global warming hoax

On Nov 25, 11:10*am, "David Staup" wrote:
"David Staup" wrote in message

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120...091120issues01

as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk
science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and
advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.

what say you now?

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

Dupes take note

What! you mean to say those direct objective accountings for the
volumetric losses of Antarctic 'slow ice' simply doesn't count?

~ BG

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

Show me your evidence for warming pre-1850 and we can see how that
fits in with post 1850 warming.

I don't need to show warming pre-1850. I only need to show warming
prior to the widespread use of fossil fuels, which was about 1920.
The earth has been warming for at least 70 years prior to anthropogenic
CO2 being generated in any quantity.

What is AGW's explanation for this?

You are misinformed. Widespread anthropogenic CO2 emission started in
1850, not in 1920:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl...y_Type_to_Y200
4.png

Yes, coal burning also produces CO2. Your mistake was to neglect coal
and just count petroleum and natural gas. Large scale coal burning
started around 1850, not around 1920.



Ummm ... that graph you posted exactly proves my point.

The total for 2004 was 8,000 million metric tons. The total for 1850 is
indistinguishable from the x axis of 0 tons.

So, again, what is AGW's explanation of the warming in the latter part of
the 19th Century?

spud wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:57:07 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:58:53 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

You are misinformed. Widespread anthropogenic CO2 emission started in
1850, not in 1920:

Industrial use of coal started even earlier but the volumes used were
comparatively low - it was not so easy to use at first. Only a handful
of sophisticated practitioners could cope with coking the coal to get
something pure enough to use instead of charcoal in the early days.

In addition, there was widespread deforestation over much of the
northern hemisphere for the last 1000 years, which also contributed CO2
while simultaneously reducing the size of the carbon sink. While this
had nowhere as large an impact as the heavy use of coal beginning in the
19th century, it isn't insignificant, and shows up in the CO2 record.

And to be strictly accurate industrial scale use of coal and coke was
much earlier in Coalbrookdale and the site of the famous Iron Bridge.
You needed proximity to limestone, coal and iron ore to get started.

http://www.ironbridge.org.uk/our_att...useum_of_iron/


I'd like to see a credible source for that claim. A URL please.

The glassmakers of the 15th century were pretty devastating for the UK
forests - and were eventually banned from taking any wood that would be
useful to the Royal Navy after 1615. There are still a few majestic oaks
around planted then and protected from being turned in to firewood.

http://vision2form.nl/glassoven.html

and

http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/histppg.htm
(a few paragraphs down)

The first one from Holland but the principles were the same where ever
there was plentiful wood. Coal was harder to use for smelting iron and
glassmaking as the sulphur impurities messed up the chemistry.

The same sorts of things happened around all the major glassmaking
centres - at least those which had a shipbuilding industry and navy.

Not sure if they made much of a dent in the CO2 record but they
certainly annoyed the Navy to the point where glassmakers were
persecuted for illegal deforestation.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

Do you accept that CO2 levels have increased over the last 50 years?

Yes.


Do you accept that global temperatures have generally increased over the
last 50 (90) years?

I accept they have been increasing for at least 150 years.

Where is your evidence for the '150 years of warming' ?
Here is some data that does not show significant sustained warming between
1850 and 1920. Where is your data?

Of course, AGW believers talk about the warming over the last 50 years,
which is highly misleading, as its been going on a lot longer than that.

Where is your evidence for this?

It is pretty obvious why they try and only talk about the last few
decades. AGW has a "story" on why the earth has warmed over the last 50
years. AFAIK, it has no explanantion for the warming which occurred (say)
from 1850 to 1920.

what warming?

Indeed, the fact that the earth has been warming for 150 years is pretty
clear evidence that it is NOT caused by CO2, as our CO2 contributions were
negligible until well into the 20th Century, but warming long preceded it.

Easier to just ignore this inconvenient truth. Its not how real scientists
operate - real scientists also provide the evidence that a theory is
false - but climatoligists don't act like real scientists in many ways,
and climatology fails to meet basic standards for scientific validity (eg
predictive capability). Climatologists act far more like salesman, using
"rolling averages", ignoring contrary evidence (warming during the latter
half of the 19th Century), cherry picking data (eg the recent use of
arctic ice as an important benchmark instead of a dozen other indices
which could have been used), exaggeration of possible impacts of
decisions, ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree, refusal to publish
source data, modifying source data after the event on an ad-hoc basis ...
I see more scientific integrity in astrology than I do in climatology.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud
wrote:

No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary
is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like
arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence
to
support their ideology.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed
over the last 10 years?

Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm

That looks like warming to me.


That looks like a graph of a "temperature anomaly" that:

1. Has been manipulated in a manner unspecified ("smoothed"), and
without the source data
The HADCRUT data is referenced (bottom of the page); the only smoothing
is to average the data over the previous 5 and 10 year periods.


That's very interesting. If you take rolling averages, you understate the
impact of data points later in the sequence. For example, a change of x
degrees in 2008 would show up as an x/10 degrees change on the graph, as
the 2008 figures would be averaged (smoothed) over 10 years of data.
Earlier figures are exagerated in their importance, as they are appear in
multiple smoothed averages (5 or 10 in this case).

The use of rolling averages is very common in business, as it allows very
bad short term results to be concealed - by averaging over 10 years,
essential historically data can be misrepresented as current.

10 years of cooling is 10 years of cooling. 10 years of cooling does not
show up as 10 years of warming. Which is what the graph shows. Even on a 5
year rolling average.

On Nov 26, 10:35*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:

* *The CRU hack: Context
* * *http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...he-cru-hack-co...

The CRU hack: Context
Filed under: Climate Science — gavin @ 23 November 2009
This is a continuation of the last thread which is getting a little unwieldy. The emails
cover a 13 year period in which many things happened, and very few people are up to speed
on some of the long-buried issues. So to save some time, I’ve pulled a few bits out of the
comment thread that shed some light on some of the context which is missing in some of the
discussion of various emails.



Sam, what you've done here is to regurgitate RC's spin on the problem
of foot dragging in response to requests for specific data sets.
Unfortunately, these explanations, while perhaps potentially correct
and of tangential importance, are not backed up by the emails
themselves. I'd advise you, if you don't mind looking over the fence,
to see what the people on the other side of the requests thought of
the context:

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/1...s-foi-request/

If there were any mention in the internal emails that there were
questions over whether the data could be turned over because of
copyright or usage problems, I might take RC's word for this. However,
there are NO such discussions at all. Nobody says "Hey, we can't give
this stuff out because the Russians haven't given us permission. What
are we gonna do?" Instead, they specifically bitch about Climate
Audit:

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they
ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think
I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

And this on how to circumvent FOI requests and freeze their opponents
out:

"Wei-Chyung and Tom,
…
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. [EMAIL NOT FOUND
IN CRU EMAILS – Willis] He said they are ignoring anybody who has
dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about
the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages
of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil"

There's lots more there. Take a look. It certainly is not the picture
presented by RC. You might also read Judith Curry's concerns on the
same site. She says the fundamental data is still strong, but admits
that the CRU people messed up massively by circling the wagons and
pointing guns at any dissenters.

I have no doubt that they despise the Climate Audit people, and that's
fine. But if they want to bury the CA folks, simply release the data.
If their programs have problems, let other people, even enemies, find
them so that they can be corrected. We're talking about huge money in
terms of taxes and economies. We don't need the info filtered by a
bunch of folks acting like children with cool marbles they don't want
other kids to see. This is serious ****. The harry_read_me text shows
a fellow going mad because of both bugs and an inability to determine
what particular data meant and where it came from. There's not a lot
there to engender faith in the system. It seems more that the reason
why they don't want to give out the data is because they know it's
problematic, they know there are problems in their analysis, and they
are at the same time convinced that their conclusions are right and
that their cause is vitally important. These may all be true, but it's
not what RC's explanations show. Interesting, too, that Gavin at RC
comes across in the messages as a reliable gatekeeper who keeps
dissenters at bay by filtering them out.


I can update (further) this if there is demand. Please let me know in the comments, which,
as always, should be substantive, non-insulting and on topic.

By all means.

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

Do you accept that CO2 levels have increased over the last 50 years?

Yes.


Do you accept that global temperatures have generally increased over the
last 50 (90) years?

I accept they have been increasing for at least 150 years.

Where is your evidence for the '150 years of warming' ?
Here is some data that does not show significant sustained warming between
1850 and 1920. Where is your data?


You forgot to attach it.

So you haven't given any data.


Of course, AGW believers talk about the warming over the last 50 years,
which is highly misleading, as its been going on a lot longer than that.

Where is your evidence for this?


Its accepted orthodoxy. Even by AGW believers, its just that they choose not
to talk about it.

The period prior to 1850 is called the Little Ice Age. There are 280,000
references to this on a Google serach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat...ers_since_1850

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...e_ice_age.html

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2005/20051128.htm


NOAA itself has 176 hits against "Little Ice Age", and they are probably the
world's pre-eminent supporters of AGW. NASA gives dozen of papers
identifying the end of thje cool period as 1850 (one of which I have given
above). ****, the original IPCC report mentioned it, but offered no
explanation.



It is pretty obvious why they try and only talk about the last few
decades. AGW has a "story" on why the earth has warmed over the last 50
years. AFAIK, it has no explanantion for the warming which occurred (say)
from 1850 to 1920.

what warming?


The warming since 1850. When the Little Ice Age ended. Or do you think that
NOAA, NASA, and the entire pro-AGW community are lying?

(Not, I stress, that they exactly publicise this, as it so obviously
completely undermines the basic assumption of AGW theories. But it is a
matter of historical record, they don't dispute it, they simply ignore it as
an "inconvenient truth". Though I would have expected that somebody with an
interest in the subject - as you appear to have - would of learned of it
somehow. For me, looking at the period when warming started and comparing it
to when we started to pump CO2 into the atmosphere in quantity is a basic
plausibility test for AGW)



Indeed, the fact that the earth has been warming for 150 years is pretty
clear evidence that it is NOT caused by CO2, as our CO2 contributions
were negligible until well into the 20th Century, but warming long
preceded it.

Easier to just ignore this inconvenient truth. Its not how real
scientists operate - real scientists also provide the evidence that a
theory is false - but climatoligists don't act like real scientists in
many ways, and climatology fails to meet basic standards for scientific
validity (eg predictive capability). Climatologists act far more like
salesman, using "rolling averages", ignoring contrary evidence (warming
during the latter half of the 19th Century), cherry picking data (eg the
recent use of arctic ice as an important benchmark instead of a dozen
other indices which could have been used), exaggeration of possible
impacts of decisions, ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree, refusal
to publish source data, modifying source data after the event on an
ad-hoc basis ... I see more scientific integrity in astrology than I do
in climatology.

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud
wrote:

No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary
is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like
arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence
to
support their ideology.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed
over the last 10 years?

Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm

That looks like warming to me.


That looks like a graph of a "temperature anomaly" that:

1. Has been manipulated in a manner unspecified ("smoothed"), and
without the source data
The HADCRUT data is referenced (bottom of the page); the only smoothing
is to average the data over the previous 5 and 10 year periods.


That's very interesting. If you take rolling averages, you understate the
impact of data points later in the sequence. For example, a change of x
degrees in 2008 would show up as an x/10 degrees change on the graph, as
the 2008 figures would be averaged (smoothed) over 10 years of data.
Earlier figures are exagerated in their importance, as they are appear in
multiple smoothed averages (5 or 10 in this case).

The use of rolling averages is very common in business, as it allows very
bad short term results to be concealed - by averaging over 10 years,
essential historically data can be misrepresented as current.

10 years of cooling is 10 years of cooling. 10 years of cooling does not
show up as 10 years of warming. Which is what the graph shows. Even on a
5 year rolling average.




You didn't answer my question about whether you had ever seen "rolling
averages" used in a peer reviewed journal outside of climate "science".

I bet the answer is no, because it is not statistically valid. The value
that you get is for the temperature in one year is fudged to include past
temperatures, and by changing the period over which you average then the
results change accordingly. Its just another way to cherry-pick, which is
why I have seen it in lots of sales proposals but in no scientific papers.

So why do you think they chose to deviate from "real science" and decided
instead to use dodgy statistical tricks?

And how and where do they explain why they did this, and how they decided
which period to average each year's data over? Was it simply because it made
the prettiest graph?

On Nov 27, 4:49*pm, "OG" wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message

...



Do you accept that CO2 levels have increased over the last 50 years?

Yes.

Do you accept that global temperatures have generally increased over the
last 50 (90) years?

I accept they have been increasing for at least 150 years.

Where is your evidence for the '150 years of warming' ?
Here is some data that does not show significant sustained warming between
1850 and 1920. Where is your data?

Of course, AGW believers talk about the warming over the last 50 years,
which is highly misleading, as its been going on a lot longer than that..

Where is your evidence for this?

It is pretty obvious why they try and only talk about the last few
decades. AGW has a "story" on why the earth has warmed over the last 50
years. AFAIK, it has no explanantion for the warming which occurred (say)
from 1850 to 1920.

what warming?

Indeed, the fact that the earth has been warming for 150 years is pretty
clear evidence that it is NOT caused by CO2, as our CO2 contributions were
negligible until well into the 20th Century, but warming long preceded it.

Easier to just ignore this inconvenient truth. Its not how real scientists
operate - real scientists also provide the evidence that a theory is
false - but climatoligists don't act like real scientists in many ways,
and climatology fails to meet basic standards for scientific validity (eg
predictive capability). Climatologists act far more like salesman, using
"rolling averages", ignoring contrary evidence (warming during the latter
half of the 19th Century), cherry picking data (eg the recent use of
arctic ice as an important benchmark instead of a dozen other indices
which could have been used), exaggeration of possible impacts of
decisions, ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree, refusal to publish
source data, modifying source data after the event on an ad-hoc basis ....
I see more scientific integrity in astrology than I do in climatology.

Warming (ice-age thaw) got a serious boost as of 11, 711 years ago.

~ BG

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:39:48 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

You didn't answer my question about whether you had ever seen "rolling
averages" used in a peer reviewed journal outside of climate "science".

A rolling average is almost always used when evaluating data for trends,
because it is the primary statistical method for measuring trends. This
is the case for all scientific data, and non-scientific data as well.
When analyzing a time-series for a trend, you select a boxcar size that
is appropriate for the scale of the noise, or of systematic effects that
you want to tune out. When looking at temperature trends, you ask
yourself two things: what maximum time scale are you interested in, and
what is the time scale of the noise. It is apparent when you look at the
raw, annualized temperature record that noise is approximately decadal.
That's why the most common boxcar applied is a 10-year filter. And since
the maximum time scale is usually a few hundred years, a 10-year filter
is still fine enough to clearly show trends.

There's a physical reality to using a decadal filter as well, since many
known short term effects are on this scale: oscillating current patterns
like the El Nino, the solar cycle, and other components of very short
term climate or weather.

Nobody is using filters like this to hide things. They just recognize
the reality that what the temperature does over a few years doesn't mean
anything in terms of climate until at least a decade is considered. You
can look at the raw temperature record for the last century, and there
are decadal periods where temperatures increased quickly or slowly,
decreased quickly or slowly, or held steady. Yet the warming trend is
clear and unambiguous, and only by smoothing the data can the actual
structure of that trend be easily seen (in particular the increasing
rate of heating in the last few decades).
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com