Global Warming does not exist

[Dauphin]

Is seeing believing?

I wonder if people at the end of the 21st Century will blame an average 2.5C temperature rise on natural global warming. People at the end of the 20th Century seem to believe so.

If things keep getting warmer and warmer will they still believe that it is natural and that we should just ignore it? At what point would they believe it to be man-made? Is the conundrum so ethereal that some people will never be convinced?

[Docfeelgood]

I thought we were in the start of a new ice age.

[Wraith]

--"It seems to me that most of the people who claim that global warming doesnt exist are people with a vested interest in it not existing."

And most of the people who claim that it does exist are people with a vested interest in it existing. What's your point?

--"The scientists in the presidental commison agreed that there is a 90% or better chance of global warming caused by human actions."

Which commission would this be? There's just so many of them...
And a large number of scientists with similar credentials claim that global warming is either not happening or is not anthropogenic.

You can find "experts" who agree with any position.

Interesting thing to note here, however, is that even the NASA scientist who initially lent credibility to the global warming scare has since been steadily backing off his testimony.

--"Any indication that global warming might not occur is widely publicised,"

I'd say that greater than 90% of the articles I've seen about global warming not only do not take this stance, but assume that global warming is happening and is human caused, and really about how "we should fix it" rather than questioning its existence.

--". Warm places will be warmer and cold places will be colder."

Not from what I've seen. Global warming is more likely to increase temperatures mostly in the coldest areas and during the coldest times.

--"At the rate the tempurature is rising"

That's the thing. It isn't, not really. The satellite temperature record actually shows a slight decline if you're using the more current set of figures. Note that groups like the IPCC are resisting this, because the new range covers temperatures after some El Nino events that pushed averages up temporarily.

--"It's estimated that within the next century, global temperature will rise by ~1 degree celsius (and in the very worst case scenarios, even more - as much as 5)"

Those "estimates" are based on computer models that even their creators admit cannot properly model the weather. These things aren't even accurate days ahead, much less years or centuries.

I would also like to see references to any of your "proofs" there, btw.

Wraith
"In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by people who 'thought they were doing the right thing'..."
-- Charles M. Schulz

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Wraith

I would also like to see references to any of your "proofs" there, btw.

Surely you must of heard the explenations and evidence of global warming a million times, I imagine you've just conveniently dismissed or forgotten it all, but if you honeslty have never learned about it, this is a good website.



That said, it is you that is lacking proof, all you have done is dismissed or ignored all of the evidence provided and said "no".

Infact, your only real point - that about the satellite measurements - only shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

1) The satellite measurements are of atmospheric temperature, where as other measurements are of ground surface and ocean tempereture. Two completely different measurements, which can not be considered the same.

2) Satellite measurements have only been recording the past 20 years.

3) Satellite measurements do not show a decline in tempereture, they show no real change at all (in the past 20 years).

(from the website I linked to)

Although scientists have incontrovertible evidence that the surfaces of the land and oceans have been warming, some scientists are not yet convinced that the atmosphere is also warming. Satellite data on temperatures in the lower 4.8 miles of the atmosphere, spanning a period from 1979 to the present, show little if any warming trend compared with the surface-based record during the same period. However, the 1979-2000 satellite data series may be too short to show a trend in atmospheric temperature. There also are physical reasons (such as the different responses of the atmosphere and surface to stratospheric ozone depletion and El Nino events) to expect that changes in atmospheric temperatures may not exactly match temperature changes on the surface during this period.

Balloon-borne instruments, which researchers have used to measure temperatures in the lower 4.8 miles of the atmosphere since 1958, show an overall warming trend from 1958-2000 similar to that of the surface record. But when just the period 1979-2000 is considered, the balloon data resemble the satellite data (see the charts below). This finding suggests that atmospheric and surface temperature trends may diverge in the short term.

Measurement errors associated with the satellite-based technology, and short-term variations in temperature due to ozone depletion and El Ninos (see glossary), may be responsible for the lack of a warming trend in the relatively short satellite record. Nevertheless, to many scientists, the absence of a warming trend in the satellite data provides an important caution that there is still much to learn about the global climate.

[DanS]

I might note that many of the measurements that were taken in the past were not highly precise. Anybody who has done simple digital remote sensing will give you this caveat--it's remarkably good in getting you within a degree or two, but is no good in getting you further (many instruments only give the temp in whole degree celsius). So everybody will be using statistical models to correct these numbers, as was done by NASA, etc.

For the next 20 years or so (or whatever), confidence will not be inspired in these numbers, even while each side uses them to back their claims. These instruments are increasing in precision.

[RGBVideo]

The "sea levels rise" -thingie is not the problem in global warming. Weather is.
Ever heard of El Ninõ? I don't want to get the weather of northern Saskatchewan in here.

[Wraith]

--"but if you honeslty have never learned about it, this is a good website."

Hardly. Their intro there references almost nothing except the IPCC summary (not the report, the summary; some of the authors of the report itself have critized the summary for being an inaccurate representation of the report, and focusing too much on the extreme-worst-case scenarios). I do not consider the IPCC summary valid (scientifically) material for this debate. Even the report itself is questionable, since the computer models used are highly inadequate. IIRC, they do not even take water vapor (already mentioned as the big greenhouse gas) into account.
In their other links I notice a lot of words like "anticipated" and "projected impact" and very little about actual observation.

--"That said, it is you that is lacking proof, all you have done is dismissed or ignored all of the evidence provided and said "no"."

No specific evidence has been provided to contradict. You seem to be operating from a "human-caused global warming is scientifically accepted fact" basis, which is quite definitely not the case. I am saying that there is a lot of debate on this still, there is certainly not a scientific consensus, and I think that global warming is almost certainly nothing more than a shibboleth.

--"The satellite measurements are of atmospheric temperature"

Where did I say otherwise? I am perfectly aware of this, and this is actually part of my point. The surface temperature records are notoriously inaccurate, which is why I avoided talking about them at all. If you can show me a study that uses surface temperatures and actually controls for the urban heat island effect then I'll take a look at it. Until then, the accuracy is below that needed for computer models.

--"Satellite measurements have only been recording the past 20 years."

Yes. So? They're the most accurate record we have. If the computer models can't match these records with any accuracy (note: inability to match observed results means worthless model) what good are they?

--"Satellite measurements do not show a decline in tempereture, they show no real change at all (in the past 20 years)."

Notice what I said about shifting data sets? Here's a NASA article from '97 noting the slight downward trend. The atmospheric temperature change over time has been pretty much insignificant as far as this debate goes. Problem here is that the computer models used to generate the IPCC report don't match this little fact.

--"The "sea levels rise" -thingie is not the problem in global warming"

It's also total bull so far. Anyone that brings up Tuvaluv is going to get smacked.

Wraith
"Once you remove the absurdity from human existence, there isn't much left."
-- Alexis A. Gilliland

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Wraith
No specific evidence has been provided to contradict.

You mean, aside from all of the things which you have ignored.

You have yet to explain the increased rates of global warming, sea level rising, mountain glacier melting, and ice cap melting during the second half of the 20th century.

You seem to be operating from a "human-caused global warming is scientifically accepted fact" basis, which is quite definitely not the case.

There's a pot calling kettle black if I've ever seen it.

--"The satellite measurements are of atmospheric temperature"

Where did I say otherwise?

You compared it to ground tempereture.

I am perfectly aware of this, and this is actually part of my point. The surface temperature records are notoriously inaccurate, which is why I avoided talking about them at all.

There you go again, just saying "no".

Explain how they are "notoriously inaccurate". And how satellite measurements of the atmospheric tempereture would be any more accurate. (and why they should be considered with out also considering ground and ocean measurements)

If you can show me a study that uses surface temperatures and actually controls for the urban heat island effect then I'll take a look at it. Until then, the accuracy is below that needed for computer models.

Again, you fail to explain how this effects the accuracy of the measurements, or how the measurements don't "control the urban heat island effect" - whatever that is supposed to mean.

(although i have no idea what you where implying, shouldn't the heat created by cities be considered?)

--"Satellite measurements have only been recording the past 20 years."

Yes. So? They're the most accurate record we have.

20 years isn't long enough to give us any kind of real information about global warming trends. And yes, it is the most accurate at recording ATMOSPHERIC temperetures, which are not the same as ground and ocean temperetures!

The atmospheric temperature change over time has been pretty much insignificant as far as this debate goes.

Then why are you focusing your arguments around it?

And, if you only consider a 20 year period, of course it is insignificant! But, maybe you didn't read what I quoted in my last post:

Balloon-borne instruments, which researchers have used to measure temperatures in the lower 4.8 miles of the atmosphere since 1958, show an overall warming trend from 1958-2000 similar to that of the surface record. But when just the period 1979-2000 is considered, the balloon data resemble the satellite data (see the charts below). This finding suggests that atmospheric and surface temperature trends may diverge in the short term.

[Wraith]

--"You mean, aside from all of the things which you have ignored."

The only specific you've provided was that EPA web-site, which is based largely on the IPCC summary, and I outlined a couple major problems I have with that.

--"You have yet to explain the increased rates of global warming"

There is no need to explain something that is not there. .05 degrees C per decade is well within margin-of-error of our current records, not to mention natural variation (the climate is a chaotic system, after all).

--"sea level rising"

Again, please provide where you're getting this from. The only "rising sea level" stories I've seen in the media recently have been the hysterical "Tuvaluv is sinking!" stories. Too bad Tuvaluv's govermnent doesn't agree with that (their problem is erosion, not rising sea levels).

--"mountain glacier melting"

Any glacier in particular, or are we talking stories on the same level as the New York Time's "The arctic is melting!" rant they had to retract?

--"and ice cap melting"

See above.

--"Explain how they are "notoriously inaccurate"."

There have been studies done that show that the temperature readings taken in low-income areas (ie. just about all non-US or Europe readings) are highly inaccurate (for hopefully obvious reasons). Older temperature readings are also less accurate simply due to the nature of the tools of the time. More in a bit...

--"whatever that is supposed to mean."

The UHIE is the effect cities, especially their growth, have on the temperature readings. This is not an increase in global averages, this is nothing more than an inflation of the total average due to spot increases. Much of the problem lies with temperature recording stations that were originally in rural areas but are now in urban areas, skewing the over-time charts.

Yes, the heat created by cities is part of the picture, but the stations are already highly clustered in heavily populated areas (more people around to take readings, etc; readings from the sea, which covers most of the globe, are very sparse). Not controlling for this increase over time is a problem that will falsely trend the data high, especially since most of this heat has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

--"Then why are you focusing your arguments around it?"

Because none of the models used to make those outrageous IPCC predictions can account for it.
Once again, computer models that cannot reflect observed facts are worthless. The satellite records are just the quickest way of pointing out the error.

This whole CO2 argument also can't account for the rapid temperature rise before the 1940s (before the major greenhouse gas emission rise), or the cooling from the '40s to the 70s (during the major CO2 increase). Oddly enough, it looks like the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes rather than the other way around.

Wraith
"Drink up Socrates - it's all natural!"

[General Ludd]

The reasons and workings behind global warming has been explained thoroughly (not all in this thread, mind you... but I should hope you have already heard them numerous times) - the most you have said to back up any of your claims or to 'disprove' any of the claims behind global warming is to simply dismiss the evidence, pretend it doesn't exist, or cite unknown and unexplained studies which (supposing they even exist) do nothing but claim things are inaccurate.

There is no need to explain something that is not there. .05 degrees C per decade is well within margin-of-error of our current records, not to mention natural variation (the climate is a chaotic system, after all).

Half of the raise in tempereture was in the last 40 years of the 20th century, 7 of the ten hottest years are in the 1990's, all ten of the hottest years where after 1980.

The point is that there is a drastic increase in the rate of global warming during the second half of the century.

Again, please provide where you're getting this from. The only "rising sea level" stories I've seen in the media recently have been the hysterical "Tuvaluv is sinking!" stories. Too bad Tuvaluv's govermnent doesn't agree with that (their problem is erosion, not rising sea levels).

http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/dougla01/dougla01.html

(I hope you aren't trying to say that rising sea levels aren't happening altogether.)

Any glacier in particular...?

No, I thought it'd be pretty obvious that it's a world-wide phenoma.

See above.

There aren't many ice caps to choose from.




As for the rest of your post, see the begining.

[Wraith]

--"to simply dismiss the evidence"

Worthless, obviously false, created evidence needs nothing more. The only "evidence" of global warming is in the computer models I keep trashing.

Note that you are asking me to prove a negative. I'd rather disprove your claim, since I think the burden of proof is on the people who want the expensive (and, to them, profitable) action taken on their say-so.

--"7 of the ten hottest years are in the 1990's, all ten of the hottest years where after 1980."

None of this means anything, and you know it. None of those sample periods are significant enough to draw any conclusions, even without considering the other problems with the surface measurements. You're also ignoring the whole CO2 rising after the temperature change rather than before it issue I brought up.

It's also worth noting that most of that temperature change was warming in winter in the coldest air masses over Siberia and northwest America.

--"The point is that there is a drastic increase in the rate of global warming during the second half of the century."

Only with the selective manipulation of data. The only charts that show any significant warming trend are those that end their data-set during one of the major El Nino events.

--"I hope you aren't trying to say that rising sea levels aren't happening altogether"

Since we've started measuring them by satellite they've been a pretty steady couple mm a year. This is hardly a catastrophe, especially since we have absolutely no proof that we're the cause of it, since it's well within normal tidal variations.

--"No, I thought it'd be pretty obvious that it's a world-wide phenoma."

And how long ago was that little ice age?

Look, most of the glaciers reported as "disappearing" aren't permanent in the first place. There are so many hysterical scare stories in the media it's ridiculous.

--"There aren't many ice caps to choose from."

I mean the NYT article. The one where, on the say-so of a single UN "scientist", they published an article about how there was free water at the arctic ice-cap for the first time in fifty million years (and were only off by 49,999,999 years). The one where they had to have a lot of other scientists call them up and tell them that, no, what they were talking about happens every year. The NYT had to retract the story, not that it stopped them from referencing it later on.
In fact, the small sampling of arctic and antarctic temperature samples indicates the poles are getting colder, not warmer.

--"As for the rest of your post, see the begining"

Circular bull****? You have to watch those recursive loops, before you know it you're up in your eyeballs...

Start with http://www.reason.org/climatefaqs.html

Continue to

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/

Wraith
"It is not true that life is one damn thing after another - it is one damn thing over and over."
-- Edna St. Vincent Millay

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Wraith
Since we've started measuring them by satellite they've been a pretty steady couple mm a year. This is hardly a catastrophe, especially since we have absolutely no proof that we're the cause of it, since it's well within normal tidal variations.

And the rates at which sea levels where rising in the past is much lower then 2mm.

Did you even look at the website I linked to?

[Wraith]

--"Did you even look at the website I linked to?"

You mean where it says:

Varekamp et al. [1992] did find significant periodic changes of sea level in their investigation, and concluded that their ``data show no unequivocal correlation between warm periods (on a decadal to centennial time-scale) and accelerated sea level rise.'

?

Wraith
"I saw a woman wearing a sweatshirt with 'Guess' on it. I said, 'Thyroid problem?'"
-- Emo Philips

[Ramo]

A few things to note about satellite data:

1. The orbits of satellites tend to degrade. Much of the "cooling trend" in this dataset can be attributed to the fact that their altitudes have been decreasing due to atmospheric drag (pressure and temperature being proportional).

2. Satellite data experiences noise due to surface microwave radiation.

3. The disparity between satellite data and surface data has been far from uniform. In some areas, such as in North America, satellite data tends to be equivalent to surface data, whilst mostly over oceans, the two datasets have diverged.

4. Satellite data shows different results in each area of the atmosphere. While there's a cooling trend in the lower stratosphere, the lower troposphere is getting slightly warmer, and th upper troposphere is getting clearly warmer.

In short, satellite data should not be trusted.

[General Ludd]

Do you always look for the most irrelivant piece of information?

Originally posted by Wraith
You mean where it says:

Of course I don't mean that. All that bit suggests is that accelerated raises in sea levels may not always correspond with warm periods. (which might actually be relevant if it where not for all of the other symptoms of increased global warming)


Try reading the rest of it, particularily the studies which measure the rate of sea level rising, and how the past 100 years has been signifigantly greater.