It is part 33 and if you scroll down a page or so to the links you will see links to every previous one. Those also link to later ones. Each one discusses a particular scientist who is also a "denier". Lots of interesting data. Read an article a day. They're short enough.
I don't have time right now to check that your list of 38 are actually qualified, but maybe I will if I decide to care. Either way, the concept reminded me a lot of this other pair of lists regarding a controversial scientific concept.
1) The Discovery Institute released a petition of "real scientists" who doubted the accuracy of evolution by common descent. It has been signed by over 700 people world wide. This list has a number of other problems in addition to being somewhat small.
2) Project Steve is the response to the Discovery Institutes' petition. It has over 800 signatories of people named "Steve" (or Stephanie or Esteban, etc) who agree evolution is a widely supported unifying principal of biology.
The point is, if you really want to believe a minority opinion you can seize upon lists like #1. It's compelling in the same way statistics are. But they have essentially no additional value.
I don't have time right now to check that your list of 38 are actually qualified, but maybe I will if I decide to care. Either way, the concept reminded me a lot of this other pair of lists regarding a controversial scientific concept.
1) The Discovery Institute released a petition of "real scientists" who doubted the accuracy of evolution by common descent. It has been signed by over 700 people world wide. This list has a number of other problems in addition to being somewhat small.
2) Project Steve is the response to the Discovery Institutes' petition. It has over 800 signatories of people named "Steve" (or Stephanie or Esteban, etc) who agree evolution is a widely supported unifying principal of biology.
But this isn't about evolution. Unless you are arguing that GW is just the normal evolution of the planet.
The point is, if you really want to believe a minority opinion you can seize upon lists like #1. It's compelling in the same way statistics are. But they have essentially no additional value.
On their own, that is true. It is one of those "body of evidence" things. They are merely part of the pile of growing evidence against.
I don't have time right now to check that your list of 38 are actually qualified, but maybe I will if I decide to care. Either way, the concept reminded me a lot of this other pair of lists regarding a controversial scientific concept.
1) The Discovery Institute released a petition of "real scientists" who doubted the accuracy of evolution by common descent. It has been signed by over 700 people world wide. This list has a number of other problems in addition to being somewhat small.
2) Project Steve is the response to the Discovery Institutes' petition. It has over 800 signatories of people named "Steve" (or Stephanie or Esteban, etc) who agree evolution is a widely supported unifying principal of biology.
But this isn't about evolution. Unless you are arguing that GW is just the normal evolution of the planet.
The point is, if you really want to believe a minority opinion you can seize upon lists like #1. It's compelling in the same way statistics are. But they have essentially no additional value.
On their own, that is true. It is one of those "body of evidence" things. They are merely part of the pile of growing evidence against.
Rob...Great site...Thank you.....It is interesting to me that so many have been manipulated into this silly theory based strictly on flawed computer models and no hard data....
The top global climate scientest and a father of the Made Global warming theories now has reversed his position....The man who started the weather channel also has done a 180 ....Many have...This hidious HOAX can distroy our country and our way of life. The Hoax is far more dangerous then if the theory was true...and a problem well into our future we will have invented means of providing energy without Hydr0-Carbons by then and the problem would go away...
If any of you actually believe this man-made Global warming stuff then put your energy into supporting a massive effort to build Nuclear energy plants...They are clean and safe and the fuel is renewable...they can provide all of our electrical energy needs and the natural gas and oil saved could then go into cars and eventually as better Batteries are developed the Nuclear Plants can provide the energy to recharge the Batteries and we can stop using oil all together.
Mike,I've been clipping articles on GW now for several years. At first, I was merely curious. The more I read, the more of a "smoking gun" I saw. Everything from "urban island" heat effects to Siberian temperature tracking stations going down, but their absence not being included in the stats, to scientists having to sue to get their name of f the IPCC list. And hundreds of others.
Slowly a picture formed and solidified. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this whole GW thing is a total and utter hoax. And the internet WILL kill it. It already is wounded. Frankly, it seems to be going down like the famous black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. We've "cut your bleedin' arm off" and they are saying "It's just a flesh wound".
Looks to me, based on the rest of his statement, that the cartoon character applies a pretty broad meaning to the word "evidence". Broader than mine, that is for sure.
"I think we should ditch those and instead put a $2 a gallon tax on gas."
Agreed. Of course, the tax should be phased in otherwise it would never be acceptable and would never get voted in. Perhaps 50c every year until we get to where we want to be, and additional increases to ensure it never goes below $4 again. If we force too many people to use less gasoline, that might have the perverse effect of reducing the price and we're back to SUVs again.
The critical thing about this tax is deciding where the money goes. It absolutely must NOT go into any kind of general fund. We don't want to rely on this money, as the whole point of it is that it should decrease over time and eventually go away. Funding education from a gas tax is a stupid idea.
Instead, the money should go towards funding alternative energy research, tax incentives, etc. For example, we could pick the 10 biggest problems facing alternative energy roll-out, and put out absolutely massive prizes for US companies (with US resident employees) to solve those problems. Part of the money should go towards a tax credit for the poor, as they will otherwise experience the brunt of this taxation in a regressive way.
My 2 cents...
As to whether humans are contributing to global warming. The answer is "no". End of story. Thanks for listening.
Notabull
I am 64 and you must be much younger.....Look at the Soc sec lock box, the SS trust fund...There is not a penny in it ...It is a file in an office and it is full of IOUs but they do pay us interest of about 1% a year....Lucky us.
How about that Greggore gas tax....The biggest state gas tax in the U.S. Are you getting to work any faster? What happened to all that money....Or the ferry money, they don't even mantain the suckers just let em rust...
They will promise to give you the lock box or new highways or anything else you want... but in the end you will have spent an extra $2.00 a gallon for nothing. I can afford whatever gas costs because I am retired and can sit at home if necessary....but working people can't...This state Sales taxes ...Property taxss and the gas tax...could there be 3 more regressive taxes.
- This site is sort of the kiddie pool. They've got good information, but as it is more readable than other sites, it also whitewashes over some of the more technical details.
- This site has a very good history of climatology that is well referenced and lays out the history of the science in a reasonably unbiased fashion. I'd recommend reading about the history of CO2 as a GHG:
Then there is realclimate which is a blog by climatologists which addresses issues of global warming and addresses the arguments made by the global warming skeptics:
That site is well out of the kiddie pool. That is where I would focus on to find out more pointers to scientific information and scientific arguments. It is more biased than the AIP site, but it maintains a high degree of scientific dialog.
Then there's the climate progress blog, which is mostly just bashing on deniers/delayers with the occasional reference to realclimate to backup opinions:
(I hesistate to give that latter one out, since if you want to have an argument, I'll readily admit there are a bunch of idiots on that site, just like there is on this one. Realclimate, however, is at least mostly grown up).
If any of you actually believe this man-made Global warming stuff then put your energy into supporting a massive effort to build Nuclear energy plants...They are clean and safe and the fuel is renewable...they can provide all of our electrical energy needs and the natural gas and oil saved could then go into cars and eventually as better Batteries are developed the Nuclear Plants can provide the energy to recharge the Batteries and we can stop using oil all together.
Uranium is also mined and is not renewable, and faces a "peak uranium" problem similar to the "peak oil" problem. Nuclear power is also simply not economical.
I think the risk to the environment from modern nuclear plants is actually less than the risk to the environment from global warming, so I think we should persue this option, but this is just one plank of an overall strategy. It isn't a total solution. The problem isn't that easy.
We do need to decarbonize the electrical grid, but solar and wind are going to play a larger role in that than nuclear (and carbon capture and sequestration technologies are likely to not play any kind of role, along with gas-to-liquids and solids-to-liquids or coal gasification routes -- those are less viable technologies than nuclear fusion at this point in terms of carbon-neutral strategies).
Something often overlooked in this discussion is that there is NO hard scientific data to prove there is "man Made" Global Warming...the whole theory is based on flawed computer models that have been shown to be incorrect in their long range projections.....
Actually there's a lot of evidence. We know that CO2 is a GHG and know how much radiative forcing it causes through 1-d climate models. We know that feedback effects amplify this effect. We know that in paleoclimatology CO2 is important in amplifying the effect of Milankovich cycles and causing the cyclical ice ages over the past million years. We know that CO2 levels are increasing and due to studying carbon isotopes we know how much of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere and how much of it is being removed by sinks like the oceans.
If you've got problems with those analysis, then post them.
For example taking hard data (actual measurments) the earth has not warmed at all since 99...It may have actually cooled slightly.
This is kind of amusing. Actually, every year from 2001-2008 have been warmer than 1999 by about 0.2C. I believe you meant to cherry pick the year 1998, which was in fact the warmest year ever on record. If you're going to make a complely bogus argument based on a single outlier year then I think you need to at least get the year correct.
1998 was near a peak in the solar cycle and was also coming right after an extremely strong El Nino event. Therefore the peak in 1998 was weather, not climate. If you want to show that the uptrend in global climate has changed you really need to violate the lower trend line in this graph that I've marked up:
All the hurricane for the last 2-3 years have been totally wrong.
There is considerable debate among climatologists about the effects of global warming on Atlantic hurricanes. If global warming causes shifts in the ENSO cycle towards more el nino conditions then that will tend to cause more wind shear in the Atlantic basin and rip apart hurricanes and tropical depressions. Although higher SSTs in the Atlantic should cause more rapid intensification of hurricanes that do form when they find favorable conditions -- and this has actually been observed over the past couple of years with records set in hurricane intesification.
There is slightly less ice in the artic and a record amount of ice in the anartic...
No, get it right. There's an increasing trend in the global ice cap when you add the antarctic to the arctic. That is because the Antarctic has much more ice than the Arctic, so that when you add the two together you're looking mostly at the Antarctic. That is a convenient way to wipe out the trend in the Arctic. The Antarctic is also not expected to warm as much since it creates its own microclimate and there are fewer continental land masses down there other than the Antarctic itself. Plus there are fewer emissions in the southern hemisphere and it is expected to warm later. Still the breakup of the ice shelves in Antarctica is indicating that global warming is starting to have an effect on Antarctica.
The article you posted, I think explains the fact that rather then looking at this in a truly scientific way, we are looking at it Politically and on the green side it is a finincial boom
I should link to this as well: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1511
I started a thread where this topic belongs. Also, there is something screwed up with this thread. I can't seem to see the right hand sidd of the post title bar sometimes, even with a 22" monitor. I can't hit the respond button.
Actually there's a lot of evidence. We know that CO2 is a GHG and know how much radiative forcing it causes through 1-d climate models. We know that feedback effects amplify this effect. We know that in paleoclimatology CO2 is important in amplifying the effect of Milankovich cycles and causing the cyclical ice ages over the past million years. We know that CO2 levels are increasing and due to studying carbon isotopes we know how much of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere and how much of it is being removed by sinks like the oceans.
None of those show the effect of humans. We also know that the amount of ionizing radiation has a great effect on weather, and solar output has increased. What we don't know is whether the feedback effects you refer to along with solar output explain the increase. Some models say there is a missing part, which they attribute to human activity, but I haven't seen a model that takes into account the effect of ionizing radiation.
Recent pictures from Mars reveal patterns on the surface indicative of melting ice and the subsequent "flow" of water. Given that pictures of the same area taken just a few years ago did not show melting ice/water, one has to wonder......if Earth and Mars are BOTH heating up....what is the common denominator?
I am not saying that humans are not partly to blame, but clearly the sun is a factor too. And NOBODY wants to discuss it, because it is something we have absolutely no control over. At least with "its all due to us" arguments there is some comfort (however naive) knowing that we may be able to control it to some extent.
But the sun? 8) ......scary :shock:
No, the sun has been investigated endlessly. That first occured to scientists 200 years ago after the discovery of variable stars. However over the past 50 years satellite measurements of the sun establish very accurately what the solar forcing is and what that input is. That's actually the first most important input into any global climate model since without the sun we freeze to death and without the solar input there's no possibility of a greenhouse effect, letting in solar radiation and trapping the IR heat emitted by the Earth.
And the actual science behind the local climate effects on Mars which are reducing the Martian Ice Cap is here:
And it has nothing to do with the melting Ice caps on earth and no connection to Solar cycles, since we are currently in a solar minimum, so something else has to be causing the melting of the ice caps on Mars.
More information on the whole history of studying the sun and its impact on climate is here (and precisely how stupid do you think climatologists are to never have considered that the sun might have had an impact on climate? they first thought of that 100 years before anyone considered the effect of CO2 on climate and its actually well studied):
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
A "solar minimum" means less activity, but also a warmer sun. It is arguable that it would, or would not, have the impact of directly causing certain warming trends in history (including the last one), but it should be brought out that "solar minimum" does not mean less heat. It means less surface activity and actually suggests GREATER heat.
Actually there's a lot of evidence. We know that CO2 is a GHG and know how much radiative forcing it causes through 1-d climate models. We know that feedback effects amplify this effect. We know that in paleoclimatology CO2 is important in amplifying the effect of Milankovich cycles and causing the cyclical ice ages over the past million years. We know that CO2 levels are increasing and due to studying carbon isotopes we know how much of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere and how much of it is being removed by sinks like the oceans.
None of those show the effect of humans. We also know that the amount of ionizing radiation has a great effect on weather, and solar output has increased. What we don't know is whether the feedback effects you refer to along with solar output explain the increase. Some models say there is a missing part, which they attribute to human activity, but I haven't seen a model that takes into account the effect of ionizing radiation.
Well, I already addressed the idea that solar output has increased and that this has been responsible for the late-20th century global warming. That whole idea is garbage. The ionizing radiation argument has also been addressed and debunked:
And it is completely incorrect to state that none of those show the effects of humans. First you need to establish the effects of CO2 on the climate (which is admittedly the first part of what I posted is all about, milankovich cycles, etc). The second bit that you need to establish is that the CO2 is coming from humans and that has been done and is based on the work of Roger Revelle:
A "solar minimum" means less activity, but also a warmer sun. It is arguable that it would, or would not, have the impact of directly causing certain warming trends in history (including this one), but it should be brought out that "solar minimum" does not mean less heat. It means less surface activity and actually suggests GREATER heat.
That is just wrong. Total solar irradiance varies in phase with the sunspot cycle:
The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
That conflates a couple different misconceptions. One is the satellite measurements of the troposphere and one is attempting to extrapolate an 8-year trend to global climate change:
The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
That conflates a couple different misconceptions. One is the satellite measurements of the troposphere and one is attempting to extrapolate an 8-year trend to global climate change:
So far I checked out your first article. I have a small problem with it in that I cannot seem to find a date on it. Meanwhile, John Christy is quoted thusly:
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.
And to quote the summary: We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model
simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our
conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application
of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this
proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature
trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region
represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the
trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse
forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that
model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent
with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there
is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to
the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then
future projections of temperature change, as depicted in
the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.
In summary, the debate in this field revolves around
the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric
trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates
heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article
demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between
surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature
trends warming faster than the surface. What
is new in this article is the determination of a very
robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at
each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several
equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations
which disagree with trends from the models.
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete
and accurate observations and more realistic modelling
efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the
observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of
future climate based on these models be viewed with
much caution.
lamont, I think you're problem is you tried to post some information from credible sources. I recommend finding links on misinformation blogs. Otherwise, this is a lost cause, because your opponents have already made it very clear (and seem proud of the fact) that they are uninterested in scientific lines of inquery. Especially if it might create American jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
lamont, I think you're problem is you tried to post some information from credible sources. I recommend finding links on misinformation blogs. Otherwise, this is a lost cause, because your opponents have already made it very clear (and seem proud of the fact) that they are uninterested in scientific lines of inquery. Especially if it might create American jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
I am 64 and you must be much younger.....Look at the Soc sec lock box, the SS trust fund...There is not a penny in it ...It is a file in an office and it is full of IOUs but they do pay us interest of about 1% a year....Lucky us.
There is not a penny in it because the taxes that supposedly fund it are not high enough to cope with the amount of people that require money from it in the future. We haven't even got to the point of needing the IOUs yet, but don't worry we'll get there. Now that the baby boomer generation is starting to retire, I don't doubt they'll "find religion" in the form of taxes and decide to tax the working (wo)man at a rate they themselves found to be unacceptable while they used to work.
How about that Greggore gas tax....The biggest state gas tax in the U.S. Are you getting to work any faster? What happened to all that money....Or the ferry money, they don't even mantain the suckers just let em rust...
They will promise to give you the lock box or new highways or anything else you want... but in the end you will have spent an extra $2.00 a gallon for nothing. I can afford whatever gas costs because I am retired and can sit at home if necessary....but working people can't...This state Sales taxes ...Property taxss and the gas tax...could there be 3 more regressive taxes.
I think I mentioned that due to a gas tax being regressive, part of the tax should be credited back to those that are affected the most.
I don't see why the federal government can't direct this additional tax money to a specific place (alternative energy research grants/prizes and tax credits for the poor). I entirely agree that tax money has a tendency to just dissapear if you introduce a tax and don't legislate where the money goes.
lamont, I think you're problem is you tried to post some information from credible sources.
I thought that was my problem.
But let's be frank, there are both credible and nutcase sites on both sides. And sometimes a persons determination on whether a site is credible or not is extremely subjective, based on it's alignment with their own opinion.
Comments
It is part 33 and if you scroll down a page or so to the links you will see links to every previous one. Those also link to later ones. Each one discusses a particular scientist who is also a "denier". Lots of interesting data. Read an article a day. They're short enough.
This is actually a direct link to the main site, linking to all 38 "deniers" stories: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... niers.aspx
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... s?page=8#8
Scroll down to post 18 if you have the time. It is about the obvious bias in the mainstream press.
Maybe I have the opinions I do because I have not had TV in my home since 1997.
I don't have time right now to check that your list of 38 are actually qualified, but maybe I will if I decide to care. Either way, the concept reminded me a lot of this other pair of lists regarding a controversial scientific concept.
1) The Discovery Institute released a petition of "real scientists" who doubted the accuracy of evolution by common descent. It has been signed by over 700 people world wide. This list has a number of other problems in addition to being somewhat small.
2) Project Steve is the response to the Discovery Institutes' petition. It has over 800 signatories of people named "Steve" (or Stephanie or Esteban, etc) who agree evolution is a widely supported unifying principal of biology.
The point is, if you really want to believe a minority opinion you can seize upon lists like #1. It's compelling in the same way statistics are. But they have essentially no additional value.
Rob...Great site...Thank you.....It is interesting to me that so many have been manipulated into this silly theory based strictly on flawed computer models and no hard data....
The top global climate scientest and a father of the Made Global warming theories now has reversed his position....The man who started the weather channel also has done a 180 ....Many have...This hidious HOAX can distroy our country and our way of life. The Hoax is far more dangerous then if the theory was true...and a problem well into our future we will have invented means of providing energy without Hydr0-Carbons by then and the problem would go away...
If any of you actually believe this man-made Global warming stuff then put your energy into supporting a massive effort to build Nuclear energy plants...They are clean and safe and the fuel is renewable...they can provide all of our electrical energy needs and the natural gas and oil saved could then go into cars and eventually as better Batteries are developed the Nuclear Plants can provide the energy to recharge the Batteries and we can stop using oil all together.
Slowly a picture formed and solidified. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this whole GW thing is a total and utter hoax. And the internet WILL kill it. It already is wounded. Frankly, it seems to be going down like the famous black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. We've "cut your bleedin' arm off" and they are saying "It's just a flesh wound".
Notabull
I am 64 and you must be much younger.....Look at the Soc sec lock box, the SS trust fund...There is not a penny in it ...It is a file in an office and it is full of IOUs but they do pay us interest of about 1% a year....Lucky us.
How about that Greggore gas tax....The biggest state gas tax in the U.S. Are you getting to work any faster? What happened to all that money....Or the ferry money, they don't even mantain the suckers just let em rust...
They will promise to give you the lock box or new highways or anything else you want... but in the end you will have spent an extra $2.00 a gallon for nothing. I can afford whatever gas costs because I am retired and can sit at home if necessary....but working people can't...This state Sales taxes ...Property taxss and the gas tax...could there be 3 more regressive taxes.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
- This site is sort of the kiddie pool. They've got good information, but as it is more readable than other sites, it also whitewashes over some of the more technical details.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
- This site has a very good history of climatology that is well referenced and lays out the history of the science in a reasonably unbiased fashion. I'd recommend reading about the history of CO2 as a GHG:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
And the history of investigating solar forcing as an element of climate change:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
Then there is realclimate which is a blog by climatologists which addresses issues of global warming and addresses the arguments made by the global warming skeptics:
http://www.realclimate.org/
That site is well out of the kiddie pool. That is where I would focus on to find out more pointers to scientific information and scientific arguments. It is more biased than the AIP site, but it maintains a high degree of scientific dialog.
Then there's the climate progress blog, which is mostly just bashing on deniers/delayers with the occasional reference to realclimate to backup opinions:
http://www.climateprogress.org/
(I hesistate to give that latter one out, since if you want to have an argument, I'll readily admit there are a bunch of idiots on that site, just like there is on this one. Realclimate, however, is at least mostly grown up).
Uranium is also mined and is not renewable, and faces a "peak uranium" problem similar to the "peak oil" problem. Nuclear power is also simply not economical.
I think the risk to the environment from modern nuclear plants is actually less than the risk to the environment from global warming, so I think we should persue this option, but this is just one plank of an overall strategy. It isn't a total solution. The problem isn't that easy.
We do need to decarbonize the electrical grid, but solar and wind are going to play a larger role in that than nuclear (and carbon capture and sequestration technologies are likely to not play any kind of role, along with gas-to-liquids and solids-to-liquids or coal gasification routes -- those are less viable technologies than nuclear fusion at this point in terms of carbon-neutral strategies).
Actually there's a lot of evidence. We know that CO2 is a GHG and know how much radiative forcing it causes through 1-d climate models. We know that feedback effects amplify this effect. We know that in paleoclimatology CO2 is important in amplifying the effect of Milankovich cycles and causing the cyclical ice ages over the past million years. We know that CO2 levels are increasing and due to studying carbon isotopes we know how much of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere and how much of it is being removed by sinks like the oceans.
If you've got problems with those analysis, then post them.
This is kind of amusing. Actually, every year from 2001-2008 have been warmer than 1999 by about 0.2C. I believe you meant to cherry pick the year 1998, which was in fact the warmest year ever on record. If you're going to make a complely bogus argument based on a single outlier year then I think you need to at least get the year correct.
1998 was near a peak in the solar cycle and was also coming right after an extremely strong El Nino event. Therefore the peak in 1998 was weather, not climate. If you want to show that the uptrend in global climate has changed you really need to violate the lower trend line in this graph that I've marked up:
There is considerable debate among climatologists about the effects of global warming on Atlantic hurricanes. If global warming causes shifts in the ENSO cycle towards more el nino conditions then that will tend to cause more wind shear in the Atlantic basin and rip apart hurricanes and tropical depressions. Although higher SSTs in the Atlantic should cause more rapid intensification of hurricanes that do form when they find favorable conditions -- and this has actually been observed over the past couple of years with records set in hurricane intesification.
No, get it right. There's an increasing trend in the global ice cap when you add the antarctic to the arctic. That is because the Antarctic has much more ice than the Arctic, so that when you add the two together you're looking mostly at the Antarctic. That is a convenient way to wipe out the trend in the Arctic. The Antarctic is also not expected to warm as much since it creates its own microclimate and there are fewer continental land masses down there other than the Antarctic itself. Plus there are fewer emissions in the southern hemisphere and it is expected to warm later. Still the breakup of the ice shelves in Antarctica is indicating that global warming is starting to have an effect on Antarctica.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... a-is-cold/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... ety_1.html
I started a thread where this topic belongs. Also, there is something screwed up with this thread. I can't seem to see the right hand sidd of the post title bar sometimes, even with a 22" monitor. I can't hit the respond button.
None of those show the effect of humans. We also know that the amount of ionizing radiation has a great effect on weather, and solar output has increased. What we don't know is whether the feedback effects you refer to along with solar output explain the increase. Some models say there is a missing part, which they attribute to human activity, but I haven't seen a model that takes into account the effect of ionizing radiation.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunsp ... ature.html
No, the sun has been investigated endlessly. That first occured to scientists 200 years ago after the discovery of variable stars. However over the past 50 years satellite measurements of the sun establish very accurately what the solar forcing is and what that input is. That's actually the first most important input into any global climate model since without the sun we freeze to death and without the solar input there's no possibility of a greenhouse effect, letting in solar radiation and trapping the IR heat emitted by the Earth.
And the actual science behind the local climate effects on Mars which are reducing the Martian Ice Cap is here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... g-on-mars/
And it has nothing to do with the melting Ice caps on earth and no connection to Solar cycles, since we are currently in a solar minimum, so something else has to be causing the melting of the ice caps on Mars.
More information on the whole history of studying the sun and its impact on climate is here (and precisely how stupid do you think climatologists are to never have considered that the sun might have had an impact on climate? they first thought of that 100 years before anyone considered the effect of CO2 on climate and its actually well studied):
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
And more info here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... relations/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/31/a ... n-warming/
And I can probably find more, but I need to go do some real work.
A couple of snippets:
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Well, I already addressed the idea that solar output has increased and that this has been responsible for the late-20th century global warming. That whole idea is garbage. The ionizing radiation argument has also been addressed and debunked:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ic-glitch/
And it is completely incorrect to state that none of those show the effects of humans. First you need to establish the effects of CO2 on the climate (which is admittedly the first part of what I posted is all about, milankovich cycles, etc). The second bit that you need to establish is that the CO2 is coming from humans and that has been done and is based on the work of Roger Revelle:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm
That is just wrong. Total solar irradiance varies in phase with the sunspot cycle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycl ... irradiance
(Apologies for using wikipedia but this is so fundamentally wrong that I'm not sure where to go for a better rebuttal).
That conflates a couple different misconceptions. One is the satellite measurements of the troposphere and one is attempting to extrapolate an 8-year trend to global climate change:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satelli ... sphere.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... /#more-523
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... pshere-ii/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm
Thank you for your reply, but the article you refer to is about the galaxy, not the Sun. Please take a closer look at http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunsp ... ature.html
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.
Yet John is also a contributor to this very interesting paper publishede in 2007 with David Douglas and others: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
And to quote the summary:
We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model
simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our
conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application
of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this
proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature
trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region
represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the
trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse
forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that
model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent
with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there
is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to
the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then
future projections of temperature change, as depicted in
the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.
In summary, the debate in this field revolves around
the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric
trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates
heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article
demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between
surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature
trends warming faster than the surface. What
is new in this article is the determination of a very
robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at
each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several
equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations
which disagree with trends from the models.
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete
and accurate observations and more realistic modelling
efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the
observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of
future climate based on these models be viewed with
much caution.
Overpopulation alone is enough evidence.
And the FAQ and Myths section is interesting as well: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths
Look, you've brought this up a number of times, and I had to respond. I'm not going to get into it, but this isn't even wrong.
BTW, brought what up?
There is not a penny in it because the taxes that supposedly fund it are not high enough to cope with the amount of people that require money from it in the future. We haven't even got to the point of needing the IOUs yet, but don't worry we'll get there. Now that the baby boomer generation is starting to retire, I don't doubt they'll "find religion" in the form of taxes and decide to tax the working (wo)man at a rate they themselves found to be unacceptable while they used to work.
I think I mentioned that due to a gas tax being regressive, part of the tax should be credited back to those that are affected the most.
I don't see why the federal government can't direct this additional tax money to a specific place (alternative energy research grants/prizes and tax credits for the poor). I entirely agree that tax money has a tendency to just dissapear if you introduce a tax and don't legislate where the money goes.
But let's be frank, there are both credible and nutcase sites on both sides. And sometimes a persons determination on whether a site is credible or not is extremely subjective, based on it's alignment with their own opinion.
I do like this GW test for dummies though: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobW ... start.html
I came across it a year or two ago. the whole page it is attached to is very interesting: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
Heck, the whole site is interesting. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html
Sorry, it is not a blog.