There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[Crispy]

I'd quite like to see world GDP plotted on those temperature graphs, scaled to fit...

 

[bigfish]

*Based on OECD figures, using Geary-Khamis measure for real dollars

 

[free spirit]

I'd quite like to see world GDP plotted on those temperature graphs, scaled to fit...

mind if I ask why?

world gdp for last few years here . can't be arsed to look any harder for a longer timescale version sorry.

 

[bigfish]

*Based on OECD figures, using Geary-Khamis measure for real dollars

 

[Crispy]

mind if I ask why?

world gdp for last few years here . can't be arsed to look any harder for a longer timescale version sorry.

Just wondering if there was a visible prouction=enrgy use=CO2=temp rise correlation Probably too many factors.

 

[bigfish]

ABSTRACT
The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick[2003] and Mann et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring network. We show that in each case MBH98 methodology differed from what was stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century index values. In the case of the North American PC1, MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was “conventional”. The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series. The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al. denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of robustness and statistical skill. Finally, we comment on several policy issues arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific studies are used for public policy.

THE M&M CRITIQUE OF THE MBH98 NORTHERN
HEMISPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: UPDATE AND
IMPLICATIONS

 

[Azrael23]

I don`t believe in global warming.

I believe in Global Climate Change, some areas warmer, some areas colder.

The climate change based on recent sun activity and the fact that according to ice core samples we have a 12,000 year climate cycle anyway.

Its A GREAT EXCUSE TO TAX US ALL!!! THEY ALSO GET TO TAX ALL THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND SEND OUR JOBS ABROAD TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY WAGE SLAVES SO THAT OUR ECONOMY BURSTS AND WE CAN BE SLAVES AS WELL.....yay....all under the pretense of saving the planet.


But i`m a whacko, right?

 

[Crispy]

I don`t believe in global warming.

I believe in Global Climate Change, some areas warmer, some areas colder.

The climate change based on recent sun activity and the fact that according to ice core samples we have a 12,000 year climate cycle anyway.

Its A GREAT EXCUSE TO TAX US ALL!!! THEY ALSO GET TO TAX ALL THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND SEND OUR JOBS ABROAD TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY WAGE SLAVES SO THAT OUR ECONOMY BURSTS AND WE CAN BE SLAVES AS WELL.....yay....all under the pretense of saving the planet.


But i`m a whacko, right?

Yeah, I suppose if all scientists were actually government stooges under the pay of the ruling elite etc. then you might have a point. But all the scientists I've ever met have a very healthy disregard for Authority and like to deal in The Facts wherever possible.

And yes, you're a whacko, but a harmless one who's probably a nice person who'd help grannies and so on, so I bear no ill will

 

[bigfish]

Overselling Climate Change?

Simon Cox reports on how scientists are becoming worried by the quality of research used to back up the most extreme climate predictions.

BBC Radio 4: The Battle for Influence (30 min)

 

[bigfish]

A load of hot air?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm

Hardly a day goes by without a new dire warning about climate change. But some claims are more extreme than others, giving rise to fears that the problem is being oversold and damaging the issue.
How much has the planet warmed up over the past century? Most people reckon between two and three degrees. They are not even close. The real figure, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is 0.6C.

It's not surprising most people get it wrong. We are bombarded by stories warning us that global warming is out of control. The most extreme warn us we will be living in a tropical Britain where malaria is rife and Norfolk has disappeared altogether.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Let's take a look at some of these 'dire warnings' in a little more detail.

Todays Guardian states:

Climate change is reshaping the landscape of Britain as rising temperatures allow orchids and ferns to flourish in the north, while other species retreat to cooler conditions on high land and mountainsides.

The conclusion, published today in a comprehensive survey of the nation's flora, suggests that the changing climate has already brought about a rapid and dramatic shift in the country's plantlife, a trend researchers say will be exacerbated by future warming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329463491-117700,00.html

The BBC go into a little more detail:

Between 2003-2004, over 750 botanists set about recording plants found in 811 2km-by-2km plots across Britain, collecting about 200,000 records. They were then able to compare their findings with a near identical study that had been carried out in 1987-1988.

The results provided a unique dataset, giving a comprehensive insight into changing flora in rural and urban habitats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4931722.stm

Are you saying that this is groundless scaremongering?

 

[bigfish]

I don't know if that particular story's scare mongering or not. In any event plant species here have had to adapt themselves in the past to both warmer and cooler climates. But, anyway, it seem quite a few scientists are getting fed up with all this climate change "consensus" crapola.

Here's a list of signatories to a recent Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

 

[tangentlama]

ignore...i'll make a new thread

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I don't know if that particular story's scare mongering or not. In any event plant species here have had to adapt themselves in the past to both warmer and cooler climates. But, anyway, it seem quite a few scientists are getting fed up with all this climate change "consensus" crapola.

Here's a list of signatories to a recent Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister.



Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

<snip>

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Wow!

That's a long list.

Mind if I start from the bottom? OK... let's see now...

Dr. Richard S. Courtney - Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry)

Dr. Alister McFarquhar - economist.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch - Defence Industry links

Dr. Art Robinson - founder of OISM

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser - reckons 'Ozone depletion is good for you'

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, Dr. Boris Winterhalter - both members of 'Friends of Science' - some brain-turd of Dr. R. Timothy Patterson (who's near the top of your list). Did he write the letter?

Their website is registered to Charles Simpson - who is apparently a retired oil industry employee.

Dr. Patterson said rising temperatures in the past century are due to natural changes in the energy of the sun, not to pollution.

He mocked the view that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. “It’s plant food, it’s a natural part of the atmosphere.”

Much of the science accepted when the Kyoto treaty was negotiated in 1997 has since been disproved, he added.

“If during the mid-1990s we knew what we knew today there would be no Kyoto protocol because it would have been considered unnecessary.”

Environment Canada scientist Henry Hengeveld said Patterson is commenting on matters outside his field.

“That’s like a dermatologist commenting on the diagnosis of a neurologist. I think this is an example of someone outside his field of expertise, not having read all the literature out there ... and really being out of his depth.”

http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=127

This is crapola.

It's just another Leipzig Declaration. Infact most of these names were on Leipzig! PR company guff.

Someone else can do the rest. I can't be arsed.

 

[laptop]

Someone else can do the rest. I can't be arsed.

Nah, I think it's done already - see the Wiki entry on the Leipzig Declaration which will have been picked over by climate change deniers... and also the investigation by Danish Broadcasting Company (DR1) journalist, Øjvind Hesselager. In late 1997 he attempted to contact every signatory (82 at the time) to the "Leipzig Declaration."

Of 33 European signatories:

• there were four he was unable to locate
• twelve denied having signed, and of these, some had not even heard of the "Leipzig Declaration"
• many signatories were not qualified in fields even remotely related to climate research. They included medical doctors, e.g., H. Metzner; nuclear scientists, e.g., M.J. Higatsberger; and one expert on flying insects, i.e., V. Svidersky
• some signatories had financial ties to the German coal industry or the Government of Kuwait (R. Balling and P. Michaels).

cited here

 

[Fruitloop]

Maybe bigfish would like to explain what his intention is in foisting this stuff on us? I for one am a bit puzzled.

 

[free spirit]

I think when you're talking about climate change in terms of conspiracies etc. you really ought to be considering which side really has the most at stake financially, as well as which side has the track record of using every trick in the book to safeguard their industry and bump up profits, and the political clout to bend policies to there way of thinking.

Big Oil

or

non oil funded scientists & environmentalists


I know which side I'd consider most likely to be telling the truth

 

[Crispy]

Maybe bigfish would like to explain what his intention is in foisting this stuff on us? I for one am a bit puzzled.

In short, he's a conspiracy theorist, so the majority opinion is always wrong.

 

[obanite]

Christ, the audacity of the energy industries is astonishing.

 

[sparticus]

Correlation is not causation. Science 101.

Don't tell me it's just a spooky coincidence that has been repeated down the ages

 

[bigfish]

No climate change: India Meteorological Department

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=290686&ssid=26&sid=ENV

New Delhi, Apr 25: The clamour over climate change the world over notwithstanding, the country's weather agency believes that variation in rain and temperatures over the country being experienced over the years fall within the "natural variability".

"We are keeping a watch. We are not denying.... It (the variations) are still under the natural variability," Director General of the India Meteorological Department Dr B Lal told reporters here today.

There has been no significant change in terms of temperature and rainfall on year-to-year basis, he said.

Monsoon was bad in 2002 while prediction was perfect in 2003. In 2004, there was a little deviation from the predicted rainfall but July rainfall that year was perfect, he said.

Similarly there has been a change in temperature of only 0.4-0.5 degrees. But it has been in pockets - some pockets have undergone cooling, others have undergone warming, he said.

"For example, when one enters Delhi from other areas, there is a general feeling of warming, but this is due to population (density)," he said.

"Thus, there is no clear cut signal...We are keeping a watch over temperatures," he said.

Lal said there had also been no increase in intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones. Since October 1999, there had not been any super cyclone in the country.

Last year there were only five disturbances, of which two became cyclones of marginal value, he said.

Scientists in the country have been claiming that evidence of climate change is all too evident and the government should initiate studies in the area.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Warming Winds, Rising Tides, Bangladesh

Asia's largest rivers, the Ganges and the Bramaputra, join in the world's most extensive delta and flow into the Bay of Bengal. There lies Bangladesh, a nation of 140 million people beset by poverty and the floods of the rivers, and now also affected by rising sea level. Gary Braasch visited to document this threat, traveling by boat south from Dhaka and speaking to villagers, fishermen, and scientists. Already a million people a year are displaced by loss of land along rivers, and indications are this is increasing. Villagers spoke of losing a town mosque to unexpectedly fast erosion, even in a time of good weather in the dryer season.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/ <-- check out the 'glaciers' page for 'spot the difference'.

 

[bigfish]

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 2004

Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland
...
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.

 

[laptop]

Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection

Might as well ask a dentist...

Come to think of it, the SCCLPR should spend a lot of its time advising dentists

 

[bigfish]

Might as well ask a dentist...

Jaworowski's background:

In order to study the history of industrial pollution of the global atmosphere, between 1972 and 1980, I organized 11 glacier expeditions, which measured natural and man-made pollutants in contemporary and ancient precipitation, preserved in 17 glaciers in Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, the Peruvian Andes and in Tatra Mountains in Poland. I also measured long-term changes of dust in the troposphere and stratosphere, and the lead content in humans living in Europe and elsewhere during the past 5000 years. In 1968 I published the first paper on lead content in glacier ice[1]. Later I demonstrated that in pre-industrial period the total flux of lead into the global atmosphere was higher than in the 20th century, that the atmospheric content of lead is dominated by natural sources, and that the lead level in humans in Medieval Ages was 10 to 100 times higher than in the 20th century. In the 1990s I was working in the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo, and in the Japanese National Institute of Polar Research in Tokyo. In this period I studied the effects of climatic change on polar regions, and the reliability of glacier studies for estimation of CO2 concentration in the ancient atmosphere.

Might as well ask an environmentalist.... after all, environmentalists were predicting "global cooling" in the 1970's; "nuclear winter" in the 1980's; and "global warming" in the 1990's right up to the present day.

 

[bigfish]

Ankelohe and beyond: communicating climate change <gulp!>

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/ankelohe_3550.jsp

A new way of framing the climate-change issue that makes sense in people's daily lives is needed in order to translate passive awareness into active concern, says Simon Retallack.

More newsprint, broadcast time and web space is being devoted to the issue of climate change than ever before, so it would not be a surprise if journalists were to pat themselves on the back for their efforts. Far from it. On 18-21 May 2006 at a country retreat in northern Germany, journalists and writers from Britain, Germany and the United States will be meeting to discuss where they are going wrong and how they can do better.

Writers taking part in the "Ankelohe Conversations" on the twin problems of climate change and the oil endgame will be asking themselves why – despite all the coverage they are now giving these issues – the public is doing so little to take action.

Maybe the public aren't as gullible as the writers imagine!

 

[bigfish]

Little Ice Age (Solar Influence - Temperature) -- Summary

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C//subject/s/summaries/solariceage.jsp

So what's going on here? The answer is that a vast repository of empirical findings from an array of scientific disciplines is being ignored by a small coterie of climate scientists who are focused almost exclusively on developing computer models of how they believe earth's climate system operates. Any observation that fails to harmonize with that belief system is generally ignored by its adherents, while those who champion their approach to the subject often question the judgment and/or motives of scientists who place greater confidence in real-world observations.

So just how real is the sun-climate connection that ranks so low on the climate modelers' scale of significance?

Lean begins her foray into this highly-charged subject by noting that the beginning of the Little Ice Age "coincided with anomalously low solar activity (the so-called Sporer and Maunder minima)," and that "the latter part coincided with both low solar activity (the Dalton minimum) and volcanic eruptions." Then, after discussing the complexities and implications of these facts, she muses about an alternative thought -- "might the Little Ice Age be simply the most recent cool episode of millennial climate-oscillation cycles?" -- which, we hasten to add, might well be driven by a millennial-scale cycle of solar activity.

Lean also cites evidence for the sensitivity of drought and rainfall to solar variability, stating that climate models are unable to reproduce the plethora (her word) of sun-climate connections. In addition, she notes that simulations with climate models yield decadal and centennial variability even in the absence of external forcing, stating that "arguably, this very sensitivity of the climate system to unforced oscillation and stochastic noise predisposes it to nonlinear responses to small forcings such as by the sun," which argument pretty much invalidates the climate modelers' claim that solar forcing is too weak to produce the degree of warming and cooling that is often ascribed to it by scientists who are not fettered by the constraints of the climate modeling enterprise.

In further buttressing her position on the issue, Lean accurately reports that "various high-resolution paleoclimate records in ice cores, tree rings, lake and ocean sediment cores, and corals suggest that changes in the energy output of the sun itself may have contributed to sun-earth system variability," citing the work of Verschuren et al. (2000), Hodell et al. (2001), and Bond et al. (2001). Indeed, she notes that "many geographically diverse records of past climate are coherent over time, with periods near 2400, 208 and 90 years that are also present in the 14C and 10Be archives," which isotopes (produced at the end of a complex chain of interactions that are initiated by galactic cosmic rays) contain information about various aspects of solar activity (Bard et al., 1997). As a result, Lean rhetorically wonders in her concluding paragraph "How much of earth's recent surface warming is induced by solar rather than anthropogenic forcings?" We likewise wonder, suspecting that solar forcing may well be the dominant driver of 20th-century global warming.

In light of these several empirical findings, it is clear there is ample evidence for defending the proposition that the global warming of the past century or so may well have been nothing more than the natural recovery of the earth from the global chill of the solar-induced Little Ice Age. Viewed from this perspective, the Current Warm Period is seen to be the normal state of Holocene or current interglacial climate, with the Little Ice Age being the aberration, which was likely caused by a less-common state of significantly reduced solar activity.

 

[Crispy]

Just one small note, "center for the study of carbon dioxide and global change" has several links to the oil industry, including staff and funding, and also works with another oil company front. Sourcewatch However, let's not play the man, let's play the ball

That sounds like interesting research. There's a lot we don't know about the sun, and it may well have a large part to play in global climate change - whichever direction it heads in.

However, the basic science of the greenhouse effect is undisputable. You can shine various wavelengths of light through a box of CO2 and see for yourself how some are transmitted and some are absorbed or reflected. There is no argument about this mechanism. The only argument to be had is how strong is this effect?

 

[Jo/Joe]

We can all find counter sources to any opinion. The undeniable fact is that we do release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Would bigfish or rogue yam like to dispute that?

 

[bigfish]

We can all find counter sources to any opinion. The undeniable fact is that we do release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Would bigfish or rogue yam like to dispute that?

Here's another "undeniable fact" - the Sun affects planetary temperatures.