Where is defense of guys manipulating data in favor of global warming? Do we have "consensus" Global Warming was ho

There's not even a need to defend them. They weren't the only people studying the climate, you know.

Wendell Gee wrote:

Where's the graph to show that other years in the last decade are not higher than a decade ago.

Both graphs I linked to show that. The period from 1998 to 2008 started higher and ended slightly lower.

Look at the temperature and CO2 data from the Vostok Ice Core:

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years

Notice both temperature and CO2 concentration go up and down. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. But also notice, CO2 concentration falls slower than temperature does. This can't happen if CO2 is the only contributor to global warming, thus CO2 does NOT drive the warming.

If you want 2 opposing views:

http://www.realclimate.org/

These guys think humans cause climate change

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

He thinks climate change is a natural phenomena.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Look at the temperature and CO2 data from the Vostok Ice Core:

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years

Notice both temperature and CO2 concentration go up and down. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. But also notice, CO2 concentration falls slower than temperature does. This can't happen if CO2 is the only contributor to global warming, thus CO2 does NOT drive the warming.

If you want 2 opposing views:

http://www.realclimate.org/

These guys think humans cause climate change

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

He thinks climate change is a natural phenomena.

Huh? No one said CO2 was the only contributor to global warming. It's a contributor.

Are you just looking at the graph to draw your conclusions? Because that doesn't work too well.

"Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design, and rejects evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species"

sorry guy.

MarathonMind wrote:

There is no doubt that we have been in a warming trend. The evidence is in all the receding glaciers and ice sheets. That is undeniable... for sane people anyways.

See this is where it gets frustrating. It's entirely possible to agree that we are in a warming period, yet to reject that AGW is the leading cause.

The real issue is whether you accept the prediction of GCMs. The intersection between observational data and modeling is where things get especially messy.

Anyone who dismisses such objections out of hand is affected by the Jones-Mann-et al groupthink or is simply ignorant about how such models work.

A poster on the DotEarth blog pointed out this paper: "Seductive Simulations: Uncertainty Distributions around Climate Models", Myanna Lahsen, Social Studies of Science, December, 2005.

Really troubling stuff about the way GC modelers present their work to the public.

MarathonMind wrote:

How do you falsify receding glaciers and disintegrating ice sheets?

or atmospheric carbon?

Human causation is not a given, but the fact that there has been warming cannot be disputed.

We can agree that:

Carbon dioxide has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere.

Over time there have been periods when CO2 has increased and decreased naturally.

Life has survived during periods with high CO2 and low CO2.

CO2 levels will change with or without human contributions.

Over the countless millions or billion years, the Earth had multiple ice ages and prolonged warming cycles. This includes glaciers growing and receding.

The falsified data I'm referring to belongs to Phil Jones:

Phil Jones is postulating global warming theory on the study of 3 trees located in Siberia and their rings. I'm no scientist and perhaps my 15 level IQ (per Keith Stone) limits my thinking. Does cherry picking 3 trees for a statistical 2,000 year old temperature record constitute a representative sample? Utter nonsense. The other trees that were studied were tossed out because the data did not conform to their theory.

That is just one example, there are many more, but i will stop for now.

And think of poor Canada - where are all the skiers going to go to now ‘global warming’ has melted the ice-sheets.

Ooops - they’re having record snow falls!

How did this happen?

Has Gore been consulted?

http://www.skirebel.com/magazine/archives/4993

And think of poor Australia-where are all the sun bathers going to go now that global cooling has turned the country into a rain forest?

Oooops-they are in the middle of an eight year drought, which is now simply considered permanent climate change (parts of the country will run out of drinking water in a few years)!

How did this happen?

Has Sen. Inhoffe been consulted?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/drought_12-01.html

Precious Roy wrote:

And think of poor Australia-where are all the sun bathers going to go now that global cooling has turned the country into a rain forest?

Oooops-they are in the middle of an eight year drought, which is now simply considered permanent climate change (parts of the country will run out of drinking water in a few years)!

How did this happen?

Has Sen. Inhoffe been consulted?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/drought_12-01.html

You might want to include in your consideration that the Earth's magnetic field is in the process of reversing, and is currently weakest over the part of the globe where Australia happens to be situated. This is one reason for the ozone thinning in that part of the world. This means that sunshine is a little stronger over this part of the globe than it would otherwise be. It also helps explain why the southern part of Australia (nearer to Antarctica) is warmer than the northern part (closer to the equator), which is not at all intuitive.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Both graphs I linked to show that. The period from 1998 to 2008 started higher and ended slightly lower.

Come on, you're complaining about arbitrary baselines then you go and cherry pick the highest point and say "Look we're lower now, therefor we're going down!"

Look at your very own 5-year average graph and tell me that _on average_ we're declining.

Or

Look at the other graph and tell me that you really expect the end of this decade to show any consistent decrease. Again, you picked a start/end period that shows decline but it's practically the only possible way to show it in recent years. Any other logical pair of years shows an incline.

dmb wrote:

right, so there's nothing wrong with using data that supports your point, but when it doesn't you just toss it out

So proxy data might be unreliable at times? Hmmm, what do you want to bet that this has happened more than once?

Anyone who defends this has lost all objectivity. The truly ironic thing here is that people who claim to represent "science" and rationality are behaving in the manner of the "true believer." They don't really need to see the data, they already know what the truth is. If some truth is inconvenient, they just omit it...

Groupthink and self referential circle jerks are never going to produce science that will hold up to scrutiny.

That is what Liberals do on all things always. Global warming was just a big set up to get Liberals in office. Only liberals could handle such a think like warming cause republicans don't care. So the teachers union jams our children every day with liberal crap like global warming and just lie and get rid of facts and the truth. Been this way for decades and what kills me is no accountability. They just shove it under the rug when liberals wacko ideas and claims are always proved wrong. Its all bullshiiiityy and always has been.

Magnetism has no effect on ozone. The ozone holes are around the geographical poles, not the magnetic poles.

Ozone depletion normally causes a drop in temps. The drought in Australia is caused by an interaction between global warming and ozone depletion:

The Same old... wrote:

That is what Liberals do on all things always. Global warming was just a big set up to get Liberals in office. Only liberals could handle such a think like warming cause republicans don't care. So the teachers union jams our children every day with liberal crap like global warming and just lie and get rid of facts and the truth. Been this way for decades and what kills me is no accountability. They just shove it under the rug when liberals wacko ideas and claims are always proved wrong. Its all bullshiiiityy and always has been.

you are unbearably stupid

IllinoisMaster wrote:

You might want to include in your consideration that the Earth's magnetic field is in the process of reversing, and is currently weakest over the part of the globe where Australia happens to be situated. This is one reason for the ozone thinning in that part of the world. This means that sunshine is a little stronger over this part of the globe than it would otherwise be. It also helps explain why the southern part of Australia (nearer to Antarctica) is warmer than the northern part (closer to the equator), which is not at all intuitive.

You might want to include in your consideration that you're full of shit.

Real-time data from various Geoscience Australia Observatories:

A few examples:

Kakadu, N Australia, total field strength ~46.3 microTeslas.

Charters Towers, NE Australia, total field strength ~49.2 microTeslas.

Gnangara, SW Australia, total field strength ~58.2 microTeslas.

Canberra, SE Australia, total field strength ~58.1 microTeslas):

Now compare this to, say, a similar data set from the USGS which ranges from about 9.5 microTeslas in Point Barrow, Alaska to about 35.4 microTeslas in Guam.

IllinoisMaster wrote:

You might want to include in your consideration that the Earth's magnetic field is in the process of reversing, and is currently weakest over the part of the globe where Australia happens to be situated. This is one reason for the ozone thinning in that part of the world. This means that sunshine is a little stronger over this part of the globe than it would otherwise be. It also helps explain why the southern part of Australia (nearer to Antarctica) is warmer than the northern part (closer to the equator), which is not at all intuitive.

Is there any evidence of this? My (limited) experience in Australia is that it is much hotter in the North than the South.

Precious Roy wrote:

And think of poor Australia-where are all the sun bathers going to go now that global cooling has turned the country into a rain forest?

Oooops-they are in the middle of an eight year drought, which is now simply considered permanent climate change (parts of the country will run out of drinking water in a few years)!

How did this happen?

Has Sen. Inhoffe been consulted?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/drought_12-01.html

Does it always have to be global cooling or warming? Does there always have to be a worldwide disaster? How about we just stop the nonsense and hysteria and just let the world be instead of diagnosing it with all these bullsh*t illnesses? The world is not going to end.

Exactly right though. Any you are a lar and live in some dream world of smoke and mirrors that has been shoved up your butt all your life. What did your last Prez do? Run around sticking girls with cigars in the oval office and shooting his ...all over them. He even said first me as Prez, then Gore then Hillary. Gore was just doing his masked work on Warming for the Hillary...when your boy Obama was getting in ...POOOFFF..Gore was gone. You are a fool and a liar and why are we at war ...greater one than before? I thought your boy was gonna do the peace, love and flowers thing? You are the idiot and the liar.

I didn't pick the 1998 start point, the poster I originally responded to did. Since then the average is down.

You may be right, the rest of the decade may go up. I won't dispute that. But that doesn't indicate humans cause global warming.