is that "the argument"... or "your argument"? :mrgreen: Don't hesitate to make your case that the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent warming is..... "natural cycles"
Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
is that "the argument"... or "your argument"? :mrgreen: Don't hesitate to make your case that the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent warming is..... "natural cycles"
What do you make of them, sunspots or could the core heating up and the 40,000 miles of rifts then vary the amount of heat they release. Sunspots would be random but the rifting should be on a timeline that is quite regular and if the subduction theory is flawed and the expanding earth model has more merit than it has been given then that variable should mean the periods vary a bit but in the same direction, IMO that would be a longer period between the start of the ice-ages.
Something like a huge geophysical change? None of those going down, thank goodness.
Whether or not Lindzen is paid for public speaking engagements is immaterial to the quality of his science.
Nor would I and graphs are easier on the eyes. Is there a link of is sifting the site part of the fun. Tid-bits like this are going to pop up.
(in part)
Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet (see FAQ 1.1). There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and (3) altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations). In addition, local climate also depends on how heat is distributed by winds and ocean currents. All of these factors have played a role in past climate changes.
The IPCC Explains... Natural Causes of Ice Ages and Climate Change | Climate Changes | Cause and Effect
Nothing on heat coming from inside the earth when there are several vids out on the Siberian Traps that have them saying quite the opposite in that a rise of 10C would have happened.
1 and 2 are the same thing as it is both that determine the changes. They put a thermometer on the moon that takes readings that show such changes actually occur to support that theory? Of course not.
3 is there to add something that sounds technical but is gobbledygook as it attempts discourages any debate while sounding scientific
since you quote a statement of mine in this, your quoted reply... did I say something to specifically warrant your comment? Notwithstanding you seem to continually reference Lindzen as some "skeptic authority" - go figure! As for the, as you say, quality of 'his science', he takes care of that poor(er) quality himself... which is why, I spoke of the debunking of his past published papers.
the greenhouse effect is "gobbledygook"? ... discourage debate, how? From your same source referencing another IPCC FAQ.
still waiting for your silver bullet... as is the greater scientific community waiting... with baited breath. Don't hold out too long, hey?
Would you comment on silver, both the medicinal uses and it's increasing cost? By the way I think your ideas about physics are cute.
no - yours is a non sequitur in regards my reference
By the way I think your ideas about physics are cute.
beav, beav... your gratuitous attempt to curry favour... will not... curry favour!
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
The “vanishing” of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists. Photo: ALAMY
By Christopher Booker
07 Feb 2015
The Telegraph
3272 Comments
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Telegraph poll
Do you think global warming has been exaggerated by scientists?
Yes: 92%
No: 8%
12,104 people have voted
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
The “vanishing” of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists. Photo: ALAMY
By Christopher Booker
07 Feb 2015
The Telegraph
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Telegraph poll
Do you think global warming has been exaggerated by scientists?
Yes: 92%
No: 8%
12,104 people have voted
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
Great article.The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
The “vanishing” of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists. Photo: ALAMY
By Christopher Booker
07 Feb 2015
The Telegraph
3272 Comments
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Telegraph poll
Do you think global warming has been exaggerated by scientists?
Yes: 92%
No: 8%
12,104 people have voted
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
you already tried... and failed... with this tabloid hack bullshyte earlier in this post:
so-called "jounalist" Booker has a long history of debunked misinformation... the guy's a hack extraordinaire parroting the failures of other deniers... like Homewood who he parrots here!
yup! The Koch Brothers thought they would weigh in and sponsor an "independent analysis" of surface temperature... and who better to get than renowned denier Richard Muller... unfortunately for the Koch Brothers and deniers at large, the underlying integrity within Muller (and associates;re. 'the Best Project') won out over denier crap/bullshyte. Nothing was sweeter than having this blow-up on the Koch Brothers... to bring forward yet another result that validates the integrity of surface temperature records.
As noted in post 551 the believers were working with manipulated data. And as the old saying goes: Garbage in, Garbage out. weather they new the data had been manipulated might be debated. If they didn't it was manipulated this makes them look mighty foolish. If they did no it proves them to be fraudsters.
just a C&P Locutus... nothing to say yourself? That's quite the source! Wingnut "Tim Ball" writing an article sourced from WTFIUWT! :mrgreen:
But hey now, what kind of a title is that for the article, hey Locutus? Why, it's the IPCC that actually states, "Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one." But Locutus, what is that 'Tim Ball' writing about... cause, like, uhhh.... he's one of the infamous "Sky Dragons" who disavow the Greenhouse Effect! Given that background reference, why would 'Tim Ball' care about any of the GHG's? What's he up to there, hey Locutus?
of course, 'Tim Ball' fails to offer distinction between feedback and forcing... fails to indicate the positive feedback influence that water vapour has on CO2... fails to speak to the very short life "residence time" for water vapour (in the hours and days period) versus that of CO2 (typically in the 100 years to as long as 1000 years period), etc..
The Water Vapor Feedback
warning alert: taxi, there are graphs following... proceed with caution!
taxi, your misleading use of "manipulated" is noted. Of course, you're completely out of your element here. The earlier highlighting (the Koch Brother sponsored) Muller's Best Project is, again, a reinforcement of the credibility of other surface temperature data sets and their respective processing... it highlights that your BS "manipulated" slag carries no weight/substance.
of course, those "manipulations" you speak of are well documented... in fact, published papers have been written to formally show the rationale and related science behind any adjustments to the raw data made. Those papers stand and have not been over-turned on challenge. More pointedly, not that long ago in another CC thread, I put up the following graphic to highlight just how little effect the adjustments have; in this case, NOAA/USHCN:
taxi, you clearly couldn't grasp an earlier CC thread discussion concerning Arctic warming and the issue of limited station availability... I just checked that you did partake in it; obviously it went beyond your comprehension ability... even as simple as the discussion was. I keyed on one of the latest (peer-review published) processing initiatives that reinforce the extent of Arctic warming... this Guardian article provides a high-level interpretation:
as was shown earlier by member Tonington, York University hosts an interpretive application that allows all manner of temperature trend calculation... even you could run it, taxi... even you! If you ran it, you also could bring forward this following result that reflects upon the "Cowtan/Way" processing that the above linked Guardian article speaks to: have a go, taxi..... you'll see you can get a result just like this:
That's record warming in Boston.
Boston Schools Closed Monday, Tuesday For ‘Unprecedented’ Snow « CBS Boston
Boston Schools Closed Monday, Tuesday For ‘Unprecedented’ Snow « CBS Boston