Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth

[Native American]

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests
The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.


read the entire factual report at http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

Science articles (written by actual scientists) such as the one above are one of the reasons why one poster after another keep asking self-imagined "science-based" poster Bob Arctor to provide his "proof" for his personal belief that "human activity is causing global warming", but (not surprisingly) Bob Arctor is never able to provide any proof for that personal belief of his.

[pinqy]

That article is almost 9 years old. Clearly, the matter is not quite as settled as it claims.

[DoctorDoom]

Let us all sit in a circle and debate whether or not GW is a fact. After assuming that it is, let us all sit in a circle and debate whether it is human-caused. After assuming that it is, let us all sit in a circle and debate what humans can do about it. And we will then hear endless ululations of, "We must do something!" without the merest evidence that anything can be done or that anything SHOULD be done.

Frankly, I LIKE the idea of a warmer world. I've had more than enough ass-freezing cold to last the rest of my life. Bring on the global warming!

[Native American]

That article is almost 9 years old.

So? People who espouse "global warming" theory claim "global warming" is more than 9 years old! Are you saying those "global warming" theorists are full of crap because their data is more than 9 years old??

[pinqy]

So? People who espouse "global warming" theory claim "global warming" is more than 9 years old! Are you saying those "global warming" theorists are full of crap because their data is more than 9 years old??
No, I'm saying that the statement "The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. " is clearly questionable. The article certainly did not settle matters, was clearly not accepted as the final word, and the debate continues. An article declaring the debate over when 9 years later it's still going on is amusing. As are the claims on the other side that global warming is indisputable. Clearly the subject was, is, and will be for a while, disputable.

[Native American]

No, I'm saying that the statement "The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. " is clearly questionable.

Really? What has changed in the 9 years since then?

Please list all the "new" related scientific discoveries since then:
























Or, alternatively, list all the statements and/or claims in that scientific article which you feel are "incorrect" or "unsubstantiated".

Thanks!

[pinqy]

Really? What has changed in the 9 years since then?
Nothing has changed. That's my point. The article and research changed nothing and the debate continues.

[Native American]

Nothing has changed. That's my point.

OK, then tell us what you think was "incorrect" or "questionable" in the article. Failing that, the article demolishes the "global warming is caused by Man" theory, you see.

[Geoffrey20005]

I've had more than enough ass-freezing cold to last the rest of my life. Bring on the global warming!

I like your thinking Doctor. Don't forget, though, after we have all sat in a circle we must blame it on the president, because clearly it is all his fault...

-Geo

[pinqy]

OK, then tell us what you think was "incorrect" or "questionable" in the article. Failing that, the article demolishes the "global warming is caused by Man" theory, you see.
I don't have to do any such thing, because I'm not arguing against the article. My views on the subject are irrelevant. My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that if the article truly demolished the "global warming is caused by Man" theory, then no one would still be claiming it. They still do, so the article clearly did not demolish it because large numbers of people still accept it. Or are you claiming that no one believes that global warming is caused by man anymore? Here's 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html). Clearly they weren't convinced, so it's riduculous to claim that the article settled the matter.

[Native American]

My views on the subject are irrelevant.

Good point.

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

So much for the "global warming is caused by Man's activity" theory that Bob Arctor kept espousing.

[Bob_Arctor]

NA, were you able to figure out the idea behind global warming yet? Heheheh...that was a classic thread. Thanks for the laughs, man.

And now you present an outdated article from a propaganda junk science site. What a fine contribution. That's right up there with your polling scheme that proved quite an embarrassment to you when I proved it would give false results.

[Native American]

NA, were you able to figure out the idea behind global warming yet?

Yep. I discovered that it's a theory you still cling to, but one for which you couldn't present any scientific proof, even though countless posters here asked you, repeatedly, if you had any proof for that theory of yours. IOW, we all discovered that your posts are remarkably science-free.

[Native American]

Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. In fact, the scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.

For example, a Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO<SUB>2</SUB> from burning fossil fuels. Only 17%!

Yet Bob Arctor keeps claiming (without any proof of course, despite being repeatedly challenged by multiple posters to provide his "proof" of that theory of his) that "global warming is caused by human activity"! But only 17% of the actual scientists working in that field agree with Bob.

Bob's posts are remarkably science-free, however.

[Bob_Arctor]

Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. In fact, the scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.

For example, a Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO<SUB>2</SUB> from burning fossil fuels. Only 17%!
Why don't you post your sources...given your track record, it'd be foolish to trust you. No offence, mr "hot greenhouse gas," but you lie too often.
Yet Bob Arctor keeps claiming (without any proof of course, despite being repeatedly challenged by multiple posters to provide his "proof" of that theory of his) that "global warming is caused by human activity"!
Refer to any of the posts asking for a definition of what "real evidence" is.

[Native American]

And so we see yet another science-free post by Bob Arctor.

Meanwhile, more than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.

That's because Bob Arctor's personal theory - "global warming is caused by human activity" - is total bunk. Which is why Bob was never able to supply any proof for that personal theory of his, despite being repeatedly challenged, by numerous posters, to do so.

[DoctorDoom]

My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that if the article truly demolished the "global warming is caused by Man" theory, then no one would still be claiming it.Dude, do you really think that the fact that a theory is preposterous will lessen the number of elitist ideologues who will continue to expound it? There is no more science involved in the global warming idiocy than there is in the anti-newkewlar lunacy. It's 100% politics.

[JohnSteel]

NA: Provide proof.
Bob: What fits your criteria of proof?

How can he give you what you want if you don't tell him what you want?

[Native American]

Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming (IOW, people such as Bob Arctor) argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity.

But reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.

Yes, sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. But what the Bob Arctor-type crackpots don't tell you is that sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact!

[Bob_Arctor]

NA: Provide proof.
Bob: What fits your criteria of proof?
How can he give you what you want if you don't tell him what you want?

NA's merely a troll. He's fun to mess with, though.

[Bob_Arctor]

But reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.
Uh oh, watch out NA. NT has declared that the IPCC is a politically motivated group out to reduce us to poverty to further their communist agenda. You might want to get your stories straight.
Yes, sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly.
The ocean's a little higher some places than others, eh? Curse that gravity, sleeping on the job again.

[Native American]

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

[Bob_Arctor]

Meanwhile, more than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.
No reference? Then you're probably lying. Too bad, troll.

[Telit laikitiz]

If you want to know why they are still talking about GW, just follow the money. The Chinese are making people pay tax for bamboo chopsticks, like that is going to reduce the number of chopsticks!? Kyoto protocol was all about money, especially the U.S.'s money. Throw money at the problem and it will go away, unless it is such a cash cow as GW seems to be. Take away the money making part and you'll not hear about it again.

[Native American]

Yet another totally science-free post by the crackpot Bob Arctor!

By way of contrast, we know that when all the evidence is taken in to account it is clearly evident that there is warming around the globe, but when it comes to the planet as a whole the planet has in fact cooled down over the previous twenty years!

It is also clearly evident that what is claimed as 'global warming' is not due to mankind but rather due to volcanoes and other natural phenomena.

Bob Arctor's crackpot "global warming is caused by human activity" theory is in fact one for which he was never able to supply any proof whatsoever, despite being repeatedly challenged, by multiple posters, to do so!

[Bob_Arctor]

By way of contrast, we know that when all the evidence is taken in to account it is clearly evident that there is warming around the globe, but when it comes to the planet as a whole the planet has in fact cooled down over the previous twenty years!

It has!?!? Oh no! Make sure you let NT know, because he says it's been getting hotter, because of the sun's output increasing.

Get your stories straight, dumb dumb.

You're a great troll, NA. I don't care what your motivations are - you're an asset to the board.

[Native American]

And yet another totally science-free post by the crackpot Bob Arctor....

Meanwhile, scientists reject the "global warming is caused by human activity" theory of crackpot self-styled "scientists" such as Bob Arctor! Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject those beliefs of Bob Arctor.

[Native American]

The ocean's a little higher some places than others, eh? Curse that gravity, sleeping on the job again.

Yep, the ocean level is different around the globe, Bobby.

We'd try to help you to understand, but that would require you to know about things such as:

* the gravitational pull of the Moon, and

* ocean currents, and

* wind

in addition to gravity, which apparently you have already heard about somewhere in your "science training", Bobby.

[Bob_Arctor]

Yep, the ocean level is different around the globe, Bobby.
We'd try to help you to understand, but that would require you to know about things such as:
* the gravitational pul of the Moon, and
* ocean currents, and
* wind
Wow, so if the level rises an inch here, on average, it may actually drop an inch somewhere else, on average? So you're saying that average changes measured don't control for things like winds and tides? That's really fascinating. NA, just curious - where'd you go to college?

[Native American]

Another science-free post by the crackpot Bob Arctor...

Meanwhile, back in the realm of actual science, sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years - far predating any possible human impact.

So much for Bob Arctor's crackpot personal theory - "global warming is caused by Man's activity".

[pinqy]

Meanwhile, scientists reject the "global warming is caused by human activity" theory of crackpot self-styled "scientists" such as Bob Arctor! Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject those beliefs of Bob Arctor.
This would be the same IPCC whose 2001 article supporting the idea of manmade effects on global warning I posted earlier? Hmmmmm and that was after the article you posted "demolished" the idea. When did the IPCC reverse itself?

[Native American]

This would be the same IPCC whose 2001 article supporting the idea of manmade effects on global warning I posted earlier?

Hate to burst your little Junk Science bubble, but the IPCC has not put out a position paper endorsing Bob Arctor's theory that "global warming is caused by Man's activity", no.

In fact, even the supposed "fact" that "global warming exists" is dubious, as the following chart shows:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

LOL at you, pingy!

[markus3622]

NA, you need to actually read what the IPCC are saying



An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [36] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm).)
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios

[Native American]

(The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)

Ah yes, Myth #1.

Myth #1: "Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming". While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

[Native American]

6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios

In fact, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years - far predating any possible human impact.

[markus3622]

Ah yes, Myth #1.

...no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.




How would we know if your graph misses 16 of those past 18 years?

[Native American]

How would we know if your graph misses 16 of those past 18 years?

Well, one way we would know would be if you or your fellow crackpot Bobby Arctor had actually posted a science-based post which showed evidence to the contrary.

But since neither you nor your fellow "global warming" theorist crackpot Bobby Arctor have done that, the science-based data I posted stands.

And we all know full well that if you or your fellow crackpot Bobby could have refuted that satellite temperature data you would have by now.

But you, like your fellow junk science crackpot Bobby Arctor, instead can only post remarkable science-free posts. Lots n' lots of theories, but little if any actual data to support those theories of yours.

So, once again, LOL at you and your good buddy Bobby Arctor!

:hahaha:

[sunsettommy]

Hate to burst your little Junk Science bubble, but the IPCC has not put out a position paper endorsing Bob Arctor's theory that "global warming is caused by Man's activity", no.

In fact, even the supposed "fact" that "global warming exists" is dubious, as the following chart shows:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

LOL at you, pingy!

This ends at 1990.

Can you provide an updated chart?

I have the direct source of the satellite website.They have it up to 2005.

It would look more convincing if you present the entire span of recorded worldwide temperatures.

[pinqy]

Ah yes, Myth #1.

Myth #1: "Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming". While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.
So, first you lie about the IPCC's position, (here's the full synthesis report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf) from 2001) then you demonstrate a misunderstanding of taking a temperature. The average ground temperature has risen, that's not disputed. The satellite measurements measure the Troposphere, which, by the way, is not the ground. The Troposphere temperatures have not increased as much, and that is a discrepency. But it does not mean that there has been no warming.

[Native American]

[/size][/font]
So, first you lie about the IPCC's position,

Nope, I didn't lie about the IPCC's position whatsoever.

(here's the full synthesis report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf) from 2001) then you demonstrate a misunderstanding of taking a temperature.

Oh? So tell us, what's the supposed "misunderstanding"?

The average ground temperature has risen, that's not disputed.

And the average temperature, as taken by satellite (and which is the most accurate way to take the Earth's temperature) has not risen! That's not disputed either.

The satellite measurements measure the Troposphere, which, by the way, is not the ground.

Correct. It's "merely" the most accurate way to measure the global temperature, that's all.

But let me guess - you would prefer to use some less accurate means of measuring the global temperature, correcty?

The Troposphere temperatures have not increased as much, and that is a discrepency.

Yes, as I said, according to the most accurate means we possess of measuring the global temperature, there is no increase in global temperature. And that scientific fact isn't disputed.

But it does not mean that there has been no warming.

I see. You feel "there's been some warming, it's just that we can't detect it using the most accurate means of measurement we have available to us", that's all.

LOL at you.

[markus3622]

NA, you need to understand that there are satellite readings of tropospheric and surface temperatures. Both are rising. (in the second graph, the blue line is the important one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol309/issue5740/images/medium/309_1548_F2.gif

[pinqy]

Nope, I didn't lie about the IPCC's position whatsoever. So I made up that report? Interesting tactic, I lay out their own words and you just deny they ever actually said it and don't bother to back up your claim.



Oh? So tell us, what's the supposed "misunderstanding"?That there's a difference between measuring the temperature on the ground and in the atmosphere. The results will be different and that has nothing to do with accuracy.



And the average temperature, as taken by satellite (and which is the most accurate way to take the Earth's temperature) has not risen! That's not disputed either. Ground temperature has risen. Some analysis of the atmosphere shows no rise (though revised analysis does show some). Apples and oranges.



Correct. It's "merely" the most accurate way to measure the global temperature, that's all.They're measuring different things...how difficult is that for you to understand?

But let me guess - you would prefer to use some less accurate means of measuring the global temperature, correcty?No, I want the truth. You want things to conform to what you've already decided is the truth.



Yes, as I said, according to the most accurate means we possess of measuring the global temperature, there is no increase in global temperature. And that scientific fact isn't disputed.Ground versus atmosphere. Apples. Oranges.



I see. You feel "there's been some warming, it's just that we can't detect it using the most accurate means of measurement we have available to us", that's all. No, I don't care.

[DoctorDoom]

The issue has devolved into "IS NOT!" "IS TOO!" schoolyard arguments. Throw your charts around if you get your guns off doing it, but the central questions remain:

1. If global warming is real, is human activity responsible for it?
2. If it is, what if anything can be done about it?
3. SHOULD anything be done, given that no one has proven that it's a problem?

I posted this list of points elsewhere. Provide the following for us:

• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• the costs of research and development to optimize them;
• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;
• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;
• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.

That is a straightforward, non-ideological list of considerations dealing with practical matters. Bachelor Bobby blew it off because he is incompetent to address the points, so I pose it to other ecowackos who are fixated on GW.

The endless arguments about whether global warming is or is not real, and whether or not man is causing it if it is, are utterly meaningless on a practical level unless the data is used as a basis for action. And thusfar the enviroloonies have NOT offered even a semblance of a program to address the alleged problem.

The above list of logical, rational considerations will doubtless remain unaddressed, since ecozealots don't think. They emote and feel. And they are perfectly willing to impose a policy that will require trillions of dollars of expenditures, without the merest evidence that it will have an effect on GW.

[markus3622]

I'll say the same as Bob. I don't know how to stop global warming. I don't know how much it'll cost. You know there's not a person in the world that could answer your questions. That's not what we've been discussing here.

It's clear that man is responsible for global warming. It's clear that we have to reduce carbon emissions. Other than that I don't know.

I've never seen the problem with giving the answer "I don't know".

[Un Con Troll Able]

I don't think it's a question of if we are causing global warming, but, rather, how much of the global warming is the result of humanity. Let's face it, you can't go from 600 million people in the year 1700 to the current population of more that ten times that and not believe that such an increase--coupled with the Industrial Revolution and the rampant consumption of fossil fuels--won't impact Earth's climatology. To believe otherwise is naive.

However, it is equally certain that there are other pre-history (but naturally recurring) factors that contribute as well. Numerous ice ages prior to man's technological ascent are proof of that.

The real question is whether or not both realities can coexist. That is a question that will probably be answered over the next century. And we should always keep in mind the potential consequences of being wrong. This planet isn't a back yard that can be cleaned up in a day.

We will be stuck with the outcome for a very, very, very long time.

[Menander]

I don't claim for a moment to be a meteorological expert, but some things do stand out at me. For example, the fact the an icebreaker ship recently came into the Arctic Circle, and found itself to be sailing through pure blue sea, where only a year before had been large amounts of ice. Or that the vast majority of scientists seem to side with the idea the global warming is happening, and the dissenters have a habit of being funded by major oil companies. The scientific consensus is that GW is happening, and humans are contributing to it. I don't think we should look at this as a political issue, but as something more solid. And yes, DoctorDoom, whilst all those factors would be difficult to overcome, the penalty for not doing anything in time is much worse.
Besides this, we are going to be forced to cut carbon emissions by- if nothing else- the depleting supply of natural fuels. No one knows when they will run out, but we should certainly prepare now for the great drying-up. When that happens, we will have to be easily prepared to switch to renewable sources without society collapsing around us.

In my opinion, this shouldn't really be a political issue, but one that is investigated by all parties.

[DesertFox]

Welp, here's the technology: Tonight after everybody gets home, the whole world opens up their refrigerators and turns on their air conditioners. If we leave 'em on ALL NIGHT, my wife calculates that it should drop the ambient temp in the world so low that she won't be able to sleep unless I turn off the overhead fan.

[Native American]

NA, you need to understand that there are satellite readings of tropospheric and surface temperatures. Both are rising. (??) (in the second graph, the blue line is the important one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol309/issue5740/images/medium/309_1548_F2.gif


Markus, you need to understand how to read your own graphs you post. While you obviously missed it, your own graph you posted shows that the satellite measurement (the accurate one) shows that the Tropics temperature is falling, not "rising".

So much for your "both are rising" claim.....

And so much for Bobby Arctor's "global warming is caused by human activity" personal theory.

[Native American]

It's clear that man is responsible for global warming.

No, it's clear man is not responsible for "global warming".

In fact, it's not even clear that "global warming" is even occurring! The nice graph that markus posted shows, in fact, that the Tropics temperature may be falling.

[Native American]

I don't claim for a moment to be a meteorological expert, but some things do stand out at me. For example, the fact the an icebreaker ship recently came into the Arctic Circle, and found itself to be sailing through pure blue sea, where only a year before had been large amounts of ice.

On the other hand, the graph markus posted shows that the temperature trend in the Tropics is for falling temperatures!

[pinqy]

Let me get this straight....out of the same picture where one graph notes that the satellites measurments show rising global temperature and the other a falling level in the tropics, you choose to ignor rising global temperature in favor of falling regional temperature to support your claim that global temperature is not rising. Wow.

[markus3622]

And the point is, although I didn't have time to state it, the red line is in error and the blue line is the corrected one. Globally and in the tropics, the temp is rising

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114772v1?rbfvrToken=ff16cf7b93d3a28763d423ba3f06b 8b56cfe37f7

This is the source of the work.

Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change<SUP> </SUP>in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to<SUP> </SUP>the surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal<SUP> </SUP>correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement<SUP> </SUP>time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal<SUP> </SUP>correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from<SUP> </SUP>that previously applied. When we use this correction in the<SUP> </SUP>calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite<SUP> </SUP>microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent<SUP> </SUP>with to that found in surface temperature and in our satellite-derived<SUP> </SUP>version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature

[Naturalized-Texan]

As I was out and about yesterday I heard a radio news report that meteorologist Dr. William Gray, the famous and very accurate hurricane forecaster, predicted that the coming hurricane will likely be the most active ever. He was asked if global warming had anything to do with this increased activity and, of course, his answer was a resounding NO. When pressed on the current global warming, he stated categorically that it is natural and had nothing to do with human activities.

The same position on global warming has been expressed often by meteorologist Dr. Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center, and by meteorologist Dr. Neil Frank, former Director of the National Hurricane Center.

In a TV interview conducted shortly after Dr. Frank retired as Director, he stated that there was no meteorological basis for global warming claims. He said that the claims were based solely on numerical models that can't accurately produce a 3-day forecast, much less predict what will happen a century or 2 in the future.

Dr. Frank stated that the global temperature has only increased by 1 degree in the past 100 years and nearly all of that increase occurred in the first 50 years and that there has been almost no change in the last 50 years. He pointed out that we had a mini-ice age from 1450 until 1850 and the warming in the first 50 years of the century was still part of the recovery from that mini-ice age. He stated that the UN Global Climate Treaty would cost the American economy trillions of dollars and would take money away from the poor in the rich countries and give it to the rich in the poor countries. How true.

.........

Dr. Frank's comments about numerical climate models are well taken. Those models are the sole "evidence" being used to support the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities. In addition to the fact that those numerical models can't accurately produce a 3-day forecast, they can't even replicate the climate changes of the past 30 years. If the models can't even replicate past climate changes, they are invalid and they can't possibly predict future climate changes.

Even worse, those models are being rigged by politically-motivated pseudo-scientists to produce the desired results that support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

No matter how one spins it, climate models are NOT proof!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since he failed to provide a link, I don't know where markus got the satellite temperature graph that he posted, but it is patently FALSE! Here is a real graph of stratospheric temperatures from NASA (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html):
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif.

Note that the real graph shows a significant decline in temperatures in the past 12-13 years. EDIT: Also note that the temperature spike in 1982-83 was caused by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon and the temperature spike in 1992-93 was caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

Here is a quote from that link:

Temperatures in the lower troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere where we live) have shown a series of ups and downs since 1979, mostly in a ±0.4 [deg] C band, with negligible trends over that period. This contrasts with surface thermometers that show warming during the same period of time. The 1997-98 El Nino caused strong lower tropospheric warming in late 1997, and record warmth in February 1998. Satellite measurements of the lower stratosphere reveal two marked warm periods (as much as 1.5 [deg] C warmer), caused by sulfuric acid aerosols deposited in this layer by the eruptions of two large volcanoes. These two warm periods are superimposed upon a strong cooling trend over the 19-year period that has been attributed to ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere. In 1997, record low stratospheric temperatures were recorded. This is an ongoing research effort that will have greater impact as more data are collected and analyzed.

Here is the NASA graph of the Lower Troposphere referenced in the above quote:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/tropo_temp.gif

Translation: The science about global warming is far from being settled.

[DoctorDoom]

I'll say the same as Bob. I don't know how to stop global warming. I don't know how much it'll cost. You know there's not a person in the world that could answer your questions. That's not what we've been discussing here.

It's clear that man is responsible for global warming. It's clear that we have to reduce carbon emissions. Other than that I don't know.

I've never seen the problem with giving the answer "I don't know".Thank you for your refreshing honesty. Yet you are willing to impose crushing economic burdens on America to try to address something about which "(we) don't know". Is that scientific?

"We have no idea what is involved, nor whether anything we can do will make a difference, but we should do it anyway, just because we think that there is a slight possibility that it might be useful."

That same sort of unscientific bullshit brought the nuclear power industry in the US to a standstill. The no-nukes know-nothings invented outrageous scenarios, and demanded that absolutely worthless "safety" modifications be made to prevent their mythological mishaps. "If we can save just one life ..." was their mantra. And the weak-kneed, jelly-spined political ass-kissers liplocked on their butts and crushed the industry with meaningless laws and regulations.

The result: more air pollution and CO₂ from forcing old, inefficient fossil-fuel plants to continue operating far beyond their design life. And then what happened? The same braindead assholes who crippled nuclear energy started wailing about the emissions from the FF plants that THEY forced the utilities to continue operating, and demanded modifications that in many cases could not be justified.

Ecowackos should be lined up against a wall and shot. After that, a crash program to build nukes and efficient FF plants can be initiated without the interference of the bullshit-peddlers.

In short, kid, "I don't know" is all the proof we need that any proposed GW "solution" from ecozealots is to be utterly ignored. Policies based on freely admitted ignorance are unacceptable.

[Bob_Arctor]

Meanwhile, back in the realm of actual science, sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly.
So you're claiming we don't know the actual average depths? Fascinating. That's right up there with your goofy "we need to poll 52% Republican!" claim.

In fact, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years - far predating any possible human impact.
They have? Reference, please.

[Bob_Arctor]

Bobby Arctor ...
... Bobby Arctor ....

...Bobby ...

...Bobby Arctor.. .

... Bobby Arctor!...


All from one post. Looks like I've taken over from NA's earlier obsession, Hillary Hillary Hillary! :grin:

[Bob_Arctor]

1. If global warming is real, is human activity responsible for it?
Yes
If it is, what if anything can be done about it?
Reduce emissions
SHOULD anything be done, given that no one has proven that it's a problem?
Yes, because it's been proven we're the problem.

Your other questions are irrelevant, as they have no impact on whether GW is happening or not. They're a silly list of appeals to consequences...a logical fallacy.

Of course, you've already stated that logic doesn't apply to conservatives.

[Bob_Arctor]

Let me get this straight....out of the same picture where one graph notes that the satellites measurments show rising global temperature and the other a falling level in the tropics, you choose to ignor rising global temperature in favor of falling regional temperature to support your claim that global temperature is not rising. Wow.

You shouldn't be surprised - NA's pretty dishonest, unfortunately (or painfully stupid, it's actually hard to tell).

This is, after all, the guy who just a week or two ago declared that global warming couldn't be happening because all the heat from burning fossil fuels is nothing compared to the heat from the sun. Now he's the expert on GW, having figured out - or not? - the basics of the theory under debate. Hehehehehe...

[Bob_Arctor]

In short, kid, "I don't know" is all the proof we need that any proposed GW "solution" from ecozealots is to be utterly ignored. Policies based on freely admitted ignorance are unacceptable.
How stupid. I would hope that you'd be able to understand that the existence of a problem is not predicated on their being an easy solution to the problem.

[Native American]

Let me get this straight....out of the same picture where one graph notes that the satellites measurments show rising global temperature and the other a falling level in the tropics, you choose to ignor rising global temperature in favor of falling regional temperature to support your claim that global temperature is not rising. Wow.

Yeah. Just like out of the same picture where that graph shows global temperatures "warming", you choose to ignore falling global temperatures to support your claim that global temperature is "rising".

Obviously you have an agenda, pingy. You're almost as pathetic as Bobby Arctor!

LOL at you, you stupid Junk Science poseur!

[pinqy]

Yeah. Just like out of the same picture where that graph shows global temperatures "warming", you choose to ignore falling global temperatures to support your claim that global temperature is "rising".
No, I didn't. Ummm that graph doesn't show falling global temperatures. It shows falling temperatures in the Tropics.

First you don't know ground from sky, now you don't even know what "global" means? You deny that the IPCC said what they said after being given the link and the publication from their own website....

I really should stop feeding the troll.

[Native American]

Yeah. Just like out of the same picture where that graph shows global temperatures "warming", you choose to ignore falling global temperatures to support your claim that global temperature is "rising".

No, I didn't. Ummm that graph doesn't show falling global temperatures. It shows falling temperatures in the Tropics.

What makes you think the Tropics are no longer a part of our global environment??

[Naturalized-Texan]

1. If global warming is real, is human activity responsible for it?
Yes

If it is, what if anything can be done about it?
Reduce emissions

SHOULD anything be done, given that no one has proven that it's a problem?
Yes, because it's been proven we're the problem.

Please stop posting false claims. It makes you look like a troll. :tinhat: :trollhook
Of course, you've already stated that logic doesn't apply to conservatives.
Actually, conservatives are governed by logic, but, as you have shown repeatedly, you liberals are governed by emotion. Anyone who posts false information to support hypothesis of human-caused global warming, as you have been, must be governed by emotion.

[Bob_Arctor]

I really should stop feeding the troll.
I should too, but this one is enormously entertaining! Though it's sort of sad that he's the only one who doesn't get the joke. Some might say we're actually being abusive!

[Bob_Arctor]

Please stop posting false claims. It makes you look like a troll.
All those claims are fact. That you choose to reject them is irrelevant.

Actually, conservatives are governed by logic,
Hilarious
but, as you have shown repeatedly, you liberals are governed by emotion.
Yes, all the papers I post and reference are nothing but pure emotional constructs. You're really out there.

Anyone who posts false information to support hypothesis of human-caused global warming, as you have been,
sure. Prove it.

Meanwhile, explain why you've repeatedly posted information you know is false.

In addition, I'm still waiting for your definition of the form "real evidence" will take, so I can provide it to you. You seem to know what you're looking for - since you apparently haven't had anything fit your definition yet - so you do know exactly what you could tell me. Please do.

By avoiding addressing this question, you remind me of the creationist who won't dare firmy state what he would accept as evidence of evolution. You're afraid of being pinned down. It's obvious. You're governed by emotion, not reason.

[Bob_Arctor]

What makes you think the Tropics are no longer a part of our global environment??
If any decrease in the tropics is outweighed by increases globally, claiming that the tropical temperatures show a cooling planet is plainly false.

Say you have a big house. The temperature in all rooms but one (say the kitchen), comprising 90% of the square feet, rises ten degrees. The temperature in the kitchen, however, falls ten degrees. The overall temperature in the house goes up, and only a fool would claim that this means the house as a whole has cooled - particularly when said fool knows the rest of the house has gotten warmer. Dishonest fool, I should say.

Good one, NA. Priceless. Right up there with your ridiculous poll scheme that backfired on you.

[Naturalized-Texan]

All those claims are fact. That you choose to reject them is irrelevant.
The claims that global warming is being caused by human activities are nothing but left-wing Big Lie Propaganda. If you want to believe the propaganda that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, then you are the one with problems.

As for me, I'll continue to believe the current and former Directors of the National Hurricane Center and virtually all meteorologists in the U.S. when they state the FACT that global warming is a natural phenomenom that we humans can do nothing to stop. I'll continue to believe meteorologist Dr. Neil Frank, retired Director of the National Hurricane Center, when he stated the fact that that there was no meteorological basis for their global warming claims and the fact that those claims were based solely on numerical models that can't accurately produce a 3-day forecast, much less predict what will happen a century or two in the future.

Dr. Neil Frank and Dr. Max Mayfield (the current Director of the National Hurricane Center) have infinitely more credibility than you or any of the politically-motivated junk scientists that you quote.

Of course, there is no doubt that the "scientists" that you quote don't really believe the propaganda they spout. They are just doing it for political reasons. Since you have already admitted that you are posting information that you don't really believe in order to stir the pot, I know that you don't really believe it either. I couldn't post anything I don't really believe because I'm too honest to do something like that.

[Native American]

If any decrease in the tropics is outweighed by increases globally, claiming that the tropical temperatures show a cooling planet is plainly false.

The scientific evidence indicates no global warming is occurring:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

As we can see, the Earth's temperature was the same in 1990 as it was 10 years earlier, in 1980.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob: You must have missed my post (#54) where I proved by using actual NASA satellite data that markus's satellite temperature graph was false. It is so much different from the real NASA satellite data that it''s likely that it was fabricated just as Michael Mann's fraudulent "Hockey Stick" was fabricated.

Both you and markus have often posted graphs from junk scientists that you worship that contradict the claims of other junk scientists that you worship. There have been so many such contradictions that it must be impossible for you to honestly believe the hypothesis that global warming is caused by human activities. Of course, I have often gleefully pointed out those contradictions, but you choose to ignore them.

[DoctorDoom]

... global warming is a natural phenomenom that we humans can do nothing to stop.Just so. However, the blind fool doesn't care. He's a liberal and thus immune to logic, reason and science. Bobby's "science" is as follows:

<center><b><Font size="7" color="red">IT'S A PROBLEM!</font>

<Font size="7" color="green">IT'S A PROBLEM!</font>

<Font size="7" color="blue">IT'S A PROBLEM!</font>

<Font size="7" color="purple">IT'S A PROBLEM!</font></b></center>

Bobby's responses to question:

Q: Why is it a problem:
A: IT'S A PROBLEM!

Q: What proof do you have that man causes GW?
A: IT'S A PROBLEM!

Q: What percentage of GW is caused by CO₂?
A: IT'S A PROBLEM!

Q: What percentage of reduction in human CO₂ emissions would be required to effect a 1% decrease in the rate of GW?
A: IT'S A PROBLEM!

Q: Is it not more reasonable to prepare for the warming rather than engaging in unproven, unjustifiable, liberal programs to halt it?
A: IT'S A PROBLEM!

Q: If ecowackos killed themselves, wouldn't that decrease CO₂ emissions?
A: IT'S A PROBLEM! ..... Hey, wait a minute .....

Folks, don't expect debating by the enviroloonies. They are incapable of it. They are nothing more than parrots trained to repeat the buzzwords.

[aaron11]

I think that Doctor Doom, NT, Sunsettommy, and NA deserve purple hearts or some sort of compensation for their tireless efforts in dealing with leftist crackpots... :tinhat:

Just remember, It's the serious of the charge that counts, not the lack of facts to support it...:rolleyes:

Regardless to how many times the earth has cooled and super heated in the past, this time it is our fault and yes the next ice age will certainly be our fault as well. :rolleyes:

I suspect that the "Blame humans first" crowd is directly linked the the "Blame America first" crowd... :cow:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Doc:
You forgot:

Q: What can we do to stop GW?
A: IT'S A PROBLEM.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob did answer the question of how to stop GW by saying "reduce emissions," but he didn't specify what emissions to reduce or how to reduce them, so I'll speculate a little.

Maybe he meant reducing greenhouse gases. Since water vapor makes up about 90% of greenhouse gases, he must mean that to reduce greenhouse gases, the best way is to dry up all the oceans.

Maybe he meant reducing CO2 emissions. Since liberals serve no useful purpose, and pollute the atmosphere with vicious hate and lies when they breathe, maybe Congress should pass a law permitting liberals to inhale, but making it illegal for them to exhale. That would reduce CO2 emissions, reduce the amount of hot air entering the atmosphere, and reduce the amount of pollution. :evilgrin:

[DoctorDoom]

... the best way is to dry up all the oceans.Alternatively, we could just store them in the same place where we're storing the 5,280,189.4 cubic miles of ocean water (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=399552&postcount=225) that existed when the "ocean levels ... were hundreds of feet higher than they are today." (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=399471&postcount=219)

[DoctorDoom]

Doc:
You forgot:

Q: What can we do to stop GW?
A: IT'S A PROBLEM.Yep. Mea culpa. Thanx for the addition.

[markus3622]

You must have missed my post (#54) where I proved by using actual NASA satellite data that markus's satellite temperature graph was false. It is so much different from the real NASA satellite data that it''s likely that it was fabricated just as Michael Mann's fraudulent "Hockey Stick" was fabricated.

Both you and markus have often posted graphs from junk scientists that you worship that contradict the claims of other junk scientists that you worship. There have been so many such contradictions that it must be impossible for you to honestly believe the hypothesis that global warming is caused by human activities. Of course, I have often gleefully pointed out those contradictions, but you choose to ignore them.

Oh, I'd certainly missed it, but thank you very much for bringing it up. That is kind of you. Let's see what you posted in post 54.


Since he failed to provide a link, I don't know where markus got the satellite temperature graph that he posted, but it is patently FALSE! Here is a real graph of stratospheric (my emphasis) temperatures.
Note that the real graph shows a significant decline in temperatures in the past 12-13 years.





Thanks for providing that piece of evidence for global warming, NT. Perhaps you've realized your mistake now. Global warming theory makes a testable prediction. Here's a paper from 1975. I'll quote the abstract.



The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540

Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences: Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 3–15. 1975

An attempt is made to estimate the temperature changes resulting from doubling the present CO<SUB>2</SUB> concentration by the use of a simplified three-dimensional general circulation model. This model contains the following simplications: a limited computational domain, an idealized topography, no beat transport by ocean currents, and fixed cloudiness. Despite these limitations, the results from this computation yield some indication of how the increase of CO<SUB>2</SUB> concentration may affect the distribution of temperature in the atmosphere. It is shown that the CO<SUB>2</SUB> increase raises the temperature of the model troposphere, whereas it lowers that of the model stratosphere. The tropospheric warming is somewhat larger than that expected from a radiative-convective equilibrium model. In particular, the increase of surface temperature in higher latitudes is magnified due to the recession of the snow boundary and the thermal stability of the lower troposphere which limits convective beating to the lowest layer. It is also shown that the doubling of carbon dioxide significantly increases the intensity of the hydrologic cycle of the model.





<CENTER></CENTER>

Global warming theory predicts that the troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool.

You've very kindly demonstrated this with your graphs. If the warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect all layers of the atmosphere to warm. This isn't occurring. Will you now admit your solar variation theory doesn't hold water, having provided the evidence against it? Perhaps you could explain why your solar variation is failing to increase stratospheric temperatures. The fact the stratosphere is cooling is a direct confirmation of global warming due to human activities, especially when we know the troposphere is warming

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/FuEtAl2004.pdf

Taking Popper's model of science, the fact that a testable prediction is confirmed only enhances the theory and diminshes your theory.

[markus3622]

For those interested, here's a paper from 1955, demonstrating how uncontroversial the theory of CO2 induced climate change actually is
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000024000005000376000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate

<DL><DD>Gilbert N. Plass (http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ALL&possible1=Plass%2C+Gilbert+N.&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=true) <DD class=authAffiliate>Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan </DD></DL>

(Received December 19, 1955) Variations<SUP> </SUP>in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide cause temperature changes<SUP> </SUP>sufficientlylarge to influence the climate. If the atmospheric carbon dioxide<SUP> </SUP>doubles, the surfacetemperature rises 3.6°C; if it is cut in<SUP> </SUP>half, the surface temperature falls 3.8°C. Some of thefactors that<SUP> </SUP>can be explained by the carbon dioxide theory are: during<SUP> </SUP>a single glacial epoch,the climate continually oscillates between a glacial<SUP> </SUP>and an interglacial stage with a period oftens of thousands<SUP> </SUP>of years with no stable state possible, when the carbon<SUP> </SUP>dioxide amount isbelow a certain critical value; the increased precipitation<SUP> </SUP>at the beginning of a glacial period;the time lag between<SUP> </SUP>the period of mountain building and the onset of glaciation;<SUP> </SUP>periods ofglaciation occur at the same time in both hemispheres;<SUP> </SUP>the general warming of the climate inthe last fifty years.<SUP> </SUP>The various factors that enter into the carbon dioxide balance<SUP> </SUP>and theinfluence of the oceans on the atmospheric carbon dioxide<SUP> </SUP>amount are discussed in detail. Incontrast to other theories of<SUP> </SUP>climatic change, the carbon dioxide theory predicts a warmingtrend that<SUP> </SUP>will continue for centuries or as long as fossil fuels<SUP> </SUP>are burned in significant quantities.

[markus3622]

As for me, I'll continue to believe the current and former Directors of the National Hurricane Center and virtually all meteorologists in the U.S. when they state the FACT that global warming is a natural phenomenom that we humans can do nothing to stop. .

Would you like to present some evidence for this? As counter evidence, I can present the position statement of the American Meteorological Society.

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/jointacademies.html

The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.

Of course, the full text of that statement can be found here

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)


However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring...
It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities...
Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise...

[Naturalized-Texan]

How can you possibly live with yourself when you tell such egregious falsehoods like the one you told about the NASA graph of stratospheric temperatures being evidence of global warming. If anything, the graph is evidence of global COOLING. Please note in particular the significant DECLINE in global temperatures in the past 12-13 years:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif
Also note the text accompanying the graph at this NASA link (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html):

The figure above shows the monthly temperature deviations from a seasonally adjusted average for the lower stratosphere - Earth's atmosphere from 14 to 22 km (9 to 14 miles). Red is an increase in the temperature from the average, and blue is a decrease in temperature. The large increase in 1982 was caused by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, and the increase in 1991 was caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. November 2000 was the coldest month on record for stratospheric temperatures.

The truth is that since 1979, stratospheric temperatures have DECLINED slightly even when the spikes caused by the eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo are included. Remove those spikes, and we have a significant DECLINE in stratospheric temperatures since 1979.

Of course, your implication that anyone disputes that there is surface global warming is also false. No one that I know is disputing the fact that the Earth is warming. However, there is absolutely no evidence the warming is being caused by human activities. In contrast, there is solid evidence that the warming is a NATURAL result of a hotter sun and several of us have posted that evidence.

[Naturalized-Texan]

However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring...
No one is disputing that global temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th Century.

It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities...
Once again we see the weasel-words "likely" and "can." In other words, no one really knows whether or not global warming is being caused by human activities.

Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise...
That may or may not be true. The science isn't settled yet. However, even if it is true, by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor from the oceans and other bodies of water, so how can we stop the evaporation of water vapor from those bodies of water? Drain them? CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas and the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so tiny as to be insignificant. In fact, as Timberwolf has pointed out in another thread, the U.S. is a net CO2 sink because of our huge and growing acreage of forests.

[DoctorDoom]

Facts don't matter, brer NT. Alarmists are interested only in peddling their tales of gloom & doom, in telling us that there's a problem (with zero proof that global warming, the cause notwithstanding, IS a problem), and ignoring requests for practical solutions.

In fact, the idiots hope beyond hope that there isn't a reasonable, cost-effective process, inasmuch as it would give them nothing to whine about, and deny the elitist world-savers the opportunity to set themselves up as the arbiters of what can be done and what cannot.

They're typical liberals. It's all about gaining power and control over the "little people" and imposing their notions of "what's good for the world"—even when the evidence is overwhelming that listening to ecolunatics is invariably disastrous.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yep! Global warming just gives the libs something to demagogue. They are forced to resort to demagoguery because they can't win in the arena of ideas.

[markus3622]

How can you possibly live with yourself when you tell such egregious falsehoods like the one you told about the NASA graph of stratospheric temperatures being evidence of global warming. If anything, the graph is evidence of global COOLING. Please note in particular the significant DECLINE in global temperatures in the past 12-13 years:

Also note the text accompanying the graph at this NASA link (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html):



The truth is that since 1979, stratospheric temperatures have DECLINED slightly even when the spikes caused by the eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo are included. Remove those spikes, and we have a significant DECLINE in stratospheric temperatures since 1979.

Of course, your implication that anyone disputes that there is surface global warming is also false. No one that I know is disputing the fact that the Earth is warming. However, there is absolutely no evidence the warming is being caused by human activities. In contrast, there is solid evidence that the warming is a NATURAL result of a hotter sun and several of us have posted that evidence.

Yes, you keep saying it. The stratosphere is cooling. I agree. What you appear not to realise is that it is evidence for global warming. After all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about evidence for global warming, you go and present it yourself. Thank you for doing that. It's just a shame you don't realise it.

I'll repeat the major reason.

Global warming due to increased greenhouse gases predicts that the surface and troposphere will warm, while the stratosphere will cool. (The paper from 1975 made this testable prediction)

If the surface warming were due to increased solar activity, we'd expect the stratosphere to warm as well, and as you've shown, it isn't. You've been banging on about increased solar activity for a while now. Perhaps there's a problem with your solar theory. Could you explain stratospheric cooling in terms of your solar variation theory?

In contrast, there is solid evidence that the warming is a NATURAL result of a hotter sun and several of us have posted that evidence.

The only evidence relating to solar variation theory I've seen you post, is when you just falsified it.

[DoctorDoom]

Child, WHO CARES if the world is warming? It has been warming and cooling for megayears without the alleged effects of man's activities. All enviroloonies have done is demonstrate that they prefer to cry "WOLF!" about GW. They feel good about themselves when they are "concerned". Ecowackos couldn't possibly care less whether GW is real, what the causes are, et al. As long as there is a "problem" to whine and screech about, liberals feel fulfilled.

[Johnnybegood]

Child, WHO CARES if the world is warming? It has been warming and cooling for megayears without the alleged effects of man's activities. All enviroloonies have done is demonstrate that they prefer to cry "WOLF!" about GW. They feel good about themselves when they are "concerned". Ecowackos couldn't possibly care less whether GW is real, what the causes are, et al. As long as there is a "problem" to whine and screech about, liberals feel fulfilled.GW is all the liberals way to make lots of money from science getting grants to find something that is not real......:thud:

[markus3622]

Child, WHO CARES if the world is warming? It has been warming and cooling for megayears without the alleged effects of man's activities. All enviroloonies have done is demonstrate that they prefer to cry "WOLF!" about GW. They feel good about themselves when they are "concerned". Ecowackos couldn't possibly care less whether GW is real, what the causes are, et al. As long as there is a "problem" to whine and screech about, liberals feel fulfilled.

Well, people have built cities (of millions of people) very much on the premise that the sea-levels aren't going to change, that hurricanes aren't going to get stronger, etc, etc.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Global warming is one of the easiest issues to demagogue because most people aren’t knowledgeable enough of science to realize that there is no scientific basis behind the claims that global warming is caused by human activities. And they certainly aren’t knowledgeable enough to understand that the frequent appearance of weasel-words like “likely” and “can” in the claims means that it’s all a hypothesis based on speculation and supposition.

Moreover, it’s a sure bet that liberal politicians and those in the liberal-controlled antique media who perpetuate that demagoguery don’t know enough science to realize that they are being scammed.

If Bob and markus, who claim that they have some science education, can’t realize that there is no scientific basis to the claims that global warming is caused by human activities, then the average person can’t possibly know enough to reject the demagoguery. But wait! Let’s think about that for a couple of seconds. Oh, yes. Actually, Bob and markus are active spreaders of that demagoguery.

We here in the U.S. are indeed fortunate that President Bush was smart enough to have realized that claims of human-caused global warming were nothing but demagoguery and that he decided to rescind the Kyoto Protocols rather than destroy the American economy based on that scam.

[markus3622]

Do you get emailed word of the day? Was it demagogue today? (It's a bit hard to take that claim seriously from someone with Dick Cheney as his avatar! )

Your tactic seems to have changed yet again, but one consistent thing remains. You keep avoiding any discussion of the science, while maintaining that there's no scientific basis for global warming. However, I'm not going to let you get away with it. Rather than posting evidence, you hope to muddy the water and divert attention from the science. It has been shown to you that the basic underpinnings of the theory go back over 125 years to the work of Arhennius. Did you read the 1955 paper? Did you look at the 1975 paper when it made testable predictions?

Explain to me again why if...

the heat from the hotter sun that we have been experiencing in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age is the real cause of global warming

why is the stratosphere cooling?

Have a go at tackling the science. I'll make a testable prediction. You'll refuse to answer this question, because you don't want to get pinned down. For any independent reading this thread, it'll be clear who's posting the science, and who's employing demagogy.

[DoctorDoom]

Well, people have built cities (of millions of people) very much on the premise that the sea-levels aren't going to change, that hurricanes aren't going to get stronger, etc, etc.And we are supposed to try to control global climate because assholes live in the present and ignore the inevitable climate changes. Tell me another sob story, kid. I don't care.

IAC, what would cost more?

1. Spending billions or trillions of dollars on attempts to modify global climate with no scientific evidence that it is possible, let alone necessary.

2. Preparing for the effects of GW IF it happens and IF it melts the polar caps and IF nature doesn't self-regulate and IF ... IF ... IF ...

We're not impressed with the constant lamenting and fear-mongering from scientific illiterates who cite ecoloony websites and tracts, and who tell us that such and such WILL happen in a hundred years when meteorology can't get a fugging three-day forecast right.

Ecowackos are fond of ranting about the "problem" of climate change when there is no evidence that it IS a problem other than in the alarmist fantasies of the elitist world-savers. You can post as many of those colorful graphs as you can find, and it won't prove a bloody thing. Wailing endlessly about a "problem" with zero interest in what would be required to formulate and apply a workable solution; zero interest in proving that it IS possible to do so; and zero interest in providing evidence that it's justified.

[Native American]

You keep avoiding any discussion of the science, while maintaining that there's no scientific basis for global warming.

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif


why is the stratosphere cooling?

Well, apparently the disciples of the crackpot "global warming" theory think the thing that happens when global "warming" occurs is that things get colder on a global basis.

But admittedly it's hard to make much sense out of the utterances of the "global warming" crackpots. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Bob_Arctor]

The claims that global warming is being caused by human activities are nothing but left-wing Big Lie Propaganda.
Rather, the claim they are not is nothing but right-wing big lie propaganda.

As for me, I'll continue to believe the current and former Directors of the National Hurricane Center and virtually all meteorologists in the U.S. when they state the FACT that global warming is a natural phenomenom that we humans can do nothing to stop.
So you'll cherry pick your experts - you'll ignore the climate scientists in favor of the hurricane people, because the hurricane people tell you what you want to hear.

Dr. Neil Frank and Dr. Max Mayfield (the current Director of the National Hurricane Center) have infinitely more credibility than you or any of the politically-motivated junk scientists that you quote.
They have less that climate scientists, the people who actually study climate. You're depending on people working outside of their area, because they have answers you like. But they are hurricane people, not climate scientists.

Of course, there is no doubt that the "scientists" that you quote don't really believe the propaganda they spout.
Nonsense.

They are just doing it for political reasons.
Right, right, "the conspiracy." I forgot you appeal to the faceless conspiracy to dispose of inconvenient facts.

Since you have already admitted that you are posting information that you don't really believe in order to stir the pot
On this issue?

I know that you don't really believe it either. I couldn't post anything I don't really believe because I'm too honest to do something like that.
Yet you just lied above by suggesting that I'm stirring the pot here. Very nice, NT.

[Bob_Arctor]

Just so. However, the blind fool doesn't care. He's a liberal and ts immune to logic, reason and science.
Hehehe, priceless. I've given you answers to every question, which you ignore, in true creationist fashion.

But I forgot - because we cannot prove with 100% certainty the effectiveness of a given fix, then GW isn't actually a problem. Problems are only problems if they can be easily and inexpensively solved, according to DD.

[Bob_Arctor]

Once again we see the weasel-words "likely" and "can." In other words, no one really knows whether or not global warming is being caused by human activities.
Wrong. That's the language of science.

That may or may not be true. The science isn't settled yet. However, even if it is true, by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor from the oceans and other bodies of water, so how can we stop the evaporation of water vapor from those bodies of water? Drain them?
Is water vapor an anthropogenic greenhouse gas?

CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas and the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so tiny as to be insignificant.
It's not a minor gas, and our contribution has been enough to send the concentration up by 100 ppm - to levels not seen in many thousands of years - in a very short time.

In fact, as Timberwolf has pointed out in another thread, the U.S. is a net CO2 sink because of our huge and growing acreage of forests.
As Timberwolf claimed, more precisely. Neither of you have provided a reference.

[Native American]

It's not a minor gas, and our contribution has been enough to send the concentration up by 100 ppm - to levels not seen in many thousands of years - in a very short time.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">In fact, as Timberwolf has pointed out in another thread, the U.S. is a net CO2 sink because of our huge and growing acreage of forests. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
As Timberwolf claimed, more precisely. Neither of you have provided a reference.

More significantly, Bob Arctor has never provided a reference proving his assertion highlighted in orange above.

Bob Arctor's claims, we have all now seen, are stunningly science-free.

[aaron11]

As Timberwolf claimed, more precisely. Neither of you have provided a reference.

Hey bubble boy, you don't get out of the city much do you? Ever fly? Try flying over this country once and actually look out the windows, you might be surprised to find out the the timber growth and regeneration that has taken place is quite stunning. IE, Texas has never in recorded history been considered a forested state, yet in recent years it has been burdened by massive forest fires covering ten's of thousands of acres, acres that in recent history were barren. Here in the east farming has become all but non-existent as a result of huge western farms in the plains states, as a result, most of that farm land once covering nearly 80% of our territories for crop fields and grazing pastures (cleared land) has been retaken by mother nature and re-forested. Here in New York alone we have gone from nearly 80% cleared farmlands to a shrinking 45% cleared farmland the balance being re-forested.

I realize that i have not as of yet provided "proof" for my assertions, but I assure you that Timberwolf is correct and this information if you will is readily available if not already obvious...

Just my two-cents...

[Bob_Arctor]

I realize that i have not as of yet provided "proof" for my assertions, but I assure you that Timberwolf is correct and this information if you will is readily available if not already obvious...
Just my two-cents...
Hi Aaron

Yes I'm aware this is a huge country and most of it is covered in forest and field. All those plants take up huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

However, I'm not arguing against those facts. Timberwolf said that plant growth is enough to take up all the excess CO2 we put into the atmosphere. Apparently, this cannot be true - because CO2 levels continue to rise. It can't be true from another as well.

"To reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 7%, as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol, would require the planting of "an area the size of Texas every 30 years", according to William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the environment and earth sciences at Duke University, in Durham, N.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_sink

[aaron11]

Hi Bob, thanks for the clarification. As a life long Lumberjack, I tire of the enviro' wacko's patently false claim that our forests are in decline...

If you had to guess, how much CO2 would be created by yearly forest fires in the US alone? Particularly in States such as Texas, Colorado and Nevada, States that have only recently become forested, despite their hot and or dry climates. We are talking about 100's of thousands of acres per year.

[Bob_Arctor]

Hi Bob, thanks for the clarification. As a life long Lumberjack, I tire of the enviro' wacko's patently false claim that our forests are in decline...
I'm with you! I grew up in the Pacific NW, in a very small logging town. We cut a lot of trees but planted even more. The clearcut areas aren't very scenic, but we need lumber! Though I do wish they'd stay out of the true old growth areas, although I understand it's more efficient to cut there...but I think that stuff should be preserved as much as possible, as it'll take hundreds of years to renew it.
If you had to guess, how much CO2 would be created by yearly forest fires in the US alone? Particularly in States such as Texas, Colorado and Nevada, States that have only recently become forested, despite their hot and or dry climates. We are talking about 100's of thousands of acres per year.
I'm sure it's an enormous amount. And a lot of the CO2 generated will be taken up by new growth, but not all of it. Something like 57% of CO2 generated today (regardless of source) will still be in the atmosphere in five years. This seems to be the problem - there's something of a natural cycle of CO2 and other gases, where release and uptake was in something of a steady state. But we're burning a lot of oil coal and gas, which puts more CO2 into the air that can be used by new growth.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob & markus:

Since you have never even come close to proving the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities without relying on speculation and supposition, I got bored with your repetitiveness and decided to leave this thread. However, I have given a little thought about what would constitute proof.

When I taught plane and solid geometry, I had the students produce step-by-step proofs with a statement on the left side of the page and the proof of that statement on the right side. A rigorous mathematical proof like that would be necessary.

Sunsettommy and DoctorDoom have both provided rigorous mathematics to show that the human contribution to greenhouse gases is much too tiny to cause global warming. In fact, I have never even seen any rigorous mathematical proof that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

First, we must establish what can’t be used as proof. No speculation and supposition from sources using weasel-words such as “likely” or “can” or “may.” No graphs, since all of the graphs you have posted only prove what is already given: the fact that global temperatures have increased slightly since the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th Century. No climate models since none of the climate models are valid because they can’t even replicate past climate changes.

So the bottom line is that any proof that you would produce would have to have the mathematical rigor of the geometry proofs that my students produced. Here is the statement of the problem:

Given: Global temperatures have increased since the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th Century.

Prove: That the increase in global temperatures is being caused by human activities.

[Bob_Arctor]

When I taught plane and solid geometry, I had the students produce step-by-step proofs with a statement on the left side of the page and the proof of that statement on the right side. A rigorous mathematical proof like that would be necessary.
...
First, we must establish what can’t be used as proof. No speculation and supposition from sources using weasel-words such as “likely” or “can” or “may.” No graphs, since all of the graphs you have posted only prove what is already given: the fact that global temperatures have increased slightly since the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th Century. No climate models since none of the climate models are valid because they can’t even replicate past climate changes.

So the bottom line is that any proof that you would produce would have to have the mathematical rigor of the geometry proofs that my students produced. Here is the statement of the problem:

Given: Global temperatures have increased since the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th Century.

Prove: That the increase in global temperatures is being caused by human activities.

NT, I'm glad you've given it some thought, but it disturbs me that you've chosen to outline a method that is impossible to use in science. Science isn't math and you cannot employ a math proof. There is always room for some doubt in science, and you want this theory proved - somehow - beyond any doubt. That is impossible, and it is unnecessary. You know the old line - "proof is for math and liquor."

Also you still have not stated what is acceptable as evidence - you listed a few more things that don't, but still haven't told us what would.
Sunsettommy and DoctorDoom have both provided rigorous mathematics to show that the human contribution to greenhouse gases is much too tiny to cause global warming. In fact, I have never even seen any rigorous mathematical proof that greenhouse gases cause global warming.
They've done nothing of the sort. And for the second part, you don't look anywhere where that information will be found. You don't read actual journal papers. So don't blame others for your failure to do the research. You know where to find the stuff. You can lead a horse to water...

[sunsettommy]

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif




Well, apparently the disciples of the crackpot "global warming" theory think the thing that happens when global "warming" occurs is that things get [B]colder on a global basis.

But admittedly it's hard to make much sense out of the utterances of the "global warming" crackpots. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/smirk.gif

I am getting pissed off at you fella!

I have asked you about an update of the above chart(it is 15 years short),several times now.I also asked you if you knew of a better source of Satellite data than what you show.I stated that I do that better source for it.You show no interest.

Then you were asked where the chart come from.The source.I believe it was popperite who asked for it.You show no interest.

You have ignored all the requests and questions.

Why is that?

Your chart is way out of date.Hint: this year is 2006 and your many times posted chart stops at 1990.

What happened in the last 16 years?

:whistle:

[markus3622]

Bob & markus:

Since you have never even come close to proving the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities without relying on speculation and supposition, I got bored with your repetitiveness and decided to leave this thread. However, I have given a little thought about what would constitute proof.

...snip...

First, we must establish what can’t be used as proof. No speculation and supposition from sources using weasel-words such as “likely” or “can” or “may.” No graphs, since all of the graphs you have posted only prove what is already given: the fact that global temperatures have increased slightly since the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th Century. No climate models since none of the climate models are valid because they can’t even replicate past climate changes.





I really have to repeat what Bob has said. Science doesn't provide mathematical proofs. What you've written there would also rule out stating that the warming was due to increased solar activity, and would make your part of this debate "speculation and supposition". You rule out all climate models, because you state that they can't represent past climate changes (GCMs have been in operation for over 30 years and with great success), you rule out all graphs (even though they are a great way of visually representing data).

If I may be permitted, the case for climate change is as follows


The greenhouse effect makes the earth 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.
It is known that CO2 causes ~25% of the greenhouse effect. Methane and others make up another ~10%. (When someone says CO2 is insignificant, they've got it wrong)
It is known that increasing CO2 concentrations would increase the greenhouse effect. (see the 1955 paper) http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000024000005000376000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
These previous three points are well grounded, and are completely uncontroversial.
Modelling with GCMs in the 1970s showed that if greenhouse gas concentrations were to increase we'd see a significant warming.
We know that CO2 concentrations have risen from around 280 ppm to 380ppm since the industrial revolution (an increase of around 35%), and this can only be due to mankind
We know that in the 20th century, the world has warmed.The last three points are enough to provide good evidence for global warming.

Mechanism - Prediction - Observation - Validation of the theory.

We have some interesting circumstantial evidence about the range of warming seen in the past (think of the temperature reconstructions), but that is more of a sideshow.

Studies have also shown that increased solar activity is not the cause.

However, to conclude the case, we need to look for human "fingerprints" on the warming. There are a number of these.


The stratosphere is cooling while the surface and troposhere warm, suggesting the cause is increased GHG, not solar activities.
Higher latitudes should warm more than lower latitudes
The land should warm more than the oceans.These last three points have been observed and it pretty much closes the case.

I haven't the time to get the data from the journals out there, so if you're interested, you'll have to read the journals themselves. That however, is the basic case. The IPCC reports are free online, there's an awful lot of good material to be found. Dismissing all this evidence as "leftist conspiracies" doesn't wash.

[DoctorDoom]

So far we have several hundred posts in a number of threads from the ecowackos who are obsessed with telling us about how EEEEE-vill GW is. We have acknowledgements by all that global climate change is a fact that has been demonstrated through millions of years. What we do NOT have is irrefutable evidence from the wackjobs that human activity contributes to GW/GCC.

And so far the zealots have not offered a single solution that does not involve spending billions of dollars based on unproven and unprovable suppositions and wild-ass guesses.

If you dingbats want to be taken seriously, provide something more constructive than vague generalizations such as, "We must reduce CO₂ emissions."

[markus3622]

I found this page, and although I have my reservations about the name of the blog, it gives a pretty concise outline of the case for human induced climate change, with all references given. It gives nine signature studies.

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full

In 1995, a team of researchers led by Dr. Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Labs examined the pattern of heating in the atmosphere. That pattern of warming -- over land and water and warm and cold areas -- produced a very specific pattern. That pattern matches the pattern projected by computer models of "greenhouse gas" plus sulfate warming. When the vertical structure of the warming was examined, it was found to be graphically different from the structure produced by natural warming.
Citation: "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature, Vol. 382, July 4, 1996, B.D. Santer, et al.

....

[Native American]

Perhaps Governor Schweitzer, with a state bureaucracy at his disposal, couldn't produce evidence of warming around Glacier because it doesn't exist. I looked at average temperatures at the Kalispell airport (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mtkali) from 1899 to 2005. For that period, annual temperatures are quite steady -- a linear regression even yielded a negative slope. What about the much ballyhooed summer temperatures? I looked at July and found the same thing. The narrower period used by the USGS authors -- 1910-1980 -- produced cooling results for annual and July temperatures. I would be interested to see how the USGS authors found increasing temperatures. We really don't know if the area around Glacier is warming.

What evidence is there for man-made global warming melting the glaciers in Glacier National Park? None.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9588

[Native American]

Your chart is way out of date.Hint: this year is 2006 and your many times posted chart stops at 1990.

What happened in the last 16 years?

:whistle:

Well, for one thing, temperatures have continued to fall around Glacier National Park. Oh, wait, I forgot - that must be "an anomaly", since "global warming" is "known" to "exist", and therefore we only want to look at temperature readings which show "global temperature is rising", eh fellah?

(snicker)

Perhaps Governor Schweitzer, with a state bureaucracy at his disposal, couldn't produce evidence of warming around Glacier because it doesn't exist. I looked at average temperatures at the Kalispell airport (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mtkali) from 1899 to 2005. For that period, annual temperatures are quite steady -- a linear regression even yielded a negative slope. What about the much ballyhooed summer temperatures? I looked at July and found the same thing. The narrower period used by the USGS authors -- 1910-1980 -- produced cooling results for annual and July temperatures. I would be interested to see how the USGS authors found increasing temperatures. We really don't know if the area around Glacier is warming.

What evidence is there for man-made global warming melting the glaciers in Glacier National Park? None.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9588

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
Your chart is way out of date.Hint: this year is 2006 and your many times posted chart stops at 1990.

What happened in the last 16 years?

:whistle:


Well, for one thing, temperatures have continued to fall around Glacier National Park. Oh, wait, I forgot - that must be "an anomaly", since "global warming" is "known" to "exist", and therefore we only want to look at temperature readings which show "global temperature is rising", eh fellah?

(snicker)



http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9588

Wow you must not pay attention.

I asked for last 16 years of SATELLITE data.The one that goes from year 1991 to 2006.

WORLDWIDE Satellite data.

All you come up with is Glacier National Park!

You failed to answer a simple question.

"What happened in the last 16 years?"

It figures.

[Native American]

Wow you must not pay attention.

I asked for last 16 years of SATELLITE data.

What a pathetic troll you are. You keep asking others to post data for you, because you obviously have none of your own to post!

LOL at you.

And, in the meantime, until you post some scientific data like the rest of us have, I'll post this scientific data (complete with source reference) for you to ponder:

Global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

[markus3622]

Come on NA, just show the folks here that you can at least respond to peoples' points.

You've claimed that there has been no warming in the past 18 years. i.e from 1987 - 2005.

As evidence you've posted a chart that shows some data (before starting on the validity of the data) that runs from 1979 - 1990.

Surely you can see the problem here.

Do you have satellite data that is at least more up to date?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob & markus:

Now that I’ve called your bluff and explained what would constitute proof of the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities, you have no excuse for no providing it - unless, of course, there is no such proof.

Since I’m bored with all your repetitiveness and can’t stand any more of your demagoguery, I won’t be visiting this thread anymore. So, when you post your proof, please send me a PM to let me know where to find it. I won’t hold my breath waiting for it because I doubt that you will ever be able to provide such proof. Have fun.

[Timberwolf]

Tex...you'll likely not read this for some time, but B & m will, most definitely, post data showing that global warming is occuring. What they'll fail to do is provide the evidence that it's being caused by mankind's activities. The reason being there is no evidence to support that silly notion.

[markus3622]

Bob & markus:

Now that I’ve called your bluff and explained what would constitute proof of the hypothesis that global warming is being caused by human activities, you have no excuse for no providing it - unless, of course, there is no such proof.

Since I’m bored with all your repetitiveness and can’t stand any more of your demagoguery, I won’t be visiting this thread anymore. So, when you post your proof, please send me a PM to let me know where to find it. I won’t hold my breath waiting for it because I doubt that you will ever be able to provide such proof. Have fun.

Classic pseudo-science tactic. Ask for something that is impossible, then retreat.

In post 126 in the other thread

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=398339&postcount=126

I suggested we could agree on some criteria that would be appropriate for both my claim and your claim (that the warming is caused by increased solar activity). You've asked for mathematical proof , which as you know is impossible for any claim in science. Your criteria are unsuitable for both the claim that the warming is caused by solar activity or GHG. In suggesting these criteria, you've failed to understand the scientific method.

Unless, of course, you have a mathematical proof that the temperature rise is caused by increased solar activity.

Bob and I have posted plenty of evidence that the warming is due to human activities, while you have failed to provide any evidence for your case.

[Timberwolf]

I've posted a new topic that dispells the the myth that human activity has anything to do with the temperature rise. Also consider my point (from another thread) that the urban centers of the world are mainly concrete and steel, which skew the numbers as that is where much of the data is collected.

[Native American]

Tex...you'll likely not read this for some time, but B & m will, most definitely, post data showing that global warming is occuring.

Highly doubtful, because if either Bobby or Markus had any data showing "global warming is occurring" they would have posted it long ago.

Instead, what we have seen posted is the actual data which shows no global warming is occurring. In fact, if anything, the global temps are apparently dropping slightly.

Bobby and Markus are both frauds.

[sunsettommy]

Come on NA, just show the folks here that you can at least respond to peoples' points.

You've claimed that there has been no warming in the past 18 years. i.e from 1987 - 2005.

As evidence you've posted a chart that shows some data (before starting on the validity of the data) that runs from 1979 - 1990.

Surely you can see the problem here.

Do you have satellite data that is at least more up to date?

I dislike this fella and have deliberately been setting him up to make a total fool of him over it.

Bob has made a fool of him and now it will be my turn.

The man will wear out his place here with his idiotic arrogance.

[sunsettommy]

What a pathetic troll you are. You keep asking others to post data for you, because you obviously have none of your own to post!

LOL at you.

And, in the meantime, until you post some scientific data like the rest of us have, I'll post this scientific data (complete with source reference) for you to ponder:

Global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sat.gif

Gee it must torture you to fail to answer a simple request for additional information.

I asked because your chart ends at 1990.Therefore any reasonable person noting that it is now 2006 would ask you for more data.

Since you are the clod who posted the chart in the first place it behooves you to answer requests for more information on it.

[Native American]

Gee it must torture you to fail to answer a simple request for additional information.

Not nearly as much as it obviously tortures you to be unable to post any data which refutes my chart!

That's because you're a fraud, and you've been caught.

[Native American]

I dislike this fella and have deliberately been setting him up to make a total fool of him over it.

I dislike you, because you are a fraud. You don't have any data which shows global temperature rising in the period subsequent to the period covered by my chart. Indeed, the most recent data shows global temperature in 1998 was slightly lower than it was in 1944, which is over 50 years earlier! So much for your crackpot "global warming" theory!

You're a complete and total fraud, sunsettommy. Just like your Junk Science pal Bobby Arctor.

[Native American]

Studies that combine land and sea measurements have generally estimated that global temperatures have warmed 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) in the last century.

Yes, mere estimates and NOT factual or actual scientific data. That's because it's only fairly recently that Man has been able to record the temperature to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees C or so.


About two-thirds of this warming took place between 1900 and 1940.


Correction - two-thirds of the ESTIMATED and SUPPOSED "warming". Indeed, according to the more accurate recent temperature records that have been kept (especially satellite data) the global temperature