http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
Global warming skeptic threatened with death
metatron
Global Warming Hysteria
by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Brother Apostate
From Metatron's post above (Global warming skeptic threatened with death):
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges."
Good thing no one does that kind of thing here on JWD!
BA- Now, let's discuss the science (myscience, not yours!)
PS- ROTFLMAO@poor,pitiful,dismissive,arrogant,longwinded,hypocritical_narcissists!
-
Frank75
Abaddon:
Now the 10 myths issue. First I will try to provide citations as I feel appropriate to prove the source. I do not claim to be a repository of information and do not need to spend time providing proof to everything I point out when you yourself rarely point out anything to back up your comments other than Wikipedia which I have shown to be biased at least when it comes to GW.
People like me who speak out are often accused of not caring about the planet, people, the environment or conservation. This is the BAD of the whole debate on GW, the issue is confused with the separate matter of conservation of fossil fuels and air quality. You join in to this charade by making me to be a pawn of the oil lobbyists, without providing proof. The same proof that when used on your supposed sources would not uncover the same circumstantial evidence of shilling for big business.
LittleToe:
I don't know to what degree the propaganda about GW is accurate; but I do know that the rate at which we are using the non-renewable resources of this planet is squandering our childrens' future...
Further, the comments I make do not as you suggest make me a disciple/slave to everything that scientist, website or news-source has ever written, said or published. All I have been saying since the start is that it is not an open and shut case as you have presented. Likewise, the more that pro AGW supporters, marginalize the dissent, name call, mud sling, intimidate, refuse to answer skeptics, and walk away from open debate, the more critical thinkers become suspicious.
Again here is David Suzuki refusing to answer questions of an interviewer, lying about how many scientists signed the IPCC report, and accusing others of being on the payroll of big oil, denying that he has any ties to corporation himself. Lies, Lies, Lies! http://www.canadianvalues.ca/audio/Oakley_Suzuki_complete.wav
Without dealing with every fit of objection you have made, I feel that the arguments I have already advanced are sufficient to cast doubt on your religious certitude for the jury of opinion.
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
This is where a scientific background is an advantage; I can see the lie. This is a red herring. During the Medieval Maximum and Little Ice Age there were forcings that explained the temperature change.
Those same orbital volcanic and solar forcings do not explain the current temperature change.
I am having a hard time with this one. Let me see....You support Mann's Hockey stick graph and join in to ridicule those who have pointed out its errors. You know that the Mann et al. graph if taken as accurate undermines the very existence of the medieval warming and Little Ice Age. And further more that Mann defends that omission because he claims it was a local phenomenon to North Western Europe.
Not only do several papers disprove that defense, but your argument above now embraces those climatic events and pulls in Volcanic and Solar forcing that would surely make those past events global.
The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
Red Herring. "Ignore the ice cores, we can't quibble with them, lets o for the weather stations in urban centres."
Who is ignoring Ice Cores? You are the undisputed King of Red Herring my friend. Change the topic. You are ignoring the data inconsistencies that have been shown to exist time and time again with ground station temperature reading.
Fact: Ground station data used in the Mann et al 100/1000 years that he crazy glued onto his 900/1000 year inferred data, is predominantly located in the US and Europe. Secondly his choice of data used represents only 7% of the area he sought to compare as a hemisphere wide argument. That data relied upon came primarily from Urban sites that have been shown to suffer from the well documented heat island effect. That is as much as 11 degrees C variant increasing ambient temperature by day and due to slow release at night keeping cities much warmer than surrounding rurals.
http://www.epa.gov/heatislands/
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/heatisl.html
One can easily spot Pittsburgh, Cleveland, NY City, Philidelphia, Baltimore, Washington and many smaller towns in this Satellite image:
"There has been no catastrophic warming recorded."
Straw man. Define 'catastrophic'. For ice cubes -0.01 degrees C to + 0.01 degrees C is pretty catastrophic.
OK, I can play that game, define overwhelming consensus!
Catastrophic in reference to the recent past is probably a poor choice of words although it clearly means in keeping with the Myth being promulgated, namely "rising at a rapid unprecedented rate".
As Defreitas said in his paper in 2002 " We are lead to believe that the evidence is all around us. The occurrence of cold spells, heat waves, floods, droughts, and increased frequency of storms are often cited as proof of global warming. Global warming has become the scapegoat for climate variability and for prophesies of future catastrophe" (de Freitas, 1991, 1994).
The IPCC Summary report Feb 2007 itself has a graph on page 9 which under the heading "Post 1960 20th century trend" says "likely" beside "Heavy Precipitation events", "Droughts", "Intense Tropical Cyclone Increase", "extreme high sea levels".
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
SixfNine has covered this very well.
Actually the the Mann et al graph used by IPCC shows a gradual decline in the global temperature for the past 900 years then the sudden increase.
I don't think 6of9 covered this at all. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/130204/2313220/post.ashx#2313220 provides a Red Herring if it is meant to deal with the 10 Myths presented by FOS.
The paper quoted is a fanciful list of supposed arguments against Mann's Hockey Stick Graph by the Website entitled REAL CLIMATE http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
Nowhere does 6of9 give credit to the source used, but you do not point that out but you take great pains in sifting through my posts that are full of hyperlinks and point out items I may have overlooked listing the citation or giving credit. That is just the type of unscientific approach the community of doomsday sayers use in fomenting this hysteria. Birds of a feather!
The truth is as the Myth above states that the historical proxy data of the Hockey Stick graph with its unconventional shell came for the last 100 years data proves nothing more than it's authors wanted it to prove.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17 th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
This Hockey Stick Graph is really quite miraculous as John Daly pointed out. In the 1990 IPCC report they used this commonly accepted temperature graph for the past 1000 years:
However with the Third assessment (TAR-2000) the IPCC adopted the new Mann graph Watchtower style without so much as an apology for misleading us all with the old graph above.
John Daly assesses it this way "In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large."
"This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy."
The version of the Hockey Stick graph in the IPCC report shows in yellow the large error margins in Mann et al.'s own rendition of the data. This is often overlooked as the casual observer is not informed directly what it means. In fact the US National Assessment took the same graph, removed the error margins and called it a Global climate graph instead of what Mann et Al called it a Northern Hemisphere graph. Mann knows this is a misrepresentation of his data but says nothing.
Defreitas casts more than enough doubt onto the Mann et al graph and conclusions. I already posted a link to his paper.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth Brate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
Red Herring. The argument 'there is no proof' ignores the facts that CO2 has a specific heat capacity and that thus if it's concentration increases one can actual CALCULATE how much better at holding on to heat the atmosphere is. Thus the lack of definitive proof CO2 is a forcing is irrelevant; there is no other forcing than GHG's that explains current trends, and the law of physics explain how CO2 would increase the average temperatures as concentrations increased.
That is a pretty circular way of deflecting the issue and ignores the point being made about CO2 in the past. Unlike mutual funds, PAST performance is all we can go by when it comes to extrapolating data. If it is as you and IPCC say, it would naturally follow that high CO2 levels from the paleoclimate records would show CO2's role as a forcing in past periods of warming. The fact is that they do not!
CO2 as part of the GHG mix of our atmosphere is not disputed nor is a correlation to air temperature. What is disputed is the causation of human activity along with catastrophic modeling for the future. As you will note it is the contention of certitude that CO2 is the "main driver" that is disputed in the myth above. No one disputes that CO2 levels are rising a fact that I am not totally comfortable with. However historic models are all over the place when it comes to CO2 levels. Depending on which one you choose is really the basis for your particular brand of dismissiveness. The following graph illustrates just how variable the historic data is.
Rothman seems to be the only one who shows that historic levels have been constant, although most of his history shows as the others do that past CO2 levels were higher than at present.
Another graph shows there is little correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.
On a separate issue, I would be happy to see the US and Canada work towards reducing the human spectrum of this dispute, which is industrial reliance on coal and fossil fuels. It is again the hysteria that we should concentrate all of our know how and resources to reducing CO2 when the full dynamics of causality is not really understood that I am opposed to.
The above two graphs illustrate the discrepancy. CO2 levels have indeed risen steadily for the past 100 years, however temperature increase has not followed the CO2 as shown between 1940 and 1980. Also, the graph shows a much higher temperature climb between 1900 and 1940's peak, that is more pronounced than the period of highest CO2 increase in the last 20 years. Further the temperature anomaly (in this pro ICPP graph at bottom) is set arbitrarily at 0 C that is meant to harness the fear of global warming by means of the red temperature bars. The fact is there is no such thing as temperature constants as our earths history and collected data provide no basis for setting such a constant. Temperature has always been in flux and will continue to do so.
Growth rates of Greenhouse forcing graph on page 3 of Hansen & Sato paper show a marked decrease of CO2 forcings along with other GHG forcings from 1995-2000. (actually declining since 1980's peak) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_Sato.pdf this shows that the total picture of our Global GHG engine is not understood. Computer models cannot predict the results of dampening by the earths own mechanisms. Such as increased cloud cover that acts to cool the earths climate. As well the earth itself has been shown to be absorbing much of the excess. Just one component are trees and grasses and there have been a myriad studies.
Defreitas:
Assuming a doubling of CO
2 release as compared to current emissions, it has been estimated that atmospheric CO 2 levels will rise by about 300 ppm before leveling off (Idso, 1991a). At that level, CO 2 absorption by increased terrestrial biomass may be able to absorb about 10 Gt of carbon per year (Soon et al., 1999). This is over three times the current net annual increase in atmospheric CO 2 from world fossil fuel combustion. These studies indicate that we are anticipating larger CO 2 concentrations in future than will actually occur.Humans have proposed a drastic and mostly unattainable goal of CO2 reduction while the earth itself is capable of moderating any change on its own by more efficient means as it has over the earths climatic past. Earth has maintained its atmosphere over millennia through its own equilibrium and many scientists expect that earth will continue that maintenance no matter what humans throw at it.
As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
A citation, a citation, the credibility of the argument depends on a citation! Unfounded claim, but on the balance of probabilities given the quality of claims you have made or supported thus far, a fallacy or rubbish.
CO2 levels lag behind global temperature rise Fischer et al, 1999,
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO 2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer,Martin Wahlen,Jesse Smith,Derek Mastroianni,Bruce Deck
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and therelation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolutionrecords from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrationsincreased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 yearsafter the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite stronglydecreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations canbe sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the sizeof this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of thepreceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverageand the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
Monnin et al. (2001)
Atmospheric CO 2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
Eric Monnin, 1 * Andreas Indermühle, 1 André Dällenbach, 1 Jacqueline Flückiger, 1 Bernhard Stauffer, 1 Thomas F. Stocker, 1 Dominique Raynaud, 2 Jean-Marc Barnola 2
A record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentration during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene,obtained from the Dome Concordia, Antarctica, ice core, revealsthat an increase of 76 parts per million by volume occurred overa period of 6000 years in four clearly distinguishable intervals.Close examination of the rise in temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentration at the end of the last glacial maximum revealed that the increase in temperature took place 17,800 ±300 years ago, while the increase in the CO 2 took place 17,000 ± 200 years ago. The researchers conclude “the start of the CO 2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ±600 years.”
Sediment studies confirming this Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998;
Also another geological study confirms this conclusion http://www.csa.com/ids70/linkabst.php?issn=0028-0836&vol=408&firstpage=698&sid=gsa The Veizer et al. (2000) Paper entitled "Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO (sub 2) and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon" says this " the simulations based on [the] climate model yield[ed] temperatures that are in serious disagreement with the delta 18 O-scaled tropical temperatures." Defreitas extrapolates the data from Veizer and concludes:
The CO
2 - driven climate model over-predicted the reconstructed temperatures by as much as 7°C, which is equivalent to predicting a warm interglacial when the earth is actually in the midst of an ice age. The results of these studies do not support the notion that CO 2 is the all-important driver of climate change that some have made it out to be.Oceanographic relationship to CO2 levels:
There are papers proving the ocean is and has been historically expelling CO2 during warming periods (as a result of warming not because) and others describe the ocean as a sink for CO2. If I can find my sources before I my ability to edit this post evaporates I will do so.
I will give some thought to your other challenges to the myths 4 thru 10 as I have time.
Frank75
-
Qcmbr
Abaddon - why do you suggest that just because people don't toil through your extremely long posts and post a point by point argument that somehow that discounts them or their thoughts? Obviously you can't be arrogant enough to think that only you have read the evidence and only you have the correct interpretation but you sound as though you are. Your research and wisdom is constantly filtered through your disdain and ends up confusing your message - when I read your posts I can't work out whether you actually care about the points you make or whether you just want to be nasty to people who don't agree. If you care about your points it would be welcome to deliver them with grace and respect, if you just want to play biggest bully in the playground then how can you expect to be taken seriously? If every time you talk to someone you end each sentence with a slap to the face you can't expect people who disagree with you to stay and take abuse - I think you mistake your supposed zeal for the truth as an excuse for vitriol. You could be much more persuasive and helpful if you stop typing after you make your point and before you write the slam.
Why do I think Frank is correct? I've read both sides of the argument and watched people deliver different arguments. Initially I was totally convinced that global warming was running away and that CO2 , especially man introduced , was the principle cause. The more I read the more I found that things didn't add up. Here's a sample of discussion points I have with global warming and from a human point with how the debate is affecting our society:
1/ The sun is not stable in its output of material, the study of sunspots (as an indicator of sun activity) correlates very closely with temperature fluctuations.
2/ CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas that doesn't seem to have the impact of water vapour on global temperature.
3/ CO2 concentrations seem to match temperature change with a considerable time lag (measured n hundresd of years)rather than as a precursor. Short term temperature fluctuations(over the course of tens of years) are very volatile which argue that other things bear much greater influence on temperature than the gradual increase in CO2 levels. If CO2 was more influential it would have a dampening effect on volatility (just as living by the sea reduces temperature fluctuations in the micro climate.)
4/ Temperature change has only been very accurately mapped in the last 150 years, before that we have to rely on more abstract methods such as ice core samples. With this small sample of data we extrapolate far too much IMO - this earth has been through several cycles and is due for another ice age on the geological clock - that means that far more influential forces than greenhouse gases are moving conditions towards an overall cooling. When the earth gets hotter than it is now (and it has been so we are told) then something exerts a cooling effect that reverses the trend. Our ability to affect short term global temperatures by minute additions of a minor greenhouse gas is somewhat implausible.
5/ When temperature change is discussed it is almost exclusively discussed in terms of how bad things will get (malaria will spread, storms will increase, cities will sink, food will get scarcer etc..) This is mythmaking the very thing that religion gets a bum rap for. In times of global change there are winners and losers yet it is portrayed as though all will suffer. If the world was getting cooler then would the argument swing round that we'd all be better off, more land would be available for building or more crops would be available? Research grants don't follow optimistic news.
6/ The short term effects of pretending we can keep the global temperature stable despite all the geological, atmospheric and solar effects will reduce the will to solve far more realistic and desirable aims - the extention of modern development and living standards to those sorely in need. Why spend billions on trying to stop ocean levels rising millimeters like some modern day Canute when rather we could educate and develop the threatened peoples so that if catastrophe arrives they have the resources to save themselves?
7/ The real problem of our human impact upon the world is our rape of its natural resources (in particular the animals and plants)and our lack of effort to live in harmony with our environment and each other. Throwing money at reducing carbon emissions seems to aim at the wrong target, we should stuff trying to twiddle with things we barely understand and try and apply the lessons we have learnt IMO. As such I feel that the global hysteria that the media ferments regarding a minor temperature change in the next 50 years that is not only unproven (didn't global temperatures drop between 1940 and 1970?) but stops us from focusing on improving our world for all life. Reducing fuel consumption is great if it brings greater health, wealth and happiness to people - it's a disaster if all it does is condemn the under developed countries populations to short , impoverished lives of toil but meet some made up target on a politicians desk. Engendering a love of our planet is worthwhile and desirable, creating a sense of fear and helplessness regarding an invisible gas is not. I reject the expenditure of money used on such bizarre projects as carbon offsetting when people are starving - we pretend to save them from a flood in 50 years time while denying them the means to educate and feed themselves now.
To sum up I'm sure we are trying to solve the wrong thing, I think we are focusing on a non-existing problem (global temperature change is not a problem), we are demonising an element on the periodic table (one that boosts plant growth in increased concentrations), we are confusing environmentalism and our need to care for our beautiful planet with global cycles and solar fluctuations and we are using science to scare people and force behaviour - to the potential detriment of those in dire need (by diverting funds and trying to reduce economic development which is currently driven by abundant fossil fuels).
I haven't cited reams of study or data simply because the data is available for all to read and make up their own mind - I just wish to sum up the conclusions I have so far come to (and I don't have a fixed position - for me the argument isn't over.) -
XJW4EVR
ANyone read the latest Sports Illustrated that explains what global warming can do to sports?
-
Brother Apostate
Yes, according to: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/media_nm/globalwarming_usa_magazines_dc_1;_ylt=AsnufqTiQ5V.RN9iEgQOTDx.KcMA
"the SI cover warns "As the Planet Changes, So Do the Games We Play: Time to Pay Attention" and shows baseball pitcher Dontrelle Willis standing in a stadium full of water in Florida.
As oceans get warmer and ice caps melt, the seas will rise and coastal areas like South Florida will "eventually be underwater," the magazine says.
Baseball could see faster balls and less timber for bats, golf courses will have to live on less water and pesticides and ski competitions will have to move to higher slopes for snow.
"Fighting global warming ... can be an integral part of building more profitable professional teams and keeping sports alive for generations," said Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which lauded the cover issue."
Imagine that.
Could make things interesting if what is imagined comes to fruition.
BA- Imagination is imaginary.
PS- But where is the
my pet sciencescience ? -
Frank75
Qcmbr:
Thanks for the vote of confidence and putting your finger on the button with the debating style of Abaddon.
1/ The sun is not stable in its output of material, the study of sunspots (as an indicator of sun activity) correlates very closely with temperature fluctuations.
Although there could be a connection or correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. We should rightly be circumspect because the evidence to support it is far from conclusive and open to wide and often emotional interpretation. Occam's razor does not apply to the correlation that alarmist continually try drawing, in fact argues against it.
Above Graph Source material
To sum up I'm sure we are trying to solve the wrong thing, I think we are focusing on a non-existing problem (global temperature change is not a problem), we are demonising an element on the periodic table (one that boosts plant growth in increased concentrations), we are confusing environmentalism and our need to care for our beautiful planet with global cycles and solar fluctuations and we are using science to scare people and force behaviour - to the potential detriment of those in dire need (by diverting funds and trying to reduce economic development which is currently driven by abundant fossil fuels).
At the very least we are meddling with something that truly is of an enormous scale. Who do we think we are?
Is the IPCC Chicken Little? Is a little white lie justified for the greater good of the environmentalist extreme left?
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
60 minutes did a bit on Coal miners over the weekend and said the US derives 50% of its power generation from Coal. If that is true, something should be done to change that number, but concocting a panic is not one of them. We need inexpensive forms of energy but we do not need to be stupid about what the next step is. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is wrong. Cleaning up or converting these sources of pollution to one less objectionable is a better idea than the Peter Pan approach of building vast wind mill and solar fields, rushing to build more 3 mile islands or building cities in the clouds for that matter!
Aids and poverty in the third world is a far more important task for dedicating these trillions of dollars to. Oprah has endorsed people like Darrel Hanna and DiCaprio because she loves Hollywood, but she still drives her Expeditions around Chicago! On the other hand she has put her money into a real problem with the opening up of a girls school in Africa.
Those nations will never be able to pull out of the misery and poverty without our help. Likewise if cheaper fossil fuels are withheld from them to help their development we might as well just end their misery now.
Frank75
-
SixofNine
lol, a real humanitarian we got here!
-
metatron
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1862897.htm
Is the Gulf Stream really going to stop? Could the movie "Day After Tomorrow" be total crap?
metatron
-
Abaddon
Frank,
I'm gonna do these as my schedule permits;
Frank Claim One
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
Abaddon Refutation
This is where a scientific background is an advantage; I can see the lie. This is a red herring. During the Medieval Maximum and Little Ice Age there were forcings that explained the temperature change.
Those same orbital volcanic and solar forcings do not explain the current temperature change.
Frank Rebutal
I am having a hard time with this one. Let me see....You support Mann's Hockey stick graph and join in to ridicule those who have pointed out its errors. You know that the Mann et al. graph if taken as accurate undermines the very existence of the medieval warming and Little Ice Age. And further more that Mann defends that omission because he claims it was a local phenomenon to North Western Europe.
Not only do several papers disprove that defense, but your argument above now embraces those climatic events and pulls in Volcanic and Solar forcing that would surely make those past events global.
Abaddon Response
*sigh* I have clearly stated that Mann et. al.'s graph is acknowledged as being contentious. I clearly state I think there are forcings that explain the MWP and LIA. Steve McIntyre, who was one of the biggest critics of the HS graph says;
If the HS were wrong, 2xCO2 is still an issue.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=709
I am not defending Mann; I am defending AGW. you brought the hockey stick into the discussion.
The following links supply information which show there HAS been 'significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/06/23/science/20060623_CLIMATE_GRAPHIC.htmlThe whole point is that while increases can be characterised as 'within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium', the increase now is not being caused by the solar, orbital and volcanic forcing that caused previous natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
Frank Claim 2
The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
Abaddon Refutation
Red Herring. "Ignore the ice cores, we can't quibble with them, lets o for the weather stations in urban centres."
Frank Rebutal
Who is ignoring Ice Cores? You are the undisputed King of Red Herring my friend. Change the topic. You are ignoring the data inconsistencies that have been shown to exist time and time again with ground station temperature reading.
Fact: Ground station data used in the Mann et al 100/1000 years that he crazy glued onto his 900/1000 year inferred data, is predominantly located in the US and Europe. Secondly his choice of data used represents only 7% of the area he sought to compare as a hemisphere wide argument. That data relied upon came primarily from Urban sites that have been shown to suffer from the well documented heat island effect. That is as much as 11 degrees C variant increasing ambient temperature by day and due to slow release at night keeping cities much warmer than surrounding rurals.
http://www.epa.gov/heatislands/
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/heatisl.html
Abaddon Response
With regard to its impact on the claims for AGW IPCC v4 says;
Urban heat island effects were determined to have neglible influence (less than 0.0006 °C per decade over land and zero over oceans) effect on these measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
See also;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
I should have been less sarcastic and explained why this point is obviously fallacious; urban areas are TINY in comparison to non-urban. Non-urban areas also show increases. If you take out the urban data there is still an increase. Therefore urban heat islands are obviously a red herring.
Not looking good so far, but at least you're trying. Stop quoting Mann; I've not quoted him and doing so either makes it look like I defend him specifically (I don't), or that you think AGW rests upon ONE graph by ONE guy, which it doesn't.
