|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 21, 2010 8:02 pm |
|
re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. |
Thomas Holford
| |
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:
> A summary of the evidence for MAN MADE Climate Change is on pages 727-728
OK.
Page 727
"9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change"
"The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface, ... free atmosphere ... and ocean ..., together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system ..., strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6)."
First of all, let's recognize that this is the OFFICIAL position of the UN IPCC. This is GOSPEL!!!!!
Question number 1: How reliable and authoritative is the UN IPCC?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
"UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning"
"The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.” "
Moving right along, the U.N reports "widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface, ... free atmosphere ... and ocean ...."
Where do these temperature observations come from?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2465231
"Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say"
. . . .
"Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada."
. . . .
"The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York."
This, to be clear, is a data integrity scandal SEPARATE and DISTINCT from the Hadley CRU data scandal.
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/europe/14-12-2009/111117-climagatefraud-0
"Climategate - The Great Scientific Fraud"
"Someone from the IPCC decided to tamper with data so that the curve of the graph of temperatures over a thousand years in 2000 reflected a sudden and unexpected heat they called "hockeystick" due to the shape of a "stick" used in ice hockey."
Question number 2: Assuming for the sake of argument that the data data were not fraudulent or manipulated, how consistent is the data?
Answer. It ISN'T consistent. If "global warming" were truly global, EVERY temperature reporting station in the globe would manifest a similar underlying increasing temperature trend.
They do not. Some reporting stations show increasing temperture trends. Some report stable trends. Some actually report DECREASING trends.
Moreover, the temperature data from surface station shows a DIFFERENT overall trend than data gathered from satellite measurements.
And the tree ring data from which historical temperature trend data has been inferred, has recently been shown to be inconsistent with temperature trends measured at surface stations.
So, which measurement is right? The quality of the data is so poor and so inconsistent and so flawed that no CREDIBLE scientist would make any sweeping generalizations or conclusions about the state of the earth's climate.
And this does not even take into consideration that much of the original raw data has been "lost", and only the "value added" (i.e. "manipulated" data exists") and the nature and rationale of the manipulations cannot be determined.
The historical temperature record is a mess.
Question number 3: What greenhouse gases are responsible for "greenhouse gas forcing" and are those the greenhouse gases the result of human activity.
The predominant greenhouse gase is not CO2, but water vapor.
A recent, peer reviewed paper by Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskolczi has asserted that the "Basic Greenhouse Equations are 'Totally Wrong'", and shows how the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are in a stable balance. The affects of increased CO2 are offset by changes in water vapor. Runaway global warming or falling over a "tipping point" are not possible. So, it doesn't matter what part of the trivial amoung of CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. The dynamic climate system is self-balancing.
And this is only the criticisms that can be made of the FIRST TWO SENTENCES of the IPCC's supposed "proof" of human caused global warming.
I have no doubt the, based on the faulty science already exhibited and well-known, the rest of the IPCC's report would just be more of the same.
Bottom line. The IPCC has not convinced me that human activity is the main cause of global warming.
Do you have any other evidence that would be more compelling?
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|
