Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

Page 4 of 14 [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Dec 2010, 3:47 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
@ marshall
The data itself being challenged as being not credible.

Why do I even bother to write a thought out argument if you're just going to ignore it? All you do is repeat yourself like a parrot and quote crap verbatim from non-scientific partisan crack-pot sources.

Your theory that all climate data has been deliberately altered to artificially show a warming trend is not credible. If there was such a conspiracy it would have been discovered 15-20 years ago. There are simply too many people involved in the process for such a conspiracy to be successful.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Dec 2010, 4:50 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
@ marshall
The data itself being challenged as being not credible.

Why do I even bother to write a thought out argument if you're just going to ignore it? All you do is repeat yourself like a parrot and quote crap verbatim from non-scientific partisan crack-pot sources.

Your theory that all climate data has been deliberately altered to artificially show a warming trend is not credible. If there was such a conspiracy it would have been discovered 15-20 years ago. There are simply too many people involved in the process for such a conspiracy to be successful.


I am not saying all the data was altered, but the question is which pieces of data were altered. The entire thing global warming stance and the data used to support it is suspect just because of these scientists. Can you say for certain that data a, b, c wasn't tampered with but data point d, and e were tampered with? Nobody can say for certain which data is legit and which is not. These scientists in the UK have arguably set back climate research for decades because people can't say for certain which numbers were genuine and which were tampered with, we also don't know if there were data points that were excluded as well.

Fox News was right to point out that global warming should be treated with skepticism because we don't know how much of the data was tampered with and what years. We don't know if there are data points missing or the original numbers from the results that were tampered with. That means every graph people have shown in this thread are not credible because the inputs may be 'doctored' data.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Dec 2010, 5:42 pm

Please read the following short account of the history of plate tectonics.

http://scign.jpl.nasa.gov/learn/plate2.htm

If a poll of scientists were taken in 1915 when Wegner proposed the theory of continental drift based on observables such as the shape of the continents and the similarity of fossil flora and fauna in the areas of two continents that were once joined, he was roundly criticized as a crank. It so happens he was right.

Which tells you what polls of scientists are worth.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
@ marshall
The data itself being challenged as being not credible.

Why do I even bother to write a thought out argument if you're just going to ignore it? All you do is repeat yourself like a parrot and quote crap verbatim from non-scientific partisan crack-pot sources.

Your theory that all climate data has been deliberately altered to artificially show a warming trend is not credible. If there was such a conspiracy it would have been discovered 15-20 years ago. There are simply too many people involved in the process for such a conspiracy to be successful.


I am not saying all the data was altered, but the question is which pieces of data were altered. The entire thing global warming stance and the data used to support it is suspect just because of these scientists. Can you say for certain that data a, b, c wasn't tampered with but data point d, and e were tampered with? Nobody can say for certain which data is legit and which is not. These scientists in the UK have arguably set back climate research for decades because people can't say for certain which numbers were genuine and which were tampered with, we also don't know if there were data points that were excluded as well.

First of all, your sources provide no good evidence that data was tampered with. Second, even if one data source was altered, there are multiple independent data sources providing evidence for a warming trend in the past 40 years. One data source being discredited does not throw the entire body of observational data into question (not that I believe any data was intentionally altered).

If you're going the route of conspiracy theories and think the entire global climate science community is deliberately trying to hoodwink everyone else then I've got news for you. It seems to me that it is the so-called "skeptics" who push this conspiracy crap that are being truly disingenuous, malicious, and out of line in attacking the credibility of scientists. Since they believe that any government action taken to combat climate change will have a damaging economic repercussion, they have good reason to spread doubt, even if that means spreading lies and false accusations against scientists. As for the scientists themselves, I think many would be delighted if it turned out that the warming trend of the past century was simply an empirical/methodological error and that we have absolutely nothing to worry about. They don't have nearly as much to lose for being wrong.

Please note that I'm not attacking all climate skeptics. There are a small (but diminishing) number of climate skeptics within the scientific community who believe some as-of-yet unknown natural cycle may be responsible for the warming trend of the past century. The difference though is these scientists aren't maligning the entire climate community by calling hard observational data into question and making slanderous accusations of deliberate fraud.



Last edited by marshall on 19 Dec 2010, 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Dec 2010, 9:40 pm

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Wegner's extraordinary hypothesis - the positive claim - that the crust of the earth is both cracked and mobile - was accepted as the dominant paradigm by the 60's due to loads of supporting evidence.

The extraordinary positive claim that the earth's atmosphere was warming was accepted by most scientists due to loads of supporting evidence by the 1980s, and that the warming was caused by anthropogenic gasses by the 1990s.

the negative claims - now extraordinary claims, since those two are the dominant paradigms - that neither of those two things are true, do not have the loads of supporting evidence that subverting the dominant paradigm requires.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

20 Dec 2010, 1:33 am

LKL wrote:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Wegner's extraordinary hypothesis - the positive claim - that the crust of the earth is both cracked and mobile - was accepted as the dominant paradigm by the 60's due to loads of supporting evidence.

The extraordinary positive claim that the earth's atmosphere was warming was accepted by most scientists due to loads of supporting evidence by the 1980s, and that the warming was caused by anthropogenic gasses by the 1990s.

the negative claims - now extraordinary claims, since those two are the dominant paradigms - that neither of those two things are true, do not have the loads of supporting evidence that subverting the dominant paradigm requires.


Wasn't there an argument before the global warming hysteria that the the Earth was undergoing massive global cooling?



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

20 Dec 2010, 3:06 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Wasn't there an argument before the global warming hysteria that the the Earth was undergoing massive global cooling?


No, more misinformation:

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus"

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... BAMS2370.1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Dec 2010, 7:35 am

Kon wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Wasn't there an argument before the global warming hysteria that the the Earth was undergoing massive global cooling?


No, more misinformation:

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus"

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... BAMS2370.1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm


There was a consensus, at one time, that the earth stood still and the sun, stars and planets moved about the earth. And there was plenty of evidence. Just go out at night and see all the stars wheel about.

ruveyn



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

20 Dec 2010, 11:12 am

That's it. I'm breaking out my own chalkboard! :wink:

Let me tell you a story about Jimmy. He woke up one morning and looked out side his window and saw that it was snowing. There was frost on his window and the heater seemed to be working on overtime. His neighbor was outside digging out his car. Jimmy could see the man's breath and noticed that he was all bundled up with warm outerwear. The birdbath in his yard was like a mini ice rink. He did not hear any birds or insects and saw no leaves on the trees.

He turned on the TV to his local news station and the weatherman said it was 12 degrees F. He flipped the channel to Fox and the and heard the sound of journalist, Glenda Bick, who said she had important information of a grand conspiracy. Bick said "They tell you it's "cold" outside, but their hiding something. They don't want you to know that one of their thermometers hasn't been calibrated in over a year! There's also at least 2 residents (in the town of 10,000) who admitted to not wearing their glasses while reading their thermometers. Their readings are completely false. There is doubt!! ! How do we really know it's "cold?" Just because some "scientists" say so doesn't mean it's true. Here, look at this."

Glenda Bick proceeds to show a film of the town's polar bear swim that occurred earlier in the day. "They're swimming!! They're enjoying a lovely day at the beach! You're not going to see those crazy liberal scientists showing you this evidence. Oh on, they wouldn't want you to see the facts - the real truth!! !" (end scene)

Now I wouldn't care at all if Jimmy wanted to listen to Fox and put on his bathing suit and head to the beach, by himself. The problem is that we're all on the same bus. A handful of inaccurate readings does not warrant practical doubt. It is cold outside! Every single possible indicator points to it being cold. It is completely unreasonable, impractical, unethical, and purposefully deceitful to claim otherwise.

There is uncertainty about tomorrow's forecast, even with a great deal of consensus. That's a separate issue from opposing today's observations.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

20 Dec 2010, 12:26 pm

Kon wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Wasn't there an argument before the global warming hysteria that the the Earth was undergoing massive global cooling?


No, more misinformation:

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus"

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... BAMS2370.1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm


They were using data from the 1940s to the 1970s, I don't particularly care what number of scientists said what. I'm saying the hysteria was first global cooling and now global warming. No one here has contradicted the quotes I found or the articles. They just shoved a few thousand e-mails at me and told me to go through them.

@ number5

I first heard about some of the thermometers being in locations that would screw up the readings a while ago, I think back in 1999, before Glenn Beck was even on Fox News. :roll:


The problem that none of you are getting, including the meteorologist, is that no one can say for certain what data is legit and what data is doctored. Thanks to those scientists that participated in the doctoring of data, all of the data is suspect. That means all the information from "tree rings," almanacs (sp?), etc. has to be gone through again from start to finish. Because those scientists have destroyed their own credibility, can you say which experiments and research of theirs is good and which is not?

If you're going to try to break out a Glenn Beck chalkboard you need a lot more practice and do a lot more research than you currently are. :lol:



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

20 Dec 2010, 1:40 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
@ marshall
The data itself being challenged as being not credible.

Why do I even bother to write a thought out argument if you're just going to ignore it? All you do is repeat yourself like a parrot and quote crap verbatim from non-scientific partisan crack-pot sources.

Your theory that all climate data has been deliberately altered to artificially show a warming trend is not credible. If there was such a conspiracy it would have been discovered 15-20 years ago. There are simply too many people involved in the process for such a conspiracy to be successful.


I am not saying all the data was altered, but the question is which pieces of data were altered. The entire thing global warming stance and the data used to support it is suspect just because of these scientists. Can you say for certain that data a, b, c wasn't tampered with but data point d, and e were tampered with? Nobody can say for certain which data is legit and which is not. These scientists in the UK have arguably set back climate research for decades because people can't say for certain which numbers were genuine and which were tampered with, we also don't know if there were data points that were excluded as well.

First of all, your sources provide no good evidence that data was tampered with. Second, even if one data source was altered, there are multiple independent data sources providing evidence for a warming trend in the past 40 years. One data source being discredited does not throw the entire body of observational data into question (not that I believe any data was intentionally altered).

If you're going the route of conspiracy theories and think the entire global climate science community is deliberately trying to hoodwink everyone else then I've got news for you. It seems to me that it is the so-called "skeptics" who push this conspiracy crap that are being truly disingenuous, malicious, and out of line in attacking the credibility of scientists. Since they believe that any government action taken to combat climate change will have a damaging economic repercussion, they have good reason to spread doubt, even if that means spreading lies and false accusations against scientists. As for the scientists themselves, I think many would be delighted if it turned out that the warming trend of the past century was simply an empirical/methodological error and that we have absolutely nothing to worry about. They don't have nearly as much to lose for being wrong.

Please note that I'm not attacking all climate skeptics. There are a small (but diminishing) number of climate skeptics within the scientific community who believe some as-of-yet unknown natural cycle may be responsible for the warming trend of the past century. The difference though is these scientists aren't maligning the entire climate community by calling hard observational data into question and making slanderous accusations of deliberate fraud.



Image


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

20 Dec 2010, 3:54 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
No one here has contradicted the quotes I found or the articles. They just shoved a few thousand e-mails at me and told me to go through them.

Copy a specific quote that you think is evidence of scientific fraud and I will explain it in it's proper context. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage without any reference or dates which would make it possible to view the email discussions in their entirety, but I've worked with climate scientists so might have some clue as to what they were actually talking about in their emails.

Quote:
I first heard about some of the thermometers being in locations that would screw up the readings a while ago, I think back in 1999, before Glenn Beck was even on Fox News. :roll:

Yea, "skeptics" have been spreading this myth since the early 90s. It's even less legitimate now than it was then as the volume and quality of data has increased since the 1990s. You'd think they'd come up with something new to criticize after nearly 20 years.

Sea surface temperature measurements are not subject to errors of thermometer placement. Neither are satellite temperature estimates which have been around since the 80s. Also, don't forget the shrinkage of polar sea ice, including the complete disappearance of multi-year ice pack (on which polar bears used to live) from the Arctic Ocean. Too see what I'm talking about look at this...

http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/IceAge&Extent/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg

The white is thick multi-year ice pack which polar bears have lived on for hundreds of years. Between 1980 and today nearly 100% of this old multi-year ice pack has completely disappeared. This can be verified directly from satellite pictures from space. Are you now going to accuse climate scientists of forging satellite photos in order to prove their case that the earth has warmed? :roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Dec 2010, 5:26 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No one here has contradicted the quotes I found or the articles. They just shoved a few thousand e-mails at me and told me to go through them.

Copy a specific quote that you think is evidence of scientific fraud and I will explain it in it's proper context. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage without any reference or dates which would make it possible to view the email discussions in their entirety, but I've worked with climate scientists so might have some clue as to what they were actually talking about in their emails.

Quote:
I first heard about some of the thermometers being in locations that would screw up the readings a while ago, I think back in 1999, before Glenn Beck was even on Fox News. :roll:

Yea, "skeptics" have been spreading this myth since the early 90s. It's even less legitimate now than it was then as the volume and quality of data has increased since the 1990s. You'd think they'd come up with something new to criticize after nearly 20 years.

Sea surface temperature measurements are not subject to errors of thermometer placement. Neither are satellite temperature estimates which have been around since the 80s. Also, don't forget the shrinkage of polar sea ice, including the complete disappearance of multi-year ice pack (on which polar bears used to live) from the Arctic Ocean. Too see what I'm talking about look at this...

http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/IceAge&Extent/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg
The white is thick multi-year ice pack which polar bears have lived on for hundreds of years. Between 1980 and today nearly 100% of this old multi-year ice pack has completely disappeared. This can be verified directly from satellite pictures from space. Are you now going to accuse climate scientists of forging satellite photos in order to prove their case that the earth has warmed? :roll:


The issue is NOT warming. We are currently in a warming epoch which commenced after the cessation of the Little Ice Age in Europe (1350 - 1800 approx). The issue is whether the current warming epoch is the result of human activity or not.

The climate of earth has gone through many cycles. From warm to cold to warm again. The last major ice age ended about 13,000 years ago. It is possible the next ice age could start very soon or in the near future. For example the climate in Europe can be flipped in under ten years if the Atlantic Conveyer, the set of currents that bring warm water from the tropics to the north Atlantic should cease operating which they could if the melting of the ice continues to decrease the concentration of salt in the ocean water.

ruveyn



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

20 Dec 2010, 7:27 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
If you people spent half as much time actually digging into stuff CBS, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc. report you guys would all be having heart failure.

:roll:

Fact of the matter, is what the Fox News boss did was make a judgement call that is perfectly reasonable and easily argued as responsible to treat the climate data with skepticism based on the fact the scientists' credibility was thrown into question. That is a completely logical stance to take.

More likely he made it to protect some corporate an political interests. On what autority do he make such a official judgement anyway?

Quote:
Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says

Here is a summary of skeptic arguments, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Note that the one line responses are just a starting point - click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, in a print-friendly version, or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.
Skeptic Argument vs What the Science Says
1 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
2 "Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
3 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
4 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
5 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
6 "Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
7 "It hasn't warmed since 1998" 2005 was the hottest year globally, and 2009 the second hottest.
8 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
9 "Antarctica is gaining ice" Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
10 "CO2 lags temperature" Recent CO2 increase has caused recent warming without any time lag.
11 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
12 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
13 "1934 - hottest year on record" 1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.
14 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
15 "It's freaking cold!" A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
16 "It's cosmic rays" Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.
17 "Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming" There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
18 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
19 "'Climategate' CRU emails suggest conspiracy" Several investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
20 "Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle" Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.
21 "Sea level rise is exaggerated" A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
22 "It's Urban Heat Island effect" Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
23 "Mars is warming" Mars is not warming globally.
24 "It's a 1500 year cycle" Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
25 "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas" Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.
26 "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions" The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
27 "Oceans are cooling" The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
28 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
29 "Greenland was green" Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.
30 "CO2 effect is weak" The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.
31 "Other planets are warming" Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.
32 "Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming" Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.
33 "There's no empirical evidence" There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.
34 "It cooled mid-century" Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.
35 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
36 "We're coming out of the Little Ice Age" The sun was warming up then, but the sun hasn’t been warming since 1970.
37 "IPCC is alarmist" The IPCC summarizes the recent research by leading scientific experts.
38 "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low" Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.
39 "Polar bear numbers are increasing" Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
40 "Satellites show no warming in the troposphere" The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
41 "There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature" There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.
42 "Greenland is gaining ice" Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.
43 "Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use" Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.
44 "CO2 is not a pollutant" Excess CO2 emissions will lead to hotter conditions that will stress and even kill crops.
45 "Animals and plants can adapt to global warming" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
46 "CO2 was higher in the past" When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.
47 "Medieval Warm Period was warmer" Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
48 "CO2 limits will harm the economy" Various economic estimates find the net economic impact of a price on carbon will be minor.
49 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Past history shows that when CO2 rises quickly, there was mass extinctions of coral reefs.
50 "Scientists can't even predict weather" Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.
51 "There's no tropospheric hot spot" We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot".
52 "Arctic sea ice has recovered" Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
53 "2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells" A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.
54 "2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory" The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.
55 "It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation" The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
56 "It's the ocean" The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.
57 "Neptune is warming" And the sun is cooling.
58 "It's El Niño" El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
59 "Jupiter is warming" Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling.
60 "Greenland ice sheet won't collapse" When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.
61 "Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
62 "CO2 effect is saturated" Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat.
63 "Pluto is warming" And the sun has been recently cooling.
64 "CO2 measurements are suspect" CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.
65 "It's aerosols" Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise.
66 "Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun" The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.
67 "It's not happening" Recent global warming is occurring and is due to humans.
68 "IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers" Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.
69 "CO2 has a short residence time" Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years
70 "500 scientists refute the consensus" Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
71 "Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated" Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.
72 "It's microsite influences" Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.
73 "Dropped stations introduce warming bias" If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher.
74 "Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming" Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
75 "Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate" Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
76 "It's not us" Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
77 "Greenhouse effect has been falsified" The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.
78 "It's a climate regime shift" There is no evidence that climate has chaotic “regimes” on a long-term basis.
79 "The science isn't settled" That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.
80 "Mike's Nature trick to 'hide the decline'" Phil Jones was quoted out of context, and nothing was hidden.
81 "It's land use" Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate.
82 "Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995" Phil Jones was misquoted.
83 "Humidity is falling" Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate humidity is rising and provides positive feedback.
84 "It's methane" Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.
85 "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong" Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.
86 "Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity" Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climatologists.
87 "CO2 is not increasing" CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years.
88 "IPCC overestimate temperature rise" Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.
89 "CO2 is coming from the ocean" The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result.
90 "Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed" Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism.
91 "Ice isn't melting" Ice is melting at an accelerating rate at both poles and in glaciers all over the world.
92 "It's albedo" Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming.
93 "Record snowfall disproves global warming" Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter.
94 "IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests" The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.
95 "Springs aren't advancing" Hundreds of flowers across the UK are flowering earlier now than any time in 250 years.
96 "CO2 is not the only driver of climate" CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
97 "Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project" The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.
98 "Ice Sheet losses are overestimated" A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.
99 "It's too hard" Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.
100 "The IPCC consensus is phoney" Ironically, it's those who are mispresenting Hulme's paper that are the ones being misleading.
101 "The sun is getting hotter" The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years.
102 "Solar cycles cause global warming" Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming.
103 "Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960" This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend.
104 "A drop in volcanic activity caused warming" Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming - if anything, a cooling effect.
105 "Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted" Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable.
106 "It's waste heat" Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat.
107 "Water levels correlate with sunspots" This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans.
108 "Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming" Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.
109 "Mauna Loa is a volcano" The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites.
110 "CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration" That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses.
111 "Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup" By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
112 "Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming" This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse.
113 "Warming causes CO2 rise" Recent warming is due to rising CO2.
114 "It's ozone" Ozone has only a small effect.
115 "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????" But global temperatures rose sharply in 2009, to the second hottest level.
116 "Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising" The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.
117 "CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician" The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
118 "Southern sea ice is increasing" Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.
119 "Antarctica is too cold to lose ice" Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans.
120 "DMI show cooling Arctic" While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.
121 "It's CFCs" CFCs contribute at a small level.
122 "Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic" Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic.
123 "It's global brightening" This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.
124 "Positive feedback means runaway warming" Positive feedback won't lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.
125 "Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass" Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.
126 "Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures" Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records.
127 "It's satellite microwave transmissions" Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant.
128 "Royal Society embraces skepticism" The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.
129 "We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution" CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago.
130 "It's only a few degrees" A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.
131 "CO2 only causes 35% of global warming" On top of CO2 warming, other pollutants such as methane and black carbon cause additional warming 65% as much as CO2.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

20 Dec 2010, 8:02 pm

Here is a graph showing historical CO2 levels, methane (CH4) levels, and temperatures from the Vostok ice core dataset going back some 400,000 years.

Image

Another showing CO2 levels going into the present.

Image

Here is a graph of simulated temperature from retroactive climate simulations with a comparison to the actual observed temperatures.

Image

Black lines = Measured temperature

Yellow lines = Models with anthropogenic forcing (CO2 and CH4 levels rising at observed rate)
Red line = Ensemble mean of models with anthropogenic forcing

Light blue lines = Models without anthropogenic forcing (CO2 and CH4 levels fixed at 1900 AD levels)
Dark blue line = Ensemble mean of models without anthropogenic forcing



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Dec 2010, 1:23 pm

@ marshall

You are using some of the very data that is being challenged as being bogus. You can't use data that arguably corrupt to justify anything.


@ Tollorin

I can right off the bat dispute one of the claims you are quoting.

The result is a mixed picture, with a net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above 1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The trend below 1500 metres however does not include the steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable.

The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area, when corrected for post-Ice Age uplift of the bedrock beneath the ice sheet. These results are remarkable because they are in contrast to previous scientific findings of balance in Greenland’s high-elevation ice.

http://www.universetoday.com/11078/gree ... s-growing/

Looks like the ice sheet in greenland is getting larger and thicker.