Gill said:
I would look quite odd at my age in a high school class. Besides, when I went to school, the teachers concentrated on teaching us facts and not on indoctrinating us with left wing ideology.
Well then all science has become left wing ideology then hasn't it? Very lame.
Gill said:
Ahhh, but that's not what I asked. I'll try again.. which of the five warming periods on the graph were caused by humans? Let me make it easy for you. If these warming periods were NOT caused by humans, then what did cause them? Surely they can't be naturally occurring cycles which would crush the theory of human caused global warming.
Now you are completely lieing. Not only have I answered your question immediately proceeding in my post, but I've answered it again in my later post. I've clearly stated twice now that my answer is
None of them.
Naturally occuring cycles in no way "crush" human interventional causes. They simply state just that. That there are natural global warming and cooling trends.
Gill said:
Ah yes, the infamous “hockey stick” graph by Mann and Jones. Unfortunately, this graph has been widely debunked by no less than five research groups. I’ll point out some of the problems with this graph.
Debunked? Five research groups? Care to provide the publications then?
But fair enough let's see what you have down here.
Gill said:
1. Mann and Jones indicate that global average air temperatures from A.D. 200 to 1900 were nearly constant. Missing from their timeline, however, are the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850). The warming and cooling periods are mysteriously missing.
No those periods are not missing at all. They're clearly on the graph and well within the tolerance levels of errors. Additionally note the variance in measurements, one is ice cores and coral reefs tree rings and so on. The later from late 1800's through present are instrumentation. Much more accurate. Not to mention the overlay of instrumentation with tree ring, ice core further shows the accuracy of estimated temperatures prior to late 1800's.
Now, both the medeival warm period and little ice age were fairly localized events predominently in the north and western hemisphere, predominenty Europe and North America, both regions which weather patterns are affected significantly by the mid atlantic current. Much research has shown that both of those were merely El Ninos and La Nina's, another natural cycle.
Gill said:
2. Several researchers have pointed out that this graph uses “selective” data. Any data that did not fit Mann and Jones preconceived notions of global warming were left out of the graph.
Refer to the IPCC article that I've posted as well. Then let's talk about this talking point.
Gill said:
3. The “blade” of the graph that indicates the dire global warming predictions of the IPCC can not be duplicated by any known scientific or statistical methodology.
Completely wrong. The global warming conditions predicted by this graph can be easily predicted with computer models. Not to mention that the graph I posted does not contain "estimated" or predicted future trends as is your "blade".
Gill said:
In the Spring of 2003, Stephen McIntyre requested the MBH98 data set from Mann. He is not a scientist or an economist, he was just curious how the graph was made and wanted to see if the raw data looked like hockey sticks too. After some delay Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98. One of the first things Stephen discovered was that the PCs used in MBH98 could not be replicated. In the process of looking up all the data sources and re-building Mann’s data set from scratch, Steve discovered a quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc. Some of these had small effects on the final results, but replacing the PCs had a big effect. I joined the project in the late summer of 2003 and we published a paper9 in October 2003 explaining the errors we found in Mann’s data. We showed that when these errors were corrected the famous hockey stick disappeared.
Pretty much like explaining micro and macro economics to a burger flipper. Oh? You joined the error reformation process? In that case show your data.
Gill said:
4. Incomplete temperature data was used to construct the graph. One group of tree borings from California skew the data completely. When the 20 tree temperature data sets are removed, the hockey stick disappears.
Please, show your publications for this then.
Gill said:
This graph is the center piece of the IPCC report to all the world’s governments. Without it, this report would be nothing.
Wrong, there are many other graphs including your vostoc ice cores. I point to your former graph again. Notice that we are supposed to be in the "warm" period right now. According to that same graph we should be declining into another ice age. Now let's super impose this with actual temperatures today, what do we get? Oh wow, temperature is not dropping at all, hmmm what could cause that, natural processes? absolutely, Human causes? why not?
Gill said:
Another oddity is that the graph illustrating the 1990 IPCC report DID show both the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. I guess it got lost somewhere in the 90's.
Really? Here's another explaination, LOCALIZED EVENTS.
Gill said:
The temperature changes noted in the IPCC report for the last 25 years relies soley on ground based temperatures, completely ignoring both balloon and satellite data. In fact, satellite data is barely mentioned in the report.
Lol, yes we have satellites prior to 1955. Good one.
Gill said:
As anyone that has ever looked at a local weather forecast knows, temperatures are always higher in cities which is where most temperature recording stations are located.
Wrong, those are only for forecasts, not monitoring stations. Ocean, high alttitude stations in moutains, tundra, desert and arctic/antarctic stations are where most high sensitivity stations are. Which by the way do much more then simple temperature measurements.
Gill said:
There was some attempts to adjust temps for this urban heat island affect, but in numerous cases, the temps were not adjusted properly.
Sources for this?
Gill said:
Ground based temperatures are obviously affected by their location, the condition of the enclosure and the timing of the readings. Readings are less affected in the USA where the recording equipment is usually top notch, however in many foreign countries, the condition of the recording equipment and spacing of stations is highly questionable. This is why satellite readings are considered more accurate. Satellite microwave readings read temps throughout the entire world in the lower troposphere where global warming,if it exists, would be most prevalent.
If global warming exists? Can you stay on track here, are you talking about human intervention or are you talking about global warming in general.
Gill said:
Satellite data is available from 1979 to this day and do NOT indicate the amount of global warming that the doom and gloomers at the IPCC predict.
Wrong again, temperature satellites have been available since 1962, though primarily for military purposes. Satellites do not predict, they are instruments that gather data that is then used for prediction. The newly modified IPCC version inclusive of satellite data, clearly reflects temperature predictions that would continue to grow with the elevating concentrations of green house gases.
Gill said:
And... using surface temp data from the US, we get this graph. It clearly indicates the dust bowl period of the early 30's but no significant temp rise in the last ten years.
You'll forgive me for not trusting non-published data.