Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Angus]

23 degs if I recall right. Mantle tilting. Then you have a lot more factors for the big swings.

[Fishu]

Seasons are not created due to the difference in earth's distance to the sun on its eliptical path. They are mainly caused by the earth's tilt w/respect to its axis of rotation (the equator).

Yeah, it's summer in Australia and elsewhere down there. Such a backwarded place! Even the water flows differently.

[Angus]

Oh, the humanity
Anyway, am I hijacking this thread with this one (from me)?
"So you belive that issues like what the atmosphere consists of, what the surface consists of and what amount of organic (speak forest) manipulation is about, none of this could possibly affect climate?"

I wonder......

[CAP1]

Oh, the humanity
Anyway, am I hijacking this thread with this one (from me)?
"So you belive that issues like what the atmosphere consists of, what the surface consists of and what amount of organic (speak forest) manipulation is about, none of this could possibly affect climate?"

I wonder......

the only thing we have proven to be really bad, was cfc's, and they've been pretty much banned. co, and nox, both of which are far worse than co2, are very limited, and not nearly enough in quantity to affect anything.

 deforestation.....that's another matter. but everyone says there's more being planted now, than cut down. it'll just take awhile for these to mature enough to take the place of what was removed.

 plankton give more o2 than plants though.....

[Angus]

Everyone? Not Wiki,or the UN, or...or...
"A 2005 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that although the earth's total forest area continues to decrease at about 13 million hectares per year, the global rate of deforestation has recently been slowing.[91][92] Still others claim that rainforests are being destroyed at an ever-quickening pace.[93] The London-based Rainforest Foundation notes that "the UN figure is based on a definition of forest as being an area with as little as 10% actual tree cover, which would therefore include areas that are actually savannah-like ecosystems and badly damaged forests."[94] Other critics of the FAO data point out that they do not distinguish between forest types,[95] and that they are based largely on reporting from forestry departments of individual countries,[96] which do not take into account unofficial activities like illegal logging.[97]"
Anyway, forests in the hotter zone absorb a lot of heat. It's not just the photosynthesis.

[Penguin]

Moray, you were right, I should have checked my physics first! 

Next, not only did CAP not provide a false statement, it was also a logical fallacy called ad populum.  That's the argument of:

10 people say that A is true
5 people say that B is true
Therefore A is true

Although this works with politics (by choosing the option that most people want), it doesn't work in a debate.  This is because the number of people that believe A is true doesn't affect whether A is true.  The same goes for B, and all other points.

For example; if everyone on earth were to be red-green colorblind, they all think that red is brown.  This doesn't mean that red doesn't exist.

CAP

the point, and fact is that the weather systems are pretty much in a pattern. they always have been, and always will be.

That's just not true at all...  You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years?  On a smaller scale, Africa used to be almost all jungle and forest.  A few mountains popped up, changing the winds, and you get the Sahara desert. 

Quotes from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Geography

People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[5] since the last ice age. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles [6] survive, with half found in the Tassili n'Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including Afrovenator, Jobaria and Ouranosaurus, have also been found here. The modern Sahara, though, is not lush in vegetation, except in the Nile Valley, at a few oases, and in the northern highlands, where Mediterranean plants such as the olive tree are found to grow.

Climate history
 
An oasis in the Ahaggar Mountains. Oases are crucial to support life in very arid deserts.
An intense Saharan dust storm sent a massive dust plume northwestward over the Atlantic Ocean on March 2, 2003The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[12] During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[13] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[14]

Once the ice sheets were gone, northern Sahara dried out. But in southern Sahara, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon is due to heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July.[15]

By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.

The Sahara has one of the harshest climates in the world. The prevailing north-easterly wind often causes the sand to form sand storms and dust devils.[18] Half of the Sahara receives less than 2 centimetres (0.79 in) of rain per year, and the rest receives up to 10 cm (3.9 in) per year.[19] The rainfall happens very rarely, but when it does it is usually torrential when it occurs after long dry periods, which can last for years.

The southern boundary of the Sahara, as measured by rainfall, was observed to both advance and retreat between 1980 and 1990. As a result of drought in the Sahel, the southern boundary moved south 130 kilometres (81 mi) overall during that period.[20]. Deforestation has also caused the Sahara to advance south in recent years[citation needed], as trees and bushes continue to be used as fuel source.

Recent signals indicate that the Sahara and surrounding regions are greening due to increased rainfall. Satellites show extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002, and in both Eastern and Western Sahara a more than 20 year long trend of increased grazing areas and flourishing trees and shrubs has been observed by climate scientist Stefan Kröpelin.[21]

The statement you made was so broad and encompassing that it shows you did very little research on the subject.  Our climate is not permanant, it will not last forever and it will change until the end of the earth

This means that man can affect the climate, and it isn't that hard to do.  Take cloud seeding for example, it is widely practiced to increase rainfall as much as 10%. 

CAP1 you have made an untrue, illogical, and foolish statement. 

-Penguin

[sluggish]

Our climate is not permanant, it will not last forever and it will change until the end of the earth

Kind of proving his point for him, aren't you?

[rstel01]

  From KUSI in San Diego

January 14, 2010

PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION

NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL

It has been revealed that a "sleight of hand" was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation of the data within the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report ”Global Warming: The Other Side” telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.

The data manipulation studies are explored in detail during the fourth segment of the one hour video now available here on our website. Just click on the Global Warming special banner to go to the page.

NOAA and NASA start with the unadjusted NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network). NASA eliminates some stations and adds some in the polar regions. For NASA, the computer program that manipulates the data is known as GIStemp, Both then add their own adjustments to calculate a global average temperature and a ranking for each month and year. The two inter-related U.S Government agencies have so intertwined their programs and data sets that both are being challenged by the investigating team that has produced this "smoking gun of U.S. Climate-gate.” “We suspect each center will try to hide behind, ‘It’s them; Not us’ and point fingers at each other," says the Computer Programmer from San Jose behind these new revelations. He and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist from New Hampshire made their revelations public on January 14th on a prime time television special report at 9:00PM PST; on KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego Perhaps that is why Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in testimony to congress in March 2009 noted “The present federal agency paradigm with respect to NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional in spite of best efforts by both agencies.”

The U.S. Government’s National Weather Service uses the NCDC data in its record temperature news releases put out with much media fanfare on a regular basis as they declare a given month or year has set a record for warmth, supporting the global warming agenda.

Also, the NCDC/NASA GISS data are regularly used by climate researchers doing studies at various research centers and within university meteorology centers that are doing studies to support the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This data is also shared with other global centers such as the recently hacked or leaked East Anglia University Hadley Climate Center in England.

Programmer E. Michael Smith and CCM Joseph D’Aleo, the two men who did the research, also revealed there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database when it proclaimed "2005 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” In the transition to a computer averaging system, the National Data Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it evolved to a system of global grid boxes. The number that goes into each grid box is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more weather observation stations nearest that grid box..

D'Aleo puts it this way, "Over 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water and vast areas of land masses remain unpopulated as well. So it is reasonable to come up with some sort of grid method to simulate full global coverage. The problem arises because not all of the grid boxes have continuous temperature measurements from within them. So NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of miles away. That produces a serious question, ‘Does the resulting number represent the average temperature for that region within meaningful limits?’” D'Aleo says it does not. "A vital issue,” he says is, "temperatures are not linear over space, but instead vary enormously because of differences in terrain, elevation, vegetation, water versus land and urbanization."

This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with the data being produced at NDCC. For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures and those produced from a much smaller temperature set with large data gaps is comparing apples and oranges. “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” Smith and D’Aleo say. But that is exactly what has been done in touting the late 1990s and the early 2000s as the warmest ten years in history. "It is clearly a travesty and agenda- driven by global warming advocates,” D'Aleo asserts.

For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. "Opening, unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task," he says, "and the deeper I dug the more amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The Garden Spot of the Arctic,’ always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda,” Smith says.

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000. That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way,” he continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis’ temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.

He and D'Aleo say it is startling where the temperatures are that have been dropped from the calculation. "A very high percentage of those dropped are from the more northern locations. Very few are left north of sixty degrees longitude.” “Clearly there is also a bias to leave in locations with warmer temperatures, i.e. from the arid areas and within the urban warmth of cities,” he adds. In the greatest reduced list of locations, there are very few colder mountain locations retained.

E. Michael Smith and Joe D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program will be available on-demand at KUSI.com at the conclusion of the broadcast. The detailed report by D’Aleo is available at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

For more information, contact:

E. Michael Smith at pub4all@aol.com

Smith's climate blog: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

Joseph D’Aleo at Jsdaleo6331@aol.com, or 603-689-5646

D’Aleo website: http://www.icecap.us

 

John Coleman
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

[CAP1]

Moray, you were right, I should have checked my physics first! 

Next, not only did CAP not provide a false statement, it was also a logical fallacy called ad populum.  That's the argument of:

10 people say that A is true
5 people say that B is true
Therefore A is true

Although this works with politics (by choosing the option that most people want), it doesn't work in a debate.  This is because the number of people that believe A is true doesn't affect whether A is true.  The same goes for B, and all other points.

For example; if everyone on earth were to be red-green colorblind, they all think that red is brown.  This doesn't mean that red doesn't exist.

CAP
That's just not true at all...  You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years?  On a smaller scale, Africa used to be almost all jungle and forest.  A few mountains popped up, changing the winds, and you get the Sahara desert. 

Quotes from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Geography

People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[5] since the last ice age. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles [6] survive, with half found in the Tassili n'Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including Afrovenator, Jobaria and Ouranosaurus, have also been found here. The modern Sahara, though, is not lush in vegetation, except in the Nile Valley, at a few oases, and in the northern highlands, where Mediterranean plants such as the olive tree are found to grow.

Climate history
 
An oasis in the Ahaggar Mountains. Oases are crucial to support life in very arid deserts.
An intense Saharan dust storm sent a massive dust plume northwestward over the Atlantic Ocean on March 2, 2003The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[12] During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[13] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[14]

Once the ice sheets were gone, northern Sahara dried out. But in southern Sahara, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon is due to heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July.[15]

By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.

The Sahara has one of the harshest climates in the world. The prevailing north-easterly wind often causes the sand to form sand storms and dust devils.[18] Half of the Sahara receives less than 2 centimetres (0.79 in) of rain per year, and the rest receives up to 10 cm (3.9 in) per year.[19] The rainfall happens very rarely, but when it does it is usually torrential when it occurs after long dry periods, which can last for years.

The southern boundary of the Sahara, as measured by rainfall, was observed to both advance and retreat between 1980 and 1990. As a result of drought in the Sahel, the southern boundary moved south 130 kilometres (81 mi) overall during that period.[20]. Deforestation has also caused the Sahara to advance south in recent years[citation needed], as trees and bushes continue to be used as fuel source.

Recent signals indicate that the Sahara and surrounding regions are greening due to increased rainfall. Satellites show extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002, and in both Eastern and Western Sahara a more than 20 year long trend of increased grazing areas and flourishing trees and shrubs has been observed by climate scientist Stefan Kröpelin.[21]

The statement you made was so broad and encompassing that it shows you did very little research on the subject.  Our climate is not permanant, it will not last forever and it will change until the end of the earth

This means that man can affect the climate, and it isn't that hard to do.  Take cloud seeding for example, it is widely practiced to increase rainfall as much as 10%. 

CAP1 you have made an untrue, illogical, and foolish statement. 

-Penguin

no, as a matter of fact, i haven't.

[Sonicblu]

You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years


How do we know this?

Please seperate emprical evidence from forensic science.


By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.

How do we know this?

How can it be a theory if it can't be scientificaly tested.

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:


it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

It is really a hypothesis, isnt it.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory – although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle.


This is my problem with most of the arguments pro or con.

They might seem valid. but they are UNSOUNS logic. Because the premise is wrong. Or with most of this debate. YOU cant prove the premise.

[Sonicblu]

Yeah, it's summer in Australia and elsewhere down there. Such a backwarded place! Even the water flows differently.

Do you mean turns the opposite direction like when you flush a toilet or drain the tub?


IT DOES NOT TURN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ONLY YOUR PERSPECTIVE CHANGES.

This is the biggest myth that exists in the world. And a perfect example why even empirical evidence is not right.  IT just looks like it turns the other way.

Example:  hold a pencil in front of your eyes looking at one end and spin it clockwise. Now look at the other end it is spinning counter clockwise.

at the same time no less. The swirl in the drain only turns one way based on the rotation of the earth.

Only your perspective is changing.

[sluggish]

Do you mean turns the opposite direction like when you flush a toilet or drain the tub?


This is the biggest myth that exists in the world. And a perfect example why even empirical evidence is not right.  IT just looks like it turns the other way.

I thought that the biggest myth that exists in the world was the subject of this thread??

[Anaxogoras]

You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years


How do we know this?

Our best evidence for this conclusion is other stars that have used up all of their H2 and expanded into red giants.  Unless you're going to claim that our Sun is as special star, we can expect it to behave in a similar way. (edit: obviously, someone exaggerated when they said that our sun is going to blow up, but that's not the point)

By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.

How do we know this?

How can it be a theory if it can't be scientificaly tested.

It's not difficult to find evidence of water in places that no longer have any.

You have some misconceptions here, and I think they're due to a philosophical confusion about the nature of Empiricism, rather than a misunderstanding of what counts as physical evidence.

[Penguin]

You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years


How do we know this?

Please seperate emprical evidence from forensic science.


By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.

How do we know this?

How can it be a theory if it can't be scientificaly tested.

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:


it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

It is really a hypothesis, isnt it.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory – although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle.


This is my problem with most of the arguments pro or con.

They might seem valid. but they are UNSOUNS logic. Because the premise is wrong. Or with most of this debate. YOU cant prove the premise.

A theory is most certainly not a hypothesis, do your research on the scientific method;

1.Problem
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Conclusion/Theory

You completely ignore the first part of the defenition of theory, it is from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory

•S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
•S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

You can see that a theory is most certainly not a hypothesis.  If it was, why don't we call e=mc², part of the hypothesis of relativity?  Or do you ignore this fact on principle?

His point is contradictory, he says that he said that earth's climate changes, and then it does not.  He then says that man can have 0.00000000% effect on the climate.  To say yes or no is a trick question.

-Penguin

-Penguin

[Anaxogoras]

Going to a dictionary for an explanation of "hypothesis" and "theory" is just about the most unacademic thing you can do.  Any college professor would be within their right to give both of you a big, fat "F" for doing so.