Greenhouse effect is a myth, scientists say

[ScottSA]

Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado in Boulder, using actual measurements, concluded Arctic sea ice has declined at an average rate of about 7.8 per cent a decade between 1953 and 2006.

I love it! A favorite tactic of the GW "researcher" crowd is to pick the start dates for their great discoveries so as to arrive at the conclusion they want. Slide the dates forward or backward a bit and you get radically different results. In fact, if one were to use a start date after 1999 or before 1920, one would find a below average melt. Not, of course that there is any possible way to measure the tonnage of ice at the poles with any degree of accuracy at all...

[shoggoth]

There has been no rise in the average temperature since 1998.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomLand.html

The NCDC site has also graphed their data and it shows otherwise:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../anomalies.html

Not only is 2006 warmer than 1998 according to their data, but the smoothed 5-year trend remains upward. There is nothing in the last 6 year period that looks any different from the rest of the warming trend over the last 30 years.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'm not sure Galileo would agree.

What's the alternative? Allow an ideas free-for-all without any limit? I imagine if NASA were interviewing for a research director position they would turn down any candidate who claimed the big bang didn't happen, and that would be totally justified.

Paradigm shifts are difficult to achieve in science, but in time if such a shift is justified it will happen regardless. Galileo is a prime example of this.

Debate and testing of hypothesis is at the very heart of science.

When "science" shuts out debate and attacks those who disagree - that ceases to become science and instead becomes DOGMA and POLITICS.

I saw the director of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" being interviewed on TV and he said his life has become a "living hell" since he aired the show. All at the hands of climate change fanatics - including death threats.

Now if that's the reaction a TV DIRECTOR gets for a dissenting viewpoint, imagine how much PRESSURE is on world scientists to concur with the "consensus" view. This kind of intimidation cannot with a clear conciencse even PRETEND to be objective scientific debate.

It's really kind of funny - because the cluimate change nutjobs are demonstrating their own lack of credibility in their science through their own abusive and intimidating behavior!

[shoggoth]

I just don't get your logic. I think what you're trying to say is that a bit of Occam's Razor needs to be applied, and ideas of the sort which posit the moon being made of green cheese and so on ought to be discarded.

To that I agree, but that has no relevance to the GW debate where two sides with extremely reasonable arguments exist.

It hinges on whether particular arguments are reasonable though, and in most cases only scientists working in the field are going to be capable of determining that. For example is it reasonable to suggest that co2 levels might be rising because of the oceans? Is it reasonable to suggest that all of recent warming may be caused by the sun? Many arguments against AGW will exist which are simply are not reasonably backed by current scientific knowledge. That's why it's a case by case basis and some (not all) skeptical scientists might back ideas whcih have no solid foundation and that's why they are discriminated against.

[ScottSA]

I just don't get your logic. I think what you're trying to say is that a bit of Occam's Razor needs to be applied, and ideas of the sort which posit the moon being made of green cheese and so on ought to be discarded.

To that I agree, but that has no relevance to the GW debate where two sides with extremely reasonable arguments exist.

It hinges on whether particular arguments are reasonable though, and in most cases only scientists working in the field are going to be capable of determining that. For example is it reasonable to suggest that co2 levels might be rising because of the oceans? Is it reasonable to suggest that all of recent warming may be caused by the sun? Many arguments against AGW will exist which are simply are not reasonably backed by current scientific knowledge. That's why it's a case by case basis and some (not all) skeptical scientists might back ideas whcih have no solid foundation and that's why they are discriminated against.

And who exactly is to be the arbiter of these hypotheses? The only "unreasonable" argument I see surrounding this topic is the notion that one can, by selective input, determine through modelling what the earth's temperature is going to do decades down the road, AND announcing that it's somehow "proved" that man has affected a phenomenon which has come along numerous times in the past without his help.

But aside from all that, science of this sort is highly politicized and the determinant of what is and isn't reasonable has more to do with public opinion than science.

[sharkman]

Debate and testing of hypothesis is at the very heart of science.

When "science" shuts out debate and attacks those who disagree - that ceases to become science and instead becomes DOGMA and POLITICS.

I saw the director of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" being interviewed on TV and he said his life has become a "living hell" since he aired the show. All at the hands of climate change fanatics - including death threats.

Now if that's the reaction a TV DIRECTOR gets for a dissenting viewpoint, imagine how much PRESSURE is on world scientists to concur with the "consensus" view. This kind of intimidation cannot with a clear conciencse even PRETEND to be objective scientific debate.

It's really kind of funny - because the cluimate change nutjobs are demonstrating their own lack of credibility in their science through their own abusive and intimidating behavior!

What we really have is an attempt to force an agenda on governments by fooling the people with propaganda based on junk science wrapped up in a slick campaign. Of course dissenters will be attacked.

[Electric Monk]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Scam of the Great Global Warming Swindle

I watched the original, and it was powerful and convincing. Then I watched the debunking, it was more so, even with the distorted audio and choppy editing.

[sharkman]

Have you watched Faranheit 9/11, and then the powerful documentary debunking it as well?

[Electric Monk]

Yes, but back on topic, have you watched both of the links above yet?

[sharkman]

No, I haven't. I try not to view material that could be considered propaganda and I'm highly suspicious of most pieces to do with the environment. There is too much disagreement for there to be a consensous, no matter what Gore says.

[Higgly]

No, I haven't. I try not to view material that could be considered propaganda ...

Which is how you know it's propaganda, right?

[B. Max]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Scam of the Great Global Warming Swindle

I watched the original, and it was powerful and convincing. Then I watched the debunking, it was more so, even with the distorted audio and choppy editing.

Now lets debunk the debunkers. If you look at the graph used by the debunkers you will see they are using a reconstruction by Jones, of the Mann and Jones hockey stick. When in fact there are others who disagree with it for the northern hemisphere. Coming from Jones, who is known to have tried to eliminated the medieval warm period and little ice age all together one can not take anything these debunkers say as factual.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NHTRComp.html

[rover1]

Well, so far as I know, science is supposed to be an inductive process with new discoveries being made all the time. Sometimes, these new discoveries upset the present 'apple cart', and research takes a new tack, and so on. Orthodoxy alone does not seem a good reason for attempts at discrediting new directions .

[Electric Monk]

...If you look at the graph used by the debunkers you will see they are using a reconstruction by Jones, of the Mann and Jones hockey stick. When in fact there are others who disagree with it for the northern hemisphere. Coming from Jones, who is known to have tried to eliminated the medieval warm period and little ice age all together one can not take anything these debunkers say as factual.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NHTRComp.html

Was it the graph from the IPCC 2001 report, or this one with Jones and Mann and nine other reconstructions showing the same trends?

Care to address any of the other points on their own merits? (Not blanket pronouncements.)

[B. Max]

Was it the graph from the IPCC 2001 report, or this one with Jones and Mann and nine other reconstructions showing the same trends?

Care to address any of the other points on their own merits? (Not blanket pronouncements.)

We know by the US historical temperature records alone before Hansen falsified them that it was warmer in north America in the 1940's than it is today. Which discredit Jones and the others. There is no need to go any further.

[Electric Monk]

This is a handy site for checking historical temperatures in the United States from 1895 to the present. Average temperature seems to be trending upwards.

I even tried breaking it down by month, they all are trending upwards.

[geoffrey]

The deviation in the opposite direction through the 70's is notable as it's nearly equal to the deviation in the positive direction now. It is today as warmer than average as it was colder than average in the 70s.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a big drop in CO2 emissions through the 70s.

These records make me really reconsider how much of an effect CO2 really has. Trending upward can't be done over a century with such a massive variation year to year. Following this pattern (which we shouldn't do), we should be expecting a cold period starting right about tomorrow.

[Electric Monk]

And remember, we're talking about global climate change here, not just North America, so we really need to see average temps for the whole world. (Which I believe Jones, Mann, and those 9 other reconstructions attempt to provide us with.)

[geoffrey]

True true. What concerns me is that each of these scientists gives me a different graph? How hard can it be?

[Electric Monk]

From what I've read, particulate air pollution was the likely cause of the recent cool period, masking the effects of the CO2 we were releasing. Interestingly , those developing nations coming online with their particulate pollution levels skyrocketing may help cool us down for a while (at the cost of many lives) till they clean up their act.

On the subject of the graphs being different, I hear you, the margin of error on them is pretty big, and is not shown...but they're the best we have so far. I'd be a little suspicious if they were too similar, given the complexity.

[B. Max]

This is a handy site for checking historical temperatures in the United States from 1895 to the present. Average temperature seems to be trending upwards.

I even tried breaking it down by month, they all are trending upwards.

Here is the original graph of the US before Hansen changed it.

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

Here is the northern reconstruction. The green shows a good match. The jones reconstruction does not and the the blue doesn't go far enough. The alarmists like to claim that it is warmer now that over the last 1000 years when clearly it is not. In fact it was warmer in the forties than it is now.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NHTRComp.html

Here are the data sets for the global near land. If you do the math on the data sets from 1998 until now it shows the average temperature has been decreasing. Not increasing.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsLand.csv

[stignasty]

Over the last decade, there has been a major breakthrough in our understanding of global temperature change over the last 1000 years. Several different but important studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, revolutionized what we know about the 20th century in the context of past centuries. The research of the late 1990s formed the foundation for a progression of studies that followed, incorporating advances in statistical techniques and information from a broad range of proxy data types.

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

[Electric Monk]

Here is the original graph of the US before Hansen changed it.

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

Are you talking about this?

Here is the northern reconstruction. The green shows a good match. The jones reconstruction does not and the the blue doesn't go far enough. The alarmists like to claim that it is warmer now that over the last 1000 years when clearly it is not. In fact it was warmer in the forties than it is now.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NHTRComp.html

Here are the data sets for the global near land. If you do the math on the data sets from 1998 until now it shows the average temperature has been decreasing. Not increasing.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsLand.csv

1998 was the hottest year on record (till 2005), due to the strongest el nino of the century. 2005 passed 1998 levels without the help of el nino. This link has a good explanation. It also contains a graph including the 40's...decide for yourselves if they were hotter.

[B. Max]

1998 was the hottest year on record (till 2005), due to the strongest el nino of the century. 2005 passed 1998 levels without the help of el nino. This link has a good explanation. It also contains a graph including the 40's...decide for yourselves if they were hotter.

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/cru_2005.gif

That graph isn't worth the paper it's written on and most likely comes from the unreliable European records that have never been adjusted for the heat island effect or possibly even a combination of Mann's hockey stick and the European records. The US records which were better kept and corrected for the heat island effect show the forties to be hotter, and since 79 when the first satellite data was available more closely match the US records.

Here is the graph that goes with the data sets I already posted. If you do the math from those data sets it clearly shows every year since 1998 the average temperature has been slightly less including 05.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomLand.html

[Electric Monk]

How about NASA?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

(They normalize their urban stations to the surrounding rural ones.)

Seriously, climatologists know about things like Urban Heat Island Effect and take it into account in their calculations.

And how exactly do you account for choosing 1998 as your starting year? If you go back just 10 years before 98, it is obvious that warming is continuing, and that 98 was an anomaly. The NASA page I linked above even gives a graph that shows the times of El Ninos- red squares, La Ninas- blue semi-circles, and large volcanic eruptions- little green triangles.