What a disgrace these people are. It is literally one thing after another with this crowd. These people are truly unbelievable in the most literal sense of the word.
T-Mac1 thank you so much for posting that article. It really defines what I have been trying to communicate on this thread although some choose to ignore the message. Global Warming caused by man is by no means even close to being a absolute and settled. Seems like more and more of the scientists who originally were so strong behind AGW are now taking a lot softer tone. Also I have been trying to say the science behind it was significantly flawed INCLUDING the data collection. Unlike some i have read some of these research papers and the huge flaw I saw in them was the way they gather temperature points. It seems like even some of the top scientists who developed these papers now agree they did not keep track of weather stations and where and how data was collected. Anyways thank you for the informative articles. On another note too bad Tmac is gone. Still waiting to see what kind of big trade comes out of it. I really hope something exciting happens
Israel basks in longest winter heat wave in almost 40 years By Zafrir Rinat http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149816.html The heat wave that has hit the entire country will reach its peak Monday, with temperatures up to 30 degrees Celsius expected in some areas. Although this falls short of a record high for the season, meteorologists say this has been the longest warm period in February in 38 years. Temperatures are expected to reach 29 degrees Celsius in Tel Aviv on Monday, and 27 degrees in Jerusalem, while Eilat will see temperatures of up to 30 degrees. The heat will be alleviated somewhat on Tuesday, with temperatures across the country dropping by at least two to three degrees. Hebrew University climatologist Daniel Rosenfeld said there was a clear link between the recent cold snap in Europe and the warm weather in the east of the Mediterranean. He said that when a cold front in the North Pole area headed south toward Western Europe, the void was filled with warm air coming from deserts in the south. The warm front here is expected to head toward Turkey and the Caspian Sea, and then go further north. Rosenfeld said some experts think the exceptionally warm spells this winter could also be linked to the El Nino climate pattern, which is characterized by high water temperatures in parts of the Pacific ocean near the equator. "We've already had warm Februaries that ended with very cold and rainy days, so the winter is far from over," said Rosenfeld. There is no indication when the next rainy spell will arrive. The extreme swings between warm and cold temperatures this winter have already produced marked changes in the blossoming of wildflowers. Ori Fragman-Sapir, director of the Jerusalem Botanical Gardens, and Yuval Sapir, director of Tel Aviv University's Botanical Gardens, said that previous heat waves followed by prolonged rains results in the early sprouting and blooming of many wildflowers. Blooming early "We have seen plants like the lupine and the tulip blooming weeks too early," Fragman-Sapir said. He also noted the early blooming of chrysanthemums and poppies, but said he doesn't expect the heat wave to do too much damage to wild plants, since last week's rain has left the ground moist. "If the heat goes on, though, without further meaningful rains, this could harm species at a critical developmental stage, and then there will be less fruits and seeds," said Fragman-Sapir. On the other hand, he added, a warm winter could encourage desert flora and other plants better suited to dry weather. Reptile researchers, meanwhile, said there were no changes in the behavior of hibernating reptiles like snakes. Amos Bouskila, who teaches life sciences at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, said there's a good chance that smaller reptiles, like lizards, will be more sensitive to the warming weather and might become active earlier this year. He said it was difficult to pinpoint changes in reptile behavior since little research is done on reptiles in the winter, when they are usually inactive.
You mean: some choose not to agree with you. Speaking of ignored, what did you think of the scientific work from 1895, 1957, and 1979? I was kind of surprised that you did not respond to that detailed information, compiled with great effort to contribute to the discussion. Did you read the linked articles? They are not from IPCC or some hippy organization. This is true. It is 70-90% probable, not 100%, that mankind has contributed to warming. I would love for you to answer my sincere questions about what YOU would do if your mechanic gave you those odds that your gasoline is ruining your car, or your doctor gave you those odds that your diet will result in a heart attack. Would you change your ways? The vast majority of scientists were always talking probability and now stand behind that. They have conducted themselves well. You and others choose to focus on the likes of Al Gore and one or two scientists who are pursued by the media because they will discuss extreme cases. The IPCC language is very clear and not what Al Gore says. It has always just given probabilities. Neither you nor I are really qualified to say this, but I've read a lot of the papers now also. I do not sense the flaws in the data collection, per se. There aren't any practicing scientists who will dispute the basic data, collected with thermometers, saying that the Earth's surface has warmed over the last 150 years. I particularly see no flaws in the following: the basic chemistry and physics that has predicted the effect of CO2 for well over 100 years now; the (simple) measurements, not discussed here, that show the Earth absorbing more heat from the sun than it reflects and gives off itself. With regard to the "SCOTTISH SCIENTIST SUCKS WE HAVE THEM NOW HA HA HA!!!11!1" articles, it's difficult for politically minded people (including freaking Al Gore) to understand this: * one or a dozen scientists in 2010 (not equal to) the science and the data * one political showboater in a movie (not equal to) the science and the data But I think you will clearly keep just taking in that which supports your already made up mind. Or it truly seems that way, that you are convinced you are smarter than not just modern climate science, but 115 years of basic chemistry and physics about CO2 and the earth's heat balance. That's pretty smart! You can ask, "well how about you, smug B-Bob?! Have you not decided?" No, I stick with the probabilities that good science has dictated for a long time. I did change my tune on weather after Richard Muller did really nice work showing that the increased frequency of hurricanes was due more to better measuring techniques than actual increased hurricane activity. I'm now pretty convinced we're not seeing more storms than in the past. That was a change based on scientific argument and not some political news articles, however. All right, I'll take your answer off the air. I've done what I can in this thread, again. Cheers.
Yes there are. The data collection process and the underlying data are extremely tainted, and are being challeneged by practicing scientists at the current time. Here is an article, published yesterday, on that very topic: [RQUOTER]World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”. It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. “The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.” The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods. “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said. Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic. His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator. Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets. In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings. Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal. “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said. ....[/RQUOTER]
I'm done in this thread, but Mojorge (for some reason, I'm sure it was a computer glitch), forgot to include the rest of that article. Here ya go! ... Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report. “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.” The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data. Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.” But I'll still await any response to my enormous set of non-IPCC science off the air. Thanks, everyone. Happy reading.
Poor, B-Bob. Your house of cards is falling down right before your very eyes. But you have gone "all-in", so what are you to do? Apparently you are going to stomp off in a huff and have a little temper-tantrum right before our very eyes. Are you done with this thread Bobby boy? Really? Well, see you later then. Happy trails.
Are you really holding up B-Bob's response as a "temper tantrum?" I guess when you are called out for selectively editing an article to slant it in your favor, it is because the other party is a whiny cry-baby rather than someone who is interested in the truth. What a maroon. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C_Kh7nLplWo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C_Kh7nLplWo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Bob made a statement that was not correct, and I responded to his misguided remarks with my earlier post. The quote from the article was reasonably lengthy on its own, I included a link to the article, and unlike most posters around here, I included four dots .... at the bottom of the quoted section to indicate that there was more to the article beyond what that I had posted. But of course none of this is really what you guys are so upset about. You want to divert attention away from the devastating content contained in the article that I quoted above that clearly and unequivocally refutes Bob's assertion, which was as follows: Well, there most certainly is. Here is what I posted above in response that upset B-Bob so much, in case anyone happened to miss it earlier in the thread: Yes there are. The data collection process and the underlying data are extremely tainted, and are being challenged by practicing scientists at the current time. Here is an article, published yesterday, on that very topic: [RQUOTER]World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”. It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. “The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.” The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods. “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said. Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic. His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator. Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets. In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings. Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal. “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said. ....[/RQUOTER] And if you want to read the rest of the article, follow the link.
All I read here is: "I can't respond to you, but since you said you won't continue unless I respond, I have won!" You do realize you look childish, right? You do realize you have not responded to a single item of scientific information that B-Bob has posted, right? You do realize you have not posted one iota of scientific information, right? No? You don't realize this? Okay. Fail.
B-Bob made an absolute statement that isn't correct but in general he is right and your own article addresses. That. What you did was you cherry picked your article by not presenting a part of it that directly challenges your point of view. While yes you posted the link, you put "..." and thank you for doing so, but that doesn't change the fact that your own source material is undermining your argument.
To follow with what B-Bob has said yes we are talking about probabilities, which is the nature of any scientific theory. I think though we are a long way from claiming that the science behind it is significantly flawed. While yes there are scientist who have behaved unethically and jumped too rapidly to conclusions that is actually not something that is unprecedented. The nature of science is to try weed those things out and at the moment we are seeing that. That said though there are many many other pieces of scientific evidence supporting the theory of anthropogenic Global Warming. So while yes some scientist have acted unethically and they are rightly being called to question to say that that their behavior overturns the theory that would require a conspiracy on their part greater than a conspiracy of the US government causing 9/11. What we currently have in regard to the tainted practices of these scientist is at the moment like siting a cold winter in the US as evidence that Global Warming is bunk. If it ends up being a large longterm trend then it very well could overtrow the theory but at the moment it it isn't that.
No, it is not like that at all. The data itself is tainted. The very foundations of the AGW propositions, as published and promoted by the United Nations IPCC, are cracked and broken, and in need of major repairs. This does not "prove" or "disprove" that the world is warming, or cooling, or whatever. But if the primary data cannot be relied on, then the theories and propositions that are based on that data cannot be trusted either. It is back to the drawing board time, fellas.
The date provided by these scientists are tainted but they are not the end all and be all of the theory. Even though we are taught that science is made up by stars, Newton, Einstein, Darwn and etc..., science doesn't really work that way. No theory that is only based on the work of a handful of scientists would ever be widely accepted without many many others looking at that data. So while yes this is a blow to the theory its not the very foundations of the AGW proposition. As B-Bob and myself pointed out earlier the physics of it are very well established and the very link that you posted recently still support the idea.
As the article you posted clearly stated, the IPCC reports have accounted for the biases in data collection from weather stations.
They say they have, but they are in denial. Simply stating that they now have satellite data and everything is fixed does not resolve these issues. This is a desperate attempt by desperate people to quickly patch the holes in an increasingly leaky dike. The rest of the article, which is actually most of the article, clearly demonstrates that the data is tainted. And the United Nations IPCC is not a trustworthy source of information. There are so many problems and issues that have been discovered with their most recent report that the number of these issues cannot easily be counted anymore. This organization is the standard bearer for unreliable and misleading science everywhere. You can try to continue to prop these guys up if you want. But seriously, the credibility of this group is gone. The have so discredited themselves that anyone who quotes them as a source does a grave disservice to themselves, and to whatever propositions they are trying to promote. Perhaps the IPCC can somehow be reformed. But at this stage, it would probably be better just to end it, and start fresh with a new group under a new name, if a group like this is even still considered desirable to have at the UN.
Which they very certainly were not. Here is a link to the article I quoted above, which discusses this in more detail: World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists
