Global Waming Scam Exposed As A Sham

[Little Fish]

Lets look at a graphwhich tells us something useful about the change in outgoing longwave radiation over the period 1975 to 1997;

http://blogs.shell.c...ory/antarctica/

we are only interested in co2, so we can ignore methane, cfcs and ozone, that leaves you with the red circle on the left.

the comparison are a few years of data from 1969-71 with 1996-97. too few data given the OLR has wide variance year to year.

also the measurements are from 2 different satellites. your data is too shaky to be meaningful. what you've effectively done is cherry picked 2 data points from a large varying dataset to create a downwards line. if i was a fear mongering religious anti-science terrorist doomsday cultist, i'd call you a liar, but i'm not.

why use that graph when you could have displayed the OLR measurements over time.

[AsteroidX]

Its a climate change report from Shell gas company. What do you expect the "findings" to look like. Try again from a non biased source Little Fish.

re: David Hone and what he says about himself.

I have always worked in the energy sector and have had a long-term interest in environmental issues. My earliest experience in this area was through an article in our school science magazine on the destruction of the ozone layer. I combine my work as a climate change adviser for Shell, with my responsibilities as Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). I also work closely with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and have been a lead contributor to many of its recent energy and climate change publications. The most recent of these discusses the role of a carbon price in an economy.

After graduating as a chemical engineer, I started my working life as a refinery engineer in Australia during another period of very high oil prices when energy efficiency was paramount. I then spent a period in the Netherlands, before returning to Australia to become involved with another side of the oil industry, energy economics and supply. This led to a move to London as an oil trader for Shell followed by a time managing the global trading and chartering of Shell’s crude oil tanker fleet. In 2001 I took up my current role and haven’t looked back since.

[Little Fish]

Its a climate change report from Shell gas company. What do you expect the "findings" to look like. Try again from a non biased source Little Fish

pay attention. i did not provide that link.

[AsteroidX]

We stopped putting chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere in 1978. To not expect a dip in Global Warming would be ludicrous as thats why they were banned. We have by no means solved the problem.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blhairspraydamage.htm

The ozone layer hole continues to expand.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

and the projected future by NASA is poor for improvement for decades still going forward.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects

[Little Fish]

"We stopped putting chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere in 1978. To not expect a dip in Global Warming would be ludicrous as thats why they were banned."

i think you have that backwards, CFCs were banned because of their alleged destruction of ozone. ozone is a GHG (~5%), so a reduction in CFCs should theoretically cause global warming as ozone recovers.

"and the projected future by NASA is poor for improvement for decades still going forward."

the usual "lions, tigers and bears, oh my!" stuff. look closely at the detail, the attribution to mankind is largely assumed and not based on sound science.

[AsteroidX]

i think you have that backwards, CFCs were banned because of their alleged destruction of ozone. ozone is a GHG (~5%), so a reduction in CFCs should theoretically cause global warming as ozone recovers.

So a healthy ozone layer is a bad thing. WoW. ok.. There is no Lions Tigers and Bears causing it. Perhaps some dairy farms....But I cant think of any other animals causing global warming except perhaps the NYC Zoo.

Again you look at a single piece and pick at it instead of looking at the big picture.

Edited March 20, 2013 by AsteroidX

[Guest]

we are only interested in co2, so we can ignore methane, cfcs and ozone, that leaves you with the red circle on the left.

the comparison are a few years of data from 1969-71 with 1996-97. too few data given the OLR has wide variance year to year.

also the measurements are from 2 different satellites. your data is too shaky to be meaningful. what you've effectively done is cherry picked 2 data points from a large varying dataset to create a downwards line. if i was a fear mongering religious anti-science terrorist doomsday cultist, i'd call you a liar, but i'm not.

why use that graph when you could have displayed the OLR measurements over time.

Where did you get that strange idea from. Man has contributed many different greenhouse gases and caused many of the sinks of these gases into becoming sources.

As Astroid said - always looking at the tiny detail to ignore the big picture.

CFC's have caused a steady decline in atmosphereic CO3 which has only recently levelled off. It will be a considerable time before CO3 stops been a net cooling element and becomes a net warming element. Chlorinated compounds are another one of theose atmospheric gases with extreme potentency relative to their atmospheric concentration, and extremely long residence times.

PS- I will look at your OLR time series when I know how it was produced and by who

Br Cornelius

Edited March 20, 2013 by Guest

[Essan]

Maybe the thead title ought be changed? Something like "David Rose Scam Exposes as a Sham"?

This is the comment from my blog - with relevant links embedded:

And finally, David Rose - whom I've briefly criticised before and, er, once again in more detail - continues to reguritate the same lies and disinformation to the public, in direct contravention of the journalists' code of conduct: claiming once again that that there is no global warming. My friends at Skeptical Science have been on the case though, explaining somewhat more accurately how David Rose hides the rise in global warming, and Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer also wades in to point out that no, global warming has NOT stopped. See also scientists set straight the latest Mail on Sunday climate contortion. Well done guys. But sadly, when Rose steadfastly refuses to listen to what the Met Office tell him, I doubt anything we say will temper this religious zealot's fervour. All we can do is try and ensure the public are aware of his disingenous lies and that nothing he says can be trusted.

[danielost]

So this is all lies then? The information shown is not true? That's the trouble with this interminable Global Climate Change industry; everyone has their pet experts to say what they want them to say. One Expert says something, and then another flatly contradicts it. so is this not actually true and it is a lie? What is true? Who can we trust to tell us what is true? never mind trying to discredit anybody who doesn't say what you believe; If someone is a "has-been" or "sidelined", does that mean that they're lying?

Global climate change is just a campange to still money from the usa to give it to more deserving countries.

[Little Fish]

AsteroidX said

"So a healthy ozone layer is a bad thing."

i did not say a "healthy ozone is a bad thing", i said more ozone should theoretically produce more warming.

if you think warming is a "bad thing", then i'll ask the same as i did to another poster - how cold do you want to be?

"I cant think of any other animals causing global warming except perhaps the NYC Zoo."

so it has to be animals causing global warming and cooling?

"Again you look at a single piece and pick at it instead of looking at the big picture."

the "big picture" is derived from the details, if the details are incorrect, then the big picture is incorrect.

co2 alone is not enough to cause dangerous global warming. the climate model projections as shown in the OPs chart boost the co2 effect by assuming there is an amplifying feedback. all the evidence indicates there is a dampening feedback.

if you are worried about it, you don't have to wait for the government to take your money away, you can go directly to the federal reserve website right now and donate half your salary.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Little Fish

[AsteroidX]

"I cant think of any other animals causing global warming except perhaps the NYC Zoo."

so it has to be animals causing global warming and cooling?

Ya know a kiddin when ya see one right ? I like to maintain dialogue and a bit of humor is a good way to keep it on a agreeable level.

"So a healthy ozone layer is a bad thing."

i did not say a "healthy ozone is a bad thing", i said more ozone should theoretically produce more warming.

if you think warming is a "bad thing", then i'll ask the same as i did to another poster - how cold do you want to be?

I live in the PNW. We are getting warmer and drier. Its been noticable. I dont mind cold and wet.

"Again you look at a single piece and pick at it instead of looking at the big picture."

the "big picture" is derived from the details, if the details are incorrect, then the big picture is incorrect.

co2 alone is not enough to cause dangerous global warming. the climate model projections as shown in the OPs chart boost the co2 effect by assuming there is an amplifying feedback. all the evidence indicates there is a dampening feedback.

If we did a little less deforestation or hemp production it could offset a good deal of Co2 accumulation <--------DETAIL.... so I find that a hollow argument and again ask you to look at the big picture and for practical solutions to a perceived problem.

[Little Fish]

[Guest]

That crazy cherry picking of start dates and statistical analysis again. You tell them Little Fish, one day some fool might buy it

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

this is the chart from the leaked ipcc report due out soon.

do you think the ipcc are cherry picking?

[AsteroidX]

Yes IPCC are exactly the type of group I expect to not have Mother Earths interest first but the are the lapdogs to there Funding...Ala Big Corps and Banking. and all the other devils that control multinational agencies. Might as well have sent me to a UN sight. Oh my bad it is a UN agency.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Ill be right back with my bluehat

Edited March 20, 2013 by AsteroidX

[Little Fish]

Ill be right back with my bluehat

so, even the chart from the alarmist ipcc vindicates the graph in the original OP.

[AsteroidX]

The IPCC is anything but alarmist. There lapdogs. I ask again look at the whole picture of the health of our Mother Earth and tell me we dont have a problem.....I dare you.

[Doug1029]

That crazy cherry picking of start dates and statistical analysis again. You tell them Little Fish, one day some fool might buy it

Br Cornelius

It's not so much cherry-picking as it is the implication that a projection made 20 years ago with technology that was obsolete fifteen years ago is somehow relevant to today.

Doug

[AsteroidX]

I believe the early data were called "models" meaning educated guesses. 20 years is a bit of time. Can you predict the tech we will have 2o years from now or the changes we may be able to do if we are responsible with our planet and allow our brilliant engineers to further us into the 21st century instead of keeping the 20th century industrial age mentality.

[Little Fish]

The IPCC is anything but alarmist. There lapdogs. I ask again look at the whole picture of the health of our Mother Earth and tell me we dont have a problem.....I dare you.

any problems you might perceive are being exaggerated by the ipcc "consensus" and their climate models. the UN and their ipcc have an agenda and they are promoting and exaggerating global warming as a power grab to do away with national sovereignty and bring in a dictatorial global government to institute their agenda 21.

i just look at the science and currently find that it supports the skeptical side, not the alarmist side, meaning there is no evidence for dangerous climate change that warrants the expenditure and changes being proposed.

"I like to maintain dialogue and a bit of humor. I ask you to look at the big picture and for practical solutions to a perceived problem.

ok, as JFK said "ask not what your Canute-ary can do for you — ask what you can do for your Canute-ary"

[Doug1029]

So a healthy ozone layer is a bad thing. WoW. ok..

At high altitude we need an ozone layer. At the surface, ozone burns leaves and damges the ecosystem. It's where it is that makes the difference.

CFCs destroy ozone. The reaction is catalyzed by water ice. While CFCs are greenhouse gasses, in polar regions they create an ozone hole, causing local cooling. The ozone hole over Antarctica is the reason Antarctica, except for the Antarctic Peninsula, has barely warmed.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Yes IPCC are exactly the type of group I expect to not have Mother Earths interest first but the are the lapdogs to there Funding...Ala Big Corps and Banking.

Most IPCC climate scientists are funded by their respective governments and receive only browny points for their IPCC work (It looks good on a resume'.).

Doug

[AsteroidX]

The reaction is catalyzed by water ice. While CFCs are greenhouse gasses, in polar regions they create an ozone hole, causing local cooling. The ozone hole over Antarctica is the reason Antarctica, except for the Antarctic Peninsula, has barely warmed.

I have never heard this before.

I was looking over some of the data in this section and learned that the ozone hole is seasonal. Which I knew but now I know what seasons.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/SH.html

[AsteroidX]

Most IPCC climate scientists are funded by their respective governments

This does not convince me that they are not limited in there conclusions as to benefit said govmnts by the socio-economic part of there job when studying and reporting to the UN on the impact.

[Von Bismarck]

That crazy cherry picking of start dates and statistical analysis again. You tell them Little Fish, one day some fool might buy it

Br Cornelius

Could you please explain what the cherry picking here is?

What little fish has shown is the diffrent predicted models does not support the observed data. We both know that EVEN if this graph can't be validated, it is correct that all the climate models in the graph have not been able to predict what's been observed.

I think you "love game" with LF has made you blind to everything he presents

To me this graph looks correct.