global warming hoax

"David Staup" wrote in message
...
..the fact that data has been falsified and misrepresented,

exactly which data has been 'falisified and mispreresented' ?

and by whom?

"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.

For these reasons, I have never seen rolling averages used in a peer
reviewed scientific paper outside of climatology, as they are close to
meaningless and an obvious attempt to fudge data.

Have you ever seen 10 year rolling averages used in a technical paper,
outside of climatology? Even in soft sciences, such as economics and
anthropology? Why are they used in climatology but not in other sciences?



The year-by-year data is shown in the lower plot. Just out of curiosity,
what evidence do you have for global temperature measurements over the
last 10 years?

The graphs that were provided. According to the graphs provided which were
meant to show the earth has increased in temperature, the "temperature
anomaly" was 0.52 degress in 1998 but was 0.49 degrees in 2008. That is a
net cooling, at least according the graphs that were presented as evidence
that AGW is correct science.


2. Does not cover the last 10 years.
It covers 1991 - 2008 . 2009 is not over yet, but monthly averages appear
warmer than the long term average.

3. Does not define what the vertical axis is supposed to represent
exactly.

Exactly - the difference in global temperature over the average between
1961 and 1990

And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming
commenced long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any
quantity?

Really? When did it start?


The earth has been warming at various times for billions of years.

and cooling at other times.

The current warming period commenced pre-1850.

Really? How far pre-1850 ? I'd have thought that global figures are hard
to get much before 1800.


Some people think it was 1850, others think it one or two decades earlier.

Whenever the warming began, it was well prior to the widespread use of motor
cars and coal power stations.


Anthropogenic CO2 levels were effectively zero during the 19th Century.

What is AGW's explanation for this?

For what ?
You have made some unsubstantiated claims and demanded "AGW's
explanation". What exactly are you asking for an explanation for?



Why the earth was warming before we started generating anthropogenic CO2.
What is AGW's explanation of this?



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?

On Nov 26, 10:31*am, "David Staup" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:nkpPm.146518$5n1.109719@attbi_s21...



Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:35:39 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

See! Another ad hominem attack!

Ad machinem is more like it.

Why didn't you answer the questions I posed?

Because they're the same irrelevant questions you've posed in the past.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sam glacier length has shown a shortenong trend since about 1820(before
the
use of coal wa widespread) and the slope of the trend line has not changed
at all with the increases in fossil fuel usage that really took off in the
1920s... if you want to see the 180 year trend graphs of both plotted
together look he

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

if you don't want to see data that conflicts with your belief then by all
means avert you attention and others by calling someone a name

Yes that is precisely what you are doing. There is a preponderance of
evidence that supports the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
Yes please point us to geologist who also teaches history and hasn't
published a research paper in over 10 years and explain to us how he
refutes thousands of scientists in fields as diverse as chemistry,
biology and computer science with his unsupported personal opinion


Here is a homework assignment for you. You wanted to know how we can
determine how we have been responsible for the increase in CO2 in the
air since the industrial revolution. Look up what the ratio of C12 to
C13 isotopes for natural (plant/animal/volcano etc) CO2 generation and
then look up the ratio of C12 to C13 for fossil fuel combustion.
Describe how those ratios have changed since the industrial
revolution. As a hint to help you along the way look up

Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change
research
Prosenjit Ghosh, Willi A. Brand doi:10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6

After that a google scholar search will provide you with the
appropriate papers to read. Report with the answer. I doubt you will
or better yet you will find yet another site with a unsupported
personal opinion maybe this time from a washed up TV journalist who
takes pictures with a telephoto lens

_________________________________
This long rave of yours has nothing to do with what he said. He made a
statement about glacier retreat. You launched into ad-hominem attack on him,
and then changed the topic, thus fulfilling his prophecy that you would
ignore evidence you didn't like.

By the way, making ad-hominem attacks and changing the subject are two of
the key characteristics of a crank.

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.


--
Paul Schlyter
Grev Turegatan 40, SE-11438 Stockholm
Email:
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se

On Nov 25, 4:52*pm, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Nov 24, 2:12*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
scientists who are studying the temperature proxy records wrote a
paper that actually points out the problem and supplies the analysis
tools and data to show that the divergence exists.

What reasons do they give for continued use of tree ring data as a
proxy for historical temperature if they do not match the modern
temperature records?

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:

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.
_________________________________________________

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

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:

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.
_______________________________________________ __

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


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

Steve
Oregon

On Nov 21, 3:00*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
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?

The continuous and always moving tidal force of 2e20 N/sec, do tell us
where this is going, and of how much internal heat is created.

~ BG