here they are NOT defined scientifically. However, what little I recall of the Mechanics (Mechanical Physics, that is, not fixing cars) class I took, the heat would be proportional to the AREA under the time-temp graph (even the Global trend line). It is easy to see the area between the 'Global Trend Line' and the no variantion line (zero, left and right) is a lot less than the area above the no variation line to the 'Global Trend Line'.
In conclusion and IMHO: the O.P. is a false argument based on bad science, bad economics, bad politics, and poor trolling techniques.
Check the link and read the article Ed. This uses NASA numbers and scientists. Disagree with the findings if you want but facts are still out there. Read what they said about the MWP also. I think your confusing mechanics and thermodynamics, but your opinion is still welcome.
I can safely say that this year in NY, global warming is a sham. LOL It's darned COLD out there!! The horses have super winter coats already done a few weeks ago telling me that it's going to be a cold winter (last year it was Christmas before they really started getting their coats in). I'm ready - kids have warm coats, I have a cord of wood coming soon and I'm winterproofing as best I can.
Yeah, I don't see evidence of global warming right now.
That's an interesting chart, though. I wonder how many might say that the decrease in global temperature is due to the fact that people are now more environmentally conscious and their efforts are paying off?? I don't see how that could affect it already but I'm sure they're willing to step to the podium and take credit for it.
Well even the gray graph shows a dramatic down turn in temps. Do you actually think that there are that many more hybrids on the road causing that downward
spiral? I don't think so! :type:
I was looking for the actual Christy and Douglass paper that has these quotes and data. I was only able to find two papers by them and neither of them has the portion quoted above. The September 2008 paper has a Figure (1) of temperatures that conflicts with the one published by Lorne Gunter and does not have 1978 temperatures the same as 2005 temperatures but a difference of 0.5 degrees.
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (Sept 2008)
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (Oct 2007)
I'm very disappointed in the National Post, a Canadian paper for allowing this to be published on their website when it is completely fabricated.
Like they have said since Nimrod's lie*:
Figures don't lie; but liars figure.
* Note Nimrod's lie: Nimrod was the father of Hunting and Fishing. One day he came back to town and told his lie: "I just shot (as with an arrow) this 14-point, 8-foot long Bass."
I had another look at the paper and figured out what Lorne Gunter did.
Christy and Douglass has another figure that separates global temperatures into three zones: 1) tropical 2) northern hemisphere 3) southern hemisphere. It looks like Lorne took the tropical data which has returned to 1978 levels and said that the global temperatures have returned to 1978 levels. He just neglected to include 2/3 of the data, particularly the third in the northern hemisphere where a big chunk of the population of the world lives and has the highest increases since 1978 of the three groups.
Thank you Gold Dragon. I also check into things like this. There is lot of political stuff going own (I bow out of the President's race two weeks before Election, nothing now will change my mind). But people who don't know how to do academic or scientific checks of things - they are the ones easily made the fool. Science statements HAVE TO BE VERIFIABLE.
// Check the link and read the article Ed. This uses NASA numbers and scientists. //
Of course I checked the link. I also checked the Huntsville branch of the UofA site for the original data. The link itself had a discussion with over 50 replies. That is where I got my 'objections' posted above (after checking them out, of course, rephrasing in my own words, of course). That is what Academic standards of writing do for one. People who know how to do that Academic quoting stuff know how to cite a source and how to check a source citation. Science requires similiar presentations of data and how the people who got the numbers got the numbers.
Thus Sayeth the Lord: Trust but Verify.
1 John 4:1 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Dearely beloued, beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spirits whether they are of God: for many false prophets are gone out into this worlde.
My conclusion: There is sufficient data for me to recommend: we need to do something about Global Warming NOW. I'll be really disappointed if Amsterdam gets covered by the sea BTW, other countries in the world are concerned becasue the USofA 'is doing anything' about Global Warming.
I've also studied the psychological and social evidences of Clinical Denial of facts. The outlook isn't pretty.
Even so, Lord Jesus Come Quickly!
I disagree with your climate change conclusions - but is not the point of this particular post.
Do a quick check of the 'carbon footprint' of the nations of Europe who are critical of the US. I think you may be surprised.
Ed's gone off his Meds?
I think that while you're casting aspersions upon and mocking another's rationality, the intellectual honesty of which you boast would compel you to disclose the fact that you suffer from Clinical Depression and are apt to think the worst anyway.
But I'm inclined to believe you're right. Mars' polar icecaps are melting too, and since the sun cannot be the cause of global warming, it has to be the human activity.
Dadburn those rovers!
Suv's have also been spotted on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Raising their atmospheric temperatures at the same proportional rate as that of the Earths. :laugh: People will believe anything!
You are correct, the sun is not the cause of global warming or the melting of the martian polar ice caps. But human activity is not the cause of melting martian polar ice caps.
The following BBC article highlights a paper published in 2007 by the Proceedings of the Royal Society. The paper found that based on the sun's output, the global temperature should have declined in the last 20 years, which obviously did not happen.
NASA's analysis also includes an analysis of solar irradiation which is currently on a down side of the cycle. This is the paper they base their solar irradiation model on.
The melting of the martian polar ice caps is thought to be due to large variations in the Martian axis and orbit around the sun which are accentuated because Mars has small moons.
Axis variation would result in the opposite pole getting less sun. I believe most reports about the martian ice caps melting refer to the southern martian ice cap.
Orbital variation would result in both ice caps getting less sun. I think the mention of the axis variation is also because of its contribution to the variation on the orbit of Mars.
Google Dr. Hansen, your GISS analyst, and you find a politically involved, biased, radical member of the global-warming priesthood. His financial ties to the Democratic Party alone undermine the integrity of the GISTEMP dataset. It can no longer be trusted to be impartial.
NASA has kept him on only because they fear political reprisal.
And we're supposed to trust him to tell us that another GISS affiliate, Richard Willson, was less than thorough when he said that solar activity could be a major factor in global warming?
By the way, it isn't NASA's analysis, it's Hansen's.
Solar activity is factored on NASA's analysis and was determined to be on a low part of its cycle in 2007 using Wilson and Mordvinov's model of solar irradiation in the page from NASA I quoted.
The title of the page is GISS Surface Temperature Analysis which is a the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a division of NASA. Even if Hansen wrote the page, it is still NASA's analysis. They have put their name on it.
Please provide evidence of this claim from a quote from a NASA representative.
Hansen is one person who analyses the data from the GISTEMP dataset collected by many other people and organisations. Here is the dataset of temperatures used in the analysis. Feel free to look at the data yourself and show me where Hansen has manipulated the data to fit the views of his "priesthood".
In the chart on page 1 (of this topic) called 'CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE' is a line connecting the data points called 'Lower troposphere global tempatrue anomaly' - this chart is explained (how it was obtained) when you find the source" "The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Ok that is verifiable data (I verified it).
In the chart on page 1 (of this topic) called 'CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE' is a line connecting the data points called 'Global trend line' - this chart is NOT explained (how it was obtained) when you find the source" "The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Ok that is un-verifiable data (I could not verifiy it). I don't know who collected the data, which alogrithims are used for such a data determinations. As far as I know someone drew a line in there to prove their point. The point trying to be proved is obvius: "Since 2005, global temperatures have given back most of the warming that had occurred since 19080." That point is NOT proved.
BTW, Global Warming concerned folk know that there is both a Sun component (the major component for sure) and a people component. Some confused folks (wear the label if you like it :laugh: ) don't know the fact in the first sentence.
Think of this
Before the SUV and the Industrial Revolution, and before Coal was ever burnt......Greenland was covered with trees
NOW it is covered in ICE?????
yeah!!!! Global warming......Right!!!! I'll buy that one.....really I will...............when pigs fly