Who's Lying

nopEda

23rd July 2009 - 06:04 PM

Some charts indicate that it's getting cooler:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/.../tropo_temp.gif
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg

while others indicate it's getting warmer:

http://rockstarearth.com/yahoo_site_admin/...4154731_std.jpg
http://www.london.gov.uk/trccg/images/chart1.jpg

Those who support the warming side often cover significantly longer periods of time, and sometimes MUCH longer periods of time:

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/temperature_1000.png
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Graph...adleyFigure.jpg

Here's one that supports cooling and covers more than a period of just a few years:

http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

Here is a "comparison":

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tb0lU7SbvKE/SZjh.../comparison.gif

So who's lying

? Who might be telling the truth

flyingbuttressman

23rd July 2009 - 06:33 PM

You're just an idiot who can't read data.

pnelson419

24th July 2009 - 11:46 AM

http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/gallery/

http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/

MisterBelfry

24th July 2009 - 05:08 PM

I WOULD HOPE A RADICAL RE-THINK WOULD TAKE PLACE, sooner rather than later.

From: mollwollfumble (Physics) 25/06/2009 11:35:05 AM

Subject: re: Sun Spots are back, A little late post id: 4211102

Checking back through the most recent SOHO images, there were no sunspots from 10 June to 21 June and two on 22 June. There may be 4 (the original two and two smaller ones between) from 23 June to 24 June (latest). One of those is already fading in the last image.

Back on 1 June there were 6 small sunspots that faded rapidly, the latest disappearing by about 6 June.

The average number of sunspots for this month is going to be very low again. There were ten mid January and they disappeared again.

So:
Sunspots are not back yet and are showing no sign of coming back

bellfreeC May26-09 10:11 AM

Re: Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Sylas (Post 2204437)
the hard core denialist, who will even seize upon pseudoscience like the recent Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper denying that the atmospheric greenhouse effect works at all...

The surface has to heat up more to shed the solar energy it is receiving.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still, the muddled thinking I see...

The surface does no such thing. I don't even think convection is the real key difference. Most of the so-called global warming occurs at night over the Arctic. How far North now can one build a successful Greenhouse that rarely needs extra heat by artifical means? I doubt that has changed much. The loss of glaciers have a more albedo {as well as a key process transpiration} cause then from a trace gas called carbon dioxide yet vital as plant food and therefore vital to humans. This is not to say drinking water isn't important but in the Arctic circle or just below, this is hardly a concern compared to the bitter cold!

MrB.

QUOTE

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/atmos_temps/tropo_temp.gif

This graph only goes to May 2000. What would be nice, is an attempted same scaled graph with sunspot numbers, per calendar year.

DEMcMillan Oct31-08 08:34 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Earthward Upper Stratospheric IR Radiation Cancels Most Greenhouse Gas Effect
....
Hansen has worked hard over many years to develop a model to predict future weather. It has not been successful. He has been led astray by preoccupation with the Revelle-Seuss 1957 CO2 proposal. The radiative modeling design failure has led him to overestimate greenhouse effects. Weather-climate modeling will not be taken seriously until it can predict ENSO events before the beginning of December. Revision of the radiative model and incorporation of solar magnetic events into it could lead to ENSO prediction and scientific status for climatology. Until then it should act like a developing science, not a mal-targeted political movement

nopEda

24th July 2009 - 08:03 PM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jul 24 2009, 05:08 PM)

This graph only goes to May 2000. What would be nice, is an attempted same scaled graph with sunspot numbers, per calendar year.

If you do a Google image search for sun spot chart earth temperature, or global warming you'll find that sort of thing. Here's one page that has some info you might like:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_argu...he-problem.html

pnelson419

24th July 2009 - 11:41 PM

http://www.surfacestations.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...rt_spring09.pdf

pnelson419

25th July 2009 - 12:35 AM

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

pnelson419

25th July 2009 - 12:50 AM

http://www.sailwx.info/wxobs/stationpick.phtml

pnelson419

25th July 2009 - 07:38 AM

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/c...e/SolarConstant

MisterBelfry

25th July 2009 - 09:00 AM

Tell me this isn't a spiritual battle and that Satan hasn't deceived the whole world.
For more on this subject----------->Showtopic= 25706. This seems true to me whether Satan is man-made or not!

"It seems hardly possible that every turn of the weather can be caused by global warming and that all of that is man-made, but they[alarmists] claim otherwise.
They feel that something must cause the weather to change for the worse, and that cannot possibly be Nature. Therefore it must be mankind that causes everything bad. After all, so some people claim, the world without people would be perfect, therefore the world can be perfected only if we get rid of humanity, whom they see as a cancer on the face of the Earth."

-- http://www.bruderheim-rea.ca/warming.htm

pnelson419

25th July 2009 - 08:07 PM

Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellites

MisterBelfry

28th July 2009 - 01:57 PM

Ahh, this thread has a predecessor------>Showtopic= 25939.

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medieval...es/image001.gif

Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called 'Physics for Future Presidents.'

"When I first read the Mann papers in 1998, I was disappointed that they did not discuss such systematic biases in much detail, particularly since their conclusions repealed the medieval warm period. In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected. Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press. I was worried about the hockey stick from the beginning. When I wrote my book on paleoclimate (published in 2000), I initially included the hockey stick graph in the introductory chapter. In the second draft, I cut the figure, although I left a reference. I didn't trust it enough.

Last month's article by McIntyre and McKitrick raised pertinent questions. They had been given access (by Mann) to details of the work that were not publicly available. Independent analysis and (when possible) independent data sets are ultimately the arbiter of truth. This is precisely the way that science should, and usually does, proceed. That's why Nobel Prizes are often awarded one to three decades after the work was completed—to avoid mistakes. Truth is not easy to find, but a slow process is the only one that works reliably."

Earth (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84)
- - Ocean Heat Storage ( http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=311982 )

Saul May9-09 06:10 AM Page2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ocean Heat Storage

It is asserted the planet's oceans have cooled 2003-2008.

Ocean surface temperatures support that assertion.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif

gendo

28th July 2009 - 02:03 PM

MisterBelfry,

Why do all your posts look the same?

MisterBelfry

28th July 2009 - 03:56 PM

Hello Gendo,

I have been reading your thread----------->Showtopic= 26340,
"the final enemy of humanity will be humanity itself."

The final enemy is death, my boy.

The question is, when does a trend become climate... in the immortal words... climate is what we expect, weather is what we get?
MrB.
That might be an exact quote from Samuel Clemens and it might not.

gendo

28th July 2009 - 04:02 PM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jul 28 2009, 03:56 PM)

I have been reading your thread----------->Showtopic= 26340,
"the final enemy of humanity will be humanity itself."

The final enemy is death, my boy.

I was referring to humanity as a whole. Death affects individuals, only extinction can kill a species. Extinction is not inevitable.

QUOTE

I don't think that you understand climate science enough to know what is really going on. There is a consensus that global warming is occurring, but no-one knows for sure where it is headed. We can look at current trends and project them into the future, but there is no way to know whether said trends will hold.

El_Machinae

28th July 2009 - 04:58 PM

On physorg, the global warming stories get an infestation of commenters denying AGW. It's almost amusing.

Mostly we see re-treaded fallacies whenever AGW is being denied.

MisterBelfry

29th July 2009 - 06:57 AM

"Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own."

I just posted this in Showtopic= 25734 Forum= 22.

As far as lying{outside of complicated statistics}, I think the easiest to catch people on is in glacial retreat research.

This is the BBC's more or less balanced approach:

Introduction

While the effect of human activity on the global climate is hotly debated, physical signs of environmental change are all around us.
Some scientists say an increase in the rate of melting of the world's glaciers is evidence of global warming.

Argentina's Upsala Glacier was once the biggest in South America, but it is now disappearing at a rate of 200 metres per year.

Other scientists say its reduction is due to complicated shifts in glacial dynamics and local geology.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I also have on file "a snapshot of the page as it appeared" on 4 June 2009...
cache of http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/01/1...onian-glaciers/

"I was surprised indeed to see the New York Review of Books reproduce without much commentary and with a wrong caption a couple of photographs that may turn out to be exceedingly misleading."

In other words, don't trust the alarmists. Read the Bible for yourself.

MrB.
Things happen a lot faster than any non-bible reading climatologists have been able to figure out.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.