Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling?

[alexey]

Video 8 of the Climate Change series is available:

This one covers the "recent 10 year cooling trend" myth and several other ones. Discussion of myth generation dynamics is also interesting. Enjoy.

And please, please do at least some basic research before cut-and-pasting stuff from blogs.

[alexey]

and an addendum:

[btfoom]

And please, please do at least some basic research before cut-and-pasting stuff from blogs.

OK, but I don't see how a youtube video, from someone who readily admits that they know nothing about the science, and claim that the sun affect (by NASA) is a myth, really counts, either.

Anyway, just to rebuke the "NASA Myth part":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28336

SUN’S DIRECT ROLE IN GLOBAL WARMING MAY BE UNDERESTIMATED, DUKE PHYSICISTS REPORT

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases.

Nicola Scafetta, an associate research scientist working at Duke’s physics department, and Bruce West, a Duke adjunct physics professor, published their findings online Sept. 28, 2005, in the research journal Geophysical Research Letters.....

OR

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution....

Both of these studies, done by NASA, show that the Sun and its cycles influence 'Global Warming', so no, it is not a "Myth". Sorry, but I give the guy on that video as much creedence as the folks at 'Loose Change'.

[Kunia5]

Myth generation falls under the rubric of "cyber-tainment." Kind of like what I'm doing right now. Wasting time posting this message. It beats working.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

Video 8 of the Climate Change series is available:

This one covers the "recent 10 year cooling trend" myth and several other ones. Discussion of myth generation dynamics is also interesting. Enjoy.

And please, please do at least some basic research before cut-and-pasting stuff from blogs.

lol do not copy and paste from blogs... only youtube and wikipedia are considered acceptable sources. I just wanna say it was 50 degrees in New Orleans last night.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

double post

[The Evil Genius]

I just wanna say it was 50 degrees in New Orleans last night.

I am confused. According to the climate chart on Wikipedia for NO, the average low for March is 52.7 F.

[Predicto]

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases.

Do you even read your stuff before you post it?

Both of these studies, done by NASA, show that the Sun and its cycles influence 'Global Warming', so no, it is not a "Myth". Sorry, but I give the guy on that video as much creedence as the folks at 'Loose Change'.

No one in the scientific communites denies that the Sun and its cycles have some influence global warming. The myth is that the Sun's cycles TOTALLY ACCOUNT FOR all the recent changes in global temperature. Your own post explicitly denies that.

Sheesh.

[Kunia5]

I read your post. Both Duke scientists both agreed there is anthropogenic global warming. That was mentioned twice in the article (from 2005). They just add a "possible" variation of between 10 and 30% because of stronger solar activity.

Doesn't really change the debate much.

OK, but I don't see how a youtube video, from someone who readily admits that they know nothing about the science, and claim that the sun affect (by NASA) is a myth, really counts, either.

Anyway, just to rebuke the "NASA Myth part":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28336

SUN’S DIRECT ROLE IN GLOBAL WARMING MAY BE UNDERESTIMATED, DUKE PHYSICISTS REPORT

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases.

Nicola Scafetta, an associate research scientist working at Duke’s physics department, and Bruce West, a Duke adjunct physics professor, published their findings online Sept. 28, 2005, in the research journal Geophysical Research Letters.....

OR

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution....

Both of these studies, done by NASA, show that the Sun and its cycles influence 'Global Warming', so no, it is not a "Myth". Sorry, but I give the guy on that video as much creedence as the folks at 'Loose Change'.

[Kunia5]

Sorry, the scientists just agreed that greenhouse gases were adding to the earth's temperature; and not that it was anthropogenic.

I read your post. Both Duke scientists both agreed there is anthropogenic global warming. That was mentioned twice in the article (from 2005). They just add a "possible" variation of between 10 and 30% because of stronger solar activity.

Doesn't really change the debate much.

[alexey]

...

Dude you posted a link to the very DailyTech article that the video exposes as a complete fraud :ols::ols::ols:

[alexey]

lol do not copy and paste from blogs... only youtube and wikipedia are considered acceptable sources. I just wanna say it was 50 degrees in New Orleans last night.

Yes, youtube videos and wikipedia articles THAT CONTAIN REFERENCES.

(things that do not contain references tend to be bunk, as that video demonstrated... do watch it when you get a chance)

[Thiebear]

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0hFffAKFw

[Johnny Punani]

this totally deserves its own thread...:laugh:

[Thiebear]

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Climate+change+skeptic+group+accuses+scientists+using+selective+temperature+data/2482141/story.html

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

[Johnny Punani]

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Climate+change+skeptic+group+accuses+scientists+using+selective+temperature+data/2482141/story.html

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

to add...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/spencers-uhi-vs-population-project-an-update/

[alexey]

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Climate+change+skeptic+group+accuses+scientists+using+selective+temperature+data/2482141/story.html

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

This is because the tech improved a bit since 1970s. There are satellites doing this now.

[Thiebear]

This is because the tech improved a bit since 1970s. There are satellites doing this now.

could you link it please to show which is used where?

The article states "now" on the weather stations Jan 10 2010 Vancouver Sun.

And this is based on "time", satellites can't look backwards in time so trending is important.

This is from NASA: Saying the last 2 decades have shown us we don't know what were talking about??? or did i read that wrong.

Images of the Earth, such as this one in the infrared, tell us much about the distribution of water vapor. Areas within the Earth's atmosphere that are extremely dry, especially in the tropics, can act as large "chimneys" that allow energy to freely radiate into space, enhancing the cooling of the Earth. The effects of the tropical dry troposphere are poorly understood, and currently are not well-incorporated into computer models of global warming.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

[Larry]

Sorry, the scientists just agreed that greenhouse gases were adding to the earth's temperature; and not that it was anthropogenic.

So you're saying that they said that increased greenhouse gasses were causing warming, but that the half a billion tons of greenhouse gasses we dump into the atmosphere year after year after year doesn't?

[Thiebear]

i just got back from the NASA website: it is VERY cool by the way.

AND they say they have no idea based on the upper atmosphere and the Sun and water vaport etc. etc. etc.

doesnt mean we can't say

http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/volt.do?seo=goo_|_2009_Chevy_Awareness_|_IMG_Chevy_Volt_Phase_2_Segment_|_Electric_Car_HV_|_electric_car

[PeterMP]

When talking about UHI affects and surface data, you have to be careful about what surface data set you are talking about because some are INTENTIONALLY not corrected for UHI affects as people like to do things like study UHI affects so it is useful to have a non-corrected data set.

Others, which most non-skeptics talk about when talking about AGW, have a correction for UHI affects and other issues.

The net affect is the adjusted data closely matches the satelite data, which shouldn't suffer from any UHI issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

(The blue being one of the UHI corrected data sets.)

Different times people do "analysis" showing issues with UHI affects in global temperature analysis, and in every case I've seen, they are starting with a data set that anybody that pays attention KNOWS has UHI issues because nobody is corrected for UHI, but nobody really uses as an argument to support AGW.

As to the other issue, this might help some:

"Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends."

[PeterMP]

could you link it please to show which is used where?

The article states "now" on the weather stations Jan 10 2010 Vancouver Sun.

And this is based on "time", satellites can't look backwards in time so trending is important.

This is from NASA: Saying the last 2 decades have shown us we don't know what were talking about??? or did i read that wrong.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

This is from 1997. The problem was that Spencer and Christy were performing the calculations wrong related to correcting for various issues related to satelite data (e.g. orbital decay).

Christy and Spencer spent a better part of a decade claiming that satellite data showed no warming. Finally, somebody else found the error in their calculation and Christy and Spencer have admitted it:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/310/5750/972

"We agree with C. A. Mears and F. J. Wentz ("The effect of diurnal correction on satellite- derived lower tropospheric temperature," Reports, 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments. The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is 0.123 K/decade, or 0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1. This adjustment is within our previously published error margin of ±0.05 K/decade (1)."

Anything prior to the 2005 with respect to the Chirsty and Spencer satellite data needs to be ignored.

Early models also didn't account for "dimming" due to aresoles and so significantly over estimated warming. This hasn't been an issue since about 1997.

[hkHog]

Even if man made global warming is real why should we care? Throughout the history of the planet and man's existence there have been numerous events (volcanoes, meteor impacts, etc...) that have shocked this planet and altered the climate far more rapidly than what is happening right now and you know what, we're still around. This is the main reason I don't care about global warming, there is no basis to the doom and gloom scenarios IMO and most of these have been proven to have been completely fabricated.

[Skins24]

So, according to my calculations....this is alexey's third thread he's started with these videos. And the 5th time he's posted them.

Was there anything wrong with the previous threads alex? Seriously asking....

:whoknows:

[hkHog]

So, according to my calculations....this is alexey's third thread he's started with these videos. And the 5th time he's posted them.

Was there anything wrong with the previous threads alex? Seriously asking....

:whoknows:

NNT! Lol!:pfft: