Climate Change through Color Change;
… the two models show the areas of warming and cooling to be occurring in widely different sections of the United States. The [United States Global Change Research Program’s] solution to this conundrum was to alter the temperature color scale by eliminating yellow and green, and extending the color orange into negative temperature ranges as low as -1.0°F, thereby implying warming, when in fact the models were showing no temperature change or cooling for some localities.
Related: “Painting by numbers” – a video showing the USHCN adjustments in action.
Freeman Dyson, on one reason why “global warming” is a misnomer:
“As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase “global warming.”
This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.”
Another logical explanation for why the Arctic rather than the Antarctic is undergoing disproportionate change is that the northern hemisphere generates so much airborne pollution that gets absorbed by arctic snow and ice that it reflects less light from the sun and causes warming.
Or, it could be that NASA and company have been frigging with the numbers for 30 years.
Occam’s Razor says disinformation campaign much more likely, given the political circumstances.
To all you skeptics out there, if the prediction that there is a 50% chance that most if not all the floating Artic ice will disapear THIS SUMMER, while you still think there will be:
1. no consquences?
2. That Al Gore is full of BS
Will doubt actually start to erode your confidence that global warming is a liberal, commie, socialist, environmental leftist hoax?
North pole ice conditions in 1987.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/NP%20ice%201987.jpg
Fire fire pants on liars.
That’s interesting. I notice that CBC’s National weather a few days ago showed Canada in all red tones as well, even where it was, say, 23 degrees. I don’t recall that particular scheme before.
Hmmm.
Busted!
Jamie Hansen, come on down!
Canukguy , ahem …… yes , yes , no . How many offsets do I win ?
Canuckguy
I guess you missed the story about the GIANT UNDERWATER VOLCANOES under the arctic ice then, huh? Or the much smaller volcano under the ONLY part of Antarctica to be losing ice (the rest is gaining in mass/thickness of ice.)
I guess you missed the story about the lack of ANY warming since 1998 then, huh?
I guess you missed the part where NASA et al quietly announced global warming was “on hold” for 15-20 years while a “natural cycle” (unlike when it gets hot) takes place (confirming what that Russian scientist claimed while all the Kyoto Kultist ridiculed him.)
I guess you missed NASA’s head liar, James Hanson, claim in a paper he co-authored that the world was going into an ice age. That was in the 1970’s.
Believe what you want (I don’t care if you have ritualized sex on trees to worship Mother Gaia.) Just don’t ask me to F***ing pay for it.
has anyone noticed that the great white north is mostly orange and red when temps exceed 20 degrees c.
by the way. temps will be 1.6 degrees c cooler in 2030.
Well, canuckguy, since the possibility of that event happening is essentially zero, short of an astronomical phenomenon, your questions answer themselves. So glad to see you admit you are part of generating an environmental hoax.
As to Musicman, the concentration of CO2 is indeed rising by about 1/2 percent annually, but neither you nor the IPCC have demonstrated that humans are responsible for all of that increase, let alone that it has the impacts and distributions that you claim it does. Moreover, if your last statement is true, then the real object of your global warming campaign should be the elimination of soot, not the elimination of CO2.
Are you people even remotely capable of mounting a credible, defensible argument?
Canuckguy, to your questions: 1. No 2. Yes
“Will doubt actually start to erode your confidence that global warming is a liberal, commie, socialist, environmental leftist hoax?”
No, no doubts. Your assertions are wrong though. Although I’ll admit the global warmers fear mongering* is very good for the wallet, (govs too), but “natural cycles” banished to the trash bin is cool eh?
* I love that phrase ‘fear mongering’. It’s at the top of every leftards vocabulary, applicable to everything. Saves a lot of talkin’.
Sounder,
“It’s at the top of every leftards vocabulary, applicable to everything. Saves a lot of talkin'”
Saves a lot of thinking, too.
Canuckguy – let’s rephrase your question and see your answers
To all you AGW supporters out there, if the prediction that there is a 50% chance that most if not all of the antarctic ice will increase THIS WINTER, while you still think there will be:
1. some consquences?
2. That Al Gore is not full of BS
Will doubt actually start to erode your confidence that anti-global warming is a conservative, capitalist, oil-backed, globalisation, right-wing criminal activity?
Don’t worry, I am not really expecting an answer that makes any sense, so please feel free to spew!!!
Oh, Vitruvius, in your capacity as DJ, any chance of “Fancy Colours” by Chicago?
You know what really pi&&es Suzuki, Hansen, et al off is the fact thay they have to spend millions, if not billions, fabricating evidence, holding conferences, buying air-time, buying research, etc,etc, etc.
Then along comes a few guys (who by definition according to the lefties) aren’t even qualified to speak on the subject and somehow, just somehow, they manage to poke holes so big in the whole damn shebang that not even Bill Clinton could/would fill it.
So, assuming no political interference (as we know that would never happpen) than that must mean the AGW crowd has the dumbest bunch of scientists that mankind has ever assembled on a single topic.
Fire.Them.All
Sorry- I don’t mean to steal the HRC thunder, but it just kinda fits!!
There should be research dollars re-deployed to search for the leftard gene so we can eliminate it.
As an interim measure, we can ban leftards from all positions where thought, eithics, integrity and/or honestly are required.
Now that we hear Mr Harper saying big emitters must come on line (USA, India and China), or what’s the point. Even though this makes sense, he gets called hypocritical by envirobureaugeeks from Europe, who cynically ensured they complied with Kyoto before ever signing on. It’s like they insist we tank our economy, and egad, don’t use nuclear power, even though they do and have increased their emissions under their corrupt cap and spend (taxpayers’ money) schemes. Then they threaten to put protectionist tariffs on North American goods (not China though, as they play their switcheroo game – well they’re the worst, but they never agreed to anything, or didn’t have to).
It’s amazing these clowns can be such hypocrites themselves. Forget it Euroweenies, we’re not afraid of your protectionist talk, you want our raw materials (we take the emissions hit though, how convenient), you’re not going to guilt us into electing socialist rose coloured glasses types (Dion, Obama). Unbelievable – China can grow emissions drastically (already #1 24%), while Canada, at 2% (oooooh look, per capital is high – can you spell tundra idiot), must shut down their economy. No talk of the real cure, developing new energy technology, no talk of China getting on board.
This dog won’t hunt.
June 20, 2008, 23:59 UTC; the summer solstice. Days in the Arctic are already getting shorter. Shorter days means cooler temperatures for those having trouble following.
http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm
The current sea ice extent. I do not think that there is much chance of all the ice disappearing any time soon.
As one who sees graphical data maps regularly, I’m very wary that a data picture can tell a thousand lies to the untrained eye. This is a great example of how to graphically skew data presentation to achieve the desired effect.
In this case the data maps were talored for public consumption of proof of AGW and to hide data discrepancies between the two models. Looks like enough proof to me for a congressional hearing on future budget funding.
Another point to ponder.
The satellite record of Arctic ice extent dates back to 1979. In layman’s terms, that is 29 years. There are sports franchises older than that. Heck, there are still people living with their parents who are older than that.
To speak of record lows, or record highs, when we know about 29 out of 89,000,000,000 years seems a bit presumptuous.
FoxNews has indeed reported that scientists have discovered evidence of high volcanic activity under the arctic waters. They claim that this occured in the late ’90’s.
Now, I’m just a country boy but, if I remember my high school physics/chemistry/geography correctly, I think I got this all figured out.
Volcanic activity is hot. Really, really hot. Hot magma meets cold water. Water heats up. Ice submerged in water in turn heats up and sometimes melts.
I stand to be corrected so if any of you experts out ther wish to contradict what I have said, I would appreciate your comments
Sorry Malcolm Cross, you’re wrong. The volcanic activity simply means the “theory” of heat melting ice will have to put on hold, until global warming resumes, in about twelve years.
If if wasn’t for us virus humans, there would obviously been much less volcanic activity, because we are responsible for ALL warming, so must be responsible for increased magma.
C’mon you should have known that.
I agree with most of the points made here debunking global warming and highlighting aspects of the scam — but the message doesn’t seem to be getting out. To me the information published on WattsUp, Motl’s site, etc. are very important considerations in the AGW argument, but the mssg. does not seem to get through to MSM or the general public. Why is that? Except for a few brave columnists, media all telling a different story (from this one) — I think I read another global warming fear story just yesterday. I would have thought that with serious challenges such as the one reflected in the comments from Freeman Dyson alerts re 20-year cooling, etc. media would by now at least begin questioning the validity of AGW. At this point, I think it won’t matter what new research turns up, the media/and AGW profiteers will not be changing their tune any time soon. I think trying to get profile for questioning AGW is a lost cause. I think it is a combination of the AGW agenda being pushed and mass hysteria — people believing because the mssg. has been repeated often enough. I think it is a very sad commentary on our society.
Some fascinating comments and observations re global warming hysteria and political manipulation here: http://tinyurl.com/4f8u63
(Wall Street Journal discussion forum)
CanuckGuy, come back when it actually happens, and bring with you a reason to ignore the volcanos, which just happen, by sheer coincidence, to coincide with the beginning of the drop off in arctic ice.
You could also bring an explanation of why Antarctic ice is growing. There are some studies which suggest that increases in southern ice are precursors to ice ages, sheilding the oceans from sunlight, cooling them, increasing the albedo of the planet, but why am I wasting my time talking to somebody who considered a prediction an accomplished fact?
“…most if not all the floating Artic ice will disapear (sic) THIS SUMMER…”
(Canuckguy)
Scary stuff indeed. Maybe Canuckguy should go back and re-read the news releases. There is no way all the floating ice in the Arctic will melt this summer, unless you mean all but 6 million sq. km.
Regards, BRK
“…most if not all the floating Artic ice will disapear (sic) THIS SUMMER…”
(Canuckguy)
Scary stuff indeed. Maybe Canuckguy should go back and re-read the news releases. There is no way all the floating ice in the Arctic will melt this summer, unless you mean all but 6 million sq. km.
Regards, BRK
Warwick: You said “I guess you missed NASA’s head liar, James Hanson, claim in a paper he co-authored that the world was going into an ice age. That was in the 1970’s.”
Can you back up this statement with the actual title of a paper that he co-authored?
cgh: Yes, as I have pointed out in the past, we are responsible for all the recent rise in CO2. As long as we are pumping out twice as much as is showing up in the atmosphere, there is no doubt that we are responsible.
Regards,
John
Ummmmm….so tell me, John, if only half of what we pump out shows up in the atmosphere,where is the other half going? Just curious.
All right, I missed that volcano story, not really an issue if it is just a few burps. Considering the massive area of ice involved and the volume of water under it, , a few active volancos would have a paltry effect.
Also, I did mean “if” as in “if the prediction comes true”— then what would you lot think. And note that there is only a 50% chance the prediction will come true but whatever, a hell of a loss of Artic ice is impending, much more than normal.
I predict there will be a collective eating of hats from you hardheads by the end of summer.
Hate to tell you guys. but ice disappears every summer even in the summer. I worked up on the Arctic coast in the mid 1980’s. A CBC film crew came up from Toronto to film all the ice but was shocked to find that there were no icebergs. They wanted to make one but did not have the know-how.
We laugh at Americans who come to Canada with skis in the summer but many southerners are delusional about northern conditions.
Canuckguy, I will just assume that you mean a lot more ice will melt than the average of the past 29 years. Because 29 years of satellite data is all we have. 29 years is the entire historical record of Arctic sea ice extent. 1979 is the first year we know about.
What about the 22000 scientists on the petition acknowledging there is no evidence that man is causing GW?
Canuckguy, you miss the point. Very few people would argue that the Earth has not been undergoing a period of warming over the last two centuries, although it seems to have slowed or stopped for the moment.
The point is that the science is not settled; that it is possible to question those who claim that it is settled without committing a crime against humanity, as so many of them would have you believe; and that climate models are based on incomplete data, assumptions, and unknowable variables.
Embrace those who seek the truth; question those who claim to have found it.
Color? What Color? Is somebody discriminating against those of us that are Color Blind?
Is this AGW debate only open to the visually elite.. Cut funding to the Bastards
Color? What Color? Is somebody discriminating against those of us that are Color Blind?
Is this AGW debate only open to the visually elite.. Cut funding to the Bastards
As long as we are pumping out twice as much as is showing up in the atmosphere, there is no doubt that we are responsible.
Regards,
John
Posted by: John Cross 2008 7:23 PM
welllll, no John, there is doubt, even if all that we were pumping out showed up, cuz some of that may be geting eliminated through natural processes and there may be other sources that are adding to the CO2 count, like in the past before the Hummmer was invented and the CO2 rose to higher counts that it is today ( or so the scientists say)
I don’t know the facts, and YOU don’t know the facts, and Hansen is a hypocritical liar!!!
We have warming right now because it’s summer. I predict there will be serious cooling in November.
Strangely they are getting the exact opposite south of the equator.
The climate on this damn planet is like an elevator out of control. I think it’s the movement of the planet around the sun and the spinning on it’s axis, in part. Also the variable activity of the sun’s nuclear furnace that is mostly to blame for this phenomenon.
However, I predict that neither the warming nor the cooling will last unless the earth stops spinning or the sun burns out.
There is also the cloud density and ocean currents to consider, but they are far too complicated for ANYONE to figure out.
I think there are small local weather patterns in some areas of the planet where there is heavy industry, but that affects just that local area where there is large population density along with a lot of black top, buildings with air conditioners and a zillion cars buzzing all about.
Again, that affects those local areas and is nowhere near enough of a force to compete with those other phenomena I mentioned. Nut, that won’t stop until the eco zealots have us all living in caves and tents and eating tofu paste and grass.
But then, there will so much urine and feces strewn about everywhere that we will be suffocating and dying of various diseases that there will be no big hospitals to help with because we will be in the woods and the hospitals will all be closed due to the pollution they create with their air conditioning and so on.
But before any of that happens I have no doubt that many of us will be forced to use our legally registered rifles and shotguns to change the minds of the eco idiots who haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
Okay, there, I feel better now.
GYM: Well, let me again present my analogy. If you consider the atmosphere to be a bank account and the CO2 the dollars in it, then the various sources and sinks can be represented by different peeople who share the bank account. Some put money in, some take it out. At the end of the year we note that we have put in $7 and the bank account is $3 higher than it was at the start of the year. So the key question is what would be the level in the bank account if we did not contribute our $7?
Regards,
John
Theory ,as I understand it, dictates that the temperature profile relative to altitude will change in specific ways due to the CO2. The temperature profile has not behaved as predicted by the models, that is, the warming is more pronounced at the surface as opposed to the upper troposhpere. The nonconforming profile indicates most of the warming is due to factors other than infrared absorption by CO2 (such as: heat island, land usage, measurement bias & solar).
@ John Cross – So, you maintain that CO2 levels are driven by linear response?
Yea or nay?
Tenebris: both linear and non-linear responses of course. There is obviously a linear response between anthropogenic and “natural” CO2 molecules (i.e. a sink will take only X number of molecules and it does not matter if they are of anthropogenic origin or not).
Now, let me ask you a direct question. You start a bank account with $100 and people put in and take out money all year long and you put in $7 and at the end of they year the bank account has $103 in it. Would it have increased past $100 if you had not put in your $7. Yea or nay?
Regards,
John
John Cross – why the persistent attempt to get people to agree to your faulty analogy. The earth’s climate is NOT a bank, inputs and outputs are not independent and definitely do not have a linear relationship.
You have previously stated that we do not need to know all the detailed relationships affecting CO2 sources/sinks to be able to estimate man’s contribution. What a load of hooey!!
How, can you possibly claim, that you can accurately isolate and characterise one variable from a poorly defined yet extremely complex system? What manner of math and science allows you to do this?
You are basing your asumption upon the utterly incorrect linking of correlation to causation in order to claim scientific fact. While this linking may allow you to make some interesting statistical statements, to extend this to scientific conclusions is wrong, and you should know this.
Any reasonable scientist would say: we have some correlated data here that indicates a relationship between man-made CO2 and overall Co2 levels in the atmosphere (e.g. there is a big arrow pointing this way). However, we don’t understand the overall system that controls CO2 levels. Thus it is essential that we undertake to accurately characterise this system BEFORE we make any conclusions about why CO2 is increasing.
Now, I will say that we can never fully characterise such a complex system, so at some point we will have to say that we know about as much as we are ever gonna know, and here are our conclusions (with error bars that clearly show our uncertainty). However, we are clearly NOT at this point (e.g. we updated a major mechanism wrt ozone, what else are we missing?)
The fact that you, and most of the AGW crowd, skip this most fundamental of steps and claim certainty in man’s culpability is a very clear indicator that you care not for the scientific process. Thus, you have no scientific credibility!!
But I will answer your question anyways. Yea. The reason being is that the bank is able to lend out money based on its assets (and pay interest on your account). Had you not include your 7 dollars, the bank would not have had enough assets to make that stupid sub-prime mortgage. But because you put in your 7 dollars, they made the mortgage. However, the lendee didn’t even make a single payment so the bank had to foreclose and lost money. So because you put in your 7 dollars, there was only 103 in the account. Had you not put in your 7, there would have been a 105 (as all their other mortages went fine ).
flyboy – as the AGW crowd will tell you repeatedly, local events cannot be used to infer anything about global climate – you have to look at the big picture (preferably their big picture).
I dont give a rat’s derriere why you can’t figure this out, only that you can’t!!
Don’t crashland when you come down from that high!
Canuck Guy @ 3:23 …Artic ice will disapear…
========================
Some of the letters have already disappeared. You could be right.
flyboy, the point has been made for years and all agree on this, including all of the advocates of AGW; weather and climate are not the same thing. If you knew anything aboutleague tables you would understand there is not the slightest significance to a temperature record being set in any given locality.
Sorry John, your argument still doesn’t hold water, or carbon dioxide. Human emissions are still trivial compared to natural CO2 exchanges. Until you can 1 quantify them and 2 show how they vary, you cannot make the claim that all of the excess CO2 is of human origin because you have not established whether rising CO2 is a cause or an effect of another process.
Frenchie77: If you are claiming that my argument is based on correlation is causation then you do not understand my points.
However I like your example. Now could you please identify the following parts from your extension to my analogy in the area of CO2 sources and sinks.
1) a mortgage
2) the sub-prime mortgage
3) lendee
and then identify the following processes:
1) lend and pay interest
2) foreclosure
2) the mechanism to decide which mortgage to fund and which to not.
Regards,
John