Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Des Emery Posted 11:28 am
   22 May 2008

   Global Warming

   It is always best to listen to opposing viewpoints in any discussion.  But when one side of the argument presents false information, whether intentionally or derived from mistaken bases, then that side should expect that all of its 'evidence' should be ignored.  When that evidence has been purchased by special interests it should be presumed to be false, without other verification required or argued.  

   Everything I have seen about the reality of Global Warming has been proven to be true, while everything denying it has the whiff of 'green' about it somewhere, proving the old adage that everything has it's price, and denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

   Des Emery

   Permalink

2. 

   Scottar Posted 4:29 pm
   28 May 2008

   Gist and Newscientist distorted what NAS Said

   Both Gist and New Scientist distorted what NAS actually said. Here are some excerpts:

   There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council.

   The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s.  The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years.  In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year.  Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."

   The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then.  Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

   The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that.  Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time.  It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites.  On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions.  

   http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx? ...

   So the real truth is there is still a lot of ambiguity about the climate past instrument records since 1850's. One scientist showed that glacial melt has been steady for two widely space glaciers and not accellerated as you AGW's claim.
   http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Earth_recovering ....  
    Also why do NASA-Giss temp record show unpresidented warming while UAH, RISS and HAD-CRU show cooling in the last 10 years: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_the ...

   And in their latest report, poof- Mann's graph is not evident, in fact when you look at the Vostok ice core plots it shows CO2 shooting up but temperature going down. This agrees with NASA's latest assessment that the next couple of decades will be cool ones

   Who you trying to fool GRIST?
   

   Permalink