[Geof]

Ataxy,

How about a chart with actual temperatures, and a location of where it is published, and a description of how the data were arrived at?

Here's one for you:

From http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (with time resolution of about 50 years) ending in 1975 as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (7). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000 year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean.

Pity they did not (were not able to) go back to 5000 years before present. I would like to compare the temperatures from then with what is predicted.

[ataxy]

Ataxy,

How about a chart with actual temperatures, and a location of where it is published, and a description of how the data were arrived at?

Here's one for you:

From http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (with time resolution of about 50 years) ending in 1975 as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (7). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000 year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean.

ok here are some:


this graph is from http://www.seed.slb.com/fr/scictr/wa...nge/change.htm
here is the french description of the site:
Variation de la température de la planète au cours des 425 000 dernières années. La partie droite correspond à la période actuelle. La ligne 0 horizontale représente la température moyenne de la planète entre 1961 et 1990. Les chiffres sur la gauche représentent la variation en °C à partir de cette ligne.

Ces données ont été dérivées d'une analyse de noyaux de glace prélevés à la station de Vostock en Antarctique. Lire plus d'informations sur l'estimation des températures à partir des données indirectes.

Image basée sur les données du National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

and the english transcript:
Variation of the earth temperature over the last 425 000 years. The right part represent the current period. The 0 horizontal line represent the average temperature between 1961 and 1990. The numbers on the left represent the variation in °C from that line.

These data were diverted from an analysis of ice core taken from the Vostok station in Antartica. Read more information about the estimation of temperature based on indirect data

Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration


here is another one from the same site:


and the description of it:
Le graphique suivant présente la température moyenne de l'hémisphère Nord au cours des deux derniers millénaires.

La partie à droite de la ligne violette verticale correspond à la période couverte par le premier graphique, soit environ 150 ans. Dans le contexte des 2000 dernières années, l'augmentation de la température devient importante au cours du vingtième siècle. Qu'en est-il du reste de la période ? La période couvrant plusieurs centaines d'années jusqu'au 19ème siècle a été appelée le Petit Âge de glace en Europe. Personne ne s'accorde pour le dater de manière exacte. Beaucoup d'éléments viennent prouver l'existence d'un climat plus doux que le nôtre de 900 à 1100 environ. Les glaciers ont avancé. La mer Baltique et la Tamise à Londres gelaient fréquemment en hiver. Les saisons de croissance étaient plus courtes. Au cours des hivers particulièrement rigoureux, les troupeaux de bétail étaient décimés. Le climat était également plus doux au Nord Est de l'Amérique du Nord. Cependant, on ne sait pas exactement si le refroidissement était général ou se limitait à la région Atlantique Nord.
La partie violette de la ligne a été établie à partir des mesures indirectes. La partie verte représente les mesures relevées sur nos thermomètres actuels.

Graphique établi à partir des données transmises par Moberg, et. al., dans Nature, V. 433, 10 février 2005

Translation:
The following graph present the average temperature in the northern hemishere in the last 2 thousand years

The part to the right of the vertical purple line corresponds to the period covered by the first graph, that is approximately 150 years. In the context of the last 2000 years, the increase of the temperature becomes important during the twentieth century. What is of the rest of this period? The period covering several hundreds of years until 19th century was called the Small Age of ice in Europe. Nobody agrees to date it in a exact way. Many elements come to prove the existence of a climate hotter than ours from 900 up to the 1100. The glaciers advanced. The Baltic Sea and the Thames in London froze frequently in winter. The seasons of growth were shorter. During the particularly rigorous winters, the herds of cattle were decimated. The climate was also hotter in the North East part of North America. However, we do not know exactly if the cooling was general or limited itself to the Northern region of the Atlantic.

The purple part of the line was established from the indirect measures. The green part represents the measures found on our current thermometers.

Graph established from the data passed on by Moberg, et. al., in Nature, V. 433, 10 février 2005

here is another one of temperature variation between 1880 and 2000 it was taken at http://www.meteorologic.net/graphiqu...ie-mondial.php and is based on sea and land average

[Robin Hewitt]

So the ice has been laying down consistantly for the last 450,000 years and it's temperature has been bouncing up and down consistantly all that time.

Plus the temperature has slowly risen by 1 degree centigrade since 1910.

Doesn't look like much cause fo alarm to me???

[gus]

>>>>so the ice has been laying down consistantly for the last 450,000 years and it's temperature has been bouncing up and down consistantly all that time.

Plus the temperature has slowly risen by 1 degree centigrade since 1910.

Doesn't look like much cause fo alarm to me???<<<<


NOOOOO!!!!!

This is the point exactly.

Read the links and charts posted.

The Ice has NOT been consistently laid down. It has snowed and not, warmed and cooled.

The ice moves from the center to the coast[downhill]

Melting at the sea does not define a change IE that ice was NOT there for millenia. It migrated from uphill. Greenland was MUCH MORE ICE FREE 1000 years ago.



I really shake my head at the alarmists who read the cnn.com re[ports adn do no personal research


Its in the paper, it;s got to be true!!!

[ataxy]

the current problem is that all extreme change in the earth climate as caused problem to specie wether cold or hot and currently more then half the human race and in majority due to ignorance think it wont have the faintest effect on us this is where it becomes absurd to think that a hight in temperature will only effect temperature is in itself ignorance it even has an effect on gas composition of the air, capacity of ecosystem to manage humidity level and regulation of season certain plant need winter periode, certain sickness are not reaching certain part of the earth due to climat this whole package is not dependant of us its us who are dependant of it

[NinerSevenTango]

ataxy,

Take a very hard look at your first graph.

Note the periodicity of the waveform. This suggests influences on a huge scale that are outside our ability to affect, and also convincingly suggests what is likely to happen next.
Note the relatively short warm periods. This suggests that life on earth better make hay before it gets cold again.

Take a look at your second chart.
Note that the hockey stick representation of temperature ignores the medieval optimum, thereby invalidating it. Note also that it has been revealed that in order to make the chart look like this, it was necessary to exclude data contrary to the hypothesis in the 'indirect measure' portion, including specifically the Sargasso sea data. And it has been revealed that calculation factors have been used to generate the favorable data from the measured values which have not been validated as providing a link to temperature. When factors are used that have been independently verified to correspond to temperature, the hockey stick disappears.

Now take a look at your third chart.
Note that the data specifically excludes atmospheric temperature measurements, which contradict the politically acceptable data, and which agree with each other regardless of the method (radiosonde, microwave sounding, satellite).
Note also that land measurements are subject to the urban heat island effect, meaning that more measurements get taken near cities now than in the past, where the warmer local temperature skews the data. From what I've seen, when you look at data only from locations not subject to this effect, the measurements tend to agree more with the atmospheric temperature readings.
Lastly, note also that scaling and correction factors have to be applied to make a graph that shows such clear trends. When you look at the actual data, it exhibits a very low signal - to - noise ratio, and you have to do some extensive calculations to derive any trend out of the noise at all.

From looking at all the graphs, you may conclude that over extremely long time periods it looks like there are significant periodic fluctuations in temperature. And if you ever look at the actual data behind any of these charts, you might conclude that determining the actual temperature of the earth at any particular moment is a very difficult thing to do, because of the wide variations in local conditions, the impossibility of taking the temperature everywhere at once, the conflicting impressions you get from including or ignoring data sets, and the high amount of noise in the measured data we are able to obtain. From all of this, you might also conclude that variations up or down are to be expected, as the record shows that the weather has never been static. You might also conclude that a demonstrated long-term correlation between solar activity and temperature indicators is highly suggestive of a cause and effect relationship, considering that the sun is the main energy input into the system, and you could be excused for predicting a temperature rise coinciding with the solar cycle maximum.

Add to the above the fact that those who are proposing a political solution to the predicted apocalypse are behaving more like a Ministry Of Truth than objective scientists, and you have plenty of reason to be very careful about what it is they have in mind for your future. The closer you look at their methodology, the less certain the conclusions become.

--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

On further investigation, it appears that the second chart is the infamous IPCC-Mann Hockey Stick chart. It still gets used in the popular press a lot, even though it has been discredited. It doesn't matter if it's true, it only matters whether or not the man on the street believes it.

Contrary to what I said above about the 'indirect data', the situation is worse than that -- the data was fudged, and the weighting algorithm was fudged too. When corrections are made, the hockey stick shape goes away. Further, the atmospheric data shows a cooling trend, something that they left out of their Summary.

It's a fascinating read --

Why the chart is a lie

How the lie was discovered

What happened when the lie was revealed

How Nature asked Mann for a correction when problems with the data were found, but refused to publish the results when it was proven that the weighting algorithm was intentionally doctored to produce false results "too technical and unlikely to be of interest to our readers" (!)

How Mann gave out two sets of data and refused to reveal his algorithm (and we are supposed to implement carbon credits based on it !?)

How Mann inadvertently left a file with the real data in his ftp site in a folder labeled 'censored'

It's not hard to read, get it here -- http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf

Draw your own conclusions.

Edit: Guess what? The third chart, published by Moberg, has similar problems with the dataset, namely the same Bristlecone Pine data used to skew the later temperatures in the second chart. Plus inclusion of cold water G Bulloides as a supposed temperature proxy, given very high weighting, when it is not recognized as a valid temperature proxy in the first place. And again, Moberg won't release the code used to generate his graph. There's your 'peer review', and your 'consensus'. The results can't be duplicated and are based on weighted data. To support a political conclusion that your every aspect of life needs to be taxed, regulated, and ruled.

--97T--

[dufas]

I am an old fart...meaning that I was a teenager in the 50s. In the high mountain area where I lived, there would and could be ten feet of snow on the flat. Drifts could cover a one story house. Most winters lasted for nearly half a year and 'normal' summers, ie, shirt sleeve weather was around two months long. A year was more cold than warm in mountain country.

But this didn't occur all the time. Average snowfall was around four feet. The word 'average' is important. It means that most likely the snow will come in at around four feet for the season, yet, in mid-December, 1957, I went higher into the mountains to look for a Christmas tree. The temperature was a balmy 76 degrees when it should have been somewhere near zero degrees and the vehicle that we used should have been fitted with snow chains..We drove up in a convertible, top down, and wearing T-shirts.

Four years before the warm winter, snow was up to the eaves of our house and we had to get up early just to dig ourselves out. Two years later there was four feet of snow again....

In 1980, my wife wanted to see where I grew up. We took a vacation in July and drove to the area. I had to buy snow chains when we reached the area because in what would normally be considered summer was now covered with two feet of snow. I was informed that winter just kept going and going that year.

The point being that weather changes, many times to the extremes.

In the near and distant past, it has been both hot and cold. Greenland didn't get that name because it was covered in ice. Evidence has shown that it was once covered with trees and grasses. Nordic peoples ranched and farmed the there. The popular stories about the history of Greenland is how difficult life was there but this history is written about the time when the climate was getting colder, not during a warmer period.. Al Gore states that the Arctic Ice Pack has never been so low and yet, ships have navigated what was called 'The North Passage' which is between the north American continent and the Arctic Ice pack many times in the past.

During the 60s, it was global drought that had all the scientific community up in arms. [ Which makes me question Al Gore's claim that he has known about the coming global warming situation since 1968 when everyone except he and his professor was studying global drought...] Scientists were devising hundreds of plans to fight the coming drought. One of the major plans was to build giant tug boats to sail to the Arctic, break off huge chunks of ice from the Arctic Ice Flow and tow them back to various countries. Politicians called for and got most communities to install water meters everywhere, the price of water shot up and strict conservation rules were enforced. A scientist named Carl Sagan was all over the media in much the same way Al Gore is today, announcing the coming doomsday.. everyone is going to die of thirst unless something is done.. Dare we take a chance.. While the drought scare was going on, we were also involved in a nuclear race with Russia. I mention this because Carl Sagan will tie the nuclear threat in with changing weather scare for the rest of his life.

At the start of the 70s, the global drought scare died down and global cooling rose to the forefront of political and scientific rhetoric. Carl Sagan coined the term 'Nuclear Winter' to describe the condition and effects of man made weather change only at this time, it was global cooling that was the threat. In a complete, 180 degree reversal of prior claims, almost all consumer and industrial materials that could be was to be changed to a water base. Just about any thing that was chloral carbon based was outlawed because the scientists tied these products into global cooling. Carl Sagan just as Al Gore is doing now, showed how all of these products were going to ruin life on the planet and start the new ice age. Nuclear Winter would cause this to happen just as if we set off every atomic bomb in the world and shroud out the sun with an umbrella of greenhouse gases.

Then, the 80s began and the new cry was global warming. Once again Carl Sagan did a complete flip-flop and he jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Al Gore was no where in sight at this time or at least, not very many people heard him. Carl Sagan issued prediction after prediction during this and up to his death which not one has happened and in most of them, the exact opposite occurred. Many of the scientists of today who spout the same 'facts' that Carl Sagan had in the past, will, when asked about Carl Sagan, will tell you that he was a mediocre scientist at best and then immediately expound on one of Carl Sagan's past theories as being written in stone...

We are now in the 2000s and nothing has really changed... Maybe the world IS really flat after all.....

Addendum.........................................

I should add that during the 60s, the company that I worked for was forced by the government to provide access to our R&D department for environmental scientists to use in proving their theories. I, being in charge of the metal department, was assigned to build and/or modify test platforms for this group. I nearly got fired and later on, they requested that someone else be put in my position. The reason was that I complained when they would do a series of tests and the data didn't fit their theories, they kept changing everything from the tests to the software until they could gather data that fit their agenda. Sort of like placing a heat sensor close to the heat exhaust of an air conditioner or over a section of pavement to prove that temperature is as warm as expected....

[NinerSevenTango]

If the data doesn't fit, make something up! Just so long as our gang gets to control the world.

[fizzissist]

If the data doesn't fit, make something up! Just so long as our gang gets to control the world.

....then you might enjoy this tidbit!

red noise and transparent gasses....
The RE Benchmark of 0
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2995

[dufas]

I did some research on the potato and those people that ate same from 1801 to 1850 and discovered that any of those people that did eat a potato anytime in their life during that time period has died.

Conclusion: The potato is toxic to humans and should be banned from sale. My data confirms this.

The next study is to accumulate more data on the kumquat and it's effect on climate change... Preliminary empirical observations and data already support my theory, now all that is to be done is fit this data to the theory.

Now, where is my grant money

[sergizmo]

I did some research on the potato and those people that ate same from 1801 to 1850 and discovered that any of those people that did eat a potato anytime in their life during that time period has died.

Conclusion: The potato is toxic to humans and should be banned from sale. My data confirms this.

The next study is to accumulate more data on the kumquat and it's effect on climate change... Preliminary empirical observations and data already support my theory, now all that is to be done is fit this data to the theory.

Now, where is my grant money

Ding, ding, ding. It seems a lot (not all) scientists these days are about as honest as a Mexican policeman. "The cause/effects of global warming/climate change in blah, blah, blah" = Instant grant money, increased media/print/tv coverage, more votes for campaigning politicians, etc...

Like almost everything in existance, it comes down to money or votes.

[dufas]

Science and ethics..... They really don't work together.

I am thinking of the scientist that created the Africanized honey bee. His little creature has migrated all over the western world, killing people and animals where ever it swarms, plus taking up residence in peoples homes. I watched an interview where he was asked about the death and destruction his bees have caused. His reply was typically scientific in that he, was of course, saddened for the families that lost their loved ones and then essentially stated that science should carry on despite these little set backs. He couldn't care less about any damage that was caused, he seemed more interested in his next grant....

A bartender serving alcohol to drunks has more responsibility pushed on him than the average scientist does.....

[fizzissist]

The vast majority of scientists I know are fundamentally honest, dedicated, and hard working.

A major factor, I believe is that their vision becomes very truncated, and too often loose sight of the bigger picture simply because they are so focused.

After all...a PhD knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.....with some obvious exceptions....Geoff?

[Robin Hewitt]

I am thinking of the scientist that created the Africanized honey bee.

I remember watching a TV thing where some woman took her son to visit Auswitz. My wife said he seemed a bit uncaring. I pointed out that he'd obviously had Auswitz all his life, "Eat your toast, I'd have been glad of that when I was in Auswitz" etc.

Perhaps the Africanized bee man is just wishing people would ask about something else, not uncaring, merely bored and dealing with it as best he can.

Real scientists don't know anything, even their most precious laws are okay to question, they go by weight of evidence.

Someone said that MMGW was rubbish on daytime TV, the other guest on the show said, so what? If it's anti-pollution it has to be good. I switched off.

[dufas]

fizzissist......

So are many priests.....

The point I was trying to make is that many PHDs, scientists, and others in the scientific and research fields are not concerned or feel they should be held responsible for any havoc that their inquiries or experiments may cause. Their science is the only responsibility that they should adhere to.

Einstein, himself, tried to address this problem within the scientific community. He attempted to get the scientists and researchers to be more thoughtful of the possibility of hurting others, and was rebuffed by most of his colleagues. A small handful joined him and they decided to use atomic energy for their public platform of scientific responsibility and was shot down there also.

It is more a frame of mind than a focused mind.....

[dufas]

I remember watching a TV thing where some woman took her son to visit Auswitz. My wife said he seemed a bit uncaring. I pointed out that he'd obviously had Auswitz all his life, "Eat your toast, I'd have been glad of that when I was in Auswitz" etc.

Perhaps the Africanized bee man is just wishing people would ask about something else, not uncaring, merely bored and dealing with it as best he can.

Real scientists don't know anything, even their most precious laws are okay to question, they go by weight of evidence.

Someone said that MMGW was rubbish on daytime TV, the other guest on the show said, so what? If it's anti-pollution it has to be good. I switched off.

Auswitz.....peoples history starts when they are old enough to realize what is going on around them... I overheard a young German girl ask someone why the Hitler and WWII movies keep being played on TV. An old man answered with "So we don't forget.." to which she replied, "It means nothing to me..." I then watched as the old man rolled up his sleeve and tried to show the girl a number tattooed on his forearm. The girl wasn't interested.

Actually, scientists hate for their laws or theories to be questioned. cyclamates [?] were outlawed nearly 30 years ago and it is now found out that they do no harm, yet, the scientific body that originally made the pronouncement are still fighting to keep their findings in the forefront. human caused global warming scientists are right now refusing to listen or examine any data that is contrary to their theories. Global warming is more of a religion than a science..Words like heretic, anti-believer, and blasphemer are used to describe anyone who might question their data. Scientists have lost their research seats, their tenor, their grants, their jobs because of questioning some of the global warming scientist's findings. I watched an interview with the scientist that discovered that the computer model used in the 1980s was programed to give the results that the global weather investigators were looking for. He lost most everything and ended up teaching in a private school and his curriculum was closely monitored for the first few years so as not to corrupt young minds.......

[dufas]

The vast majority of scientists I know are fundamentally honest, dedicated, and hard working.

A major factor, I believe is that their vision becomes very truncated, and too often loose sight of the bigger picture simply because they are so focused.

After all...a PhD knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.....with some obvious exceptions....Geoff?

I wasn't disputing the scientist's honesty, I was trying to point out the arrogance and above the fray mentality where they should not be held responsible for anything that may happen because of their work.

If I shoot an arrow into the air while experimenting with a new bow configuration and the arrow comes back down, injuring someone ... should I be held responsible or if I develop a strain of killer wasps that I theorize will hunt down the killer bees but they instead hunt down and kill human beings some 4,000 miles away, should I be held responsible. An arrogant person would say no, it is science and therefore above normal levels of responsibility... I don't think there is any difference between the arrow and the killer wasp or the killer bees.

[Robin Hewitt]

If I shoot an arrow into the air while experimenting with a new bow configuration and the arrow comes back down, injuring someone ... should I be held responsible

Blooming right you should. BUT if you then went on to develop a better bow that you wanted to sell, and found the media were only interested in digging up the old accident so they could screw you some more... you might try to gloss over it.

Can't argue that scientists don't try to defend their pet theories when the evidence turns against them, but they should end up as a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

It' should be the bulk of scientific opinion that counts, but MMGW seems to be an exception.

[NinerSevenTango]

If you invent a better bow and arrow, and someone uses it to shoot someone else, the lawyers will come knocking.

The fake science death toll award surely has to go to the ban on DDT. Millions of people dead by malaria, based on a hoax. Turns out the eagle's eggs weren't thinned by it after all.

Edit: But we may soon have a challenger. The Food-For-Fuel idiocy, wherein huge tax subsidies are funneled to agribusiness to divert corn for ethanol production, coupled with relentless creation of money out of thin air by our Federal Reserve system (running along at 15% per year), have resulted in an unprecedented increase in the cost of energy and consequently an unprecedented increase in the cost of food. The results of these interventions in the market are beginning to bear fruit -- we are now seeing the beginnings of a worldwide famine. The violence that results from it will add to the total.

Remember, the elitists think the world is overpopulated (keyword: sustainable). Here is where the rubber meets the road, where the actual results of the actual policies are shown for all to see. This is not a fuel supply problem, not a farming problem. It is a monetary phenomenon, and the people responsible for it won't care about the people who starve or get killed in food riot uprisings.

And the whole thing will naturally be blamed on a failure of market capitalism, the cruelty of letting people keep what they make while others starve. The only solutions that will be proposed will consist of more government intervention in the market, more communistic controls. The calls are already starting for food rationing. And in countries leading the way for us policy-wise, like Zimbabwe, they tried price controls to counter their 2000% inflation, which resulted in food disappearing from market shelves instantly. The result will be less food production and less surplus to tax, and less surplus for people to donate to help. All of which will aid the bureaucrats in consolidation of their power over everyone.

The key to the megalomaniacal scheme is to get control over the valve that controls your access to energy. Because it takes energy, and free access to it, to make anything (especially food), and even to survive. Once they've got control over the spigot, they've got you where you cannot resist.

We can only hope that the scope of this coming monetary collapse/recession/depression doesn't bring famine and tyranny to the U.S. and Canada. The potential is certainly there, history shows that paper money collapse with blood in the streets is the usual outcome of fiat currency schemes, and the warning clouds are on the horizon. Precedent: Weimar Germany.

On the bright side, more and more people are waking up to this, the biggest lie of the last century. Even with McCain declared the winner, even after being pronounced dead and with absolutely zero press coverage, Ron Paul managed to capture 16% of the vote in PA. These people aren't wasting their vote on a lost cause. These are people who know that a vote for a friend of paper money is the wasted vote. These are people who know the truth and are actively working to educate others. The numbers are growing, and 5 to 10% of the people might be enough to prevent a slide into tyranny when the collapse happens. It might be the last hope for our experiment in freedom, which we seem so intent on squandering.

--97T--