« Against the Odds - A Few Good Men and the Fight Against Fascism | Main | In case you hadn't heard. »

The 13 Lines of Evidence for AGW

This comment is being posted around the blogosphere, including on Bishop Hill's site

Skeptics and conspiracy buffs need to understand that even without any CRU data nor the publications of it scientists, there are MULTIPLE lines of evidence for AGW:

1) UAH, RSS, and GISS show warming
2) Rapidly warming Arctic
3) Rapidly decreasing sea ice extent
4) Rapidly thinning sea ice
5) Rising ocean heat content
6) Cooling stratosphere
7) Net increase in downwelling LW
8 ) Net decreasing TOA LW emission
9) Increased species migrations/extinctions
10) Increased severe weather occurrences
11) Glacier mass loss and retreats increasing
12) Rising sea levels
13) Most importantly: rapidly rising human emissions of GHGs that have not been seen in millions of years.

None of these things read emails and have decided to play along in a massive international conspiracy.

Scott A. Mandia, Professor - Meteorology
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming

I admit I had to do a bit of research on the LW downwelling (radiation in the Long Wave spectrum that is bouncing about the atmosphere) reasons and I think I have found the relevant figures
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
The global figures graphed out:

Global%20LW.jpg

Maybe I got the wrong figures but that doesn't convince me that man is warming the atmosphere. And none of the other arguments work either.

Over the last few centuries it has been warming, the sea has been gently rising, the ice has retreated but that doesn't prove anything about man's involvement. The arctic temperature argument is dealt with at Watts Up as is the sea ice alarms.

Severe weather? Is that Hurricanes, don't make me laugh and Ocean heat - purleeaze!

And the thirteenth and most important argument that rising levels of man made GHG prove AGW can be filed under non sequitur.

Are these really the best arguments that we can be presented with?

Comments

1/ At the beginning of Global Warming Awareness:- scientists wanting to make a name for themselves (and hopefully some money) with an exciting new theory. Politicians looking for a new big idea. People used to an annual pay rise and hence taking it for granted. People taking material wealth for granted and therefor seeking status instead. A large number of governments keen on getting getting subsidies from rich industrialised nations.
2/ Now:- global wa4rming theory is hardly new- reputations cannot be built on it, neither can wealth (but its refutation may do). Global warming is hardly a new big idea- politicians will start to look elsewhere. We have a recession- people worry about a reduced income, even if it is reduced to what they had a few years ago. People suffering a reduction in income downgrade status in their priorities. Kyoto 2 was always supposed to include sacrifices from non developed nations (now is the time for those sacrifices).
Conclusion- now is the time when AGW theory will get a serious critical investigation.

The combined might of the Royal Society, the Met Office and the N.E.R.C. can scarcely improve on Prof Mandia's effort.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-science-statement

I notice no one from UEA CRU, Tindall or Hadley Centre was asked to sign the statement, can't imagine why.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming

I source all of these comments on my site. Perhaps you should read the information I present before commenting on it.

By my count, 9 more hacks will take care of these.

Post a comment