The Great Global Warming Swindle

[avgas]

I have a friend in Hong Kong who sends me photos and you can't even see the tops of buildings because of the grey smog.

Thats nothing mate - in Shanghai during winter you can not see 500m down the road, and they don't get fog.
Shanghai has a new 'coal fired' power station every 6 months.

[Skyryder]

If you look closer, you'll see that what I provided was the actual data.

However, thankyou for that link, embeded within it was a link to the actual GISS data used. I only had indirect access to that previously. I would draw your attention to this found at the top of the data page.

ie, that data is for ground stations only. It excludes all sea based stations, and all atmospheric records (Radiosonde and satellite). It is not therefore a true global measurement.

I have added the ground based temperatures to the previous graph. They do tell a slightly different story, but still show significant cooling over the past year.

At the end of day it really comes down to credibility. Data can be provided by both camps in support of their position.

If THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE is the best that the proponents, that refuse to believe in Co2 emissions are causing adverse changes to global weather can produce, then the credibility of their position has got to be suspect. Carl Wunsch Professor of MIT’S Department of Oceanography who was in the original cut first aired on UK’ C4 channel has claimed the documentary was one sided, anti educational and misleading. Ofcam received 246 complaints about the swindle one was co sighed by 37 UK and US scientists. Durkin the producer of the Swindle has responded to criticism by personal abuse. There is plenty of scientific opinion (based of credible data) that clearly support the position that temperature warming is a direct result of Co2 emissions. And as mentioned in an earlier post those that disagree tend to have little credibility amongst their peers/or their data has been produced for those whose business concerns are directly or indirectly profit driven at the expense of having to comply with lowering of Co2 levels.

On this note we can agree to disagree.

Skyryder


PS There is some date that shows the the temperture has recently plateaued. This suggest a leveling off from previous temperture rises not a reduction as cooling implies.

[Jantar]

On this note we can agree to disagree.
.

seconded.

I will keep both sets of data up to date in case anyone ever wishes to refer to them in the future.

[Hitcher]

There's a good article in today's Independent Financial Review, written by Bob Carter from James Cook University in Queensland:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

[k14]

Thanks hitcher.

These youtube videos were an interesting watch too:




Gleaned from this little article here

I'd be very interested if anyone was to mention Prof Carters credibility!!

[Skyryder]

There's a good article in today's Independent Financial Review, written by Bob Carter from James Cook University in Queensland:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

Got a warning shot from the paper mentioned: Independant Financial Review. A right wing buisness newspaper. Yep Independent? So I's takes a gander and first three links are pro buisness in that they refute Co2 as a cause for global warming. Seems to me a collection of sites that are in opposition to Co2 emissions as the cause of global warming. Now I could be wrong Hitch but can you recomend a site on the link posted that advocates the cause of global warming due to Co2 emissions. Just one ol' son just one. Save me a lot of time searching.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Thanks hitcher.

These youtube videos were an interesting watch too:




Gleaned from this little article here

I'd be very interested if anyone was to mention Prof Carters credibility!!

Just more rubbish. The belittling of those that have an opposing view and using a time frame that stops at 2000. Said it all no need to say any more.



Skyryder

[Maki]

Just watch it, will you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573

There are people in this world who use science to find the truth. There are others who misuse it to tell lies. Figuring out who is who is not really that hard....

I can understand those who doubted global warming created by human activity 10 years ago. The issue was still somewhat controversial and major climatic events that have happened since then had yet to unfold. Now, in 2008 the facts are on the table. Those who still say they doubt man made global warming remind me of Hillary Rodham Clinton. They fail to acknowledge a fact that is staring them in the face because they do not like the implications. Words that come to mind are mule and stubborn.

[Jantar]

...I can understand those who doubted global warming created by human activity 10 years ago. The issue was still somewhat controversial and major climatic events that have happened since then had yet to unfold. Now, in 2008 the facts are on the table. Those who still say they doubt man made global warming remind me of Hillary Rodham Clinton. They fail to acknowledge a fact that is staring them in the face because they do not like the implications. Words that come to mind are mule and stubborn.

Sorry, I can't watch your video. Dialup is just too slow for that. But I agree with you the facts are on the table. Temperature data for may 2008 has just been released on the MSU site, and it shows a further massive drop in global temperature. And Anthony Watts provides an even broader context to this latest seventeen-month trend:

the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594�C [gives] a 16 month change in temperature of -0.774�C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon �global warming signal� of the last 100 years...

I have updated the MSU graph so people can see the facts for themselves.

[avgas]

The problem in all the data is correlation.
Its very easy to state "The 2 lines match therefore there is a correlation". I'm not saying the data is right or wrong - im just saying that its not the whole picture. I see a whole lot of talk right now about "Global Warming", but very little USEFUL action. Carbon "trading" is complete and utter bullshit - if it were truly trading then credits would be 'sold' to those who plant trees. Science dollars are being porely spent in "calculating the end of man-kind" rather than finding real solutions.
Imagine taking your car to the mechanic and he checked the whole thing over, gave you the keys back and tells you "Yeh, she is serviceable - and she will last you another 4335km if you drive at the current rate" Your response will be "Thats great mate - but why do you just fix the fucken car and make sure it never stops!"
Now look at all those who make claims, for or against climate change, they either are getting paid, or want something to their name. They don't care about the solutions. They are over priced, over intelligent, salesmen. Expecting the rest of the world to both listen to them, and create them a solution.
Who is John Galt indeed!

[Maki]

Apologies. This should work:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573

[Maki]

Sorry, I can't watch your video. Dialup is just too slow for that. But I agree with you the facts are on the table. Temperature data for may 2008 has just been released on the MSU site, and it shows a further massive drop in global temperature. And Anthony Watts provides an even broader context to this latest seventeen-month trend:


I have updated the MSU graph so people can see the facts for themselves.

The fact is global temperatures have gone up and down due to natural causes and will continue to do so, the most pervasive of these being the so called Milankovic cycles.

The problem is that man made global warming is being superimposed on these natural cycles. I am am suprised you need me to tell you that though. Maybe you already knew it, but didn't want to know...

[Pwalo]

The fact is global temperatures have gone up and down due to natural causes and will continue to do so, the most pervasive of these being the so called Milankovic cycles.

The problem is that man made global warming is being supermiposed on these natural cycles. I am am suprised you need me to tell you that though. Maybe you already knew it, but didn't want to know...

Well put. And (to spell it out a bit more) correlation does not prove a causal relationship. Whoops, sorry about the grammar.

[Jantar]

The fact is global temperatures have gone up and down due to natural causes and will continue to do so, the most pervasive of these being the so called Milankovic cycles.

The problem is that man made global warming is being supermiposed on these natural cycles. I am am suprised you need me to tell you that though. Maybe you already knew it, but didn't want to know...

The most pervasive of these on a 100000 year cycle being the so called Milankovic cycle. Recent research by NIWA scientists in christchurch, and a line of research that I am currently following indicates that in the time periods we are most concerned with the cycle with the best correlation is the IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation), also reffered to by the Hadley Center as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It has a cycle of around 40 - 50 years, ie 20 -25 years warm, then 20 -25 years cold. In 1999 - 2000 we appear to have moved from a warm phase toward a cooling phase, and at a Climate variability workshop in Wellington 4 weeks ago, NIWA showed that we are now right in that negative phase and likely to stay there for a further 12 - 15 years minimum.

I am therefore fully aware of all of these cycles, but I have yet to see any evidence showing a rising trend with these cyclic effects removed.

[Maki]

The most pervasive of these on a 100000 year cycle being the so called Milankovic cycle. Recent research by NIWA scientists in christchurch, and a line of research that I am currently following indicates that in the time periods we are most concerned with the cycle with the best correlation is the IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation), also reffered to by the Hadley Center as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It has a cycle of around 40 - 50 years, ie 20 -25 years warm, then 20 -25 years cold. In 1999 - 2000 we appear to have moved from a warm phase toward a cooling phase, and at a Climate variability workshop in Wellington 4 weeks ago, NIWA showed that we are now right in that negative phase and likely to stay there for a further 12 - 15 years minimum.

I am therefore fully aware of all of these cycles, but I have yet to see any evidence showing a rising trend with these cyclic effects removed.

Well done. You are obviously able to figure things out for yourself. Keep up the good work.