Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Russian scientist predicts global cooling

G'day Dan,

Actually the last study I saw actually indicated that if ALL glaciers were counted, then 70% of them in number and more than 70% in total volume were EXPANDING. Can't find the reference at the moment but will in a day or so when I'm a little more recoverd.

As to the Arctic and Antartic even NASA's Goddard Institute, not known for its conservative stance on global warming, acknowledges that the Antarctic total locked fresh water has been increasing over the last 30 years. The same is true for much of the Arctic.

So where is this land, since from the available information, Mr Timo P (who at least lives in an area where Global Cooling is something he/she would really understand) is perfectly correct.

Actually, quite aside from the Conveyer system, the collapse of the magnetic field of the sun back to around 12 billion kilometres, means sunspots should pretty much dissappear. The last time that happened the very harshest part of the three part LIA occurred. The collapse is due actually have an effect around October 8th (no not in 50 years, this year) and two independant studies I have reviewed both indicate that the quiet period will last more than 50 years.

It will be interesting just what excuses are going to be made for the cooling period that we go into next year and the year after and the year after(actually many parts of the world are experiencing monthly averages below par and the total world averages and trending down according to the satellites and the balloons). The GHCN set is not kept up to date enough to check if the SAT agrees just yet.

Personally, I prey that global warming due to CO2 is a fact, and as bad as the very worst modelling. It seems we will need it just to prevent another LIA. But since not a single model has managed to live up to its estimates, with all of them having to be scaled back even with the 1998 and 2005 stellar years (both simply explained by El Nino and Solar activity respectively, although they were pretty hot years none-the-less).

Nice to see you posting in the discussions on global warming again.


Regards


Richard

G'day Timo,

The figure for satellites is 0.04 C not 0.4 (that would be half the total estimated for global warming for a century). Remove 1998 or 2005 (one hot year does not make a trend) and you actually end up with a cooling trend, although still very slight.


Richard

RicS wrote:
"Actually the last study I saw ...."

And then actually you provided no reference to anything that could even with sufficient alcohol be construed as useful to determine the value of what you read.

While Nero fiddles ....

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106798&org=NSF
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/09/20/arcticroute_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20060920100030
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaiceminimum/20060816_arcticseaicenews.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-21-01.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001557.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/

The ice is really melting while you argue the emporer's clothes look simply grand.

G'day Dan,

And which one of those references was a STUDY? News articles are rather useless because they print conclusions, often unsupported by any facts at all. I did say that my view was unsupported and will find the reference to a study, not to news articles.

Actually I do not believe you have ever provided a link to a study in any arguments at all. You certainly get hot under the collar about anyone who disagrees with your view hence the: "...while you argue the emporer's clothes look rather grand" is insulting and unnecessary.

Different views DO NOT require sarcasm or put downs.

I will reply to you again when you quote a study. Not an extract. Certainly not an news article about what some scientist is quoted as saying or might have concluded in a study, but THE study.

And by the way, where is NASA, you are so fond of quoting. Go to their site and you will find references to studies that have shown increases in locked up water, especially the Antarctic. Is that why, perchange, you did not mention them?

And again I ask, just how is the colder periods that are now being experienced, and from the solar cycle studies now quite frequently being released, going to be explained by you? The only good thing about all of this is the solar cycles look like they are near enough so that someone isn't able to be stupid enough to attempt to reduce the "runaway global warming".


Richard

G'day Dan,

Thought I'd analyse your links to demonstrate whether they have any real value.

Link 1. News article
Title: "Arctic, Antarctic Melting May Raise Sea Levels Faster than Expected"
Speculation about what might happen. Modelling of future climate quoted.
Hard Science Value: Nil

Link 2. News article
Title: "Arctic, Antarctic Melting May Raise Sea Levels Faster than Expected" - sound familiar
Same speculation as above but on a different site.
Hard Science Value: Nil

Link 3. News article
Title: "Arctic Melt Exposes Polar Route"
Ice melted enough that ice breaker could reach north pole.
Has happened before. Is no indication in itself of anything. A bit like quoting the force of a hurricane and then speculating that hurricanes will get worse with global warming. But it is anecdotal evidence of a melting event. If there were a number of these, over a climate timeframe, then it may have value.
Hard Science Value: Nil.

Link 4. Observation Overview
Title: "Arctic Sea Ice News 2006"
Shows that the melt this year is between the average from 1979 (the start of when this was measured accurately by satellites) and the record 2005 melt.
Unfortunately, this tells only a two dimmensional story. The three dimensional story indicates that ice coverage has thickened in significant areas increasing the total locked ice according to NASA at least.
Hard Science Value: Actually reasonable, although only tells a small part of the picture.

Link 5. Environmental Advocacy Site - News Story
Title: "Greenlands Ice Melt Accelerating"
Quotes a number of studies. Interesting that the conclusions it draws do not seem to match the studies. But in order to do that you actually have to go and find each of the studies, then see if they relate to global warming or even the rate of ice melting or expansion on a global basis or they relate to only very small specific areas.
Hard Science Value: Would be good if accurate. My view, less than nil but you'd need to do considerable research to back that up. So it stays my opinion.

Link 6. Washington Post News article
Title: "Greenland's Melting Ice Sheet May Speed Rise in Sea Level"
No better value than any other news article that cherry picks from studies.
We are not arguing here what the press generally prints or even what the average man on the street thinks. We already know that. I thought the discussion was on the science.
Hard Science Value: Nil.

Link 7. Climate Science Site. Speculative Article.
Title: "Is Antarctic climate changing?"
Did you include this one without reading it, or for balance?
The points made are particularly valid. The studies that attempt to determine change in locked water, end up with something similar to: "We cannot be sure, or even do anything rather than guess, because there are no records good enough to use as a baseline"

Or to quote the site: "In the Science paper, Monaghan and others show that there has been no significant change in Antarctic snowfall in the last ~50 years."

And just how does this support your argument?
Hard Science Value: Actually not too bad because this article gives links to research summaries and enough detail so that the actual research should be able to be found.
It also points out a problem with the argument that the accumulation of the ice sheet in the Antarctic is due to snowfall, in that snowfall studies do not show a change in precipitation. On its own the hard science value, even though I like the arcticle personally, still remains low, without the reader actually reading the research to which it refers.

Total Links: 7
Studies: 0
Hard Science Value: Very slightly above nil.
Assistance in this discussion: Nil

I repeat: Show us the studies!


Richard

The last time dan quoted a study, it said in its summary that the study was an attempt to prove that greenlands ice sheet was melting. It is well known fact in science that if you try hard enough to prove a forgone conclusion, youll find the evidence, provided your willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. That study succeeded in ignoring a lot of contrary data

dehammer wrote:
"That study succeeded in ignoring a lot of contrary data"

But by some amazing coincidence you are totally unable to point to any study that discusses that contrary evidence.

See how it works. Real studies published in real journals have evidence built on bad science and foregone conclusions. But real science with contrary evidence is unpublished and you just know about it due to the Vulcan mind-meld.

I like it.

one of these days, youll have to come out of those fantasy worlds you live it. I have pointed to many, yet you refuse to discuss them, because they are not accepted by the correct political party.

try doing a discussion without insults one of these days, youll find its more enjoyable in the adults discussion.

dehammer wrote:
"one of these days, youll have to come out of those fantasy worlds you live it."

One of these days, when challenged to back up your preposterous statements you will actually be able to do so.

Have you considered writing a book? You could title it: Faith Based Science.

Subtitled: There is no credible evidence but please accept what I tell you on faith.

I like it. Put me down for a copy.

G'day Dan,

Being really sick and actually thinking there was a chance I was not going to return to this site, I wrote you a little comment, requesting not that you changed your views just one tiny bit but rather that you expressed those views civily.

I didn't die. Well not yet anyway. The infection isn't under control, for those that have asked privately, but the antibiotics tried to strangle me so it is now my body against the infection.

So I had a real reason for not immediately giving the full details of the study to which I referred. I'm not very well and the effort was a bit much right now, even though I finally realised that all these studies I have or read are useless without proper reference and am compiling a database. It unfortunately does not include glacier studies as yet. It concentrates on temperature studies since these are the things I'm actually studying.

Actually the word studying is correct in this instance because my research has had preliminary acceptance for the basis of a PhD in Climatology at a rather pleasant and prestigous university and I even have funding to actually do the work. Now Dan, if I wanted to be as sarcastic or caustic as you, I could ask exactly what part of your career or current work has anything to do with climate science and when did you have any of your work accepted for publication or as the basis of a higher degree in climate science?

As I have said before, this site is not meant to be eletist. Anyone is welcome into the discussion. The site rules say that the discussion should be civil and on point. A comment such as that above breaches those rules. But just how much of a breach do you think this comment is:

"Have you considered writing a book? You could title it: Faith Based Science."

Do you realise just how insulting that is to some? You are comparing someone who simply does not agree with you with fundamentalist creationists. In science currently, that is an extremely sore point.

dehammer's comment was reasonable in this argument. He was pointing out the very real problem with any research being that the desired result is very often achieved simply because the scientists wish it so. It is rarely deliberate (although more often so than most scientists would be comfortable with knowing the statistic) but the inherent bias can be extremely powerful. Inconsistent data is ignored when it points to the result contrary to that wished for and incorporated into a study when it assists in the "proof" being looked for.

This is such a well known problem in science that in medical research, without a double blind test, results will not be accepted.

I read a lot of studies and once again am going to refer to one that I have no idea how you would get a reference to. Perhaps a search on google but even then it is probably only available on medical sites where you pay a subscription service. It was a study on the "tainting" of research by sub-conscious actions of the researchers. It showed that the results of tests could be skewed as much as 70% when researchers knew who was taking what, even though they provided no verbal clues to the participants at all. It was a clever study because the researchers actually did not know who was taking what, they only thought they did.

So if I want to prove the average world temperature is dropping in the last 35 years and I do not accept the accuracy of the GHCN data set because of a myriad of problems with that data, if I want the results to prove me right but also want it to be unbiased, what is my subconcious going to do when I have to decide what weight to put on specific problems? The ones that tend to heat the result are going to be given more weight than the opposite.

And that is my greatest problem right now. How do you create a data set without any bias when any researcher brings bias to the process.

Back to civility. Surely Dan, you can participate and remain civil. Try this, for instance. Never reply to the person providing a contrary view, reply to the position with whatever you believe is valid science that supports your view.

Even if you provide a study that is in itself defective, the discussion will not end in people leaving simply because they do not wish to be constantly exposed to personal insults and bickering. Have a look at the many threads that involve global warming without your participation. One degenerated into a nasty little personal attack back and forth. And no science was discussed. All the others remained pleasant, had a number of participants including new members and I learned a lot and have been told by others that they learned things as well. Which seems to be a better way of doing things?


Richard

I wrote what I did to dehammer. Not with respect to your post.

Though I expect both of you, if you live long enough, to (edited) when you realize that serious science has been consistently telling you the same thing for decades and you've been listening to political hacks.

G'day Dan,

And I knew that. That does not alter what I said one iota. I do not care whether you are insulting me or anyone else. To do so, by way of sarcasm, put downs or any other form, degrades the discussion to the point it is not worth having.

And how do you have any idea what either dehammer, myself or anyone else listens to? That was just another insult or put down. I do not listen to political hacks. I have no strong position against global warming. I do disrespect bad science and I do not care who does it, how esteamed they are or how famous.

Show me a single study that indicates there is significant global warming and I'll happily concede there is proof of global warming. But despite asking you to do this over and over, you have never done this, instead resorted to belittling or insulting those that do not agree with your opinion. I wonder what makes you so confident that your opinion is the correct one in this instance. What expertise do you possess that ensures you must be right and anyone that does not agree must be so wrong?

By the way, I take umbridge to the "filing victim statements" crack. Please remove it or once again apologise. It was not funny and such comments can cause great harm simply because you have no idea what incidents may have occurred in a poster's life that makes such comments particularly in bad taste. In other words: DO NOT POST NASTY COMMENTS DIRECTED AT ANYONE

Richard

Any more jibes, sideswipes or frontal assaults will be edited into oblivion. Please heed my warning. If you can't be civil you can't be here.

Amaranth Rose
Moderator

And still we wait for someone claiming there is evidence that supports a position contrary to the one where I have repeatedly posted links.

G'day Dan and anyone else still reading this thread,

Major Problems with Global Warming as a World Threat Arguments

To Dan:
You asked for it.

Here are main points of contention. Feel free to post links or details of studies that contradict them.

Summary

• ALL climate data before 1979 is extremely bad for comparison purposes.
• Tree ring and ice core data particularly suspect. Lab tests show neither good at ascertaining past temperatures.
• SAT (Surface Air Temperature) most unreliable set of data of pretty much any "science"
• Climate Change positions now hopelessly extreme. Those that disagree are on the side of the oil industry or accused of such. Thus that strongly support it in the payroll of luny environmentalists or accussed of such.
• Actual science hardly ever gets examined.
• Satellite and Balloon data do not correspond, either in pattern or in raw figurs to the SAT, even the very latest SAT excluding urban effect major cities.
• Water temperature data hopelessly contaminated, or inconsistently observed.
• Studies on Climate Change seem to be aimed at "proving" global warming, rather than aimed at ascertaining what is really going on with the climate.
• Solar studies consistently ignored.
• No one knows how much water was locked up in the Antarctic or the Arctic or whether this is increasing or decreasing, except in the last few years.
• Ice Core studies seriously flawed by the simple problem of two ice cores never agreeing, even when only metres apart
• The science of greenhouse gases never actualyl demonstrated other than by models.
• The quantity of greenhouse gases produced by volcanoes never mentioned even though significant.
• Volcanoes are mentioned when any cooling data appears as the reason for such cooling even in the face of global warming.
• Sulphates blamed for the whole of the Eastern Half of the US, cooling.
• Simple arithmetic has produced errors in data many many times greater than the rise or fall in average world temperatures over the last century or so.
• No such thing as a "World Average Temperature" yet this is never mentioned (Satellites, while not giving a world average, at least give a figure that should be comparable over time against satellite data).

Main Points
I would agree with global warming wholeheartedly if there was good science to back this up (and rather than some smart come back, how about proving me wrong by referring to some good scientific studies?).

I used to think the world was warming but whether this was due to CO2 or not I wasn't at all sure. The more I study this particular field, the less I am sure of this or anything.

I frankly do not believe that anyone currently has enough data to suggest that the world has even warmed since 1880, which seems a ludicrous suggestion. since 1880 was the tail end of the LIA (Little Ice Age) and simple anecdotal evidence suggest the world is now a warmer place (a good thing - the LIA really suppressed human endeavour and caused a great deal of misery).

Mr Al Gore might like glaciers because they are pretty and he likes to climb them with his kids, however, anyone living in a valley near a glacier normally has a much dimmer view of glaciers. Overall, a warmer interglacial period has and is a godsend to humans. But as with everything you can have too much of a good thing. But are we now getting too hot and is man to blame?

Actually there is substantial evidence that man is to blame for a whole lot of things. But whether he has finally been able to cause global weather change is a little different to whether he is able to kill off large animals or pollute rivers or chop down forests.

Climate change requires really only one thing to indicate it is happening. That is data that is consistent, covers enough of the world to say that it is global in extent, and has records long enough for reasonable comparisons.

2005 was a record hot year for satellite records. But 30 years is not long enough to show any trend of anything to do with climate. In any 30 year period there must be a record hot, a record cold and several years that do nothing much at all. The interesting thing about the satellite data (no matter how adjusted - the maximum adjustments still only alter the trend by a very small fraction of a single degree) is that in that 30 years they show nothing much at all. Some cold years. Two particularly hot ones (1998 and 2005) but not the record 14 out of 21 hot years that the SAT data shows.

Balloon data matches the satellite data so closely, the argument that the balloon data was wrong in the 70s due to lack of shielding suggests that either the satellites in the 70s had a similar bizarre problem or the lack of shielding really had almost no effect on the figures.

The two arguments relating to satellite and balloon data, are amazing in the gall of those that make the accusations. The most accurate temperature data available by an incredible factor is condemned because it might be out by a very small fraction because of a drift problem with the satellites (amounting to all of 0.003 degrees in decade if even true) and lack of shielding which might have a slightly larger effect than the satellite drift but still is a pretty small number.

Yet the data on which everyone else relies has no validity at all, for the purposes of comparison over time. I used to qualify this but not any more. I've done enough calculations and comparisons of known data with the data sets available (chielfy the GHCN data set) to be fairly certain the errors implicit in the data sets currently used are just so huge that a movement of less than about 3 degrees Celcius could not be relied upon to be anything but a problem with the data.

In another thread I went into some detail about the problem of "average". I won't do it again but Dan is welcome to challenge that comment. Actually so is anyone else. Worse, when you get data from particular locations and compare them to the data in the data set, the comparisons do not seem to work except in the most general terms. Where the data shows a cooling trend using daily averages, a significant warming trend might be shown in the GHCN data. (And no, there is no research for this, it is my own research - wait about two years and I'll happily post it on my website and provide a link, including to every tiny bit of background data used so anyone else who wishes to can go through calculations to check for errors etc).

If the satellite data does not match the surface air temperature data, not even remotely, except sort of roughly in extreme years, how can the SAT be considered reliable at all?

Actually even with the GHCN, if major cities are removed, there are more localities that show a cooling trend than a warming one. It is just that the warming ones show a much larger trend than the cooling ones. That does not make a great deal of sense. Ignore the argument about global warming causing regional cooling. The areas this is supposed to happen is just not large enough to explain why over 4,000 localties show cooling trends out of 6,000 odd weather stations.

Take out any weather station that has had a major change and you end up with a few hundred stations. These show a major cooling trend. Hmmm. Does that mean the earth is cooling? Of course it doesn't. It just means there is not good enough data to determine anything.

Tree rings show how much rain falls, how much CO2 is available and absorbed by the tree and to a very small extent, the temperature of a particular year. The precipitation is the biggest one. Ignore the studies that show this and just think of the logic for a moment. Which makes more sense? We have a nice warm year with lots of rain. Then we have a really really hot year with no rain. Then we have a cold year with lots of rain. Then we have a normal year with normal rain. What will the tree rings look like for each year? If you think for one moment that they will be larger depending on heat then you have no real understanding of just what a tree does in a drought.

Ice cores have problems for many reasons but the really simple one is the fact that you cannot get repeatable results. Drill two ice cores, a metre apart and you get dramitically different ratios of Oxygen 16 to 18. All that suggests is that this is a very unreliable way of estimating past temperatures. It might be useful for rough trends but not much else. And the very best example of just how bad ice cores are would be the research of Lonnie Thompson, made famous by Mr Al Gore in his film and slide road show. Mr Thompson obtained six ice cores. They had widely different results. Don't take my word for it. Look at his research paper. Well actually that is rather hard because all you will find on the Internet are references to it. But I have looked at it and he very plainly states the results of each ice core and how they bear almost no relationship to each other. But he still manages to average the results, despite there being no scientific rationale for averaging dissimilar results.

Conclusion
There are no links in this post because I could not easily find research papers online that I have access to by other means. So I've tried to write things that are just plain logic.

And as I have now done maybe 50 times, I'd be happy to be referred a research paper that uses valid data that shows a warming trend.

I never thought that this was other than an intellectual exercise until the last six months when there has been serious suggestions made to cool the "runaway global warming". The most potentially damaging of all these was the sulpate seeding one. This one could be done without even needing a consensus of governments. Heck, just one really extreme regime could probobly pull it off because the stuff is similar to a major volcanic eruption. You do not need to release the stuff over any particular country, only at certain latitudes. The prevailing air circulation will do the rest. So what happens if this is actually attempted. Well, you could just pollute wide areas for no good reason. Or it could actually work and everyone freezes to death unless the "runaway global warming" was exactly as extreme as those proposing the method think it is. Would you really like to bet the life of 98 or 99% of the planet on that argument?

Dan, if you've even read this far. Here's the challenge. You are so much an advocate that you are given the opportunity to press the button to release the pollutants that has a change of wiping out pretty much everyone unless global warming exactly what you think it is. Are YOU willing to push that button?

To me, that's a rather sobbering thought. No one greatly cares if carbon credits have cost the UK close to $20 billion. That really hasn't changed wealth of the nation by much at all. So anyone can advocate Kyoto. But how about something that really can damage everyone unless global warming is exactly as described. Just how confident do you remain in the face of that?

Do you think that someone like me is so stupid that I cannot even work out an averaging error or sees an averaging error where none exist? What about the several hundred other scientists that have also done research that does not agree with the "consensus" on global warming? Are all of these people crackpots? And please do not blame oil companies or the Bush administration. I know some of these scientists. They are not normally even Americans and they get bugger all funding from anyone. I've declared my pecunary interests in the past. I do not get funding from oil companies. I am supposed to receive funding from a very pro global warming organisation (their attempt at balance I guess).


Regards


Richard

No RicS that is not the main point of contention.

So lets try it yet again. What study refutes this?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-176

What study refutes this?
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml

What study refutes this?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006032322000.html

What study refutes this?
http://www.norway.org/restech/researchnews/2006+Carnegie+Climate+Conference.htm

It is not about opinion ... mine or yours ... it is about research work carried out by experts in the field. If you can find research that explains why and how these are wrong then post it.

1st post is about a 3 year study, that ended in a year everyone admits was the hottest in several decades. Of course it will have more melt off. problem is three years is not enough for anything.

2nd one proves that this has happen before, and could be happening again for the exact same reason, yet it claims it has to be from co2. Again, no labratory evidence has ever been produced that proves inceases in co2 causes an increase in temperature.

few people have denighed that there is a temperature increase (there was a little ice age, not long ago geologically speaking, so of course the temperature has risen). The problem is the politial hacks that demand that we destroy our civilization to stop something that they cant prove is caused by our civilization. If nature is the cause why should we destroy ourselves trying to fix it. To quote an old ad, "its not nice to fool (with) mother nature".

both the 2nd and 3rd are actually news paper reports of the same thing. neither actually have any data on them about it, marely the reporters explination of the data. Since both were written (appearately by the same person) by someone who believed that co2 was causing the destruction of the ice fields, that is what is shown.

4th one is about a conference of people who believe in the global warming. only people who beleive are invited to the conference. Again no data is given to prove anything. The only thing these prove is that there are people that believe man is the cause. no proof of anything on any of these sites.

the reason ive become a doubter (i actually came to this site a believer) was that all of the links that were given, either did not show anything, save that the writer believed in global warming, or that the study was done by people who admitted they did it to prove global warming, or in a few cases actually had data that to me proved they did not have the evidence on their side.

one example of the last is the data graphs of the ice cores showing temperature and co2 levels. A close look at the data shows that the co2 increases were between 50 and a 100 after the temperature, yet its claimed that it was the cause of the increase. It also showed that after co2 got high again, the temperature fell, while the co2 stayed high. this should not have happen if the co2 cause the temperature increases. The temperature should have remained as high as long as the co2 did. Its these graphs that people point to as proof that co2 causes temperature increase. But they dont. No one has ever explained why they co2 levels being so high does not cause the temperature to stay high. if they cant, how can they expect people to believe that the increases in co2 is going to cause an extream high temperature by 2100.

Im not saying that global warming is not taking place. Im not saying that global cooling is or is not about to happen.

Im saying that there is not enough proof of it.

there is, on the other hand, tons of proof that man has done some serious damage to our eco system. Not by co2, but by other polutants. Ozone, hydrocarbons in the air, soil, and in the water, harmfull chemicals that are not produced by nature, and which nature has a hard time getting rid of, pesticides, and fertilizers in the oceans and in the water ways, and filled in flood plains being only a few. Money, attension and effort wasted on stopping a problem that has not been proven to exist, means that there is less money, attension and effort to fix known problems.


p.s. DA that is a much better return that the other ones, ill not be responding to that kind any more. Any post that are like that, ill just pretend dont exist completely.

You know dehammer I looked all through what you wrote and didn't find a single link to a single study that refuted the work.

Why?

Because there aren't any!

Get over it!

There aren't any!

G'day Dan,

End of discussion as far as I am concerned. It is not worth it. All you have provided is news articles that are OPINIONs despite saying they were not opinions, mine or yours. I think I said about forty or fifty times that references to research would be nice (and I'll happily accept the authors, the title and publication rather than a link by the way).

And not only are they news articles and not research but you even included one you already referred to, which is just as meaningless the second time you refer to it.

Anyone can trawl the Internet using Google to find such articles. I believe it is obvious this is what you are doing and it is for this very reason that I have refrained from doing it. If you have not been doing this then I unreservedly apologise but ask why no references to actual studies?

The last of the previous references suggestions you are not even reading them properly but that is perhaps a personal attack and I really would like this to be a discussion on the topic. I could be wrong and will again happily apologise if I am but the lack of comment concerning the inclusion of a site that was not at all pro global warming leads me to think that I am probably not mistaken.

As you probably have now found, the Internet is not good for reference to research on Climate, Climate Change or Global Warming, only to news articles about research. The research itself is much less often posted, is very often held on sites that require subscriptions and even then only the extracts are held. This is one of the biggest difficulties I have in quoting research. I would rather link to it than simply specify the title and the authors but have found links are pretty much impossible. What is the point of refering to research such as Molg et al (2003) relating to the shrinking of Kilimanjaro's glacier predominantly in the period 1880 to the early 20th century, well before alleged man made global warming, if this reference is useless because the study is not on the Internet. Or the study of Georges and Kaser (2002); or Polissar et al (2006) relating to Andean glaciers advancing up to the LIA. Or the research by Ruddiman 2005 "The Test of the Overdue-glaciation hypothesis". Or the USHCN dataset relating to pretty much any of the US glacial retreat areas which shows a progressive fall in temperatures at glacial sites between 1868 and 2000 in July and a slight rise in August, making a bit of a mockery of temperature as the primary driving agent for those glaciers retreating. Because pretty much nobody here has access to any of this. But you are welcome to look up these studies, all of which really do cast doubt on global warming or on other major global warming studies. If you really want, I'll post a list of studies several hundred long that cast doubt on global warming but since you are not in the field, how are you going to actually read them? And this is not saying you have no right to an opinion because this isn't your field, just that if you wish to argue the facts, you actually need ... well ... facts.

And this is my point entirely. News articles, conclusions of studies that get news attention, and opinion pieces are pretty much exclusively pro global warming. But I have hundreds of studies that do not show global warming at all or show very serious defects in other research (not to mention all the pro global warming research at least in the conclusions where the research itself shows nothing of the sort or shows very flawed research). And if you are not active in the field you would think such studies just do not exist. You would be very much mistaken but there is no difficulty in seeing how such erroneous conclusions would be reached. But links? A very difficult ask.

So if you want lists of studies that really punch holes in global warming arguments, I'll provide them, full citations and all. I even have links but they are not freely accessible. Up to you whether you wish to pay subscription fees. And I'm not hiding behind fees so I don't provide links to studies that throw doubt on global warming. Exactly the same problem occurs with global warming studies that are very pro global warming.

This is about the only field I comment on in this forum because it is a field I am activily involved in. That does mean I do have access to original research, even if I cannot post links here. What does amaze me is you never respond to any of the real issues. You have not once addressed the problem of bad data. Surely this is completely in the realms of your particular expertise. We both have an overlapping shared field, being computers. In database creation surely the most fundamental thing to any database is the accuracy of the data being held. If all the addresses are faulty for a personal details database, would you really want to then spend a huge amount of time creating a sophisticated application to use such data or very expensive models showing patterns relating to addresses?

So if you want to debate this issue, address the issues I raised. I have grown tired of looking at links to news articles and your personal opinions without you actually saying anything directly addressing points previously raised. Don't agree with my about tree rings. Say so and set out your reasons. That is a debate even if you do not quote a single study.

There is no point in a debate, where one side actually just ignores the points they find inconvenient. And that is where I am at. There is currently no point to this thread at all.

Now if you wish to discuss the GHCN data set, or why the US data does not match the rest of the world and shows a cooling trend, or argue about satellite accuracy or weather balloons, or why the British Admiralty data set shows a cooling trend in the last hundred years for the oceans (but by an amount that is meaningless) while every other data set, because they are inconsistent and not comparable shows other trends, then I'll happily engage you again.

Otherwise, I see no point especially when faced with your last post which accuses dehammer of doing exactly what you have done, no links to any studies. Actually dehammer did refer to studies, indirectly through your links which referred to studies and put up arguments as to why they should be treated with some caution.

The best support I have found for the lack of evidence of global warming (remembering that I still have no idea whether it really is happening or not but do not think it likely in the last 30 years at least because of the satellite data) is in research where the conclusions are rabidly pro global warming. You did not respond to my comments relating to Mr Thompson's research for instance. That is a reference to a major study by a scientist feited by many as one of the greats in his field.

EVERY study relating to SAT uses a defective data set, no matter who does it. NASA is one of the few that readily admits this in their small print, although you wouldn't know it from Dr Hansen's opinion pieces, which he sends regularly to people like me. How about linking to any study that uses reasonable data? That would be an interesting change to this rather pointless thread.


Regards


Richard


PS. Apologies to dehammer. Some of this is somewhat of a repeat of your post. I read Dan's posts but not yours, looked at his links and responded, finished this and THEN read your post.

RicS wrote:
"End of discussion as far as I am concerned."

And then proceeded to write another 123 lines composed of 1360 words. So ... yeah ... obviously.
Too bad not one byte of which was a link to anything refuting the studies I posted.

Why no links to studies refuting the work?
Because there are none.

And just to pile on before leaving this hopeless thread the following was posted today:
Researchers Link Ice Age Climate-change Records To Ocean Salinity
Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061006074312.htm

You can keep calling these studies names. You can keep writing about them. You what you can not do is point to studies that refute them.

The worst thing about all this ... is that I would be much happer ... and my children and their children would be much happier ... if you were right.