Here is the data without artificial adjustments.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
'Climategate' expert Phil Jones Admits Medieval Warm Period May Have Been as Warm or Warmer Than Present
This is a startling confession from 'Climategate' expert Phil Jones, The BBC is reporting Jones agrees two recent historic warm periods are similar to today and he can't say the Medieval Warm Period wasn't even warmer than today. Of course, the infamous 'Hockey stick' temperature graph doesn't show this historic warming. The data was cooked smoothed and truncated to eliminate these warm periods and accentuate the modern instrumental temperature record. Here is the 'Hockey stick.'
Here is the data without artificial adjustments.
Here is the data without artificial adjustments.
Critical Thinking 101:
ReplyDeleteStart with Assumptions, based on known scientific facts, based on the laws of physics--in this case, that CO2 does, in fact, trap infrared light, causing the atmosphere to retain solar radiation that would otherwise dissipate into space.
Then add evidence: the Antarctic Ice Cores, showing climatic swings over the last 850 thousand years, also shows that these swings correlate with the atmospheric level of CO2. Add to that well-documented statistical evidence that global atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising rapidly--more rapidly than at any time in recorded geologic history (as far as we know through the Antarctic cores)--and that it now stands at close to 400 PPM--higher than it has been in the past 850,000 years--and that this rapid rise correlates exactly with the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, and the subsequent worldwide expansion of fossil fuel consumption.
From which one can draw an obvious inference: the rapidly rising, historically unprecedented levels of atmospheric CO2 from worldwide burning of fossil fuels will result in, and are resulting in, a worldwide disruption of climate patterns (as we have seen through melting icecaps and glaciers, increased droughts and floods, global die-offs of coral, etc.--all predicted by existing climate models, and all exceeding the predicted rate.
One "expert" cannot undo the preponderance of evidence in support of a claim grounded in known physical facts about the properties of CO2.
The truth will out. The Northeast has been slammed as much snow as in recent memory. We've had a cold to very cold winter.
ReplyDeleteHumans tend to overestimate their influence on the environment, to the point of arrogance.
What we can do to protect Carbon-dioxide(CO2)? Nothing, We can say this will do, that will do but at last we can't do anything.
ReplyDeleteGlaciers around the globe have been receding for decades. This seems to be a useful proxy for observing climate change. Is there any evidence of glaciers anywhere advancing in the past decade?
ReplyDeleteOkay so whether we are having a climate changes or not, what is wrong with finding ways to cut the co2 gases we omit into the atmosphere? I'm no expert nor do I agree one way or the other but I think we all have a responsibility to protect our world and keep it as natural as possible. I'm not saying we should bankrupt the energy companies like our president did (you know, the guy we hired to run our country that has "no experience"!) I'm just saying we should never stop looking for new ways to power our world with clean energy.
ReplyDelete"Start with Assumptions, based on known scientific facts, based on the laws of physics--in this case, that CO2 does, in fact, trap infrared light, causing the atmosphere to retain solar radiation that would otherwise dissipate into space."
ReplyDeleteThe first part of this premise is inaccurate. Dr. Richard Lindzen in a recent study has determined conclusively that the atmosphere is not necessarily "sensitive" to increased CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen/
Given that 98% of the Earth's heating comes from the Sun, and that only .036% of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2 and that of this only 4% of atmospheric CO2 is produced by man, it would seem from a mathematical point of view that man's influence over climate is at best insignificant.
"Then add evidence: the Antarctic Ice Cores, showing climatic swings over the last 850 thousand years, also shows that these swings correlate with the atmospheric level of CO2."
This claim is also bogus, in as much as the same studies have shown that the relationship between elevated levels of CO2 hisorically do not proceed higher or cause higher temp's, they follow the rise in temp's. I nice little ditty that this poster failed to mention.
Typical of the bogus reporting of facts by the "greenies."
"Glaciers around the globe have been receding for decades. This seems to be a useful proxy for observing climate change. Is there any evidence of glaciers anywhere advancing in the past decade?"
ReplyDeleteActually, there are many studies that have come forward that refute this claim and the claim that the ice caps are receding. In the last few weeks we have already seen that the corrupted IPCC has had to retract claims made in its 4th assessmemt that the Himalayan and Alpine glaciers are dissapearing:
"In another study, accepted for publication in an upcoming issue of Annals of Glaciology, a team of scientists led by John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha reports 230 glaciers in the Western Himalayas are growing. Glaciers at such famous sites as Mt. Everest and neighboring K2 and Nanga Parbat are among those growing.
“These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world,” said Shroder. “And all of them are either holding still or advancing.”
see:
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/26163/Himalayan_Glaciers_Arent_Retreating.html
see:
http://www.scikon.com/news-29171.html
Over the next year, as the Earth's temp cools and as all the AGW husteria is exposed as a scam more and more skeptical reports are going to flood forth!
More detailed information on global glacier trends is available at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
It shows some local advances but general through 2005 retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Critical thinking? Why is is that only 10% of geologists buy the AGW religion?
ReplyDeleteAny google of the terms "Geologic CO2 levels" will yield a graph like this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts
CO2 has never had a causal relationship with temp in the past. What magical process is supposed to make it happen today? The oceans take 800-1000 years to warm/cool, so CO2 levels lag temp by that amount. 800 years ago, Vikings were farming in Greenland and there were vineyards in Northern England.
Any google of the terms "solar output" will yield graphs like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
which shows that the temp tracks the suns output.
What a novel idea (the sun warms the earth).
What the AGW folks don't even bother to make clear is that the AGW models do not even account for the sun. How can a computer model be accurate with the greatest variable missing?
Finally, the IPCC predicts 130,000 additional deaths/year due to warming (with no offset for fewer deaths due to warmer winters). If it was about saving lives, providing the third world with clean cooking sources (they burn wood indoors) could prevent 1.5 million deaths a year.
In other words, the benefits to dirty coal fired power plants to provide electricity to the unwired world far outweighs any greenhouse reduction plan.
But, AGW is basically a means to socialism in the name of saving the planet.
Matthew Orme