Bah.. IBrowse froze my system while i was writing a comment with links to graphs that show it occuring around same time.

Oh well.. guess i should learn to use my pc for such tasks

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Quote: "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 700 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors."

Interesting that the papers support skepticism. Though more interesting is they don't include responses or papers that have thoroughly debunked these papers. For example 2003 McIntyre is more than dead. Net result the papers may support skepticism but Popular Technology appears to not support validity.

Look at this another way. During the same time there was well over 10K papers. If you went to the doctor and they did tests to detect cancer. These tests were done in various ways and sent to a dozen different labs. 11 came back positive and said treating it is a good option. 1 came back and said cancer free. Applying your rationality here you'd ignore the condition and go down to the pub for some suds.

I've just ordered this, should be an interesting read....

Melting Ice reveals artificats as old as 9000 years. LINK

@BrianK

Quote:

Though more interesting is they don't include responses or papers that have thoroughly debunked these papers.

The replies to any responses are included and the papers have not been thoroughly debunked.

Quote:

For example 2003 McIntyre is more than dead.

MM2003 was limited only by the lack of data and method disclosure from Mann. This was rectified with the 2004 materials complaint to Nature which allowed the full dissection of Mann in MM 2005,

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The point again is there is extensive published skepticism of the current AGW theory and alarmist conclusions.

Last edited by Poptech on 29-Apr-2010 at 06:51 AM.

Illegally stole CRU emails lead to an investigation of Phil Jones. A government panel and a panel of scientists have found Jones innocent of wrongdoing LINK The article mentions one item recommended to the CRU is to make more data publically available. Sounds fair. Don't forget though CRU isn't the only agency. NASA does this too and their data has been available. Nor does CRU run all the thermometers. Often one can get data by contacting the owner of the weather station directly.

The article mentions the Attorney General probe of Michael Mann. Recently the Penn State investigation concluded no wrong doing. LINK

I must ask who do these investigations matter to? GWers say 'hey we're right'. Anti-GWers spew more claims that it proves the conspiracy. When claims of wrong doing are supported by any outcome the anti-gwers have built themselves a no lose (in their minds) situation.

Quote:

“The Climate Prediction Center recently released its equatorial upper ocean heat content for April 2010. One of the primary areas that they focus on is the equatorial heat content averaged over the area from 180-100W. The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C, which is the largest decrease in equatorial upper ocean heat content in this area since the CPC began keeping records of this in 1979.

the-decrease-in-upper-ocean-heat-content-from-march-to-april-was-1c-largest-since-1979/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/spencer-strong-negative-feedback-found-in-radiation-budget/

A good YouTube channel discussing Climate Change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc

@THOMAS,
At the bottom of the article you cited is a link to Lindzen's paper on the similar topic of negative feedbacks. There's a good article describing why Lindzen was wrong. http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/

Hottest April on record. Hottest Jan-April and for those applauding the growth in sea ice. See the link at the bottom of the article. It appears those gains have been lost and we're on a course for the least sea ice on record.

@BrianK

Anti-Evolution, Anti-Global Warming, Pro-Tobacco, etc.

Why do some people live in denial of science?

@BrianK
Why do you keep posting such fud?? Even more funny considering it comes from one of the true denialists. You people basically blindly believes in computer models while ignoring the evidence that goes against your blind fatih. At least AGW skeptic scientists base their results on real data instead of basing it all on wild assumptions and incomplete computer models. I have yet to see any of you come with a single evidence other than computer models, slightly increased temperature or a tiny bit less ice cover.

This is a bit to alarmist for my taste, but i will post it anyways: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=155225
Quote:

New Ice Age 'to begin in 2014' Russian scientist to alarmists: 'Sun heats Earth!' CHICAGO – A new "Little Ice Age" could begin in just four years, predicted Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia.

Hi,

do not know about global warming, but this has been the hottest May in Finland at least during my lifetime . And southern Europe is colder now. So very unusual, I would say.

Webba

@Webba

Quote:

Webba wrote: Hi, do not know about global warming, but this has been the hottest May in Finland at least during my lifetime . And southern Europe is colder now. So very unusual, I would say. Webba

Yeah.. It is a nice heatwave you have over there now. It will sadly most likely die out by this weekend though and then again be replaced by colder than normal weather. Here in trondheim, norway we are still experiencing below normal temps. January-april was infact one of the coldest months on records here... :\

@Tomas

Quote:

Why do you keep posting such fud??

Vaccines, Evolution FUD? Perhaps if you read the link you might find out they're not the FUD you claim.

Quote:

I have yet to see any of you come with a single evidence other than computer models, slightly increased temperature or a tiny bit less ice cover.

If this is true the lack is not the evidence but your own lack of finding the evidence. Someone here posted the 700 anti-gw articles located in Popular Science. If you go to your nearest University one of the librarians should be able to help you find published articles from scientific journals. There's roughly 15,000 journal published articles that didn't make the anti-gw cut on Popular Science.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: Why do you keep posting such fud?? Vaccines, Evolution FUD? Perhaps if you read the link you might find out they're not the FUD you claim. Quote: I have yet to see any of you come with a single evidence other than computer models, slightly increased temperature or a tiny bit less ice cover. If this is true the lack is not the evidence but your own lack of finding the evidence. Someone here posted the 700 anti-gw articles located in Popular Science. If you go to your nearest University one of the librarians should be able to help you find published articles from scientific journals. There's roughly 15,000 journal published articles that didn't make the anti-gw cut on Popular Science.

I was talking about you comparing climate skeptics to someone denying the holocaust, evolution or conspiracy nuts.

And no, there is no real world observations or evidence that proves or even really support AGW theory at all. There is alot of real world observations that completely contradicts the models and expected effects from CO2 induced global warming.

Last edited by Tomas on 20-May-2010 at 05:08 PM.

@Tomas

Abdussamatov has been wrong before. It's of note but of course does not factor into his newest predictions. He may have learned from past mistakes.

The biggest problem I see with is his work is the discard of atmospheric conditions. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the atmosphere. If his idea was fully true Venus would be cooler than Mercury. And of course the moon and the earth would be nearly the same temp. Inverse radius square law -- remember that one?

Thanks for posting his predictions. It'll be interesting to see if 2014 is the start of a 'Little Ice Age' trend as in the article.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-May-2010 at 01:41 AM.

@Tomas

Quote:

I was talking about you comparing climate to someone denying the holocaust, evolution or conspiracy nuts.

The article was the difference of denialism vs skepticism. Skepticism learns from the evidence. Such as 15K articles over 700 which don't indicate anti-gw causes.

Quote:

And no, there is no real world observations or evidence that proves or even really support AGW theory at all.

Good illustration of denialism! Thanks.

@BrianK

Quote:

And no, there is no real world observations or evidence that proves or even really support AGW theory at all.

Then why not just point me in the direction of real world observations that backs up AGW?

Here are some few examples of what did not happen:
1. According to AGW theory the water vapour would increase as a result of AGW and what has happened since 90s?? The water vapour levels have dropeped which is exact contradiction to the models.
2. AGW leads to stronger and more hurricane activity.. Real world observations show that hurricane activity has been going down and has been nearly record low in the last decade.
3. AGW leads to ever inreasing sea level rise.. Real world observations show that sea level inrease has slowed down compared to previous decades and is currently increasing at a snail pace. The fact that sea level is increasing does not support it at all, as it has been increasing for ten thousand years now, which is exactly what you would expect to happen during a interglacial period and this will continue until next glacial even if we never released any CO2.
4. AGW theory predicts that maximum high daytemps will increase as well as giving us alot more heatwaves. Observations show that nearly all the warming comes from winters being milder or high latitude regions being less cold. Nearly all record high temps was set decades ago.

I am sure i could go on for a good while, but dont really feel like wasting my time any further right now.