You are currently browsing the archives for the Climate category.
July 21, 2008 by mr_flood.
From the Austrailian:
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Posted in Climate | 2 Comments »
April 23, 2008 by mr_flood.
The typical conservative reaction to this article is “why wont this get as much coverage as the AGW articles?” Of course, we already know the answer: there’s no money in it. What should our reactions be to this type of news? I’m not sure, perhaps the only real action that we can take at this time is to play what little part we can in spreading the word. From The Australian:
All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
Posted in Climate | No Comments »
March 10, 2008 by mr_flood.
Some graphs showing the temperature fluctuations over the last ten years. You’ll notice the last one is way out of step with the others and the author brings up a good reason why. If you’d like further evidence as to why that last data set is suspect cruise on over to Climate Audit where you’ll find lively discussions on that very subject.
Posted in Climate | 1 Comment »
March 7, 2008 by mr_flood.
Daily tech highlights a Hungarian scientist that used to work for NASA and his paper that illustrates the original warming equations were done incorrectly because they set the atmosphere as being infinitely thick. He reworked them with a more realistic value and found
Posted in Climate | No Comments »
February 26, 2008 by mr_flood.
From the National Post of Canada
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
You should read the rest, little bit of snark in it but not too much and a couple great talking points for your AGW friends.
Posted in Climate | 1 Comment »
January 2, 2008 by mr_flood.
Well, low and behold
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder.
It’s from the Washington Times and is worth a read.
Posted in Climate | 1 Comment »
December 20, 2007 by mr_flood.
Well, Senator Inhofe has gone and done it. Compiled a list of 400 scientists with published views skeptical of AGW.
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Heh.
Posted in Climate | 1 Comment »
December 18, 2007 by mr_flood.
A nice article from WCR highlighting a new entry in the International Journal of Climatology. In it we learn, surprise surprise, that climate models are unreliable.
Even juicier, they state “On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.”
As many have already stated, AGW is politics in the guise of science, they have no use for facts unless they bolster their political position.
Posted in Climate | 1 Comment »
December 10, 2007 by mr_flood.
A new study was just published where they compared current temperatures with those predicted by the most popular climate models. I bet you can’t guess what they found!
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
Wow, what a surprise.
Posted in Climate | 1 Comment »
December 7, 2007 by mr_flood.
Excellent article describing how we can attribute the supposed rise in global temperatures to contaminated data, not greenhouse gases.
Scientists who attribute warming to greenhouse gases argue that their climate models cannot reproduce the surface trends from natural variability alone. They then attribute it to greenhouse gases, since (they assume) all other human influences have been removed from the data by the adjustment models. If that has not happened, however, they cannot claim to be able to identify the role of greenhouse gases. Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.
Which, of course, they proceeded to ignore. They then go on to admit, that yes, they can see the bias in the record but it’s just coincidence and with the some hand-waving, poof!, the issue is resolved. They have shown themselves to be the true denialists, as the article states.
Posted in Climate | 1 Comment »