....about climate change is here. But it is highly recommended to download and burn the DVD here, for a high quality version. About Bob Carter If even wikipedia get's a few ad hominems in (conservative think thank, little standing, funding, etc) then you know he is the right stuff.
The right stuff for what? What does this guy know about ice-sheet dynamics, or climate sensitivity? And, why do guys like this start every one of their "essays" with a diatribe, an obvious attack, on scientists who presumably know at least as much as he professes to? P.S. This "scientist", if that's what he is, appears to believe that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998. What's up with that? Is this plonker prepared to place a bet, of any sort, on the probability of the next decade being warmer than the last? I bet he bloody well isn't, because he's already being paid to attack the AGW theory and the IPCC, right?
It could be that he knows what he is talking about: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ And where would be the warming after 1998? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What's this a plot of, exactly, and why is it supposed to indicate a "cooling" trend? The last decade has seen global average temperatures increasing, not decreasing or leveling off. What other graphs or data have you seen, that show a cooling trend? Again - what does Mr Carter know about ice sheets? What does Mr Carter know about climate sensitivity? You realise neither of these things are that well understood by anyone?
The graph is compiled from the data here for the lower troposphere temperatures. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 Another completely independent source for the same datatype is here: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time...hannel_tmt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_0.txt Actually, I see that March 2008 is just in, so I refresh the graph showing both data sets. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See that they do a pretty good job getting to the same order of magnitude. Now please indicate why these graphs should not justify the observation that the warming has stopped in 1998. Sure when the temps go up it's greenhouse effect and when they go down again it's natural variation of course. Furthermore the allegation of lack of knowledge about glacialiology is just foul mouthing fallacy.
So it goes like this: an El Nino causes global warming, and a La Nina causes global cooling? Next question: what causes the oscillation? Is ENSO the proximate cause of global climate then? We can all go home and get some rest, problem solved? P.S. Can you define what "global temperatures" means? Is it the temperature of the atmosphere, the temperature of the oceans, the temperature of land masses...?
A single graph blows AGW out of the water? I don't think that's how the science is meant to work, sonny. A single study may indicate something, but where is the data from? Is it a global study, i.e. the entire troposhere? How does it compare with other temperature records for the last, say 150 years, or isn't a comparison relevant to your argument? Is that right? We can confidently assume a single cause-effect loop, in global climate variation? I don't think that's going to fly either. So does that mean this "scientist" knows nothing about ice-sheet dynamics, or is it that he doesn't need to consider the subject? Or you don't know, or think it matters what he knows about the subject (of frozen water)? How about climate sensitivity? Is he ignorant of that too? Or it isn't relevant? This Carter dud may have a degree or two, but he looks suspiciously like a big-oil shill. You haven't answered my question about why everything he writes on the subject of climate, starts with a page or two of "foul mouthing" aimed squarely at the AGW/IPCC brigade? Why does he do this? How much is Exxon giving him to do it?
Well, your ad hominem filth is so incredible groupthink which goes something like: global warming is true that if the temperatures drop, then the temperatures are wrong (paid by EXXON) and everybody who does not believe in global warming is a crook by definition. To other people, the proof should be in the pudding. If it's not warming, then it's not warming, right? Legimate questions are where those graphs are from, and about climate sensitivity. This page gives a good overview of the satellite global temperature reconstruction of the lower troposphere. Surface temperature sources are here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts dSST.txt http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Scrutiny will show that the independent temperature reconstruction differ significantly from each other, much more than the two independent satellite reconstructions, which should lead to some logical conclusions about the robustness of the different method. But that's only in logic of course, not in AGW politics A thread about climate sensitivity (to CO2) is here Some thoughts about the Pleistocene ice ages: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78874
If it wasn't warming, then, yes that would be the case. But you and your compadre denialist, and the other blinkered "scientists" predicting a cooling phase, just don't have a grip on it, do they? Well, they've got a grip on something, but let's not go there. What about the next solar cycle, and the well-known "one decade does not reveal a trend where climate is concerned" theorem? What about all the other questions you haven't responded to (that is, ignored)?
Anyway, we can talk science sometime when it's all over. Meanwhile you will be way too busy with tar and feathers to character murder the stream of dissidents. Have another one: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
This argument is so old and overdue that it's almost embarrassing that you're using it. Your desperation is showing, dude. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's not an argument, it's a fallacy, the argumentum ad hominem. And the fallacy level here is some orders of magnitude higher than the international average. Therefore we'll take a cool down and come back later to demonstrate why global warming is the second biggest hoax in the history of mankind. The first is mid former century. Somehow, I can't stay friendly when my friends are insulted.
Well, how much rationality do I need to suspend to believe your story about a cooling trend? We already know about being in an interglacial, and that we should, given the timing of the last few, be into a cooling phase by now. There doesn't seem to be much evidence behind solar variation being behind any trend.
Humble opinion here guys, I'm no scientist but I can't see the big attraction of denouncing the possibility of global warming as being so utterly ridiculous it would make a thinking man cringe. If it is the wrong hypothesis, is it so bad for the world to try to reduce emissions ( tell me how good they are please) and to try to achieve a more ecologically sustainable future? The obvious answer for me is that the sceptics are chest beating to the extreme to show their prowess at seeing through the hype and being the great rationalists, visionaries and masters of the universe that they know they are.
There are more people with Dr. before their name, who talk about global cooling: http://www.climatecooling.org/AboutUs.html This is his story: http://www.climatecooling.org/
I'm afraid that a page which claims right off that the Southern Hemisphere has been cooling for 10 years when there has been a slow trend upwards of even the Southern Latitudes, is not to be taken seriously: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif Or indeed the 5 year mean of eitehr hemisphere: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
It wasn't too long ago that we at least had everyone on the same page about whether or not the average temperature of the globe's lower atmosphere is increasing recently, for whatever reason. But I guess that mole will not stay whacked. Because the graph shows temperature anomalies, Andre, and almost all of them are positive - above 0 -, and the fluctuations are up and down around a rising mean. Note that the linear regression line is sloped upward in Andre's post above even though he carefully biases it by starting in a spectacularly and uniquely warm year (one of the techniques mentioned in "How To Lie With Statistics" IIRC - an excellent book to have on one's desk when dealing with CO2 effect denialists).
