posted February 18, 2010 02:33 PM            

whether or not the problem is man made or exacerbated by us i think the real issue is whether it can be REVERSED BY MAN's selective use of energy.

because in the past, as geologists and archeologists have pointed out, the natural consequence to global warming is an ice age, as jwhop keeps saying. and they don't take decades to turn round, either, they happen very quickly.

posted February 18, 2010 05:01 PM            

I don't think there's support for that hypothesis that it's nuclear testing and the military industrial complex. I don't really get the impression that anyone here has studied the issue sufficiently to comment authoritatively on the subject.

posted February 18, 2010 09:43 PM            

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Photo Gallery: Global Warming

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

posted February 19, 2010 01:58 AM            

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

posted February 19, 2010 12:14 PM            

the fact does remain is that we still have not reached the tipping point that happened in the 14th C when it went suddenly from VERY warm, warmer than today, to a "mini ice age"...and it might not even be wise to prevent that happening again. it could be that is what keeps the earth from going completely off balance...

posted February 20, 2010 11:47 PM            

Establishment figures intone about the substantial "body of science" supporting the notion of man-caused global warming. But based on recent events, they need to check the body's pulse. The body is dead, and rapidly wasting away before our very eyes.

Over the past 3 months, a circus of scandals has played around the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its periodic Assessment Reports on global warming. The latest report issued in 2007 proclaimed a consensus regarding a 90% probability that mankind's activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, were causing global warming that would lead to catastrophic results if drastic steps were not taken to reverse it.

The lasting scientific upshot of that circus of scandals is that the historical global surface temperature record on which the contention of global warming has been based has been thoroughly discredited as manipulated and mangled beyond recovery.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Three official global surface temperature data sets exist. These include British data (Hadley-CRU) maintained by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, and the Hadley Center for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office (Met Office). Another is maintained by the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S. The third is maintained by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS).

Last October, Hadley-CRU admitted in response to Freedom of Information requests that they had actually thrown away the raw temperature data from which they constructed their historical surface temperature record. The original Climategate scandal revelations included emails from CRU Director Phil Jones proclaiming to co-conspirators that he will delete the raw data files before publicly disclosing them under Freedom of Information legal requirements. But if global warming science was so sound and supported by the evidence, why would Jones not want to publicly disclose the evidence to allow full peer review under the scientific method, and prove the case?

A later revelation from the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) explains why. The IEA disclosed that Hadley-CRU had failed to record reports from weather stations in colder regions of Russia, leaving the false impression that those stations were no longer reporting. The IEA believes that the complete Russian data do not support the notion of man-caused global warming. Other revelations disclose the same sort of shenanigans throughout the Hadley-CRU data set.

In any event, without the raw data available for peer review by other scientists to check and replicate the underlying calculations, and examine them for consistency with the publicly reported results, the Hadley-CRU surface temperature record is not science. It provides no foundation for government regulations imposing trillions in additional costs, and foreclosing trillions more in future economic output, nor any basis for the demanded trillions in wealth transfers from developed to underdeveloped countries. You can file it on the library shelf between Alice in Wonderland and Grimm's Fairy Tales.

More recently have come scandalous revelations regarding the same problems with the U.S. data sets kept by NOAA and NASA-GISS. In the 1970s, when it was just honestly trying to report the science, NOAA collected the temperature data from 600 Canadian weather stations. But this number has dwindled over the years to just 35 today for the entire expanse of Canada, including just one above the Arctic Circle. Yet, the Canadian government now operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, with more than 100 above the Arctic Circle. The same problems have now been found in the NASA-GISS surface temperature record.

American researchers Joseph D'Aleo and E. Michael Smith published a study on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) disclosing these results based on a review of the reports of NOAA and NASA-GISS themselves regarding the collection of data for their surface temperature records. According to a write-up in the National Post:

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and [NASA-GISS] have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry-picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

D'Aleo and Smith further report that over the past two decades the percentage of Canadian stations in the lower elevations included in the temperature records of the two agencies tripled, while those at higher elevations above 300 feet, where the temperatures are colder, were cut in half. The National Post story continues:

Using the agency's own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA's Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today. Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S., and China….The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record. "NOAA… systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which have a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers, in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."

NASA GISS is run by the unbalanced James Hansen, who, as Patrick Michaels recently explained in National Review Online, "became famous for calling coal [shipments] to your local power plant 'death trains' and advocating war-crime trials for the executives who daily force you to put gasoline in your car." Hansen also testified in defense of saboteurs on trial for vandalism at power plant construction sites in Britain, saying their violence was justified by the contribution to global warming that the power plants would produce. He can certainly be relied upon as an objective data source.

The Truth About Temperature

As a result of this unscientific behavior, the only reliable temperature record now is the one produced by U.S. weather satellites measuring global atmospheric temperatures. Such satellites have only been in operation since 1979, but show no increase in global temperature trends until the unrelated El Nino spike of 1998, with temperatures declining back down since then. By April of this year, that decline had completely offset the 1998 spike, with temperatures back to where they were in 1980. In recent months, another El Nino effect may be causing increased temperatures, but El Nino effects are a normal, temporary, temperature pattern not related to global warming.

Even the distorted surface temperature record was not consistent with man-caused global warming. That record still showed declining temperatures from 1940 until the late 1970s, despite all the burning of fossil fuels during that time, prompting media alarms about a returning ice age. U.S. temperatures by then were little different than in 1900. Heartland Institute President Joe Bast recently summarized, "Earlier this year, the onset of global cooling in 2000 was recognized by all leading scientists and could no longer be kept hidden by the mainstream media. Some scientists forecast two more decades of cooling before any warming returns."

In a shocking recent BBC interview, even CRU director and IPCC temperature guru Phil Jones admits that there has been no global warming over the last decade, and that he doesn't believe "the vast majority of climate scientists think" the debate on climate change is over. Most importantly, he confesses that even the increase in surface temperatures in the record, such as it is, for 1975 to 1998, which is the foundation for IPCC global warming claims, is not unprecedented. He admits that the record shows similar and not statistically significant warming for 1910 to 1940 and 1860 to 1880. That means the ballyhooed warming from 1975 to 1998, for which we have been asked to repeal the industrial revolution, is not outside the range of natural variability.

IPCC Follies

Among other recently revealed IPCC follies, the 2007 Assessment Report hysterically claimed that it was highly likely (up to a 90% probability) that the massive Himalayan glaciers would melt away completely by 2035. Turns out, as the London Sunday Times reported in January, that this claim arose not from a scientific, peer-reviewed study, but from a 1999 news story interviewing a single Indian glaciologist, which was repeated by an article in the popular science magazine New Scientist, which was echoed in a publicity brochure from the World Wildlife Fund, which was the actual basis for the IPCC claim. The original glaciologist now says he was misquoted and provided no date for the doomsday melting of the glaciers, which are the source of a critical water supply for millions.

The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, also runs an energy institute in India which has now received millions in grants to further study Himalayan glaciers, based on the original bogus 2035 melting claim. Running that project for Pachauri is Syed Hasnain, the original glaciologist who started the phony melting scare. This smacks of corruption.

When the actual environment minister of India, Jairam Ramesh, issued a report last year concluding there was no proof that the glaciers were melting abnormally fast, Pachauri self-servingly denounced it as "voodoo science." Email correspondence now proves that Pachauri was aware last fall that the 2035 melting claim was false, but he continued to try to hide that from the public through the December Copenhagen summit. After the full story became public, Pachauri and the IPCC finally admitted the falsehood.

The IPCC's 2007 Assessment Report also claimed that the world has "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." The cited source for this was one unpublished study which, when actually published in 2008, concluded, "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

The 2007 IPCC report, which, remember, won a Nobel Prize, also claimed that global warming threatened up to 40% of the beloved Amazon rain forest, allegedly because it is extremely sensitive to even modest decreases in rainfall that supposedly may result from warming. That turns out to have been based, again, not on any scientific, peer-reviewed studies, but on a magazine article by two non-scientists, one being an environmental activist who has worked for the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace.

Further claims in the 2007 report regarding disappearing ice in the Andes, the European Alps, and Africa turn out now to have been based on a student dissertation and an article in a climbing magazine written by a hiker. So much for the IPCC's supposed gold-plated standard of peer reviewed science.

This is all consistent with what I have been arguing in this column for over a year, that the U.N. cannot be trusted to report objectively on the science of global warming because it has an institutional self-interest in hyping the issue to gain greatly expanded institutional powers. The right conclusion to draw from all these IPCC follies is as recently editorialized by the Washington Times: "Man-made global warming is not backed up by the science; it's a hoax….It's time to admit it's all baloney and move on."

The Crisis of American Media

As Rick Moran explained at the American Thinker website on January 31, we know of this circus of IPCC follies because

newspapers in Great Britain have been doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN….

Perhaps it's time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can't get any traction here, [where] we hear crickets chirping when it comes to stories from major newspapers and -- outside of Fox News -- the cable nets.

Instead, American media outlets like Time and Newsweek are still disgracefully reporting the arrant nonsense from global warming fabulists that the record snowfalls pummeling America this winter are actually due to global warming. In America, we can no longer even get the news from the political activists posing as journalists at our major media outlets, which can no longer be distinguished from the Democrat National Committee.

Last year, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was calling for civil disobedience by global warming activists to force legislation. He now owes his readers, and global warming "deniers," an apology. If he can't do that, the Times would do better turning over his column to Jayson Blair, the disgraced former Times reporter who was discovered fabricating his front-page news stories. Today's wildly leftist New York Times has reached such a low point that one has to turn to publications like Playboy for stories of greater social value.

The disappearing science of global warming now calls for action. In states that have joined interstate compacts to start imposing sacrifices on their people to the global warming gods, the people should rise up and demand that their elected officials withdraw from those commitments or be replaced. Note that 18 states provide for recall of elected state officials. If your Congressman or Senator voted for or supports cap and trade, then join a campaign to replace him or her for foolishness and dereliction of duty. Congress should pass legislation instead to withdraw authority from the EPA over global warming regulation. Representatives who won't support that need to be replaced by those who will.

posted February 21, 2010 02:58 AM            

___________________________

Global warming dissenters few at US weather meeting
Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:29pm ESTBy Ed Stoddard

SAN ANTONIO, Jan 18 (Reuters) - Joe D'Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this week at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Antonio.

D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.

Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.

"Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player," D'Aleo said.

He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures -- a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from this crowd.

Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society's conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming.

That does not mean there is a consensus.

"There's not a consensus on anything. There are people who say the Earth is not round, there are people who say that the Earth is 6,000 years old," said Richard Anthes of the Colorado- based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

"The vast majority of credible scientists from thousands of peer-reviewed papers agree that the strong balance of evidence is that the Earth is warming and the major cause of that is anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions."

MINORITY VIEWS

Mainstream scientific opinion holds that emissions from fossil fuels are trapping heat in the atmosphere -- the so-called "greenhouse effect." Such emissions come from cars, factories and power plants.

U.S. President George W. Bush's annual State of the Union speech to Congress next week is likely to tweak climate change policy, but stop short of the mandatory emissions caps that many greens would like to see, sources have said.

"I think there is largely agreement on the fact that over the last 30 years, that much of that warming has been attributed to human activities, in other words, greenhouse gas emissions," said Tony Socci, a American Meteorological Society senior science fellow.

He said those who denied the connection were either "badly informed as to the scientific center or consensus, or in some cases perhaps (they are) just not wanting to be informed."

Greenhouse gas skeptics would retort that the meteorological mainstream has not gotten a handle on the science behind solar activity and other natural cyclical causes and fed it into the models.

D'Aleo said there was an element of peer pressure to toe the party line.

"A lot of them are not willing to speak up because it might endanger grants and jobs," he said.

For others, the evidence is overwhelming.

Temperatures rose by about 1.1 Fahrenheit (0.6 Celsius) during the 20th century and may rise another 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius from 1990 to 2100, a rate unprecedented in at least 10,000 years, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"I think there's virtually no doubt that humans are a major player in warming the globe," said Robert Henson, author of the recently published "The Rough Guide to Climate Change."

"There are still people out there who will contradict that, but they are not part of the scientific mainstream," he said.

The dissenters would say that is the point: portraying them as the wild-eyed fringe or lackeys of oil companies makes even legitimate questioning seem less credible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN18480944

___________________________________

I like how this article of yours points to a study by D'Aleo who points to a blogger, E.M. Smith. E.M. Smith self describes himself as:

"A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change... "

That would be a hobbyist, not a scientist.

_____________________

The Misconception: The last few years have been cooler, so global warming can't be real; or, Global warming stopped in 1998; or, The world has been cooling for the past decade.

The Reality: The climate is defined by long-term averages in global temperatures and other climate metrics, and those are still increasing.

Some people claim that the planet has entered a cooling phase either since 1998 or since 2005, depending on the data set. However, just because 1998 and 2005 are the two warmest years on record does not mean that a long term warming trend is not continuing. The climate is defined by long-term averages, not the ups and downs that occur every few years. For example, the average temperature for the last five years is higher than for the previous five years, and so on.

Even with the variability in global average temperatures, a long-term warming trend remains. The ten warmest years in the 150-year thermometer record have all occurred in the twelve years between 1997 and 2008;6 thus, none of the previous 15 decades has been as warm on average as the last decade. Even with a short-term pause in warming, the past three years are among the ten hottest years of the past 150!

What if the temperature still does not rise for several more years? Even then, concluding that global warming had stopped would be premature. Scientists at the U.S. National Climatic Data Center found that over the past 34 years, three separate roughly ten-year periods had no warming, yet during the entire period the global average temperature rose by about 1°F.

posted February 21, 2010 01:20 PM            

Even the UN IPCC now admits their studies, their methods and their conclusions were flawed, fabricated and falsified.

Their foremost so called climate researcher now says there hasn't been any warming of the earth in the last 15 years.

Further, this same guy...Phil Jones, who got caught in his conspiracy to rig conclusions in favor of crackpot theory...now says it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than now.

Further, this same guy...Phil Jones, now says there's nothing unprecedented about the rise in temperatures coming out of the Little Ice Age...AND that temperatures have risen in like manner TWICE in the last thousand years.

posted February 21, 2010 05:09 PM            

quote:

---

Even the UN IPCC now admits their studies, their methods and their conclusions were flawed, fabricated and falsified.

---

In the broad sense, this is untrue. The IPCC has acknowledged some flaws, but they still maintain the bulk of the science still supports their conclusions.

quote:

---

Their foremost so called climate researcher now says there hasn't been any warming of the earth in the last 15 years.

---

He wasn't their "foremost" climate researcher, and he was one of many people tracking the climate. You really left your A-game at home for this one, didn't you?

Here's what the actual scientists at RealClimate have to say regarding the story:

Daily Mangle
Filed under: Climate ScienceInstrumental RecordPaleoclimateReporting on climate¡ª group @ 15 February 2010

Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled ¡°Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995¡å.

The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn¡¯t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years¨Ca point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.

The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former ¡°has been used to produce the ¡®hockey stick graph¡¯¡±.

Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called ¡°Medieval Warm Period¡±. Jones stated in his BBC interview that ¡°There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia¡± and that ¡°For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.¡±

These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008).

Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.

Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an response to some of the false allegations in a previous piece in the UK Guardian. We¡¯ll report further such developments as they happen.
http://www.realclimate.org/

(The above article contains numerous linked references if you go to their site.)

posted February 21, 2010 05:14 PM            

The allegations made in today’s Guardian create a misleading picture and require important clarifications in three areas:

1. The FOI request was responded to in full

The FOI request from Douglas Keenan was responded to by the university in full in 2007. The data used in the 1990 paper were indeed sent to Mr Keenan, including both the locations of the stations and the station temperature data for China, Australia and western parts of the former Soviet Union. For China, the data covered the period 1954 to 1983. The data were also uploaded onto the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) website.

2. The accuracy of the data and results was confirmed in a later paper

Prof Jones embarked on a study in 2007 which was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2008. In this later study, CRU researchers worked with a Chinese colleague (Dr Q. Li) from the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) in Beijing. Dr Li had been assessing the consistency of 728 Chinese temperature series and his work was published in China in 2007. This improved CMA data was adjusted to account for changes in location of stations.

CRU requested this improved CMA data for the stations that had been used in the 1990 study, and they were incorporated into the 2008 paper.

Figure 6 from this study (see below) shows the comparisons (as anomalies from the 1954-1983 period) between the averages of the 42 rural and 42 urban sites used in 1990 compared with averages from the same stations from the CMA network. The dashed lines are the averages for the rural and urban sites in eastern China from the 1990 paper. The solid lines are the averages from the same stations from the CMA network. It is clear from the graph that the trends of the CMA data for both the rural and urban networks agree almost exactly with the results from the 1990 paper.

The 2008 study undertook additional analyses using more extensive data and did conclude that there was a likely urbanization trend in China of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade for the period 1951-2004. But allowing for this, there was still a large-scale climatic warming of 0.15 degrees C per decade over the period 1951-2004 and 0.47 degrees C per decade over the period 1981-2004. The paper concluded that much of the urbanization trend was likely due to the rapid economic development in China since the 1980s, after the period analysed in the 1990 paper.

3. The CRU findings were corroborated by other papers used by the IPCC

The 1990 paper was only one of a number of papers referred to in the 2007 IPCC Report examining possible urbanizations effects.

References
Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172.
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.

posted February 21, 2010 08:33 PM            

You quote the most cracked pots in the crackpot brigade and expect to confer credibility on them? You must be nuts.

There's always that 10% who never get the message.

Let me repeat the message for you once again acoustic...and this time pay attention.

Turn out the lights. The man made global warming party is over.

The lying rats are jumping ship.

posted February 21, 2010 09:00 PM            

quote:

---

Real Climate dot org?
You quote the most cracked pots in the crackpot brigade and expect to confer credibility on them?

---

No, I expect to do no such thing. Their own resumes, which are posted at the site confirms them as known expert scientists in the field of climate. You are welcome to further Google them if you disbelieve them. These wouldn't be the hobbyist bloggers that you like to cite as information.

quote:

---

There's always that 10% who never get the message.

Let me repeat the message for you once again acoustic...and this time pay attention.

Turn out the lights. The man made global warming party is over.

---

Repeating a bogus message isn't going to make the FACTS support your moronic belief. That's just not the way it works. You can't argue, so you're trying to create subterfuge, but it's complete and utter nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/science/earth/19climate.html

Do you honestly believe that in the middle of this thread where I've been disproving every little thing you've said that I'd have missed the resignation put forth in your article? Are you going to cite the reason for the resignation, or would you prefer to act as if this disproves global warming?

In a statement announcing his departure, Mr. de Boer expressed disappointment about the Copenhagen talks and said that while governments could provide a framework for action on climate, the solutions must come from the businesses that produce and consume the fuels that add to global warming.

“Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms, but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming,” said Mr. de Boer, whose formal title is executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Clearly NOT a sign of the global warming debate unravelling.

Try again. I bet I can counter act anything you have to say about global warming. Notice that I actually bring science to this thread, while you are merely lobbing softballs that are easily disproven. At some point, the real saving face is coming up with something substantial.

posted February 21, 2010 11:13 PM            

You would know that if you weren't always in foggy LeftistLand.

The entire hoax is unraveling at an accelerated pace now.

posted February 21, 2010 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

They get their views from realclimatecrackpots.

---

posted February 25, 2010 05:56 AM            

These folks have a hell of a marketing strategy.

Really, people. Climate Change? Like the climate has never changed before. Or like the climate changing, as is an actual property of a climate, is something unnatural.

Meanwhile, all the REAL environmental issues, like actual, provable water pollution, are just ignored. Guess there aren't enough celebrities, I mean experts, touting those as important so they must not matter. Let's focus on the fact that the climate, eegads, is changing. Also, has anyone noticed that the Earth rotates?! OMG! So what if it's been rotating forever? What are the long term implications of this rotation? And the risks?! And, hell, while we're at it, what if man somehow caused the Earth to rotate?! What if gravity is man-made?! Surely man's actions have such far reaching effects. We can change the climate, we can spin the Earth. Heck, we can even dim the sun to stave off unwatend "warming" with our garbage!

posted February 25, 2010 06:39 AM              

hey, jwhops,way back when the world started spinning...well, how did all that happen? and why did you invent that gravity thing? were you getting tired of floating around or did you get thirsty and needed to get to the water?

paint peeling dog on the way buddy. good luck with her.