Thread: The global warming hoax
09-24-2005, 08:20 AM #1
The global warming hoax
This is messurements from stations all over the world. Takes a while to load them.
If you notice the charts showed by enviromentalist usualy just show the part from 1960 and to today. "Conviniently" leaving out the proof that temperature variations clearly occured before we started pumping out alot of greenhouse gases.
I think that is enough. All those graphs are from nasa. Looking at them many show a strong peak around 1930 showing the same pattern of the peak we are at now. I wish I would know where to find temperature estimates for the last 100 000 years.
Sorry to say but I cant find any consistent increase in those charts.
This is a article from the wall street journal
Like the article states it seems much more plausible that the temperature variations is dependant on sun activity not greenhouse gases. Also remember the avarge temperature of earth was higher previous times in history and life didnt seem to suffer back than. Chanses are we are still recovering from the last ice age and heading towards warmer climat. A process completely independat of the humans greenhouse gas release.
Last edited by Kärnfysikern; 09-24-2005 at 08:26 AM.
09-24-2005, 08:21 AM #2
Recently a team of scientists from NASA and the University of Alabama at Huntsville announced that global temperatures have been dropping, not rising, over the past two decades based on satellite data. But at the same time, the Global Climate Change Information Programme finds that temperatures have been warmer in the past 10 years than at any other period during the last 140 years! The Marshall Institute finds that temperatures have increased by approximately 0.5 C over the last century, but they contend that the change actually took place in the first half of the century—long before man was in any position to have a real impact on the atmosphere.
In contrast to the NASA study cited above, most assessments of global temperature change have been based entirely on temperature readings made at the Earth's surface. The vast majority of these surface reading sites have historically been located near to and inside cities, leading some scientists to argue that they may not actually represent true global temperatures but instead, naturally elevated temperatures found in cities and conurbations. Whether measured by satellite or on Earth, there does seem to be new evidence that global temperatures are not increasing at the pace most predictive models would suggest.
09-24-2005, 08:32 AM #3
these 4 graphs from junkscience.com so cant verify that they are authentic
09-24-2005, 08:42 AM #4
I've read in a few scientific publications here that global warming and coolings are cyclic and completely normal and occur on a small scale over hundreds of years, and on a larger scale in the thousands of years scales.
If I remember well, the thousands of years variations are indeed cycling up and down and proof of that was found in ice core samples from the arctic and antarctic.
The hundreds of years variations are less severe and more gradual, and are affected by all sorts of natural events and disasters (like when a major volcano spews megatons of dust in the atmosphere, the planet cools a bit for a few years).
All this green-peace "we're killing the planet" bullshît is just that... bull... As I often say, the planet is a massive living breathing environment and there isn't anything we pesky human beings can do to hurt it.
It's survived several ice ages (and more will come), meteor impacts so powerfull the axis of the planet shifted, volcanic eruptions so massive as to block all light coming in, "forest fires" that burned entire continents... and so on...
I think mankind thinks pretty highly of itself if it imagines we're anything more than a pesky annoyance to earth... the absolute worst we can do is maybe make the planet uncomfortable for us... but hurt the planet? please...
09-24-2005, 08:51 AM #5Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
But I do think we are doing harm. Not by influencing climate but by pumping out incredible amounts of non bio degredable toxins that gets enrichened through out the food chain and by reducing the ammount of spieces. I think we are heading towards a severly poisonous planet. I would like the whole global warming issue to die so we can put the effort into the important issues like preveting those toxins. The DDT scare wasnt long ago and I sure dont want to se more potent toxins with longer half lifes release into nature in wast ammounts.
But natures adaptability sure is proven in the area around Chernobyl. There are more spieces in that area than in the protected forrest areas in the other parts of Ukraine.
09-24-2005, 08:53 AM #6
This global warming thread. I am partly playing devils advocate against the general oppinion that global warming is a fact. So I hope someone will post alot of support from that side aswell. I want to learn
09-24-2005, 10:06 AM #7Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
09-24-2005, 01:05 PM #8Originally Posted by johan
09-24-2005, 01:27 PM #9
johan.......you and i agree once again. unbelievable. i have been arguing those points for years. the media has been trying to make it sound like the human race is destroying the ozone layer and the rest of the world with "our' toxins, etc. the greenhouse effect is NOT a new revolation, as the graphs, article, etc explain. the environmental fundamentalists hate these articles/studies however because they will have nothing to bitch about anymore, and wont get as much funding for their hypicrtical pockets.
09-24-2005, 04:31 PM #10
What makes me laugh is that global warming (and global cooling) is not a hoax... it's happenning and has been happenning for millions and millions of year, and will keep happenning as long as earth has an atmosphere...
The funny thing is that the mainstream media is trying to portray it as a new thing and an emergency that must be dealt with immediately...
What a world we live in...
09-24-2005, 04:34 PM #11Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
I hope the temperature will go up a few degreas I hate swedish climate The dinosaurs they had a comfy temperature Id like that.
09-24-2005, 04:35 PM #12Originally Posted by johan
09-24-2005, 04:37 PM #13Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
09-24-2005, 04:38 PM #14Originally Posted by johan
09-24-2005, 04:40 PM #15Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
09-24-2005, 04:40 PM #16
Move to alaska.
09-24-2005, 04:42 PM #17Originally Posted by books555
09-24-2005, 04:44 PM #18
alaska cant be much worse then northern sweden so I wouldnt find it to hard
09-24-2005, 04:44 PM #19
Man, California is right on that big fault.
09-24-2005, 04:45 PM #20Originally Posted by johan
yeah, Im up hear in Michigan, winters can be harsh.
09-24-2005, 04:46 PM #21Originally Posted by books555
09-24-2005, 04:49 PM #22Originally Posted by books555
09-24-2005, 04:50 PM #23Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
Yeah, I hear the summers is nice with a lasting sun. I have never been there though.
09-24-2005, 04:52 PM #24Originally Posted by johan
I hear ya.
09-24-2005, 04:52 PM #25Originally Posted by books555
09-24-2005, 04:52 PM #26Originally Posted by books555
Only good thing with living above the artic circle is the aurora borealis. Its absolutely stunning.
09-24-2005, 04:54 PM #27Originally Posted by johan
LoL He is Mr. Positive
09-24-2005, 04:56 PM #28Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
Thats what I hear. I am sure winters must be depressing.
09-24-2005, 05:04 PM #29
Master did you se any aurora borelias while you where serving? I used to watch em all the time when I lived in northern sweden. Its so freaky when it turn into red.
Looks like glowing blood is covering the sky.
09-24-2005, 05:06 PM #30Originally Posted by johan
09-24-2005, 05:09 PM #31
yeah its northern lights
09-24-2005, 05:11 PM #32
absolutely beautiful. that climate was just amazing. every aspect of it. growing up california, it was like i had never seen before.
09-24-2005, 05:18 PM #33
I guess the climate in alaska must be a bit different from northern sweden considering norway and sweden is keept a bit warmer because of the gulf stream. Otherwise it wouldnt be habitable.
But its the same distance from the north pole so it should have alot in comon. If you ever want to hike through truly untouched wildernes areas go to the northern sweden mountain areas. There is such a ancient feeling up there. Truly amazing.
Because of the age of the mountains they are not that high. But god damn they radiate the age of the earth.
09-24-2005, 07:02 PM #34Originally Posted by johan
Those are average temperatures here in winter... -35 to -25 is normal here in winter and we get spikes to -40... oh and it's not a nice dry cold, montreal is an island so it's ALWAYS damp in winter here (humidity makes the cold even more penetrating and unpleasant).
And in the summer we get +25 to +35 regularely with spikes to +40...
Why the hell do I live here???
Oh yeah... all the hot chicks in Montreal... almost forgot
09-24-2005, 10:12 PM #35
There was a news story about this not too long ago . . . they double-checked their work and found some simple errors in their algebra . . .
Here it is:
Some Convergence of Global Warming Estimates
By Roy Spencer Published 08/11/2005
In one of a trio of new global warming papers in Science, Mears & Wentz (2005) address what they consider to be a large source of uncertainty in our (University of Alabama in Huntsville, "UAH") satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric ("LT") temperature trends since 1979. The satellite measurements come from the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSUs) flying on NOAA's polar orbiting weather satellites. The UAH estimate of the globally averaged trend since 1979 to the present has been +0.09 deg. C/decade, considerably below the surface thermometer estimate that has been hovering around +0.20 deg. C/decade for the same period of record.
This discrepancy between the UAH satellite LT trends and the surface thermometer trends has caused some consternation, since what we understand of atmospheric physics suggests that sustained warming at the surface should be amplified with height in the troposphere, not reduced.
Mears & Wentz, who are very capable remote sensing experts from Remote Sensing Systems ("RSS", Santa Rosa, California), found that the LT trend was particularly sensitive to the UAH method for removing the drift of the satellites through the local observing time. The satellites are launched into sun-synchronous orbits that are meant to cross over the same Earth locations at approximately the same time each day. But since the satellites do not have on-board propulsion, the satellites fall slowly back to Earth, which changes their orbital characteristics. In particular, what began as early afternoon observations from the daylight side of the "afternoon satellites" orbits drift to later in the day over the several years of each satellite's lifetime. This causes a spurious cooling trend as the Earth observations are made later in the afternoon to the evening.
The UAH method for removing this drift depended upon the spacecraft roll attitude (the accuracy with which it was pointing straight down, and not sideways) being almost exactly the same during the day side of the orbit as the night side. The new research paper presents Mears & Wentz's own estimate of LT trends using diurnal cycle corrections based upon a climate model estimate of the daily (diurnal) cycle of temperature at different levels in the atmosphere, on a global basis.
Their final estimate of the global lower tropospheric trend through 2004 is +0.19 deg. C/decade, very close to the surface thermometer estimate, and this constitutes the primary news value of their report.
While their criticism of the UAH diurnal cycle adjustment method is somewhat speculative, Mears & Wentz were additionally able to demonstrate to us, privately, that there is an error that arises from our implementation of the UAH technique. This very convincing demonstration, which is based upon simple algebra and was discovered too late to make it into their published report, made it obvious to us that the UAH diurnal correction method had a bias that needed to be corrected.
Since we (UAH) had already been working on a new diurnal adjustment technique, based upon the newer and more powerful AMSUs that have been flying since 1998, we rushed our new method to completion recently, and implemented new corrections. As a result, the UAH global temperature trends for the period 1979 to the present have increased from +0.09 to +0.12 deg. C/decade -- still below the RSS estimate of +0.19 deg. C/decade.
Our new AMSU-based (observed) diurnal cycle adjustments end up being very similar to RSS's climate model (theoretical) adjustments. So why the remaining difference between the trends produced by the two groups? While this needs to be studied further, it looks like the reason is the same as that determined for the discrepancy in deep-tropospheric satellite estimates between the two groups: the way in which successive satellites in the long satellite time series are intercalibrated. There has been a continuing, honest difference of opinion between UAH and RSS about how this should best be done.
In a paper accompanying the Mears and Wentz paper, a new analysis of radiosonde (weather balloon) data by Sherwood et al. also obtains larger levels of warming than have been previously reported. No other radiosonde dataset that has attempted to adjust for the calibration artifacts discussed therein has produced warming estimates as high as those obtained in this new study. As is always the case, it will take a while for the research community to form opinions about whether the new radiosonde adjustments advocated in this work are justified. At a minimum, the new work shows that at least one method for analysis of the weather balloon data (which have traditionally supported the much smaller satellite trends from UAH) results in trends much closer to the warmer surface thermometer trends.
The third paper (Santer et al, 2005) takes a more thorough look at the theoretical expectation that surface warming should be amplified with height in the troposphere. The authors restate what had already been known: that the UAH satellite warming estimates were at odds with theoretical expectations (as had been some radiosonde measures). Now, the convergence of these newly reported satellite and radiosonde estimates toward the surface warming estimates, if taken at face value, provides better agreement with climate models' explanation of how the climate system behaves.
What will all of this mean for the global warming debate? Probably less than the media spin will make of it. At a minimum, the new reports show that it is indeed possible to analyze different temperature datasets in such a way that they agree with current global warming theory. Nevertheless, all measurements systems have errors (especially for climate trends), and researchers differ in their views of what kinds of errors exist, and how they should be corrected. As pointed out by Santer et al., it is with great difficulty that our present weather measurement systems (thermometers, weather balloons, and satellites) are forced to measure miniscule climate trends. What isn't generally recognized is that the satellite-thermometer difference that has sparked debate in recent years has largely originated over the tropical oceans -- the trends over northern hemispheric land areas, where most people live, have been almost identical.
On the positive side, at least some portion of the disagreement between satellite and thermometer estimates of global temperature trends has now been removed. This helps to further shift the global warming debate out of the realm of "is warming happening?" to "how much has it warmed, and how much will it warm in the future?". (Equally valid questions to debate are "how much of the warmth is man-made?", "is warming necessarily a bad thing?", and "what can we do about it anyway?"). And this is where the debate should be.
Mears, C.A., and F.J. Wentz, 2005: The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived
lower tropospheric temperature. August 11, online at
Santer, B.D., et al., 2005: Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in
the tropical atmosphere. August 11, online at http://www.scienceexpress.org.
Sherwood, S., J. Lanzante, and C. Meyer, 2005: Radiosonde daytime biases and late 20th
century warming. August 11, online at http://www.scienceexpress.org.
also, check out:
09-25-2005, 05:09 AM #36Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
09-25-2005, 08:34 AM #37Junior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
the earth goes through cycles, no worries here
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)