Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

OT: Moorabal/Lal Lal wind farm 19-Jun-2009 At 5:53:39 PM R James

Message

>Show us the proof that current temperature increases can be solely explained
>by natural forcings?

I have to agree with TonyB that Mann's Hockey Stick was a complete stuff up. Anyone with climate knowledge, giving it a quick glance, can see that it drew a straight line through the known "little ice age" ( AD1400 - 1800 - when the Thames froze) and "medieval warm period" (AD800 - 1300. - when the Vikings colonized Greenland) http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

It's hard to believe that something so obviously wrong, and statistically incorrect could be published by the so called climate authority (IPCC). Of course, they dropped it at the first opportunity. I now have little confidence in the IPCC.

Here's an example of conflicting data today. Arctic ice today is reported by NSIDC to be at the same level as in 2007 http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png However, the Nansen Environment & Remote Sensing Center shows it to be well above 2007 level - in fact within 1 SD of the 1979 - 2007 average. http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

So which one do we believe? Both are published and updated every day, but one is clearly very wrong. I can tell you that the latter one recently switched satellites due to a fault, and re-worked their data for at least the past 6 months, causing big changes.
My point is that there's a lot of so called data out there that we can't rely on. (If you don't see this when you check, it could be corrected any day now, but I keep copies for reference)

Then there's last October when GISS published temperature data for October using September figures from Russia. Satellite data that doesn't agree with surface data

As for proof that current temperature increases are natural, I doubt that that can be proven any more than CO2 as a driver can be proven. No doubt CO2 has an effect, but so far nothing real indicates that it's significant. I can't get excited over an hypothesis that can't be backed up by real data. Even the "greenhouse signature" 10km above the Earth can't be found. This was supposed to be the data that proved the models right, but it's not there. Overall, the hypothesis doesn't seem to have much to support it, other than theory.

To top it off, this whole thing is driven my Al Gore who owns two companies set up to profit from trading carbon credits - perhaps a conflict of interests.