Well, well, more bad news for Al Gore.

Hi Brit,

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but news is news.  It would seem that there is another blow to the crotch of the Church of Global Warming riding the wires of the press services, not that it will make it to TV or anything higher than page 30 of a major paper, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions.  Now, just the title should be enough to make us Deniers sing and dance, but, buried in the report, is this gem, “Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe.”  This brings us back to the methodology the “climate scientists” use to “average” temperature data in order to prove their pre-decided conclusion of Global Warming.  Using this method, each of these weather stations is given the same weight as hundreds of stations in other areas.  Obviously, this has the potential to propagate even tiny errors into serious ones, bringing the whole data set the theory is based on into question.  It’s also interesting to note that the number of weather stations in the Arctic, where the most Warming is said to be occurring, is never mentioned.  For that matter, I spent an hour or two not that long ago trying to find that information on the net, with no success.  Now, I may not be the best researcher, but I can find out what Britney Spears’ beaver looks like, the background of the head writer of the latest IPCC report, raw economic data on almost any country, that John Kerry had the worst attendance record in the Senate last year, and the lyrics to almost any song ever recorded.  That something as important as the number of weather stations in the Arctic doesn’t jump off the screen with a simple Google search, makes me very suspicious of the data.  I would say that I’d just look it up in the latest IPCC report, but only the summary of that has been written.  While we are on the subject of raw data to support Global Warming, just try to find the actual temperature data record.  If you can find it, kindly leave me a link.

the Grit

Advertisements

17 Responses to “Well, well, more bad news for Al Gore.”

  1. Ed Darrell Says:

    Did you read the news report (let alone the actual report)?

    Look again at these snippets:

    David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

    “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”

    And

    Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. “If you have less ozone, there’s less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn’t warm as much.”

    That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.

    “In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion,” he said. “The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic.”

    Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

    “It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations,” he said.

    The study doesn’t seem to contradict global warming at all.

  2. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Ed,

    I read the article. The IPCC report hasn’t been completed yet, only the Summary for Policy Makers. Of course, since the IPCC has stated the data and conclusions in the actual report will be revised to match the summary, I guess that;s good enough.

    Your quotes from the article make my point, which is the science is not final. We don’t know enough as much about climate as the Alarmists claim.

    the Grit

  3. Ed Darrell Says:

    The serious question is, do we know enough that we should do something — and the answer to that is “yes.” Controlling our effluent greenhouse gases is certainly justified. Developing plans to mitigate man-made influences world-wide is overdue — on what we know.

    So, is your claim that Gore is wrong that we should act now? That’s foolish under any construction of pollution study and control. Is your claim that we don’t know everything? That’s rather the point — we don’t know the total damaging effects our actions have. Waiting too see is like waiting to see whether it’s true that we can bleed out four pints of blood before we get really woozy after a bleeding accident. Or it’s like saying “we don’t know enough to act yet” when your kid has a temperature of 104 degrees F. What’s the cause? — “let’s wait to find out what is causing the fever before we do anything” is the wrong, often fatal response.

    Science isn’t final, it never is.

  4. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Ed,

    I disagree with your opening remark. We do not know enough about climate to even know if there is change, let alone that such change is caused by human activity. Furthermore, even if we accept that there is warming and it is caused by people, we don’t know how much warming there will be, or how much effort is needed to correct the trend.

    My claim about AL Gore is that he is using this issue as a political tool by grossly overstating the “disaster” of Global Warming, and using it as a means to effect social change. The UN is using the issue to gain power. The growing number of “climate scientists” are using bad science to fatten their wallets and underhanded tactics to silence anyone who dares to question them.

    This is a complicated subject playing out on many levels, but being fed as propaganda to a gullible public by our biased news media. Click on our Global Warming category and read our posts on the subject. Follow the links. There is plenty of evidence to cast serious doubt on the claims of the alarmists and demonstrate their true motives. Of course, to see the truth, you’ll have to keep an open mind.

    the Grit

  5. Ed Darrell Says:

    So, then, you deny the Donora, Pennsylvania disaster? You deny the great London killer fog?

    Air pollution is a problem even if it’s not changing climate. The ONLY THING the scientists disagree about is how much change there will be.

    Your kid has a fever of 104. You decide that, since you don’t know what causes the fever, you should do nothing. In most states, today, that could get you a child endangerment charge.

    The stakes are a little higher for the climate. It’s the entire planet we’re talking about.

    Our “biased” news media, by the way, are biased against getting the news of global warming out. Considering that bias, it’s late. Time to trim your wicks and get oil for the lamp.

  6. Ed Darrell Says:

    Oh, and so far, the only scientists found to have fattened their wallets are those who question the severity of global warming, not those who warn us of it. You have a uniquely skewed lens on news and science.

  7. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Ed,

    You obviously have a personal, and irrational, attachment to Global Warming. I’ve provided massive amounts of evidence to cast doubt on the hoax, but you refuse to read it, meaning that you are not interested in facts, so much as the politics of the situation. For instance, I’ve collected many articles on scientists, actual climate scientists, who dispute that there is any global warming and/or that it is caused by people. The “2500 climate scientists” touted by the IPCC have such poor credentials that they are not even listed in that report, which only gives the authors’ initials and last names. Hardly something to give one confidence in their work.

    If you had followed my advice, and read our posts on this subject, you would have known, for instance, that the lead author of the IPCC reports, on which all this nonsense is based, is a physicist, with no formal training in the field of climate science. You’d also know, that UN officials applied a great deal of pressure on the people who actually wrote the base documents to reach the “correct” conclusions to support Global Warming. This, as you might suspect, included threatening the loss of grant money for future research.

    Speaking of money, the only charges against skeptical scientists taking money from Big Oil that have been proved are that some were paid $15,000 to contribute to a report some oil company was compiling. Compared to the $6 BILLION in research funding that just the US is handing out, that is hardly likely to persuade anyone to falsify research. On the other hand, considering that “deniers” somehow seem to get cut out of Government funds, a billion here and a billion there can apparently buy whatever scientific opinion one wants.

    Do some reading. Start with the IPCC reports that you can find through any search engine. I should warn you though, that the actual raw data is not so easy to come by.

    the Grit

  8. Ed Darrell Says:

    And if I were working in air pollution, which I have been, I’d know that 99% of the reports are dead accurate. And if I understood how science reports to political bodies work, which I do from a couple of decades of experience, I’d understand that a physicist heading a science report is no problem — it’s all in the data. And if I knew anything at all about climate and weather, I’d know there was a problem from simply watching the weather report.

    And if I were an American, my insurance rates are already rising because the insurance companies, who don’t gamble on such things, know that global warming has already affected our weather and they anticipate worse in the future.

    But if I were completely oblivious to science, statecraft, politics and economics, yeah, I might put some stock in those few who deny the evidence.

    Do some reading. Start with meteorology. Spend a while studying air pollution (don’t forget Donora and London). Get the reports of the old Office of Technology Assessment (they may still be available at your local U.S. Government Depository Library). Spend a couple of decades reading the trends.

    $15,000 to do a report is grotesquely outlandish, per scientist. And no, the U.S. is not spending $6 billion on climate research.

    Geeze, is there anything accurate here?

  9. Ed Darrell Says:

    Oh, and that record snowfall in New York? The Great Lakes, and the Finger Lakes, didn’t freeze this year. Warming causes increased snowfall from the lake effect over open water.

    Global warming causes more severe weather, higher highs and lower lows, drier droughts, and wetter areas in some places. Malaria is creeping back into North America.

    Denial won’t change it.

  10. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Ed,

    And, again, you are completely wrong. Read my latest post on the subject.

    the Grit

  11. Ed Darrell Says:

    No, I’m not wrong. Global “warming” means the atmosphere, world wide, has a higher average temperature. To those of you who dropped out of science in junior high, that means there is more energy in the atmosphere, not necessarily that temperatures everywhere will rise at the same time.

    What it means is that there is more energy in the atmosphere, so weather will be, on the whole, more violent (in order to release the energy). That means higher highs, but also lower lows. It means heavier rains, and perhaps rains where rains are rare. It means drier droughts, longer droughts, droughts where they are rare. It means heavier snows and lighter snows. These are all wider and wilder swings in the weather — and that is climate change.

    You’re confusing weather with climate. Today’s weather may be cooler than yesterday. That may indicate a change in trend — perhaps warming is slowing (that’s not really likely) but it will take a couple of decades of such weather to indicate a change in climate.

    That’s what was predicted. That’s what is seen. More snow in one place, where more snow is predicted, by the way, doesn’t negate global warming, or climate change as it is more accurately known.

  12. the Grit Says:

    Hi Ed,

    You’re wrong. There is no historic atmospheric temperature data over the oceans. The “climate scientists” substitute water temperature measurements taken over the years by passing ships in a general area at some unknown depth. Thus, there isn’t enough data to support claims of climate change. For that matter, the historic temperature record over land is far from complete enough to support anything more than dinner conversation. And while we’re on the subject, the Global Warming Scam is only based on the high and low temperature for any given day, which is obviously not a valid measure of average temperature any more than averaging the high and low speed of a car during a trip is a valid measure of the vehicle’s average speed. You should save up your money and buy a clue.

    the Grit

  13. triathlete Says:

    So:

    “Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.”

    Riiiight. Obviously the model is correct. It’s reality that’s wrong.

  14. Anthea Collins Says:

    While I am more on the side of the naysayers, we ARE damaging our planet by pollution. We must stop chucking our rubbish around, we must stop deforestation, we must stop pouring pollutants into the air. This is just plain commonsense. However, whether this has anything to do with possible climate change is a moot point.Even a lay person like myself can see there are large holes in the warmists published data, but their opponents are are not putting enough of their own data into the public domain ( intelligent newspapers) in a way that can help people make their own minds up. It mostly seems like rather childish arguments. What I would like is a plain statement of the facts as they currently stand. (Thank heaven for Christopher Booker!)

  15. Prophet Says:

    Anthea, I don’t think anyone disagrees with pollution control. Although some thing CO2 is doing everything, pollutiion is quite different than a high CO2 content. CO2 is beneficial to the environment whereas soot and other such dregs are terrible and should be addressed. But the influence the miniscule amount of greenhouse gasses by CO2 is only for the “Chicken Little” crowd. The Grit has it exactly right.

  16. kwik Says:

    I think this says it all about Antarctica;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/#more-14107

  17. Horny Toad Says:

    “Oh, and so far, the only scientists found to have fattened their wallets are those who question the severity of global warming, not those who warn us of it. You have a uniquely skewed lens on news and science.”

    Jones and all the other crooks at Hadley were raking in millions in grants. Its all in the e-mails.And they were not only getting money from the govt. but also BIG OIL.

    And for someone who says they know what they are talking about, pollution is NOT climate change.

    Funny how cold temps is global warming, higher temps is global warming, earthquakes are global warming. The only thing you haven’t blamed on global warming is your kids 104 deg fever.

    Also funny how it doesn’t really matter if the head of the IPCC is a geologist if your an alarmist but if your a denier no one seems to have the right credentials. Suzuki is fruitfly specialist and yet somehow he is an expert.

    There is enough evidence from the CRU, the Russians etc to show that the temp has not been rising. The whole thing is a collosal hoax designed to empower the UN and redistribute wealth from the industrialized counties to the 3rd world countries.

    Horny Toad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: