R.I.P. Global Warming...The Convenient Truth...it's not hot!

[Saint John]

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm


Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death

This is sad and terribly hilarious at the same time.

That's odd. I just found it funny.

[7 Wishes]

LMFAO. Wherever you stand on this issue, once you take away the fact that the loss of an innocent life is terrible, this really is funny.

[7 Wishes]

The statistics still don't lie - this was the third warmest year in modern history, making 10 of the last 11 the warmest on record. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though.

[hoagiepete]

Just curious...what was happening to the global "temperature" back in the 60s and 70s when we polluted the hell out of the place? No catalytic converters, leaded fuel, factories blowing smoke everywhere, no NOx of SOx regs, everyone burning their own trash (god forbid that one), hippies smoking pot like no tomorrow...sorry I digress.

[conversationpc]

The statistics still don't lie - this was the third warmest year in modern history, making 10 of the last 11 the warmest on record. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though.

Last I heard, after NASA corrected their erroneous numbers yet again, four of the top 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and three were in the last 10-12 years.

[7 Wishes]

We're paying the price for the abuses we levied onto the environment prior to the establishment of more rigorous EPA standards. However, developing nations such as China and India pollute even more than America did at its worst.

Straight from the NASA site:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

"Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record."

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s."

Also, there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
[url]
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html[/url]

[conversationpc]

Dear Lord Monckton, - The UK Meteorological Office has just issued a statement that the past decade has been the warmest on the instrumental record. Is this true?

Dear Enquirer, - Yes, it is true - assuming that we can any longer believe the surface global temperature record, which we now know to have been so widely tampered with by the compilers of all of the major terrestrial-temperature datasets that, in particular, we do not really know whether the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s worldwide: they certainly were in the US.

It is also worth pointing out that for nine full years, since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling. This cooling follows a very sharp upward step-change in global temperatures between 1997 and 2000, which may have something to do with the Great El Nino of 1998, the first in the instrumental-temperature era. Of this cooling, one of the key players in the Climategate email scandal had this to say -

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

So the conspirators are privately admitting we've been right all along about global cooling, and that it's a travesty they can't explain it, while publicly proclaiming that this decade's temperatures are the warmest in 150 years and that this is because of "global warming".

Finally, I recently sat at the feet of Professor Fred Singer, to whose attention I had drawn an interesting paper by Lindzen and Choi (2009), demonstrating that the radiation escaping from the Earth to space, as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is not being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere to cause warming down here, to anything like the extent that the models predict.

The Professor looked very closely at the diagram showing the anomalies in short-wave and, separately, in long-wave radiation, and noticed that, though both had run level until 1997 (and, indeed, there had been no "global warming" from 1980 to 1997), they had been sharply dislocated until 2000, when short-wave radiation ran level at a new and lesser flux, while long-wave radiation ran level at a new and greater flux.

The significance of the Professor's sharp-eyued observations is this. First, the sudden step-change upward in global temperature between 1997 and 2000 is the only warming since the satellite record began in 1980. Before it, there was no warming: after it, there was rapid cooling. It is important to understand that this non-uniform pattern of warming is entirely inconsistent with the steadily-increasing radiative-forcing effect of CO2 concentrations increasing at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade, and cannot, therefore, have been caused by it, for lack of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation.

Secondly, the diminished short-wave radiation after 2000 indicates a reduction in cloud cover, for the clouds reflect short-wave radiation harmlessly back to space. The reduction in cloud cover (whose cause is not clear, for we know exasperatingly little about cloud formation, and this on its own introduces an uncertainty into all climate calculations that renders the claim that "the science is settled" laughable) allows more of the visible and hence high-energy solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface, where it is displaced to the long-wave and can then interact with greenhouse gases on its way out. This sudden increase in long-wave radiation, attributable to the sudden loss of cloud cover indicated by the loss of short-wave radiation reaching the satellite, is quite enough to explain why temperatures have been higher since 2000 than before.

The bottom line: careful attention to the observational data provides explanations for the pattern of temperature change that are much less incomplete and more satisfying than CO2, CO2, CO2. The Professor and I differ on the extent to which phenomena such as changes in cloud cover are deterministic: he looks for a climate in which all influences are eventually explained and understood as causative sequences, while I go with Edward Lorenz (1963), who said that because the climate is mathematically chaotic the reliable long-term prediction of what will happen next in the climate is unobtainable by any method.

However, the Professor and I are at one that the warming of the past 300 years, during 280 of which we could not have been in any way responsible, is all or very nearly all natural. Both of us will be doing more work on why there was a step-change upward in temperature from 1997-2000; but, even on the UN's exaggerated estimate of CO2's warming effect, CO2 cannot - repeat cannot - have been to blame.

If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they would have been having conversations of this kind, rather than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2. - Monckton of Brenchley

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009121377 ... ecord.html

[kmjrr]

To all the people who think getting off fossil fuels will be easy and why aren't we doing it now, this is an interesting read. British physics professor David McKay calculated what it would take for the US to replace fossil fuels with 1/3 nuclear, 1/3 wind, and 1/3 solar power. Realize when you read these figures that they are calculated with the huge assumption that the US reduces their energy use by one half. So double these numbers to figure our energy needs for today. Also, check out his free online book.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05 ... =allsearch

Editor's note: David MacKay is a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge. His book, "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air," is published by UIT Cambridge and is also available in electronic form for free from http://www.withouthotair.com/.

(CNN) -- We need to introduce simple arithmetic into our discussions of energy.

We need to understand how much energy our chosen lifestyles consume, we need to decide where we want that energy to come from, and we need to get on with building energy systems of sufficient size to match our desired consumption.

Our failure to talk straight about the numbers is allowing people to persist in wishful thinking, inspired by inane sayings such as "every little bit helps."

Assuming we are serious about getting off fossil fuels, the scale of building required should not be underestimated. Small actions alone will not deliver a solution.

Let's express energy consumption and energy production using simple personal units, namely kilowatt-hours. One kilowatt-hour (kWh) is the energy used by leaving a 40-watt bulb on for 24 hours. The chemical energy in the food we eat to stay alive amounts to about 3 kWh per day. Taking one hot bath uses about 5 kWh of heat. Driving an average European car 100 kilometers (roughly 62 miles) uses 80 kWh of fuel. With a few of these numbers in mind, we can start to evaluate some of the recommendations that people make about energy.

Take, for example, the idea that one of the top 10 things you should do to make a difference to your energy consumption is to unplug your cell-phone charger when you are not using it. The truth is that leaving a phone charger plugged in uses about 0.01 kWh per day, 1/100th of the power consumed by a lightbulb.

This means that switching the phone charger off for a whole day saves the same energy as is used in driving an average car for one second. Switching off phone chargers is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. I'm not saying you shouldn't unplug it, but please realize, when you do so, what a tiny fraction it is of your total energy footprint.

In total, the European lifestyle uses 125 kWh per day per person for transport, heating, manufacturing, and electricity. That's equivalent to every person having 125 light bulbs switched on all the time. The average American uses 250 kWh per day: 250 light bulbs.

And most of this energy today comes from fossil fuels. What are our post-fossil-fuel options?

Among the energy-saving options, two promising technology switches are the electrification of transportation (electric vehicles can be about four times as energy-efficient as standard fossil-fuel vehicles) and the use of electric-powered heat pumps to deliver winter heating and hot water (heat pumps can be four times as energy-efficient as standard heaters).

Among all the energy-supply technologies, the three with the biggest potential today are solar power, wind power and nuclear power.

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.

I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about geothermal energy, biofuels or hydroelectricity? In a short article, I can't discuss all the technology options.

But the sober message about wind and solar applies to all renewables: All renewables, much as I love them, deliver only a small power per unit area, so if we want renewable facilities to supply power on a scale at all comparable to our consumption, those facilities must be big.

If you don't want to build 1 million wind turbines, you can drill 1 million geothermal boreholes instead.

Before I close, I would like to say a few words about the idea that "the hydrogen economy" can magically solve our energy problems. The truth is that, in energy terms, today's hydrogen-powered vehicles don't help at all. Most prototype hydrogen-powered vehicles use more energy than the fossil-fuel vehicles they replace. The BMW Hydrogen 7, for example, uses 254 kWh per 100 km, but the average fossil car in Europe uses 80 kWh per 100 km.

In contrast, electric vehicles use far less energy: as little as 20 kWh per 100 km, or even 6 kWh per 100 km. The problem with hydrogen is that both the creation and the use of hydrogen are energy-inefficient steps. Adopting hydrogen as a transport fuel would increase our energy demand. And, as I hope the numbers above have shown, supplying energy to match our demand is not going to be easy.

The public discussion of energy options tends to be emotional, polarized, mistrustful and destructive. I hope that focusing attention on the numbers may make it possible to develop honest and constructive conversations about energy.

It's not going to be easy to make a energy plan that adds up, but it is possible. We need to get building.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David MacKay.

[conversationpc]

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm


Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death

This is sad and terribly hilarious at the same time.

That's odd. I just found it funny.

It is funny...But not true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/freeze.asp

[conversationpc]

Snopes ruins all the good stuff...

I'm getting really POd at your avatar, btw.

[conversationpc]

Snopes ruins all the good stuff...

I'm getting really POd at your avatar, btw.

I've been thinking of changing it, but everytime I do, 7 or Dean makes another one of those silly posts and well, the av just seems apt.

Just change the avatar and put him in your sig.

[7 Wishes]

Sigh.

I'm done with this thread for awhile. It's going nowhere.

[steveo777]

Sigh.

I'm done with this thread for awhile. It's going nowhere.

Where did you expect it to go? The man maders think they're right and the climate gate folks think they're right. Problem is, Al Gore and his followers are wrong, always have been. Yeah, this thread is just not going anywhere for you because you are operating on false information that you and a few million others bought into, lock, stock and barrel, which has recently been debunked, causing a vacuum for you and your ilk. Suddenly there is nothing to hold onto. Everything has collapsed and this thread really needs to stand as a monument to that truth. Thanks for playing!

[conversationpc]

Sigh.

I'm done with this thread for awhile. It's going nowhere.

That's never stopped you before.

[Monker]

Wow, Lord Monckton is a complete fraud. I saw him on FOX a few months ago and even I could find holes in his theories that could almost swallow his ego. The truth is he is an opinionator, not a scientist. NONE of the claims below are peer reviewed and once you start looking into them, they are FULL of errors...and since HE knows it - they are outright LIES.

That's the problem with this debate, people actually believe JUNK like this, or the extremes on the other side...and the REALITY of the situation gets ignored.

Dear Lord Monckton, - The UK Meteorological Office has just issued a statement that the past decade has been the warmest on the instrumental record. Is this true?

Dear Enquirer, - Yes, it is true - assuming that we can any longer believe the surface global temperature record, which we now know to have been so widely tampered with by the compilers of all of the major terrestrial-temperature datasets that, in particular, we do not really know whether the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s worldwide: they certainly were in the US.

It is also worth pointing out that for nine full years, since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling. This cooling follows a very sharp upward step-change in global temperatures between 1997 and 2000, which may have something to do with the Great El Nino of 1998, the first in the instrumental-temperature era. Of this cooling, one of the key players in the Climategate email scandal had this to say -

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

So the conspirators are privately admitting we've been right all along about global cooling, and that it's a travesty they can't explain it, while publicly proclaiming that this decade's temperatures are the warmest in 150 years and that this is because of "global warming".

Finally, I recently sat at the feet of Professor Fred Singer, to whose attention I had drawn an interesting paper by Lindzen and Choi (2009), demonstrating that the radiation escaping from the Earth to space, as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is not being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere to cause warming down here, to anything like the extent that the models predict.

The Professor looked very closely at the diagram showing the anomalies in short-wave and, separately, in long-wave radiation, and noticed that, though both had run level until 1997 (and, indeed, there had been no "global warming" from 1980 to 1997), they had been sharply dislocated until 2000, when short-wave radiation ran level at a new and lesser flux, while long-wave radiation ran level at a new and greater flux.

The significance of the Professor's sharp-eyued observations is this. First, the sudden step-change upward in global temperature between 1997 and 2000 is the only warming since the satellite record began in 1980. Before it, there was no warming: after it, there was rapid cooling. It is important to understand that this non-uniform pattern of warming is entirely inconsistent with the steadily-increasing radiative-forcing effect of CO2 concentrations increasing at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade, and cannot, therefore, have been caused by it, for lack of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation.

Secondly, the diminished short-wave radiation after 2000 indicates a reduction in cloud cover, for the clouds reflect short-wave radiation harmlessly back to space. The reduction in cloud cover (whose cause is not clear, for we know exasperatingly little about cloud formation, and this on its own introduces an uncertainty into all climate calculations that renders the claim that "the science is settled" laughable) allows more of the visible and hence high-energy solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface, where it is displaced to the long-wave and can then interact with greenhouse gases on its way out. This sudden increase in long-wave radiation, attributable to the sudden loss of cloud cover indicated by the loss of short-wave radiation reaching the satellite, is quite enough to explain why temperatures have been higher since 2000 than before.

The bottom line: careful attention to the observational data provides explanations for the pattern of temperature change that are much less incomplete and more satisfying than CO2, CO2, CO2. The Professor and I differ on the extent to which phenomena such as changes in cloud cover are deterministic: he looks for a climate in which all influences are eventually explained and understood as causative sequences, while I go with Edward Lorenz (1963), who said that because the climate is mathematically chaotic the reliable long-term prediction of what will happen next in the climate is unobtainable by any method.

However, the Professor and I are at one that the warming of the past 300 years, during 280 of which we could not have been in any way responsible, is all or very nearly all natural. Both of us will be doing more work on why there was a step-change upward in temperature from 1997-2000; but, even on the UN's exaggerated estimate of CO2's warming effect, CO2 cannot - repeat cannot - have been to blame.

If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they would have been having conversations of this kind, rather than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2. - Monckton of Brenchley

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009121377 ... ecord.html

[conversationpc]

Wow, Lord Monckton is a complete fraud. I saw him on FOX a few months ago and even I could find holes in his theories that could almost swallow his ego. The truth is he is an opinionator, not a scientist. NONE of the claims below are peer reviewed and once you start looking into them, they are FULL of errors...and since HE knows it - they are outright LIES.

That's the problem with this debate, people actually believe JUNK like this, or the extremes on the other side...and the REALITY of the situation gets ignored.

Dear Lord Monckton, - The UK Meteorological Office has just issued a statement that the past decade has been the warmest on the instrumental record. Is this true?

Dear Enquirer, - Yes, it is true - assuming that we can any longer believe the surface global temperature record, which we now know to have been so widely tampered with by the compilers of all of the major terrestrial-temperature datasets that, in particular, we do not really know whether the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s worldwide: they certainly were in the US.

It is also worth pointing out that for nine full years, since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling. This cooling follows a very sharp upward step-change in global temperatures between 1997 and 2000, which may have something to do with the Great El Nino of 1998, the first in the instrumental-temperature era. Of this cooling, one of the key players in the Climategate email scandal had this to say -

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

So the conspirators are privately admitting we've been right all along about global cooling, and that it's a travesty they can't explain it, while publicly proclaiming that this decade's temperatures are the warmest in 150 years and that this is because of "global warming".

Finally, I recently sat at the feet of Professor Fred Singer, to whose attention I had drawn an interesting paper by Lindzen and Choi (2009), demonstrating that the radiation escaping from the Earth to space, as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is not being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere to cause warming down here, to anything like the extent that the models predict.

The Professor looked very closely at the diagram showing the anomalies in short-wave and, separately, in long-wave radiation, and noticed that, though both had run level until 1997 (and, indeed, there had been no "global warming" from 1980 to 1997), they had been sharply dislocated until 2000, when short-wave radiation ran level at a new and lesser flux, while long-wave radiation ran level at a new and greater flux.

The significance of the Professor's sharp-eyued observations is this. First, the sudden step-change upward in global temperature between 1997 and 2000 is the only warming since the satellite record began in 1980. Before it, there was no warming: after it, there was rapid cooling. It is important to understand that this non-uniform pattern of warming is entirely inconsistent with the steadily-increasing radiative-forcing effect of CO2 concentrations increasing at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade, and cannot, therefore, have been caused by it, for lack of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation.

Secondly, the diminished short-wave radiation after 2000 indicates a reduction in cloud cover, for the clouds reflect short-wave radiation harmlessly back to space. The reduction in cloud cover (whose cause is not clear, for we know exasperatingly little about cloud formation, and this on its own introduces an uncertainty into all climate calculations that renders the claim that "the science is settled" laughable) allows more of the visible and hence high-energy solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface, where it is displaced to the long-wave and can then interact with greenhouse gases on its way out. This sudden increase in long-wave radiation, attributable to the sudden loss of cloud cover indicated by the loss of short-wave radiation reaching the satellite, is quite enough to explain why temperatures have been higher since 2000 than before.

The bottom line: careful attention to the observational data provides explanations for the pattern of temperature change that are much less incomplete and more satisfying than CO2, CO2, CO2. The Professor and I differ on the extent to which phenomena such as changes in cloud cover are deterministic: he looks for a climate in which all influences are eventually explained and understood as causative sequences, while I go with Edward Lorenz (1963), who said that because the climate is mathematically chaotic the reliable long-term prediction of what will happen next in the climate is unobtainable by any method.

However, the Professor and I are at one that the warming of the past 300 years, during 280 of which we could not have been in any way responsible, is all or very nearly all natural. Both of us will be doing more work on why there was a step-change upward in temperature from 1997-2000; but, even on the UN's exaggerated estimate of CO2's warming effect, CO2 cannot - repeat cannot - have been to blame.

If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they would have been having conversations of this kind, rather than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2. - Monckton of Brenchley

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009121377 ... ecord.html

I just knew you or some other poser would bring this up. Regardless, he's no more of a fraud than the man-maders who've been caught fudging the numbers.

[Monker]

Snopes ruins all the good stuff...

I'm getting really POd at your avatar, btw.

The REAL funny thing is is that Penn is a hard-core Libertarian and probably disagrees, vehemently, with at least half of what FF believes. I posted a video up there somewhere of a "Bullshit!" episode where they make fun of carbon credits, and the extreme climate change believers. However, at the end, he refuses to call global warming itself bullshit - because "the Earth IS getting warmer". His issue is that even if it is, did man cause it? Is there anything we can do about it? Then he goes on and critiques religion and says there is PLENTY of bullshit involved there...and it's much more obvious.

So, laugh it up fuzzballs! I agree with almost everything Penn says.

[Monker]

Wow, Lord Monckton is a complete fraud. I saw him on FOX a few months ago and even I could find holes in his theories that could almost swallow his ego. The truth is he is an opinionator, not a scientist. NONE of the claims below are peer reviewed and once you start looking into them, they are FULL of errors...and since HE knows it - they are outright LIES.

That's the problem with this debate, people actually believe JUNK like this, or the extremes on the other side...and the REALITY of the situation gets ignored.

Dear Lord Monckton, - The UK Meteorological Office has just issued a statement that the past decade has been the warmest on the instrumental record. Is this true?

Dear Enquirer, - Yes, it is true - assuming that we can any longer believe the surface global temperature record, which we now know to have been so widely tampered with by the compilers of all of the major terrestrial-temperature datasets that, in particular, we do not really know whether the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s worldwide: they certainly were in the US.

It is also worth pointing out that for nine full years, since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling. This cooling follows a very sharp upward step-change in global temperatures between 1997 and 2000, which may have something to do with the Great El Nino of 1998, the first in the instrumental-temperature era. Of this cooling, one of the key players in the Climategate email scandal had this to say -

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

So the conspirators are privately admitting we've been right all along about global cooling, and that it's a travesty they can't explain it, while publicly proclaiming that this decade's temperatures are the warmest in 150 years and that this is because of "global warming".

Finally, I recently sat at the feet of Professor Fred Singer, to whose attention I had drawn an interesting paper by Lindzen and Choi (2009), demonstrating that the radiation escaping from the Earth to space, as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is not being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere to cause warming down here, to anything like the extent that the models predict.

The Professor looked very closely at the diagram showing the anomalies in short-wave and, separately, in long-wave radiation, and noticed that, though both had run level until 1997 (and, indeed, there had been no "global warming" from 1980 to 1997), they had been sharply dislocated until 2000, when short-wave radiation ran level at a new and lesser flux, while long-wave radiation ran level at a new and greater flux.

The significance of the Professor's sharp-eyued observations is this. First, the sudden step-change upward in global temperature between 1997 and 2000 is the only warming since the satellite record began in 1980. Before it, there was no warming: after it, there was rapid cooling. It is important to understand that this non-uniform pattern of warming is entirely inconsistent with the steadily-increasing radiative-forcing effect of CO2 concentrations increasing at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade, and cannot, therefore, have been caused by it, for lack of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation.

Secondly, the diminished short-wave radiation after 2000 indicates a reduction in cloud cover, for the clouds reflect short-wave radiation harmlessly back to space. The reduction in cloud cover (whose cause is not clear, for we know exasperatingly little about cloud formation, and this on its own introduces an uncertainty into all climate calculations that renders the claim that "the science is settled" laughable) allows more of the visible and hence high-energy solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface, where it is displaced to the long-wave and can then interact with greenhouse gases on its way out. This sudden increase in long-wave radiation, attributable to the sudden loss of cloud cover indicated by the loss of short-wave radiation reaching the satellite, is quite enough to explain why temperatures have been higher since 2000 than before.

The bottom line: careful attention to the observational data provides explanations for the pattern of temperature change that are much less incomplete and more satisfying than CO2, CO2, CO2. The Professor and I differ on the extent to which phenomena such as changes in cloud cover are deterministic: he looks for a climate in which all influences are eventually explained and understood as causative sequences, while I go with Edward Lorenz (1963), who said that because the climate is mathematically chaotic the reliable long-term prediction of what will happen next in the climate is unobtainable by any method.

However, the Professor and I are at one that the warming of the past 300 years, during 280 of which we could not have been in any way responsible, is all or very nearly all natural. Both of us will be doing more work on why there was a step-change upward in temperature from 1997-2000; but, even on the UN's exaggerated estimate of CO2's warming effect, CO2 cannot - repeat cannot - have been to blame.

If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they would have been having conversations of this kind, rather than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2. - Monckton of Brenchley

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009121377 ... ecord.html

I just knew you or some other poser would bring this up. Regardless, he's no more of a fraud than the man-maders who've been caught fudging the numbers.

Ah, I see how your math works, two negatives make a positive.

[7 Wishes]

Sigh.

I'm done with this thread for awhile. It's going nowhere.

Where did you expect it to go? The man maders think they're right and the climate gate folks think they're right. Problem is, Al Gore and his followers are wrong, always have been. Yeah, this thread is just not going anywhere for you because you are operating on false information that you and a few million others bought into, lock, stock and barrel, which has recently been debunked, causing a vacuum for you and your ilk. Suddenly there is nothing to hold onto. Everything has collapsed and this thread really needs to stand as a monument to that truth. Thanks for playing!

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable and outweighs the tainted information YOU'RE counting on from disinfotainer-mad scientists. THAT is the problem. EVERY SINGLE sanctioned scientific body in the world and 90% of the world's climatologists believe in man-caused global warming / climate change. The proof is irrefutable. The fact that you're so dismissive against the weight of innumerable facts shows you get your "news" from Fox.

[conversationpc]

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable...

You constantly say EVERYTHING you post is "irrefutable" and "absolute fact", blah blah blah. Get some new material.

[RedWingFan]

Sigh.

I'm done with this thread for awhile. It's going nowhere.

Where did you expect it to go? The man maders think they're right and the climate gate folks think they're right. Problem is, Al Gore and his followers are wrong, always have been. Yeah, this thread is just not going anywhere for you because you are operating on false information that you and a few million others bought into, lock, stock and barrel, which has recently been debunked, causing a vacuum for you and your ilk. Suddenly there is nothing to hold onto. Everything has collapsed and this thread really needs to stand as a monument to that truth. Thanks for playing!

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable and outweighs the tainted information YOU'RE counting on from disinfotainer-mad scientists. THAT is the problem. EVERY SINGLE sanctioned scientific body in the world and 90% of the world's climatologists believe in man-caused global warming / climate change. The proof is irrefutable. The fact that you're so dismissive against the weight of innumerable facts shows you get your "news" from Fox.

We heard you the first 2000 times Professor Jones! P.S. It's still getting colder!

[Monker]

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable...

You constantly say EVERYTHING you post is "irrefutable" and "absolute fact", blah blah blah. Get some new material.

Yeah, says the guy who quotes Lord KnowNothing!

[Monker]

Penn Jillette on Global Warming:

BECK: Do you believe in the global warming thing?

JILLETTE: I don't know enough. But you have to remember that global warming is all lumped together and it breaks down into many things. Is it happening? Did we cause it? If we caused it, can we stop it? You and I can start pushing a truck down a hill. That doesn't mean we could stop it.

BECK: Right.

JILLETTE: If it's happening and we caused it and we can stop it, is it a bad thing? If all those things are true, is the way to stop it by conservation, and then the other thing is, if all of those things are true, is the way to do that government power? And that all this gets thrown into one question.

BECK: You never hear that conversation.

JILLETTE: As one question.

BECK: Everybody shuts you down. You can't even discuss that. Are you are amazed at how many things we are doing right now that are gigantic, that nobody is even really talking about?

JILLETTE: It always bothers me that when you say there is some more thinking to do on global warming, they deal with you — in some cases — I have been called this literally like you're a Holocaust denier.

BECK: I have been called that, too.

JILLETTE: Because you say you have questions about it, but the truth of the matter is we have never solved anything with conservation.

In the '50s, there was a huge shortage of tin, and we tried to conserve tin and then aluminum came along. Now there is more tin than there ever was. It will always be technology. It will always be moving ahead. It probably won't be conservation. And that's if you take all of those others as given.

I think the world probably is heating up, but I don't know how much further I'm willing to go than that.

[conversationpc]

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable...

You constantly say EVERYTHING you post is "irrefutable" and "absolute fact", blah blah blah. Get some new material.

Yeah, says the guy who quotes Lord KnowNothing!

First time I've ever quoted the guy as far as I know. Besides that, you're not exactly in a position to judge, are you?

[RedWingFan]

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable...

You constantly say EVERYTHING you post is "irrefutable" and "absolute fact", blah blah blah. Get some new material.

Yeah, says the guy who quotes Lord KnowNothing!

First time I've ever quoted the guy as far as I know. Besides that, you're not exactly in a position to judge, are you?

Hey, Monker lives in his mom's basement to save energy and live green. What are you doing?

[conversationpc]

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable...

You constantly say EVERYTHING you post is "irrefutable" and "absolute fact", blah blah blah. Get some new material.

Yeah, says the guy who quotes Lord KnowNothing!

First time I've ever quoted the guy as far as I know. Besides that, you're not exactly in a position to judge, are you?

Hey, Monker lives in his mom's basement to save energy and live green. What are you doing?

Just had a green booger fall out of my nose...Seriously. Does that count?

[steveo777]

Sigh.

I'm done with this thread for awhile. It's going nowhere.

Where did you expect it to go? The man maders think they're right and the climate gate folks think they're right. Problem is, Al Gore and his followers are wrong, always have been. Yeah, this thread is just not going anywhere for you because you are operating on false information that you and a few million others bought into, lock, stock and barrel, which has recently been debunked, causing a vacuum for you and your ilk. Suddenly there is nothing to hold onto. Everything has collapsed and this thread really needs to stand as a monument to that truth. Thanks for playing!

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable and outweighs the tainted information YOU'RE counting on from disinfotainer-mad scientists. THAT is the problem. EVERY SINGLE sanctioned scientific body in the world and 90% of the world's climatologists believe in man-caused global warming / climate change. The proof is irrefutable. The fact that you're so dismissive against the weight of innumerable facts shows you get your "news" from Fox.

What happened?

In other news scientists have reported that we are approaching the next ice age.

[Monker]

Complete bullshit. The information and data I have posted is irrefutable...

You constantly say EVERYTHING you post is "irrefutable" and "absolute fact", blah blah blah. Get some new material.

Yeah, says the guy who quotes Lord KnowNothing!

First time I've ever quoted the guy as far as I know. Besides that, you're not exactly in a position to judge, are you?

Of course I am.

[7 Wishes]

In other news scientists have reported that we are approaching the next ice age.

Really? Please find me ONE article written by a sanctioned scientific body or any peer-reviewed scientific article written in the past 30 years in which a climatologist claims we're about to embark on another Ice Age.

[steveo777]

In other news scientists have reported that we are approaching the next ice age.

Really? Please find me ONE article written by a sanctioned scientific body or any peer-reviewed scientific article written in the past 30 years in which a climatologist claims we're about to embark on another Ice Age.

Actually, the info out there came from oceanographers, but I'll find some of the articles later, unless you want to google them. I have little time right now. Global cooling is coming.