billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
QuoteQuote
?? 2005 was the hottest year, ever.
Not even the guys at realclimate think that anymore. In, I believe, 2008, GISS updated this data showing it was the second hottest year.
And - this was just the ground data.
.
Trying to fathom a long term trend by comparing years within one sunspot cycle and within one el nino cycle shows that those doing it either don't understand what they are doing, or they are being unethical.
(General comment, not directed at you, Mr. Rocket.)
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.
Quote
Yes. As an example, imagine there's one temperature station in all of California, and it's in La Jolla. We have a hot and muggy summer, and it's always cloudy in La Jolla, so that station reads cooler. But the rest of the state is much warmer, so aircraft measurements reveal a clearer picture.
So we could look at La Jolla and compare the weather and climate characteristics there to the state of California as a whole.
That does not pass the smell test. La Jolla, unlike most of California, is influenced by the ocean. Inversion layer? Albedo?
Doing so assumes linearity and uniformity throughout the system.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
JackC 0
QuoteOkay. This is different. Warming is taking place is different from the continent is warming. That can be read as some places are warming and others are cooling.
Law students are trained in the case method, and to the lawyer everything in life looks like a case. ~ Edward Packard, Jr.
Did it ever occur to you that these scientist might be telling the truth?
mnealtx 0
Quote2005 was the hottest year on record
By *which* measurement? Even with the 'adjustments' they've had to make to GISS due to deniers like Watts finding more and more problems with the recording stations database, I don't really consider GISS to be a valid source anymore.
Quote>Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.
I didn't claim it did, but perhaps you could see if Mr. Straw would like to argue that with you.
I know you haven't - you're very careful to tapdance around that point and try to get people to ignore it with stupid jokes about dinosaurs and SUVs.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>By *which* measurement?
The NASA GISS measurement, which included both poles.
> I don't really consider GISS to be a valid source anymore.
Of course - it disagrees with your politics.
The NASA GISS measurement, which included both poles.
> I don't really consider GISS to be a valid source anymore.
Of course - it disagrees with your politics.
mnealtx 0
Quote>By *which* measurement?
The NASA GISS measurement, which included both poles.
> I don't really consider GISS to be a valid source anymore.
Of course - it disagrees with your politics.
DONT put words in my mouth, Bill. GISS has been proven wrong several times, now... and especially recently
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteOkay. This is different. Warming is taking place is different from the continent is warming. That can be read as some places are warming and others are cooling.
Law students are trained in the case method, and to the lawyer everything in life looks like a case. ~ Edward Packard, Jr.
It seems that the proponents have been trying to make a case for AGW. When I see lawyer tactics at work, I get an idea about what's going on.
Of course, I would invite a response to my points versus a response to me.
QuoteDid it ever occur to you that these scientist might be telling the truth?
Yes. It has also occurred to me that they might not be telling the whole truth. See attachment showing ground readings since 1970. Some getting warmer. Some getting cooler. Which implicates exactly what I said - warming is occurring in Anarctica. So is cooling. There is regional variation.
Note: There are 25 sites in Antarctica that have at least 25 years of data to 1970. Ony two inlad stations - Amundsen-Scott and Vostok - have been continuously manned. This means most readings are coastal.
Since the most accepted hypothesis is that CO2 would warm the poles the most, this puts a bit of a damper in it.
In fact - see this earth true-color picture taken from Jan. 04. It shows what appears to be a Northwest passage.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/ce/Global_Surface_Map_January.jpg
Now, my questions to you:
Did a contrary point to yours ever cause you to look into something and think that there may be validity?
Take a look at any press release. Any conclusion of an article. "Global warming may lead to..." "Global warming may cause..." "Global warming might..." If I were to say, "Global warming may not cause..." or "global warming might not..." I would be reaching the same conclusion.
BUT
The message is entirely different.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
JackC 0
QuoteIt seems that the proponents have been trying to make a case for AGW. When I see lawyer tactics at work, I get an idea about what's going on.
Quite so, you are a lawyer after all. I am a scientist so when I see science tactics at work, I get an idea about what's going on. But when I see lawyer tactics going on, I run a fucking mile.
QuoteYes. It has also occurred to me that they might not be telling the whole truth. See attachment showing ground readings since 1970. Some getting warmer. Some getting cooler. Which implicates exactly what I said - warming is occurring in Anarctica. So is cooling. There is regional variation.
Is that not as you might expect with only 25 metrological stations in an area of 14 million sq km?
If a study is made using a mere 1000 data points, people here are quick to point out how it isn't statistically significant and they want to see 10,000 points. In this case someone did fill in those extra data points with satellite temperature readings. But when the new data shows warming instead of cooling and all of a sudden it doesn't pass your smell test; well I smell lawyer tactics.
QuoteNow, my questions to you:
Did a contrary point to yours ever cause you to look into something and think that there may be validity?
Of course, I'm a scientist. If I have a theory and it doesn't reflect reality, the theory is wrong. And if I am wrong, I want to know about it.
But in the case of AGW, the mechanism is proven as far as anything can ever be proven. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing and thermodynamics works. If any of that is proven wrong, then pretty much everything we know about science is wrong too, and I think we might have noticed if that was the case. Can you prove it wrong?
QuoteTake a look at any press release. Any conclusion of an article. "Global warming may lead to..." "Global warming may cause..." "Global warming might..." If I were to say, "Global warming may not cause..." or "global warming might not..." I would be reaching the same conclusion.
That's political/media bollox written by people who sieze a perfectly good study and warp it beyond recognition because they do not know their scientific arse from their scientific elbow. I pay only passing attention.
billvon 2,400
>If I were to say, "Global warming may not cause..." or "global warming
>might not..." I would be reaching the same conclusion.
>BUT The message is entirely different.
Google search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 642,000 for "global warming might not". (0.35 seconds)
===========
Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist
Published: 1:51PM GMT 30 Dec 2008
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved, according to the Telegraph's Christopher Booker. Sceptics have long argued that there are other explanations for climate change other than man-made CO2 and here we look at some of the arguments put forward by those who believe that global warming is all a hoax.
==========
Global warming might not be so bad, if we keep our cool
May 28, 2006
All panics are equal. But some are more equal than others. Present-day government warns us to be very, very afraid, successively of Aids, Saddam Hussein, BSE, terrorists, Sars, bird flu and now global warming. Rulers were once elected to free us from fear, not to increase it. Now they cry wolf every day and use it to demand more power and money into the bargain.
Climate change is a hell of a wolf. Last week the BBC’s resources were marshalled to produce a royal variety performance of usual suspects: retreating Patagonian glaciers, collapsing Arctic ice shelves, starving
Africans, burning rainforests and storm-lashed New Orleans.
==========
Computer model: global warming may not derive from human activity
Dec. 8, 1997
SAN FRANCISCO—Contrary to the conventional wisdom, new computer modeling from the University of Michigan suggests that global warming might not be a product of human activity. Ironically, argues Joyce Penner, professor of atmospheric, oceanic and space sciences, carbon and sulfur emissions can have the reverse effect, serving to cool down the planet.
===========
You were saying?
>might not..." I would be reaching the same conclusion.
>BUT The message is entirely different.
Google search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 642,000 for "global warming might not". (0.35 seconds)
===========
Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist
Published: 1:51PM GMT 30 Dec 2008
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved, according to the Telegraph's Christopher Booker. Sceptics have long argued that there are other explanations for climate change other than man-made CO2 and here we look at some of the arguments put forward by those who believe that global warming is all a hoax.
==========
Global warming might not be so bad, if we keep our cool
May 28, 2006
All panics are equal. But some are more equal than others. Present-day government warns us to be very, very afraid, successively of Aids, Saddam Hussein, BSE, terrorists, Sars, bird flu and now global warming. Rulers were once elected to free us from fear, not to increase it. Now they cry wolf every day and use it to demand more power and money into the bargain.
Climate change is a hell of a wolf. Last week the BBC’s resources were marshalled to produce a royal variety performance of usual suspects: retreating Patagonian glaciers, collapsing Arctic ice shelves, starving
Africans, burning rainforests and storm-lashed New Orleans.
==========
Computer model: global warming may not derive from human activity
Dec. 8, 1997
SAN FRANCISCO—Contrary to the conventional wisdom, new computer modeling from the University of Michigan suggests that global warming might not be a product of human activity. Ironically, argues Joyce Penner, professor of atmospheric, oceanic and space sciences, carbon and sulfur emissions can have the reverse effect, serving to cool down the planet.
===========
You were saying?
TomAiello 25
Did you just use google results to argue a point about the meaning of language?
mnealtx 0
QuoteIf a study is made using a mere 1000 data points
How about 1 data point? IIRC, a single pine tree is the sole data point for at least one of Mann's temperature proxies.
Quote[ If any of that is proven wrong, then pretty much everything we know about science is wrong too, and I think we might have noticed if that was the case. Can you prove it wrong?
1. CO2 has never led temperatures, only lagged.
2. See my prior post re: Nature Geo article - the CO2 concentration can only account for part of the warming.
QuoteThat's political/media bollox written by people who sieze a perfectly good study and warp it beyond recognition because they do not know their scientific arse from their scientific elbow. I pay only passing attention
Unless said warping is in favor of GW, evidently.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>Did you just use google results to argue a point about the meaning of language?
I used a google result to indicate that a phrase that he says is not often used in media reports - is actually often used in media reports.
I used a google result to indicate that a phrase that he says is not often used in media reports - is actually often used in media reports.
Quote
But when I see lawyer tactics going on, I run a fucking mile.
Which way do you run?
Quote
Of course, I'm a scientist.
What kind of scientist are you? You're not someone who can provide references to further any rational technical debate, that's for sure.
Quote
But in the case of AGW, the mechanism is proven as far as anything can ever be proven.
The IPCC study is very explicit that the radiation forcing measurement assumes everything else remains the same in their assessment of CO2's impact on the trophosphere.
That's complete rubbish. The IPCC says that water vapor is by far the dominant green house gas. They do not account for this in their calculations when "CO2 temperature increases" effects cause an increase the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Quote
and thermodynamics works.
Agreed. ALL of thermo works, every time.
Quote
Can you prove it wrong?
To think that CO2 is going to increase radiant forcing without anything else changing is rubbish. There will be an increase in water vapor.
Quote
...because they do not know their scientific arse from their scientific elbow.
You're arrogance is only matched by Professor PinHead from North Chicago State.
Quote
I pay only passing attention.
Clearly, it's the best you can do.
We are all engines of karma
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that the proponents have been trying to make a case for AGW. When I see lawyer tactics at work, I get an idea about what's going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite so, you are a lawyer after all. I am a scientist so when I see science tactics at work, I get an idea about what's going on. But when I see lawyer tactics going on, I run a fucking mile.
Right. And scientists with opposing thoughts are likely doing the same thing.
QuoteIs that not as you might expect with only 25 metrological stations in an area of 1.4 million sq km?
Yes. But if we were have had 10,000 stations, I would not expect that those stations would change the data of the stations already there.
QuoteIf a study is made using a mere 1000 data points, people here are quick to point out how it isn't statistically significant and they want to see 10,000 points.
Yes. Which means they'd rather see no data than some. I am not in this line of thinking. Thus, if Vostok shows ".2 C decrease per decade" I have a tendency to trust it. If others say, "Antarctica is warming" I'll say, "The data suggests that not all of it is." If they say, "That data can't be trusted" then I'll say, "Why not?"
QuoteBut in the case of AGW, the mechanism is proven as far as anything can ever be proven. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing and thermodynamics works. If any of that is proven wrong, then pretty much everything we know about science is wrong too, and I think we might have noticed if that was the case. Can you prove it wrong?
No. But we've got a nearly ten year pause in the warming trend that has thus far been unpredicted and is presently unexplained. A one or two year thing is probably inconsequential. A nearly ten-year trend. Okay. That's a problem.
It appears that climate scientists are trying to figure it out. Not only are they trying to figure it out but they are also engaged in damage control over it - namely pre-empting response from those who have not read the paper that put this forth.
The underlying mechanism of global warming is known. The mechanisms of the climate are not. The mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is settled. Whether anthropogenic global warming is a reality is mostly settled. The extent of anthropogenic warming now and in the future is unsettled.
QuoteThat's political/media bollox written by people who sieze a perfectly good study and warp it beyond recognitions
They also take what they are handed. If a scientist wants his results publicized the scientist must put forth an angle to get press. And, it should be in line with expectations.
http://www.physorg.com/news166795736.html
Search the news for this and see what comes up.
It's not something that will garner attention because there is nothign to the study that poses a threat to people. TO make news you need a prominent issue (global warming - check), drama (nope. Nothing dramatic - the opposite is), human interest (nothing to feel good about), consequence (no consequence for the story is pointed out. Had he said, "We should put a stop on this cap and trade because it'll be useless if the results of this study be correct" could have.).
The issue is that the environmental movement is highly sophisticated at its PR. The ones sophisticated in PR from the denier side are those who are more on the loony side.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 18
What I find more interesting lately is the age of the research and studies being talked about (which supports most of your points)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
brenthutch 383
I will give you all of your AGW points! Yes man made co2 is the cause of global warming. Now what do we do about it? We can cap all of the co2 emisions from the western world and it will not matter a bit, if china mexico and india do not recripicate. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Are you so dim that you can not discern the agenda?
JackC 0
QuoteYou're arrogance is only matched by Professor PinHead from North Chicago State.
Why would I want to debate with someone who doesn't understand the physics of the system despite having his mistakes pointed out be three different scientists and engineers, and rather that try and understand he resorts to insults and name calling?
JackC 0
QuoteRight. And scientists with opposing thoughts are likely doing the same thing.
I have no idea what you mean here.
QuoteYes. But if we were have had 10,000 stations, I would not expect that those stations would change the data of the stations already there.
Then why have 10,000 stations if you think they should all read the same? In that case 1 should be enough to satisfy you, yes?
QuoteYes. Which means they'd rather see no data than some. I am not in this line of thinking. Thus, if Vostok shows ".2 C decrease per decade" I have a tendency to trust it. If others say, "Antarctica is warming" I'll say, "The data suggests that not all of it is." If they say, "That data can't be trusted" then I'll say, "Why not?"
Great! Now some data says antarctica is warming, some says cooling, but on average the data says warming. But this didn't pass your smell test, implying that you don't trust it. Why not?
QuoteNo. But we've got a nearly ten year pause in the warming trend that has thus far been unpredicted and is presently unexplained. A one or two year thing is probably inconsequential. A nearly ten-year trend. Okay. That's a problem.
Maybe, maybe not. If warming resumes next year and runs so the underlying average maintains the general upward trend it has done for the last 100 years, will the cooling period still be a problem? There have been other extended cooling periods in the last 150 years over the background warming trend, why is this one special?
QuoteThe underlying mechanism of global warming is known.
Agreed
QuoteThe mechanisms of the climate are not.
The mechanisms are understood but the interactions between them are chaotic. That makes them extremely difficult to predict and prone to errors that get larger the further ahead you try to predict. You do the best with what you've got.
QuoteThe mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is settled.
Yes.
QuoteWhether anthropogenic global warming is a reality is mostly settled.
Close enough.
QuoteThe extent of anthropogenic warming now and in the future is unsettled.
Agreed; because chaotic systems are very difficult to predict. In general terms you can say it should on average trend this way in the range of x to y, but in specific terms you can't say "hmmm, next year Los Angeles will be 0.000432 degrees warmer than last year but New Jersey will be 0.0000975 degrees cooler".
QuoteIf a scientist wants his results publicized the scientist must put forth an angle to get press.
Scientists generally are more interested in the research, publication in scientific journals is a necessary evil. PR through more mainstream media is treated with the same distrust skydivers treat media wuffos to report the latest "death plunge from 15000ft".
Quotehttp://www.physorg.com/news166795736.html
Search the news for this and see what comes up.
It's not something that will garner attention because there is nothign to the study that poses a threat to people. TO make news you need a prominent issue (global warming - check), drama (nope. Nothing dramatic - the opposite is), human interest (nothing to feel good about), consequence (no consequence for the story is pointed out. Had he said, "We should put a stop on this cap and trade because it'll be useless if the results of this study be correct" could have.).
Interesting link, thanks.
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.
This is quite possible and if true it means the PETM and the current AGW systems are forced by different mechanisms. That's reasonable when you think that dinosaurs didn't have SUVs or coal fired power plants.
QuoteThe issue is that the environmental movement is highly sophisticated at its PR. The ones sophisticated in PR from the denier side are those who are more on the loony side.
And why is that? Like you said, the mechanism for AGW is settled. To deny it, you'd have to be a loon.
TomAiello 25
Quote...Professor PinHead from North Chicago State...
Knock it off.
Calling people names is pointless, and just makes you look silly.
Plus, it's against the forum rules.
rushmc 18
QuoteI will give you all of your AGW points! Yes man made co2 is the cause of global warming. Now what do we do about it? We can cap all of the co2 emisions from the western world and it will not matter a bit, if china mexico and india do not recripicate. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Are you so dim that you can not discern the agenda?
Huh?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,623
Quote
Quote>Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels
>from the ice cores...
Yep. Proof positive that dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's or burn coal in their power plants.
Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.
Thank you for reminding us for the umpteenth time that there is a positive feedback loop which will reinforce our CO2 output and make it even worse.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,400
Your one warning. Cut it out.
billvon 2,400
>No. But we've got a nearly ten year pause in the warming trend that has
>thus far been unpredicted and is presently unexplained. A one or two
>year thing is probably inconsequential. A nearly ten-year trend. Okay.
>That's a problem.
Why? We've had 15 year "pauses" before, even 10 year periods where the temperature went down. But when you look at the trend it's still clearly upwards.
>It's not something that will garner attention because there is nothign
>to the study that poses a threat to people.
Right. And the journal Science has a paper entitled "Deep-Sea Temperature and Ice Volume Changes Across the Pliocene-Pleistocene Climate Transitions" which indicates that the transition could be more rapid than we once thought. WHY IS IT BEING SUPPRESSED? It must be Exxon trying to keep it out of the media! Why are we allowing the wealthy elite to hide critical information that will reveal the damage they are doing? Why why why?
Well, either that or no one is really all that interested in yet another climactic study.
>thus far been unpredicted and is presently unexplained. A one or two
>year thing is probably inconsequential. A nearly ten-year trend. Okay.
>That's a problem.
Why? We've had 15 year "pauses" before, even 10 year periods where the temperature went down. But when you look at the trend it's still clearly upwards.
>It's not something that will garner attention because there is nothign
>to the study that poses a threat to people.
Right. And the journal Science has a paper entitled "Deep-Sea Temperature and Ice Volume Changes Across the Pliocene-Pleistocene Climate Transitions" which indicates that the transition could be more rapid than we once thought. WHY IS IT BEING SUPPRESSED? It must be Exxon trying to keep it out of the media! Why are we allowing the wealthy elite to hide critical information that will reveal the damage they are doing? Why why why?
Well, either that or no one is really all that interested in yet another climactic study.
>Interpolated data from satellite measurements show ground
>measurements are wrong?
Yes. As an example, imagine there's one temperature station in all of California, and it's in La Jolla. We have a hot and muggy summer, and it's always cloudy in La Jolla, so that station reads cooler. But the rest of the state is much warmer, so aircraft measurements reveal a clearer picture.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites