The Global Warming Lie

[Belix]

How does the saying go? If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything...

[RiaX]

i believe the actual point behind CO2 is the "O2" part.... CO2 is very stable and will not be releasing its captive oxygen any time soon... we, (mammals), cannot leech oxygen from it. how does it make logical sense to hasten the depletion of the one gas required to power our bodies?

To make matters worse, it reacts readily with sulphates and other metals to produce some very effective corrosives...

Just to be technical Oxygen DOESNT power our bodies dude... the actual fuel for the human body is simplified carbohydrates such glucose which will undergo cellular reactions to form simpler sugars and eventually the most important chemical adenosine triphosphate (ATP) you might have heared of this in school biology however the process of cellular respiration is way more complex than what im posting here and i dont intented to type it out here ... but basically oxygen is the FINAL acceptor for depleted H+ ions forming water. Thus its more of a carrier rather than an energy source..

Also not all sulphates are dangerous there is a very important use of sulphate ions in medicine... for example the antibiotics classed as sulphonamides contain sulphur and are usually administered into the body as a sulphate salt in order to protect the drug from enzymatic action in the body

[rustypup]

the one gas required to power our bodies?

Just to be technical Oxygen DOESNT power our bodies dude...

the important word now highlighted...

but thanks for the lesson...

[thEnaileDonE]

... So when the hippie scientists said there was global warming and the politicians said "no way" it was real... now that some politicians are saying it's real and some scientists aren't sure it is a political scare tactic... and of course on every PC forum on the internet the topic will rage and I'm sure we all agree that we are right and everyone else is wrong... Game on!

[jee]

GW, think you might find this interesting :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews ... 0b.article

Some myths and misconceptions?
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462

[jee]

We are now reaping the rewards of dumbing down the education system and live at a time when it is a politically correct duty to suppress alternative views. The best way to understand climate is to critically and sceptically evaluate the evidence presented to us over a very long period of time by the heavens and the Earth beneath our feet.

Pilmer's opinion on the global warming debacle.

[doo_much]

Tuesday, November 3, 2009
11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Petterino's
150 North Dearborn Street, Chicago
Cost: $25, includes a buffet lunch


CSI (Climate Science Investigations) Chicago: The truth has been murdered, and you are invited to the autopsy. Dr. Craig Loehle, a quantitative ecologist with 120 peer-reviewed publications, will dissect the victim. The autopsy shows that key assumptions underlying claims of impending climate doom are either untested or false. In fact, Earth's climate 1,000 and 6,000 years ago was warmer than today. Earth's atmosphere has not behaved as the alarmists' computer models assume. Alternate explanations for recent climate patterns do exist. Overall, the alarmist thesis is poorly supported, barely rises to the level of working hypothesis, and is not a sound basis for public policy.

As the national debate over climate change heats up later this year, here's your chance to have lunch with an environmental scientist who for years has been prominent in the battle for sound science against global warming alarmism.

Dr. Craig Loehle, principal scientist with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, will explain the forces that have produced climate change on Earth over eons of warming and cooling.

What: CSI led by Dr. Loehle

When: 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Where: Petterino's, 150 North Dearborn (enter on Randolph), Chicago. Valet parking available.

Why: Sound science grounding in climate change

Who: Presented by The Heartland Institute and co-sponsored by the Illinois Policy Institute and Sam Adams Alliance.

Cost: $25, which includes lunch, tax, and tip.


Seating is limited. Registration will close October 29 or when we've sold out this event, whichever comes first, so register today! Use PayPal or a credit card online; call Tonya Houston at 312-377-4000; or send your check payable to The Heartland Institute, 19 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, 60603.

Deadline for reservations: October 29, 2009.

Very much the same as the post that started this thread?
Anyone wanna sponsor me an airline ticket to Chicago?

[Anakha56]

So it looks like the green camp has taken a damaging blow:

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_bri ... mning.html

A major story is breaking in climate science, after hackers posted a 61 megabyte data file on a Russian server that appears to be confidential emails and climate data hacked from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.

The data raises major questions about the role of scientists in what appears to be a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk



Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk

If there's an innocent explanation, I'll be interested in hearing it.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_bri ... -real.html

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_bri ... -this.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... ey_hacked/

Hackers have broken into the data base of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit - one of the world’s leading alarmist centres - and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.

The ethics of this are dubious, to say the least. But the files suggest, on a very preliminary glance, some other very dubious practices, too, and a lot of collusion - sometimes called “peer review”. Or even conspiracy.

A warning, of course. We can only say with a 90 per cent confidence interval that these emails are real.

(ALTERNATIVE link to the files. And another link.)

UPDATE

Ethics alert! (my bolding - and I’ve update this post with the full alleged email, now):

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
.

Nice. This could be fun.

UPDATE 2

Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?:


From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.

I mean, the media will follow this up, right? In the meantime, use with care.

Oh boy. More reading material if you follow the links...

[KALSTER]

Please, if I read the word "alarmist" again I am going to puke. Bottom line: NEVER read news reports or non-scientist views on anything to do with science and accept it as authoritative. That includes the utter buffoon Gore.

Read the IPCC report. Read about the characteristics of CO2, water, methane etc. in the atmosphere and how the ocean absorbs/releases them. Read about the solar cycles. Wikipedia is fine for a basic summary, as long as you follow up on what is said by taking a look at the sources. Think about how we get to current temperatures from that predicted by black body radiation from a thermodynamic perspective.

Anthropogenic global warming is very probably real, but it does not mean that we will all be under water by next year, that animals will boil in their skins or that we will all get skin cancer by then either.

[doo_much]

Anthropogenic global warming is very probably real, but it does not mean that we will all be under water by next year, that animals will boil in their skins or that we will all get skin cancer by then either.

Anthropogenic - Why? And please don't quote the IPCC at me.

When I've some time I'll post a few alternatives - as posited by climate scientists, not economists.

*edit Aww heck. Made time - this beats work.

Have a look at this so long. I've a few other on my own PC - amongst other the Heritage Foundation's take on the whole thing. Will post later.

[rustypup]

As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.
<...>
Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

Code: Select all

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75         ; fudge factor

so the computer models used to explore the future of global warming may have hearts of delicious fudge.... this is relevant to my interests...

[Prime]

As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.
<...>
Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

Code: Select all

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75         ; fudge factor

so the computer models used to explore the future of global warming may have hearts of delicious fudge.... this is relevant to my interests...

of course they won't punt this in the media. It would be an embarrassment if they published and admitted that they had mislead the public.

[Prime]

I stand corrected:

LONDON - The British university at the center of what climate skeptics are calling "Climategate" on Thursday named an outside reviewer and detailed what would be investigated.

The University of East Anglia said Sir Muir Russell, until recently vice-chancellor at the University of Glasgow, will investigate whether scientists at its prestigious Climate Research Unit fudged data on global warming.

More at the link

[Stuart]

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

[Prime]

The plot is becoming like dough.

[Sojourn]

In ten years ice will not exist. No more "met eish".
Meaning the poor low sea level coastal world regions are fuggered.

[Anakha56]

In ten years ice will not exist. No more "met eish".
Meaning the poor low sea level coastal world regions are fuggered.

Proof please?

[Sojourn]

In ten years ice will not exist. No more "met eish".
Meaning the poor low sea level coastal world regions are fuggered.

Proof please?

ever seen an anti-joke?
this is my anti-post in this discussion.

[Anakha56]

In ten years ice will not exist. No more "met eish".
Meaning the poor low sea level coastal world regions are fuggered.

Proof please?

ever seen an anti-joke?
this is my anti-post in this discussion.

Ah okay, troll...

[KALSTER]

So almost none of you think AGW is real? So the steep rise in atmospheric CO2 that coincides with the industrial revolution is simply coincidence? Or don't you think atmospheric CO2 levels has an effect on climate?

[SykomantiS]

We're in between ice ages. Stuff melts...

[KALSTER]

We're in between ice ages. Stuff melts...

Sure, but this change has been happening at an accelerated rate. Atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been this high for at least 15 million years. In fact, temps and CO2 levels have continued to increase despite constant solar irradiance levels for the past few decades. Climate models have pretty accurately retro-predicted past known events, the same models that predict a continued warming driven by anthropogenic CO2. The vast majority of opposing views have come from a group of very vocal non-experts and scientists in unrelated fields. "News" channels like the Fox News Network (the semi-official Republican propaganda channel) routinely report on the issue in the negative by using a variety of "analysts" with no relevant expertise whatsoever, or simply jumping to ridiculous conclusions and passionately repeating them as fact. Have you been taken in by the hype?

[Anakha56]

Tiny Bering Strait May Help Control North America's Temperatures
It comes down to one little strait and some really big sheets of ice.

The Bering Strait, spanning a distance of approximately 53 miles between Alaska and Russia, looks like an unassuming place for temperature regulation for the entire North American region (including Greenland), but recently published NCAR/UCAR findings seem to indicate that it may be very geologically important.


The strait serves as a gate for cooler, less salinized water from the Pacific to flow to the warmer and saltier Atlantic. Their simulations found that without this flow, the climate of North America fluctuates much more rapidly – in the span of a few thousand years rather than some tens of thousands – and helps explain constant temperature and ice sheet modulation between 116,000 and 34,000 years ago, a time of constant ice sheet advance and retreat.

In the past, this pattern was often attributed to the Earth’s position along its 95,000 year orbital pattern, but the NCAR researchers found that when correlated with the temperature and ice data, the orbit could not explain the rapid fluctuations. Instead, it occurred to them that changes to the Bering Strait itself could have a large impact on the entire region due to the changes it would bring to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean currents. Their models indicate that a slight change in the strait would adversely affect the meridional overturning circulation, an ocean current which helps drive the Atlantic tropics-to-polar heat pump.

In the simulation, they show that around 110 to 115 thousand years ago, the northern climate cooled sufficiently to create giant ice sheets over the northern regions of North America and all of Greenland. As these ice sheets sucked up water from the global oceans, sea levels dropped by as much as 100 feet. Eventually a vast amount of the strait was no longer able to pass water – the average depth of the strait is 100 - 190 feet. The new land bridge cut off a vast portion of the ocean flow between the Pacific and Atlantic. This, in turn, caused the Pacific ocean to become even cooler and cleaner, but allowed the now saltier waters of the Atlantic to push the meridional overturning circulation into overdrive, warming the regional ocean, North America and Greenland by as much as 1.5C over a few thousand years.

Next, the regional warming caused the iced sheets to melt over another few thousand years, returning the oceans to their previous depth and reopening the Bering Strait. With the Atlantic’s access to cooler and cleaner water from the Pacific restored, the cycle started all over again.

These temperature oscillations went on like a driver overcompensating for an icy road fishtail until finally, around 34,000 years ago, the Earth’s distance from the sun was so great that it literally froze the fluctuation in place. About 10,000 years ago, the Earth had finally gotten close enough to the sun again to warm up the northern hemisphere to the point where the strait reopened slowly and the temperature variations settled into a much more docile animal.

This study helps to provide convincing data for two things: that a significant change in something even so geographically small can adversely affect the climate of an entire quadrant of hemisphere, if not an even greater area, and that the planet has its own regulatory devices to deal with such things. However, it remains to be seen how long the cycle would have gone on if not for the fortuitous position in the orbital cycle. Too, this study reflects nothing at all of man’s influence on these climate systems in current times. The key to understanding these things lies in first understanding the basic driving forces behind climate systems and the NCAR study has shown us how one such small system may operate.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17368

Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?

Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.

The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.

Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.

If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.

According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.

It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.


A graphic explaining about the changes in our climate

And now oceanic cycles have switched to a 'cold mode', where data shows that the amount of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by more than a quarter since 2007.

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September.

Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft under the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

For Europe, the crucial factor is the temperature in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. He said such ocean cycles - known as multi-decadal oscillations or MDOs - could account for up to half of the rise in global warming in recent years.

Professor Latif said: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. All this may well last two decades or longer.

'The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.'

Many meteorologists have blamed the current freeze on 'Arctic oscillation' - a weather pattern in which areas of high pressure have pushed the warming jetstream away from Britain. They have insisted this temporary change will have no effect on long-term warming patterns.

But another expert, Professor Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, said MDOs will continue to determine global temperatures.

He said: 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather, and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st centuries. We have such a change now.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0cRytmTkm

[rustypup]

In fact, temps and CO2 levels have continued to increase despite

"damned lies and statisitcs" - CO2 levels have risen at a constant rate... whilst "global" temps have fluctuated wildly.. depending on how much value you attached to the earlier readings, given the approach taken to acquire them...

Climate models have pretty accurately retro-predicted past known events

the same models which had to be""tweaked"?.... those models?

i believe both camps are so full of BS they've lost sight of objective analysis... i'd love to get a bunch of them onto an open field, arm them and watch them have at each other... if anything, it will eliminate a whole lot of hot air...

[KALSTER]

I really hate it when news stories don't provide any references for what they are saying. Looking up the name Mojib Latif I came upon this quote of his regarding his ocean modeling work and the interpretation that he was saying we "could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures". The full transcript is available HERE.

"RAZ: Now, your research, Dr. Latif, has been cited by climate change skeptics here in the U.S., by for example, George Will, a conservative columnist with the Washington Post, to show that the Earth actually goes through natural warming and cooling trends and that climate change is really being overhyped. Do you think your work is being misused?

Dr. LATIF: Yes. It is misused. I must say this, unfortunately, because these changes we are talking about, these short-term changes, you know, their amplitudes are much smaller than the long-term warming trends. So we are talking about a hold, okay, in the last 10 years. We are not talking about a net cooling to, say, (unintelligible) temperatures, (unintelligible), you know, which we observed 100 years ago or so. Okay, and also what we predicted for the future is basically that this hold may continue for another 10 years or so, okay, but we did not predict a cooling. We basically said that we would stay for some more years on this plateau."

In short, another example of deniers jumping all over something that does not even support their agenda and using their own interpretations of it as evidence for their cause.

The Bering Strait bit is certainly interesting, but I fail to see how that relates to current conditions.

Again, I urge you to look at the original research and not at the interpretations tacked onto it by the media.