An interesting article on the Global warming scandal!

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

The 30 year period is just the way we define climate in a region. It's not how you measure or statistically analyse global temperature trends. No one ever said it was. It just purely convention, like the metric system we define climate in a region as the frequency of weather occurrences that occurred over a 30 year period.

A 30 year average for a specific period is what it is. I still at pains to know why the 61-90 average is being used here in Ireland as a comparative? It is almost 20 years old. A climate period over 30 years is subject to change from decade to decade, which reflects nothing more than the volatility of weather within each period as weather events are not a constant, they don't follow the rules that it itself creates.

I think the 71-00 average should be in force by now as that too was a 30 year norm, and just as normal as the 61-90 average. I accept that we have to wait until 2021 for the new normal to come into place, but I have yet to here the reason why we have to wait.

Sponge Bob

Malty_T wrote: »

NASA.
Edit :Sh1t, sorry misinterpreted. Since modern instrumental records began.

NASA use that GISTemp series which is what started this particular thread off in the first place

The "scandal" in the thread title above is about the manipulation of date by ...NASA in the Goddard Institute. Sure we would not have this thread in the first place without them.

Bless ( all)

Danno

Wait for the next "climate gate" - should be along rather soon now...

Sponge Bob

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/temperatures-now-compared-to-maintained-ghcn/

Sponge Bob

They did so 2 years after the FoI and then made sure the FoI was scanned into a PDF and not text searchable. EG

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/pdf/415778main_NASA%20GISS%20Temperature%20Data%20%28Part%203%20of%203%29.pdf

Someone ran an OCR and uploaded the emails here in searchable form.

http://www.neutralpedia.com/wiki/NASA_FOIA_Emails

This guy requested the emails

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/17/after-two-years-of-stonewalling-nasa-giss-foia-files-are-now-online/

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).


I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.


NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.
On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise



Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

TheInquisitor

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2008/04/ocean-oscillations-are-not-masking.html

Another interesting link from Joe B

Go to proper link to see graphs etc

Ocean oscillations are not "masking" global warming: the cooling is real
Warming alarmists are trying to spin recent global cooling as just a cool phase of the Pacific oscillation, "masking" ongoing global warming. This explanation is KNOWN to be false.

The geologic record proves beyond any doubt that global temperature is driven by the solar wind (or sunspot activity), and that changes in CO2 are of immeasurably little consequence. Thus the present lull in solar activity means that global temperature is now falling. If solar cycle 24 fires up strong, global temperature could rise again, but given that solar activity has been at historical highs since 1940, a long term fall off IS coming, and when it does, it WILL cause long term cooling.


Figuring in ocean oscillations

The simple relationship between global temperature and solar activity is obscured somewhat by the difference between global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the average temperature of the oceans, which are the planet's primary heat sink. In comparison, the heat storage capacities of the land masses and the atmosphere are trivial.

Ocean temperatures are not evenly distributed. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans both experience oscillations, where unusually warm or cold waters take turns at the ocean surface. This surface water is a primary determinant of the earth's surface temperature, so the ocean oscillations cause surface temperature to oscillate with respect to the actual global temperature.

Our current global cooling phase, caused by the lull in solar activity, happens to coincide with the onset of a cold "la nina" phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Thus as the earth cools, surface temperatures will cool even faster.

The warming alarmists are pretending that all the cooling is due to the ocean oscillations, which is only masking continued global warming:
Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
In the press they are even bolder:
However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.
But present cooling is not just cold ocean oscillations masking overall warming. It is cold oscillations on top of a fall off in solar activity that is predicted by solar cycle 25 to become serious (if it isn't already).

The warming alarmists are actively covering up the real threat, even as it becomes manifest. Thirty years of la nina, compounded by thirty years of declining solar activity, at a time when Milankovitch cycles are approaching ice age conditions, is a time to be doing everything we can to forstall the possibility of runaway global cooling. Global warming never was a threat. Warming has negative feedback effects that stop it from becoming harmful. Global cooling does not. Positive cooling feedbacks regularly descend all the way into 100,000 year long ice ages, with the next one due any century now.


20th century solar activity and ocean oscillations

It is not that ocean oscillations can't mask global warming. This isn't what is happening now, but it actually did happen in the 1940's and 50's. The comparison is instructive.

Solar activity was at that time reaching "grand maximum" levels, just as a thirty year cold phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (or PDO) was starting. The intense solar activity warmed the oceans as a whole (and hence the earth), but having the colder Pacific water at the surface caused surface temperatures across the planet to fall, so it felt like the earth was cooling.

This phenomenon can be seen in the following three graphics: sunspot count, PDO, and the surface temperature record:


Cap'n Bob's sunspot count graphic. Solar activity reaches "grand maximum" levels in the early 1940's and stay there through the 50's and early 60's.



Steven Hare's Pacific Decadal Oscillation graphic. The PDO went into a cold surface water phase at the same time the sun was heating up.



Roy Spencer's graphic of the HadCRUT3 surface temperature record. The surface temperature cooled in the 40's and 50's as the cold PDO masked the warming being caused by high solar activity.


Continuing forward, the graphs show that the cold phase of the Pacific oscillation continued through the 60's, where the resulting cold surface temperatures were compounded by a weak solar cycle. By the early seventies, there was justified concern about the possible onset of the next ice age. Solar activity would be heading back down sooner or later, and it could have been sooner. What was unjustified was anti-capitalist environmentalists like Stephen Schneider blaming the cooling on human burning of fossil fuels, just so they could have an excuse for urging restrictions on fossil fuel burning and economic growth.

Shortly after Newsweek took global cooling fears mainstream in 1975, solar activity returned to "grand maximum" levels and the Pacific oscillation turned to its warming "el nino" phase. Throughout the 80's and 90's, these warming effects worked together to drive surface temperatures up. Solar activity and the Pacific oscillation both leveled out over the first five years of the 21st century, and in the last couple of years both have turned in the cooling direction.

In sum, if the surface temperature record is "corrected" for the influence of ocean oscillations (so that it tracks global temperature) the correlation to solar activity becomes much stronger.


Just how strong IS the correlation between solar activity and temperature, once the ocean oscillations and volcanic aerosol effects are corrected for?

The correlation is almost exact, all the way down to annual time scales. In the geologic record, the correlation in the geologic record is about 90% all the way down to decadal time scales. (Fred Singer and Henrik Svensmark both amass the evidence in their landmark books.) But the geologic record doesn't account for ocean oscillations and volcanic sulfates. For the modern period over which we have measures for these further determinants of surface temperature, the residual temperature anomaly tracks solar activity practically year by year. Here is Svensmark's graph of the temperature anomaly (trend removed), once ocean oscillations and volcanic aerosol effects are accounted for:



Svensmark graphic (via the reference frame).

Notice that Svensmark plots temperature against Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR), not solar activity. Higher levels of solar activity shield the earth from GCR, so GCR serves as a proxy for solar activity and vice versa. It is GCR that can be measured directly in the geologic record, and in Svensmark's theory, it is GCR that causes global cooling (by ionizing the atmosphere and seeding cloud formation).

Very impressive correlation. In contrast, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that CO2 drives anything. The warming alarmists have a theory with NO EVIDENCE behind it, and they are willfully blind to the overwhelming evidence that temperature is driven by solar-magnetic-activity/GCR. Despite the fact that ALL THE EVIDENCE points to solar activity and GCR as the drivers of global temperature, the IPCC's General Circulation Models completely omit this competing theory.

According to cooling denier Richard Wood:
Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction.
But, he adds:
If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.
Yes. But not because the model is distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic warming. The model ASSUMES that CO2 drives temperature, and assumes that solar effects do not. As the IPCC climatologists admit (when pressed): these models do not produce forecasts. They are simulations that extrapolate assumptions, and the assumptions that are being extrapolated are those of environmental religionism, completely divorced from the evidence. They omit from their assumptions what there IS evidence for and assume what there is NO evidence for. Pure scientific fraud.


Environmentalist religion

CO2 has no role to play anywhere in this story. Theoretically higher levels of CO2 should have a very slight warming effect, but empirically, this effect is unmeasurable. We are NOT in a state like the 40's and 50's where a cooling PDO was masking the warming effects of high solar activity. We are in a very dangerous cooling phase where cold ocean oscillations are compounding the cooling effects of diminished solar activity. The only masking going on is from the dishonest warming alarmists, covering up the very real perils of global cooling with their hot air about CO2.

This gives them an excuse to proceed with their real agenda: placing restrictions on fossil fuel burning and economic growth. The warming alarmists are not actually concerned about global warming at all, and never were. They are environmental religionists who see economic activity as gobbling up the environment. The only thing they actually care about is securing restrictions on fossil fuel burning as a way to curtail economic activity and save the environment from human encroachment.

The alarmists don't care whether their claims about CO2 driven warming are true. In fact, they all KNOW that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but it gets them the policy prescription that they are driven to on religious grounds, and so they embrace it.


Error Theory

Distrust in truth is the fundamental human moral failing. In every arena, half the population imagines that it can somehow be right or in their interest to avoid or suppress the truth. The inevitable consequence of this truth avoidance is that the truth avoiders end up divorced from reality, which inevitably makes them wrong in their assumptions about what is right or in their interest.

In reality, warming is completely benign, while cooling is extraordinarily dangerous. It can easily wipe out, not just most of mankind, but most of the biosphere, as it has done like clockwork for the last 2 million years. When it comes to gobbling up flora and fauna, nothing compares to an ice age. If we want to save the planet, we ought to be pumping out greenhouse gases as fast as we can, and tailoring them to patch the infrared "holes" in our greenhouse blanket. Instead, thanks to the global warming alarmists, we are not going to do anything to warm up our greenhouse blanket, and will only be able to pray that this isn't the big one. Pretty damned stupid. Such are the wages of distrust in truth.

Jesus tried to tell us all: be a witness for truth. That is what he was doing--"I came into the world to be a witness for truth" (Jn 18:37)--and he asked us to follow him. The environmentalists think they are beyond Christianity. Fools. They don't begin to get it. If you don't trust in truth, if you just assume that curtailing fossil fuel burning is the right thing to do, regardless of what is really happening with global temperature, then you get divorced from reality and EVERYTHING you think you know will be WRONG.

These idiots will get us (or our children) killed.

Turtwig

If we want to save the planet, we ought to be pumping out greenhouse gases as fast as we can, and tailoring them to patch the infrared "holes" in our greenhouse blanket.

Congratulations, you've just won Malty's dumbest quote of the month award Mr. Blogger.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

If we want to save the planet, we ought to be pumping out greenhouse gases as fast as we can, and tailoring them to patch the infrared "holes" in our greenhouse blanket.

Congratulations, you've just won Malty's dumbest quote of the month award Mr. Blogger.

Yes, I have to agree with that! Deliberately messing with the environment whem we don't fully understand how it actually works is dumb !

Redsunset

Britain's Weather Office Proposes Climate-Gate Do-Over


Met Office/YouTube


Met Office Hadley Centre projections of temperature change relative to pre-industrial levels, under two different emissions scenarios. Now the agency is proposing starting its climate models scratch.


After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office has decided to give its modern climate data a do-over.

At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again on a "grand challenge" to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review.

In other words, conduct investigations into modern global warming in a way that may help to end the mammoth controversy over world temperature data that has been stirred up in the past few years.

The executive summary of the Met Office proposal to the World Meteorological Organization's Committee for Climatology is that, the Met Office defends its historical record of temperature readings, along with similar data collected in the U.S., as a "robust indicator of global change." But it admits that "further development" of the record is required "in particular to better assess the risks posed by changes in extremes of climate."

Among other things, its older data is maintained on a monthly basis, and the Met Office proposal says that is "grossly inadequate" to providing information on a daily and "sub-daily" basis.


A Met Office spokesman, Dave Britton, declared that the decision to re-do the data collection had been gestating for "a long time," then added: "But it would be naïve to say that [the Climate-gate controversy] didn't have an impact." He added: "It's not something that we can do alone."

As a result, the proposal says, "we feel that it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyze surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has the responsibility for global observing and monitoring systems for weather and climate."

The new effort, the proposal says, would provide:

• "verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"
• "methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"
• "a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"
• "comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"
• "robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."

Click here to read the executive summary.

The Met Office proposes that the new international effort to recalibrate temperature data start at a "workshop"' hosted by its Hadley Climate Research Centre, which maintains data in collaboration with the controversial Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's East Anglia University. The Met Office would invite "key players" to start the "agreed
community challenge" of creating the new datasets. A Met Office spokesman said the new effort would take about three years to complete, but would not estimate the cost.

The Met Office proposal asserts that "we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale ... trends" as a result of the new round of data collection. But, the proposal adds, "this effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent."

Those strongly underlined assurances put the Met Office in strong contrast to the accusations that have been hurled at its collaborator, CRU, epicenter of the Climate-gate controversy. Among other things, the CRU had stonewalled climate skeptics who demanded to know more about its scientific methods in establishing a dramatic record of global warming, especially in the 20th century. (An inquiry established that the institution had flouted British freedom of information laws in refusing to come up with the data.)

The stonewall began to crumble after a gusher of leaked emails revealed climate scientists, including the CRU's chief, Phil Jones, discussing how to keep controversial climate data out of the hands of the skeptics, keep opposing scientific viewpoints out of peer-reviewed scientific journals, and bemoaned that their climate models failed to account for more than a decade of stagnation in global temperatures.Jones later revealed that key temperature datasets used in Hadley's predictions had been lost, and could not be retrieved for verification.

Jones stepped down temporarily after the British government announced an ostensibly independent inquiry into the still-growing scandal, but that only fanned the flames, as skeptics pointed out ties between several panel members and the East Anglia center. In an interview two weeks ago, Jones also admitted that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming in the past 15 years.

The Met Office's desire for more robust and transparent data could also prove to be a blow for Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nations-backed International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose most recent report, published in 2007, has been exposed by skeptics as rife with scientific errors, larded with un-reviewed and non-scientific source materials, and other failings.

As details of the report's sloppiness emerged, the ranks of skeptics of the work have swelled to include larger numbers of the scientific community, including weather specialists who worked on the sprawling IPCC report. Calls for Pachauri's resignation have come from organizations as normally
opposed as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the British chapter of Greenpeace. So far, he has refused to step down.

The Met proposal argues says that its old datasets "are adequate for answering the pressing 20th Century questions of whether climate is changing and if so how. Bet they are fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st Century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken."
Those "21st Century questions" are not small and they are very far from cheap. At Copenhagen, wealthy nations were being asked to spend trillions of dollars on answering them, a deal that only fell through when China, India, and other near-developed nations refused to join the mammoth climate-control deal.

The question after the Met Office's proposal may be whether environmentalists eager to move those mountains of cash are also ready to stand down until the 21st century questions get 21st century answers.

Sponge Bob

This has not gone away. A new Version 3 dataset was announced but not yet released. As the supposition in certain quarters is that data is being manipulated a lot mor s ceptics are waiting to grind the GHCN3 data set and compare it with the GHCN2 dataset on which chiefio commented liberally as mentioned and linked earlier in this thread. They are holding fire, still no sign of the new dataset ...unsurprisingly .

All has recently gone quiet on Climategate

The heads up demo of GHCN3 in May attracted a degree of scorn

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/19/tom-karl%E2%80%99s-ghcn3-trends-are-wrong-at-least-in-slide-21/

Recent chiefio analysis of GHCN1 and GHCN2 ( GHCN2 is the current temperature set from which the global warming hockey stick curve is derived) and with blog comments below

Chiefio, if you are coming late, is a market trend analyst who discovered global temperature 'datasets' in recent times.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/agdataw-begins-in-1990/

He reiterates his base theory as E.M Smith in a comment

Most airports have transitioned from a grass field to acres of tarmac and jet exhaust over the last 75 years. That many of the thermometer stations were located there (and a very high percentage of those that survive to date…) is a fundamental warming bias via station selection in GHCN.

Redsunset

This is a report video from 20 years ago.And nothing has changed.
I found it entertaining.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010#

Redsunset

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

Joe D’Aleo discusses Surface Temperatures: A Policy Driven Deception, a new report that he co-wrote with Anthony Watts. Joe separates fact from fiction about CO2 and outlines its benefits and functions.Learn how the EPA declared CO2 a toxin based on an analysis by a team with an agenda to control carbon and how we use energy and energy sources.


Interesting stuff

lord lucan

redsunset wrote: »

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

Joe D’Aleo discusses Surface Temperatures: A Policy Driven Deception, a new report that he co-wrote with Anthony Watts. Joe separates fact from fiction about CO2 and outlines its benefits and functions.Learn how the EPA declared CO2 a toxin based on an analysis by a team with an agenda to control carbon and how we use energy and energy sources.


Interesting stuff

Thanks for that,i'll be a couple of hours getting through it all!

WolfeIRE

Below article from Joe Bastardi has rightly confused me now.

He consistently throws up evidence of artic sea ice making a significant recovery. Yet I watched a news piece last night on the Moscow conference on the Artic in which Russian ships are now passing the northern artic passage with ease due to decline of icecap.

Just plain confusing

THURSDAY EARLY MORNING ARE THE U.S. SCIENTISTS DELUSIONAL IN THEIR SEA ICE IDEAS?
Someone in authority in the U.S. lying or wrong; it's that simple.
We have the spokesman from the NSIDC claiming again, like three years ago before he woke up and realized the La Nina was causing a recovery, that Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral. He tries to use the metric "thickness of ice."
Yet here we have the NAVY saying the ice is thicker.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/is-the-ice-getting-thicker/
Somebody is wrong.
On paper, the NSIDC spokesman is trying to say to believe him rather than our lying eyes, which on every objective sea ice site is not as low as in 2007... an inconvenient truth given the amount of warmth that supposedly boiled the Arctic over the last year, and the amount of cold coming in response, in the shorter term, to the La Nina (unseen by NOAA models as late as April, and of course two years ago when the sea ice death spiral comment came on, and I suspect they are not paying attention now. If they were, with the amount of cold now forecast on their models, why open your mouth? At least let them bust.
Over the coming years, either I or these people trying to force their ideas on us will be exposed as the knight guarding the bridge in Monty Python's search for the Holy Grail was. Personally, I think after the recovery started in 2008 and 2009 that was the first blow to them... now they are yelling "come back and fight! It's a flesh wound." Well here comes the second stronger cut. How long they can get chopped up in the coming years, with the PDO already cold and the Atlantic turning colder in 10-15 years will remain to be seen.
On paper, it's utter foolishness that doesn't make sense and why our people did not challenge it in the article on the 17th is bewildering to me. How do you explain the warmest year on record in the Arctic, yet the least ice melt? Surely if it's that warm, then the sea ice should have gone below the 2007 record. Now this guy comes on and claims it has... it's in the THICKNESS. Yet we have the U.S. Navy showing that simply is not true. Are the U.S. Navy people now part of a denial conspiracy? EITHER IT WASN'T THAT WARM AS THEY LED US TO BELIEVE, OR THE ICE IS NOT IN AS BAD SHAPE. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
I have left the links countless times for you to monitor sea ice. Of course, the people screaming the death of the Arctic make no mention of the overall trend in the Southern Hemisphere. But why would they? It would simply lead to another common sense conclusion... something that showed up many thousand of years ago in Ecclesiastes 1:9-14.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun"
Interesting, Evan Myers, one of the original members of the founding accuweather.com crew here, told me his grandmother used to tell him that all the time. The wisdom of the ages and those that came before can always be used to counter the impulsiveness of those that wish to ignore the facts.
Given you can all monitor these things we shall see where the death spiral is next year.
Ciao for now.
TUESDAY PM

odyboody

One thing i have never heard mentioned is the amount of icebreakers now smashing their way through the ice. From my own totaly unscientific experements I have discovered that a quanity of ice will melt a lot faster if it broken up into small peices than if it is left as solid lump.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that these ships which smashing their way through every year are reducing the quantity of ice.:rolleyes:

odyboody

odyboody wrote: »

One thing i have never heard mentioned is the amount of icebreakers now smashing their way through the ice. From my own totaly unscientific experements I have discovered that a quanity of ice will melt a lot faster if it broken up into small peices than if it is left as solid lump.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that these ships which smashing their way through every year are reducing the quantity of ice.:rolleyes:

That sounds about right, smash up the ice then scream "global warming's making the ice breakup!" Once the ice is weakened, the chances of adjacent pieces also breaking and drifting increase.

Sponge Bob

Chiefio has a very interesting article this week .

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/the-rewritten-past/

Very very long article looking at quite a variety of issues. One quote and one graphic.

As I’ve asserted before, it looks like it’s the “wrong way UHI” in things like GIStemp and the astounding concentration of thermometers at Airports in recent years in GHCN (reaching over 90% in many locations / countries).

And when the SST matches the satellite/ocean temperature so splendid, this obviously also supports the usefulness of satellite land data – unless satellites temperatures are only reliable over the oceans…!
Bottom line: Satellite data supports the obvious, that land and ocean data will stick together on the long run due to the permanent drift towards temperature equilibrium between land temperature and ocean surface temperatures.

One conclusion I come to from this is that with the ocean temps lagging the land shift, we’re in for a slow ‘catch up’ of the satellite data to the present cold phase on land as the oceans cool. So perhaps part of why HadCRUT and GIStemp are calling this the “Hottest year ever” (don’t they always do that?) is simply because they are still picking up some of that ocean heat that’s still in the ‘getting off the planet’ phase.
To predict our future trend after the cold inflection we’ve just had, the land temps tell you where you are headed, the sea temps where you have been. And the frozen land tells us we’re headed for cold, and for several years as the oceans “catch up”.

It should be read along with these two articles from Wattsupwithdat and Hidethedecline.eu ("Hide The Decline" are named after a Climategate email, see here )

Maybe the combination of low solar magnetic energy, La Nina & weakened Gulf stream really does have an affect, on global temperatures.

Rather than poorly sited weather stations!

Sponge Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe the combination of low solar magnetic energy, La Nina & weakened Gulf stream really does have an affect, on global temperatures. Rather than poorly sited weather stations!

One of those links points out that temperatures are 'rising' on land, not at sea.

supremenovice

All these claims and counter-claims by world 'experts' on climate. Its just getting nauseating.
Its at the stage now where the world is at odds with itself on climate change and always will be. Its like a religion - you either now believe climate change is to do with human activity like carbon-dioxide emissions or you dont.
Both sides are convinced that they are right and there is no report, study, claim or counter-claim that will change either sides minds.
You can try get a Muslim to convert to Catholicism by showing them every bit of evidence you can, but he/she is not going to convert for anything, no matter what you do or say!
Same thing with environmentalism.

I will clarify, The point being, most of the causes of climate change can be attributed to natural events, and most of these natural events can be linked back to the behaviour of the sun.

Sponge Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

The point being, most of the causes of climate change can be attributed to natural events, and most of these natural events can be linked back to the behaviour of the sun.

And the behaviour of the sun in the past few years is more indicative of an imminent Ice Age than anything else.

But the main driver of the Warming or AGW argument is the NASA Goddard Institute Temperature Data. Generally referred to as GISS or GISTEMP.

As the whole northern hemisphere freezes right now they have just declared 2010 the warmest year on record, but that is an annual event with that lot Then we have those Green fools running around preaching this message and taxing us into oblivion.

supremenovice

supremenovice wrote: »

All these claims and counter-claims by world 'experts' on climate. Its just getting nauseating.
Its at the stage now where the world is at odds with itself on climate change and always will be. Its like a religion - you either now believe climate change is to do with human activity like carbon-dioxide emissions or you dont.
Both sides are convinced that they are right and there is no report, study, claim or counter-claim that will change either sides minds.

+1

And in the meantime the elephants in the room are dancing to the tune of energy depletion, destruction of the environment (deforestation etc) and overpopulation, while everyone is looking at the thermometer in the yard and blaming eachother for leaving the kettle on too long! :mad:

LFCFan

Can someone explain to me how weather records, which have been recording our weather for how long, 150/200 years, can have such sway over decisions on whether certain summers are the hottest ever etc? The earth is around 4.5 billion years old so the period we've actually been recording weather doesn't even register in milliseconds in the grand scheme of things. It is so annoying when you hear people on the radio or TV talking about certain months/summers/winters/years etc being the 3rd hottest on 'record' when those records are pathetically short when you consider just how old the planet is. If 'global warming' wasn't leading to so much talk about extra taxes, it might be easier to accept that we are the reason for any warming.

bealtine

LFCFan wrote: »

If 'global warming' wasn't leading to so much talk about extra taxes, it might be easier to accept that we are the reason for any warming.

My local church was known as "The Church of the Vineyards" because when it was built the area was covered with polar bears...no wait vineyards. So it must have been considerably warmer when the church was built and they didn't have poly tunnels either...
Baseline figures for "warming" are arbitrary and dependant on what you think the average of the "climate" should be.

Carbon taxes have just been doubled in the last budget so that says it all "to help us out the predicament we find ourselves in". If there was no vocal headless chicken called Greens there would be no excuse to load on new taxes

Well the reason for the carbon tax is clearly nothing to do with saving energy, the planet etc, it's just another tax!

lucernarian

I think there's merits in carbon taxes simply in terms of energy security. Many a government has been punished by price hikes in imported oil. The less we have to import, the less we have to spend. Perhaps my assessment is oversimplistic and Machiavellian but I can't see how a carbon tax would make e.g. our Balance of Trade any worse...