Sun to Blame for Global Warming

[PeterMP]

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

"These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)."

I wonder how much coverage this gets in the MSM?

I wonder if these Climate Scientists will have their credibility assaulted?

But the Issue is no longer in doubt?......Right?

Except the study doesn't actually say what the quote from your link says it does. The piece is essentially a lie.

What it does say is that if I take all of the climate models out there and take their avg. result that avg. over-estimates the amount of warming in the troposhphere above the tropics. Now, note some models actually properly predict the amount of warming over the tropics, but of course when you combine them w/ models that don't they lose that accuracy. That's why have multiple models. Some do a better job at somethings than the others.

Beyond that, we are talking about warming in one place (above the tropics) at one level (the troposphere), and most of the models have UNDERestimated other variables (e.g. artic ice melting; there was a thread on that recently on that topic).

Here's a link to the actual paper:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/fulltext/117857349/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Due to my work, I can get it for free. You'd probably have to pay, but let me cut some sections out for you to read:

First the title:

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model

predictions"

Now the abstract. This is where if you have an important conclusion you state it because this how databases index articles so that they can be searched. When this story was first posted in another thread, at first I couldn't find it because I was searching for the quoted phrase. That phrase doesn't occur in the article. I had to go back and look for the authors names.

"ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model

simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).

Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by

more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than

observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with

those of recent publications based on essentially the same data."

Nothing about humans NOT causing global warming.

Now, I'll give their last paragraph of the paper. This is where people get to give their opinion normally.

"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."

Again, nothing about humans not being involved in global warming. Just that the models might be wrong. In fact, they don't even conclude which direction the models might be wrong. The models are just as likely to under estimates as over estimates.

The piece that you quoted is essentially a lie. That phrase or nothing resemble it does not occur in the paper (the paper does not contain the word human or natural outside of the references).

[PeterMP]

lets talk credability......

NASA Data Goof Fuels Global Warming Skepticism

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070820_gw_mismatch.html

One result of the adjustment that was widely touted in the blogosphere as a refutation of global warming was the replacement of 1998 as the warmest year on record in the GISS data with 1934. Schmidt says this replacement is largely irrelevant to the global warming discussion because that year was something of an oddity.

Get over it. NASA made a mistake. Maybe you should read some about 1934. Beyond that it is irrelevant, because it is GLOBAL warming, and their mistake had nothing to do w/ GLOBAL world temperature.

5 Editors Resign

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Comrie.pdf

It is with some regret that I inform you of my decision to resign as an editor of Climate Research. The recent events regarding CR have not made it easy to defend the quality of the journal and therefore to serve as an editor. CR was a fine journal.....

:laugh:

He owns part of a company for people buying homes on how climate change will affect their property.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319175827.htm

He isn't a dissenter. Just didn't like how the journal was venturing from science (i.e. is the climate changing and why) to politics (what should the goverment do about it?)

Inflated Storm #s help Warm the Alarmists

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-NOAA-Hurricane-Prediction-Season-113007.html

"Washington, D.C. - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is inflating the count of tropical storms.......

"NOAA is doing so both by changing the criteria for naming storms and by failing to account for changes in technology that make detection of storms much easier."

Changing HOW you count is credible.....right?

Urban Environment Biased Temps

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

There's a reason that NOAA specifies that temperature sensors should be a minimum of 100 feet away from buildings, concrete, and asphalt which may introduce biases into the reading. What we don't know is why there has been such an apparent regular failure to adhere to such specifications.

I will assume you saw my previous post listing Errors in Gores "Unexplainable Truth" semi-doc on Polar Bear Swimming Lessons

I don't really know about the rest of these, but based on your track record unless you can come w/ a more unbiased source, I don't see any reason to believe they are any more accurate.

[IHOPSkins]

.....I wonder if these Climate Scientists will have their credibility assaulted...

2.5 hours

A New record

[PeterMP]

2.5 hours

A New record

Great you're slamming me for telling the truth. I just accurately pointed out what their paper says.

Of course, you couldn't refute the truth.

[IHOPSkins]

Another IPCC contributor who disagrees with the IPCC report

How credible is a report denied by a report contributor?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/current-affairs/41719-ipcc-fraud.html

"As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather."

Wow sounds pretty damning...

I wonder if Christopher Monckton tortures small animals while driving an SUV drunk? (Sarc)

Don't worry, the Left will find that out soon enough

[PeterMP]

I didn't intend to call you out, if that's the way you perceived it. If that's the case than I apologize. I've always been one of those that questions popular ideas and forms my own opinions after digging into the media. Nowadays, it really does require digging.

I'm a novice when it comes to global warming, yet it seems there are instantly a plethora of experts. Instantly I mean within the last 10yrs. Think about it, 10 yrs. Pardon me if there are decent scientists out there with legitimate claims being drowned out by bandwagon science. Now there are computer models that predicted where we are at now. We cant even predict the weather 10 days before it occurs, yet computer models from 50 years ago knew global warming was going to occur?

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong for the sake of proving them wrong, although it may seem that way. I'm looking for reasonable answers to questions.

I'll go in two different directions w/ this post because I see things like this a lot.

First:

Do you have a child? Did you ever meet with the OB? There are alot of questions you can ask an OB at the beginning of the pregnancy that are relevant and some are even important:

1. What day will the baby be born?

2. Will the baby even make it to being viable to be born?

3. How bad will the mom get morning sickness and how frequent (much less will she have morning sickness on any given day)?

4. Will the mom have pregenancy associated diabetes?

The OB will tell you they can't give you firm answers to any of them. Does that mean you should never go to see an OB? NO!

Sometimes it is easier to talk in generalities than specifics:

How much precipitation will DC get in January? I have no clue.

Will the global temp of January be higher than the 50 year avg. for the world for Jan.? Yes.

How long will any given woman's gestation be? I have no clue.

Will the avg. length of pregnancy for people that birth naturally over the whole world in 2008 be 280 days +/- 10 days? Yes

See how that works?

Second, I've never seen where somebody say that 50 years ago a computer model predicted global warming. If you have a link, I'd love to see it. The flip side of that is the research supporting CO2 caused global warming is old and unrefuted. A famous chemist predicted over 100 years ago that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would cause warming.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

His work obviously was not based on a computer model. He showed that CO2 absorbs energy produced from the sun. Normally, some of that energy is reflected by the Earth back into outer space. Once it gets out the Earth's atmosphere it no longer affects the global temp. If you increase the amount of CO2 more of the energy is going to be absorbed by the CO2 and less of it will make into outerspace. The CO2 molecules that absorb the energy are "excited". In order to "relax", they need to do something w/ the energy. Normally, the energy is converted into more motion by the molecule, which results in heat. Based on this simple chemistry, we can see that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in an increase in global temps. Now the global enviroment is complex, and it is possible that the energy will go somewhere else in the system, but nobody has demonstrated that is the case, and we KNOW temps are going up.

[IHOPSkins]

Open Letter to the UN.....

".....In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated......"

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007541.asp

Signitories to the letter

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

Some big names here....Since we are now playing alphabet soup

Did all these guys get $$$$$$ from Exxon? (Sarc)

[PeterMP]

Another IPCC contributor who disagrees with the IPCC report

How credible is a report denied by a report contributor?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/current-affairs/41719-ipcc-fraud.html

"As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather."

Wow sounds pretty damning...

I wonder if Christopher Monckton tortures small animals while driving an SUV drunk? (Sarc)

Don't worry, the Left will find that out soon enough

Okay, this is where I get into a bit of a pickle. Gore at best misrepresented the truth. For example, when talking about sea level rises, Gore takes worse case estimates and presents them as if they are certain.

However, just because Gore (a non-scientist) is wrong and has at best been misleading doesn't mean that everybody is wrong especially real scientists like those represented by the National Academy of Sciences (whose link I posted).

In response to post likes that w/ real scientific evidence, you come back with the opinion of another non-scientist (Christopher Monckton). He's making the same kind of misrepresentations as Gore. Just on the otherside.

Monckton isn't a scientist of any sort. My guess is that the scientist on the IPCC panel completely ignored his opinion when writing up the conclusion like I'd hope they do w/ any politician.

[IHOPSkins]

This guy was sold on Global Warming when the new Ice Age BS had just ended

But NOW........

"Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

and More...

"......... Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution....."

Maybe Halliburton has pictures of this guy in bed with an Al Gore Polar Bear? (Sarc)

[Larry]

Another IPCC contributor who disagrees with the IPCC report

How credible is a report denied by a report contributor?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/current-affairs/41719-ipcc-fraud.html

"As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

(Emphasis, I assume, by IHOP)

1) How credible is a report denied by a liar? The Nobel Peace Prize in 07 was awarded to a single individual, (Al Gore). He may very well deserve a "thank you" for his contributions to the team. But he does not share the award in any way.

2) Ooh, I guess we should immediately disregard all USSC rulings that weren't unanimous, since after all, any shared product in which a single contriputor disagrees in any way with the final product doesn't exist.

Should we also consider every act of Congress that wasn't passed unanimously to be null and void?

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather."

Ooh, and that really tears it: Two committees of politicians (in fact, politicians who aren't even required to meet the normal "qualifications" of most politicians, ie, "getting elected") have decided that they disagree with a scientific conclusion.

Heck, everybody knows that when a scientific paper is disagreed with by a committee of politicians, then the scientific paper must be wrong. (Along with any other scientific papers that agree with it.)

-----

Do you even bother to read the things you're posting?

[IHOPSkins]

..... the research supporting CO2 caused global warming is old and unrefuted. A famous chemist predicted over 100 years ago that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would cause warming.....

"Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Thanks for another credible DENIER!

I will add him to the list in post 107

[IHOPSkins]

.....Do you even bother to read the things you're posting?

Did you read post 107?

How about 109?

:laugh:

[IHOPSkins]

......Heck, everybody knows that when a scientific paper is disagreed with by a committee of politicians, then the scientific paper must be wrong......

....In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

So the Politicians are automatically wrong?

Thanks for making my point :applause:

[PeterMP]

"Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Thanks for another credible DENIER!

:laugh:

I'm confused. Is a denier a person that thinks we can/should do nothing about global warming (i.e. Arrhenius) or a person that doesn't think attacking CO2 levels is the way to slow/stop global warming, but believes we should do something to stop it (i.e. like the Russian IPCC member we discussed last night).

Arrehnius lived at a time before wide spread use of birth control, pesticides, and herbicides, and before it was possible to transport a most types of food long distance before spoinling. The world's population was increasing faster than our ability to produce food. He thought warming the Earth was a possible solution to the problem.

Feeding the world is not an issue w/ respect to food production. Issues w/ hunger are essentially completely distribution issues. If we had the political will to feed the whole world, we could with the amount of food we currently produce.

In a more general statement, if we ignore the short term cost of flooding of costal areas for countries w/ such areas (the vast majority of the world's population and th major cities are in areas that are near water) or for countries w/o much of those kind of areas (e.g. Russia), then for some places global warming will almost certainly be advantagous. Russia, Canada, and Greenland will almost all benefit long term from global warming (ignoring the flooding and cost of moving the populace in land as sea levels rise).

As for the US, it is hard to make that arguement. Areas in South Eastern US and much of the Gulf Coast will likely become warmer. IF they become warmer and drier, they will become more desert like and will support a smaller population. If they stay the same "wetness" they are (or get wetter), they will become more tropical like. That means more tropical diseases (read about some of the deseases in Centreal and S. America). In terms of food production, since even N. Dakota is an agriculturally viable area, it is difficult in terms of food production to argue that global warming will help the US. So even LONG TERM (short term because of the rising sea level and flooding, global warming is negative for the vast majority of people in the WORLD), it is hard to argue that global warming will aid the US.

For the world (again we are talking about long term), it is essentially a coin flip. Short term it is a negative.

[PeterMP]

....In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

So the Politicians are automatically wrong?

Thanks for making my point :applause:

In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea#On_global_warming_and_hurricanes

So is he a dissenter or not?

[IHOPSkins]

In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea#On_global_warming_and_hurricanes

So is he a dissenter or not?

I wasn't counting him as such

He is a good example of POLITICS playing a part in the IPCC report however

His dissent would depend on how large the "Portion" of human effect is

[Larry]

Did you read post 107?

How about 109?

:laugh:

Yes to both.

I'll point out that, IMO, you'd have more creditability if you actually posted some peer-reviewed research that supports your claim, rather than quoting a blog that simply declares that such research exists.

(It might go a long way towards wiping out the fact that the studies that you have posted, have actually said the complete opposite of what you claim they said.)

Your 109 seems (at least based on the excerpt you quoted) to even have a valid point to it.

Although I'll point out that if the IPCC was instructed to only consider studies that had been out for a year or two (and I certainly have no reason to doubt that statement), there are multiple possible explanations for such instructions.

The assertion that it was part of some conspiracy to prevent newly-released information which disputes their agenda from consideration, could be correct.

Or it could also be that the IPCC, knowing that there were a lot of bogus "studies" being pushed, and knowing that often such fake science gets shot down shortly after it's published, wanted to restrict themselves to using information that had at least been "out there" for over a year, and hadn't been refuted.

(And, FWIW, I'm certainly not going to claim that there has never been an actual study, using actual science, that has disagreed with the consensus. On any attempt to study something as complicated as the Earth's climate, 100% unanimity ought to be guaranteed impossible.)

I assume that there are perfectly valid studies that have come to differing conclusions.

(I haven't seen you produce one, but I assume they exist.)

[IHOPSkins]

I'm confused. Is a denier a person that thinks we can/should do nothing about global warming (i.e. Arrhenius) or a person that doesn't think attacking CO2 levels is the way to slow/stop global warming, but believes we should do something to stop it (i.e. like the Russian IPCC member we discussed last night).....

If a person either does not believe in Global Warming or believes that Global Warming affects will be either Minimal or Positive.....that would be a denier

I think this works as this is basically opposite the IPCC report (man made and serious)

Does that work? (What if not man made but catastrophic?)

I included the Arrhenius post to show;

1) I am trying to research posts giving

2) There might be positive (or at least inconsequential) Global Warming (natural or man made)

[Larry]

....In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

So the Politicians are automatically wrong?

Thanks for making my point :applause:

'Course, the reason he withdrew is because he disagreed with the IPCC's conclusion that Global Warming was leading to increased hurricanes.

I notice you didn't include the quote

In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming.

from the same page you linked to.

[IHOPSkins]

'Course, the reason he withdrew is because he disagreed with the IPCC's conclusion that Global Warming was leading to increased hurricanes.

I notice you didn't include the quote from the same page you linked to.

Again

I didn't include him as a Dissenter to Global Warming

But If you believe him about that.....then it increases MY ARGUMENT about the IPCC being Political

It might be better if YOU read what this post ANSWERED

[IHOPSkins]

.....I assume that there are perfectly valid studies that have come to differing conclusions.

(I haven't seen you produce one, but I assume they exist.)

The point is Credible Dissent

You Peer-Review?

[PeterMP]

Did all these guys get $$$$$$ from Exxon? (Sarc)

I doubt they did. The opinion of Exxon's CEO on global warming:

"We recognize that climate change is a serious issue," Tillerson said in an interview last week, pointing to a recent company report that acknowledged the link between the consumption of fossil fuels and rising global temperatures. "We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/business/exxon.php

[PeterMP]

The point is Credible Dissent

You Peer-Review?

The issue is what makes something or somebody credible. Real CREDIBLE dissent would take the form of publications in peer reviewed journals. You had one link about a published paper, and in that, the real desenting quote wasn't in the paper so wasn't peer reviewed.

You're trying to link alot of different people that have alot of different issues w/ a set of complex issues into one basket. For example, you have no idea Landsea's opinion is with respect to reducing greenhouse gasses. He might believe that rising sea levels will cause major flooding and that severe steps should be taken to reduce green house gasses, but because he took a principled stand on a different issue, you've dumped into your dissenter basket.

[artmonkforHOF]

You people are all idiots, thinking a few degree tempurature change either way will kill this planet. If you buy into this nazi-environmentalism about how we "MUST" protect this planet, you would also prescribe to the theory that the planet is at least 6 billion years old. And if you prescribe to that theory, you would most likely be agreable to the theory of Pangea, the once single great land mass on this planet and you would most likely agree that dinosuars once roamed this earth and thier fossils, through years of geological pressure created fossil fules for us to extract and use. Some people believe an ice age or a comet impacting the earth led to the demise of the dinosuars.

Now this 6 billion year old planet, that has been through prolonged ice ages, withstanded the impact of countless comets and otehr space debris and seen the rise and fall of at least one great life form, needs us to protect it? And losing 8000 square miles of icepact really makes a differnece on a planet that once had only 1 large land mass? This planet can take a 2degree F change in average global tempurature over a 100 year time span and live on because 100 years is not even a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things. Heck, the entire human history barely registers. So why do some people think that it is our duty to take care of a planet that obviously does not need to be taken care of? its a selfish act of prolonging our existance which, at best is nieve and more accurately, ignorant. Every major religion says that the end will come, yet somepeople think we need to be here for eternity.

Maybe mankind has already served its purpose on the planet, making plastics and styrofoams that will take 1,000 of years to bio-degrade and turn into some future super clean burning fuel for Earth's next great inhabitants. But yet, we feel compelled to keep the Earth in this human life supporting state for "the planet" when we really should be stating our work is "for us as humans". Maybe our continualed existance on this planet is actually retarding the growth of another great life form, but we would never know it because we are all too busy counting up how many carbon credits we need to buy next year to offset the pollution from our Cadillac EXT's.

[rincewind]

Seems easy enough to fix...

No more global warming... excellent.