Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Most Anticipated Fall Children's Books Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc New Album by Fergie Get 10% cashback on thousands of musical instruments with your Amazon.com Store Credit Card Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Trade in. Get paid. Go shopping. Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 19, 2012, 7:09:47 AM PST
R Monroe says:

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:12:48 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:34:33 AM PST
You didn't...

I've been off boards drinking. See what I've been drinking:


Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:14:12 AM PST
1) The Earth is warming - as corroborated by a host of evidence.
2) This warming is caused by greenhouse gases, as supported by a wide constellation of evidence.
3) The greenhouse gas that has changed is CO2 and human fossil fuel emissions are driving the atmospheric CO2 concentration increase according to carbon isotope evidence.

I'll introduce each of these points with a separate post, starting with 1 below:

1) We have a conclusive array of evidence that the Earth is warming. This evidence comes from a range of direct measurements, but is also corroborated by a host of other phenomena. On the measurement side, we have ocean surface, ocean depth (XBT & buoy) data sets, surface land measurements, and satellite data sets (such as the MSU data sets from RSS & UAH). All these data sets are in agreement. On the physical phenomena side we have hundreds of studies documenting the global retreat of the cryosphere (ice caps, glaciers, sea ice, and ice shelves). These studies feature a number of high profile satellite studies showing overall ice mass loss in southern and peripheral Greenland, the Antarctic Peninsula and Western Antarctica. There is excellent satellite data showing a precipitous loss in Arctic sea ice extent. Finally there are thousands of studies from the field of biology documenting seasonal ecosystem changes modifying such things as animal and fish migration patterns and timing, timing of spring blooms, autumn seed bearing, and other biospheric phenomena that corroborate climate. All of these streams of data corroborate each other and tell a consistent story - the Earth is warming.

Surface Temps (instrument record):

Satellite microwave sounding unit temperature data sets:

Radiosonde balloon:

Ocean temps:

Sea ice extent data sets:

Sea ice volume (area times thickness):

Antarctic losing ice mass:

Greenland losing ice mass:
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE - I. Velicogna

Retreat of glaciers:

Corroborating evidence of changes to the natural world (the field of "phenology") - see 3rd post down from here.

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:16:08 AM PST
2) Greenhouse gas warming is the cause of this observed warming:

If greenhouse gases were causing the Earth to warm we would expect a number of diagnostic phenomena to be observable because greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat and then re-radiate it all directions. These "fingerprints" would be:

1) an energy imbalance in the Earth's radiant budget. Less heat would be escaping back into space than the Earth receives. The difference between the radiation coming in and going out would be driving the warming. This is a unique signature of greenhouse gas warming.

2) because atmospheric gases would be the locus of the warming we would expect the lower atmospheric stratum - the troposphere to warm. Conversely, because more of the outgoing radiant heat from the Earth would be trapped by the troposphere and re-emitted in all directions we would expect that the stratosphere above it would be deprived of radiant heating from the Earth's surface and would cool. If the Sun, and not greenhouse gases, were a principle source of the warming we would expect the stratosphere to warm too.

3) Because the troposphere is warming (and expanding) while the stratosphere cools (and contracts) we would expect the dividing line between the two - the tropopause to rise in altitude.

4) We would expect the oceans to warm, as well as the atmosphere. This would not be so if the shifts in ocean thermal sinks was the cause of the warming.

5) We would expect spectral measurements of the sun from Earth to show an increasing amount of blockage of greenhouse gas wavelengths over time as greenhouse gas concentrations rise. We would expect to see an increase in emissions at precisely these wavelengths when looking down at the troposphere from space because Kirchoff's law dictates that thermal radiation absorbed must be equally emitted.

6) We would expect more of the warming - as a percentage to occur at night rather than during the day because of thermal emissions from greenhouse gases that absorbed thermal radiation during the day. We would concomitantly expect the reduced temperatures spreads between night and day. We would also expect reduced spreads between summer and winter temperatures, broadly averaged. These are all the inverse of what would be expected if the sun was the source of the warming.

Do we see any of these expected effects of greenhouse gas warming? Yes - we see ALL of them:

1) Earth's energy imbalance:
Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252.

The GISS page has links to download the full article:

2) Troposphere is warming:
Troposphere is warming (see UAH and RSS data sets of MSU satellite data) - see also:
Global Warming Trend of Mean Tropospheric Temperature Observed by Satellites
Konstantin Y. Vinnikov1* and Norman C. Grody2
Science 10 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5643, pp. 269 - 272
DOI: 10.1126/science.1087910

Stratosphere is cooling - also see UAH and RSS - as well as:
Enhanced Mid-Latitude Tropospheric Warming in Satellite Measurements
Qiang Fu,1,2* Celeste M. Johanson,1 John M. Wallace,1 Thomas Reichler3
Science 26 May 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5777, p. 1179
DOI: 10.1126/science.1125566

Abstract: "The spatial distribution of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends for 1979 to 2005 was examined, based on radiances from satellite-borne microwave sounding units that were processed with state-of-the-art retrieval algorithms. We found that relative to the global-mean trends of the respective layers, both hemispheres have experienced enhanced tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 15 to 45° latitude belt, which is a pattern indicative of a widening of the tropical circulation and a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet streams and their associated subtropical dry zones. This distinctive spatial pattern in the trends appears to be a robust feature of this 27-year record."

3) Tropopause is rising:
Contributions of Anthropogenic
and Natural Forcing to Recent
Tropopause Height Changes
B. D. Santer,1* M. F. Wehner,2 T. M. L. Wigley,3 R. Sausen,4
G. A. Meehl,3 K. E. Taylor,1 C. Ammann,3 J. Arblaster,3
W. M. Washington,3 J. S. Boyle,1 W. Bru¨ggemann5
25 JULY 2003 VOL 301 SCIENCE - pg 480

Read the whole article - free pdf download:

4) Oceans are warming:
Robust warming of the global upper ocean; Nature 465, 334-337 (20 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature09043

A large (~1023 J) multi-decadal globally averaged warming signal in the upper 300 m of the world's oceans was reported roughly a decade ago1 and is attributed to warming associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases2, 3. The majority of the Earth's total energy uptake during recent decades has occurred in the upper ocean3, but the underlying uncertainties in ocean warming are unclear, limiting our ability to assess closure of sea-level budgets4, 5, 6, 7, the global radiation imbalance8 and climate models5. For example, several teams have recently produced different multi-year estimates of the annually averaged global integral of upper-ocean heat content anomalies (hereafter OHCA curves) or, equivalently, the thermosteric sea-level rise5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Patterns of interannual variability, in particular, differ among methods. Here we examine several sources of uncertainty that contribute to differences among OHCA curves from 1993 to 2008, focusing on the difficulties of correcting biases in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. XBT data constitute the majority of the in situ measurements of upper-ocean heat content from 1967 to 2002, and we find that the uncertainty due to choice of XBT bias correction dominates among-method variability in OHCA curves during our 1993-2008 study period. Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993-2008 of 0.64 W m-2 (calculated for the Earth's entire surface area), with a 90-per-cent confidence interval of 0.53-0.75 W m-2.

5) Direct observation of CO2 concentration increase in the absorptive spectra of Earth's atmosphere:

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553;
"Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

(Corroborated by the following):
Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present
Jennifer A. Griggs and John E. Harries
Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5543, 164 (2004); doi:10.1117/12.556803

"Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate."

6) For temperature spreads, the IPCC lists a number of papers referenced here:
From the IPCC 4th Assessment: " Temperature

For temperature extremes in the 20th century, the TAR highlighted the lengthening of the growing or frost-free season in most mid- and high-latitude regions, a reduction in the frequency of extreme low monthly and seasonal average temperatures and smaller increases in the frequency of extreme high average temperatures. In addition, there was evidence to suggest a decrease in the intra-annual temperature variability with consistent reductions in frost days and increases in warm nighttime temperatures across much of the globe. ..."
[the article goes on to cite all the sources for this conclusion]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:16:38 AM PST
R Monroe says:
Joshua G. Feldman says:
You didn't...

why the heck not?

where else can TPW make a spectacle of herself?

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:16:57 AM PST
3. This accumulation of CO2 is due to human activity. The carbon cycle of the Earth has a stable mix of carbon isotopes C12 (the stable base isotope), C13 (a stable isotope that is preferentially not incorporated by plants), and C14 (the radioactive version created by the action of cosmic rays high in the atmosphere). Fossil fuel emissions are C12 enriched compared to the natural balance of carbon isotopes because it has been sequestered in rock for hundreds of millions of years. Thus, if fossil fuel emissions were behind the rise in atmospheric CO2 we would expect the proportion of C12 to rise. This is exactly what is happening. Because ocean sinks outgas CO2 when the oceans warm, C13 is a useful marker in differentiating CO2 from ocean and fossil fuel sources because fossil fuel sources will be C13 poor - just like plant sources.

This evidence begins with Suess and Revell 1957 - for which I'll refer you to AIP (Spencer Weart)'s excellent history of the theory of CO2's role in greenhouse gas warming:
specifically reference 30:
"30. Suess (1955); see also Suess (1953); a confirmation: Münnich (1957); Revision: Houtermans et al. (1967), see p. 68. "

But research on this topic has continued through the decades, adding precision and certainty to the results. Here are more contemporary citations:

Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 Evidence
P. D. Quay 1, B. Tilbrook 2, and C. S. Wong 3
Science 3 April 1992:
Vol. 256. no. 5053, pp. 74 - 79
DOI: 10.1126/science.256.5053.74

"The 13C value of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean has decreased by about 0.4 per mil between 1970 and 1990. This decrease has resulted from the uptake of atmospheric CO2 derived from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. The net amounts of CO2 taken up by the oceans and released from the biosphere between 1970 and 1990 have been determined from the changes in three measured values: the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the 13C of atmospheric CO2 and the 13C value of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. The calculated average net oceanic CO2 uptake is 2.1 gigatons of carbon per year. This amount implies that the ocean is the dominant net sink for anthropogenically produced CO2 and that there has been no significant net CO2 released from the biosphere during the last 20 years."

Reconstructing the oceanic 13C Suess Effect
Rolf Sonnerup et. al.

he anthropogenic δ13C change for the time period 1968 to 1991 was determined based on calculations of the preformed 13C/12C of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) distributions on isopycnal surfaces in the main thermocline of the Pacific, North Atlantic and South Indian Oceans. The time rate of change of preformed δ13C (the 13C Suess effect) along isopycnals was calculated using CFC-derived water ages and yields a time history of the surface water δ13C change at the isopycnal outcrop location. The surface ocean Suess effect recorded on isopycnals decreased with increasing outcrop latitude from approximately −0.2‰ decade−1 within the subtropics to around −0.1‰ decade−1 in the subpolar oceans. In the Pacific Ocean these surface δ13C change rate reconstructions agree, both in magnitude and meridional trend, with direct observations of surface ocean δ13C changes reported from time series measurements and from comparisons of surface water δ13C of DIC measurements in 1970 and 1993. A global ocean average surface δ13C rate of change of −0.15 ± 0.04 ‰ decade−1 is determined, which is slightly smaller than a previous time series data and model-based estimate (−0.171‰ decade−1 , [Bacastow etal., 1996]). Depth integrations of the 13C reconstructions in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans, when combined with these previous individual depth profile comparisons and Geochemical Ocean Sections Study bomb 14C inventories [Quay et al, 1992], imply a global depth-integrated δ13C change rate of −9.7 ± 2.4‰ m yr−1 over the time period 1970-1990. These results imply a net oceanic CO2 uptake rate of 1.9 ± 0.9 Gt C yr−1 over the time period 1970-1990 when applied to an atmospheric 13CO2 and 12CO2 budget.

There are many articles. The recent thrust of this research has been on the topic of ocean acidification. The point is that the Suess effect is well known and corroborated. Anthropogenic carbon emissions are known to have altered global carbon isotope ratios.

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:17:39 AM PST
The evidence of phenology corroborates that the Earth is warming:
P.A. Cotton
Avian migration phenology and global climate change
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 100, Issue 21, p.12219-12222
Abstract: "There is mounting evidence that global climate change has extended growing seasons, changed distribution patterns, and altered the phenology of flowering, breeding, and migration. For migratory birds, the timing of arrival on breeding territories and over-wintering grounds is a key determinant of reproductive success, survivorship, and fitness. But we know little of the factors controlling earlier passage in long-distance migrants. Over the past 30 years in Oxfordshire, U.K., the average arrival and departure dates of 20 migrant bird species have both advanced by 8 days; consequently, the overall residence time in Oxfordshire has remained unchanged. The timing of arrival has advanced in relation to increasing winter temperatures in sub-Saharan Africa, whereas the timing of departure has advanced after elevated summer temperatures in Oxfordshire. This finding demonstrates that migratory phenology is quite likely to be affected by global climate change and links events in tropical winter quarters with those in temperate breeding areas. "

Cynthia Rosenzweig1, David Karoly2, Marta Vicarelli1, Peter Neofotis1, Qigang Wu3, Gino Casassa4, Annette Menzel5, Terry L. Root6, Nicole Estrella5, Bernard Seguin7, Piotr Tryjanowski8, Chunzhen Liu9, Samuel Rawlins10 & Anton Imeson
Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change
Nature 453, 353-357 (15 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06937.
"Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents."

Isabelle Chuine, Xavier Morin, and Harald Bugmann (16 July 2010)
Science 329 (5989), 277-e. [DOI: 10.1126/science.329.5989.277-e]
"Phenological events such as bud burst, flowering, and senescence have received increased interest in the light of global warming (1-3). Spring events at temperate latitudes have advanced by 2.5 days per decade since 1971 (4). As global warming progresses, how will it affect the arrival of spring and the length of the growing season? "

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:20:46 AM PST
A frequent topic in AGW debates is the climate proxy data describing past climate shifts. Mann's "hockey stick" paper is a frequent target. The gist of the debate is that because past climate can only be inferred there is no reason to believe that current the current warming is "unprecedented". The current warming is not particularly hot in overall historical terms. The Holocene Climate Optimum was probably hotter, at least in the far northern hemisphere from 8k-5k years ago. However the notion that the other various "warm periods" (Medieval, Roman, Minoan, etc...) were warmer than today is not supported by most climate proxies. Here are a smattering of recent papers and new articles about papers which present empirical evidence that the current warming is quite significant - probably the warmest since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended:

On the topic of how "unprecedented" the current warming is, there have been a number of papers which touch on this based on empirical evidence from the cryosphere. I'll just toss them out here below. The upshot is that the current retreat of the cryosphere is apparently the greatest in thousands of years (since the Holocene Climactic Optimum - which was driven by a wobble in the Earth's precession (Milankovitch cycle) which is not a warming forcing now - it has actually been a weak cooling forcing over the past few thousand years). It is empirical evidence that the greenhouse gas warming we are seeing really is significant in the context of the Earth's long term climactic history. The sea ice studies speak for themselves. The ice patch archeology is strong circumstantial evidence because artifacts made of wood and leather are coming to the surface that were frozen in 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. Because wood and leather are highly perishable, they would have rotted away if the ice retreated comparably periodically over the past 5-10,000 years. Because these artifacts are intact, and are melting out now, the clear implication is that the current melt is the deepest since the deposition of these artifacts 5000 and 10,000 years ago.

Sea ice retreat:

Arctic Ice at Low Point Compared to Recent Geologic History

"The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the
early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears to
be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years," said Leonid
Polyak, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio
State University.

Leonid Polyak, Richard B. Alley, John T. Andrews, Julie
Brigham-Grette, Thomas M. Cronin, Dennis A. Darby, Arthur S. Dyke,
Joan J. Fitzpatrick, Svend Funder, Marika Holland, Anne E. Jennings,
Gifford H. Miller, Matt O'Regan, James Savelle, Mark Serreze, Kristen
St. John, James W.C. White, Eric Wolff. History of sea ice in the
Arctic. Quarternary Science Reviews, 2010; DOI:


Arctic sea-ice extent and volume are declining rapidly. Several studies project that the Arctic Ocean may become seasonally ice-free by the year 2040 or even earlier. Putting this into perspective requires information on the history of Arctic sea-ice conditions through the geologic past. This information can be provided by proxy records from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts. Although existing records are far from complete, they indicate that sea ice became a feature of the Arctic by 47 Ma, following a pronounced decline in atmospheric pCO2 after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Optimum, and consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no less than the last 13-14 million years. Ice was apparently most widespread during the last 2-3 million years, in accordance with Earth's overall cooler climate. Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.


Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation

Arctic Lake Sediments Show Warming, Unique Ecological Changes In Recent Decades

Long-Term Cooling Trend In Arctic Abruptly Reverses, Signaling
Potential For Sea Rise

Sea Ice in the Arctic Not Recovering: Another Critical Minimum Forecast

Ice Patch Archaeology:

Hunting Weapon 10,000 Years Old Found in Melting Ice Patch

Ancient Artifacts Revealed as Northern Ice Patches Melt


Ice-borne prehistoric finds in the Swiss Alps reflect Holocene glacier
Martin Grosjean 1 *, Peter J. Suter 2, Mathias Trachsel 1, Heinz Wanner 1
1NCCR Climate and Institute of Geography, Bern, Switzerland
2Archaeological Survey Canton Bern, Bern, Switzerland
email: Martin Grosjean (grosjean@giub.unibe.ch)

*Correspondence to Martin Grosjean, NCCR Climate, University of Bern,
Erlachstrasse 9a, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Grosjean, M., Suter, P. J., Trachsel, M. and Wanner, H. 2007.
Ice-borne prehistoric finds in the Swiss Alps reflect Holocene glacier
fluctuations. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 22 pp. 203-207. ISSN 0267-8179.

During the hot summer of 2003, reduction of an ice field in the Swiss
Alps (Schnidejoch) uncovered spectacular archaeological hunting gear,
fur, leather and woollen clothing and tools from four distinct windows
of time: Neolithic Age (4900 to 4450 cal. yr BP), early Bronze Age
(4100-3650 cal. yr BP), Roman Age (1st-3rd century AD), and Medieval
times (8-9th century AD and 14-15th century AD). Transalpine routes
connecting northern Italy with the northern Alps during these slots is
consistent with late Holocene maximum glacier retreat. The age cohorts
of the artefacts are separated which is indicative of glacier advances
when the route was difficult and not used for transit. The
preservation of Neolithic leather indicates permanent ice cover at
that site from ca. 4900 cal. yr BP until AD 2003, implying that the
ice cover was smaller in 2003 than at any time during the last 5000
years. Current glacier retreat is unprecedented since at least that
time. This is highly significant regarding the interpretation of the
recent warming and the rapid loss of ice in the Alps. Copyright © 2007
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received: 26 September 2006; Revised: 24 December 2006; Accepted: 3 January 2007
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1002/jqs.1111

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:23:47 AM PST
Trends - file this under "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Because 1998 was an extremely warm year because of a very strong El Nino skeptics frequently graph from 1998 in order to show that the Earth has "stopped warming" or "is cooling". However, if you graph from 1999 or 1997 or 2000 you see robust warming. The variations of weather produce too noisy a signal to get a reliable trend on the decade time scale. The upshot here is ***any graph you see that starts in 1998 to argue cooling or a lack or correlation with CO2 is based upon a statistical lie***

Vaughan Pratt has produced the following tour of recent climate trends to allow you to interact with the data and see for yourself:


VP: <<For each of agwtrend and agwrise you will get a plot of Earth's global temperature for the past thirty years (the light blue wiggles) and a trend line for it (the long straight violet line) sloping up at 0.16 °C per decade or 1.6 °C per century.

You will also see three shorter trend lines, red, green, and blue, one for each decade, the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Unlike the 30-year line however these are very different between agwtrend and agwrise.

agwtrend shows the 80s and 00s sloping up at a gentle 0.4 or so °C per century, while the 90s slopes up at an alarming 3 °C per century.

agwrise modifies the definition of "decade" slightly by starting each decade a year earlier and stopping it in the year before the next decade starts, so 79-88, 89-98, 99-08. This small adjustment makes a huge difference to the slopes. The 80s is now almost flat, while both the 90s and the 00s are practically parallel to the 30-year trend, with the 00s slightly steeper than the 90s (remember the 90s was rising at 3 °C per century in agwtrend).

The really neat thing about these graphs is that you can play round with them yourself. Here's a little experiment you can do. In agwrise, just add two years to the two dates in the menu for Series 3 (the blue curve for the 00s), changing them from 1999-2008 to 2001-2010, and then click Plot Graph. You'll see the blue line go from being parallel to the green 90s line to sloping down. That graph should warm the cockles of every climate denier's heart.

The point is that global temperature fluctuates on a time scale that makes 10-year trend lines meaningless. By picking the start and end of "the last decade" carefully you can make the global temperature appear to be rising or falling.

Twenty years is somewhat more trustworthy, but look at CRU director Phil Jones' response to BBC4 interviewer Roger Harrabin at
where Jones complained "The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length." (And while you're at it, use Wood for Trees to plot the trend lines for 1860-1880 and 1975-1998: you'll see that instead of Harrabin's figures of 0.163 and 0.166 they are actually 0.104 and 0.198. It's interesting to speculate how Harrabin was able to make them almost equal.)

A more reliable indicator of temperature trends is had with 30-year windows. Anyone debating global warming on the basis of 10-year windows or less is selling something.


Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:29:09 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 5, 2013, 10:23:16 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:31:09 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:31:59 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:33:45 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 5, 2013, 10:23:17 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:34:14 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:34:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:36:10 AM PST

TeaPartywoman (referencing her own post): Looks like I have another impersonator. What a hoot!

TS: Tsk Tsk. The TeaPartyWoman is referring to a post by herself -- if you look to the reply to.

And this is my first post on this thread, not to mention I was the first truthseeker before TeaPartywoman started impersonating me (in a nasty, disgusting manner on the Political Forum)

Like I keep saying... A Happy Meal missing most of her fries.


In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:34:44 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
Masters of Fraud call global warming "science" but this is dishonest nonsense acheived through fanatic theological censorship.

For example, yesterday, I tried to add some facts to the Wiki page on Climate change to provide a more balanced view to readers.

However, AGW cult members in the Internet reverted the update 3 times and then I was warned that I was in an edit war. I gave up after having been unfairly and thoroughly censored.

What is happening here is the most massive attempt to deceive the world since Göbbels and my little experience only goes to demonstrate this crime once again.

I am going to write to Rick Santorum's campaign about it. Maybe if his campaign tries to post the same thing and gets rebuffed, he can perhaps give such widespread censorship the publicity it rightfully deserves.

Just goes to prove that AGW is pure science fiction, when such massive censorship is required, given that the so-called theory has no legs to stand on whatsoever.

Here was what I tried to add to the Wiki article on scientific opinion of climate change, backed up with reputable references, one of them being directly from the IPCC itself.

===Climategate Revealations===

However, the climategate emails show clearly that the IPCC has not been honest about the claim that 97% of climate scientists have proven anthropogenic global warming. In fact these emails show that climate scientists were incensed at the IPCC portraying their work as proof and suppressing the many caveats that they had documented: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0845217169.txt&search=Hadley+Centre |title=The private laments of climatologists against the IPCC |publisher= |accessdate=2011-01-20 }}</ref>

"Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced "greenhouse effect" of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence.

Many researchers most intimately involved in the search are still far from sure how the probabilities balance. And some of the sharpest concerns are coming from the places where the original early warnings of global warming emerged in the mid-1980s. Places such as Briffa's base at the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that "the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world". If they are they "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case."

Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated "the detection of climate change and attribution of causes". It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. "We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter," says Barnett. "We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in." Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline "Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming.

The statement from the IPCC that 97% of climatologists have proven anthropogenic global warming is, therefore, clearly untrue.

In addition, a read of the IPCC Third Assessment report clearly shows that many of the predictions in the early 2000s, simply have not come true. An example is the prediction on the predominance of ice storms replacing snow: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/569.htm |title= Ice Storms
|publisher= |accessdate=2011-01-20 }}</ref>

"Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. The ice storm of January 1998 (see Section left 45 people dead and nearly 5 million people without heat or electricity in Ontario, Quebec, and New York (CDC, 1998; Francis and Hengeveld, 1998; Kerry et al., 1999). The storm had a huge impact on medical services and human health. Doctors' offices were forced to close, and a large number of surgeries were cancelled (Blair, 1998; Hamilton, 1998). One urban emergency department reported 327 injuries resulting from falls in a group of 257 patients (Smith et al., 1998b)."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:36:25 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:36:42 AM PST
R Monroe says:
TPW claimed -6f in Milan, Italy

but actual temp is +50f

liar extraordinaire

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:37:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:38:04 AM PST
R Monroe says:
TPW wrote :How much more confusing can it get, and why did TH start another thread?

why did you call people fools 10mins ago?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:38:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:39:35 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:39:13 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:39:46 AM PST
TS: The TeaPartyWoman is going through all her trash.


TeapartyWoman: Well, Joshua, you had the 3 decades of "warming" over in 2005. The latest natural warming cycle started around 1975.

And what happened? A cooling trend as Spencer's UAH data clearly shows.
The IPCC Third Assessment nonsense went right out the window.

Only way AGWers can try to keep this nonsense is through personal attacks and censorship.

TS (Original and real one): TS (Not Teapartywoman): That disgusting lie again?

#1 Here is an earlier Roy Spencer's website on the UAH satellite. (he quit carrying this graph on his website, else I would give a more recent graph!).


Notice he shows there is clearly an El Nino event that added to the warming slope from global warming; whereas this reversed in a smaller bump in 2008.

so one always has to start in 1998/9 to make the cherrypicked lie.

This is even more obvious with longer graphs:

#2 NASA of course also has a graph showing an even longer period since 1880 from weather station data (confirmed recently by Dr. Muller, previously skeptical of the accuracy before independently reproducing it).


#3 As anyone can see if they look at the graph:

**The decade of 2000-2010 was still the hottest decade on record per weather station instrumentation records (going back to 1880) and satellite records -- both UAH and RSS (going back 30 years). **
And the decade of 1990-1999 was the hottest before that.

And in 2010, Europe had a relatively cold winter too. The rest of the world averaged even greater warmth.

So it is a right wing disgusting lie that we are in a "cooling trend".

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:39:21 AM PST
R Monroe says:
off to the gym

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:41:10 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:42:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:44:12 AM PST
TeaPartyWoman: It looks like TreeHugger has changed his name to TruthSeeker.
It won't help. Amazon isn't that stupid to rely on just the handles, and I am sure keeps track of handle changes.

TS: HA HA HA Remember when you changed your name from TeapartyWoman to Al Gore?

It was very apparant Al Gore used the SAME flamboyant language as you, but when I asked Al Gore, "you" swore up and down you weren't the same person as TeapartyWoman.

Then I went back several pages and ALL the TeaPartyWoman posts had changed to say they were from Al Gore.

So OOPS, you were caught again in a BIG LIE!

Now this may be a TOUGH one for you -- but there is an easy test for what you assertL

Go to the lead in post on this thread by TH, and put it on ignore, you'll see all my TS (not TeaPartyWoman) posts still visible; AND you will see all TH's older posts on ignore.

Can you handle that one, dearie?


In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 7:42:33 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers