More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>I was only pointing out that you statement associated with graph was actually incorrect.

No, it was quite literally correct. Average temperatures HAVE been increasing.

I guess that depends on what parameters one uses. A seven year (weekly) moving average of the Dow hasn't had a down period since 1983.

In the chart you linked, there is an obvious cooling period from the 40s to the 70s that occurs while CO2 levels constantly rise. A five year (and probably a ten year) average would show cooling. How is this explained.... other than discounting it being brought up?

[billvon 2,463]

> Ok Bill, you seem unable to admit that your graph does show
>cooling between 1945 and 1979.

It DOES show cooling from year to year. It also shows warming overall. This is a classic example of hunting for some gravel so you can ignore the mountain.

1946 WAS cooler than 1945. 1999 WAS cooler than 1998. It doesn't make the statement "global warming stopped in 1998" any less silly.

[billvon 2,463]

> A seven year (weekly) moving average of the Dow hasn't had a down
> period since 1983.

Exactly. And I could change that averaging window until I found one that showed a measurable decline in a certain time period. A one year window would work well. I could then use Speedy's logic to proclaim that the idea of stock market investment is fundamentally flawed - it's not going up.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

> A seven year (weekly) moving average of the Dow hasn't had a down
> period since 1983.

Exactly. And I could change that averaging window until I found one that showed a measurable decline in a certain time period. A one year window would work well. I could then use Speedy's logic to proclaim that the idea of stock market investment is fundamentally flawed - it's not going up.

Of course, I didn't hear to many people claim the Dow was rising while it was declining by almost 40 percent.

Edited to add: Considering you showed a chart containing 150 periods, what average should be used?

[speedy 0]

The title of this thread is "More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time"

The other thread "global warming stopped in 1998" is not under discussion here.

What is under discussion is why does your graph show cooling between 1945 and 1979?

I have even given you the answer, but you still seem unable to admit that it shows a definate cooling trend over a 35 year period between 1945 and 1979 as CO2 levels were rising.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 2,463]

>The other thread "global warming stopped in 1998" is not under discussion here.

My bad. I should have used "global warming stopped in 1945."

>but you still seem unable to admit that it shows a definate cooling trend
>over a 35 year period between 1945 and 1979 as CO2 levels were rising.

It DOES show a cooling trend if you massage the numbers correctly - just as there was a cooling trend between 1998 and 1999.

I ran a little experiment. I took all the data represented by that graph and ran a moving average. First I tried ten years, then I looked at the graph. Wow! Would you look at that! There are NINE cooling trends! Climate change is all a bunch of hooey!

Then I tried twenty years. Hmm, only four significant trends. What's happening here?

Then I tried thirty years. Only one significant trend, from 1945 to 1980, and a tiny one near 1880. Where did all the others go? What sort of trick are these global warming alarmists trying to pull?

Then I tried forty years. NO significant cooling trends! Holy cow! It's almost like the _average_ temperature is rising, and the periodic chaotic peaks and valleys got smoothed out. Nope, that can't be it. It must be the alarmists twisting the numbers to suit them.

(See below for the lying twisting alarmist graph. X axis is years since 1880. Series 1 is 10 years, series 4 is 40 years.)

[speedy 0]

Quote

It DOES show a cooling trend if you massage the numbers correctly

I did not massage any numbers, I just looked at your graph and stated an obvious fact. This is also a fact that the IPCC agrees on.

The IPCC states that this cooling trend was due to sulphates in the atmosphere masking the effects of CO2. Once the industrialized nations started to clean up the air pollution the masking effect disappeared and the warming started again.

However, the deniers would say that climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding (see attached graphic).

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 2,463]

>I did not massage any numbers, I just looked at your graph and stated an obvious fact.

You massaged them to your liking. The 40 year average shows no cooling trend; the 10 year average shows a lot of cooling trends. Those are numerically provable facts, not "what this graph looks like to me."

>However, the deniers would say that climate scientists acknowledge
>that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding . . .

There are a lot more uncertainties than that! The role cosmic radiation plays in cloud formation, carbon-mediated albedo changes on snow, stratospheric formation of water from CH4 are all things we don't fully understand yet. See attached chart.

[speedy 0]

Now I understand! You only read into posts what you want to read.

Strange that you posted the exact same graphic that I posted

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The title of this thread is "More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time"

The other thread "global warming stopped in 1998" is not under discussion here.Ya it is. Classic shut the oposition up by attacking. I was and am not embarassed by that thread. billvon should be embarassed for misrepresenting it.

What is under discussion is why does your graph show cooling between 1945 and 1979?

I have even given you the answer, but you still seem unable to admit that it shows a definate cooling trend over a 35 year period between 1945 and 1979 as CO2 levels were rising.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mikkey 0]

Quote

There are a lot more uncertainties than that! The role cosmic radiation plays in cloud formation, carbon-mediated albedo changes on snow, stratospheric formation of water from CH4 are all things we don't fully understand yet. See attached chart.

Yes, but lets ruin our economies and stop developing Africa - because we have to act now - even so we have no idea if reduction of man made CO2 will stop GW.
We can easily be in a situation where the cure will be far worse then the disease.

Have a look at this presentation by Michael Crichton - it is not so much about GW as such - it is about how there are "scientific" certainties all the times - which later are shown to be "hot air" (pun intended). It also has some very good points about the complexity of nature and how trying to put complex issues into computer models causes bad political outcomes....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2795753336403393538&q=Michael+Crichton+Independent&hl=en

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

The title of this thread is "More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time"

The other thread "global warming stopped in 1998" is not under discussion here.Ya it is. Classic shut the oposition up by attacking. I was and am not embarassed by that thread. billvon should be embarassed for misrepresenting it.

What is under discussion is why does your graph show cooling between 1945 and 1979?

I have even given you the answer, but you still seem unable to admit that it shows a definate cooling trend over a 35 year period between 1945 and 1979 as CO2 levels were rising.

No matter how much GW proponents scream and carry on - it is a fact that the ice core research has shown CO2 level rises have lagged hundreds of years behind temperature increases - which could be caused by CO2 release from oceans due to temperature increase.

The problem is that we do not know how the climate works - we do not know. Unfortunately there are now so many scientists (in regard to their jobs and grants) and politicians that have staked their reputation on the carbon theory that it is very difficult for skeptical scientists to be heard.

Have a look at the Global Warming Swindle documentary.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The title of this thread is "More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time"

The other thread "global warming stopped in 1998" is not under discussion here.Ya it is. Classic shut the oposition up by attacking. I was and am not embarassed by that thread. billvon should be embarassed for misrepresenting it.

What is under discussion is why does your graph show cooling between 1945 and 1979?

I have even given you the answer, but you still seem unable to admit that it shows a definate cooling trend over a 35 year period between 1945 and 1979 as CO2 levels were rising.

No matter how much GW proponents scream and carry on - it is a fact that the ice core research has shown CO2 level rises have lagged hundreds of years behind temperature increases - which could be caused by CO2 release from oceans due to temperature increase.

The problem is that we do not know how the climate works - we do not know. Unfortunately there are now so many scientists (in regard to their jobs and grants) and politicians that have staked their reputation on the carbon theory that it is very difficult for skeptical scientists to be heard.

Have a look at the Global Warming Swindle documentary.

I have seen it. Not 100% accurate but very good. Another site for info (they like to discount) is junkscience.com.

Oh, be prepared to be told you don't acept good science because you are too.........well, you fill in the blank

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

22 May 2007

WASHINGTON -- Instead of slowing down, worldwide carbon dioxide levels have taken a sudden and alarming jump since 2000, an international team of scientists reported Monday.

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels -- mostly coal, oil and gas -- are increasing at three times the rate experienced in the 1990s, they said.

The rapid acceleration could make the battle against global warming even more difficult than it already appears.

Instead of rising by 1.1 percent a year, as in the previous decade, emissions grew by an average of 3.1 percent a year from 2000 to 2004, the latest year for which global figures are available, the scientists reported in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

''Despite the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are affecting the world's climate, we are not seeing evidence of progress in managing those emissions,'' said Chris Field, the director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, Calif., a coauthor of the report.

''In many parts of the world, we are going backward,'' Field said. ``The trends relating energy to economy growth are definitely headed in the wrong direction.''

The spurt in the carbon dioxide emission rate is especially worrisome because it's a reversal of a long-term trend toward greater energy efficiency and away from carbon-based fuels, the report said.
---------------------------------------

Those National Academy types - such alarmists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,463]

>Yes, but lets ruin our economies and stop developing Africa - because we
>have to act now . . .

Did the car "ruin" america by putting the horse and buggy infrastructure out of business? Did the computer "ruin" the accounting business because we didn't need people to add long columns of numbers any more?

We have an opportunity here to make more money - and to make less of an impact doing it. Some will avail themselves of that opportunity, and will become the next Bill Gates and Warren Buffets. Some will not. As always. In the long run, the increase in manufacturing will help everyone involved with it to make more money.

>Have a look at this presentation by Michael Crichton . . .

He's a quite good author, but he writes fiction; many people forget that.

>It also has some very good points about the complexity of nature and
>how trying to put complex issues into computer models causes bad
>political outcomes....

Probably true. You can model physical events, but modeling politics is almost always going to fail.

[speedy 0]

The dreaded tipping point ?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 18]

Quote

22 May 2007

WASHINGTON -- Instead of slowing down, worldwide carbon dioxide levels have taken a sudden and alarming jump since 2000, an international team of scientists reported Monday.

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels -- mostly coal, oil and gas -- are increasing at three times the rate experienced in the 1990s, they said.

The rapid acceleration could make the battle against global warming even more difficult than it already appears.

Instead of rising by 1.1 percent a year, as in the previous decade, emissions grew by an average of 3.1 percent a year from 2000 to 2004, the latest year for which global figures are available, the scientists reported in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

''Despite the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are affecting the world's climate, we are not seeing evidence of progress in managing those emissions,'' said Chris Field, the director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, Calif., a coauthor of the report.

''In many parts of the world, we are going backward,'' Field said. ``The trends relating energy to economy growth are definitely headed in the wrong direction.''

The spurt in the carbon dioxide emission rate is especially worrisome because it's a reversal of a long-term trend toward greater energy efficiency and away from carbon-based fuels, the report said.
---------------------------------------

Those National Academy types - such alarmists.

High lighted to show where credibility was lost.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Yes, but lets ruin our economies and stop developing Africa - because we
>have to act now . . .

Did the car "ruin" america by putting the horse and buggy infrastructure out of business? Did the computer "ruin" the accounting business because we didn't need people to add long columns of numbers any more?

We have an opportunity here to make more money - and to make less of an impact doing it. Some will avail themselves of that opportunity, and will become the next Bill Gates and Warren Buffets. Some will not. As always. In the long run, the increase in manufacturing will help everyone involved with it to make more money.

>Have a look at this presentation by Michael Crichton . . .

He's a quite good author, but he writes fiction; many people forget that.

>It also has some very good points about the complexity of nature and
>how trying to put complex issues into computer models causes bad
>political outcomes....

Probably true. You can model physical events, but modeling politics is almost always going to fail.

No, modeling politics is quite easy. Want a prediction of what events will be in the news today?

Modeling the climate is dam near impossible but those try8ng would not have you believe that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

OK, I will see your post and I raise you with this.

This one is in direct conflict with the "consensus"

But it is in an evil Energy rag.

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html



The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions
Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.

How Little We Know

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

What Leads, What Follows?

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Renaissance Man, Marathon Man

When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.

“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”

This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”

The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.

Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”

“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”

Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.

With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”

Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.

“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.

“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Did you see this in the what I posted above?

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them.

This seems to blow the CO2 leads temp shit out of the water!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

LMAO

[kallend 1,672]

Yes, the US National Academy of Sciences is just plain incompetent. Along with NOAA. Your guy is correct.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Yes, the US National Academy of Sciences is just plain incompetent. Along with NOAA. Your guy is correct.

What was the point of the article, other than confirming something that was a given?

If you're confused as to why CO2 levels have jumped, go look at China's pollution numbers.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If you're confused as to why CO2 levels have jumped, go look at China's pollution numbers.

Whoah! This could be a previously undiscovered Denier position: "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but blame the yellow people."

This seems to be an intermediate step between the previously identified species of "There is global warming but it has nothing to do with humanity" and "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but it's a good thing."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

If you're confused as to why CO2 levels have jumped, go look at China's pollution numbers.

Whoah! This could be a previously undiscovered Denier position: "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but blame the yellow people."

This seems to be an intermediate step between the previously identified species of "There is global warming but it has nothing to do with humanity" and "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but it's a good thing."

Bong hits for breakfast?

Sorry you seem to find the facts so upsetting. Perhaps it's time to fire another one up???