|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
 Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:20 am
|
 |
|
quote:
Cherry picking a single ground based site or two in an attempt to imply global cooling !
Ha!
Like I said, there is little I need to do.
Besides reading and weep, no, there is little you can do for refuting the long series of rural and urban weather stations that show, little, nothing, or negative warming trends.
This is the first series that we have produced at Córdoba University, selected from different parts of the world. Wait for the continuing saga of stations records that refutes IPCC's (and yours) catastrophic global warming views.
Of course, we all know Antarctica has been cooling since 1979, so this was unfair from my part. But, was not that IPCC's models predicted bigger warming in the Poles?
Santa Rosa de Toay, 600 km south of my hometown, Córdoba. BTW, Córdoba has cooled a lot in the recent years, so I guess we might be for a surprise.
Valentia, facing the Gulf Stream, shows a 0.2º C warming trend (since 1854! = 200 years, so the trend is barely 0,1º C in a century. Quite catastrophic, don't you think so?
This record from Adelaide, Australia, is from an urban station, that has not been corrected for the “urban heat island effect". Had we corrected it, the trend would show more cooling – at least 2º C less!
Next stations will be from Hungary, Alaska, Russia, the US, and Africa.
If you are so kind as to send me the data for any of your selected weather stations, we'll plot the data and post the graphs here. Of course, we'll have to compensate the data for the heat island effect. So, try to choose urban stations that need no corrections.
Or, better still, why don't you make your own charts, and post some of your stations?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Edufer on 01-06-2004] |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 511
Location: Greece |
|
Thu Jan 08, 2004 2:50 pm
|
|
|
Edufer, is this cooling an effect of geo-engineering?
In any case, if you read
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002014.html
and
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=technosphere&num=1073367108&start=15
you will get the message that the story that your ‘conservative’ (i.e. neo-liberal) political constituency is now being encouraged to adopt is not that global warming is a myth but that geo-engineering (including the sunscreen project) is GOOD.
So you will have to find a way of making the transition from your present position that it is non-existent and/or criminal.
This is the point I was trying to make with Feelin Kocky. And with PHX Pilot and Eric. It was to get this point that I encouraged you to come to CTC. And it was because Sore Throat wasn’t interested in this approach that the arguments started that resulted in the dissolution of the Council at CTC.
And now Sore Throat is introducing the information himself that leads to the same point.
Do you get it? Or do you want to keep arguing about global warming?
|
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
|
Thu Jan 08, 2004 7:42 pm
|
|
|
Halva states:
"And it was because Sore Throat wasn’t interested in this approach that the arguments started that resulted in the dissolution of the Council at CTC.
And now Sore Throat is introducing the information himself that leads to the same point."
*********************************************
As I have said before, I will not discuss Council issues in a public forum.
I will point out that you are wrong on two counts Halva. I did not resign from the council because of your invitation to SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra to join discussions here...
nor is there anything new in my approach to this issue. As I have stated before, I have been involved with this topic for over four years, long before you hit the scene.
You want answers? ...
Look in the mirror.
I will not post further on this thread as I believe that the term "Global Warming" is a gross over simplification of the climate change we are experiencing, and supporting such a limited view concept only feeds those who like to point out that there are actually a few places on earth that are experiencing a downward trend in temperature...
AS IF THAT IN ANY WAY NEGATES THE REALITY OF ACCELERATING CLIMATE CHANGE! |
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:25 pm
|
|
|
quote:
I will not post further on this thread as I believe that the term "Global Warming" is a gross over simplification of the climate change we are experiencing, and supporting such a limited view concept only feeds those who like to point out that there are actually a few places on earth that are experiencing a downward trend in temperature...
I have heard cheap excuses before, but this is THE CHEAPEST I've heard for trhowing the towell in!
As evidence is mounting regarding the warming perceived is NATURAL, that the Sun is the MAJOR contributor to the change, and that there will start a strong cooling by about 2017, then Sore is calling his kite down. Winds are getting too strong, isn't it?
quote:
AS IF THAT IN ANY WAY NEGATES THE REALITY OF ACCELERATING CLIMATE CHANGE!
It denies the ACCELERATING" climate change. Of course there is no accelerating climate change! Most of these 200 years long records show there is almost no change in both senses, upward or downward.
There is a change, of course, because CHANGE is the CLIMATIC RULE. Climate has never been the same for long periods, and trying to deny this is, well, you know: TOTAL IGNORANCE.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Edufer on 01-08-2004] |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
|
Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:45 am
|
|
|
Well, you pulled me in for one more parting post Eduardo...
On page 11 of the "Global Warming" thread, SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra presents data on the temperature history from Adelaide in Southern Australia (presumably from land-based thermometers)which indicate a slight cooling trend over time.
While this Cherry Picked data may be true, it does not in anyway eliminate the reality of much larger warming trends over a far greater percentage of the planet.
Decide for yourself. This is a classic example of how SEÑOR Ferreyra uses data to mislead.
The climate of 2002
"The global average surface temperature in the year 2002 was approximately 0.8 °C above the average temperature at the end of the 19th century, making it the second warmest year in the 142-year global instrumental temperature record. The average land temperature was almost 1.2 °C above that at the end of the 19th century. In addition to the underlying warming trend due to greenhouse gas increases, 2002 reflected additional warming from a moderate El Nino event in the Pacific."
"These results were derived from air temperature records from more than 1,000 land-based weather stations and sea-surface temperature measurements taken from 8,000 ships and buoys. Values up to the year 2000 are combined into a global mean using the statistical technique of ‘optimal averaging’."
"The spatial pattern of temperature change for the year 2002, expressed relative to the end of the 19th century, shows warmer than usual conditions across most of the globe, with Eurasia and a sizeable part of the Indian Ocean being particularly warm. However, parts of the north-east Pacific, Canada, southern South America and parts of Australia were cooler than the reference period.
Difference in temperature (°C) between 2002 and the end of the 19th century. Positive values indicate where 2002 was warmer than the reference period."
From:
Climate change observations and predictions:
Recent research on climate change science from the Hadley Centre, December 2003
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2003/global.pdf
Please refer to image 3 of this report, "Difference in temperature between 2002 and the end of the 19th century" in the original PDF file. It is clear from the data presented in this report that there are far fewer areas of the planet that have decreased in temperature (blue) than those which have increased.
If one were to selectively present data FROM JUST THOSE LOCATIONS THAT SHOWED COOLING, a very distorted picture of planetary climate change would be presumed.
It would not, however, be truthful.
We must once again question SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra's motivation for the pro-industry slant that he displays in all of his presentations and analysis of data.
We have already seen that many of those "scientists" he chooses to cite are funded by big oil and power companies.
Not surprising.
What also is not surprising is that Eduardo has chosen not to post on the "Anthropogenic Induced Climate Instability" thread that I created as a follow on to "Gloabl Warming" long before Thermit created "Global Warming II".
Eduardo states: "As evidence is mounting regarding the warming perceived is NATURAL, that the Sun is the MAJOR contributor to the change, and that there will start a strong cooling by about 2017".
Amazing the crystal ball he has...and the fact that he chooses to ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists addressing this issue....choosing, as always, to highlight those few outliers.
There will always be contrarians...and we know that some are very highly paid to take such a position.
In any event, I am hardly "trhowing (sic)the towell (sic) in"... in fact, I've been quite productive lately on several matters that apparently Eduardo is incapable of addressing intelligently.
My climate instability posts will continue on the appropriately named thread.
Eduardo can use this one to promote his isolated and discredited propaganda.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 01-09-2004] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3130
Location: Texas |
|
Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:44 am
|
|
|
SoreThroat, sorry that I didn't get to your request to direct the old warming thread to the new thread you created instead of this one. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 511
Location: Greece |
|
Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:55 am
|
|
|
Edufer, Sore Throat may have withdrawn from this thread, but I am still here if you want to answer the questions I asked you. |
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:14 am
|
|
|
quote:
Please refer to image 3 of this report, "Difference in temperature between 2002 and the end of the 19th century" in the original PDF file. It is clear from the data presented in this report that there are far fewer areas of the planet that have decreased in temperature (blue) than those which have increased.
Please also note that the color used to show cooling temperatures below -1,5º C and -3º C, is undistinguishable from the warming temperatures +2 to +3º C, giving the visual impression that the vast majority of the world has warmed violently. See the graph:
When corrected for that visual imprecision, the color for -1.5º C cooling is pale yellow, and a different visual impression is obtained – a real one this time, even for a chart made of all those thousands of surface stations suffering from urban heat island effect.
Now see what it would look like a graph taken from the same Hadley Center report, and eliminating the visual effect of significant warming when the color for 0ºC change to 0.5ºC is colored light cream, and 0.5 to 1.0ºC is colored white. See the color bar at the bottom. As usual, this is an automatic action performed by a paint program that replaces one color in the overall image with another. (A “registry” change).
I have shown before in this board the way in which graphs and charts are composed with color scales designed in such a way as to give a “visual impression of Earth on Fire”, as the following one:
And the corrected one which show no significant warming:
quote:
If one were to selectively present data FROM JUST THOSE LOCATIONS THAT SHOWED COOLING, a very distorted picture of planetary climate change would be presumed.
It would not, however, be truthful.
Indeed, as it is untruthful to provide graphs colored in a misleading way, using surface temperatures that gives an average higher temperature of 2ºC-3ºC.
quote:
We must once again question SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra's motivation for the pro-industry slant that he displays in all of his presentations and analysis of data.
We have already seen that many of those "scientists" he chooses to cite are funded by big oil and power companies.
Not surprising.
What's not surprising is that you accuse me of being pro-industry, when I have never mentioned the industry or anything related to it as my motive for challenging the absurd Catastrophic Global Warming theory pushed by the IPCC. My motives are purely scientific and ethical, as I cannot accept the scientific fraud that is being perpetrated on all of us.
And must I remind you, once more, that the Pew Center for Climate Change, one of the big supporters of the IPCC and all its baloney, is an industry-front group funded by the Pew family's fortune derived from owning the Sun Oil Company? And that until its demise, ENRON was funding the Pew Center for Climate change.
The industry funds one side and the other, so your arguments are based on the industries you like or dislike. If they fund you, they are GOOD, if not, they are VILE!
Sometimes you get more obnoxious than usual.
quote:
What also is not surprising is that Eduardo has chosen not to post on the "Anthropogenic Induced Climate Instability" thread that I created as a follow on to "Gloabl Warming" long before Thermit created "Global Warming II".
Had you ever told me you had started a new thread on "Gloabl (sic) Warming" (you see I can also make fun with your typos) I would have at least taken a look. On the other hand, you did not invite me to post there, and I have to think about it before entering a thread on such a minor subject as “climate instability” – a semantic twist for “Global Warming,” or “Global Cooling”...
quote:
Eduardo states: "As evidence is mounting regarding the warming perceived is NATURAL, that the Sun is the MAJOR contributor to the change, and that there will start a strong cooling by about 2017".
Amazing the crystal ball he has...
SOLAR WIND NEAR EARTH: INDICATOR OF VARIATIONS IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
by Theodor Landscheidt (the complete scientific paper in this link)
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity,
Proceedings of 1st Solar & Space Weather Euroconference, 'The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate',
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Tenerife, Spain, 25-29 September 2000 (ESA SP-463, December 2000)
Long-range forecast of global temperature
The presented results suggest that future change in global temperature may be read from the leading aa data. Fig. 4 shows the repeatedly smoothed yearly global land and sea surface temperature anomalies and aa values after 1985. Around 1990 the aa curve reached the highest maximum since the beginning of the record in 1868. This aa maximum is marked by the number 7. Allowing for a lag of 8 years, the corresponding maximum 7 of global temperature could have occurred in 1998 with the highest temperature measured since the establishment of regular meteorological services.
After 1990 the aa data show a steep decline that is still continuing though the current sunspot cycle has reached its maximum. In the context presented here, this points to global cooling during the decade after temperature maximum 7.
Figure 4. Extension of the data in Fig. 3. The aa curve reaches its highest maximum, marked by number 7, around 1990. After 1990 the aa data show a steep decline. Allowing for a lag of 8 years, a maximum in the curve of global temperature could have occurred around 1998. This was the year with the highest temperature observed since the establishment of intemational meteorological services. In 1999 the temperature was considerably lower, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. This relationship points to global cooling for at least 10 years.
Actually the global temperature in 1999 was much lower than in 1998, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. Satellites observed negative anomalies. As the investigated relationship seems to be solid, we should see falling temperatures at least during the next ten years. The decline in the aa curve after maximum 7 is steeper than after maximum 5. So global temperature should fall at a faster rate than after temperature maximum 5.
Anthropogenic CO2 contributions should not be an obstacle to such decrease, as temperatures were falling from the early sixties through the early seventies in spite of the fast rise of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The increase in surface temperature from 1910 to 1940 was steeper and smoother than in the current warming phase though the rate of anthropogenic emissions at that time was only 10% of the present rate. In view of insufficient data, lacking knowledge of complex feedback processes in the climate system, and controversial hypotheses the outcome of the forecast experiment should contribute to answering the question to which degree solar activity and human greenhouse gas contributions force global temperature.
My next post will introduce you to the fascinating world of Solar activity and the scientific prediction of the next two Gleissberg Minima by 2030. Where should I post it? In this Global Warming thread - or in your new "Gloabl (sic) Climate Instability" thread? Please provide me with the link.
------------------
<font color=cyan>Be very, very careful what you put into that head,
because you will never, ever get it out.
------- Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1471-1530)</font> |
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:21 am
|
|
|
Double post. sorry!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Edufer on 01-09-2004] |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 511
Location: Greece |
|
Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:16 am
|
|
|
Double post for the man leaving the thread. No post for the man not leaving the thread. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: x |
|
Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:33 pm
|
|
|
Eduardo,
Please excuse my oversight for not formally inviting you to post on the thread, Anthropogenic Induced Climate Instability.
Please follow this link:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000094.html
You will find this to be a continuation of the "Global Warming" thread that was started by Halva, but which you and I eventually saturated with our posts.
The new thread takes off where we last left off...you remember, when you stated that:
"As these crystals are found only in stratospheric polar clouds (sic), and these clouds are not found elsewhere outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex, their conclusions (and worse yet, their recommendations to politics to ban CFCs!) were an outright lie."
It goes on to provide numerous references to support the increasing occurance of these clouds in the northern hemisphere, ozone depletion at mid-latitudes, etc.
There is a very good recent article on Climate Change from Chemical and Engineering News as well as a discussion of the role of soot in climate change.
Here's a teaser:
You know where to find me.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 01-10-2004] |
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:11 pm
|
|
|
Halva: I wanted to reply your question after a good night sleep. It was too late here.
quote:
Edufer, is this cooling an effect of geo-engineering?
of course not. The cooling has been going on since a much longer time than these alleged geo-engineering practices were started. You have not grasped yet the basic idea that warming or cooling are natural phenomena, and man has only been able to alter the environment in a very limited local or regional scale.
quote:
you will get the message that the story that your ‘conservative’ (i.e. neo-liberal) political constituency is now being encouraged to adopt is not that global warming is a myth but that geo-engineering (including the sunscreen project) is GOOD.
So you will have to find a way of making the transition from your present position that it is non-existent and/or criminal.
I see now why Sore Throat is hard on you. You are hallucinating, and should ease on pot. Firstly, I am not conservative at all – and much less neo-liberal – as in science there are not (or shouldn’t be) political bias. Science is just what the word implies: knowledge. When you mix science with politics, you get Malthus, Lysenko, Ehrlich, Lester Brown, S. Schneider, Rowland and Molina, the IPCC, the NAS, WMO, etc.
I have not a “political constituency” that has to adopt to any different theory than this: “Global Warming”, “Climate Instability”, or whatever you want to call it, is a SCIENTIFIC FRAUD, among many other frauds that have already been perpetrated in the field of eco-business, as DDT ban, ozone layer, depletion, acid rain, chief Seattle, dioxins, PCBs, CFCs, asbestos, and thousands more.
I have to make no transition from my present position, as the catastrophic warming is inexistent, and will keep being inexistent. And the only criminal thing in the whole matter is the pretension of implementing a Treaty that will send the third world’s economy to hell, in benefit of just the same old seven smart guys. That’s called neo-liberalism, neo-colonialism and neo-piracy. The return of the Gun Boat Policy of the late 1880s, once again by the British and Europeans.
I will post here a paragraph of an email an American reader (vorlon007@sbcglobal.net> sent to our website inbox. You can see why there are some strange feelings in the rest of the world towards the USA:
We laughed at a party the other night about how much it costs to maintain people like us in our current lifestyle. Why, for each one of us - I live in Beverly Hills, California, USA - it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to prop us up - enough for dozens of poor people to live really well - but then that's their bad luck for being poor. What got me going with your web site was how anti-environmentalist it was, yet you proposed nothing to counter your allegations. I gather from your web address that you don't live in the United States, which means I am obliged to tell you - we will continue to live like Gods here and you, wherever you are, will continue to be poor or, at very best, a very distant second to us.
See what I mean? See what neo-liberalism is all about? Continuing to live like Gods.
|
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 511
Location: Greece |
|
Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:38 pm
|
|
|
Well, I'm not a scientist. I just follow what's happening politically, and I see that the viewpoint that global warming is not occurring is becoming marginalised and its place within the same mainstream (or rather mainstream American, and even moreso mainstream European) political constituency) is being taken over by the geoengineers.
I think you're going to get lonely.
The Guardian-Observer-BBC has started a limited hangout on geoengineering/chemtrails and Greenpeace is being radicalised under the pressure of the geoengineering incursion into the ecological milieu.
We've started a discussion on all this at:
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&num=1073367108&action=display&start=0
It is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the chemtrails controversy whether global warming is a myth or not. Our key political opponents are more and more assuming that it is not, so we don't have to argue about that particular issue with them.
All the rest about smoking pot etc. is crap. I am a fifty-five-year old married man with a suburban lifestyle.
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
