PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics


Kassy
01-11-2009, 09:36 AM
Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics

ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2009) — Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. The result: the observed increase of warm years after 1990 is not a statistical accident.

Between 1880 and 2006 the average global annual temperature was about 15°C. However, in the years after 1990 the frequency of years when this average value was exceeded increased.

The GKSS Research Centre asks: is it an accident that the warmest 13 years were observed after 1990, or does this increased frequency indicate an external influence?

Calculating the likelihood

With the help of the so called "Monte-Carlo-Simulation“ the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver.

The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have occurred by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10,000.

These likelihood can be illustrated by using the game of chance "heads or tails": the likelihood is the same as flipping a coin and getting 14 heads in a row.

Climate is more complicated than a game

"In order to understand and statistically analyse the climate system and its interaction between the ocean, land, atmosphere and human activity, the comparison with a game of chance is no longer sufficient.

The natural sequence of warm and cold years no longer functions according to the simple principle of 'zero or one,'" explains the GKSS scientist Dr. Eduardo Zorita about the challenges of his calculations, because the climate system possesses some inertia.

An example: After a warm year milder years tend to follow, since the oceans have stored some heat. This natural inertia must also be included in the calculations.

"Our study is pure statistical nature and can not attribute the increase of warm years to individual factors, but is in full agreement with the results of the IPCC that the increased emission of greenhouse gases is mainly responsible for the most recent global warming“, says Zorita in summary.

Journal reference:

1. Zorita et al. How unusual is the recent series of warm years? Geophysical Research Letters, 2008; 35 (24): L24706 DOI: 10.1029/2008GL036228


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm

Torange
01-11-2009, 10:09 PM
My note on the above article: "Warm weather" is an artifact of bad data. Rural weather stations were for the most part shut down in the early 1990's. Now the data has a bias toward urban heat islands. Similarly, ocean measurements have a bias toward the northern hemisphere while sea ice in the southern hemisphere is closer to the equator.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Pravda-Earth_on_the_Brink_of_an_Ice_Age.htm

Pravda: Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
______________________________


.
11 Jan 08 – (Excerpts) - Our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

(Most data) shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles known as the Milankovich cycles. … (including) the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation … between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles.

Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that "…the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing.

The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content.

(If CO2 causes warming, shouldn’t we be able to heat our soft
drinks simply by pumping CO2 into them?)

The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

(As I say in “Not by Fire but by Ice,” I think the oceans are warming
because of underwater volcanic activity; underwater volcanic activity
brought on by our declining geomagnetic-field strength.)

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

See entire article by Gregory F. Fegel
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
Thanks to Hans Schreuder, Steve Hollar, Steven Woodcock, John Zielinski, Alan Caruba, Mike McEvoy, John Bunt, Brian Valentine, Edwark Nowak, Wes Crawford, Jack Bailey and many, many others for this link
My friend Hans Schreuder posted this article on his webpage before Pravda posted it.
You can see Hans’ posting at:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Earth_on_Brink_of_Ice_Age.pdf

Newsbusters has also posted good coverage on this article:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/11/global-warming-update-earth-brink-ice-age

Fiddlerdave
01-12-2009, 01:37 PM
If we go to Torange's link, we find the following example of Denialist "science":

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content.

(If CO2 causes warming, shouldn’t we be able to heat our soft
drinks simply by pumping CO2 into them?)

The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

(As I say in “Not by Fire but by Ice,” I think the oceans are warming
because of underwater volcanic activity; underwater volcanic activity
brought on by our declining geomagnetic-field strength.)If I had been drinking milk when I read this, I would have needed a new keyboard.

Denialists need to find some high-school graduates, at least, for their sources. These grammar school "scientists" are a bit much.

dreadstalker
01-12-2009, 02:57 PM
And all of the scientists combined can't explain how one country by itself is supposed to make a difference.

Bottom line is that unless ALL the worlds nations are on board with any change ( and actually makes the changes ) all the efforts put out by one group would be a complete and utter waste of time.

You see while america is indeed a large contributor of the worlds pollution you also have developing nations and other so-called advanced nations using the same sort of power sources.

Fiddlerdave
01-12-2009, 03:48 PM
And all of the scientists combined can't explain how one country by itself is supposed to make a difference.

Bottom line is that unless ALL the worlds nations are on board with any change ( and actually makes the changes ) all the efforts put out by one group would be a complete and utter waste of time.

You see while america is indeed a large contributor of the worlds pollution you also have developing nations and other so-called advanced nations using the same sort of power sources.
Such rationalization for America being LAST among nations instead of FIRST. So much for being #1. Since that one country utilizes the lion's share of world resources, it would make a difference. Some may wish to observe how fossil fuels are becoming political tools of power in Europe and the ME, as well, and wouldn't it be nice to be above all that while showing how to save the planet?

And quoting amateur hacks spouting nonsense for our justification makes us look like craven fools.

Kassy
01-12-2009, 06:23 PM
And all of the scientists combined can't explain how one country by itself is supposed to make a difference.

If you account for 20-25% of the worlds annual budget it's not that hard.

Auburn Boy
01-12-2009, 06:30 PM
PV = nRT

dyrt
01-12-2009, 09:25 PM
Shouldn't this thread be in the sanctuary?

dreadstalker
01-13-2009, 10:12 AM
Such rationalization for America being LAST among nations instead of FIRST. So much for being #1. Since that one country utilizes the lion's share of world resources, it would make a difference. Some may wish to observe how fossil fuels are becoming political tools of power in Europe and the ME, as well, and wouldn't it be nice to be above all that while showing how to save the planet?

And quoting amateur hacks spouting nonsense for our justification makes us look like craven fools.

Economic Growth
However, the Worldwatch Institute said the booming economies of China and India are planetary forces that are shaping the global biosphere. The State of the World 2006 report said the two countries' high economic growth hid a reality of severe pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-consumption

Auburn Boy
01-13-2009, 02:03 PM
Economic Growth
However, the Worldwatch Institute said the booming economies of China and India are planetary forces that are shaping the global biosphere. The State of the World 2006 report said the two countries' high economic growth hid a reality of severe pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-consumption

If you read a lot of disparate ecological news, you'll see that China si VERY bad off. India seems to report on pollution a lot less though.

Fiddlerdave
01-13-2009, 02:26 PM
Economic Growth
However, the Worldwatch Institute said the booming economies of China and India are planetary forces that are shaping the global biosphere. The State of the World 2006 report said the two countries' high economic growth hid a reality of severe pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-consumptionI am so happy we can make excuses for our negligence and malfeasance in damaging the planet by pointing out the deficiencies of others.

Since the Yangs choose to live in their garbage, let's do it too! :hemademe: That's the kind of thinking that makes a country and a people GREAT!

Torange
01-13-2009, 09:30 PM
If we go to Torange's link, we find the following example of Denialist "science":

If I had been drinking milk when I read this, I would have needed a new keyboard.

Denialists need to find some high-school graduates, at least, for their sources. These grammar school "scientists" are a bit much.

The Russian government really believes in global cooling. They have some of the best scientists in the world.

There are people who believe that the recent energy pipeline stopages, at the root, are based on a worry about global cooling.

Fiddlerdave
01-14-2009, 12:23 AM
The Russian government really believes in global cooling. They have some of the best scientists in the world.

There are people who believe that the recent energy pipeline stopages, at the root, are based on a worry about global cooling.:lol: Yeah, a rising oil-supplying country banking its future on oil sales says the globe is cooling and we should burn MORE oil and gas.:re:

The last Russian scientist I read who was suggesting global cooling said CO2 made things cooler because when heated, the CO2 rose to the top of the atmosphere and gave off its heat into space, a concept whose absurdity is difficult to put into adequate words to describe the lack of ANY scientific credibility whatsoever. This was one of the authorities near the top of one of our fine Senator "Senate Minority Report" Inofe's lists, BTW, so we'll assume he was one of the better examples.

Oric
01-16-2009, 05:07 AM
RUssia wishes for global warming because almost 20% of her land is perma frost .. useless

dreadstalker
01-16-2009, 09:40 PM
They can't give an accurate weather forecast for a week in advance. Based on that why would I beleive that they are accurate about something years into the future.

dreadstalker
01-16-2009, 09:42 PM
RUssia wishes for global warming because almost 20% of her land is perma frost .. useless
Ever see perma frost when it melts? It is a quagmire.