Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes (Page 18)

ghostgeek: Corvin, opinion varies on what a reputable source might be but you can certainly try the links below:

http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/

Corwin: Oh brother.

I don't have time at the moment to even begin to tell you what's wrong with those articles... maybe tomorrow... and I'll also point you to some real links that aren't sensationalist crap.
-------

Edit -- And just a heads-up... when you read those kinds of articles, try reading the comments posted below them. That "Opinions" article in Forbes has some good ones.
And you might like to know that Dr. David Whitehouse from that first article is an archeologist and an ancient glass expert.... not a climatologist.

ghostgeek: OK Corvin, I'll be happy to hear from you. In the meantime, how about this from another online article:

"Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 I projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century...Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC."
[ Prof. Don J. Easterbrook, Department of Geology, Western Washington University and Global Research 2 November 2008 ] [ http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783 ]

Metaverseguy: Well I've never heard of warm water currents and cool water currents switching. BTW, those cold water currents protect the western coastlines from hurricanes by some weird rule the planet has about temperature. People claim global warming is a huge deal, but if it's just the ice caps melting and water levels rising it doesn't sound so bad. (of course I know I'm missing the end of the world)

As far as these geologic processes people seem to be pretty bad about them still. No one can predict earthquakes yet within any reasonable time frame. We've seen floods devastate countries, where if they had been preventable they would have been. Of course, oil rigs exploding and killing thousands of marine life and habitats happens as well. Yet, if these natural disasters can't be stopped in one small region is it really more reasonable to assume scientists will be able to reverse the temperature of an entire planet?

I was reading an article earlier that states a prehistoric plant that was prolific absorbed a lot of C02, like the drunken stoner absorbs reefer.

ghostgeek: I feel there should be a little historical perspective to this debate, just to see how the climate has performed over time. It would seem that during the warmest period of man's time on earth, known as the Holocene Maximum, roughly between 7000 and 3000 BC, the evidence shows that the world was, on average, hotter than it is today. Average temperatures then declined slowly, dropping sharply around 700 - 400 BC to create what is known as the "Pre-Roman Cold" phase. Following this, between 200 BC and the sixth century AD, the world then enjoyed the "Roman Warming". By the fourth century AD the climate was warmer than now. This was followed by the cold period of the Dark Ages, lasting some three centuries, which was in turn followed by rising temperatures from around 900 AD. This "Mediaeval Warming" lasted some 400 years, with temperatures generally higher than the present day. Again, temperatures then began to drop from about 1300 AD, leading to the four centuries of what we call the "Little Ice Age". This became particularly severe after 1550 AD, when average temperatures dropped to their lowest level since the end of the last glaciation. Only in the early nineteenth century did they once more start to rise again, giving rise to the period we are living through, the "Modern Warming". The picture, then, is of periods of warming followed by cooler interludes. It is also notable that temperatures could be as high as they are nowadays without being "forced" by human emissions of greenhouse gasses.

ghostgeek: Let us go into a little more detail concerning this last period of warming. It would seem, that after decades of rising temperatures in the early 20th century, particularly between 1920 and 1940, the earth began to cool. Nearly four decades of the "Little Cooling" followed. Then suddenly, around 1978, global temperatures began to rise once more. Now, though, we seem to have entered a period of basically static temperatures. As the UK Met Office says on its official website:

"July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted." [ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming ]

ghostgeek: On 1 August 2012 John R. Christy, PhD, Alabama State Climatologist, spoke to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about "climate change". The one page summary of his presentation lists the following points:

1. It is popular again to claim that extreme events, such as the current central U.S. drought,
are evidence of human-caused climate change. Actually, the Earth is very large, the weather is very dynamic, and extreme events will continue to occur somewhere, every year, naturally. The recent “extremes” were exceeded in previous decades.

2. The average warming rate of 34 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models are too sensitive to CO2. Policy based on observations, where year-to-year variations cause the most harm, will likely be far more effective than policies based on speculative model output, no matter what the future climate does.

3. New discoveries explain part of the warming found in traditional surface temperature datasets. This partial warming is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the thermometer stations. This means traditional surface datasets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming.

4. Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our relatively murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for “Red Teams” of credentialed, independent investigators, who already study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for promoting significant increases to the cost of energy for the citizens.

5. Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. Rising CO2 emissions are, therefore, one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and air pollution. Until affordable energy is developed from non- carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source as it does today.

[ http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/docs/ChristyJR_SenateEPW_120801.pdf ]

Corwin: Oh sure... there is plenty of Global Warming Denial material out there on the internet... if that's what you're looking for, you can misinform yourself all day and night if you like.

Here's a good read... a lengthy list of people and corporations who feed the Global Warming Denial Machine, and have been caught red-handed spreading lies about the climate for personal or corporate financial gain... many funded by corporations like Exxon/Mobile who have billions to lose if we begin to collectively reduce CO2 emissions.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html

And if you would like to educate yourself on some real facts and actual data, much of which shows the big picture over the last 800,000 years, visit this site... NASA's own Earth Observatory site (not a conspiracy site that cherry-picks the particular NASA data that suits their fancy). Many nice graphs and charts loaded with actual data.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

Think about it... what would governments or organizations like NASA have to gain by lying about Global Warming being a reality? NOTHING, that's what. In fact, our economy in the short term would be way better off by saying TO HELL with the environment (that's what China is doing right now, and profiting greatly from it). But fortunately the developed nations think more long term than that, and the impact of rising sea-levels and extreme weather events is going to be very very costly in the long run.

What do big corporations like Exxon/Mobile have to gain by lying to us and spending millions to perpetuate the idea that Global Warming is a myth?
BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
The tobacco industry did something very similar back in the 1960s and spent millions to try to convince the public that smoking was perfectly harmless... they lied.

Who are you going to trust?

LiptonCambell: >>>Think about it... what would governments or organizations like NASA have to gain by lying about Global Warming being a reality?

Justification for political reform.

Also, it encourages new industries, such as the organic, locally grown and pesticide free food industries(Organic food markets have seen a growth from 1 billion in 1990 to 26 billion in 2010- it increased nearly 10% between 2009-2010), Solar panels and wind turbine farms and their use in residential areas(Solar power capacity is up 418% in 4 years- sadly, I cannot find a value if the solar industry but i did find that offshore wind power is projected to be a €130 Billion Annual Market By 2020)- being green is a growing industry, with greater profits than not going green. That's why so many business's are making the switch- for profit.

Not to mention the tearing down of those gas and oil giants you mentioned. Lots of people would be happy to see that happen, regardless of the consequences.

Saying no one has ANYTHING to gain from encouraging that global warming is real is outright deceitful. People do things because they can PROFIT off it- this is no different. This could very well be new industries using the public fear of the future, the public's hatred of 'corporations' and general misanthropy to justify massive sweeping changes to society.

ghostgeek: Corvin, nobody seems to be disputing the general historical pattern I outlined above. Below is a quote from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, based at the Princeton University Forrestal Campus, that clearly states 20th century warming occurred mainly in two seperate periods:

"The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing."

[ http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/early-20th-century-global-warming ]

As for the fact that temperature rises seem to have stalled over the last few years, well, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devoted a section of its 2013 physical science assessment to analysis of the 1998–2012 warming hiatus.

Also, just to show it been as warm in the distant past as it is now, consider these two snippets of evidence. With the presently receding ice on Greenland, it is possible to find Viking graves which were until recently under a long permafrost. Similarly, at different places in the Alps where glacial ice now recedes, it is now possible to find human activity dated to Roman times.

ghostgeek: The third IPCC report accepted that between 1900 and 1940 the world had warmed by 0.4 C, that between 1940 and 1975 it had cooled by 0.2 C and that from 1975 onwards it had warmed again by 0.4 C, thus giving an overall warming trend for the twentieth century of 0.6 C.

ghostgeek: If you look at the Met Office's Hadley Centre Hadcut temperature record ( CRUTEM4 ) you can see how average temperatures have fallen slightly over the last few years.

[ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ ]

ghostgeek: Now, if we're bringing up references to who gets funding from committed sources, remember, this affects people from both sides of the argument. For example, one of the chief cheerleaders for climate change alarmism, Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, a computer modeller at Imperial College, London, has his work funded by Jeremy Grantham, a billionaire who believes that global warming is the gravest threat facing the planet. Easy to see potential bias there if we want to.

ghostgeek: I've just looked at the contiguous U.S. average temperature record for June, for the years 1895 to 2014, on the National Climatic Data Center website. If these figures are reliable then 1933 would seem to have had the hottest June with a temperature of 71.56°F. Note, these are government statistics, not something found on an iffy website.

[ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ ]

ghostgeek:

ghostgeek:

LiptonCambell: The video says it has to be analysed.....that video was posted 5 years ago.....what was the result?

ghostgeek: Climategate, tha basics. In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. A number of independent inquiries into the 2009 release found no evidence of scientific impropriety, but criticised some of the scientists for their unwillingness to share their data. The University of East Anglia's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, said that the university had become much more open since 2009, when "our knuckles were collectively rapped" over its policy towards freedom of information requests.

ghostgeek: The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee Report, one of three investigations into climategate, produced its report after only one afternoon of interviews. The STC report concluded “We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus.” The Committee itself admited that it’s report was insufficient and did not cover all the issues. Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, noted that it had to produce something quickly before the British general election, and a possible change of government, in May. Though the Committee condemned the CRU for withholding information requested by outsiders under Britain’s freedom of information laws, it failed to determine whether Professor Jones had actively deleted this information to prevent requests to publish it. The report did not indict Jones on these charges, perhaps because, as revealed by one of the MP on the committee in comments to The Times of London, all members had agreed not to question Professor Jones too closely because of his “fragile condition.”

Now, concerning the “independent” investigation led by Sir Muir Russel, it is a fact that Russell himself vehemently supported the notion of anthropogenic global warming and constructed a panel of “experts” that shared the same views. Those views clearly contradicted the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.

ghostgeek:

ghostgeek:

lori100: Here are some of the mad scientists plots....------This timeline of determined Geoengineering projects suggests the goal of mediating arctic climate remains a favorite goal of the fossil fuel industry.

1877 Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.

1912, New York Engineer and Industrialist, Carroll Livingston Riker proposed building a 200 mile jetty off Newfoundland to increase the Gulf Stream’s flow into to the Arctic Basin with the added benefit that it would “shift” the axis of planet earth. The New York Times characterized the proposal as “amazing”… but not insane.

1929: Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer; Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors.

1945; Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946-48; Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zone.

1946 Village Voice article from 2005 reporting on theMay, 1946 issue of Mechanix Illustrated that featured several arctic-warming geoengineering proposals. One “brave new idea” was proposed by Julian Huxley, then the Secretary-General of UNESCO, and brother of Aldous Huxley, that would detonate atomic bombs to warm the Arctic.

1958; M. Gorodsky, Soviet engineer and mathematician, and Valentin Cherenkov, Soviet meteorologist; Proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice.

1958; Arkady Markin, Soviet engineer; Proposed that the United States and Soviet Union build a gigantic dam across the Bering Strait and use nuclear power–driven propeller pumps to push the warm Pacific current into the Atlantic by way of the Arctic Sea. Arctic ice would melt, and the Siberian and North American frozen areas would become temperate and productive.

1958 Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s proposed melting the Arctic and Greenland icecaps by spreading black coal dust on the ice, creating cloud-cover across the poles to trap heat and to divert warm Atlantic waters into the polar regions. This scheme was taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960′s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1959.

1958 Atlantic Richfield geologist L.M. Natland, proposed exploding up to 100 underground nuclear bombs to mine the Alberta Oil Sands. Heat from the detonations was expected to boil the bitumen deposits, reducing their viscosity to the point that standard drilling operations could be used. The plan was encouraged by US efforts to find “peaceful uses” for atomic energy. The project was approved in 1959 but the Canadian government reversed their decision in 1962 and declared that Canada was opposed to all forms of nuclear testing. In 2012 the Canadian Tar Sands are, again an issue of international concern.

1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute.

LiptonCambell: Since you didnt choose to reveal your source, I went looking for it;

http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/01/03/government-documents-link-global-warming-to-advanced-military-climate-modification-technology-2/comment-page-2/

Look at that...a conspiracy theorist blog....

ghostgeek: Just goes to show how people jump on a bandwagon. Clearly, when everyone thought a new Ice Age was just around the corner, they were all trying to figure out how to warm the planet up. Now, with Global Warming on everyone's mind, the aim is to cool the place down.

CoIin: Lipton,

To reject an argument, or to reject information, purely on the grounds of its provenance is to commit what some call the "Genetic Fallacy". I know you've heard of it. You yourself would surely pounce on any unwitting opponent foolish enough to deploy it against you.

Consider, say, the Catholics who reject findings on child molestation by priests because the statistics are provided by non-Catholic investigators!

Given that we wouldn't accept this from Catholics or anyone else, it just won't do, I'm afraid, for scientists, or science followers, to summarily dismiss the statistics of non-scientists.

For all I know the information given above could be hopelessly inaccurate. Or it could be perfectly true. Merely identifying its source, however, as you've done, does nothing at all to demonstrate this.