Scientists Blame Sun for Global Warming

[B. Max]

Lets look at the US historical records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

do you have any understanding of global climate change?? Posting temperature records for one country is so incredibly irrelvant!

I know climate can only be observed over a long period of time and only after the fact. Whatever some scientists predict about the future is meaningless. Enter computer models which don't match the known historical records. When they are made to match, they don't predict man made Co2 warming.

It's not irrelevant given the size. Either it's global warming or it's not. Which is it. I posted those records because they are considered more reliable, and if you take a close look the US ground records they do more closely match the US satellite records. Including the spike around 1998.

[cybercoma]

Without reading this thread, I have to say global warming is 100% caused by the sun. Without a sun there'd be no warming at all.

[shoggoth]

computer models which don't match the known historical records

...

When they are made to match

So they don't match and they do match...?

It's not irrelevant given the size. Either it's global warming or it's not. Which is it.

It's global warming.

I posted those records because they are considered more reliable

Reliable at telling you the temperature trend of the US only. They cannot tell you the temperature trends over other regions. Temperature trends of different regions differ. Some regions warm, some cool. Overall more regions are warming than cooling - ie the average is a warming. That's what global warming is.

and if you take a close look the US ground records they do more closely match the US satellite records. Including the spike around 1998.

More closely match than what? And what are these US satellite records? Don't you mean global satellite records? And what relevance do US ground records have alone when it represents less than 2% of the earth's coverage? Why ignore the bigger picture?

[B. Max]

computer models which don't match the known historical records

...

When they are made to match

So they don't match and they do match...?

It's not irrelevant given the size. Either it's global warming or it's not. Which is it.

It's global warming.

I posted those records because they are considered more reliable

Reliable at telling you the temperature trend of the US only. They cannot tell you the temperature trends over other regions. Temperature trends of different regions differ. Some regions warm, some cool. Overall more regions are warming than cooling - ie the average is a warming. That's what global warming is.

and if you take a close look the US ground records they do more closely match the US satellite records. Including the spike around 1998.

More closely match than what? And what are these US satellite records? Don't you mean global satellite records? And what relevance do US ground records have alone when it represents less than 2% of the earth's coverage? Why ignore the bigger picture?

Are you that complicit in the fraud that you have to come back with nonsense like that.

http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/hansen.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11...4132.shtml?s=ic

[shoggoth]

Are you that complicit in the fraud that you have to come back with nonsense like that.

http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/hansen.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11...4132.shtml?s=ic

I don't understand why you post links to media op-ed articles that have no bearing at all on the post you replied to, but I might join in posting links.

Here for example is the excellent correlation again between the global surface record, and global satellite records for the lower troposphere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png

And this one is a bit more on topic - It's called "Climate Fraudit"

http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/0...ate_fraudit.php

[gerryhatrick]

Shoggath, some people will never be able to face what's happening. Nothing you post will help with that.

[scribblet]

Without reading this thread, I have to say global warming is 100% caused by the sun. Without a sun there'd be no warming at all.

Here's some more light reading for you all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../05/nwarm05.xml

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions?

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/nclim12.xml

and this

Wrong problem, wrong solution

# Readers' responses to Christopher Monckton's first article [PDF]

Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change. Now he challenges the economic assumptions of the Stern report

Tilting at windfarms: It would take a windfarm the size of greater Manchester to match the output of one nuclear power station

In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph's website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week's article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun's role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming threefold.

The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.

Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph.

[B. Max]

Are you that complicit in the fraud that you have to come back with nonsense like that.

http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/hansen.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11...4132.shtml?s=ic

I don't understand why you post links to media op-ed articles that have no bearing at all on the post you replied to, but I might join in posting links.

Here for example is the excellent correlation again between the global surface record, and global satellite records for the lower troposphere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png

And this one is a bit more on topic - It's called "Climate Fraudit"

http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/0...ate_fraudit.php

It's all linked. What are you talking about.

[jdobbin]

Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change. Now he challenges the economic assumptions of the Stern report

Monckton debunked.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ience/#more-367

[gc1765]

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

The temperature fluctuates. 1998 was an anomoly. The general trend still shows that the global temperature is increasing.

Link

[geoffrey]

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

The temperature fluctuates. 1998 was an anomoly. The general trend still shows that the global temperature is increasing.

Link

As it's done a million times before. Global warming or climate change is happening, no doubt, it always does. Man made? Likely a little. Not really that big a deal though IMO.

[B. Max]

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

The temperature fluctuates. 1998 was an anomoly. The general trend still shows that the global temperature is increasing.

Link

Sure it shows some warming but it doesn't show what causes it, and the data is in dispute. The US land records don't match the socalled global land record. But the US global satellite records closely match the US land records. The satellite records will more closely the right records.

Global Mean Temperature' - Disputed Data

The `Surface Record'

http://www.john-daly.com/giss2000.gif

It's not really a record at all, but a statistical composite from station records from all over the world, most of them from towns and cities, and most from countries which do not maintain their stations or records properly.

This record is compiled by the Goddard Institute (GISS) in the US. It indicates a global warming of +0.8°C. Is it real? Or is it just a statistical product of urban warming skewing the data, and bad site management in non-OECD countries?

The pre-1940 warming is widely regarded to have been caused by the warming sun during the earlier part of the 20th century.

The U.S. Record

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

This is the combined record from hundreds of weather stations in the 48 states of the contiguous USA., the early 1930s being the hottest years of the 20th century. This is completely at variance with the global record shown above. (Both graphs were produced by NASA-GISS)

Urbanisation has been more successfully corrected for in the US than in the rest of the world and the US also has the best maintained network of weather stations in the world. This must therefore be a better representation of the global picture too. The US record also agrees with the satellites (shown below)

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

[B. Max]

Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change. Now he challenges the economic assumptions of the Stern report

Monckton debunked.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ience/#more-367

Smear and computer climate models debunk nothing. They are the last refuge of scoundrels.

[gc1765]

Sure it shows some warming but it doesn't show what causes it, and the data is in dispute. The US land records don't match the socalled global land record. But the US global satellite records closely match the US land records. The satellite records will more closely the right records.

Never said it showed the cause, just pointing out something that you can not conclude that global warming does not exist just because 1998 was an abnormally hot year, and that the trend is still one of warming. The data I provided is in dispute? I thought NASA was a pretty credible source, but if you have more credible data, I'd be interested in looking at it.

It's not really a record at all, but a statistical composite from station records from all over the world, most of them from towns and cities, and most from countries which do not maintain their stations or records properly.

This record is compiled by the Goddard Institute (GISS) in the US. It indicates a global warming of +0.8°C. Is it real? Or is it just a statistical product of urban warming skewing the data, and bad site management in non-OECD countries?

If it's simply bad data, it's unlikely that it will give such an increase. Stastically, it would be just as likely to be skewed either way, but over a long period of time those bad data would average out and would not likely give the increase shown. But, perhaps you have proof that the data is flawed? Or better data for global surface temperature?

The U.S. Record

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

This is the combined record from hundreds of weather stations in the 48 states of the contiguous USA., the early 1930s being the hottest years of the 20th century. This is completely at variance with the global record shown above. (Both graphs were produced by NASA-GISS)

If we are talking about global warming, I think it's only fair to use global data. If you want to argue that the U.S. is not warming, then based on this data I would tend to agree. However, if you want to argue that global warming does not exist, then you would have to use global data.

Urbanisation has been more successfully corrected for in the US than in the rest of the world and the US also has the best maintained network of weather stations in the world. This must therefore be a better representation of the global picture too. The US record also agrees with the satellites (shown below)

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

This data shows that the lower troposphere is warming, but that the warming is not as dramatic as the warming on the surface of the earth. I dont' think there's any doubt that the global surface temperature is increasing. Whether or not the rest of the atmosphere is warming, and the reason for such a difference is another debate.

[geoffrey]

Sure it shows some warming but it doesn't show what causes it, and the data is in dispute. The US land records don't match the socalled global land record. But the US global satellite records closely match the US land records. The satellite records will more closely the right records.

I believe I've been incorrectly quoted. I did not say that.

[gc1765]

I believe I've been incorrectly quoted. I did not say that.

My mistake. I meant to quote B. Max, I don't know how that happened. I will edit my post.

[Murray B.]

I deny there is any man made global warming because there is no evidence for it.

"Global warming" perhaps not. I mean how would you measure the temperature of the whole globe? Stick a thermometer up its behind, perhaps?

Nevertheless, there was a significant warming measured by ground stations in North America from about '76 to '86. This was caused, almost certainly by the low-efficiency emissions controlled vehicles that started coming out for the '73 model year. The doubled fuel consumption of these horrible, gutless, gas-guzzlers produced many kilowatts of waste heat per vehicle and this was certainly measureable.

Admit it, B. Max, the environmentalists caused a measurable warming.

[shoggoth]

The US land records don't match the socalled global land record.

Different regions have different trends. Even if all regions in the world had perfect measurements over the past 100 years, they would not show the same trend over that time period.

So there is no reason to expect the US land record to match the global land record any more than any other record. Here is the distribution of global warming over the past 120 years. Some regions have cooled, and some have warmed. But more have warmed than cooled, which is why the mean trend is a warming.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/...emp_anomaly.gif

Global Mean Temperature' - Disputed Data

The `Surface Record'

http://www.john-daly.com/giss2000.gif

It's not really a record at all, but a statistical composite from station records from all over the world

The satellite record is a statistical composite from satellites throughout the past 30 years.

The US land record is a statistical composite from station records all over the US.

A statistical composite from station records all over the world is a composite record

You could just as easily pick holes in the satellite records (if not more easily), but you don't, because it's only the surface record you don't like.

most of them from towns and cities, and most from countries which do not maintain their stations or records properly.

Meteorlogical stations around the world are pretty capable of taking temperturature measurements. If not the surface trend would not match the satellite trend. Besides the satellite record over the past 30 years matches the surface record over the past 30 years quite well.

This record is compiled by the Goddard Institute (GISS) in the US. It indicates a global warming of +0.8°C. Is it real? Or is it just a statistical product of urban warming skewing the data, and bad site management in non-OECD countries?

The issue of urban growth affecting the record has been covered in lots of detail by the scientific community. They have compared the record of just rural based stations and found it doesn't differ much from the record of urban stations. They have done all sorts of statistical analysis to try and see if there is bias from urban stations. The consensus today is that urban growth has only affected the 20th century record by 0.05C max.

Plus the satellite record for the past 30 years confirms the surface record is not an artifact of urban warming.

Also you said yourself that the US satellite record matches the US ground record (I disagee). If urban warming skews the data then the the US ground record should be one of the most affected, given US urban growth in the past 100 years. So how, in your opinion, do you claim that it matches the satellite record? By accident?

The pre-1940 warming is widely regarded to have been caused by the warming sun during the earlier part of the 20th century.

Yes, and the post 1980 warming is widely regarded to have not been caused by the warming sun.

The U.S. Record

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

This is the combined record from hundreds of weather stations in the 48 states of the contiguous USA., the early 1930s being the hottest years of the 20th century. This is completely at variance with the global record shown above. (Both graphs were produced by NASA-GISS)

Here's the current up-to-date GISS graph of the US:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

Again - regional trends are different. The global trend is the average of all regions. There's no reason to expect the global trend to match the US trend.

Urbanisation has been more successfully corrected for in the US than in the rest of the world and the US also has the best maintained network of weather stations in the world. This must therefore be a better representation of the global picture too.

That is wrong on a number of levels. First once again - one region does not represent the world trend. Second the UK and western europe for example has a just as well maintained network of weather stations. Yet the trend in the UK (http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleyce.../Annual/cet.gif) and western europe does not match the US trend. It's because different regions have different trends. If all regions on the earth had perfect measurements they would not all show the same trend

Third if yout accept urbanisation has been more successfulyl corrected for in the US, then by extension it would have been corrected for the rest of the world. Because the correction is statistical and can be applied to any countries data.

The US record also agrees with the satellites (shown below)

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

The global surface record agrees with the satellites too.

[jbg]

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

You haven't shown that it hasn't increased.

As a great leader in a great democracy said during September 2002, "a proof is a proof is a proof is a proof".

[Canuck E Stan]

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

You haven't shown that it hasn't increased.

As a great leader in a great democracy said during September 2002, "a proof is a proof is a proof is a proof".

Great American Donald Rumsfeld has been taking lessons from Chretien:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

[sunsettommy]

The point is there is no real agreement on the issue.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050...sun_effect.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

This has been the goal of the right wing in all things science: discredit it.

It hasn't worked with Intelligent Design and it won't work on global warming unless you actually build a strong on it instead of unnamed scientists citing work that hasn't been thoroughly studied.

From your own link:

"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today."

Ad homeniums a nice idea for a sane discussion.

Scribblet provided much newer reports and you just gallop right on by ignoring most of it.

What about the topics title which does allow for the possibility that the increased solar irradiance be relevant for discussion.

[sunsettommy]

And btw, every global warming piece I've posted has had a connection to Federal Politics in Canada.

Do we really want to open the doors of this area of the forum to any and all Global Warming articles? If so, I know a few - maybe 20 or so - which are much more recent and would put this piece of hit&run garbage to absolute shame.

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

In another forum I disputed the idea that there has been no global warming since 1998 and showed why.

Bob Carter was wildy wrong and for the life of me.I could not see any evidence from him that proved his claim.

I looked at the website he referred to and there was evidence of warming EVERY YEAR since 1998.

Was he stupid or a liar?

Mankinds activities does have a small effect in favor for warming if based on CO2 levels.But nature actually provides most of the CO2 increases.

[sunsettommy]

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

You haven't shown that it hasn't increased.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...4/09/do0907.xml

From your Telegraph link:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Did you bother to look it up at CRU?

Bob was stupidly wrong.

[sunsettommy]

Maybe you could post the proof of man made global warming while you're at it, and tell the class why there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.

You haven't shown that it hasn't increased.

My bet is you can expect a telegraph article by Bob Carter to be linked to now...That article was what started this widespread myth that temperature hasn't increased since 1998

Bob Carter, yes indeed. A die-hard liar/denier paid for by oil&gas.

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/27/1/

You probably called it.

Typical left wing tactic of the gloom and doom industry and all originating from commie command and control

at the cesspool of corruption.

What is the "typical left wing tactic"? Looking truthfully at a source for information, and identifying when the source is a bought and paid for liar?

Yeah, I guess it is.

You are the one who chose to make Bob Carter your expert. That guy isn't a scientist, he's a PR man. And he gets his money from the energy lobby sector.

I linked a source which contains various links to information on him. You might want to read it if you're thinking of posting anythign else from Mr. Carter. Unless you're not interested in the truth, that is.

You could have called him on it.

But no instead you try the old strawman B.S.

I nailed him and you didnt.

[sunsettommy]

Why does he keep posting that same graph as if it means anything?

What's "UAH"? What's "MSU"?

How can you visually interpret that graph without applying some sort of averaging? It's impossible to determine any temperature trend in its current form.

I went to the Columbia icefield a couple of years ago with my dad, who remembers what that glacier was like in the 1970s. His reaction is all the evidence I need to know that climate change is taking place here in Alberta.

-k

All on the basis of ONE Glacier!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Do you know how many glaciers there are in the world?

How many of them are actually being monitored?

I hope you realize that the climate is ALWAYS changing.