Global Warming Update
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
BigTitLvr
Well-Known Member
What ill effects?! Didn't you see "The Day After Tomorrow?"could you please state some of these "ill effects"?
thanks.
That's all the proof I need! The rest of you need to educate yourselves!
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
Can we get carbon credits for them? And as always, the young are tasty, whether baked, boiled, or fried.Shouldn't we simply eliminate half the world's population?
Big P
Well-Known Member
theres so many shoes dropping its starting to smell like feet in here
Climate scientists withdraw claims of rising sea levels...
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
• Read the full story of the hacked climate emails
David Adam guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT
The Maldives is likely to become submerged if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels. Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our
Climate scientists withdraw claims of rising sea levels...
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
• Read the full story of the hacked climate emails
David Adam guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT
The Maldives is likely to become submerged if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels. Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our
CrackerJax
New Member
I guess cremation is out....Can we get carbon credits for them? And as always, the young are tasty, whether baked, boiled, or fried.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
[youtube]fv11W5OODeM[/youtube]
[youtube]5IdFVTTq8hc&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]5IdFVTTq8hc&feature=related[/youtube]
Big P
Well-Known Member
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the Climategate affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble keeping track of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.
The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
More...
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of scientific fraud for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBCs environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBCs website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the hockey stick graph which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
Enlarge
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but its probably not as good as it should be.
Theres a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no statistically significant warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled until recently and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Joness excuses for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and mates.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professors concessions over medieval warming were significant because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010
- Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
- There has been no global warming since 1995
- Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
The academic at the centre of the Climategate affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble keeping track of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.
The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
More...
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of scientific fraud for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBCs environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBCs website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the hockey stick graph which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
Enlarge
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but its probably not as good as it should be.
Theres a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no statistically significant warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled until recently and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Joness excuses for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and mates.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professors concessions over medieval warming were significant because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Yeah...clearly you missed both those clips... They addressed every single point of propaganda you just posted...
Go watch the videos, it's no more than 15 minutes. Check the data and BBC reports for yourself. The media outlets you're getting your information from are spinning the story. Go read the source emails and see for yourself.
Go watch the videos, it's no more than 15 minutes. Check the data and BBC reports for yourself. The media outlets you're getting your information from are spinning the story. Go read the source emails and see for yourself.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
You remind me of one of those crazy bible thumping preachers standing on park benches screaming at people to listen to him. "Watch my videos! Watch my videos!" LOL
CrackerJax
New Member
Propaganda? That guy is a leading PROPONENT of global warming Paddy....it is also more current than ur videos.
It's not propaganda..... it the resemblance of science coming back on board.
3 months ago, you would be quoting Dr. Jones.... now it's propaganda?
You have officially entered into "conspiracy" type thinking.
It's best to keep an open mind ... like I do. Go with the data...but be sure ur smart enough to recognize falsehoods ... like me.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
I didn't say what he was saying was propaganda. I said the way the media outlet P posted was spinning it was propaganda. I told him if he went and read the actual report where the lines "no significant global warming has occurred since 1995" and others are taken completely out of context. The clips I posted detail this exactly.Propaganda? That guy is a leading PROPONENT of global warming Paddy....it is also more current than ur videos.
It's not propaganda..... it the resemblance of science coming back on board.
3 months ago, you would be quoting Dr. Jones.... now it's propaganda?
You have officially entered into "conspiracy" type thinking.
It's best to keep an open mind ... like I do. Go with the data...but be sure ur smart enough to recognize falsehoods ... like me.
The media quote mined the report, picked bits out that made it seem like it's all false, and then when they questioned the guy about it, he refers back to the report and says exactly what they did. Just like the media always does.
DON'T BELIEVE ME! Go read the report for yourself. Every single media outlet has an agenda to push, so why would you believe it without verifying it for yourself?
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php
CrackerJax
New Member
Now there are calls for criminal prosecution and at least one senator wants to RECALL Gore and have him explain himself and his outright LIES.
Anyone seen Al Gore lately? That turnip head has gone to ground!!
Way to go Turnip head.....
Anyone seen Al Gore lately?
That turnip head has gone to ground!! Way to go Turnip head.....
P
PadawanBater
Guest
[youtube]w9SGw75pVas[/youtube]
Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from Outward longwave
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Trends in Forcings
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
29000 data sets, press release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
29000 data sets
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
Global Energy Imbalance:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
Isotopes:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
Do your research.
Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from Outward longwave
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Trends in Forcings
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
29000 data sets, press release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
29000 data sets
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
Global Energy Imbalance:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
Isotopes:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
Do your research.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Voters should keep the global warming hoax in mind as they consider what the democrats are trying to sell them in the form of Obamacare. It's the same wolf in a different outfit.
CrackerJax
New Member
Paddy still insists on posting faulty data as real science...
One bad apple spoils the whole bunch Paddy. It's called public perception. Global warming is in a "do over" phase.
One bad apple spoils the whole bunch Paddy. It's called public perception. Global warming is in a "do over" phase.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Paddy still insists on posting faulty data as real science...
One bad apple spoils the whole bunch Paddy. It's called public perception. Global warming is in a "do over" phase.
Dude, I just sourced 7 or 8 different sites and you're still using the "it's all fake science!" bit?
This is what I was talking about earlier, in order to believe CC doesn't exist, you have to believe in a global conspiracy perpetuating the lie.
Each link has verifiable evidence and PROOF to support CC, Glenn Beck himself admits "you'd have to be an idiot not to believe the science behind it" (but spins it the opposite way on camera)..
If it's wrong, point out where it's wrong. Lets see your research skills put to work. Point out one bit from any one of those links that you think is wrong and why.
I'm the only one posting anything scientific. The rest of the posters in opposition to CC are posting stuff from media outlets.
I even listed the website to go READ the ACTUAL EMAILS you guys claim are the catalyst for this whole "global warming conspiracy" - GO READ THEM!
Your lack of followup research is outstanding dude, it's like you hear one bit of information - right or wrong - and add it into the collection of tricks in opposition to CC, then when I or someone else points it out, you say it's "pseudo-science"... (just like the creationists do with evolution... You are aware)...