So how did Plimer calculate his 440 ppm? Because nobody else except him claims this. If you look online you can only find websites citing his outrageous claim, but no other scientists have deduced this number.
Global warming hoax fools millions
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
So how did Plimer calculate his 440 ppm? Because nobody else except him claims this. If you look online you can only find websites citing his outrageous claim, but no other scientists have deduced this number.
Where be the hurricanes? Al Gore insisted that global warming would bring more and bigger hurricanes. Remember? Well, where are they? To hear Al tell it, the world was going to end by now. After Katrina Al and his band of loons warned of year after year of hurricanes, BIG hurricanes, and lot's of them. So 2006 came and went with no storms of substance. 2007, 2008, 2009 and it looks like 2010 are a bust as well. Damn weather just won't cooperate with the leftist agenda. Fear not, when the next one hits, Al and company will act as if Katrina happened the week before.
"Chan and Liu (2004) argue that current models are not yet sufficiently good for addressing the question regarding global warming and typhoons (A typhoon is technically the same as a hurricane, the difference being that they form over the western Pacific or the Indean Ocean). But the GFDL study is based on a state-of-the-art high-resolution model that is more appropriate for hurricane studies and provides important evidence suggesting that climate change may have an effect on the TCs. Chan and Liu (2004) point to a lack of positive correlation between SSTs in the western part of the tropical pacific and the typhoon activity in the western North Pacific. They argue that the typhoon activity is related to El Ninos and that higher moist static energy provides conditions favourable for TCs. The atmospheric flow will also have an influence, as strong vertical wind shear can inhibit cyclogenesis (spawning of cyclones). I will not draw their analysis into doubt other than that I believed that they incorrectly framed the question. Therefore, I believe that there could be a different interpretation of their results. The SSTs they examined were from the âwarm poolâ â the region with the highest temperatures in the world (~30degC) and well above the critical threshold of ~27 degC. SSTs in this region are not strongly positively correlated with ENSO. However, the region of high temperatures expands into central and eastern parts of the tropical Pacific during an El Nino resulting in an increased area of SST higher than the critical threshold value, and this aspect is in my opinion crucial to the interpretation. The tropical Typhoon frequency may be sensitive to the area with high SST (above ~27deg C). The clear seasonality in TCs (âhurricane seasonâ) with highest activities during the summer is one of the strongest pieces of empirical evidence that higher temperatures give more favourable conditions for tropical cyclones (After all, TCs only form in the warm tropicsâ¦).
"One argument is as follows: as the globe warms, the area with high temperatures will increase, increasing the area on which tropical cyclones can spawn. However, climate model studies differ in their account on the tends in TC frequencies. Iâm not aware of of any study which correlates the TC activity with the area of high temperatures, but such an analysis would perhaps be more appropriate than just correlating with the SST within one specific region. The notion of more intense TCs with higher temperatures is nevertheless supported by model studies from GFDL.
And I'll quote this to you:
In 1993, eight years after the first publication of the Siple curve, glaciologists attempted to prove the age assumption experimentally (Schwander et al. 1993), but they failed (Jaworowski 1994). A similar manipulation of data was applied also to ice cores from other polar sites, to make the âCO2 hockey stick curvesâ covering the past 1,000 and even 400,000 years (IPCC 2001; Wolff 2003).
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2008/Z_J_Climate_Report.pdf
In 1993, eight years after the first publication of the Siple curve, glaciologists attempted to prove the age assumption experimentally (Schwander et al. 1993), but they failed (Jaworowski 1994). A similar manipulation of data was applied also to ice cores from other polar sites, to make the âCO2 hockey stick curvesâ covering the past 1,000 and even 400,000 years (IPCC 2001; Wolff 2003).
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2008/Z_J_Climate_Report.pdf
Bullshit.
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified âSiple curveâ, but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the âhockey curveâ of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion âclimaticâ dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified âSiple curveâ, but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the âhockey curveâ of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion âclimaticâ dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
If you did watch your own video you clearly did not understand it. The very reason he discussed isotope concentrations is because that verifies the man-made CO2. And, as he pointed out, warming does drive CO2 as you state, however CO2 also causes warming.
Do you need me to re-watch the video and type in quotes from him because you're too lazy to watch and understand the very video you posted?
So potential errors of 20, 30 or even 50 years in each core, over 4000 years, means we should disregard the evidence, even though multiple cores from multiple sites are verifying the same trend and even verifying current Mauna Loa and antarctic measurements. We're supposed to ignore the fact that they verify against current measurements, not subtract the various error rates in gas accumulation and pretend the trends don't verify against each other.
No thanks. That would just be profoundly, autistically stupid.