ConCen
The world has never seen such freezing heat - Printable Version

+- ConCen (https://concen.org/oldforum)
+-- Forum: Main (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Science, Technology & Discoveries (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-22.html)
+--- Thread: The world has never seen such freezing heat (/thread-6210.html)

Pages: 1 2 3


The world has never seen such freezing heat - --- - 11-30-2008



The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008



A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

Snow in London
A sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October


This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
# EU facing revolt over climate change target enforcement
# EU plans new energy deals
# Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear completely by 2035'

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/16/do1610.xml


The world has never seen such freezing heat - JazzRoc - 12-01-2008

Haha.

So now someone's trying to show that cherry-picked data from ONE YEAR gainsays the GENERAL data of fifty years.

What sort of sense does that make to you?


The world has never seen such freezing heat - --- - 12-01-2008

Quote:Haha.

So now someone's trying to show that cherry-picked data from ONE YEAR gainsays the GENERAL data of fifty years.

What sort of sense does that make to you?

Me? Well,It casts doubt onto the integrity of the data in a GENERAL sense - cherry picking is what it is and with such a major issue, it should raise alarms when, not only, the pivotal hockey stick was proven as fraudulent but also the IPCC resort to 'cherry picking' data from one year to the next - how about you?

It's supposedly quite a clever, if not novel, spin to suggest that highlighting a falsification of data should result in those that highlight the errors of such data being scrutinised rather than the false data itself, or those who present it as fact, being scrutinised..which seems to be the tack you're employing in the above post.

Of course, it was a only a small matter - where the IPCC state temperatures have alarmingly raised in the last year when in fact it was a colder year. Nothing amiss in that surely..




The world has never seen such freezing heat - JazzRoc - 12-06-2008

Quote:Me? Well,It casts doubt onto the integrity of the data in a GENERAL sense - cherry picking is what it is and with such a major issue, it should raise alarms when, not only, the pivotal hockey stick was proven as fraudulent but also the IPCC resort to 'cherry picking' data from one year to the next - how about you?

It's supposedly quite a clever, if not novel, spin to suggest that highlighting a falsification of data should result in those that highlight the errors of such data being scrutinised rather than the false data itself, or those who present it as fact, being scrutinised..which seems to be the tack you're employing in the above post.

Of course, it was a only a small matter - where the IPCC state temperatures have alarmingly raised in the last year when in fact it was a colder year. Nothing amiss in that surely..
I think you are confusing things a little. In general, DATA is DATA, and isn't falsified. (And in another sense, it is NEVER accurate).

The issue here is the way it is interpreted.

Interpretation is a specialized skill learnt slowly over a professional science career. Laymen should accept, and journalists report accurately, the interpretation of data by a consensus of scientists (peer-reviewed).

When ANYTHING ELSE takes place, you very possibly have GARBAGE on your plate...


The world has never seen such freezing heat - --- - 12-06-2008

Quote:Laymen should accept, and journalists report accurately, the interpretation of data by a consensus of scientists (peer-reviewed).



I'm with Durant on this, beware the cult of the expert. It's one thing to accept a general consensus, it's another to continue accepting it when it is called into question by other members of the scientific community.

Are you looking for a research grant? ;)j/k

Besides, here we are operating on 'concensus':D




The world has never seen such freezing heat - shoobdebabde - 12-08-2008

jesus, is jazzroc still being a mercury brain damaged antagonist retard?


dude, get the fucking amalgam fillings out of your teeth already! what does this guy do for fun, inhale the contents of fluorescent light tubes?? cripes man!!


The world has never seen such freezing heat - hilly7 - 12-08-2008

One thing is for sure, if it gets any hotter I'll freeze to death.


The world has never seen such freezing heat - psilocybin - 12-08-2008

Leave JazzRoc alone. It's not his fault that he's an frumpy old fart.

JazzRoc, I think the article was about how they cherry picked that data to create panic and legislative motive, which brings into question if the issue is an issue... and, on the topic of data, that last 50 years of it is drawn into question by the last 100,000 years of ice core data, so I don't even see what you are arguing for, unless you're just arguing for argument's sake, which is surely a frumpy old fart move.

Maybe it's fear of a paradigm shift. Global warming was counter culture when you were in your more youthful years, now it's mainstream sensationalist... sucks when you have to learn new tricks.

Oh yeah, check out my bands in my sig yalls.


The world has never seen such freezing heat - --- - 12-08-2008

Nice thread.Beautiful:a_joint:


The world has never seen such freezing heat - shoobdebabde - 12-08-2008

I didnt read the article. My blast to jazzroc was admittendly just driven by his "he had to piss on this thread and plant seeds of undue scepticism", admittedly not called for in this PARTICULAR thread hehe. Ya whoops, there, buddy...but yes, agreed, with all of you in that there is a ton of BS pseudoscience that hides behind big famous names and 'cherrypicked data'. Why don't I care what these people have to say? Well, simply because of this: HOW can anyone draw conclusions about natural averaged climate changes, one way or the other, when there are such widespread, OBVIOUS, massively influential aerosol propagation programs with completed with electrmagnetic effect, to push CONTROL and move weather systems around.

It's like trying to determine the natural average rising rate of urine content in a pool caused by bathers, when there are 25 guys in the filter room pissing away. Talk about backwards logic and diversions.

Gore, with his brutally ironic surname, is as much of a puppet as any of them.


The world has never seen such freezing heat - --- - 12-09-2008

the world's a big place, such bases, in their realistic capacity,whoever they are made in the name of, couldn't even cover much area. It'd be trivial..I put it to you..

Any measurers here?

JP8 is clearly a total killer and that's just the 'legal' fuel for non military jet planes since this heavy shit was decided for practically all International commercial jet carriers at the beginning of the 1990's apparently

I'm still thinking on svalbard seedbank tbh

yeah it's in the name with that guy It's not terrible name at all, but he surely takes the dark side of it onto his shoulders for himself


The world has never seen such freezing heat - mastermg - 12-09-2008

I wonder why its so cold right now in sunny California


The world has never seen such freezing heat - JazzRoc - 12-11-2008

Quote:JazzRoc, I think the article was about how they cherry picked that data to create panic and legislative motive, which brings into question if the issue is an issue... and, on the topic of data, that last 50 years of it is drawn into question by the last 100,000 years of ice core data, so I don't even see what you are arguing for, unless you're just arguing for argument's sake, which is surely a frumpy old fart move.
I am unsurprised by the politics of the IPCC. It's political, as is your behaviour. I have never liked politics. The people in it never seem practical to me: they write, and never DO. I've always preferred to DO, then write.

Quote:Maybe it's fear of a paradigm shift. Global warming was counter culture when you were in your more youthful years, now it's mainstream sensationalist... sucks when you have to learn new tricks.
Designing, inventing, and composing throughout my life have always involved paradigm shifts. As have my 65 jobs and 15 different homes. So that's bollocks you're talking. Really because you're projecting your incapacity upon me.

All of this abrupt climate change was easy enough to predict in the sixties. The speed of it surprised me though, being twice as quick as I anticipated. But I didn't anticipate any of the political changes: the Selsdon Committee, the right-wing counter-revolution, the dissolution of Britain's manufacturing base, the collapse of "socialism". If I had I would have buggered off to the Pacific Ring in 1962.

Quote:Oh yeah, check out my bands in my sig yalls.
Almost all my own work, and with the very minimum of equipment. I compose with an old W98 computer and a Yamaha sound card. Not as frequently as I'd like, because it demands a spiritual clarity which is hard to achieve.

The reason why this society is successful at all is that most of the time deserving specialists get the work opportunities to carry out important (and this stuff is important) work without too much duplication of effort - it makes for efficiency.

If you really believe that the release into the atmosphere within the last 200 years of half of ALL the world's carbon sequestered over the last 300 million years is not, at some time in the immediate future, going to cause abrupt climate change, then off you go and buy some shore-front property. It's really cheap right now...

Those two round things round your neck should keep you afloat, but can you get a goggle for that single eye?


The world has never seen such freezing heat - --- - 12-11-2008

Beware the church of climate alarm

As the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, an economist, anti-totalitarian and climate change sceptic, prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the European Union next year, climate alarmists are doing their best to traduce him.

The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius", and asserts there is "palpable fear" he will "embarrass" the EU.

But the real fear driving climate alarmists wild is that a more rational approach to the fundamentalist religion of global warming may be in the ascendancy - whether in the parliamentary offices of the world's largest trading bloc or in the living rooms of Blacktown.

As the global financial crisis takes hold, perhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

"Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will."

His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.

Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the "lessons from history" to which geologists are privy: "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature."

Another slide charts the alternating periods of cooling and warming on Earth, with the Pleistocene Ice Age starting 110,000 years ago and giving way, 14,700 years ago, to the Bolling warm period for 800 years. This in turn gave way to the Older Dryas cooling for 300 years, then the Allerod warming for 700 years, and so on, until the cooling of the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Since 1850, we have lived through the "Modern Warming", one of the most stable climate periods in history.

Plimer said some astronomers predict we are headed for a new cooling period.

Plimer said there is a division between those scientists who sit in front of super computers and push piles of data into the mathematical models that drive the theory of climate change, and those who take measurements in the field.

We are not sceptical enough about the data. For instance, Plimer cited differences between results from temperature measuring stations in urban and rural areas. Those in urbanised Chicago, Berkeley, New York, and so on, show temperature rises over the past 150 years, whereas those in the rural US, in Houlton, Albany and Harrisburg (though not Death Valley, California) show equally consistent cooling. "What we're measuring is urbanisation," Plimer said.

To understand the chaotic nature of climate change, we need to consider all the inputs - cosmic radiation, sun, clouds and so on, he said.

There was much more but essentially Plimer's message is that the idea humans cause climate change has become a fundamentalist religion which is corrupting science. It is embedded with a fear of nature and embraced principally by city people who have lost touch with nature.

He likens the debate to the famous 1990s battle he had in the Federal Court, where he accused an elder of The Hills Bible Church in Baulkham Hills of breaching Australia's Trade Practices Act by claiming to have found scientific evidence of Noah's Ark in Turkey.

Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational".

Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance."

It is difficult for non-scientists to engage in the debate over what causes climate change and whether or not it can be stopped by new taxes and slower growth, because dissenting voices are shouted down by true believers in the scientific community who claim they alone have the authority to speak.

Quadrant is under fire for publishing articles by sceptics but, as its editor, Keith Windschuttle, said on Monday night, "People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate."

In any case, ordinary people already have suspicions. The zealotry and one-sidedness of the debate alarmed an 81-year-old Seven Hills pensioner, Denys Clarke, so much that last month, at his own expense, he hired the ballroom at the Blacktown Workers Club for two public forums, titled The Truth About Climate Change. He invited a climate sceptic, the James Cook University professor Bob Carter, a geologist, to speak. More than 300 people attended, some from as far away as Nowra.

Carter, like Plimer and Klaus, has come in for his fair share of vilification. But as Clarke proves, you can't stop people thinking. Yet.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/bew...7491635989.html


The world has never seen such freezing heat - --- - 12-11-2008

[Image: 080611184722largeev8.jpg]


Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces. Researchers have traditionally assumed that temperature changes have caused clouds to change, but now there is reason to think that the cause-effect relationship is not so simple, and could even be reversed. (Credit: iStockphoto)

ScienceDaily (Jun. 11, 2008) — Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.

To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.

When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.

Spencer and his co-author, principal research scientist William (Danny) Braswell, used a simple climate model to demonstrate that something as seemingly innocuous as daily random variations in cloud cover can cause year-to-year variation in ocean temperature that looks like -- but isn't -- "positive cloud feedback," a warmth-magnifying process that exists in all major climate models.

"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."

The paper doesn't disprove the theory that global warming is manmade.

Instead, it offers an alternative explanation for what we see in the climate system which has the potential for greatly reducing estimates of mankind's impact on Earth's climate.

"Since the cloud changes could conceivably be caused by known long-term modes of climate variability -- such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or El Nino and La Nina -- some, or even most, of the global warming seen in the last century could simply be due to natural fluctuations in the climate system," Spencer said.

While the paper's two peer reviewers, both climate model experts, agreed that the issue is a legitimate one, Spencer knows the new paper will be controversial, with some claiming that the impact of the mix-up between cause and effect will be small.

"But we really won't know until much more work is done," Spencer said.

"Unfortunately, so far we have been unable to figure out a way to separate cause and effect when observing natural climate variability. That's why most climate experts don't like to think in terms of causality, and instead just examine how clouds and temperature vary together.

"Our work has convinced me that cause and effect really do matter. If we get the causation wrong, it can greatly impact our interpretation of what nature has been trying to tell us. Unfortunately, in the process it also makes the whole global warming problem much more difficult to figure out."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80611184722.htm