My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Flying Binghi]

btw, a right-click and properties will show the originating website URL

Thanks for that - learning all the time

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Global temp *has* increased!





What exactly is screwed up then?

FT- I couldn't help but note that your temperature graph does not include the 2008 data, where global temperatures return to 0.25 degrees above the 20th century baseline. In fact, if we take out the 1995-2005 El Nino years, it does not really look like much of a rise. Basically, the longer the time series, the less the severity appears.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

FT- I couldn't help but note that your temperature graph does not include the 2008 data

The article was written in May 2007.

where global temperatures return to 0.25 degrees above the 20th century baseline.

So we are judging global climate change in one year increments?

In fact, if we take out the 1995-2005 El Nino years, it does not really look like much of a rise.

I would very much like to see the data supporting this claim!

Basically, the longer the time series, the less the severity appears.

Indeed. What is troubling is that climate is on the move *now*!
Pick your timeframe. Global temps show an upward trend. Dissecting the trend into larger or smaller parts does not weaken the trend.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by freeztar

What is troubling is that climate is on the move *now*!
Pick your timeframe. Global temps show an upward trend. Dissecting the trend into larger or smaller parts does not weaken the trend.

Interesting. What about this one?


Or this one, which assigns causality (or at least correlation) to solar activity?

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Incorrect. First of all, the IPCC is a UN entity comprised of scientists from around the world. The mission of the IPCC is to accumulate and evaluate climate data from scientists globally. There is much debate within the IPCC as to what should make it to the reports. I'm continually perplexed that climate skeptics do not latch on to the internal debates of the IPCC.

Secondly, climate models are built using real world data. It is not as if the scientists came up with a theory and built the model upon the theory. Rather, the computer sims model different scenarios based upon the data that is inputed. The computer models are a way to test varying theories, not to confirm them.


Correct.



Global temp *has* increased!





What exactly is screwed up then? If you have the vigor to refute the data, then please have the vigor to point out what exactly is wrong with the data.

Here's what's wrong with the data:
IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
The chart you reference above was created with the incorrect data. 2008 was the coldest year in a long time, and global temperatures have been in an overall decline since 1996.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Interesting. What about this one?
Attachment 2563

Or this one, which assigns causality (or at least correlation) to solar activity?
Attachment 2564

The pro-AGW people will say that because these charts were created by anti-global warming people that we need to disregard them. This is a scientific fallacy called Circumstantial Ad Hominem. I have referenced this data in this thread before, and the pro-AWG people will not acknowledge or bother to critically look at this information.

[belovelife]

SpringerLink - Journal Article

hmm, wow this is gnarly

[modest]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Interesting. What about this one?

Biochem, is attempting to dispel the idea of anthropogenic global warming by showing a graph of temperatures spanning three thousand years. Indicated in the description of the graph is its resolution: 50 to 100 years. This allows only 2 or 3 data points during which time humans have been contributing any significant carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It is unclear what possible meaning this graph can have on the current topic of discussion. It is also unclear if the surface temperature of the Sargasso Sea is relevant or can be accurately determined from the isotope ratios of marine organism remains in its sediment.

For example, notice the difference in temperature in BioChem's graph above between today and the peak around the year 1,000 which it indicates as the medieval climate optimum. The difference is greater than one degree Celsius—that is to say, the temp was greater roughly a thousand years ago by 1 degree Celsius versus today.

The graph below is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. Notice the difference again between today and the peak roughly 1,000 years ago:


-source

The black line represents instrumental (rather than reconstructed) readings. None of the 10 reconstructions show what BioChem offers above. In fact, the temperature today is greater than the peak 1,000 years ago!

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Or this one, which assigns causality (or at least correlation) to solar activity?

Once again, notice this graph is an estimation of "solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle".

This method is unneeded for the past 30 years as we've measured solar irradiance directly using satellites since 1978.


-source

Notice from 1978 through 2001 there is no appreciable increase in solar irradiance as measured directly. The approximation in BioChem's graph above shows a marked increase over that same time. BioChem's graph is shown faulty by direct measurement of solar irradiance.

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

belovelife, i see mention of the IPCC in that link.

Looks like even the Greenys are distancing them selves from the IPCC AGW fundamentalism -

Via Skeptical Real Climate Science

Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC, said, “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen” and “The impacts of global warming are like a weapon of mass destruction”. He claimed that it kills more people than terrorism. The IPCC role was supposedly to “assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” But the scientific reports were edited, and IPCC made the Summary for Policymakers, published before the science, the most important part of their reports.

Ben Santer singlehandedly rewrote the principal conclusions of the IPCC's 1995 report:-

Where it had once said there was no discernible human influence on climate, it was rewritten to say there was now a discernible influence. This was done without reference back to the scientists who had originally submitted their final draft reaching precisely the opposite conclusion.

[Flying Binghi]

modest, what did you make of the research i linked to before - http://lasp.colorado.edu/sdo/meeting...3_06_Palle.pdf

(extract) "The climate models fail to reproduce this results. No explanation so far"