Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
GLG
Well-Known Member
Yea it's just a humor site not to be taken seriously.
Sadly the guy that started it does not keep it up anymore.
There is a lot of funny in there but I don't think OBD and CK would see the humor like most of us.
The comments section is worth a read but be careful don't drink coffee or you may need a new keyboard.
One time some denial guy used that website to link to for his proof.
Many a good keyboards died that day in the service to science.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.ca/
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
O look, Canada did not have temperatures for the North till 1940.
Interesting.
http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/69415913/taylorb_edited_final_march_2.pdf
Interesting.
http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/69415913/taylorb_edited_final_march_2.pdf
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
GLG
Well-Known Member
Well this is curious... back at post 2385 this was OBD claim of the "truth"
Now he has the same picture with a new claim.
Wonder if this is his new "truth"
Care to explain that OBD?
I see you are having problems with the "truth" OBD. Could it be you are wrong again?
Was it a mistake by you or is your team full of ********.
My guess is your team is full of ********.......
You really need to keep your theory straight as it's making you look bad.
Or could that be your evil plan for world domination in service to the Koch Brothers?
Up to date information.
Death Spiral Update
Posted on February 16, 2015
Thirty-five years of unprecedented Mann-made melting, has left Arctic sea ice right at the 1981-2010 mean from Alaska to Greenland. Reggie’s blowtorch appears to have gone out.
Mark Serreze says that the ice is in a death spiral.
Now he has the same picture with a new claim.
Wonder if this is his new "truth"
Care to explain that OBD?
Global Sea Ice Well Above Normal In January
FYI?
I see you are having problems with the "truth" OBD. Could it be you are wrong again?
Was it a mistake by you or is your team full of ********.
My guess is your team is full of ********.......
You really need to keep your theory straight as it's making you look bad.
Or could that be your evil plan for world domination in service to the Koch Brothers?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
From this paper.
Temperature trends for the entire country of Canada are hampered by the fact that the observational network was not established in the north until the late 1940s; consequently, climate trends over the whole of the 20th century have been calculated only for southern Canada. During this period, temperatures rose 0.9oC in southern Canada, although the linear trend was not monotonic. Similar to the global pattern, two periods of warming were evident—prior to the 1940s and after the 1970s—and a slight cooling occurred between 1940 and 1970 (Zhang et al. 2000).
There are large regional and seasonal differences in the rate and character of climate change in Canada. Trends for the latter half of the 20th century have been calculated for all of Canada. The most obvious feature of the regional temperature pattern is that while much of western Canada warmed during the last 50 years of the 20th century, the northeastern region of Canada along the Labrador Sea actually cooled. This regional pattern of warming in the south and west and cooling in the northeast is consistent with decadal scale changes in ocean circulation such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
There was also considerable variation in seasonal climate patterns in Canada during the last half of the 20th century. Spring was the season of greatest warming in southern and western Canada, although winter temperatures also showed significant increases. In the northeast, winter and spring were the seasons of greatest cooling. Summer temperatures rose fairly uniformly across the country, but autumn temperatures decreased in most parts of the country except British Columbia and the north.
Canada is not getting warmer, just ‘less cold’ because most of the increase has been due to a rise in nighttime minimum temperatures, and the greatest warming has occurred during the coldest half of the year (Zhang et al. 2000). Annual precipitation has also increased, although springtime snowfall has decreased in western Canada corresponding to the rise in spring temperatures
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-fracking/
Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking Project Because It Will Affect His Property Values
by Rebecca Leber Posted on February 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm Updated: February 22, 2014 at 8:15 am
"Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking Project Because It Will Affect His Property Values"
Rex W. Tillerson
CREDIT: AP/LM Otero
As ExxonMobil’s CEO, it’s Rex Tillerson’s job to promote the hydraulic fracturing enabling the recent oil and gas boom, and fight regulatory oversight. The oil company is the biggest natural gas producer in the U.S., relying on the controversial drilling technology to extract it.
The exception is when Tillerson’s $5 million property value might be harmed. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit that cites fracking’s consequences in order to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his and his wife’s Texas home.
The Wall Street Journal reports the tower would supply water to a nearby fracking site, and the plaintiffs argue the project would cause too much noise and traffic from hauling the water from the tower to the drilling site. The water tower, owned by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corporation, “will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing [sic] shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” the suit says.
Though Tillerson’s name is on the lawsuit, a lawyer representing him said his concern is about the devaluation of his property, not fracking specifically.
When he is acting as Exxon CEO, not a homeowner, Tillerson has lashed out at fracking critics and proponents of regulation. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012. Natural gas production “is an old technology just being applied, integrated with some new technologies,” he said in another interview. “So the risks are very manageable.”
In shale regions, less wealthy residents have protested fracking development for impacts more consequential than noise, including water contamination and cancer risk. Exxon’s oil and gas operations and the resulting spills not only sinks property values, but the spills have leveled homes and destroyed regions.
Exxon, which pays Tillerson a total $40.3 million, is staying out of the legal tangle. A spokesperson told the WSJ it “has no involvement in the legal matter.”
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) has formally extended a welcome to Tillerson to the fracking critic club, with this statement Friday:
I would like to officially welcome Rex to the ‘Society of Citizens Really Enraged When Encircled by Drilling’ (SCREWED). This select group of everyday citizens has been fighting for years to protect their property values, the health of their local communities, and the environment. We are thrilled to have the CEO of a major international oil and gas corporation join our quickly multiplying ranks.
Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking Project Because It Will Affect His Property Values
by Rebecca Leber Posted on February 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm Updated: February 22, 2014 at 8:15 am
"Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking Project Because It Will Affect His Property Values"
Rex W. Tillerson
CREDIT: AP/LM Otero
As ExxonMobil’s CEO, it’s Rex Tillerson’s job to promote the hydraulic fracturing enabling the recent oil and gas boom, and fight regulatory oversight. The oil company is the biggest natural gas producer in the U.S., relying on the controversial drilling technology to extract it.
The exception is when Tillerson’s $5 million property value might be harmed. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit that cites fracking’s consequences in order to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his and his wife’s Texas home.
The Wall Street Journal reports the tower would supply water to a nearby fracking site, and the plaintiffs argue the project would cause too much noise and traffic from hauling the water from the tower to the drilling site. The water tower, owned by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corporation, “will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing [sic] shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” the suit says.
Though Tillerson’s name is on the lawsuit, a lawyer representing him said his concern is about the devaluation of his property, not fracking specifically.
When he is acting as Exxon CEO, not a homeowner, Tillerson has lashed out at fracking critics and proponents of regulation. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012. Natural gas production “is an old technology just being applied, integrated with some new technologies,” he said in another interview. “So the risks are very manageable.”
In shale regions, less wealthy residents have protested fracking development for impacts more consequential than noise, including water contamination and cancer risk. Exxon’s oil and gas operations and the resulting spills not only sinks property values, but the spills have leveled homes and destroyed regions.
Exxon, which pays Tillerson a total $40.3 million, is staying out of the legal tangle. A spokesperson told the WSJ it “has no involvement in the legal matter.”
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) has formally extended a welcome to Tillerson to the fracking critic club, with this statement Friday:
I would like to officially welcome Rex to the ‘Society of Citizens Really Enraged When Encircled by Drilling’ (SCREWED). This select group of everyday citizens has been fighting for years to protect their property values, the health of their local communities, and the environment. We are thrilled to have the CEO of a major international oil and gas corporation join our quickly multiplying ranks.
Attachments
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
December 15, 2009
There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
Global warming is a direct threat to biodiversity in all corners of the world, but nowhere are its effects more visible than in the Arctic, where the impacts of the climate crisis are hitting earlier and with greater intensity than anywhere else. Winter temperatures have increased by almost 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1949. And by the end of this century, the Far North’s annual average temperatures are expected to rise 9 degrees or more over land and up to 13 degrees over water.
We can see the frightening effects of the Arctic’s rising temperatures in the quick and devastating melt of the region’s sea ice. In 2008, Arctic summer sea ice reached the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era — and winter sea ice reached its lowest recorded extent in 2011. Now climate scientists say the Arctic could be completely ice free in the summer by 2012.
A DEATH SENTENCE FOR SPECIES
With its unforgiving winds, tremendous cold, winters that never see the sun, and summers that never see the end of it, the Arctic seems like a hard place to eke out a living. Yet it’s home to highly specialized species that have evolved to make the most of their harsh environment, including its vast expanses of sea ice. Without enough sea ice, the entire Arctic ecosystem will unravel and its species will die.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
Global warming is a direct threat to biodiversity in all corners of the world, but nowhere are its effects more visible than in the Arctic, where the impacts of the climate crisis are hitting earlier and with greater intensity than anywhere else. Winter temperatures have increased by almost 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1949. And by the end of this century, the Far North’s annual average temperatures are expected to rise 9 degrees or more over land and up to 13 degrees over water.
We can see the frightening effects of the Arctic’s rising temperatures in the quick and devastating melt of the region’s sea ice. In 2008, Arctic summer sea ice reached the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era — and winter sea ice reached its lowest recorded extent in 2011. Now climate scientists say the Arctic could be completely ice free in the summer by 2012.
A DEATH SENTENCE FOR SPECIES
With its unforgiving winds, tremendous cold, winters that never see the sun, and summers that never see the end of it, the Arctic seems like a hard place to eke out a living. Yet it’s home to highly specialized species that have evolved to make the most of their harsh environment, including its vast expanses of sea ice. Without enough sea ice, the entire Arctic ecosystem will unravel and its species will die.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
Attachments
GLG
Well-Known Member
Do you have anything that is not 15 years old?
I know lets look at what is coming out from other sources like this.....
http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C7AB86B-1
<details open="" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">Above-normal temperatures were experienced across most of British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Quebec and Newfoundland. Below-normal temperatures were recorded across southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and southwestern Ontario.
</details>The time series graph below shows that, when averaged across the nation, annual temperatures have fluctuated from year to year over the period 1948–2013. The annual temperatures have warmed by 1.6°C over the past 66 years.
[h=2]Annual National Temperature Departures and Long-term Trend, 1948-2013[/h]
GLG
Well-Known Member
And your point is.....?
Does it matter if the Arctic is ice free in the summer in 2013 or 2023 or 2033?
The point is that we are heading in that direction and all the "hand waving" that you are doing will not stop it. Does it matter that we did not have thermometers in the arctic in 1940? Does this somehow prove your Hoax Theory? Your arguments seem to have little merit while we witness the melting of the Arctic Ice cap. If you are going to follow that line of argument then you better step up and prove that the Arctic sea ice has been ice free in the summer many times before. How about it, up for the challenge? I didn't think so.
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
let's check this trend from the and see if it still holds up 15 years later....
http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=383F5EFA-1
<details open="" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">The temperature departures map for the winter of 2013-2014 shows that most of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, south and eastern Quebec, Newfoundland, and a small area in the south of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut experienced temperatures below the baseline average. Above average temperatures were most strongly recorded in the Yukon and northern part of the Northwest Territories.
</details>The time series graph below shows that, when averaged across the nation, winter temperatures have fluctuated from year to year over the period 1948-2014. The linear trend indicates that winter temperatures averaged across the nation have warmed by 3.0°C over the past 67 years.
Temperature Departures from the 1961-1990 Average – Winter 2013-2014
Last edited by a moderator:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
First your side made the predictions and guess what they were wrong.
Have to go back so we can show how wrong they were then.
As to weather, you had not ideal that there was no temperatures taken over northern Canada before 1940.
So anything before that is a guess.
As to weather in Canada, please note this.
2014 was the hottest year in modern record
Dave Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, acknowledges some of us might be surprised.
"I think most Canadians are going to say, 'Huh?' We weren't that warm."
NOAA reported many corners of the Earth experienced record heat last year, including most of Europe, the western U.S., part of interior South America and swaths of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans.
But in Canada, it was our coolest year since 1996, Phillips said.
Of course, that doesn't mean it was cooler than average.
"It was tad warmer than normal in Canada, believe it or not," Phillips said.
By a "tad," he means the average temperature across the country from December 2013 to November 2014 was 0.1 C warmer than the annual average since Canada started keeping nationwide records in 1947.
Of course, most of the past two decades have been unusually warm, which is how it is possible for the coolest year in 18 years to be warmer than "average."
Have to go back so we can show how wrong they were then.
As to weather, you had not ideal that there was no temperatures taken over northern Canada before 1940.
So anything before that is a guess.
As to weather in Canada, please note this.
2014 was the hottest year in modern record
Dave Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, acknowledges some of us might be surprised.
"I think most Canadians are going to say, 'Huh?' We weren't that warm."
NOAA reported many corners of the Earth experienced record heat last year, including most of Europe, the western U.S., part of interior South America and swaths of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans.
But in Canada, it was our coolest year since 1996, Phillips said.
Of course, that doesn't mean it was cooler than average.
"It was tad warmer than normal in Canada, believe it or not," Phillips said.
By a "tad," he means the average temperature across the country from December 2013 to November 2014 was 0.1 C warmer than the annual average since Canada started keeping nationwide records in 1947.
Of course, most of the past two decades have been unusually warm, which is how it is possible for the coolest year in 18 years to be warmer than "average."
Do you have anything that is not 15 years old?
I know lets look at what is coming out from other sources like this.....
http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C7AB86B-1
<details open="" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px;">Above-normal temperatures were experienced across most of British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Quebec and Newfoundland. Below-normal temperatures were recorded across southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and southwestern Ontario.
</details>The time series graph below shows that, when averaged across the nation, annual temperatures have fluctuated from year to year over the period 1948–2013. The annual temperatures have warmed by 1.6°C over the past 66 years.
[h=2]Annual National Temperature Departures and Long-term Trend, 1948-2013[/h]
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Scientists have accurate historical temperature data?
Historical temperature records taken near the surface of the Earth are subject to various biases and recording errors that render them incorrect. In the early days thermometers could only show the temperature at the moment of reading and so the data recorded from that time was for just one reading each day. Later the thermometers were able to record the minimum and maximum temperatures, and so the daily readings were those extremes in the 24 hour period. Only in the last 20 or 30 years have instruments been available that record the temperature at regular intervals throughout the 24 hours, thus allowing a true time-based daily average to be calculated.
The so-called "average" temperatures both published and frequently plotted through time are initially based on only a single daily value, then later on the mathematical average of the minimum and maximum temperatures. Although time-based averages are now available for some regions they are not generally used because the better instrumentation is not uniformly installed throughout the world and the historical data is at best a mathematical average of two values. The problem is that these averages are easily distorted by brief periods of high or low temperatures relative to the rest of the day, such as a brief period with less cloud cover or a short period of cold wind or rain.
Another serious problem is that thermometers are often located where human activity can directly influence the local temperature.[1] This is not only the urban heat island (UHI) effect, where heat generated by traffic, industry and private homes and then trapped by the man-made physical environment causes elevated temperatures. There is also a land use effect, where human activity has modified the microclimate of the local environment through buildings or changes such as land clearing or agriculture. Only recently have the climatic impacts of these human changes started to receive detailed scrutiny, but many older meteorological records are inescapably contaminated by them.
The integrity of some important historical data is also undermined by reports that various Chinese weather stations that were claimed to be in unchanged locations from 1954 to 1983 had in fact moved, with one station moving 5 times and up to 41 kilometres[2]. The extent of this problem on a global scale is unknown but worrying, because shifts of less than 500 metres are known to cause a significant change in recordings.
temperature station
The observed minimum and maximum temperatures that are recorded, albeit with the inclusion of possible local human influences, are sent to one or more of the three agencies that calculate the "average global temperature" (NASA, NOAA, UK Hadley Centre). These agencies produce corrected data, and graphs that depict a significant increase in average global temperature over the last 30 years. However, this apparent rise may at least partly result from the various distortions of surface temperature measurements described above. No-one has independently verified the temperature records, not least because full disclosure of methods and data is not made and the responsible agencies appear very reluctant to allow such auditing to occur.
In reality, there is no guarantee, and perhaps not even a strong likelihood, that the thermometer-based temperature measurements truly reflect the average local temperatures free from any distortions. There is also no proof that the calculations of average global temperatures are consistent and accurate. For example, it is known that at least two of the three leading climate agencies use very different data handling methods and it follows that at least one of them is likely to be incorrect.
It is stating the obvious to say that if we don't know what the global average temperature has been and currently is, then it is difficult to argue that the world is warming at all, let alone to understand to what degree any alleged change has a human cause.
2 - Temperature trends are meaningful and can be extrapolated
That temperature trends plotted over decades are meaningful, and understood to the degree that they can be projected, is one of the greatest fallacies in the claims about man-made global warming.
Any trend depends heavily upon the choice of start and end points. A judicious selection of such points for can create a wide variety of trends. For example, according to the annual average temperatures from Britain's CRU:
trend for 1900-2006 = 0.72 °C/century
trend for 1945-2006 = 1.05 °C/century
trend for 1975-2006 = 1.87 °C/century,
None of these trends is any more correct than either of the others.
Despite the common use of temperature trends in scientific and public discussion, they cannot be used to illustrate possible human greenhouse influences on temperature unless episodic natural events, such as the powerful El Nino of 1998, are taken into account and corrected for.
Trends cannot be extrapolated meaningfully unless scientists:
(a) Thoroughly understand all relevant climate factors;
(b) Are confident that the trends in each individual factor will continue; and
(c) Are confident that interactions between factors will not cause a disruption to the overall trend.
The IPCC's Third Assessment Report of 2001 listed 11 possible climate factors and indicated that the level of scientific understanding was "very low" for 7 of them and "low" for another. No similar listing appears in the recent Fourth Assessment Report, but it does contain a list of factors relevant to the absorption and emission of radiation that shows that the level of scientific knowledge of several of those factors is still quite low.
Scientists are still struggling even to understand the influence of clouds on temperature. Observational data shows that low-level cloud outside the tropics has decreased since 1998, but scientists cannot be certain that the decreasing trend will continue, nor what such a decrease would mean. Perhaps clouds act as a natural thermostat and higher temperatures will ultimately create more clouds and this will have a cooling effect.[3]
Again, if random natural events dictate the historical trend, then extrapolation of the trend makes no sense. Even if those natural events can be expected to continue in the
Historical temperature records taken near the surface of the Earth are subject to various biases and recording errors that render them incorrect. In the early days thermometers could only show the temperature at the moment of reading and so the data recorded from that time was for just one reading each day. Later the thermometers were able to record the minimum and maximum temperatures, and so the daily readings were those extremes in the 24 hour period. Only in the last 20 or 30 years have instruments been available that record the temperature at regular intervals throughout the 24 hours, thus allowing a true time-based daily average to be calculated.
The so-called "average" temperatures both published and frequently plotted through time are initially based on only a single daily value, then later on the mathematical average of the minimum and maximum temperatures. Although time-based averages are now available for some regions they are not generally used because the better instrumentation is not uniformly installed throughout the world and the historical data is at best a mathematical average of two values. The problem is that these averages are easily distorted by brief periods of high or low temperatures relative to the rest of the day, such as a brief period with less cloud cover or a short period of cold wind or rain.
Another serious problem is that thermometers are often located where human activity can directly influence the local temperature.[1] This is not only the urban heat island (UHI) effect, where heat generated by traffic, industry and private homes and then trapped by the man-made physical environment causes elevated temperatures. There is also a land use effect, where human activity has modified the microclimate of the local environment through buildings or changes such as land clearing or agriculture. Only recently have the climatic impacts of these human changes started to receive detailed scrutiny, but many older meteorological records are inescapably contaminated by them.
The integrity of some important historical data is also undermined by reports that various Chinese weather stations that were claimed to be in unchanged locations from 1954 to 1983 had in fact moved, with one station moving 5 times and up to 41 kilometres[2]. The extent of this problem on a global scale is unknown but worrying, because shifts of less than 500 metres are known to cause a significant change in recordings.
temperature station
The observed minimum and maximum temperatures that are recorded, albeit with the inclusion of possible local human influences, are sent to one or more of the three agencies that calculate the "average global temperature" (NASA, NOAA, UK Hadley Centre). These agencies produce corrected data, and graphs that depict a significant increase in average global temperature over the last 30 years. However, this apparent rise may at least partly result from the various distortions of surface temperature measurements described above. No-one has independently verified the temperature records, not least because full disclosure of methods and data is not made and the responsible agencies appear very reluctant to allow such auditing to occur.
In reality, there is no guarantee, and perhaps not even a strong likelihood, that the thermometer-based temperature measurements truly reflect the average local temperatures free from any distortions. There is also no proof that the calculations of average global temperatures are consistent and accurate. For example, it is known that at least two of the three leading climate agencies use very different data handling methods and it follows that at least one of them is likely to be incorrect.
It is stating the obvious to say that if we don't know what the global average temperature has been and currently is, then it is difficult to argue that the world is warming at all, let alone to understand to what degree any alleged change has a human cause.
2 - Temperature trends are meaningful and can be extrapolated
That temperature trends plotted over decades are meaningful, and understood to the degree that they can be projected, is one of the greatest fallacies in the claims about man-made global warming.
Any trend depends heavily upon the choice of start and end points. A judicious selection of such points for can create a wide variety of trends. For example, according to the annual average temperatures from Britain's CRU:
trend for 1900-2006 = 0.72 °C/century
trend for 1945-2006 = 1.05 °C/century
trend for 1975-2006 = 1.87 °C/century,
None of these trends is any more correct than either of the others.
Despite the common use of temperature trends in scientific and public discussion, they cannot be used to illustrate possible human greenhouse influences on temperature unless episodic natural events, such as the powerful El Nino of 1998, are taken into account and corrected for.
Trends cannot be extrapolated meaningfully unless scientists:
(a) Thoroughly understand all relevant climate factors;
(b) Are confident that the trends in each individual factor will continue; and
(c) Are confident that interactions between factors will not cause a disruption to the overall trend.
The IPCC's Third Assessment Report of 2001 listed 11 possible climate factors and indicated that the level of scientific understanding was "very low" for 7 of them and "low" for another. No similar listing appears in the recent Fourth Assessment Report, but it does contain a list of factors relevant to the absorption and emission of radiation that shows that the level of scientific knowledge of several of those factors is still quite low.
Scientists are still struggling even to understand the influence of clouds on temperature. Observational data shows that low-level cloud outside the tropics has decreased since 1998, but scientists cannot be certain that the decreasing trend will continue, nor what such a decrease would mean. Perhaps clouds act as a natural thermostat and higher temperatures will ultimately create more clouds and this will have a cooling effect.[3]
Again, if random natural events dictate the historical trend, then extrapolation of the trend makes no sense. Even if those natural events can be expected to continue in the
Attachments
GLG
Well-Known Member
What a load of ********.....
This from 2007 at the (anti)science and (private) public policy institute.con website.
Yea a big science institute with members for big fossil fuel, now that's science from OBD. LOL
And you wonder why your team get's mocked.....
FYI have you not heard of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Even Tony Watts knows the "BEST" temp records are correct and he would live by what they prove.
Go ahead and read it yourself the link is there.....
All fine and dandy that Tony says that but in the real world he does not act like he accepts it.
And of course in your mind today your cold so global warming is a hoax.
Wake up OBD and smell the coffee....
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings?/study/
Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.
Read this for what they say about the 2014 Warmest year on record.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
