Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

[Aaron]

First of all you need to make a choice. Do you stand by these articles and papers you posted? Because all of them agree that global warming is occurring, all of them agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, all of them agree that man contributes to global warming via production of greenhouse gases . . . Because if you do stand by the articles you posted, I don't want to hear you ever question the raw data that the globe is warming, or to question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or to question that man contributes to global warming.

If you don't stand by those articles, you should read things before you post them.

One wonders if you've read them. . .

My first article by the APS states that:
1)since 2001, the mean global surface temperature has been in a downward trend,
2)The IPCC have exaggerated and stacked the data in their presentation to the U.N., and
3)there is no correlation between CO2 concentrations and the warming and cooling trends of the globe
4)that there is no climate crisis necessitating a government policy.

For political reasons, in an opening statement the APS makes its proper prostration to the god of Global Warming, because the data immediately following pulls the rug out of the conclusions the IPCC affirmed to the U.N. Lord Monckton's scathing expose of the IPCC junk science and letter of protest over a false accusastion levelled by the APS forced their hand.

My second article has a link to the Monckton report that forced the APS to "reconsider" climate sensitivity to human greenhouse gas emissions, and the false accusation against Monchton's report.

My third article states that the views of a top Israeli scientist who also states that CO2 in the atmosphere plays only a secondary role in global climate, and "one too small to preoccupy policy makers." The article also states that "according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth."

My forth article reveals the political influences of IPCC projections, and labels James Hansen as an extremist.

My fifth article supports my claim that the science on global warming is not settled, and lists the points on which there is consensus, and the points on which there is no consensus. It also reveals the political forces driving the current climate crisis and the way the IPCC encourages misrepresentation of the facts.

My last source is more info on the warming trend on other planets in the solar system and it's implications for determining cause of the trend on earth.

I posted these articles to show that I could do what I said I could. For every authority you cite, I can cite one who says the opposite.

BTW, none of the articles you quoted presented raw data that opposes the dataset used by GISS which is what you were trying to do.

No. I said because of Hansen's extremism the dataset is in doubt. My articles show that more objective analyses of the data paint a very different picture than Hansen's.

If you agree with your articles, then you should have no problems with agreeing with NASA's analysis by Hansen because it says the same thing. Global warming is occurring.

I've already established that Hansen can't be trusted.

It also depends on how one defines Global Warming. If you define Global Warming as the idea that the mean temperature of the earth may have increased slightly in the last 100 years, I won't dispute it. If you want to say however that it is caused by human activity and will result in a global catastrophe if some government policy restricting our access to readily available and relatively inexpensive "fossil" fuels isn't enacted, then I say pish tosh. Not only I, but many eminently qualified scientists as well.

What the articles posted by you do say is that the models used by the IPCC for future warming are exagerrations and that man's contribution to global warming is exagerrated. While I disagree with those views, I consider them to be valid arguments to make and worthy of discussion.

I could counter each of their arguments . . .

Only by posting other scientists by saying they're wrong. For which I could find many others who say otherwise.

...but I want you to stand by those articles and say that you agree with them first before I go through the work of doing that.

I don't agree with your summary of them. Again, it's as if you didn't even read them. But you go ahead and argue with them. After all you're just as qualified as Lord Monckton, Richard Lindzen and Nir Shariv because you've read lots of science articles--you and Medicated Ed.

 

[Ed Edwards]

// There is no such thing as "pristine" wilderness. Jungles and wildernesses are to be tamed. //

Actually it is the Jungles & wilderness that convert Carbon Dioxide into Green Food (carbon compound) and free Oxygen. The Jungles & wilderness are God's way that the Earth regulates the amount of Carbon Dioxide.

World - the political system of mankind
Earth - the physical planet we live upon

I believe the Lord will destroy the World and use the Earth for His purposes.

// There is a philosophical divide between you and me that's unbrigdable, and this question illustrates it. I don't see a command to "steward His creation," whatever that means. I see a command to subdue it and to have dominion over it. It's resources are here for man to use. //

You funny The churches I've been attending for 63 years (since I could talk) told about what 'steward' 'the Lord' and 'creation' mean. // I see a command to subdue it and to have dominion over it. It's resources are here for man to use. // means the same thing as "steward the Lord's creation".

// I see a command to subdue it and to have dominion over it. It's resources are here for man to use. // does NOT mean to 'render unusable' for 1,000 years or more. The Lord plans on coming back and being boss of the Earth for 1,000 years. Can he do that if humans have been bad stewards His creation, His Earth? Well probably the Lord can. But does He want us to tear up jack, deprive our neighbors (the ones we are to wintess unto) of enough to eat? That just isn't the kind of God I remember learning about back in the early 1950s.

 

[Ed Edwards]

From a Global Warming denier on another venue:
// // This is just stupid, gobal warming is fake. A couple of decades ago the popular theme was "GLOBAL COOLING" so please stop wasting your time on stupid ideas that the press comes up with to earn money by tricking stupid ignorant people that just go with the flow and believe everything they are told //

I've been reading newspapers since 1952. I've been reading newspapers as an adult (back then it was '21') for 44 years. In the 1970s was a serious student of two things:

1. The effects of burning all the Earth's oil off in 60 years (GLOBALWARMING)

2. the effects of exploding nuclear devices about equal to a Giga-ton of TNT - the effect is NUCLEAR WINTER. That is about all the 'Global Cooling' I recall.

BTW, I've been studying war for a long time and now have gone to studying things about the Lord Jesus - like PEACE. We gave our lives (the people I worked with AKA: US Military) to NOT ruin the world with NUCLEAR WINTER. Fortunately we worked with the Russian Confederation (a lot of atheists - this earth is all they get, they don't have self-destruction in mind) and the Red Chinese (they don't think they get 72 virgins* they don't have self-destruction in mind, ). Now days the Global Warming feet-draggers are looking to destroy the Earth ('God needs their help', they say).

So you who opt out of the 'how are we going to distribute the goods after we burn off all the oil'? discussion (by denying the discussion) are setting you & your children up for a sad future on the Earth.

* NOTE: what is the big deal about 72 virgins anyway? //

 

[Gold Dragon]

So you agree that vandalism is justified when Global Warming is cited as the cause. This is tantamount to an admission of extremism.

I said that the court affirmed that Hansen's comments were correct.

I got that much by reading

Sure you did. That is why you suggested that neither of us would be able to follow the article or are qualified to analyze data right after posting that link.

but what could you add to the discussion? Are you really that informed? You don't give me that impression when you post a link to raw data and imply that you are qualified to anayze it. I'm inclined to believe you're exaggerating your technical expertise. If you can take that data and analyze it without a reference to Hansen or anyone else, then I will concede that you may be qualified to derive inferences from raw data. But until then, my assertion that you rely on experts to interpret the data for you stands.

I commented on its small sample size, the fact that its errors could result in both under and over estimates and the small role these alleged errors play in the overall total average global temperature in any given year. I did not reference anyone but looked at the paper directly. What can you add to the discussion by critically analyzing the quality of the papers you post?

There is a philosophical divide between you and me that's unbrigdable, and this question illustrates it. I don't see a command to "steward His creation," whatever that means. I see a command to subdue it and to have dominion over it. It's resources are here for man to use. There is no such thing as "pristine" wilderness. Jungles and wildernesses are to be tamed.

The land is here for man, not man for the land.

My God is a righteous King who created and has dominion over all of his creation. When he gives dominion to of that creation to man, I would model that dominion after that of the righteous King and not after dictators and totalitarians who use and abuse their people for their own benefit.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I posted these articles to show that I could do what I said I could. For every authority you cite, I can cite one who says the opposite.

You said your other sources would show that the GISS dataset was unreliable and have yet to show that. The articles you cite that use actual temperature data present data that agrees with the GISS dataset.

One wonders if you've read them. . .

So you stand by your articles. I hope to never hear you oppose the following statements.

Statements in your articles supporting global warming

APS Physics: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
...Figure 2: Global temperature projections and outturns, 1988-2020
Temperature has not risen as fast as projected...

National Post: The real deal
...However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming...

Independent institute: Not So Dire After all
...Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. This is true, but correlation is never proof of causation...

Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen
...While determining whether temperature has increased or not is not such a question,...
...that the increase in global mean temperature over the past century is about 1F...

National Post: Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
...For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming....

Statements in your articles supporting CO2 as a greenhouse gas

APS Physics: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
...That equation was intended to model feedbacks in linear electronic circuits: yet many temperature feedbacks – the water vapor and CO2 feedbacks, for instance – are non-linear...

National Post: The real deal
...The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change...
...CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers...

Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen
...that CO2 levels have increased from about 280ppm to 360ppm over the past century, and, that combined with increases in other greenhouse gases,...

National Post: Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
...Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."...

Statements in your articles supporting human contribution to global warming

National Post: The real deal
.."Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."...

National Post: Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
...Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."...

I guess I should apologize about an earlier inaccurate statement. One of your articles does not support that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and 3 of your articles does not specifically state that man contributes to global warming.

So which of these articles do you stand by? And I don't want to hear you disagree with any of the above 3 statements if you stand by any of them.

If you want to shift this discussion to what your articles state about whether IPCC models are accurate and the level of degree of human contribution to global warming, I am definitely willing to consider those questions. But I won't waste my time if you insist that global warming is not occurring, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that man does not contribute to global warming at all. Because then you are conflicting your own sources.

 

[windcatcher]

While I agree that we should do what we can to keep the air clean and unpolluted........ for it is the substance we breathe
And we should do what we can to limit or isolate the pollution or poisoning of our water and land...... for water is necessary for life and the earth is the place on which we both live and grow our food......

Yet regarding this CO2 junk science.......
CO2 has remained a relatively stable gas of our atmosphere comprising .038% or other words .00038 of the gases is carbon dioxide.... and essential for plant life, which make up our atmosphere.
Regarding the junk science of global warming.......
When the planets in our solar system, have temperatures which fluctuate with ours...... it is a little extreme to blame ours on mankind's use of energy......when the solar flares is believed to contribute to the other planets temperature variance, and significantly to ours.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Yet regarding this CO2 junk science.......
CO2 has remained a relatively stable gas of our atmosphere comprising .038% or other words .00038 of the gases is carbon dioxide.... and essential for plant life, which make up our atmosphere.

I'm not sure where you get your data from, but the CO2 levels recorded by the Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division have risen from 340 parts per million in 1980 when they started collecting data to 380 parts per million in 2007 Link. They currently collect monthly data of CO2 from about 130 sites. The laboratory is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is part of the US Department of Commerce.

The Manua Loa site has been recording CO2 data since 1958 when it was 316 parts per million.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Regarding the junk science of global warming.......
When the planets in our solar system, have temperatures which fluctuate with ours...... it is a little extreme to blame ours on mankind's use of energy......when the solar flares is believed to contribute to the other planets temperature variance, and significantly to ours.

You would think that if the sun was responsible for global warming that solar irradiation on the earth was increasing.

This 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.

I have addressed the mars warming above due to orbital variation. Jupiter's warming is a local phenomenon around a new spot. Neptune and Triton's warming is based on its current location in Neptune's 165 year orbit which is closer to the sun than since we started being able to observe its temperature. It is like the location of the earth in its orbit is every year around summer time for each hemisphere. Pluto is so far from the sun that any warming there from the sun would result in the earth getting incinerated. Uranus is cooling.

 

[Aaron]

I said that the court affirmed that Hansen's comments were correct.

No you didn't. You said he was right, because the jury agreed with him. And this is why a discussion between us is futile. You aren't bound by the truth, and I am.

 

[Gold Dragon]

No you didn't. You said he was right, because the jury agreed with him.

Yep that is what I said. He was right because the jury agreed with him. I've said that three times in three different ways now.

 

[rbell]

Figures don't lie; but liars figure.

This is beneath you. Just because someone disagrees with you (and frankly, has good data to back them up) does not a liar make. This kind of attitude doesn't help your "cause."

Of course, I could bring up that we've already had two record lows here in AL this month, and that this summer was the coolest summer in two decades...but I'm sure that that would make me a liar, right?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Of course, I could bring up that we've already had two record lows here in AL this month, and that this summer was the coolest summer in two decades...but I'm sure that that would make me a liar, right?

Of course that does not make you a liar. But local temperatures for 3 months are irrelevant when discussing global temperatures involving tens of thousands of temperature measurements.

Your suggestion is like saying that the housing prices of one suburb of Montgomery, Alabama having record highs in the last 3 months somehow challenges data that the housing market in the U.S. has dropped in the past year.

 

[Ed Edwards]

1. Generic 'old sayings' are NOT illegal to say yet, are they?

2. "figures never lie, but liars figure" appears in Google 6,010 times - it is a common saying NOT applicable to anybody in particular.

3. This 31 Oct 2008, also known as Halloween, I was outside at night in short sleeves and crocks. I never remember a time in oklahoma/Texas when one was comfortable outside in short sleeves (I also had on short pants, BTW). My higher than usual was more variant than your lower than usual. The AVERAGE WORLD TEMPATURE in 2007 was the 8th highest in observable history. The average world tempature in 2008 has not been computed yet, for it takes all the data from any part of the 2008 to figure out correctly.

post #152 of this thread in 2005 :

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=1613&page=16

There is an old saying,

"Figures never lie. But liars figure."

(That form of the 'old saying' appears 636 times in google.)

I don't see anybody calling the poster down for using 'an old saying'???

 

[rbell]

as the founder of the Weather channel said recently, and I paraphrase...

The world is a big place. There's always a record high somewhere, and there's always a record low somewhere.

I just can't wait to see the conniptions the man made global warming crew will go into as their house of cards falls.

Makes me so excited, I might just go outside and make a cow poot to increase the potential irony.

 

[rbell]

Ed, just because a saying is common doesn't make it less offensive when you point it at folks who disagree with you...and if you didn't mean it at anyone in particular, then why did you say it?

It still looks an awful lot like an accusation to me.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The world is a big place. There's always a record high somewhere, and there's always a record low somewhere.

Yep. And global warming is not about those record highs and lows for a few local temperatures. It is an average of tens of thousands of temperatures around the globe.

On the same vein, there are always neighborhoods that are having record high and low prices for house sales. But that doesn't change the fact that for this year the housing market in the US is having a down year.

On the same vein, there are always industrial subsectors and regional economies where they are having record highs and lows for productivity and profits this year. But that does not change the fact we are currently experiencing a global economic downturn.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Ed, just because a saying is common doesn't make it less offensive when you point it at folks who disagree with you...and if you didn't mean it at anyone in particular, then why did you say it?

It still looks an awful lot like an accusation to me.

Ed was referring to the blog entry from the National Post by Lorne Gunter posted in the OP. I found that the quote he used from Christy and Douglass does not exist and the graph he created that is shown in the OP was also fabricated.

 

[hillclimber1]

This whole GW debacle is amazing to behold....There are those determined to achieve control, and this is an instrument to that end. These pseudo scientists are disingenuous pawns, selling their integrity for money.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed, just because a saying is common doesn't make it less offensive when you point it at folks who disagree with you...and if you didn't mean it at anyone in particular, then why did you say it?

It still looks an awful lot like an accusation to me.

I would be glad to look at the specific post, if I could find it. What thread was it on and which number post (a hot link to the post would be nice)?. I've already spend about 20 minutes on the project of looking for it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I would be glad to look at the specific post, if I could find it. What thread was it on and which number post (a hot link to the post would be nice)?. I've already spend about 20 minutes on the project of looking for it.

rbell was referring to Post #9