31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

[Renae]

Unless you've been studying ecosystems for decades, I'm not interested. My understanding is that meteorologists specialize in phenomena that last for relatively short durations, neither performing research nor casting forecasts to the same effect as climatologists.

THAT right there shows you have absolutely no freaking tally or clue what you are on about.

You see, to understand the "weather" we have to be cognizant of how it all works. Part of that training is understanding "Climate". Not only that, but we apply climatological factors to forecast the weather...

I.E. it's not just a passing "understanding of climate" but the two really go hand in hand.

Granted, I never did long range historical studies of the Climate...

This is true.

However, to dismiss my knowledge, and experience outright shows you are only interested in those persons or groups that push the agenda which you agree with, rather then hearing all the available information and making an informed decision.

And that's fine, but you're like some of our other resident AGW'rs, you read a few things off a couple of blogs, hit up some sites like realclimate.org or climatescience.org, watched Algore's movie and think you have any clue what the hell you are talking about.

You guys are like airline passengers thinking you know how to fly a 747 because you have 50000 frequent flier miles.

 

[Morality Games]

THAT right there shows you have absolutely no freaking tally or clue what you are on about.

You see, to understand the "weather" we have to be cognizant of how it all works. Part of that training is understanding "Climate". Not only that, but we apply climatological factors to forecast the weather...

I.E. it's not just a passing "understanding of climate" but the two really go hand in hand.

Granted, I never did long range historical studies of the Climate...

This is true.

However, to dismiss my knowledge, and experience outright shows you are only interested in those persons or groups that push the agenda which you agree with, rather then hearing all the available information and making an informed decision.

And that's fine, but you're like some of our other resident AGW'rs, you read a few things off a couple of blogs, hit up some sites like realclimate.org or climatescience.org, watched Algore's movie and think you have any clue what the hell you are talking about.

You guys are like airline passengers thinking you know how to fly a 747 because you have 50000 frequent flier miles.

... most of my sources weren't blogs. Anyway, I have heard plenty of alternative explanations, all of which disregard some important element or other and which tend to come across as confused; I think I once encountered a website which was concurrently arguing that global warming can be attributed solely to the sun and that there is no global warming at all and that everything is normal in every region, albeit in two different articles. My informed decision is to accept what the climatologists say, since their theories tend to encompass the widest number of factors, and if they change over time, at least seem to be developing logically in a single direction. In contrast, my opponents will variously argue that all warming is a natural event or that it isn't happening or whatever else it takes to make it seem as though billions of humans across the planet with millions of outlets for greenhouse gases over the course of 150 years could not possibly contribute to a warming effect or an ozone depletion, or that it is merely coincidence that our current climate change event began occurring around the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

... to your other criticism, I have no motivation to believe meteorologists don't specialize in relatively short lasting phenomena. Because they are specialists in relatively short lasting phenomena. That's why they tend to be employed by news stations as weathermen or other agencies in which immediate knowledge of weather patterns is more pertinent than longterm changes in climate.

 

[Renae]

... to your other criticism, I have no motivation to believe meteorologists don't specialize in relatively short lasting phenomena. Because they are specialists in relatively short lasting phenomena. That's why they tend to be employed by news stations as weathermen or other agencies in which immediate knowledge of weather patterns is more pertinent than longterm changes in climate.

Sigh...

Forecasting requires understanding the climate of the area. So we do.. ya know... study of Climate to learn the job.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you basically asses that CO2 and Man must be entirely behind "Global Warming!!!" and anyone, or anything that says otherwise, isn't educated enough to get it.

Which is doubly funny that you dismiss anything say.. a person like myself would have to say on the matter considering your professional training in the field of weather, climate... is what again? I have 10 years experience, you have?

So, please, mr. internet climatoligist... tell me again what makes your... view right and my view unimportant because I only delt with "local short term" weather?

Hmmm?

Because you go to AGW sites that tell you what to believe?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No - I don't think anyone has stopped using the term "global warming".

Maybe you need to pay better attention to what the con men promoting your position aren't saying.

They aren't saying "global warming".

Anthropogenic emissions are causing the globe to warm

Nice assumption not in accordance with facts.

The current warming cycle, as measured from the basement of the Little Ice Age, began in 1650, which is 150 years before the industrial revolution started.

The globe continued to warm for another 100 years, before industrialization started introducing measurable quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the last century, there have been several multidecadal periods of global cooling, even though there has been a monotonically increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Come again on that anthropogenic nonsense? A three hundred and fifty year warming trend with significant cooling periods, and you people want to claim it's all man-made?

Not a single one of the AGW theories predicted the last eight years of global cooling, thus not one of those theories is correct.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

yet 2008 was still one of the 10 hottest years ever recorded.

How do you explain that?

Because the planet is near the local peak of a cyclic climate change event not associated with human activity and hence the years on the average will be hotter than years at lower points on the cycle.

Wow. That was incredibly difficult.

Why are you opposed to shorter winters, longer growing seasons, and reduced winter home heating costs?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Carbon dioxide and methane deposits have accumulated through the decay of organic matter over the course of hundreds of millions of years, being suddenly released through various triggers at various intervals in earth's history to cause sudden environmental changes (super volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, etc); in this case, the trigger was the carbon, methane, and other categories of gas from human activity, beginning in earnest around the Industrial Revolution.

Wrong.

The warming trend began 150 years before that.

Guess again.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Individual months may get cooler - but the 5 year average is still rising[/IMG]

No it's not.

The last seven years have been each successively cooler than the preceding one, with the alleged exception of 2008.

That means the moving five year average is distinctly cooler now.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I see. By that I assume you mean that you knoww what ENSO is - yet you cannot explain why the La Nina event of 2007/08 was warmer than any in the previous century. Yet you still insist that the planet is cooling! Why is that?

Ummm....because the planet is cooling, of course.

You could try looking at the data for a change.

 

[Morality Games]

Forecasting requires understanding the climate of the area. So we do.. ya know... study of Climate to learn the job.

But you don't fly out to the poles to examine the concentration of greenhouse gases and the natural deposits in the arctic and ocean, or compare measurements with other regions and trace sources.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you basically asses that CO2 and Man must be entirely behind "Global Warming!!!" and anyone, or anything that says otherwise, isn't educated enough to get it.

No. I said that human-caused greenhouse gases create a heating effect in regions where there are natural deposits of greenhouse gases. While the human-caused gases by themselves could not create a catastrophic heating effect, their release of formerly secure deposits which have accumulated over millions of years is troublesome.

Which is doubly funny that you dismiss anything say.. a person like myself would have to say on the matter considering your professional training in the field of weather, climate... is what again? I have 10 years experience, you have?

If you want to forward a theory supported by data and demonstrate its empirical superiority over the views I have expressed over the last couple of pages, feel free.

So, please, mr. internet climatoligist... tell me again what makes your... view right and my view unimportant because I only delt with "local short term" weather?

Hmmm?

Because it is recitation and referral to the theories of people who actually study longterm climate change in the both large ecosystems and the world ecosystem in its totality; they are employed to do so by academia, the government, and private agencies and industries whom want to know how secure region x will be in the next couple decades because they are considering a long term investment of money and resources. Meteorologists specialize in much shorter, localized time frames, which are useful for knowing how safe it is to drive on which days of the week, whether you are going to have a tough couple winter months, or whether or not it is a good day for an outside activity, but not so much for predicting longterm climate change events on a global scale.

Because you go to AGW sites that tell you what to believe?

Well, I posted quite a few sites that are hosted by quite a few authorities. At any rate, I don't think I need to accept that corporate-funded libertarian think tank organizations which say the sun explains everything or that nothing unusual is happening anywhere on this planet are authorities I can place more trust in.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Unless you've been studying ecosystems for decades, I'm not interested. My understanding is that meteorologists specialize in phenomena that last for relatively short durations, neither performing research nor casting forecasts to the same effect as climatologists.

Climatologists...you must mean that dedicated group of idiots that went around trying to scare all the people of the world by predicting linear increases in global temp and who completely missed predicting the recent global cooling.

They're as accurate as economists.

I haven't claimed that either, and that's why I emphasize "climate change." However, there is a warming trend in many regions, such as the poles. What occurs in the poles is central to weather the world over; winds from the arctic cause freezing, for example. The term "Global warming" came about several decades ago from the observation that various regions were warming up, as a description of the world in its totality, it is a misnomer.

So what you're saying is that the globe isn't getting warmer and therefore we don't need to do anything about CO2 emissions.

Good for you.

 

[Morality Games]

Climatologists...you must mean that dedicated group of idiots that went around trying to scare all the people of the world by predicting linear increases in global temp and who completely missed predicting the recent global cooling.

They're as accurate as economists.

Unproven, misleading, and not an argument.

So what you're saying is that the globe isn't getting warmer and therefore we don't need to do anything about CO2 emissions.

Good for you.

YES, EXACTLY.

No, not really; some regions like the poles are getting hotter, that among other changes could cause other regions to become cooler. Europe, for example, should become cooler.

The overall global temperature doesn't pertain much to human society and economics; how temperatures will change in various regions as a result of the climate change event is the matter of concern.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Unproven and not an argument.

Certainly it's proven. The last seven years have been cooling years. Are you going to deny this fact?

YES, EXACTLY.

No, not really; some regions like the poles are getting hotter, that among other changes could cause other regions to become cooler. Europe, for example, should become cooler.

You mean the South Pole is getting warmer, that's why ice is accumulating there faster than it melts away? Again, this is an observed fact.

So, because the earth started warming in 1650, and now the Northwest Passage is open for longer periods of time, you're claiming we need to limit CO2 .... to increase the cost of shipping goods between London and Seattle?

 

[Morality Games]

You mean the South Pole is getting warmer, that's why ice is accumulating there faster than it melts away? Again, this is an observed fact.

No. I mean the arctic (North Pole) has been shrinking and getting thinner.

Arctic Ice Cap Coverage Isn't Only Shrinking, It's Getting Thinner, Too | Popular Science

Followed by Greenland.

Greenland Ice Sheet Melting Faster Than Expected; Larger Contributor To Sea-level Rise Than Thought

So, because the earth started warming in 1650, and now the Northwest Passage is open for longer periods of time, you're claiming we need to limit CO2 .... to increase the cost of shipping goods between London and Seattle?

This is exactly what I mean. There is no consistent direction among oppositional theories; it isn't happening, it began occurring before the Industrial Revolution, the sun is doing it, it is a recent development and not something humans had the time to contribute to, etc. The only pattern between them I can see is that humans aren't involved, that millions of outlets churning out greenhouse gases constantly for 150 years can't matter or cause any accumulation, that deforestation can't effect anything, etc. Anything like that gets disregarded and is never addressed in these alternative theories.

That the earth was warming in 1650 doesn't relate to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the arctic. That has to be addressed in its own context.

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Let's see if you know how to read a graph. Based on previous responses, I have my doubts.

We already know the lurker MG has no clue on reading graphs.

As clearly shown on this graph of HadCRUT temps, 2008 was actually a very cool year.

All of these recent claims that the last ten years have been the "hottest" are all from one data set, NASA GISS, which is ALWAYS the hottest of any of the data sets. They also use the fewest number of weather stations to get their readings, and use a strange and disavowed method to adjust for UHI.

One last point, the "hottest on record" means little. What you should be saying is the hottest in the past 100 years, a minuscule amount of time in Earth's history.

Are you claiming like your lurker buddy, MG, that the Earth has not been cooling for the past 7-10 years?

So - this is supposed to support your statement:

2008 was NOT one of the 10 hottest years on record. One temperature data set out of four claims this and their temperature data is always much warmer than the others.

is it?

Are you trying to tell us that that graph shows that 2008 was not one of the 10 hottest years on record? And you doubt my ability to read a graph!!!!

Let's have a look at the HadCRUT data that your graph is based on, shall we?

The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997.
CRU Information Sheet no. 1: Global Temperature Record

This is what the HadCRUT data actually says - yet you tell us:

2008 was NOT one of the 10 hottest years on record. One temperature data set out of four claims this and their temperature data is always much warmer than the others.

Of course other data gets different results. According to NOAA:
The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eigth Warmest on Record

yet YOU told us:

2008 was NOT one of the 10 hottest years on record.

You were clearly wrong, weren't you. Why did you deliberately try to mislead people? Whatever - that's your problem.

Anyway - now we have cleared up your error - perhaps you could now answer the original question asked of you:

Given that not only are we at a low point in the sun spot cycle, but also had a La Nina event in 2008 - why is it that 2008 was still one of the 10 hottest years ever recorded. How do you explain that, in light of your claim that the earth has been cooling for 7 years?

 

[monkeyloveafight]

You DO realize that recorded temps of the El Nino/La Nina events are... fairly recent and really, only the last 30 or so years have they started getting real concentrated attention right?

I'm just saying... that claim of the "past century" is a bit of a hogwash line to use... shows a lack of understanding in what's really going on.

I'm sorry!?!?!? You are telling me that we only have temperature and atmospheric pressure records for the last 30 years or so? WTF!?!

Here is a graph of the Multivariate ENSO Index back to 1950

and, the global temperature record:

Notice anything? See the La Nina events? 1955, 1965, 1972, 1975, 1988, 2001 - all pretty much match up with a corresponding dip in the global temperature record. Yet the 2008 La Nina was hotter than any of the La Nina events of the last century. And despite what Gill will try to tell you, despite the La Nina event, 2008 was still one of the 10 hottest years ever recorded.

And you think I show a lack of understanding in what's really going on?!?!? At least I am aware that we have temperature and atmospheric pressure records that go back more than 30 years!!!!!!

FYI - here is a record of the SOI back to 1951:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/soi

 

[phattonez]

^^You're ignoring trends. The globe has been cooling, you try to ignore this fact.

 

[monkeyloveafight]

You mean the South Pole is getting warmer, that's why ice is accumulating there faster than it melts away? Again, this is an observed fact.

Yes - that is absolutely right. The South Pole is getting warmer*, that's why ice is accumulating there faster than it melts away. The warming in Antarctica is causing more precipitation - ie. more snow, more ice. And since the average annual temperature of continental Antarctica is around -50 deg C - the ice doesn't melt. It accumulates. Hence warming is causing the Antarctic ice to thicken in some parts of the continent.

*NB - the 'South Pole" itself may actually be cooling, as it has been suggested that ozone hole may have strengthened the polar vortex

 

[monkeyloveafight]

^^You're ignoring trends. The globe has been cooling, you try to ignore this fact.

Cooling?!?! From what? Certainly not cooling with respect to the average global temperature from 1961-1990

I suppose you you could say the earth is "cooling" with respect to 1998 - but that is pretty meaningless. It makes as much sense as me saying "Human beings have been getting shorter since 1940" (since that was when this bloke died)

You are ignoring common sense.

The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997.
CRU Information Sheet no. 1: Global Temperature Record

That is - you are trying to tell us that the earth has been cooling for 7 years - yet all of those years have been among the 10 hottest ever recorded!!!!

 

[phattonez]

That is - you are trying to tell us that the earth has been cooling for 7 years - yet all of those years have been among the 10 hottest ever recorded!!!!

Ignore regression all you want, that is what the data show.

 

[Renae]

I'm sorry!?!?!? You are telling me that we only have temperature and atmospheric pressure records for the last 30 years or so? WTF!?!

Here is a graph of the Multivariate ENSO Index back to 1950

and, the global temperature record:

Notice anything? See the La Nina events? 1955, 1965, 1972, 1975, 1988, 2001 - all pretty much match up with a corresponding dip in the global temperature record. Yet the 2008 La Nina was hotter than any of the La Nina events of the last century. And despite what Gill will try to tell you, despite the La Nina event, 2008 was still one of the 10 hottest years ever recorded.

And you think I show a lack of understanding in what's really going on?!?!? At least I am aware that we have temperature and atmospheric pressure records that go back more than 30 years!!!!!!

FYI - here is a record of the SOI back to 1951:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/soi

If you would bother to read what I said, we have only been focusing for the last thirty years or so... I was off by 10 years or so, MY BAD!

Two giants of 20th-century meteorology, Gilbert Walker and Jacob Bjerknes, are usually given credit for discovering the El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenomenon. During the early 1920s, Walker empirically identified a periodic variation in atmospheric pressure over the Indo-Pacific which he christened the "Southern Oscillation." During the 1960s, Bjerknes posited a physical mechanism to explain the atmospheric features of this phenomenon over the equatorial Pacific which he christened the "Walker Circulation." Both men deserve recognition since they opened the way for our present understanding of the global climate system.

1.1 Who Discovered the El Niño-Southern Oscillation? (2003 - HistorySymp)

Notice, they had some records, but the intact study of the region, with sensors, satellites and regular monitoring didn't begin till after the 60's.

All other records were quite simply, guesses based on approximations and scattered ship observations.

See how that all works out?


And I have a very simple question for you monkey, in 1991 the temp records all show a marked increase, what world event coincides with this increase?

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Yeah, and people like me that have not only been trained in Meteorology and Climate but also had to make a living as meteorologist... well they ignore our views because... Gee I don't agree with what climatscience.org says!

Gotta love it.

If people "ignore your views" - it is probably because your views include nonsense like this:

You DO realize that recorded temps of the El Nino/La Nina events are... fairly recent and really, only the last 30 or so years have they started getting real concentrated attention right?

WTF?!?!?! The SOI was first described in 1932!!! And you say "You DO realize that recorded temps of the El Nino/La Nina events are... fairly recent"

hahahaha!! Gotta love it indeed!

 

[Renae]

If people "ignore your views" - it is probably because your views include nonsense like this:


WTF?!?!?! The SOI was first described in 1932!!! And you say "You DO realize that recorded temps of the El Nino/La Nina events are... fairly recent"

hahahaha!! Gotta love it indeed!

Sigh.

And in 1932, how good do you think they were at recording the event? How good was the record keeping, the temp taking methodology?

You missed the point ENTIRELY because... you latch on to small things and fail to understand the significance of it.

So again, let's go back, you stated over 100 years I do believe, yet, by your own admission it wasn't discovered till 1932. So that right there puts you out of the water completely.

My point was the ability to really focus on the area, study it, and get reliable data has only been kicking off over the last 30 years of so...

Which is quite true.

You see, as a "mere" meterologically trained individual, I happen to understand that if you lack the means to gather the data... well we guess.

That's right, GUESS at what's going on. And in the case of HISTORICAL (read CLIMATE) it's a much bigger guess then say trying to figure out what the conditions are over an unpopulated area.

Why do you think forecasts for North America and Europe are better then anywhere else in the world? I'll give you a hint, it's called "Synoptic Data". The more stations you have reporting the conditions, the more accurate the forecast... This ALSO happens to translate into better RECORDS going into the future.

So 100 years from now, when Climatoligist are figuring out what was going on they'll have much better data to work with, vice... guesses.

I wonder if I just wasted my time explaining all that to you...

 

[monkeyloveafight]

If you would bother to read what I said, we have only been focusing for the last thirty years or so... I was off by 10 years or so, MY BAD!

1.1 Who Discovered the El Niño-Southern Oscillation? (2003 - HistorySymp)

Notice, they had some records, but the intact study of the region, with sensors, satellites and regular monitoring didn't begin till after the 60's.

All other records were quite simply, guesses based on approximations and scattered ship observations.

See how that all works out?

Hmmm...so Mssrs Walker and Bliss were wasting their time collectingg all that data from 1875 to 1933? Shame.
Walker and Bliss Southern Oscillation (SO) index

And I have a very simple question for you monkey, in 1991 the temp records all show a marked increase, what world event coincides with this increase?

Penrith Panthers won their first Grand Final?

 

[Renae]

Since the 1982-1983 "Mother of All Los Ni�os," the public and scientists have been fascinated with the apparent climate variations in floods and droughts linked to teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. By 1987, ocean scientists demonstrated a new technical ability to forecast the sea-surface temperature patterns along the equator in the Pacific Ocean up to a year in advance using wind-driven ocean models. This technical advancement encouraged governments to support the development of coupled ocean-atmosphere models. These models have the promise of forecasting 1-2 seasons in advance the shifts in seasonal physical climate patterns. In order to validate these models, studies are necessary to document the location and intensity of climatic impacts.

COAPS - The North American Climate Patterns Associated with the El Nio-Southern Oscillation

ENSO monitoring and forecasting

In Peru a service for El Nino forecasting started in 1983: a forecast is issued every year in November, when the El Nino event could begin (actually its name is related to Christmas). The appearance and the disappearance of the event are both economically important: during ENSO years floods are reported; during non-ENSO years drought can occur.

An overview of global El Nino impacts and benefits as well as El Nino prediction and forecast are accessible from the NOAA El Nino theme page.

El Niño (ENSO) monitoring and forecasting


See the point here I am attempting to get across? Whether they "knew" about it, was not my point, my point was the intense study of the phenomenon, is relatively recent, I.E. making claims as to our knowing WHAT the temps were 100 years ago is folly to say the least.

 

[Renae]

Hmmm...so Mssrs Walker and Bliss were wasting their time collectingg all that data from 1875 to 1933? Shame.
Walker and Bliss Southern Oscillation (SO) index

Penrith Panthers won their first Grand Final?

The METH... on never mind. You've latched on to something you "think" you understand and refuse to see reason, or logic.

Carry on, you're SO right, we've been collecting accurate, serious data for well over 100 years, hell they knew about El Nino as far back as 1600, so OBVIOUSLY the records for then are top notch, accurate and reliable!


:roll: