Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

Am I the only one here who thinks Barbarian can’t have a reasoned discussion with those who don’t agree with him. You present links to articles, information, and data which refutes, or at the very least calls into question, AGW.

As you see, the data doesn’t agree with the guys you linked to. In fact, they didn’t present data sets, they just cherry picked the parts they thought might support their postions.

He presents the same graphs over and over and then cops the " you’ve been lied to" bit, which is getting old.

Facts are facts. They won’t go away. Gettting frustrated and attacking me won’t help. You need to find some facts to counter the ones already on the table.

Someone who does not even want to look at all angles of an issue is someone I simply can’t trust.

And it appears you can’t trust yourself. You’ve simply decided to believe something, in spite of the data. And that’s a problem.

Telling me I’m frustrated because I posted something he didn’t want to know about his hero Hansen, I consider the last straw.

Too bad. Even if Hansen was a bad guy, it doesn’t change the data set. That kind of tactic is pretty much the last effort of people who don’t have anything going for their argument.

Which brings us to your abandonment of argument in favor of a personal attack on me. It’s a very telling admission on your part. And your increasingly strident complaints that I think Hansen is “perfect” or that he’s my “hero” pretty much nails that.

Am I frustrated? Yes, but it’s not for the reasons he thinks.

I think everyone who’s been watching the discussion knows why you’re frustrated, even if you won’t admit it.

Start with www.surfacestations.org

Baaaadddd data … GIGO …

Let’s take one more look at how those different stations actually reported…


The first plot shows the 5yr average temperature for the lower 48:- red line is for stations with CRN=1 and CRN=2 (CRN12, the good stations).- green line is for stations with CRN=5 (CRN5, the bad stations).- blue line was downloaded from GISS on Sept 14, 2007 (GISS).
The agreement between the results is very good for all sets.

Notice that the “bad stations” show excellent agreement with the “good stations.” In short, the there doesn’t seem to be a measureable difference between the data from those stations your guys called “bad” and the ones they called “good.” In fact, in some years, the “good” stations recorded more warming than the “bad” ones.

Do you see why reasonable people might not be convinced, if you can’t show a difference?

Here’s another good example of the “data” we get from those sites:

This was presented on another board. Notice the jet aircraft right next to the sensor. That would generate lots of heat everytime it took off, right?

Can anyone spot the scam?

You mean the MiG parked on the tarmac?

There are a large number of MiG-15’s and MiG-17’s of Soviet, Polish and Chinese origin in private hands in the United States. And some MiG-21’s as well. And some L-29 and L-39 trainers.

The reason is that the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy will not sell American military jets to private individuals. So, if you want an F-86 Sabre Jet, you need to buy one of Canadian origin, for example. Or buy a retired British jet fighter. OR … buy a fighter of Communist origin … they’ll sell to anyone.

A few people have built their own American jet fighters from parts. But it’s a difficult task to collect all the bits from junkyards and boneyards all over the world and collect all the manuals and handbooks and put the “project aircraft” together.

Much easier to simply buy a Soviet aircraft.

No, that’s incorrect. I have looked at the data. But I look at the data from both sides. I am trying to find the truth. He doesn’t present anything new. I was responding to his smarmy attacks, which was uncharitable on my part. Initially, I was just looking for reasonable discussion. Instead I a get responses like, “you’ve been lied to.”

A quote from the forum rules:

CONDUCT RULES

  1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks…

Is it polite to tell someone they’ve been lied to or that they’re frustrated and that’s why they posted what they did? I think not.

You claimed that the temperature has dropped over the last 10 years, claiming that even NASA says so, but offered no data. He showed data that disproved your claim. You claimed it didn’t. I searched NASA sites to see what their data said. I found no evidence to support your claim. All I found was this which did not support you claim. The only thing that comes close is the one graph showing monthly mean temperature (relative to some mean) over the last 10 years. But even that can only be described as a plateau.

You’re correct. It is more like a plateau but with a steep drop in the past year. I’m not saying that’s a trend like many others are, but I find it interesting that the claim from the AGW folks is that we are on the cusp of runaway warming. This claim has been made for the past 20 years.

[ATTACH]3401[/ATTACH]
infowars.com/?p=484
You have to click on it to get a larger view.

Based on the graph, Barbarian will tell me I’ve been lied to again.

I went to the sites you linked, but found no data, just essays and vague descriptions of the data. The only site that seemed to have anything real that could be evaluated was the one complaining about the locations of temperature sensors at some weather stations. Conversely, Barbarian’s sites do contain data, and lots of it.

In his post 35, only two links are actually working. One is from the Washington Post. I have a hard time trusting the mass media any more than I trust Barbarian at this point. Interesting, but while the theory is that the climate is inducing the ice loss, there is nothing to indicate it has anything to do with AGW.

The other is the Greenland piece. But even that page claims scientists are divided on whether what is happening is human caused or simply nature. And the estimate of sea level rise is about 1 cm over the course of a human lifetime. How is that even measurable?

While I have not studied the issue extensively, and your side may be correct, I think you need to look harder at the sites presented before claiming that Barbarian is the one ignoring the data.

At least I’m honest. I did look at what was available. For the record, I have not taken a “side”. I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and disrespectful to dismiss out of hand anyone’s argument and claim they were lied to.

You mean the MiG parked on the tarmac?

Good catch. Turns out that it’s a gutted display aircraft. It seemed a little odd that one would actually park an aircraft that close to any building other than a hanger. You’re right; it’s a MIG-17, but it isn’t a working aircraft.

And there’s a secondary scam, I didn’t get the first time. Notice the pictures shows AC units 20-30 yards away. Take a thermometer any any time of the year, set it 20 yards away from a window AC unit similar to this set up shown, and see if you can tell the difference when it’s off and on.

This is the kind of stuff that makes people think badly of those guys.

And the HadCRUT Temperature Anomaly graph doesn’t show temperatures. It shows how much greater or lower any particular month happens to be, compared to a benchmark temperature.

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg

Note that even though the increase in January was the lowest of the decade, it’s still an increase (increases are anything above zero on the graph, while anything below zero indicates a temperature below.

Monthly weather is a good deal more variable than annual data, and is therefore a lot less reliable as a guide for overall climate trends. Daily weather would be even less reliable. Note on the curve, though, that the last decade is unformly higher than previous decades. In fact, they haven’t had a month lower than the benchmark since the mid-80s.

Do a 12-month moving average of the data, and you’ll see a rather steady upward trend.

You may want to go here, to see the graph enlarged enough to see the vertical scale.
images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg

Humanity should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. After all, no oil would be sold if no one bought it.

  • kathie :bowdown:

Some advocates of man-made global warming have stated that
solar trends have been level for almost 50 years and the warming continues. The total solar forcing during the same time interval over the last century or 2 is only about 20% of the warming from GHG’s.

I prefer sunspot numbers rather than solar irradiance estimated from sunspot numbers because I don’t want someone’s interpretation of the numbers between us and the numbers. I think that the sunspot numbers are a good proxy for solar activity particularly when you smooth them over an extended period.

The “20%” is someone’s opinion. They made certain assumptions and then calculated the solar part of warming to be only 20%.

Opinion is not fact.

But if solar is really 20% that means that AGW (man-made global warming) is 80%. Logically, it would be impossible to have a cooling trend because the CO2 would still be increased. If we do get cooling over the next decade, then it would mean that the 20% figure was grossly wrong. Wouldn’t you agree?

Atmospheric CO2 would be a fairly uniform upward trend since the Industrial Revolution when smoothed.

As you know, solar trends have not been level for 50 years. Cycle 19 (1960’s) was the most active since the end of the Little Ice Age.

dxlc.com/solar/cycl19.html

There was a dip with Cycle 20 (1970’s) . (Note that the different vertical scale isn’t the same)

dxlc.com/solar/cycl20.html

Even with Cycle 20 included, the levels in the last 50 years have been higher (smoothed) than at any time since the Maunder Minimum. Without Cycle 20, the trend would be even more pronounced. During Cycle 20 was when there was concern that a cooling trend might indicate that the Earth was moving into another ice age.

Here are Cycles 21, 22, and 23 superimposed:

dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

Now solar activity seems to be in a downward trend again. We will have to wait to see if temperature follows.

swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

So far, satellites are not showing a continued warming trend. Ground-based measurements are.

I suspect that there are serious problems with the accuracy of the ground-based system [visit www.surfacestations.org ], so I think that the satellite record is more credible since you can’t place a satellite next to a parking lot. :slight_smile:

If the ground-based system starts to show a cooling trend in spite of the likely warming bias that it has, you can bet that it is really cooling.

If you compare the sun spots chart with the temperature history, I don’t think that it is so unreasonable that I might think that there might be a correlation. Of course, correlation never proves causation. I think that the solar activity is a natural variable that could explain the warming trend.

But if solar is really 20% that means that AGW (man-made global warming) is 80%.

That would be true if there were only two sources of warming, but that assumption is wrong.

Logically, it would be impossible to have a cooling trend because the CO2 would still be increased.

Unless,as happened recently El Nino patterns intervene. So spikes and troughs will be a fact, even if CO2 is smoothly rising.

If we do get cooling over the next decade, then it would mean that the 20% figure was grossly wrong. Wouldn’t you agree?

That would depend on what happened to CO2 emissions, weather pattterns, etc. But if CO2 continues to rise and then next ten years is cooler, that would invalidate the present models.

Are you now willing to take my 5-year challenge?

Very good posts, Barbarian. Keep up the good work.

Where are we located in the current Milenkovic Cycle? Moving closer to the Sun, or moving away from it?

I don’t know bias sources in the global warming debate are, but what say folks about these:

If it is bias or wrong, please correct me.

Instead of looking at the temps for the last 158 years, how about father back? And what about the differences with actually using a thermometer?

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/northern_temp.jpg
Nature

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/global_temp2.jpg
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.2007

I would say that the data we have before the advent of modern monitoring devices is not as accurate—meaning that it probably wasn’t any different back then than what we have going on right now.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/global_temp2.jpg

Looks like we’re just about ready to tip over the edge into the next Ice Age.

Everybody got their reservations booked for that resort in Yucatan? You might need it.

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “**A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” **warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. **The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. **
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. **But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. **(sound familiar?)
—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports1975

A 30 year old killer bee.

I figure if I live to be as old as my father when he died, I only have 25 years left anyway. And in my case, I’m dependant on prescription drugs for life anyway—deprived of these, I’ll have a heart attack or a stroke and die within a couple of months, so lack of food is sort of a moot point with me.

(shrug) It’s you young people that are going to have the worst time of it, not old geezers like me. If this comes to pass, we’ll be dropping off like flies. You’ll have to adjust to it.

According to Milankovitch’s theory, things should warm up gradually over the next 25,000 years. Which would mean that it would be practically impossible to detect any Milankovitch warming over a few decades or so.

I remember when I started this program in 1988, the great Ted Danson, a well-known scientist – he also dabbled in television; you may remember a show called Cheers – but he was primarily a great ocean researcher, and I remember in 1988, Ted Danson announcing that if we didn’t clean up the oceans in 10 years – and that was '98 – so six years ago, the oceans were to die and along with the oceans dying, so were we.

http://lazlosbasement.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/deadliest-catch-crab.jpg
2008

**$45 trillion needed to combat warming **

“This development is clearly not sustainable,” said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector."

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.