Slashdot Mirror

"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it." - Pierre Gallois

And here come the 'yeah, but-ers' regurgitating helpfully-provided and memorized talking points trying to make themselves sound virtuous, concerned and oh-so much more aware of the pending catastrophe that WE ALL MUST BELIEVE IN. Oh - and by the way, keep those government grants and subsidies coming.

" If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it. " - Pierre Gallois

Without funding, how would we know that climate change causes truffle shortages and violence in Darfur ?

Global warming, it causes everything else right?

All it requires is: the state must publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm

oh, thats all? Complete list of things that give you cancer (according to epidemiologists) [...]hepatitis B virus[...]

The idea of a product being sold which must bear a label stating "this product contains the virus Hepatitis B, which is known to the state of California to cause cancer" amuses me greatly.

All it requires is: the state must publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm

oh, thats all?

Complete list of things that give you cancer (according to epidemiologists)

Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, brooms, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, candles, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, hot tea, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, Vatican radio masts, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.

I've noticed that every time somewhere in the US or Europe experiences a bit of cold weather for the season, comments sections all around the internet are filled with people proclaiming this proves climate change is a fraud.

Media and various "scientific literates: "
Weather was warm - global warming
Weather cold - global warming
We had tornado's - global warming
A hurricane hit the NE coast - global warming
Drought in central US - global warming
Forest fires in Canada - global warming
Unseasonably warm spring - global warming
Unseasonably wet spring - global warming
Unseasonably cold spring - global warming
Regular spring - global warming
Snowfall in October - global warming
Blizzard in December - global warming
Water in reservoirs low - global warming
Water high in reservoirs - global warming
Higher than average cloud cover - global warming
War in the middle east - global warming
War in Balkans - global warming

In the end, global warming causes everything.

Here is the list.

Would that be like the no more snow in the UK, or there won't be any glaciers in the Himalayas? Or they'll all be gone in Greenland in the next 10 years(as said in 2000ish). Don't worry I'm sure it can be blamed on everything.

about the lunacy of flying turbines has been discussed in several articles by John Brignell over the course of many years. Here is one of them. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/c...

Compared to cars planes are perfectly safe. If you look at the km column on this list you can see that they are far safer per km.
The problem is just that a planecrash is newsworthy and a carcrash isn't. You would hear of a planecrash across the country, but a carcrash will only be in a local paper unless it's a celebrity. If it was deemed newsworthy the papers would be filled with only crashreports for cars, for there are many each day.

Note: the data on the referenced site may be pulled out of the ass of the author. However there are many such statistics and they all say pretty much the same thing. JFGI.

It's not hard to see the utter nonsense behind the whole "global warming" farce with stuff like this:

List of Things Caused by "Global Warming"

'Turbulence' not previously noted on the list.

Apparently not

1. Use Thorotrast.
2. People get cancer and die.

This does bring up the question, what rate of cancer are we talking about?

"It causes cancer" isnt a valid argument for anything considering that damn near everything causes cancer.

We still give people X-Rays, right?

Funny, I hear a lot less end-of-the-world rhetoric than I hear accusations of end-of-the-world rhetoric.

Really? I mean, there's at least one list that I can think of off the top of my head. Never mind the on-going hysteria and end of the world rhetoric that we've been hearing for the last 25 years.

There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help (see that infamous 10/10 video).

See
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html
2. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (lots of examples of ridiculous alarmism)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

Now, let me make myself clear: AGW is probably real and it makes sense to work against it. Still, the end is NOT nigh, and there is no reason for authoritarian measures such as reducing human population or severely crippling the economy.
The market is already moving in the right direction. If we want to accelerate it, then some slight subsidy for renewable coupled with some slight overtaxing of oil/coal is enough.

Big Oil has spent vast amounts of money on studies trying to find some support for their assertions, the same assertions you share. Only, now even Big Oil is admitting that AGW is a real thing. Now, they're only arguing that it is not as serious as it is made out to be. As a predictable next step, they will announce that no, we're actually all screwed

I agree with much of what you said (except with your rudeness), but I have two objections:
1.) There is no sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy. Yes, they funded many studies. But people with an environmental bias have oodles of money too. Don't present the situation as "a vast powerful Big Oil conspiracy against powerless honest scientists". It is not.
2) We are not screwed. As TFA explains, we are in the right direction. The price of solar power is collapsing, and wind is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.

If the government still thinks the market is moving too slowly, I can accept some gentle intervention (by slightly subsidizing renewables and slightly overtaxing oil and coal, for example). But the proposals to reduce human population, cripple the economy, or create an oppressive UN environmental agency to erode national sovereignty, are all unthinkable.

See

1. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (an example of the severe climate alarmism)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

The end is NOT nigh.

The grandparent may have shot from the hip, but his main point stands.

There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help.

And as TFA explains, all this alarmism, lies and hatred are for nothing. The price of solar power is collapsing, and wind is going down too. It is predicted half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.

If the government still thinks the market is moving too slowly, I can accept some light intervention (by slightly subsidizing renewables and slightly overtaxing oil and coal, for example). But reducing human population, crippling the economy, or creating an oppressive UN environmental agency to erode national sovereignty, are all unthinkable.

See
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html
2. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
3. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058296/1010-who-are-you-going-to-kill-to-help-save-the-planet/
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

Done. Not only are there links, but the sources are in the links.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Flying is safer by distance; but driving (a car) is safer by trip.

In case it matters (shouldn't unless you're doing this for your job), flying is safer by hours.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm

Surely this is just another consequence of global warming! Just add it to the list http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

The complete list of things that give you cancer:

Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, brooms, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, candles, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, hot tea, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, Vatican radio masts, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.


"not having a twin", "kissing", and "under-arm shaving" are notable.

Bird weight loss? That's not in the list.

Universally is a strong word. Any evidence for global warming comes with the same amount of evidence against it.

In this article we have people claiming its Global warming causing it, which is said without proof once again...but if we listen to Dr Mörner who has studied ocean levels for 40 years...there is no measurable increase in sea level, and he is an expert in his field...not one person who wrote the Nobel winning report was an expert in sea-level change and yet they make all sorts of claims on being experts on that..

Here is a nice list of everything global warming "causes" as said by the media and scientists:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

If you want to discuss more: lets discuss NASA data being stacked:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

As you can tell station data has gone down in last few years, and if you plot it against temperature rise, you get a very obvious trend:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

That tells the story of how bad the NASA datasets are which are one of the main data-sets used in AGW Debate..or we can just get it straight from NASA/..

James Hansen’s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today weather editor:

“My recommendation to you is to continue using CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”

So in other words the NASA data is worse then the data that was doctored purposely by CRU

There is a debate whether you want to bury your head in the sand or not, because the data does not point to ONE thing causing current warming, assuming there is warming considering how much of the data is suspect currently....

And even assuming today's trend is warming, there is debate on the ocean causing a majority of it... Or solar cycles...the science of the climate is far from settled, we have just now scratched the surface...

As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...

Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

How much does 40,000 feet of cable weigh?

Go to the top of the class !

This was briefly discussed in Number Watch a few years ago.

I looked at that site and I am unimpressed. The guy doesn't give any numbers (despite calling his site "numberwatch"), his only argument is that _he_ can't imagine it working because he can't build it with his engineering skills - without even knowing details of the plan. That is exactly the sort of useless whinging that this thread is about.

Looking at the rest of the site, it seems to be the work of an unhinged libertarian-turned-global-warming-denier who thinks he is much smarter than everybody else, obviously (gems like "there is no scientific theory linking carbon dioxide to the runaway global warming that is the basis of the calamitous predictions" are typical).

How much does 40,000 feet of cable weigh?

Go to the top of the class !

This was briefly discussed in Number Watch a few years ago.

As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.

Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.

Plus we only have kept these records for about 110 years. That is hardly enough time to see a trend on the scale of the existence of the earth.

As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.

Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.

Well, oddly enough this cuts both ways: where are the record lows? If climate didn't change, there should also be new record lows. And no, counting 2008 because it was the coldest in the 21st century doesn't count - start 100 years ago.

As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.

Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.

"Common anti-environmentalist talking point, and pretty much completely made up. A single unsubstantiated claim by some reporter in the '70s was dug up and seized on as the opinion of every climate scientist at the time''.
A straw man, nothing more..."

Well, I was 20 at the time. I vividly remember the scare stories in all the newspapers. As well as the Nat. Geog. referenced before, here is a reference for a 'Time' front-page article of the time - http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf

The US RAND corporation poured a lot of money into investigating countermeasures - dusting soot on the ice caps was one, creating a huge lake in Central Africa was another, as was a giant underwater dam which would divert the Gulf Stream. There were scientific conferences of all kinds, and I still remember being told, with a kind of shock, that current (1970s) belief was that Ice Ages could happen very suddenly - one winter the snow falls, and it just doesn't go away in the summer...

So, yes, there was a huge scare then, backed up by science papers and supported by government funding. It was less pervasive than today, because government was less pervasive. But you will find a Wiki entry claiming that there was no scare, and that's pretty good evidence that there was! Compare with the Wiki for the Medieval Warm Period, which still says it didn't happen. The same Global Warming Alarmists are at work.....!

The Warmlist has already been updated with this new information.

The article is very light on details, but it is just today's 'Everybody panic' story about global warming (climate change, or whatever). He is full of it. He says it 'may' cause a drop in barley production in au in the next 30 years. Oh crap. As if droughts and floods never happened before the ICE.

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

You just hit all the standard talking points, don't you? Show me that this theory was anything other than a footnote (as opposed to a broadly held consensus view).

Well here is a newsweek article from 1975 which states that global cooling is(was) coming:http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf

Does it matter what the scientific consensus was in 1975 if the public was made to believe a certain view based on "scientific evidence"? No, the only thing that matters is that global cooling was credited as legit in the mainstream press, albeit it's not the wide spread panic / money making machine that global warming is today.

So that's where the skepticism comes from. It's not baseless or a simple talking point, it's real history. Shocker, science has been wrong before and the public was made to believe the wrong thing. So that's where you get the skeptics from.

Honestly I don't understand why people so involved in science are outright angry at global warming skeptics. If anything they should embrace skepticism within their own work and prove with testable evidence that it actually is man made, instead of just calling someone a idiot in so many words because they don't believe.

Newsweek 1975:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf

Anytime a correlation approached 1 (like I need to tell this crowd), relavance of the subject approaches zero. In the Second hand smoke study (A meta study by the EPA), the correlation bounded 1 at the 95% confidence interval. This doesn't look very good for someone trying to say "Second hand smoke is bad". So what does the EPA do? They lower the confidence interval to 90%. Please check out Numberwatch for discussions of why 95% is a really bad number. Any number less is just plain FRAUD.

Even with the lower confidence interval (p value or poisson ratio inverted), the EPA was only able to show a Relative Risk (correlation) of 1.19. Everyone run for the hills.

Even First Hand smoke is a little dubious. As JEB at numbewatch puts it, saying that smoking causes cancer is like that fertilizer cause tomatoes to grow. Using the same statistics that make the CDC say that 400,000 people each year die prematurely from smoking, you can say that 200,000 people each year are saved by smoking. The calculation is fraudulent, irrelavent and insulting.

Mr. Brigness of Numberwatch would love to be on the payroll of any of those illustrious companies, but he just keeps fighting irrational numbers because he is ornery, not because he has a financial axe to grind. Actually he does, he just doesn't get to see the money flow into his coffers.

Remember the Global Warming industry is rolling to the tune of $2.5 Billion. But it doesn't matter if they have fiscal motivation for crying wolf.

This is a crowd of programmers. Don't we have people here who have experience dealing with non-linear coupled models. We did a project in Engineering to model a Cross-flow heat exchanger inside a building. The dynamics of X-Flow are moderately well understood. 20 students made 20 models we had 20 solutions with different outputs, no correlation whatsoever. The professor was stumped. He failed to recognize that when you start approximating Nusselt, Prandl, Russel, and several other factors, you are pretty much screwed especially when they are all hinged upon each other. That was in a contained system. One in which all boundary conditions have been specifically defined. Got news for the Global Circulation Modelers, they aint got that.

Anytime a correlation approached 1 (like I need to tell this crowd), relavance of the subject approaches zero. In the Second hand smoke study (A meta study by the EPA), the correlation bounded 1 at the 95% confidence interval. This doesn't look very good for someone trying to say "Second hand smoke is bad". So what does the EPA do? They lower the confidence interval to 90%. Please check out Numberwatch for discussions of why 95% is a really bad number. Any number less is just plain FRAUD.

Even with the lower confidence interval (p value or poisson ratio inverted), the EPA was only able to show a Relative Risk (correlation) of 1.19. Everyone run for the hills.

Even First Hand smoke is a little dubious. As JEB at numbewatch puts it, saying that smoking causes cancer is like that fertilizer cause tomatoes to grow. Using the same statistics that make the CDC say that 400,000 people each year die prematurely from smoking, you can say that 200,000 people each year are saved by smoking. The calculation is fraudulent, irrelavent and insulting.

Mr. Brigness of Numberwatch would love to be on the payroll of any of those illustrious companies, but he just keeps fighting irrational numbers because he is ornery, not because he has a financial axe to grind. Actually he does, he just doesn't get to see the money flow into his coffers.

Remember the Global Warming industry is rolling to the tune of $2.5 Billion. But it doesn't matter if they have fiscal motivation for crying wolf.

This is a crowd of programmers. Don't we have people here who have experience dealing with non-linear coupled models. We did a project in Engineering to model a Cross-flow heat exchanger inside a building. The dynamics of X-Flow are moderately well understood. 20 students made 20 models we had 20 solutions with different outputs, no correlation whatsoever. The professor was stumped. He failed to recognize that when you start approximating Nusselt, Prandl, Russel, and several other factors, you are pretty much screwed especially when they are all hinged upon each other. That was in a contained system. One in which all boundary conditions have been specifically defined. Got news for the Global Circulation Modelers, they aint got that.

Well, Britain for instance is behind on it's Kyoto goals, which has or will hurt its economy. On the other hand, check this page on Germany. Interesting, no?

Kyoto is unecessary, ineffective, and little more than a thinly veiled wealth redistribution scheme.

How much is hype and BS encouraged by the mass, liberal media? How much is hype on the other side by the oil companies? Fear and panic sells!

You should visit this site: http://www.junkscience.com/
Some of the graphs are very interesting -- http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_de sign.htm
which shows that if you include ALL the recorded data, some areas are getting cooler, but the graphs you typically see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/ show an increase.

You should read Crichton's book State of Fear -- it will make you really think about this in a new light: http://www.crichton-official.com/
You might actually begin to take a critical view of what you read in the press.

Also, you should read http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm -- what are they really measuring -- how are they cooking the numbers to mislead you (about most everything). Remember, bad press sells.... Death sells.... CNN had great ratings during the Gulf War. Many more watched the news following 9/11 and Katrina. Death and destruction and fear sell.

Is global warming real? There are many indicators that it is. But there are those that show some places are colder and that overall it is actually getting colder. We need more accurate data, more research, and more CRITICAL thinking, not mass fear and suppression -- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

numberwatch get with the maths, people...

Screwed up linky

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf

Look at any non skewed data set, in other wards something that doesn't alter the left hand side of the graph.

I think you will find that 1939 is tied for 3rd or fourth.

But regardless, at least one sorce can be found on the right hand side of this page http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf/

Also in that graph you will see a warming trend starting at about 1907, it is also a sudden acceleration in warming in that thirty year period.

Yes it is too soon to say the data is peaked, else there would be no reason for the Ruskie/Limey bet in the article, would there? I'm just siding with the Ruskies.

1998 got much of it's peak due to the El Nino of the century. Are you saying that el Ninos are caused by human emissions of CO2?

They aren't betting just on extrapolation. They have looked at the past variances, which include peaks and valleys, they have correlated this with solar output, and there seems to be a match, as such they are predicting a cooling trend, in line with this historical cycle that they have seen. They are not extrapolating from 2 or 3 years of variance.

As to lagging. Of course it does. You might want to research Water vapors part in global climate, and it's moderating effect. Just like CO2 it's warming influence is logarithmic. IN other words it's not 2XWV=2X warming. It diminishes as you reach maximum, then water vapor, like CO2, actually works against further warming.

While there are some isues with that graph, lets not examine those for a moment. Lets look at some of that data. A smaller portion of the whole.


If you will look at the date of ~1940 until ~1975. You will not something. The temperature during that time actually drops from a high in the late 30s until approximately the Oil Crisis of the 70s.


To give some context to this time. This period starts right about the time Hitler was invading Poland, and the entry of the world into WWII. During the beginning of this period, much of the world, including the US, was still agrarian. Few people owned cars, even fewer had ever ridden on an airplane. This is shortly after the rural electricification program ended, prior to this there were many people in the US who didn't have electricity or indoor toilets (In rural areas). As we entered WWII industry the world over soared, this was a period of the greatest increase in industrial output in all of Human history, dwarfing anything we have now. This continued throughout WWII, and then after (How are you going to keep them on the farm after they've seen gay Parie). It was during this time that two cars per household became common. People that had not flown on a plane were in the minority, not just here, but the world over. More importantly this wasn't the "efficient" and "clean" industry of today, recall the muscle cars of the 60's. Then energy efficiency wasn't even thought of. More importantly they didn't have the materials or technology to make efficient boilers or engines like we have today. It was during this period that we had the largest increase of greenhouse gasses.


And it was also during this time that the global climate dropped in temperature, enough so that Newsweek published the concerns of scientists that People were causing the problem of Global Cooling. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf/.


As to the graph. This is the surface temperature record. One of the serious weakness of AGW (that is often glossed over) is that based on "Greenhouse theory" The atmosphere warms, warming the surface. What we see from direct measurement is that the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, precluding that greenhouse warming is causing the surface temperature increase, and that a large portion of the heat increase can be attributed to larger land development, and the closeness of the sensors to developed areas, and less in rural, or in wilderness. And before someone posts any articles referencing the recent UAH MSU data that corrects for atmosphere warming by allowing for satellite drift. Keep in mind that that number, even in the most optimistic interpretations, still does not bring atmospheric warming up to the same level as surface temperatures, and based on greenhouse theory, atmospheric temperatures should be ~30% higher than surface. Even with the correction they are still below surface temperatures.

The trojan number (see Numberwatch for definition) 1.1 Million begs several questions:

1. How many people died?

There were 1.1 Million people in the study, but in order to determine the increased morbidity, someone had to die.

2. How were the sleep habits of 1.1 million people evaluated?

I am fairly confident that they weren't watched every night be researchers. Most likely the sleep habits were self reported. As other sleep studies have shown in the past, self reporting of sleep habits are far from accurate. People who think they get no sleep often get the most, while those that think they get lots of sleep sometimes get the least.

3. Did they actually interview 1.1 Million people?

That is a lot of people or did they data dredge these people out of multiple studies.

15 percent means a correlation of 1.15.

Unless the increased risk exceeds 100%, you needn't worry. Fact is until it gets to 200% the correlation is pretty suspect. Even then chance is still likely to be the cause.

At 15% the researchers should be shot for reporting a connection.

tnt

brad