Error in Global Warming Data

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...today/scientistsfinderrorsinglobalwarmingdata

Holy crap!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thats not good

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Government of most countrys seem worryingly uneffective in any methods of prevention of global warming, If the government is filled with actors then why expect political action, sodding democrasy people get ellected via poularity not political will. The only way to sort things out is not to expect political action but to take up pick axes and smash polluting companies stuff but no one wants to do that (jobs and criminal records stuff.) so we're all just going to bake thanks to the few business men who don't give a shit about the enviroment because they can afford to build air conditioned under ground lairs, infact thats probally there plans i tells ye.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i would vote for a politicion who would stop global warming, even a republican one

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh My God I Can't Believe I Said That

 

Pi soduko you may live to regret you said that

 

Most of the time, people has not the opportunity to see how scientists discuss a scientific matter, and how they argue and refute each other’s arguments. In a ongoing debate among climatologists in the website Climatesceptics (that is rare opportunity to peek over the wall and scientists debating), one of the scientists that conducted one of the papers, (Carl Mears) said the following:

<b>Our tropical trend is 0.189 +/- about 0.09 C/decade for 1979-2003. The 0.09 value is a global error estimate.</b>

And Jahrl Ahlbeck, a Finnish climatologists answered:

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

There is nothing like "error estimate" in mathematical statistics. Greenhouse people love terms like "average" (should be mean value that can be calculated in many different ways), "range" (should be confidence region), "error estimate" (should be standard deviation).

Please define how the number 0.09 is calculated! Is it the residual standard deviation from a linear regression fit? If it is, the width of the "confidence region" is considerable larger than 2*0.09 C/decade. Can your trend survive a statistical zero hypothesis test at p=0.05 or 0.01? From a practical point of view (can be showed both by experience and by simulations) regression trends that do no survive a test at p=0.05 (95% probability) are worthless. This is because the deviations seldom are distributed according to the Gaussian theory with turns the 95% probability down to a much lower number. In process system research, nobody will trust trends that have a partial F-value of about 4.5 (on the limit of p=0.05). Such trends are usually nonsense. At F=15 (p<0.01) one can start to believe that the trend is real.

If you want to put your tropical trend (0.189) into connection with anthropogenic warming, you should correct for the two volcano eruptions, El Chichon only three years from the beginning of the period, and Mt Pinatubo 13 years from the beginning of the period. As you have one eruption in the beginning of the period and one in the middle, at least the first (El Chichon) must be taken into account. And then you have a very strong. El Nino in 1998, only five years from the end of the period. If you think that El Nino is an anthropogenic effect, you must state that explicitely. If you
correct for both volcanoes and El Ninos, you will probably get no significant trend at all.

What is your "anthropogenic" trend if you correct only for the two volcano eruptions (which means that El Ninos are a part of the anthropogenic influence)? At the same time as El Chichon, you had a strong El Nino too but the warming effect of this was damped by the El Chichon. So it is wrong not to take El Chichon (and Mt Pinatubo, but as this eruption was in the middle, it has less influence than El Chichon) into account. Assume that there would have been a strong volcano eruption three years from the end of the period too, and your trend would have turned to zero or even negative for the whole period.

From a statistical point of view, the whole business of detecting ANTHROPOGENIC temperature trend for only 24 years is a little junk taking into account the strong influences of volcanoes (and El Ninos). Do we discuss the greenhouse effect at all, or do we discuss different ways of calculating
short-term temperature trends only?

cheers, Jarl Ahlbeck​

The whole matter boils down to: the new trend goes from 0.09ºC/decade to 0.18ºC (according to Mears, Santer, Sherwood et al), but actually it is reduced to 0.12ºC, which translates into what James Hansen said early in January 2005: "Temperatures for the year 2050 will increase another 0,78ºC for a total of 1,2ºC since 1880."

Which is something that barely calls our attention. Don't lose your sleep over global warming. The sky is not falling.

And please, don’t mix politics with science. They don’t make a good mixture. They usually bring things as the Kyoto Treaty.

 

I'd bet money that the original scientists that came up with the idea were funded by china. Then, the Kyoto protocol was generated, which stated that the big, bad, nasty first world countries had to cut back on "greenhouse gas" emissions, while various underdeveloped nations could actually increase their production. The US is one that must cut back (obviously), but China is slated for an increase. Thus, American factories must suddenly cut efficiency in favor of revolutionary green tchnology, while China can spew crap until it's massive army is completed.

I should also note they have just developed a cruise missile not inferior to the tomahawk.

A key reason I believe those responsible for this are false is the fact that methane has been labeled a greenhouse gas. According to an EM spectral analysis of methane's heat absorbtion from temeratures ranging from thousands of degrees to it's virge of turning liquid, methane has absolutely no absorbtion of infared energy anywhere around temeratures experienced on any place on earth. CO2 has some absorbtion, but only to a certain temperature, I believe it was 81 degrees. After that, infared flows through it like water.

I apologize that i can't give a source for this, it was on something a college friend of mine had. Either way, global warming is a hoax to give liberal media something to scream about.

 

weed eater guy et al
why americans go on about 'liberal' this and 'liberal' that confounds me. However that's a different debate from the one here.

What you will probably find is that this 'new' piece of evidence against the theory of global warming was commissioned by the oil industry to make the rest of the world shut up and go away. Anyway the debate is to some extent irrelevany because you don't need to be a science or political expert to do a simple equation: comsumption > resources = disaster on a global scale. The seas are dying, the atmosphere is polluted, there is a massive hole in the ozone layer, animal and plant species indeed the whole ecosystem is being destroyed at the fastest rate ever. The latter has occurred in the last 50 years. Oil and gas will run out in about 30 years time even at current rates of consumption. Greenhouse gases, global warming - the least of our worries!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are right on one account: “Greenhouse gases, global warming - the least of our worries!”. About the rest, here we go again. The sound of the Holy Green Litany keep coming, and coming, and coming…

You are too (and unnecessarily) worried about the oil industry. The industry doesn’t care about Kyoto or all the efforts for cutting down emissions. As you have seen already, oil cartels in the west (forget about OPEC, they don’t count) set the oil prices as they want. So in case there is a cut (extremely unlikely) on emissions, they will still benefit. They will set their prices accordingly.

You must keep in mind that the company behind the Kioto scam of emission trading quotas and permission for keep burning oil was precisely ENRON. They devised the whole scheme of limiting emissions and create the market and the conditions for huge profits. And they embarked in the project all green NGOs and Malthusian organizations because the project fit quite well in their anti-human agenda (anti population, anti growth, anti industry, etc). Read Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth”, and will get a perfect picture of what awaits mankind if the greens finally succeed.

The truth is that you really must have a solid background in sciences in order to really assess what’s going on. You are simply repeating what Club of Rome, Greenpeace, the WWF, NRDC, EDF, and other green orgs say in their leaflets and brochures. The scientific facts iare:

1) Seas are not dying – coastal areas may get somewhat polluted in a local level, but the oceans capacity for purifying itself and recycling pollution is immensurable.

2) The atmosphere today is MUCH less polluted than it was 100 years ago, for instance. Today's air in London is much cleaner than 60 years ago. That’s an undeniable fact. Mexico city is much worse, of course, but that’s the result of bad policies, corrupt politicians and many years of economic crisis that led to a disproportionate increase in Mexico city population as poor people from the country moved to the Big City seeking better living conditions. The same applies to all big cities in the Third World.

3) There is not a “massive hole in the ozone layer”, as the reduction in ozone is confined in a uninhabited place on Earth (Antarctica) during early spring –and the “hole” has been there since Antarctica began to take its place in one of the extremes of the Earth’s rotation axis. The temporal decrease in ozone has natural causes (too long to explain here, but there are many threads in Sciforums where you can read all about it). Man has nothing to do with the infamous “hole” -and the hole represents no threat for mankind. It has been there for billion of years, and will exist after mankind has disappeared.

4) The rate extinction claimed by the greens is 40,000 species by year. That’s a fantasy. As Bjorn Lomborg details it, the original estimate came from Norman Myers in 1979, in his book “The Sinking Ark” (quite a title). His arguments make astonishing reading. He states, without a single reference, that until the year 1900, one species became extinct every four years, and after that, one species every year. Then Myers quotes a conference in 1974 that “hazarded a guess” that the extinction rates had now reached 100 species a year. The crucial part of his argument (the WHOLE basis) is this:

Yet even this figure seems low … let us suppose that, as a consequence of this man-handling of natural environment [the clearing of tropical forests], the final one-quarter of this century witnesses the elimination of 1 million species – a far from unlikely prospect. This would work out, during the course of 25 years, at an average extinction rate of 40,000 species per year, or rather over 100 species per day.” [Myers, “The Sinking Ark,” 1975]​

This is Myers “scientific” argument in its entirety. Really, if we assume a 1 million species will become extinct in 25 years, that makes 40,000 species a year. A perfect circular argument. Of course, if you assume 40,000 you’ll get 40,000. Hard maths. Normal, reasonable people refuse to admit this is the only argument greens have for claiming the extinction is “unprecedented”, as they provide no further evidence. But the 40,000 species figure is too appealing for the media (it sells newspapers, magazines, gets high TV rates, print millions of fund raising brochures urging “Help us to save the planet, the whales, the spotted owl, the desert snail, etc, etc,” Fools and unaware people donate and fill green’s secret Swiss accounts.

5) Paul Ehrilch predicted (prophesized?) back in 1968 that oil was going to be depleted in 30 years. (That’s would have been by 1998). The same claim was pushed by Lester Brown and other green prophets, always placing a 30-40 years limit for oil reserves depletion. As the oil reserves were increasing instead of depleting, they kept moving the “doom date” 30, 50 years more into the future, but the scheme is the same: in 50 years time we’ll run out of oil and Apocalypse Now. Go wind, solar power, etc, etc.

Oil shales in Canada and other places in the world guarantee another 250 years of oil provision, at the least. By that time we might expect (not us, of course, our descendents) that fusion energy and other technologies will be fully implemented and taking care of our energy needs.

So, when you analyze reality in the light of scientific knowledge, you realize that the sky is not falling. Let Chicken Little worry in the old tale; try to live your life as best as you can. Don’t let greens convince you otherwise because they will take away from you all the good things progress has brought to us (in medicine, in education, in living conditions, in opportunities, etc). Simply imagine what would be like to live in an 19th Century Amish type society. That’s where the greens try to take you and the rest of believers. Of course, they will be on the top, enjoying everything they deny to the common citizen.

 

edufer
eloquent replies that's what i like. I'm not affiliated to the greens or a WWF or any of those organisations as all have their own agendas that don't necessarily fit with my thinking. However I'm sure glad they are there just to needle us on these issues. It's not just a few single issue lobbyists that are alarmed by what is going on in the world.

I think you will find that the laudable improvement in air quality has actually revealed some rather worrying developments in global temperatures which back rather than dismiss warming theories.

The actual figures regarding extinction rates may be debatable but no-one can argue that the loss of 40 400 or 4 million species is a good thing as the best scientists in the world agree that biodiversity is necessary for the well-being of the planet. Just look at fish stocks if you want just one example! Rainforest depletion? Melting permafrost? A blip in cyclical climactic patterns maybe but what if it's more than a blip?? When all this stuff is gone what the heck are we all going to eat and how are we going to keep warm cos there won't be too many trees about to burn!! Oh yes solar power should do it.

I utterly detest the way one particlar species (humans) go about plundering their own resources and habitats. To change our ways doesn't mean we have to emulate the past but use existing technology to imrove and develop new ones. World events illustrate what an overreliance on one power source can do - yea create riches for a small minority and a bloody great headache for everyone else.

I fear you are sticking your head in the sand regardless of the sound scientific background you may have!

 

Sniffy, I don’t presume of being a researcher or a egg head scientists, but somehow, along my journey in life some information got stuck in my mind, and this information is what I am sharing with other people interested in facts and evidences. No one argue or just imply that the loss of 40.000 or 4 million species is a good thing. No one. But exaggerating the figures and twisting statistics don’t help to protect species and diversity, and actually can be harmful. Once people spot a lie in the greens claims, they start to lose the faith in their claims. Doubt is a nasty worm that can only be stopped by the naked truth.

By far, more than 95% of species in the world consist in beetles, ants, flies, mosquitoes and other insects, fungi, algae, and microscopic life as microbes and viruses. The accepted extinction rate presently is 0.208% per decade. However this percentage makes a big number: about 2300 species/decade, that is, about 230 species a year. Quite a difference from the alarmist figure of 40.000 per year, currently being used for raising funds. Claims about extinctions made by greens mostly concentrate on bird or mammal extinctions, that are not very common, although they exist. They make people believe that what will be extinct in the near future (50 years) are most birds, and wild animals, especially the cute ones that help raise funds –pandas, koalas, whales, dolphins, etc

Other seriously considered extinctions rates today talk about 0.7% for 50 years, that also makes a big number, but quite far from the 10%-100% extinction rates greens like to talk about.

Fish stocks can be managed as the whale population id managed by the IWC and ranchers in Texas and Argentina manage cattle and sheep. It si being take care for, and many illegal fishing boats (especially Korean) are constantly being chased down by the various naval forces all around the world. As drug dealing, illegal fishing is a troublesome business not easy to deal with, but it is under control.

You are worried about the stuff that seems to be heading the depletion status. Fish will not be depleted, so just relax. Cattle? No way it will be depleted. Oil eventually could be depleted, yes, but we don’t eat mineral oil, but olive oil, corn, soybean, maize, etc, oil in salads and French fries. Grain, wheat, soybean, rice, sunflower, vegetables, etc, etc? Actually, we are presently cultivating half the land we used to back in the 50s while getting three times more food.

Burning trees for heating and cooking (biomass) is something Greenpeace has been advising (demanding, actually) for years, so I wouldn’t pay much attention to them and would concentrate instead in heating houses through electricity generated by nuclear reactors. No pollution there. Uranium stock in the world will last (at present rate of electricity generation) for some dozen million years –until man master fusion energy and that will be it –no more worrying about home heating, or cooking or energy for industries, etc.

And I am sorry to disappoint you, but solar power is a handicapped child, as wind power. They might be useful and advisable for very limited and punctual situations, but will never replace oil or nuclear energy. No way. And that is a shame because free energy looks to anyone as a nice thing. Who will want to refuse a free lunch? Only if the lunch results at the end not being free at all but extremely expensive.

It seems you utterly detest mankind, forgetting you are part of it. You are part of the problem you perceive or think that exists. Think again. You can be part of the solution if you just believed in man’s ingenuity to solve the problems it creates while walking into the future. It has always done so. Now that we have more powerful technologies than ever to cope with the observed problems, what makes you think we are not going to do it?

I don’t stick the head in the sand. I am well aware of problems, risks, and dangers facing mankind, even those dangers presented by extreme environmentalism. If you believe the wrong kind of environmentalism does not harm people, remember the DDT ban, and the huge increase of costs due to useless and irrational ecological regulations (as the Superfund). My way of seeing things is not getting too close to the tree, because that way I cannot see the whole forest.

 

Edufer
Utopia living in we are?
I don't believe in extremes of anything as I have said. However extremes do help us to find the middle ground. I never ever get my information from greens or blues or reds for that matter. I get most of my info from the BBC and books which i consider to be reliable sources but yes of course open to influence from those extremes you like to mention. Up to date information is always difficult to find for the lay person. However i have travelled to a couple of places over a period of time and i don't need greenpeace to point out the environmental degradation, the incease in car usage, and the change in the climate (which could of course be a cyclical thing and nothing at all to worry about). It saddens and scares me.

I'm not prepared to live as people did in the middle ages either and perhaps nuclear power is the answer in the short term (where are we going to dump all the waste, not in my or your back yard!) but certainly not in the long term. I don't detest mankind only what it does in its relentless quest to consume and get rich. Some of the nicest species I know are humans!

As for your contention that all is well in the animal world. Wild birds, fish stocks? Where I live they are on the brink of collapse and even the fishing industry admits it. Sand, sand sand! We'll just have to agree to disagree and I hope (you are perhaps a little older and obviously wiser than me) to god you are right! Name your sources and we'll see if we might come to some agreement sometime in the near future!

 

Starting from your lasts comments, there are indeed places where fish stocks are becoming scarce. But take a look at where fishing fleets are operating and you’ll find they concentrate on very few places on the globe. Some areas are good for one species; others are good for different ones. One of the richest areas fro anchovies, for instance, is the south Atlantic area around and north of the Malvinas Islands, and east of Argentina. (I am from Argentina). Our Navy patrols constantly our 200-mile ocean boundaries and sizes ships that are fishing illegally. By illegally it means that they have not paid the corresponding duties and catch tax imposed for fishing in our waters.

We keep an eye on stocks and try not to let the fisheries decrease. It is not an easy task, however, and our harbors are filling with fishing boats caught by the Navy, waiting for the fine to be paid. If the companies don’t pay the fine in time, the boat is confiscated and sold to Argentineans fishing companies. Fair enough.

Other rich area is west of Peru and Ecuador, especially during El Niño years. Usually, fish seem to be near coastal waters, because there is more food for them. But people must compete with whales for fish, because every blue whale eats about 4 tons of fish a day. As there is not whale hunting, the food chain is broken there and that huge fish tonnage inside whales finally goes to the bottom of the sea (or to sharks, and other sea predators when whales become old or die). It just a matter of commercial cost/benefit operation that make fishing fleets concentrate on fisheries near the coast.

As with other species, members of any species move to another environments when pressed by outside factors as men activities (farming, cities, roads, etc) but the do not become extinct. One species might “disappear” from a given region, but it is not “extinct”. It merely moved far from their original habitat into newer ones. The American jaguar (yaguareté, in South America) used to extend almost down to Patagonia until de beginning of the 20th century. Now they are only found at National Park Iguazú (around Iguazú Falls…). In other countries they have retreated to center of Paraguay, and from there they extend north through the Amazon jungle in Brazil to the Caribbean, and to the west to Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. It is a huge territory, some million square miles, full of jaguars and nay other feline species. But there is the claim that jaguars and other species “are threatened and in the brink of extinction”.

I know about these things related to the Amazon and animal species, because I had a facility in the Bolivian Amazon, where I did Adventure Travel expeditions and eco-tourism (bird watching, orchid search, photo safaris, etc). You can see the region in which I spent ten years at: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/photoEng.html and http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/AmazonEng.html

I was also founding member of the Córdoba Anthropological Society back in 1982. Presently, I am president of the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), with a website at: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html, a reduced version of our site in Spanish. But my guess is you won’t like our website at all. It gives and idea that the sky is not falling. The name of our site is: "Ecology: Myths and Frauds," based on the title of a book I wrote back in 1999.

Then I agree with you on your statement that “extremes do help us to find the middle ground.” The danger of being in the middle ground is (as I experience every day) that I get stones from the right and the left. Reds say I am “fascist”, while fascists say I am a “pinko”. And the quest for reliable information is a hard one. But I have found that the BBC is one of the less reliable sources when it comes to issues with a high load of political implications, as environmental issues. The BBC is not open to influence from the extremes: it has been conquered by the extreme and it has become its spokesperson, disguised under the robes of objectivism. On other issues that not put the British Empire on jeopardy, the BBC is a reasonably fair source of information.

The same can be said about magazines as Science and Nature, when they refer to global warming or pesticide uses. Less partisan journals as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Geophysical Research Letters, etc, are more trustable. The basis of any search of the truth must start with a big load of common sense and lots of knowledge in different fields of science –and always be skeptical of your findings.

Back in the 1980s I was an ardent admirer of Greenpeace and the WWF. I thought they were the greatest. Now I have come to think exactly the opposite. They are the lowest expression of human activity. They are anti-human. But that is a subject too big to discuss here.

I am also saddened by some changes I see in some regions that I have visited some years ago. But there are other regions that make me happy when I visit them and see how their population have improved and have taken care of their habitat too. I am an optimist regarding the human nature and future. The slope of improvement in a graph showing mankind history is amazing, and there is no reason to think it will change. I am not the kind who sees things as “a half empty bottle,” not even as “a half full bottle”. I see things as “a bottle not yet full.”

I will give you the sources of my information in another future post. But they refer mostly to scientific papers that I have read (that’s my duty), and most of them are terribly boring.

 

Are people still disputing man-made climate change exists? Even your dumb republican president was forced to accept the science and the facts. His response was not to reduce emissions but sit around and wait for new technology to replace fossil fuels. I doubt his admission came out of concern for the environment but because his country is not getting enough oil to satisfy it's thirst... otherwise it would be ignorance is bliss.

The two leading candidates for the next presidential election have been outspoken about how the science is too stark to ignore.

The ice of greenland is rapidly melting and for the first time in 10,000 years has vegetation. The crater on top of Mt. Kiliminjaro is now visible for the first time due to melting ice Peru's glaciers are in retreat and these are just the first couple of things that pop into mind from recent news coverage. And it's nothing to do with 'liberal media' it's based on facts which are becoming more difficult to ignore. Even in my mild country of Scotland wild life is goind under a huge change. Flowers, bumblebees and butterflies can now be seen in britain 3 weeks earlier due to milder winters.

I don't think republican americans are fit to comment on this issue as they are alone in their world of ignorance.

 

Man made warming? Not at all. Earth has warmed and cooled many times before Republicans and Democrats –or even human beings- appeared on Earth’s surface. Please note I am not American, much less Republican. But warming? Since 1880 Earth has warmed about 0,7º C, something that can barely be called “alarming”. On the contrary, it might take us to the same temperatures the Vikings saw when they colonized Greenland. What we are beginning to see in southern Greenland is what Vikings saw around 800 AC –and that was not a “runaway greenhouse effect” as they try to frighten us with claims of “unprecedented” warming. Tell me, do you see any warming from 1990 to 2004? It cooled in 1992, after Pinatubo, then it warmed in 1998 because the El Niño. (From: http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/temps19912003.html the best Spanish website about Earth's Climatic History.)

<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-11/1990-dic2004.jpg>

Mt. Kilimanjaro melting because warming? Inform yourself, please. Temperatures in the region have been decreasing for 20 years. The cause is decrease in snowfalls, and increase in upslope winds caused by deforestation in Kilimanjaro’s slopes. That’s a fact out of discussion.

You shouldn't mix politics and science (as warmers usually do). Stick to observed facts, not "perceived" anecdotes.

 

I made a thoroughly study of US temperatures analyzing 1,358 records in the <b<US Historical Climatology Network</b> plotting trends from the year 1900 to 2000. One hundred years of temperature records on all weather stations in the USA. The results can be seen (and studied) in <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html>Ghostbusting Temperatures</a> where you can see, state by state, record by record, that 32 of US states warmed by an average of 0.503ºC (less than the global warming since 1880), and the remaining 16 states <b>COOLED</b> by an average of -0.334ºC, giving an average warming for the continental US of <b>0.169º C</b>, quite far from the claimed 0,7º C global warming, and making those predictions of 5,8ºC increase for the year 2100 look as utter idiocy. As an example, see Alabama cool down:

<a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/ala.html>Alabama trend 1900-2000</a>

and one city there:

<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/USA/ALABAMA/valley-head-al.GIF>

 

Nice picture there and what it happens to be is the warmest decade on record. Say, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the levels of carbon in the atmosphere have rose year on year since 1958. I wonder how all that extra carbon got there?

I think what you should be doing instead of looking at pictures of year on year change is to look at it since it's inception and there is a clear pattern. And while 0.9 celcius (from 1850 to 2000) isn't worth getting worried over, I tend to worry if this trend continues, as it will with increased greenhouse emissions from emerging economies.

Most world leaders and most of the science disagree with you.

Edit: I can't believe you just pasted a graph of ONE STATE... what does that have to do with global warming? Keep posting selective graphs here all you like, it doesn't disguise the rising GLOBAL temperature.

 

I posted <b>ONE</b> state as an example. See the rest of the USA in the link provided. Do you want more graphs? I have graphs from all over the world. Just name one region and you'll get a nice cooling graph. Antarctica? You'll get a carload. Asia. you bet. South America? Just name the country. And so it goes.

First: most governments (presidents included) are morons. You have already noticed that, so any reference to governments are out.

Then, not most scientists disagree with me. Many do, however, and a similar number agree with me (that is, I agree with them) on the subject that warming <b>is mostly natural and man’s contribution is almost nil.</b>

CO2 emissions shouldn’t worry you because CO2 is <b>a lousy greenhouse gas.</b> I don’t know if you already read my last post and saw the trends of US temperatures since 1900 to 2000 (not a year by year analysis but a significantly hundred year trend).

Are you worried about trends? What trends? Trends do not last too much, as history shows. If 1930-1940’s Arctic trends continued, we’ have not more ice in the North Pole. On the contrary, if 1950-1970 trends continued, we’d be right now in a new Ice Age. Study temperature trends, please!

If the trend of a growing baby continues we’d have a 21-foot teenager. CO2 trends have been decreasing, for the last 15 years. They were growing at about 1% annually, but in the last 5 years the increase is 0,4% by year and falling. Which is the reason? Temperature is decreasing since 1998, (look at the yellow graph again) and since CO2 increase <b>lags temperature increase</b>, as demonstrated by many studies (ie: Monnin et al, 2002) CO2 is starting to decrease. No need for a Kyoto treaty –mother Nature is doing the work for us.

<b>Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
over the Last Glacial Termination</b>

Eric Monnin,1* , Andreas Indermühle,1 André Dällenbach,1 Jacqueline Flückiger,1; Bernhard Stauffer,1 Thomas F. Stocker,1 Dominique Raynaud,2 Jean-Marc Barnola2

Excerpts from the paper (you need a subscription to Science to access the paper on line):

“The main feature of the CO2 record (Fig. 1) is an increase from a mean value of 189 ppmv between 18.1 and 17.0 ky B.P. (19) to a mean value of 265 ppmv between 11.1 and 10.5 ky B.P. (beginning of the Holocene). The increase of 76 ± 1 ppmv occurs in four distinct intervals. From 17.0 to 15.4 ky B.P. (interval I), CO2 increases from 189 to 219 ppmv at a mean rate of 20 ppmv/ky.”

“To define the points at which <b>temperature and CO2 began to rise</b>, we selected the crossing points of linear fits of the records and obtained ages of 17,000 ± 200 years for the start of the CO2 increase and 17,800 ± 300 years for the start of the D increase. We found that <b>the start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the D increase by 800 ±600 years</b>, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account. This agrees with the estimates found in the ice cores from Taylor Dome and Byrd (10).”​

This means that temperature increased first and CO2 began to increase around 800 years later!!!

Do you still want to argue? On what basis? Scientific or emotional?

 

Edufer
I'm impressed by your credentials. Our backgrounds obviously differ totally. Mine is eclectic but certainly not intellectual or science based as you have pointed out. However it is loaded with common sense and more than a little scepticism. I'm not easily persuaded although it may appear easy enough to demolish my arguments.

The problem is that scientists disagree. If you and the other naysayers are right then we can all sleep easy in our beds. If you are wrong, and there's not one thing I can do about it either way, well we won't be around to suffer the consequences will we?

I'm off for a while to read a few more boring articles....but I'll be back!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4197566.stm