Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[HempKat]

i sit corrected, man is my face red...

Don't worry it eventually happens to everyone. At some point in their life or another they make a mistake.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

A mistake easily made, considering he attempts to run roughshod in any of these type threads and probably has the lionshare of posts.
I'm just curious if JJ was referring to his posts as political, then again, mentioning the 'wrong side' around here releases the hounds.
Other way around and it's Honky-Dory
Apparently, no one is holding a damp finger to the wind.

 

[forty]

Whenever people start discussing Al Gore and politics it becomes political.

btw... crazed sex poodle, not a politician

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

op musta graciously put me on the ignore list cause he is yet to adress any of the rebuttal
links posted that indicate mans' contribution to gw is minimal at best.
this is how science is done...peer review...you don't seem to think there are any peers heres.
keep it one sided and you'll always be antagonized for it.
this link has a remarkable resemblence to refutation of the gw theory(not fact, since no one can predict the future).

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

then there are these:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzYfJP-HWcQ&feature=related

http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=385

check.

I already posted up links to a site that deals with all of that non-peer reviewed claptrap. I understand that when you are presented with claptrap in the form of a pseudo-scientific paper, and it supports a position that feeds into your pre-existing beliefs and is something comforting to believe, that it is very very attractive to buy into it without fact checking.

Problem with all that is... I was using many of those same arguments to support my skepticism, early on in the era of AGW awareness... But when I dug deeper for further support I learned that I was arguing the wrong side, and my pre-existing beliefs were in obvious error. I thought just like you, until I learned things which forced me to either stick my head in the sand, or change my mind.

 

[grapeman]

I challenge you to post for us all here one example of me talking about anything else other than logical or scientific based arguments for the existence of an anthropogenic effect on global climate.

Let's make it easy on you. Why don't you just post some science?

Nothing you have posted..... nothing, attributes any climate or weather changes to man. Nothing.

I know you wish it to be true, along with the single government crowd at the UN, but your posts have yet to prove anything at all, but your willingness to be a lemming.

Still awaiting responses from my posts re: the tree rings, Hal Lewis et al.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

how many times you going to ignore the response to your tree ring irrelevance?

How many time you going to ignore the science?

We've tried to spoon feed you, but you spit it out, and now you're crying about being hungry.

 

[grapeman]

I already posted up links to a site that deals with all of that non-peer reviewed claptrap. I understand that when you are presented with claptrap in the form of a pseudo-scientific paper, and it supports a position that feeds into your pre-existing beliefs and is something comforting to believe, that it is very very attractive to buy into it without fact checking.

Problem with all that is... I was using many of those same arguments to support my skepticism, early on in the era of AGW awareness... But when I dug deeper for further support I learned that I was arguing the wrong side, and my pre-existing beliefs were in obvious error. I thought just like you, until I learned things which forced me to either stick my head in the sand, or change my mind.

And that is a sad tactic. "I used to be dumb like you, but then I got smart".

LOL. Do you know how patronizing and stupid that sounds.... and well, is?

Guess not. You believe the faux warming pseudo science.

Post up in 20 years and we'll see.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

And that is a sad tactic. "I used to be dumb like you, but then I got smart".

LOL. Do you know how patronizing and stupid that sounds.... and well, is?

Guess not. You believe the faux warming pseudo science.

Post up in 20 years and we'll see.

That's the truth... no tactic. Plain simple truth.
Never called anyone dumb.
Don't think I was dumb, the skeptic arguments seemed convincing, until I looked behind the curtain.
There is a big difference in dumb and misinformed.

I believe in the tangible and verifiable... and there are real world measurements backing it all up. You've naught but empty rhetoric.

What's a sad tactic is... "post up in 20 years and we'll see"... Right on nostradamnus.


So far... 2001-2010 was warmer than 1991-2000 which warmer than 1981-1990 which was warmer than 1971-1980 which was warmer than 1961-1970... What would you wager that 2011-2020 is warmer than 2001-2010?

 

[grapeman]

how many times you going to ignore the response to your tree ring irrelevance?

How many time you going to ignore the science?

We've tried to spoon feed you, but you spit it out, and now you're crying about being hungry.

See - the tree ring BS is not irrelevant. Much of M. Mann's BS science is based on the selected tree rings he used to prove climate during medieval times. Science is NOT selective. Sorry you didn't know that. There's much you don't know it appears.

 

[forty]

amazing the amount of wasted energy in these type of threads... the cavemen would be laughing their asses off.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

See - the tree ring BS is not irrelevant. Much of M. Mann's BS science is based on the selected tree rings he used to prove climate during medieval times. Science is NOT selective. Sorry you didn't know that. There's much you don't know it appears.

Sorry... perhaps you have not seen the rest of the jigsaw puzzle... You can toss that one piece out and AGW is still plainly evident.

None of the evidences of the world warming and none of the evidences of man's fingerprint in the warming, which I posted up, were based on tree ring proxies at all.

There's so much other evidence, we can give you the tree ring proxies...(even there's no need to, since your complaint about the proxies is as irrelevant as the proxies... as explained in the posted replies) and there is still an overwhelming preponderance of evidence demonstrating AGW.

Climate science has gathered much evidence since that report.
There is much you have yet to discover it appears.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Was there a Medieval Warm Period?

The Medieval Warm Period spanned 950 to 1250 AD and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. So just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was it warmer than now? A new paper Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly (Mann et al 2009) (see here for press release) addresses this question, focusing on regional temperature change during the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemisphere averages). In this study, more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct regional temperature change over the past 1500 years. The paper discusses many interesting topics, including some interesting consequences of prolonged La Nina conditions during the Medieval Warm Period. I'm still digesting this info and will return to it in a future post. But the central result of the paper is the regional temperature pattern during the Medieval Warm Period.


Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.). Temperature anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

The Medieval Warm Period found warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures even even as warm as today. However, certain regions, such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler.

So the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomen. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. For this reason, the paper's authors refer to the Medieval Warm Period as the more technical sounding 'Medieval Climate Anomaly' (the MCA in Figure 1). Personally, I don't see the term becoming ubiquitious.

There is also an examination of temperature patterns during the Little Ice Age. There is pronounced cooling over the Northern Hemisphere continents. However, some regions such as parts of the Middle East, central North Atlantic, isolated parts of the United States and tropical Eurasia displaying warmth comparable to present day.


Figure 2: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Little Ice Age (1400 to 1700 A.D.). Temperature anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

What does this all mean? To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. Globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.

UPDATE 29 Nov 2009: NewYorkJ makes the suggestion of comparing the Medieval Warm Period temperature pattern to modern times. Here is the temperature anomaly for the last decade (1999 to 2008). As the color scale from the NASA map covers a broader range from -4C to 4C, I've edited the colours so they more closely match the MWP colour range.


Figure 3: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008. Temperature anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NASA GISS)

UPDATE 1 Dec 2009: gp2 has also created a temperature pattern for the last decade using NOAA data. This time, the colour scale matches exactly the colour scale used in the Medieval Warm Period figure.


Figure 4: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008. Temperature anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA)

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

How on earth did they map the surface temperature from that long ago?

Do you have a link to show the data collection method?

I have a question for you experts on the c02 is driver of climate. I mean the mote of dust erm accelerator thingo. Where is the majority of carbon coming from and how do we fix or sequester that carbon?

 

[ibjamming]

How on earth did they map the surface temperature from that long ago?

Do you have a link to show the data collection method?

I have a question for you experts on the c02 is driver of climate. I mean the mote of dust erm accelerator thingo. Where is the majority of carbon coming from and how do we fix or sequester that carbon?

I saw those charts and thought the VERY same thing!!!

They pull shit out of their ass and call it PROOF!

That's why I can't talk to them any more...they're fanatical science Taliban! Our way or the highway... Let it go...at LEAST until you can be more sure... Fanatics!

 

[Greensub]

op musta graciously put me on the ignore list cause he is yet to adress any of the rebuttal
links posted that indicate mans' contribution to gw is minimal at best.
this is how science is done...peer review...you don't seem to think there are any peers heres.
keep it one sided and you'll always be antagonized for it.
this link has a remarkable resemblence to refutation of the gw theory(not fact, since no one can predict the future).

OK, let's take a look at them...

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

O.I.S.M. = Oregon Institute Of Science & Medicine, let's see what info we can find out about them.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz.

Case Study: The Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.
Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution. In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.
"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."
Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.
In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. The current web page of the petition itself states "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs."[15]
OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:
"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [16] Is there a scientific basis for Robinson's claim that increased carbon dioxide levels will contribute to increased growth of some plants? Some research has gone into investigating this possibility, but the evidence does not point to the type of reassurance that the OISM is peddling. Fakhri Bazzaz, a plant physiologist at Harvard, has found that carbon dioxide-enriched air accelerates short-term plant growth, but his studies were carried out under controlled greenhouse conditions and are difficult to translate to a larger scale. Plant growth in natural systems may be constrained by a shortage of soil nutrients despite the greater availability of carbon dioxide. Moreover, Bazzaz's experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict "benefits" from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such "benefits" may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth. The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association, has produced a video, titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth Continues," publishes a newsletter called the World Climate Report, and works closely with a group called the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
As of the Fall of 2007, OISM continued to mail petition cards along with a reprint of "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," now cited as having been published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90, with Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon listed as the authors. The journal is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeonswhose director is Jane Orient (see above), a professor at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Also included in the mailing is a copy of a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article entitled "Global Warming is 300-Year-Old News" authored by Arthur and Noah Robinson and dated January 18, 2000.

From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

and

Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey

Filed under:

• Climate Science

— group @ 10 October 2007
A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a ‘new’ article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“.
The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.
Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, instead of tediously going through the whole thing ourselves, we are going to try something new – an open source debunking.

As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve set up a Wiki to provide a one stop shop for articles debunking some of the worst climate contrarian pseudo-science. So, we’ve therefore set up a page for the new OISM paper, and what we’d like to do here is to start collecting material on this paper.
So, in the comments, please catalog any:

1. links to articles dealing with debunkings of the previous incarnations of this paper
2. obvious errors
3. clear cherry-picking of data
4. interesting edits between versions

and we’ll collate all the pertinent stuff on the RC-Wiki page. To make things easier, please label all comments by the section or figure numbers.
Just to get you started, all versions of the paper make a mistake in the dating of Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea record by 50 years (Figure 2 in early versions, Figure 1 now) since they do not notice that the published dates are in ‘years BP’ (Before Present) which is conventionally dated from 1950, not 2000. And that’s even without getting into the question of why this is the only paleo-record they highlight, or on what logical basis they put the ‘2006′ value on.
In another example, the authors appear to think that human breathing out of CO2 is contributing to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Actually since that carbon comes directly and indirectly from recent plants taking it out of the air, our breathing is carbon neutral). Additionally, they take the ratio of temperature change to CO2 change in the ice core record and assume that is the climate sensitivity of climate to CO2 as opposed to the other way around.
There is much, much more. Have at it!

From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

then there are these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzYfJP-HWcQ&feature=related

Now that's interesting... He had credentials (RIP... Died two years ago, so he's kind of out of the current conversation...)

He didn't deny that the earth was warming (his original prediction in the 70's was that it would cool... just that rising man-made co2 is causing it.

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613 Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey. Quote: Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey. The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists...

http://boardreader.com/thread/Portrait_of_a_debunked_debate_loser_Reid_10lqX1a8o.html

and...

http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=385

I found an interesting post about him...

The International Climate Science Coalition is a recycling of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, an organisation of 'climate sceptics' which was caught lying about temperature trends * and tried to smear top scientists *.

Chairman of the ICSC is Tom Harris. Harris is not a climate scientist. He uses two techniques. He quotes people whose titles suggest they are experts in the field when they are not and he cites studies out of context, drawing incorrect conclusions. His lineup of experts sounded impressive: Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard and geologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University. None are climatologists. Harris also refers to a petition signed by 17,000 scientists. It sounds impressive. But it is a crock and has been effectively dismissed.
Tom Harris has been editing the Wikipedia page on the Natural Resource Stewardship Project in an attempt to remove the fact that as well as heading the NRSP he works for the High Park Group a PR company that lobbies for energy companies. *

Maybe that's why they put Bob Carter in the foreground now.

---

Who is Bob Carter?

He's an adjunct professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland and the University of Adelaide South Australia. He is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181. Carter is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. He is founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation and founding member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Bob Carter believes that "the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are generally beneficial." *

Quote:
Bob Carter is famous for saying global warming "stopped in 1998". What Bob carter doesn't say is that 1998 is a year which an El Nino event occured. Not only was it a year of El Nino, but it was the strongest El Nino in recorded history. He also fails to mention that the climate is very dynamic. Unless you are an expert you need to look at averages and not cherry pick any single day, week, or even year.
If you look at the chart below you will see the global mean surface temperature has in fact increased over time. Bob Carter will also say "Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)." Well using NASA's data he's wrong as 2005 is the hottest, but that is merely splitting hairs. The real issue is displayed in the chart below. Yes there was a spike in 1998 but as discussed before that was from El Nino. If you want to make a dishonest case for radical global warming, you'd start with 1999 and draw a trend to 2005. But starting with 1998 is being dishonest in the other direction. To minimize short term noise you can plot the temperatures based off of 5 year averages. The red line in the graph below shows this temperature trend and there is an obvious increase in overall termperature. Another important feature to keep in mind is that the ten years after the 1998 El Nino event are hotter than the ten years before the 1998 El Nino event. When the next El Nino occurs it should easily set a new temperature record.

Just to drive the point home, the following quote is from NASA's Goddard Institute's 2006 Surface Temperature Analysis page:

"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year....... Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century. ... The quasi-regularity of recent El Niños at intervals of about 4 years (there was a weak El Niño in 2002) suggests the likelihood of an El Niño in 2006 or at latest 2007. In such a case the 2005 global temperature record will almost surely be broken."

Here is a very similar graph using a different set of instrument readings::

Here is a very similar graph using a different set of instrument readings:

This is the very same graph Bob Carter uses to "debunk" global warming. Now that you are armed with this information, we suggest you read Bob Carter's article titled "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" and decide for yourself whether or not he's telling the truth when he claims climatologists are engaged in what he calls a "sophisticated scientific brainwashing"

Does Bob Carter have any conflict of interests?

He's a member of Institute for Public Affairs. They get their funding from Woodside Petroleum, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil), and over a dozen other companies in the energy industry.

check.

Checked!

and found lacking...

 

[sac beh]

I challenge you to post for us all here one example of me talking about anything else other than logical or scientific based arguments for the existence of an anthropogenic effect on global climate.

Let's make it easy on you. Why don't you just post some science?

Well here's one example:

Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to a breakthrough study by a Texas A&M University researcher.

While climate models had long predicted that the cloud feedback would amplify warming from human activities, until recently it was impossible to test the models using observations.

"This work suggests that climate models are doing a pretty decent job simulating how clouds respond to changing climates," Dessler says.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101209141231.htm

A few examples of water vapor and precipitation studies in climate science:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-1.html
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1525-7541/5/1/pdf/i1525-7541-5-1-64.pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/global_extremes_for_jgr.pdf
http://www.drinetwork.ca/extremes/documents/Groisman_et_al_2005_Global_Intense_precip.pdf

This is my first post on the first page of this thread, which apparently a lot of people skipped over before posting here because the failed argument I address here has been repeated over and over.

We can ignore my opinion on the thread's question and just look at the obvious logical problem with this claim. Its a bad comparison. Its important to remember the difference between short-term weather trends and long-term global climate trends. They are different on many levels. If anyone is into stock stats, you know that very long term trends in price are calculated differently than shorter trends.

Its also a bad comparison because its putting weather data up against global climate data. Calculations of global climate include many more indicators than merely air temperature and weather-guy stats like snowfall. For example, you can't get a good idea of global heat levels without looking at ocean, land and ice temperatures.

Again, looking at stock statistics calculations, someone looking at a 1-year trend of price moving down could be shocked to learn that over 5 or 10 years the stock has trended upward, and that the short-term cycles down don't effect the long-term trend up. This is a good analogy for the confusion in the cooling vs. warming debate, namely the former tries to compare itself to the latter based on indicators and calculations which cannot be directly compared.

And this doesn't account for the great number of my posts which unfortunately had to deal with debunking the alarmism, political fanaticism, and anti-science agenda that some people brought to the thread.

 

[ibjamming]

This is ALL you need to see...

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

When our temperature goes PAST +8...then we MAY have a problem. We're at +4 now...WELL within "normal historic values".

You're like a kid on a swing and EACH time you swing up...you keep thinking you're going to go shooting off into space...wait and see...EVERY time in the past...we've gone back down.

That last NATURAL temp spike was +8 about 125 thousand years ago. We're in another LONG TERM rise...and are ONLY at +4. This warming trend started about 20 thousand years ago. We're JUST now reaching the peaks seen during three previous warming trends. Don't panic YET. We really do need to give it another 50 years at least.

Actually...looking at the pattern...man made warming may be the only thing that CAN save our ass. Historically, we're right around the peak for the average warm period and possibly ready for a really fast downward plunge. AGW may just give us the temp boost to save us from a frozen death. Think about that one... Look at the chart. There ARE cycles and we're right at the NATURAL peak of a large warming period. We should EXPECT it to be warm...we're at a warm peak!

Stop being lemmings!!! Think damn you!!!

 

[maryj315]

This is ALL you need to see...

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg



When our temperature goes PAST +8...then we MAY have a problem. We're at +4 now...WELL within "normal historic values".

You're like a kid on a swing and EACH time you swing up...you keep thinking you're going to go shooting off into space...wait and see...EVERY time in the past...we've gone back down.

That last NATURAL temp spike was +8 about 125 thousand years ago. We're in another LONG TERM rise...and are ONLY at +4. This warming trend started about 20 thousand years ago. We're JUST now reaching the peaks seen during three previous warming trends. Don't panic YET. We really do need to give it another 50 years at least.

Actually...looking at the pattern...man made warming may be the only thing that CAN save our ass. Historically, we're right around the peak for the average warm period and possibly ready for a really fast downward plunge. AGW may just give us the temp boost to save us from a frozen death. Think about that one... Look at the chart. There ARE cycles and we're right at the NATURAL peak of a large warming period. We should EXPECT it to be warm...we're at a warm peak!

Changes in climate are not resulted of patterns or natural cycles.

If the climate is transforming past or present cooling or warming means there is an imbalance within our climate model.

Stop being lemmings!!! Think damn you!!!

Mj

 

[Ben Tokin]

Stop being lemmings!!! Think damn you!!!

LOL! It's human nature to believe in future events that may never occur.

Remember when the media picked up on Nostradamus? 1999 was supposed to be the end of life as we knew it and Christ was to reappear....or something like that. It never happened, but the media had the global population on edge waiting for it.

There was the UFO craze that was rampant for so many years, with news articles and movies. Ever see one?

The age of aquarius? Oceans rising? Nuclear winter? Turkey flu pandemic? Vampires? Werewolves? Santa Claus? Easter Bunny?

Here's a big secret that I'll let you in on. When you read a book or an article, when you watch a TV show, when someone is giving a presention....we all fall into a state of either semi or total hypnosis. Sound like fiction? It's completely true! The mind must create all of the images itself in order to understand the material.

When the brain creates these images over and over again each time we read or hear about them, it becomes a mental reality. It may be completely untrue, but it becomes part of our reality because our brain has recorded it.

This is the technique used by religions, TV and radio commercials, books, newspaper article, even the internet. The more we are exposed to these ideas, even though they may be completely untrue, the more they become part of our reality.

Think about this the next time you read an article, a book or hear a commercial. You are being programmed to think and act in a way that you may have no control over. We begin to see and hear things in our daily routines that seem to reinforce these ideas. We are now a victim of the system that is designed to control our thoughts and our behavior.

The only way to avoid being a victim of the propagandists that are out there trying to control you, is to question and require proof of everything. Never believe anything you hear or read, and only half of what you see!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The only way to avoid being a victim of the propagandists that are out there trying to control you, is to question and require proof of everything. Never believe anything you hear or read, and only half of what you see!

... or get an education.