Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

JR Texas · October 16, 2009

Is there objective scientific data regarding sea levels in the Gulf of Thailand?
If so, where can it be accessed, and how far back does the data go?

I don't know how such data is gathered, but I can envision a series of stoutly anchored (in many tons of concrete) metal poles at the seashore. Periodic precise measurements would be taken, ideally when the waters are relatively calm. If there's a concern about subsiding land masses, then perhaps GPS positioning would help that, though I believe GPS only works highly detailed for the US gov't (which paid for and provided it). For worldwide royalty/fee-free use, its accuracy is intentionally not as precise.

Is the appropriate Thai gov't Ministry taking precise/accurate measurements, or is the OP's statement just some gut feeling he had after eating MSG-laden rice soup one morning after his wife found his mia noi's tel number in his mobile? I'd guess that any scientific measurements are probably administered by an outside/farang outfit. Thais too readily rely on outside experts to do such things.

Good questions...........but did you see the undeniable association between the number if pirates on the planet and temperature over time?

I remember another one many years ago showing an supposed association between the number of churches and the number of bars in a city........implication: bars lead to churches.........or churches lead to bars, however you want to look at it.

At some point you incorporate logic, reason, and common sense...............

Surely some responsible scientist in Thailand is monitoring this........this post, though, started because of something written by a Thai scientist.

That scientist actually did not even say what most of the posters here claim he said..........words taken out of context. He never said it "would not rise or never rise." I already posted a link to his article so that people can read what he actually said.

As always, professional skeptics/deniers grasp on to statements made by scientists that seem to support their view and twist them.

As you know, some events take time to materialize, like the predicated amount of warming of the troposphere that TT keeps rattling on about......for an explanation see this: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environme...ere-not-warming

[Relatedly, complex models are never perfect and are always adjusted given new data. That is not manipulation.........it is the way science is done.]

Just because Bangkok is not underwater now all year round does not mean that it will not be in the future if we do not address climate change.

Some Thai scientists have published papers on coastal erosion in various areas in the Gulf........seems to be accelerating according to them.

This entire thread seems off base.........it started with a misleading title........and it has gone downhill.

It is focusing on a straw man. I SUGGEST CLOSING IT. The topic should be broader: Climate Change in Southeast Asia: Dangerous?

For those who want more information from real scientists on climate change, (and not from crackpots funded by BIG OIL) and to find out where the ideas of the skeptics are coming from and who is paying for them, go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

teatree · October 18, 2009

Climate Modelling Nonsense

John Reid - physicist who lives in Cygnet, Tasmania. His interests include alternative energy and the environment.

Quadrant - http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/...elling-nonsense

The less a thing is known, the more fervently it is believed.

—Montaigne

In effect a new religion has grown out of secular humanism. Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytising the new faith.

There are major differences, however. Whereas it is not possible to call oneself a Christian without entertaining the central belief in the Resurrection, it is certainly possible to be deeply concerned with the order and condition of humanity and so call oneself a humanist without entertaining a corresponding belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Belief in a Resurrection which supposedly occurred some 2000 years ago is a matter of personal faith, whereas AGW is a scientific hypothesis which can and should be tested by observation. Imagine the consequences both to science and to secular humanism should this hypothesis turn out to be untrue and the dire predictions of the climate models fail to materialise.

The quasi-religious nature of AGW is evidenced by the rancour which is generated when people like me express scepticism about the theory. Scepticism is an essential part of science which has, until recently, been a “small-l liberal” pursuit in which the opinions of doubters were respected. Now we sceptics are called “deniers” and, by implication, lumped in with neo-Nazis who question the Holocaust. The accusation that we are somehow in the sway of the oil companies and similar big business interests is commonplace and indeed is the chief argument of non-scientist supporters of the AGW theory. This echoes the “work of the Devil” argument of fundamentalist Christians; it is a mental trick by which the faithful avoid facing the real issues. (JR'BIG OIL'Texas' favourite tactic)

Why then do a majority of scientists support the theory? I believe it is largely a matter of loyalty. Very few of us physicists know enough genetics to justify our belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection but most of us support it because we believe it to be the outcome of rigorous scientific processes similar to those carried out in our own discipline. Most scientists would support the AGW theory for much the same reason.

By accident of history I find myself in the opposing camp. I was trained as a physicist and was granted a PhD for my postgraduate work in upper atmosphere physics. In the early 1980s I joined the CSIRO’s Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) for a time. Much of the theoretical side of oceanography entails fluid dynamics which, because of its heavy mathematical load, is regarded as a sub-discipline of applied mathematics rather than of physics. Because of this, in my view, many practitioners of oceanography and climatology have a cavalier disregard for experimental testing and an unjustified faith in the validity of large-scale computer models.

Later in my career I was involved in running and refining numerical fluid dynamical models, so I gained some insight into how this modelling is done and how rigorously such models need to be tested. Naval architects and aerodynamical engineers do such testing in wave tanks and wind tunnels.

Meteorologists regularly test model “skill”. Climatologists don’t seem to have a concept of testing, and prefer to use the term “verification” instead—that is, they do not seek to invalidate their models; they only seek supporting evidence.

My scepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.

Back in the early 1990s when I was still working for the CSIRO and the early versions of the AGW theory started to gain currency, I was rather bemused by the passions which were aroused in my colleagues and the gullibility with which predictions of future climate disaster were accepted. Surely the jury is still out, I thought. I remained agnostic about the theory. More recently, after reading the literature and looking in detail at the output of one well-known climate model (HadCM3) I have changed my stand. I now believe it is nonsense for the following reasons.

First there is the argument, commonly used by Al Gore and others, that carbon dioxide forms a layer like a blanket or greenhouse window pane high in the atmosphere which traps long-wave infra-red radiation, thus making the surface of the earth warmer. This is misleading. Certainly carbon dioxide is an infra-red absorber but, like most infra-red absorbing gases, its absorption rate depends on concentration and pressure and is at a maximum at the ground. The atmosphere is a gas, not a solid, and bits of it move up and down, carrying heat as they move. As a meteorological balloon climbs higher in the atmosphere, the measured temperature falls off with increasing height. This phenomenon, referred to as the lapse rate, has been known and described for more than a century. The lapse rate is determined by the thermodynamic properties of the gases that make up the atmosphere and has little to do with radiation. The convection term completely dominates the radiation term in the relevant equation.

Second there are the climate models themselves. In discussions with colleagues, arguments always seem to come down to “But the models show …” Those who use this argument seldom have modelling experience themselves and share the lay public’s naive faith in the value of large computer models.

I have been a fluid dynamical modeller and I know how flaky numerical models can be for even a relatively small chunk of fluid like the Derwent Estuary. The models are highly unstable and need to be carefully cosseted in order to perform at all realistically. One reason for their inherent instability is that the mesh size of the model grid (typically hundreds of metres to hundreds of kilometres) is always much larger than the scale at which friction and molecular diffusion operate (millimetres or less). These are the forces which act to damp down oscillations by converting free energy to heat. In order to get around this difficulty, in order to keep a model stable, it is common practice to set certain parameters such as eddy viscosity unrealistically high to compensate for the absence of molecular friction. This is reasonable if we are using the model to gain insight into underlying processes, but it means that fluid dynamic models are not much good at predicting the future. There is no exact correspondence between model and reality, and the two soon part company. Fluid mechanics and celestial mechanics are very different disciplines.

I recently became interested in sea-floor volcanism and I had the idea of comparing the output of a climate model with the actual observations to see if I could find places on the ocean surface where temperature variations, attributable to sub-sea volcanoes, were significantly greater than variations predicted by the model. Using a variance method I found that the predicted variances bore little resemblance to the observations. It was obvious to me that the model had been over-damped; the viscosity term had been set too high, presumably in the interests of greater stability.

Why then would such an over-damped model predict recent global temperature increases so well (which it does)? The answer is that an over-damped model will always regress to some sort of mean or trend line. Climate models include a number of adjustable parameters and these are tweaked to tune the model to known data. My belief is that early models did not show much increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the reason set out above. However, an ingenious trick was used to make this happen. It is called “water vapour positive feedback” and appears to be used in all the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models. Without it, the climate models would show negligible increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Water vapour positive feedback is only an assumption; but, importantly for the modellers, it is an assumption which makes the models work. There is little experimental evidence that it is true, and radiometer data collected by NASA scientist Roy Spencer and others indicate that it is not true.

Most of us have our cherished beliefs about how things work, such as, “If there is a heavy autumn crop of hawthorn berries it will be a cold winter.” Sometimes these are true and sometimes not. Many are just superstitions. Science and superstition are distinguished from one another by testing. Scientific theories are tested, superstitions are not.

A scientific theory is not tested merely by looking for confirmations but by conscientiously trying to “break” the theory, by trying to disprove it. The AGW theory is encapsulated in the IPCC assessment reports. The models discussed in these reports have not been tested in this way. These reports include sections on “Verification and Validation” but none on testing. “Verification” means that only data which support the theory are examined and data which do not support it are ignored. Indeed the authors of this section in the IPCC Third Assessment Report specifically dismiss the need for rigorous testing when they state: “our evaluation process is not as clear cut as a simple search for ‘falsification’” (Section 8.2.2 on page 474). Effectively what they are saying is: proper scientific testing is too hard and we are not going to bother doing it.

The implication is that climate prediction, as it is carried out by those organisations which come under the aegis of the IPCC, is not science. It is a superstition similar to astrology or homeopathy. The IPCC is promoting the AGW proposition as if it were an established scientific theory, when it is not.

If the IPCC were a pharmaceutical company it could face fraud charges for doing this. This is a good analogy. The IPCC claims to have diagnosed a planetary disorder, global warming, and has proposed a remedy, the limitation of man-made carbon dioxide production. They have produced no convincing scientific evidence that either the diagnosis or the cure is valid.

When I discuss this with informed lay people I commonly encounter the response, “So what if the science is a little suspect. Surely it is a good thing to limit emissions anyway?”

Well, no, it isn’t. A whole new regimen for emission capping and trading is about to come into existence. A necessary condition for the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide is that major carbon-dioxide-producing nations co-operate in limiting emissions. I believe that is highly unlikely to happen, because international diplomacy is insufficiently evolved for such a goal to be achieved. Given the highly emotive, quasi-religious attitude of many Westerners to this issue there is likely to be a good deal of resentment generated should some countries fail to live up to their obligations. Wars have been fought about less.

This situation can only be exacerbated should global temperature continue to fall as it has been doing for the last five years.

Not only will carbon trading lead to problems between nation-states, but internally different lobbies already clamour for specialist treatment. Carbon trading is proposed as a free-market operation, so avoiding heavy-handed government regulation. But some sort of authority will be needed to monitor the details of how much carbon is being sequestered or released in each situation. Carbon credits will be available for planting trees, say, but what happens when saplings are eaten by wallabies or mature forests are consumed by bushfires? Monitoring and accreditation structures of Byzantine complexity will need to come into existence.

Will carbon trading minutiae favour the most effective lobby groups? The oil and coal industries are positioning themselves to appear benign. Natural gas is “cleaner” than coal, we are told, while coal itself is soon to become so much “cleaner” if industry pronouncements are to be believed. Who is to say otherwise? When a political structure is set up which is based on a lie, we can expect further lies to proliferate. Meanwhile, less influential groups such as farmers can expect to be hounded by “carbon police”.

Whatever the status of AGW scientifically, it is certainly a political truth. It is now a key plank in the platforms of two out of three of the major political parties in this country and the third genuflects piously from time to time. Like Chartism and communism in earlier times, AGW is providing a rallying cry for reform. The zeal with which alternative energy programs are being pushed by government is perhaps desirable and long overdue. This push may have happened anyway as fossil fuel reserves become depleted and fuel costs rise; nevertheless AGW has certainly precipitated activity in this area.

But this still represents an unfortunate distortion, because the emphasis is placed on limiting emissions rather than on limiting consumption. It is my view that Australia’s large coal reserves and large distances could make coal-driven railways a viable future transport option as oil and natural gas become scarce and expensive. However, the present demonisation of coal as a major “polluter” makes any switch from oil to coal unlikely.

This country and the world at large have many real political, demographic and environmental issues to contend with. We do not need to create problems where none exist. The present hysteria diverts money and attention away from problems which do need to be solved. In my view, terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and pandemic disease are far bigger threats to my family’s comfort and security than are global warming and putative “tipping points”.

There is a danger that conservation failures will be blamed on “climate change”. This happened recently when the removal of feral cats caused a rabbit population explosion on Macquarie Island. Incompetent environmental management resulted in such massive erosion problems that eleven species of birds are now threatened. Climate change has provided a convenient alternative view of the cause of this disaster. Likewise the flooding of oceanic islands by “rising sea levels” has more to do with the removal of coral reefs for construction projects than with global warming.

Over the last few years, with remarkable rapidity, AGW theory has gone from a scientific curiosity to a politically-correct catechism. Nowadays it is not merely politically correct, it is politically essential. Somehow this nineteenth-century oddity has outlasted Das Kapital to become the banner of millions of environmentally concerned Westerners. It seems to fulfil a human need for sacrifice, a need to “put something back”. It is the ancient myth about guilt and sin and redemption in a new guise.

People are entitled to entertain whatever apocalyptic view of the future they choose, but such ideas have nothing to do with science. Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact.

In the conduct of human affairs it is surely preferable that we base our actions on reason and evidence rather than on piety and myth.

Edited October 18, 2009 by teatree

JR Texas · October 18, 2009

For those who want more information from real scientists on climate change, (and not from crackpots funded by BIG OIL) and to find out where the ideas of the skeptics are coming from and who is paying for them, go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

I think it is time to shut this down at TT will never stop pissing against the wind..........must enjoy the shower.

This is interesting for those who think a real debate is taking place: source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-war...c-consensus.htm

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

* Environmental Protection Agency

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

* American Geophysical Union

* American Institute of Physics

* National Center for Atmospheric Research

* American Meteorological Society

* The Royal Society of the UK

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

* American Association for the Advancement of Science

Academies of Science from 19 countries

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

* Royal Society of Canada

* Chinese Academy of Sciences

* Academie des Sciences (France)

* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

* Indian National Science Academy

* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

* Science Council of Japan

* Russian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Society (United Kingdom)

* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

* Australian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

* Caribbean Academy of Sciences

* Indonesian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Irish Academy

* Academy of Sciences Malaysia

* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature

It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...

Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus

That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...

teatree · October 19, 2009

October 18th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D - climatologist, author, former NASA scientist

IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity

Natural climate change continues to be the 800 lb gorilla in the room

(note, sorry JRTexas - **Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE**)

Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change.

The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system. In Chapter 9 of the latest (4th) IPCC report, entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, you would think the issue of external versus internal forcing would be thoroughly addressed. But you would be wrong.

The IPCC is totally obsessed with external forcing, that is, energy imbalances imposed upon the climate system that are NOT the result of the natural, internal workings of the system. For instance, a search through Chapter 9 for the phrase “external forcing” yields a total of 91 uses of that term. A search for the phrase “internal forcing” yields…(wait for it)…zero uses. Can we really believe that the IPCC has ruled out natural sources of global warming when such a glaring blind spot exists?

Admittedly, we really do not understand internal sources of climate change. Weather AND climate involves chaotic processes, most of which we may never understand, let alone predict. While chaos in weather is exhibited on time scales of days to weeks, chaotic changes in the ocean circulation could have time scales as long as hundreds of years, and we know that cloud formation – providing the Earth’s natural sun shade – is strongly influenced by the ocean.

Thus, small changes in ocean circulation can lead to small changes in the Earth’s albedo (how much sunlight is reflected back to space), which in turn can lead to global warming or cooling. The IPCC’s view (which is never explicitly stated) that such changes in the climate system do not occur is little more than faith on their part.

The IPCC’s pundits like to claim that the published evidence for humanity causing warming greatly outweighs any published evidence against it. This appeal to majority opinion on their part is pretty selective, though. They had no trouble discarding hundreds of research papers supporting evidence for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age when they so uncritically embraced the infamous “Hockey Stick” reconstructions of past temperature change.

Despite a wide variety of previous temperature proxies gathered from around the world (see figure below) that so clearly showed that centuries with global warming and cooling are the rule, not the exception, the Hockey Stick was mostly based upon some cherry-picked tree rings combined with the assumption that significant warming is a uniquely modern phenomenon.

As such, they rejected the prevailing “scientific consensus” in favor of a minority view that supported their desired outcome. I suspect that they do not even recognize their own hypocrisy.

As I have discussed before, the IPCC’s neglect of natural variability in the climate system ends up leading to circular reasoning on their part. They ignore the effect of natural cloud variations when trying to diagnose feedback, which then leads to overestimates of climate sensitivity. This, in turn, causes them to conclude that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations alone are sufficient to explain global warming, and so no natural forcings of climate change need be found.

But all they have done is reasoned themselves in a circle. By ignoring natural variability, they can end up claiming that natural variability does not exist. Admittedly, their position is internally consistent. But then, so is all circular reasoning.

Our re-submitted paper to the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing” will hopefully lead to a little more diversity being permitted in the global warming debate.

I don’t think the IPCC scientists are as opposed to this as are their self-appointed spokespersons, like Al Gore and numerous environmental writers in the media who get to over-simplify the climate issue without ever being corrected by the IPCC. Natural climate change continues to be the 800 lb gorilla in the room, and I suspect that some within the IPCC are slowly becoming aware of its existence.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

JR Texas · October 19, 2009

October 18th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D - climatologist, author, former NASA scientist
IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity

Natural climate change continues to be the 800 lb gorilla in the room

(note, sorry JRTexas - **Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE**)

Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change.

The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system. In Chapter 9 of the latest (4th) IPCC report, entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, you would think the issue of external versus internal forcing would be thoroughly addressed. But you would be wrong.

The IPCC is totally obsessed with external forcing, that is, energy imbalances imposed upon the climate system that are NOT the result of the natural, internal workings of the system. For instance, a search through Chapter 9 for the phrase “external forcing” yields a total of 91 uses of that term. A search for the phrase “internal forcing” yields…(wait for it)…zero uses. Can we really believe that the IPCC has ruled out natural sources of global warming when such a glaring blind spot exists?

Admittedly, we really do not understand internal sources of climate change. Weather AND climate involves chaotic processes, most of which we may never understand, let alone predict. While chaos in weather is exhibited on time scales of days to weeks, chaotic changes in the ocean circulation could have time scales as long as hundreds of years, and we know that cloud formation – providing the Earth’s natural sun shade – is strongly influenced by the ocean.

Thus, small changes in ocean circulation can lead to small changes in the Earth’s albedo (how much sunlight is reflected back to space), which in turn can lead to global warming or cooling. The IPCC’s view (which is never explicitly stated) that such changes in the climate system do not occur is little more than faith on their part.

The IPCC’s pundits like to claim that the published evidence for humanity causing warming greatly outweighs any published evidence against it. This appeal to majority opinion on their part is pretty selective, though. They had no trouble discarding hundreds of research papers supporting evidence for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age when they so uncritically embraced the infamous “Hockey Stick” reconstructions of past temperature change.

Despite a wide variety of previous temperature proxies gathered from around the world (see figure below) that so clearly showed that centuries with global warming and cooling are the rule, not the exception, the Hockey Stick was mostly based upon some cherry-picked tree rings combined with the assumption that significant warming is a uniquely modern phenomenon.

As such, they rejected the prevailing “scientific consensus” in favor of a minority view that supported their desired outcome. I suspect that they do not even recognize their own hypocrisy.

As I have discussed before, the IPCC’s neglect of natural variability in the climate system ends up leading to circular reasoning on their part. They ignore the effect of natural cloud variations when trying to diagnose feedback, which then leads to overestimates of climate sensitivity. This, in turn, causes them to conclude that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations alone are sufficient to explain global warming, and so no natural forcings of climate change need be found.

But all they have done is reasoned themselves in a circle. By ignoring natural variability, they can end up claiming that natural variability does not exist. Admittedly, their position is internally consistent. But then, so is all circular reasoning.

Our re-submitted paper to the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing” will hopefully lead to a little more diversity being permitted in the global warming debate.

I don’t think the IPCC scientists are as opposed to this as are their self-appointed spokespersons, like Al Gore and numerous environmental writers in the media who get to over-simplify the climate issue without ever being corrected by the IPCC. Natural climate change continues to be the 800 lb gorilla in the room, and I suspect that some within the IPCC are slowly becoming aware of its existence.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Wrong again......he is paid for, indirectly, by BIG OIL:

Spencer is a prominent global warming skeptic. Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil. [2]

from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_W._Spencer

Spee · October 19, 2009

Spencer is a prominent global warming skeptic. Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil. [2]
from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_W._Spencer

As opposed to James Hansen who acquires his research money from the taxpayer coffers to push the party line under the guise of NASA research? Pot, kettle, black .... eh ... matey?

I find it interesting that Roy Spencer is classified as a skeptic when he has taken a very much middle of the road open-minded scientific approach and let the facts speak for themselves.

And what does all of this have to do with the Gulf of Thailand rising anyway?

What about the possibility that the continental edge that Thailand sits on may be sinking? It's been known to happen, and like the rising and falling temperatures due primarily to the Sun, the seas and water vapor, there ain't a darn thing that man can do about it.

Why don't you just face it? Global warming hysteria is a cult religion. Al Gore is the chief prophet come money-grubbing hypocrite. Unfortunately, as with all cults, the real goal isn't about faith or beliefs or truth. It's about control of peoples' minds.

Doesn't matter if it's the Gulf of Thailand or anywhere else.

"A confused society is a controllable society." Global warming hysteria is little more than another mechanism by which a small number of people can exert control over a much larger group of people. Nothing more. Nothing less. Well ... except for the cap 'n tax, transfer of wealth, insider trading stuff.

JR Texas · October 20, 2009

Anything is possible, but peer review science (the basis of the consensus below) tells us what is probable.

It is reason vs emotion..........skeptics do not seem to understand reason.

You must have missed this previous post, so here it is again:

For those who want more information from real scientists on climate change, (and not from crackpots funded by BIG OIL) and to find out where the ideas of the skeptics are coming from and who is paying for them, go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

This is interesting for those who think a real debate is taking place: source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-war...c-consensus.htm

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

* Environmental Protection Agency

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

* American Geophysical Union

* American Institute of Physics

* National Center for Atmospheric Research

* American Meteorological Society

* The Royal Society of the UK

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

* American Association for the Advancement of Science

Academies of Science from 19 countries

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

* Royal Society of Canada

* Chinese Academy of Sciences

* Academie des Sciences (France)

* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

* Indian National Science Academy

* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

* Science Council of Japan

* Russian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Society (United Kingdom)

* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

* Australian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

* Caribbean Academy of Sciences

* Indonesian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Irish Academy

* Academy of Sciences Malaysia

* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature

It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...

Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus

That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...

Jimjim · October 20, 2009

Amazing Thailand. This topic has been going on for 2 years! How time flies. More than 2 years, in fact. I remember the article that started this topic and thought it was just a year ago. How wrong I was. Wow.

Carry on...

BEENTHEREDONETHAT · October 20, 2009

More signs of global warming? Or is it big oil causing it to sell more oil?

CNN) -- Get out the coats, boots, and shovels; people in some parts of the country are in for it this winter, according to the Farmer's Almanac.

Break out your winter gear -- the Farmers' Almanac is predicting a rough winter for large parts of the U.S.

The longtime periodical, published since 1818 and famous for its long-range weather predictions, is out with its annual winter forecast, which says Old Man Winter is really going to hammer folks in the Midwest and upper Great Lakes region with very cold and very snowy conditions.

The almanac puts it this way:

"A large area of numbingly cold temperatures will predominate from roughly east of the Continental Divide to west of the Appalachians. The coldest temperatures will be over the northern Great Lakes and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

"But acting almost like the bread of a sandwich, to this swath of unseasonable cold will be two regions with temperatures that will average closer to normal -- the West Coast and the East Coast."

But don't let your guard down if you live along the East or West coasts.

Farmer's Almanac managing editor Sandi Duncan says no one will be immune to the rough weather this winter.

Don't Miss

* H1N1 resurgence feared this fall and winter

"Even the areas that we say are going to be like the bread of the ice-cold sandwich are going to have bouts of stormy conditions. There's no way it's going to be that mild of a winter," she says.

Nasty weather is also in the forecast for late in the season as winter moves toward spring.

"We're actually predicting a possible blizzard in the northeast to the mid-Atlantic states sometime in February," Duncan says. "And it does look like the cool temperatures to the cold temperatures are going to hang on. And spring does look kind of rainy."

Jimjim · October 20, 2009

I find it interesting that Roy Spencer is classified as a skeptic when he has taken a very much middle of the road open-minded scientific approach and let the facts speak for themselves.

Great point! Sounds reasonable.

Why don't you just face it? Global warming hysteria is a cult religion. Al Gore is the chief prophet come money-grubbing hypocrite.

Oh dear you've lost me there. What happened to reasoned arguments?

JR Texas · October 20, 2009

More signs of global warming? Or is it big oil causing it to sell more oil?
CNN) -- Get out the coats, boots, and shovels; people in some parts of the country are in for it this winter, according to the Farmer's Almanac.

Break out your winter gear -- the Farmers' Almanac is predicting a rough winter for large parts of the U.S.

Break out your winter gear -- the Farmers' Almanac is predicting a rough winter for large parts of the U.S.

The longtime periodical, published since 1818 and famous for its long-range weather predictions, is out with its annual winter forecast, which says Old Man Winter is really going to hammer folks in the Midwest and upper Great Lakes region with very cold and very snowy conditions.

The almanac puts it this way:

"A large area of numbingly cold temperatures will predominate from roughly east of the Continental Divide to west of the Appalachians. The coldest temperatures will be over the northern Great Lakes and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

"But acting almost like the bread of a sandwich, to this swath of unseasonable cold will be two regions with temperatures that will average closer to normal -- the West Coast and the East Coast."

But don't let your guard down if you live along the East or West coasts.

Farmer's Almanac managing editor Sandi Duncan says no one will be immune to the rough weather this winter.

Don't Miss

* H1N1 resurgence feared this fall and winter

"Even the areas that we say are going to be like the bread of the ice-cold sandwich are going to have bouts of stormy conditions. There's no way it's going to be that mild of a winter," she says.

Nasty weather is also in the forecast for late in the season as winter moves toward spring.

"We're actually predicting a possible blizzard in the northeast to the mid-Atlantic states sometime in February," Duncan says. "And it does look like the cool temperatures to the cold temperatures are going to hang on. And spring does look kind of rainy."

Some posters seem to enjoy proving that they know nothing about the complex nature of climate change.

Here are some hints for those posters: some things are complex (the climate is extremely complex); some things do not materialize overnight; some things impact different parts of the globe in different ways; short term events prove nothing; models predict ups and downs in terms of short term temperature changes.

The long term globally-averaged trend is clearly a warming trend........it coincides with CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, population growth, and fossil fuel consumption (i.e., worshiping at the alter of BIG OIL).

Again, it might help if the skeptics to become familiar with the scientific literature on the subject and stop embracing nonsense funded by BIG OIL directly or indirectly.

As I said before, this thread should be terminated. Other than a few posters, there are no signs of intelligent life here.

Nobody is even talking about the original subject, which itself was a distortion of a statement taken out of context.

Gary A · October 21, 2009

Who exactly is BIG OIL? It appears that term is used about the same as THEY. It's always THEY say. BIG OIL does this and that. Most conspiracy fans are about as goofy as can be.

JR Texas · October 21, 2009

Who exactly is BIG OIL? It appears that term is used about the same as THEY. It's always THEY say. BIG OIL does this and that. Most conspiracy fans are about as goofy as can be.

Good question........to me it is the MNCs that own and control the global supply of energy (e.g., oil, gas).......and all those companies that are immediately attached to them.

BIG OIL is really a complex global entity made up of many players......they own and control so much outside of energy reserves (e.g., media). There are too many players to list: bankers, media outlets, refineries, drillers, distributors, politicians........

BIG OIL is very powerful.........it has so much power that it can influence our military decision-making.......that is power.

Spee · October 21, 2009

Why don't you just face it? Global warming hysteria is a cult religion. Al Gore is the chief prophet come money-grubbing hypocrite.

Oh dear you've lost me there. What happened to reasoned arguments?

Huh?

Is there some doubt that Al Gore is a money-grubbing hypocrite?

Just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got wealthy beyond their dreams through racist hate-mongering, blackmail (no pun intended) and extortion, so too has Al Gore gotten rich beyond his wildest dreams by exploiting a cult argument that has no scientific basis in fact.

Spee · October 21, 2009

Some posters seem to enjoy proving that they know nothing about the complex nature of climate change.

I'm a firm believer in climate change. Yesterday morning there was a hard frost on the ground. Today it got up to 70F. Hard to question that the climate changed.

But the cultists would argue that the change was due to the fact that I started my gas-guzzling SUV, rather than by this big phenomenon called "mother nature." That argument, my friend, is pure unmitigated steer manure.

Anything is possible, but peer review science (the basis of the consensus below) tells us what is probable.
The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

* Environmental Protection Agency

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

* American Geophysical Union

* American Institute of Physics

* National Center for Atmospheric Research

* American Meteorological Society

* The Royal Society of the UK

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

* American Association for the Advancement of Science

All of which fight like starving little piglets for the head teat of the government sow. In today's world, this means the government funds the groups who will push the party line.

There is a fundamental flaw in your peer review argument. I can speak from experience because I was a peer review panel member for several advanced technology and satellite research programs in a previous career. I personally reviewed somewhere in the range of 150 research proposals and supported the review process of many 100's more.

The peer review process for research proposals is based upon the assumption that the Principal Investigator has a scientific hypothesis that warrants further investigation to validate or invalidate the hypothesis. The objective of the peer review is to provide an unbiased, heavily scruntized review, judged against a common set of evaluation criteria (e.g., scientific merit, schedule, budget, project team, etc.).

The fundamental flaw with climate change research is that peer review panels and researchers are all in the same boat. In other words, there is a chronic lack of unbiased scientific and technical scrutiny. The same thing holds true with published papers. The peer review panels are not independent and unbiased. The peer reviewers hold many of the same views and opinions as the researchers.

The net result is that the scientific process is inherently corrupt. There is no hypothesis. There is no independent scrutiny of the research proposal. There is no independent scrutiny of the research findings.

Every time there is independent and unbiased scrutiny, the man-made global warming hypothesis folds like a cheap suit. And why? Because consensus does not make fact, or even start with hypothesis. Consensus only pushes the prevailing opinion.

In the end, there are only the koolaid drinkers and those who choose not to drink the koolaid.

I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again .... "A confused society is a controllable society." The climate change (nee' global warming) hype is being used to control and influence the thoughts of large groups of people, for the purpose of creating diversions of true goals, which is to push a radical agenda to tax the shit out of working population and transfer wealth from those who have earned it, to those who have not, all for the purposes of expanding the size and power of central governments. Sorry but that is about as anti-capitalist and anti-American as one can be.

JR Texas · October 21, 2009

Some posters seem to enjoy proving that they know nothing about the complex nature of climate change.

I'm a firm believer in climate change. Yesterday morning there was a hard frost on the ground. Today it got up to 70F. Hard to question that the climate changed.

But the cultists would argue that the change was due to the fact that I started my gas-guzzling SUV, rather than by this big phenomenon called "mother nature." That argument, my friend, is pure unmitigated steer manure.

Anything is possible, but peer review science (the basis of the consensus below) tells us what is probable.
The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

* Environmental Protection Agency

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

* American Geophysical Union

* American Institute of Physics

* National Center for Atmospheric Research

* American Meteorological Society

* The Royal Society of the UK

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

* American Association for the Advancement of Science

All of which fight like starving little piglets for the head teat of the government sow. In today's world, this means the government funds the groups who will push the party line.

There is a fundamental flaw in your peer review argument. I can speak from experience because I was a peer review panel member for several advanced technology and satellite research programs in a previous career. I personally reviewed somewhere in the range of 150 research proposals and supported the review process of many 100's more.

The peer review process for research proposals is based upon the assumption that the Principal Investigator has a scientific hypothesis that warrants further investigation to validate or invalidate the hypothesis. The objective of the peer review is to provide an unbiased, heavily scruntized review, judged against a common set of evaluation criteria (e.g., scientific merit, schedule, budget, project team, etc.).

The fundamental flaw with climate change research is that peer review panels and researchers are all in the same boat. In other words, there is a chronic lack of unbiased scientific and technical scrutiny. The same thing holds true with published papers. The peer review panels are not independent and unbiased. The peer reviewers hold many of the same views and opinions as the researchers.

The net result is that the scientific process is inherently corrupt. There is no hypothesis. There is no independent scrutiny of the research proposal. There is no independent scrutiny of the research findings.

Every time there is independent and unbiased scrutiny, the man-made global warming hypothesis folds like a cheap suit. And why? Because consensus does not make fact, or even start with hypothesis. Consensus only pushes the prevailing opinion.

In the end, there are only the koolaid drinkers and those who choose not to drink the koolaid.

I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again .... "A confused society is a controllable society." The climate change (nee' global warming) hype is being used to control and influence the thoughts of large groups of people, for the purpose of creating diversions of true goals, which is to push a radical agenda to tax the shit out of working population and transfer wealth from those who have earned it, to those who have not, all for the purposes of expanding the size and power of central governments. Sorry but that is about as anti-capitalist and anti-American as one can be.

Interesting post that reveals something fascinating about human beings: they can be controlled--via the systematic manipulation of the flow of cultural information (in this case by BIG OIL)--to support their own servitude.

If you think the peer review process is worthless (a grand conspiracy) and BIG OIL is telling all of us the truth, there is not much I can say to convince you otherwise.

Your position on climate change and scientific evidence seems to be akin to this: Ten scientists set out devices to measure rainfall. Each, independently, discovers that it rained on a certain day 1.2 cm. They record and report their findings to the local weatherperson.

But, to you, it did not really rain (even though you are wet from it)........it was a conspiracy among scientists to make people believe it rained.

The real world of peer review science is not as you described.

Spee · October 22, 2009

If you think the peer review process is worthless ...

Thanks for taking my words out of context. Let me clarify. I do not believe that all peer review processes are worthless. In my opinion, there is lot of valuble peer reviewed research ongoing where the review process and research has the highest degree of integrity. There are also a lot of peer review processes that are entirely without integrity. The peer review process for global warming is simply one of many research areas which fall into this category.

The real world of peer review science is not as you described.
Your position on climate change and scientific evidence seems to be akin to this: Ten scientists set out devices to measure rainfall. Each, independently, discovers that it rained on a certain day 1.2 cm. They record and report their findings to the local weatherperson.

Based on this nonsense, your interpretation of "peer review science" is warped if not crossing over into complete and utter ignorance.

To use your analogy, a reporting of measurements is simply a statement of fact, assuming the measurement instrument is accurate and calibrated. Rain gauge construction is a mature technology, so it is reasonable to expect a measurement to be a factual statement.

However, if the "scientist" then takes this one day of measurement and speculates that based upon this measurement it will also rain tomorrow, well that my friend is a hypothesis not a statement of fact.

This is where the koolaid drinkers and radical greenies fall flat on their face. They have taken hypotheses and opinions and attempted to make statements of fact out of them. The "climate model" is a classic argument. Models have been developed and tweaked and used to make people believe they are factual or accurate representations of what will happen. It is completed flawed from a scientific standpoint to implement assumptions which have no relevance or basis in fact, just to tweak a model using past data and pass it off as the bible without verifying the model against the unknown future.

But hey, whatever pal, believe what you want to believe. The Earth and Mother Nature have been here for billions of years before us, and survived catastrophes far worse than the man-made minutae. And the Earth and Mother Nature will be here for billions of years after you and I have morphed back into carbon. One statement of fact and one statement of hypothesis. Can you tell which is which?

JR Texas · October 22, 2009

If you think the peer review process is worthless ...

Thanks for taking my words out of context. Let me clarify. I do not believe that all peer review processes are worthless. In my opinion, there is lot of valuble peer reviewed research ongoing where the review process and research has the highest degree of integrity. There are also a lot of peer review processes that are entirely without integrity. The peer review process for global warming is simply one of many research areas which fall into this category.

The real world of peer review science is not as you described.
Your position on climate change and scientific evidence seems to be akin to this: Ten scientists set out devices to measure rainfall. Each, independently, discovers that it rained on a certain day 1.2 cm. They record and report their findings to the local weatherperson.

Based on this nonsense, your interpretation of "peer review science" is warped if not crossing over into complete and utter ignorance.

To use your analogy, a reporting of measurements is simply a statement of fact, assuming the measurement instrument is accurate and calibrated. Rain gauge construction is a mature technology, so it is reasonable to expect a measurement to be a factual statement.

However, if the "scientist" then takes this one day of measurement and speculates that based upon this measurement it will also rain tomorrow, well that my friend is a hypothesis not a statement of fact.

This is where the koolaid drinkers and radical greenies fall flat on their face. They have taken hypotheses and opinions and attempted to make statements of fact out of them. The "climate model" is a classic argument. Models have been developed and tweaked and used to make people believe they are factual or accurate representations of what will happen. It is completed flawed from a scientific standpoint to implement assumptions which have no relevance or basis in fact, just to tweak a model using past data and pass it off as the bible without verifying the model against the unknown future.

But hey, whatever pal, believe what you want to believe. The Earth and Mother Nature have been here for billions of years before us, and survived catastrophes far worse than the man-made minutae. And the Earth and Mother Nature will be here for billions of years after you and I have morphed back into carbon. One statement of fact and one statement of hypothesis. Can you tell which is which?

Believe what you want.........the good news is that the global scientific consensus is not on your side. The actual debate is over........has been for some time now.......the current focus is on what to do about climate change.

All the blinded by BIG OIL propaganda skeptics can do now is to try to create confusion and doubt by attacking science using BIG OIL funded nonsense posted on the internet......in your case, the specific science of climate change. It will not work...........

teatree · October 22, 2009

On Oct. 17, Mohamed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, an island country off the coast of India, held a meeting of his Cabinet underwater to dramatize the risks he says his country faces from rising sea levels caused by global warming. Yesterday, Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Mörner, a specialist in sea level changes, wrote Mr. Nasheed the following letter:

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...x#ixzz0Ue8HlsK9

Open Letter

October 20, 2009

To: President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives

From: Nils-Axel Mörner, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr. President,

You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments.

Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest its intended message.

In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.

When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply. Your people ought not to have to suffer a constant claim that there is no future for them on their own islands. This terrible message is deeply inappropriate, since it is founded not upon reality but upon an imported concept, which lacks scientific justification and is thus untenable. There is simply no rational basis for it.

Let me summarize a few facts.

(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.

(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today

(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level

(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.

(5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.

When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meetings, we agreed on a “best estimate” for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ±10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ±15cm (as given in Fig. 1). Such changes would imply small to negligible effects.

Such a small rise would pose no threat for the Maldives. Rather, it would be a natural return to the conditions existing from 1790 to 1970; i.e. to the position before the sea level fall in the 1970s.

So, Mr. President, when you ignore available observational facts, refuse a normal democratic dialogue, and continue to menace your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding already in progress, I think you are doing a serious mistake.

Let us, for Heaven’s sake, lift the terrible psychological burden that you and your predecessor have placed upon the shoulders of all people in the Maldives, who are now living with the imagined threat that flooding will soon drive them from their homes, a wholly false notion that is nothing but an armchair fiction artificially constructed by mere computer modeling constantly proven wrong by meticulous real-world observations.

Your cabinet meeting under the water is nothing but a misdirected gimmick or PR stunt. Al Gore is a master in such cheap techniques. But such misconduct is dishonest, unproductive and certainly most un-scientific.

Nils-Axel Mörner

Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005); President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003); Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on); Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).

teatree · October 22, 2009

Yet more evidence that the warm period we have just had is entirely natural and has happened before many times:

Summer Temperatures Reconstruction in the Northern French Alps

The Abstract below is from a recent paper by Millet, L., Arnaud, F., Heiri, O., Magny, M., Verneaux, V. and Desmet, M. 2009, entitled: Late-Holocene summer temperature reconstruction from chironomid assemblages of Lake Anterne, northern French Alps. The Holocene 19: 317-328:

ABSTRACT

We present a chironomid-based reconstruction of late-Holocene temperature from Lake Anterne (2060 m a.s.l.) in the northern French Alps. Chironomid assemblages were studied in 49 samples along an 8 m long sediment core covering the last 1800 years. July air temperatures were inferred using an inference model based on the distribution of chironomid assemblages in 100 Swiss lakes. The transfer function has a leave-one-out cross-validated coefficient of determination (r ) of 0.88, a root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) of 1.40°C. Despite possible biases induced by methodological aspects and the ecological complexity of the chironomid response to both climate and environmental changes, the concordance of the Lake Anterne temperature reconstruction with other Alpine records suggests that the transfer function has successfully reconstructed past summer temperature during the last two millennia. The twentieth century is the only section of the record which shows a poor agreement with other climate reconstructions and the distinct warming found in most instrumental records for this period is not apparent in the Lake Anterne record. Stocking of the lake with fish from the early twentieth century onwards was found to be a possible cause of changes in the chironomid fauna and subsequent distortion in the inferred climate signal. Evidence was found of a cold phase at Lake Anterne between AD 400 and 680, a warm episode between AD 680 and 1350, and another cold phase between AD 1350 and 1900. These events were possibly correlated to the so-called `Dark Age Cold Period’ (DACP), the `Mediaeval Warm Period’ (MWP) and the `Little Ice Age’ (LIA). The chironomid-based inference model reconstructed a July air temperature decrease of c. 0.7°C for the DACP and 1.3°C for the LIA compared with the temperature prevailing during the MWP.

Key Words: Climate reconstruction • late Holocene • July air temperature • chironomids • northern French Alps.

CO2 Science.org’s take on this paper is here:

Background

The authors write that “among biological proxies from lake sediments, chironomid [non-biting midge] assemblages are viewed as one of the most promising climatic indicators,” and that “the accuracy of chironomid assemblages for the reconstruction of Lateglacial temperatures is now broadly demonstrated.”

What was done

Millet et al. (1) “present a new chironomid-based temperature record from Lake Anterne (northern French Alps) covering the past two millennia,” (2) “compare this reconstruction with other late-Holocene temperature records from Central Europe,” and (3) “address the question of whether previously described centennial-scale climate events such as the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ [MWP] or the ‘Little Ice Age’ [LIA] can be detected in this new summer temperature record,” noting that “at a hemispheric or global scale the existence of the LIA and MWP have been questioned.”

What was learned

The six scientists report that “evidence was found of a cold phase at Lake Anterne between AD 400 and 680, a warm episode between AD 680 and 1350, and another cold phase between AD 1350 and 1900,” and they say that these events were “correlated to the so-called ‘Dark Age Cold Period’ (DACP), the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ and the ‘Little Ice Age’.” In addition, they say that “many other climate reconstructions across western Europe confirm the existence of several significant climatic changes during the last 1800 years in Central Europe and more specifically the DACP, the MWP and the LIA.”

Last of all, they report that the reconstructed temperatures of the 20th century failed to show a return to MWP levels of warmth, which failure they attributed to a breakdown of the chironomid-temperature relationship over the final century of their 1800-year history.

What it means

Ever more evidence continues to indicate that the Medieval Warm Period was a real and global phenomenon (see our Medieval Warm Period Project). It also continues to indicate that the MWP was likely warmer than the Current Warm Period (CWP) has been to date. Such could also be said about the new evidence provided by the study of Millet et al., although we tend to agree that there was indeed a breakdown of their chironomid-temperature relationship when it mattered most and disallowed a valid (apples-to-apples) comparison to be made between the warmth of the MWP and the CWP. However, the fact that Millet et al.’s reconstructed summer temperature dropped by about 1.3°C during the MWP to LIA transition would indeed suggest that the MWP was warmer than the CWP has yet been, since post-LIA warming is generally considered to have been somewhat less than 1.3°C … even when comparing apples to oranges!

teatree · October 22, 2009

If you think the peer review process is worthless ...

Thanks for taking my words out of context. Let me clarify. I do not believe that all peer review processes are worthless. In my opinion, there is lot of valuble peer reviewed research ongoing where the review process and research has the highest degree of integrity. There are also a lot of peer review processes that are entirely without integrity. The peer review process for global warming is simply one of many research areas which fall into this category.

The real world of peer review science is not as you described.
Your position on climate change and scientific evidence seems to be akin to this: Ten scientists set out devices to measure rainfall. Each, independently, discovers that it rained on a certain day 1.2 cm. They record and report their findings to the local weatherperson.

Based on this nonsense, your interpretation of "peer review science" is warped if not crossing over into complete and utter ignorance.

To use your analogy, a reporting of measurements is simply a statement of fact, assuming the measurement instrument is accurate and calibrated. Rain gauge construction is a mature technology, so it is reasonable to expect a measurement to be a factual statement.

However, if the "scientist" then takes this one day of measurement and speculates that based upon this measurement it will also rain tomorrow, well that my friend is a hypothesis not a statement of fact.

This is where the koolaid drinkers and radical greenies fall flat on their face. They have taken hypotheses and opinions and attempted to make statements of fact out of them. The "climate model" is a classic argument. Models have been developed and tweaked and used to make people believe they are factual or accurate representations of what will happen. It is completed flawed from a scientific standpoint to implement assumptions which have no relevance or basis in fact, just to tweak a model using past data and pass it off as the bible without verifying the model against the unknown future.

But hey, whatever pal, believe what you want to believe. The Earth and Mother Nature have been here for billions of years before us, and survived catastrophes far worse than the man-made minutae. And the Earth and Mother Nature will be here for billions of years after you and I have morphed back into carbon. One statement of fact and one statement of hypothesis. Can you tell which is which?

Believe what you want.........the good news is that the global scientific consensus is not on your side. The actual debate is over........has been for some time now.......the current focus is on what to do about climate change.

All the blinded by BIG OIL propaganda skeptics can do now is to try to create confusion and doubt by attacking science using BIG OIL funded nonsense posted on the internet......in your case, the specific science of climate change. It will not work...........

That's right, keep going on about BIG OIL and ignore the science.

Classic tactic used by any group to discredit whoever opposes them and to stop any debate. If an Obama supporter doesn't like what someone is saying about Obama they squeal 'racist!'. If a Zionist doesn't like what someone is saying about Isreal they squeal 'anti-semite!'. And if an AGW supporter doesn't like it when someone doubts their theories they point the finger and squeal 'BIG OIL'.

Edited October 22, 2009 by teatree

thaihome · October 22, 2009

Who exactly is BIG OIL? It appears that term is used about the same as THEY. It's always THEY say. BIG OIL does this and that. Most conspiracy fans are about as goofy as can be.

Good question........to me it is the MNCs that own and control the global supply of energy (e.g., oil, gas).......and all those companies that are immediately attached to them.

BIG OIL is really a complex global entity made up of many players......they own and control so much outside of energy reserves (e.g., media). There are too many players to list: bankers, media outlets, refineries, drillers, distributors, politicians........

BIG OIL is very powerful.........it has so much power that it can influence our military decision-making.......that is power.

So from your graph on BIG OIL I can surmise that the anti climate change movement is being orchestrated by the national oil companies from Middle Eastern countries and Russia (Note the MNC control almost no oil). Is that correct? I knew I had a good reason to hate the Muslim and communist fuc_kers.

As usual your arguments degenerate to calling a person a fool for not agreeing with you and then requesting the thread be closed.

TH

JR Texas · October 24, 2009

Who exactly is BIG OIL? It appears that term is used about the same as THEY. It's always THEY say. BIG OIL does this and that. Most conspiracy fans are about as goofy as can be.

Good question........to me it is the MNCs that own and control the global supply of energy (e.g., oil, gas).......and all those companies that are immediately attached to them.

BIG OIL is really a complex global entity made up of many players......they own and control so much outside of energy reserves (e.g., media). There are too many players to list: bankers, media outlets, refineries, drillers, distributors, politicians........

BIG OIL is very powerful.........it has so much power that it can influence our military decision-making.......that is power.

So from your graph on BIG OIL I can surmise that the anti climate change movement is being orchestrated by the national oil companies from Middle Eastern countries and Russia (Note the MNC control almost no oil). Is that correct? I knew I had a good reason to hate the Muslim and communist fuc_kers.

As usual your arguments degenerate to calling a person a fool for not agreeing with you and then requesting the thread be closed.

TH

Teatree, thanks for emphasizing BIG OIL in large and bold letters.........I am sure BIG OIL would love for you to stop. You are, however, doing me a favor, alerting people to its importance as a concept.

Thaihome.........before posting look up what a multinational corporation is and what oil and gas reserves are. That might help you respond. You might also check your "ethnic hatred" at the door.

Here is something new from the President of the United States:

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 23, 6:12 pm ET

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – President Barack Obama said Friday that opponents of his energy bill are disputing the evidence of global warming in a cynical ploy to undermine efforts to curb pollution and steer the nation to greener energy sources.

Obama said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

He also appeared to be taking on chief critics like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, though not by name.

"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs," Obama told his audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Spee · October 24, 2009

Here is something new from the President of the United States:
"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs," Obama told his audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Jeezus h you know who!! Wake up and smell the coffee!! This is hardly new. Obama is at the least disingenuous and the worst a bold faced liar.

In January 2008, Barry said:

"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

The truth is Obama's goal is precisely to destroy selectively chosen segments of the economy to push a political agenda. He says that the current system of energy production using coal, oil and natural gas endangers prosperity. In fact, these energy sources enhance prosperity because they are essential to the world economy. They drive the world economy.

Let's be clearer about what this really is. This is abuse of government power to use the force of government to destroy specific businesses. The world saw how 50-years of this has worked in Stalinist Russia and communist China, where abuse of government power was directly responsible for the deaths of 150 million people over that time span.

Imagine where the world economy would be today without oil, coal and natural gas. We would be living in the stone age. Hundreds of millions of people would be at risk for premature and painful death, like so many millions in places like sub-Saharan Africa, for the sole reason that they don't have electricity, clean water for drinking and irrigation and other basic life essentials.

This also shows the immature and naivete' of the political thug come messiah to the masses that Obama is. He and others of his ilk can push this green agenda all they want. They may even succeed in destroying the western economy as we know it. But that will hardly stop countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran from producing oil. This will hardly stop countries like China and India from burning every energy source they can get their hands on to support their burgeoning populations.

This is a quest for political power at the expense of political constituents. For the President of the United States, it is treasonous because it defies the very Constitution that Obama took and oath to uphold and protect. He should be impeached, thrown out of office, and sent back on his ass to the ghetto thug politics, the only thing that he really understands.

If you want to go back to the stone age, then by all means, be my guest. Just don't expect to see Barry & Michelle knocking on your cave door to share the warmth of your campfire. And don't demand your government to abuse their power and send us all there with you.

And what does all this have to do with the possibility of Gulf of Thailand waters rising or falling? Absolutely nothing. Just like the whole global warming/climate change business. It's a farce, a quest for political power, nothing more, nothing less.

JR Texas · October 24, 2009

Here is something new from the President of the United States:
"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs," Obama told his audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Jeezus h you know who!! Wake up and smell the coffee!! This is hardly new. Obama is at the least disingenuous and the worst a bold faced liar.

In January 2008, Barry said:

"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

The truth is Obama's goal is precisely to destroy selectively chosen segments of the economy to push a political agenda. He says that the current system of energy production using coal, oil and natural gas endangers prosperity. In fact, these energy sources enhance prosperity because they are essential to the world economy. They drive the world economy.

Let's be clearer about what this really is. This is abuse of government power to use the force of government to destroy specific businesses. The world saw how 50-years of this has worked in Stalinist Russia and communist China, where abuse of government power was directly responsible for the deaths of 150 million people over that time span.

Imagine where the world economy would be today without oil, coal and natural gas. We would be living in the stone age. Hundreds of millions of people would be at risk for premature and painful death, like so many millions in places like sub-Saharan Africa, for the sole reason that they don't have electricity, clean water for drinking and irrigation and other basic life essentials.

This also shows the immature and naivete' of the political thug come messiah to the masses that Obama is. He and others of his ilk can push this green agenda all they want. They may even succeed in destroying the western economy as we know it. But that will hardly stop countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran from producing oil. This will hardly stop countries like China and India from burning every energy source they can get their hands on to support their burgeoning populations.

This is a quest for political power at the expense of political constituents. For the President of the United States, it is treasonous because it defies the very Constitution that Obama took and oath to uphold and protect. He should be impeached, thrown out of office, and sent back on his ass to the ghetto thug politics, the only thing that he really understands.

If you want to go back to the stone age, then by all means, be my guest. Just don't expect to see Barry & Michelle knocking on your cave door to share the warmth of your campfire. And don't demand your government to abuse their power and send us all there with you.

And what does all this have to do with the possibility of Gulf of Thailand waters rising or falling? Absolutely nothing. Just like the whole global warming/climate change business. It's a farce, a quest for political power, nothing more, nothing less.

It is amazing how people can be taught to exploit themselves, embrace servitude, and prevent positive change. All of this so that BIG OIL--and those benefiting from it--can make money beyond imagination at the expense of the life systems of the planet and present/future generations.

LawnGnome · October 24, 2009

Here is something new from the President of the United States:
"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs," Obama told his audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Jeezus h you know who!! Wake up and smell the coffee!! This is hardly new. Obama is at the least disingenuous and the worst a bold faced liar.

In January 2008, Barry said:

"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

The truth is Obama's goal is precisely to destroy selectively chosen segments of the economy to push a political agenda. He says that the current system of energy production using coal, oil and natural gas endangers prosperity. In fact, these energy sources enhance prosperity because they are essential to the world economy. They drive the world economy.

Let's be clearer about what this really is. This is abuse of government power to use the force of government to destroy specific businesses. The world saw how 50-years of this has worked in Stalinist Russia and communist China, where abuse of government power was directly responsible for the deaths of 150 million people over that time span.

Imagine where the world economy would be today without oil, coal and natural gas. We would be living in the stone age. Hundreds of millions of people would be at risk for premature and painful death, like so many millions in places like sub-Saharan Africa, for the sole reason that they don't have electricity, clean water for drinking and irrigation and other basic life essentials.

This also shows the immature and naivete' of the political thug come messiah to the masses that Obama is. He and others of his ilk can push this green agenda all they want. They may even succeed in destroying the western economy as we know it. But that will hardly stop countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran from producing oil. This will hardly stop countries like China and India from burning every energy source they can get their hands on to support their burgeoning populations.

This is a quest for political power at the expense of political constituents. For the President of the United States, it is treasonous because it defies the very Constitution that Obama took and oath to uphold and protect. He should be impeached, thrown out of office, and sent back on his ass to the ghetto thug politics, the only thing that he really understands.

If you want to go back to the stone age, then by all means, be my guest. Just don't expect to see Barry & Michelle knocking on your cave door to share the warmth of your campfire. And don't demand your government to abuse their power and send us all there with you.

And what does all this have to do with the possibility of Gulf of Thailand waters rising or falling? Absolutely nothing. Just like the whole global warming/climate change business. It's a farce, a quest for political power, nothing more, nothing less.

It is amazing how people can be taught to exploit themselves, embrace servitude, and prevent positive change. All of this so that BIG OIL--and those benefiting from it--can make money beyond imagination at the expense of the life systems of the planet and present/future generations.

JR is right, Spee is wrong. Simple.

Spee · October 25, 2009

JR is right, Spee is wrong. Simple.

So let me get this straight.

Me and 5 BILLION other human beings who rely on oil and its by-products to earn our living and living our lives in the style that we choose are all wrong.

And you and JR absolutely must be right ..................... yeah right.

The only thing you have in common with right .......... is being right big hypocrites.

The very technology you use to publish your drivel exists because of oil and oil-related technology. You can't be just a little bit pregnant. Just as you can't be a little bit anti-oil. So put away your keyboards, Turn off your internet connection. Turn off your electricity. Avoid all modern medicine and conveniences. Avoid all air, train and car travel. And go become a professional hunter-gatherer living in some isolated hut, spending your entire existence trying to find enough food to keep yourself alive.

After all, by being anti-oil that is what you really want. So be happy. Go do it. Just don't ask your government to force me and billions of other fellow humans to go do it.

We can discuss who was really right in the next life.

LawnGnome · October 25, 2009

JR is right, Spee is wrong. Simple.

So let me get this straight.

Me and 5 BILLION other human beings who rely on oil and its by-products to earn our living and living our lives in the style that we choose are all wrong.

And you and JR absolutely must be right ..................... yeah right.

The only thing you have in common with right .......... is being right big hypocrites.

The very technology you use to publish your drivel exists because of oil and oil-related technology. You can't be just a little bit pregnant. Just as you can't be a little bit anti-oil. So put away your keyboards, Turn off your internet connection. Turn off your electricity. Avoid all modern medicine and conveniences. Avoid all air, train and car travel. And go become a professional hunter-gatherer living in some isolated hut, spending your entire existence trying to find enough food to keep yourself alive.

After all, by being anti-oil that is what you really want. So be happy. Go do it. Just don't ask your government to force me and billions of other fellow humans to go do it.

We can discuss who was really right in the next life.

I'll start by ignoring you. That that should immediately save quite a bit of electricity. Your nub answer that the alternative to oil is nothing is such a non starter, that you label yourself as an extremist not worth listening to anymore. I suppose solar, wind, geothermal don't exist. Nub.

The argument you are making it that, because we've always done it one way, we have to continue doing it that way. Nothing changes, nothing evolves or develops, etc. FAIL.

cyb · October 25, 2009

Is there just the slightest chance that this thread could get back on topic?

I believe it was about the gulf of thailand rising, Correct me if i am wrong?

LawnGnome · October 25, 2009

Here you go. Dispute this! lol

Sign In

Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Popular Now