Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does snow in Copenhagen have to do with the reality of climate change and the human contribution to it? There are still palm trees in Honolulu. Learn the difference between weather and climate already.
Tell me, do you think Atlas is holding up the Earth?
Last edited by sickofnyc; 12-17-2009 at 10:20 AM..
A Round, Warm Earth: Debunking the Republican Denials of Global Climate Change
Quote:
Myth 3: The current global warming trends are nothing more than natural repetitions of warming seen during medieval times.
Quote:
Republicans are eager to cite what they call the "Medieval Warm Period" as proof that global climate change is a purely natural event, a nothing to worry about. They claim that global temperatures in medieval times exceeded the global temperatures of today, and were the result of purely natural causes. However, the scientific review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has strongly rejected the validity of this claim, and found that warming trends today are more dramatic than at any time in the last thousand years.
This myth is based on a number of false premises. First of all, the increase in global temperatures during the "Medieval Warm Period" has been found in a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies to be greatly less than the warming that is taking place today. Second, this myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends. Third, the Republicans who make claims about a "Medieval Warm Period" that supposedly dwarfs the current warming trend base their claims upon a comparison of temperatures in medieval times to temperatures during the entire 20th Century. The problem with doing so is that the comparison clumps all of the 20th Century together as if it is one moment in time with one temperature, thus treating the dramatic increase in global temperature from the beginning of the 20th Century to the end of the 20th Century as if it does not exist. Furthermore, the evidence for significant warming in Europe in medieval times is not completely clear. Republican analysts frequently confuse evidence of drought with evidence for temperature increase, and so make a leap of faith when they make their claims of a "Medieval Warm Period". The temperatures we record today are reliable figures collected directly without the need for such stretched supposition.
SickofNYC...GIVE IT UP.....GW IS A FRAUD...
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap.
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
A Round, Warm Earth: Debunking the Republican Denials of Global Climate Change
Myth 3: The current global warming trends are nothing more than natural repetitions of warming seen during medieval times.
Republicans are eager to cite what they call the "Medieval Warm Period" as proof that global climate change is a purely natural event, a nothing to worry about. They claim that global temperatures in medieval times exceeded the global temperatures of today, and were the result of purely natural causes. However, the scientific review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has strongly rejected the validity of this claim, and found that warming trends today are more dramatic than at any time in the last thousand years.
This myth is based on a number of false premises. First of all, the increase in global temperatures during the "Medieval Warm Period" has been found in a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies to be greatly less than the warming that is taking place today. Second, this myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends. Third, the Republicans who make claims about a "Medieval Warm Period" that supposedly dwarfs the current warming trend base their claims upon a comparison of temperatures in medieval times to temperatures during the entire 20th Century. The problem with doing so is that the comparison clumps all of the 20th Century together as if it is one moment in time with one temperature, thus treating the dramatic increase in global temperature from the beginning of the 20th Century to the end of the 20th Century as if it does not exist. Furthermore, the evidence for significant warming in Europe in medieval times is not completely clear. Republican analysts frequently confuse evidence of drought with evidence for temperature increase, and so make a leap of faith when they make their claims of a "Medieval Warm Period". The temperatures we record today are reliable figures collected directly without the need for such stretched supposition.
Let’s start with the IPCC. The authors of the chapters concerning the MWP are Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones.
All of whom are clearly implicated in fraud from the recent CRU leaks.
Second, the palioclimate records, that have given us the infamous hockey stick has been disproven time and time again.
Third the most recent report includes Briffa’s record that shows a clear divergence in the tree ring record from 1960 to present. That divergence problem casts unmistakable doubt on the use of tree ring data to prove global annual temperature.
Simply saying that “scientists say” wont work for me Sick. It won’t work because there is too much science that refutes the idea and too much evidence that the main players are lying and twisting data to get a result they have already formulated in their minds.
Your “Myth busting” has been busted. There was a Medieval Warming Period. It was warmer than the present by a half degree or more, and it lasted 300 years.
That isn’t “republican speak” that is science speak.
A Round, Warm Earth:
Debunking the Republican Denials of Global Climate Change
Myth 3: The current global warming trends are nothing more than natural repetitions of warming seen during medieval times.
Republicans are eager to cite what they call the "Medieval Warm Period" as proof that global climate change is a purely natural event, a nothing to worry about. They claim that global temperatures in medieval times exceeded the global temperatures of today, and were the result of purely natural causes. However, the scientific review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has strongly rejected the validity of this claim, and found that warming trends today are more dramatic than at any time in the last thousand years.
This myth is based on a number of false premises. First of all, the increase in global temperatures during the "Medieval Warm Period" has been found in a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies to be greatly less than the warming that is taking place today. Second, this myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends. Third, the Republicans who make claims about a "Medieval Warm Period" that supposedly dwarfs the current warming trend base their claims upon a comparison of temperatures in medieval times to temperatures during the entire 20th Century. The problem with doing so is that the comparison clumps all of the 20th Century together as if it is one moment in time with one temperature, thus treating the dramatic increase in global temperature from the beginning of the 20th Century to the end of the 20th Century as if it does not exist. Furthermore, the evidence for significant warming in Europe in medieval times is not completely clear. Republican analysts frequently confuse evidence of drought with evidence for temperature increase, and so make a leap of faith when they make their claims of a "Medieval Warm Period". The temperatures we record today are reliable figures collected directly without the need for such stretched supposition.
If the "Medieval Warm Period" is not important in debunking the theory of man made global warming today, why is it that the entire period was deleted from the chart that was submitted in the International Panel On Climate Change's 2001 International Climate Change Report leaving the impression on the chart of a stable climate history up until recent history? The same chart submitted in 1995 by the International Panel On Climate Change had it in and showed the same temperature increase that we were having at the time the graph was submitted in 2001. I suppose they straightened out the bar on the graph just because it did not matter that it showed a pattern of the earth warming in the past since man made global warming is REAL no matter what data exists showing otherwise.
If the "Medieval Warm Period" is not important in debunking the theory of man made global warming today, why is it that the entire period was deleted from the chart that was submitted in the International Panel On Climate Change's 2001 International Climate Change Report leaving the impression on the chart of a stable climate history up until recent history? The same chart submitted in 1995 by the International Panel On Climate Change had it in and showed the same temperature increase that we were having at the time the graph was submitted in 2001. I suppose they straightened out the bar on the graph just because it did not matter that it showed a pattern of the earth warming in the past since man made global warming is REAL no matter what data exists showing otherwise.
Look, this is such a joke. these guys refer to the IPCC report to say this.
what they fail to either realize or care about is that the guys who wrote the report are the same guys we now know are playing fast and loose with the facts.
Quite simply they are saying "the liars said it was the truth"
LOL!
and they say we are the ones relying on blind faith!
Why are the usual suspects denying the human factor in the way that we are affecting the planet, climate or otherwise? Are you people that filthy and piggish in your homes? I already know that these are the same humans that do not see the benefit of doing anyhting ecologically safe, sound and beneficial for the planet and mankind.
The threat is clear and present. Purposeful disinformation campaigns by Republicans are endangering human lives. Those who choose to do nothing about global climate change are risking the stability of civilization itself for the sake of their personal luxury.
Liars are calling liars liars. What ever am I going to believe?
My own research and experience is what I believe.
I have observed the climate has changed for the warmer in the last 50 years.
I am still working on the cause. Atmospheric CO2 is a major contributer. So is the atmospheric heating provided by the deniers and their overheated imaginations.
Why are the usual suspects denying the human factor in the way that we are affecting the planet, climate or otherwise? Are you people that filthy and piggish in your homes? I already know that these are the same humans that do not see the benefit of doing anyhting ecologically safe, sound and beneficial for the planet and mankind.
The threat is clear and present. Purposeful disinformation campaigns by Republicans are endangering human lives. Those who choose to do nothing about global climate change are risking the stability of civilization itself for the sake of their personal luxury.
Because we have common sense and realize that the earth warms and cools. It has for millions of years, and it will continue to do so long after we're gone. We understand that the GW supporters are picking and choosing their "science". We see that there are many, many people that are profiting in a very large way off of this.
We also understand that if the GW talking heads were so very concerned about the climate, they'd personally be changing the way THEY live and travel. They'd dump the mansions. The wouldn't be taking private jets everywhere they go. They wouldn't be traveling in motorcades.
But no, they'll just get up and preach about the "horrors" of climate change and make EVERYONE ELSE change. Then they'll collect their check and go home.
It's a sham and those that really believe this garbage are incredibly unintelligent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here You Go - Artificial Trees!
