Anti-Global Warming facts (Vanity)

1/3/07 | Republicanprofessor

[Republicanprofessor]

My son is fighting the global warming group think at his school and is trying to find facts for a report to counter those of the global warming clans.

He can only use accepted web sites on a list from the school, and FR is not one of them. I showed him Thomas Sowell's articles on FR, but they were not factual enough.

I know there is a film on the Global Warming Swindle, but we have not been able to see it yet, and I'm not sure that's from an "acceptable" site.

If you can help him out by giving us sources of facts that counter the global warming myth, please let us know. (I guess the below zero temperature this morning and record snowfall for December is not good enough, although anecdotal "evidence" seems to work for the global warming pros.)

Thanks a million.

[SunkenCiv]

He can only use accepted web sites on a list from the school

...which means, the school will be listing only those which support the agenda of the global warming demagogues.

[cogitator]

Your son should read my profile so he doesn't repeat some of the common inaccurate claims from many skeptical sources. It's fine to resist groupthink, but it's not fine to do it stupidly.

Here's a list of climate change skeptical sites that are relatively intelligent:

World Climate Report

Climate Audit

[cogitator]

Read my profile, point #2.

Yes, they are acceptable sources. What's happening on other planets and moons is not driven by the same forces of change as on Earth at present.

[Republicanprofessor]

Thank you; much food for thought.

I know what it’s like to disagree with Freepers. I often present the view that abstract art can be meaningful, and I’ve presented a series of “lectures” on FR to that end. (They are accessible from my homepage here.) Often I get great deal of flack for appreciating artworks like those of Christo’s Gates in NYC.

My mind is thus a far cry from your scientific bent. But we will try to learn from your page nonetheless.

[cogitator]

Good luck. Good site for one with an appreciation of art:

Global Warming Art

I'm sure you're aware of the saying that one visual image is equivalent to 10³ single or combined morphemes, or something to that effect.

[Paul Heinzman]

Bump—I have some sources at home I’ll post later.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Wait. Let me guess. All the “acceptable” sites are pro-global warming?

[FBD]

>”What’s happening on other planets and moons is not driven by the same forces of change as on Earth at present.”<

Oh...so, I guess the other planets in our *solar system* aren’t heated by the same sun as the earth, then?

Riiiight.

[cogitator]

The Sun’s output is currently not changing appreciably, so though it supplies basic energy input, it is not a “force of change”. I chose my words very carefully in the reply.

[Defendingliberty]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_Bibliography.asp

[Paul Heinzman]

These first two appear particularly useful for debunking the human influence on global warming:

http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060406/20060406_11.pdf

These are reference data sites, not anti-global warming at all, but contain lots of data and graphs:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
http://www.climateaudit.org
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
http://www.ippc.ch

Here’s a New York Times article to Google:

“Has It Been This Warm Before,” Brenda Fowler, The New York Times Wed, Oct 5, 1991 (?)

Some interesting Time magazine covers:

September 10, 1945: “The World is Sizzling!”
January 31, 1977: “The Big Freeze”
April 3, 2006: “Be Worried, Be VERY Worried”

Hope it helps.

[Republicanprofessor]

Thank you so much.....everyone. We really appreciate it.

My son wants to post his list of “accepted sites,” but naturally it is at school tonight, so we’ll try to do so later. Your feedback is much appreciated.

[FBD]

"The Sun’s output is currently not changing appreciably

-That's just not true. The sun has had alternating heat output cycles of 100,000 years, and 40,000 years, as well as the 22 year-solar maximum /minimum cycles:
"The Topology of the Sun's Magnetic Field and the 22-Year Cycle"

Currently, the sun is coming out of solar maximum, coinciding with the record high temperatures we've had over the last decade.

"...so though it supplies basic energy input, it is not a “force of change”."

The sun is (and has been) the primary cause of temperature change on earth, and any other planet in this solar system. It currently is in the middle of a VERY active solar cycle (Solar cycle 24):

-From NASA, Dec. 21, 2006:
"Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco."

-But I doubt you'll give it any credence, as it doesn't fit the AGW template.

[FBD]

"The Sun’s output is currently not changing appreciably, so though it supplies basic energy input, it is not a “force of change”.

I should post this evidence also; as to the sun being a "force of change" to earth's surface temperatures, although I'm sure you've seen it before, and have probably discredited it:

Note that during the 1970's, and a solar minimum, *some* scientists were predicting an ice age:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

[cogitator]

You know what's really funny, FBD; I've posted the first figure you posted many, many times here on FR. I wonder if you read the accompanying text:

"The figure shows that sunspot numbers rose in the first half of the 20th century, along with temperatures. The rise in solar activity in the early part of the century is thought to be connected with an 80 year cycle of solar activity known as the Gleissman cycle. The temperature increase in the second half of the twentieth century does not seem to linked with sunspot numbers.."

From the text to the figure above the one you posted:

"It is thought that the solar cycle is too short to have a measurable effect on global temperatures, but long-term changes are thought to be more important. Unfortunately, because it has proved difficult to merge the data from consecutive satellites in the series that have watched the sun for the past 20 or so years, it is not certain whether the sun's output has increased over that period. One study found that there had been no increase over that time period. A second found that that there had been a small increase (around 0.1%)."

Next figure:

Caption: "These updated data are shown in the Figure 4. The updated data show that, like other measures of solar activity, there is a good correlation with temperature rises in the earlier part of the 20th century, but little or no correlation in the second half of the 20th century. The authors describe these new results as 'The fingerprint of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect'.

although I'm sure you've seen it before, and have probably discredited it

Yes, I've seen it before. It shows exactly what I said. So why would want to discredit it?

If you want to read a full overview of the Sun-climate linkage issue, read the following article.

Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?

My favorite quote from this article:

""Across the solar cycle, the Sun's energy output varies only by about 0.1%," says Sami Solanki from the Max-Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany. ... "When you look across much longer timescales, you also see changes only of about 0.1%. So just considering directly variations in energy coming from the Sun, this is not enough to explain the climatic changes we have seen and are seeing now."

[FBD]

-first of all I’d say the temperatures followed solar activity pretty closely.

Secondly, the collective stats showing a whopping 4/10ths of one degree earth temperature rise (6/10ths?) are mostly coming from temperatures taken in or near urban heat islands, and secondly, many of the temperature collection sources are contaminated by surrounding heat sources, as the following pictures show:

this one’s in Forest Grove Or, near where I live:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/forestgrove.jpg

This temp collection station is just laughable:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Tahoe_city3.JPG

There are so many of these USHCN temp collection stations near AC units, not to mention that they are in/near urban heat islands:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Marysville_issues2.JPG

So...I'm not buying the "hockey stick" temp rise, and I'd say the solar activity over the last century paralells pretty close to surface temps, especially when you throw out all the contaminated data from the above sites.

regards

[cogitator]

You need some perspective away from the skeptical sites, FBD.

No man is an urban heat island

Posts about the thermometer record

The power of large numbers (a useful and surprising article about a LOT of things)

Surface stations

The following is excerpted from the comments (510 in all) following the article at the first link:

"Abstract: Using rural/urban land surface classifications derived from maps and satellite observed nighttime surface lights, global mean land surface air temperature time series were created using data from all weather observing stations in a global temperature data base and from rural stations only. The global rural temperature time series and trends are very similar to those derived from the full data set. Therefore, the well-known global temperature time series from in situ stations is not significantly impacted by urban warming."

Global rural temperature trends
T Peterson, K Gallo, J Lawrimore, T Owen, A Huang, D McKittrick
Geophysical Res. Ltrs, Vol. 26 , No. 3 , p. 329 (1999)

[Republicanprofessor]

A belated post to all:

The list of accepted sites from my son’s school is:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/
www.nationalgeographic.com
www.sciencenews.org/
www.nytimes.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
www.epe.gov/climatechange/kids/
www.uscusa.org/global_warming/
www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
www.ipcc.ch/
www.cei.org/sections/subsection.cfm?section=3
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html
www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm

I can tell that some of these are very liberal: NY times, BBC, and probably the ones with global warming in the title. But I would love to hear what you all thought as well.

Thanks again.

RP

[FBD]

sure looks like a one sided list to me.
good luck with that!

[FBD]

"You need some perspective away from the skeptical sites, FBD.

Ok, is this site exceptable?

Database surface staions.org

RE: “ The global rural temperature time series and trends are very similar to those derived from the full data set. Therefore, the well-known global temperature time series from in situ stations is not significantly impacted by urban warming.”

---

-Then how do they reconcile the temperature differences between these two stations below, both of which are in California?
The first one is in a good location in a rural area; the other is in an urban area, next to an air conditioner.

The rural does not show a warming trend, but the urban one is headed off the chart! No "significant impact" indeed!

Marysville station:

Marysville station graph: