ChangoLanzao 0 #1 May 26, 2010 Deny THIS! http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=R1 QuoteThe compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change ... The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 May 26, 2010 QuoteDeny THIS! Done!So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #3 May 26, 2010 QuoteDeny THIS! http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=R1 QuoteThe compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change ... The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations." okay Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #4 May 26, 2010 how boring, dont you know man caused.... anything is ... so... so... blah! oh, do me a favor and come up with something rational that can explain why the fossil records show global warming and cooling - quite extreme in some cases - and in a rational way show how humans caused it ... c'mon, you can do it!!! Roy They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 May 26, 2010 QuoteOverall, the report concludes that: (1) Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems; and (2) The nation needs a comprehensive and integrated climate change science enterprise, one that not only contributes to our fundamental understanding of climate change but also informs and expands America’s climate choices What's this mean? QuoteThis comprehensive, integrative program of science will need to continue current research but also engage in new research themes and directions, including research in the physical, social, ecological, environmental, health, and engineering sciences, as well as research that integrates these and other disciplines. Creating and implementing this more integrated and decision-relevant scientific enterprise will require fundamental changes in the way that research efforts are organized, the way research priorities are set, the way research is linked with decision making across a broad range of scales, the way the federal scientific program interfaces and partners with other entities, and the way that infrastructural assets and human capital are developed and maintained. - p. 114-115 Also QuoteAs a direct result of these complexities and uncertainties, all responses to climate change, including the next generation of scientific research, will require deliberate “learning by doing.” Actions and strategies will need to be periodically evaluated and revised to take advantage of new information and knowledge, not only about climate and climate-related changes but also about the effectiveness of responses to date and about other changes in human and environmental systems. The nation’s scientific enterprise should support adaptive risk management (i.e., an ongoing decision-making process that takes known and potential risks and uncertainties into account and periodically updates and improves plans and strategies as new information becomes available—see Box 3.1) by monitoring climate change indicators, providing timely information about the effectiveness of actions taken to respond to climate risks, improving the effectiveness of our responses over time, developing new responses, and continuing to build our understanding of climate change and its impacts. - p.117 To paraphrase - do something, anything, starting now and adapt as time goes on. QuoteRecommendation 1: The nation’s climate change research enterprise should include and integrate disciplinary and interdisciplinary research across the physical, social, biological, health, and engineering sciences; focus on fundamental, use-inspired research that contributes to both improved understanding and more effective decision making; and be flexible in identifying and pursuing emerging research challenges. SETTING PRIORITIES Recommendation 1 calls for a broad, integrative research program to assist the nation in understanding climate change and in supporting well-crafted and coordinated opportunities to adapt to and limit the magnitude of climate change. Okay. So they recommend a multidisciplinary research force. QuoteRecommendation #2: Research priorities for the federal climate change research program should be set within each of the seven cross-cutting research themes outlined above. Priorities should be set using the following three criteria: 1) Contribution to improved understanding 2) Contribution to improved decision making 3) Feasibility of implementation, including scientific readiness and cost Paraphrase - federal funding of research. So this is a funding proposal. QuoteRecommendation 3: The federal climate change research program, working in partnership with other relevant domestic and international bodies, should redouble efforts to design, deploy, and maintain a comprehensive observing system that can support all aspects of understanding and responding to climate change. Yes. A federal program. Funding all of this research. QuoteRecommendation 4: The federal climate change research program should work with the international research community and other relevant partners to support and develop advanced models and other analytical tools to improve understanding and assist in decision making related to climate change. The feds should fund more models, working with those we find relevant. Quote5: A single federal entity should be given the authority and resources to coordinate and implement an integrated research effort that supports improving both understanding of and responses to climate change. If several key modifications are made, the U.S. Global Change Research Program could serve this role. These modifications are described in the paragraphs above and include: An expanded mission that includes both understanding climate change and supporting effective decisions and actions taken to respond to climate change; Establishing a wide range of activities and mechanisms to support two-way flows of information between science and decision making, including improved mechanisms for input from decision makers and other stakeholders on research priorities; Establishing more effective mechanisms for identifying and addressing gaps and weaknesses in climate research, as well as the barriers that give rise to such gaps; High-level leadership both within the program and among its partner agencies; and Budgeting oversight and authority. Ah!!! We've already got something in place. It just needs a lot more money and a lot more authority! QuoteRecommendation 6: The federal climate change research program should be formally linked with action-oriented response programs focused on limiting the magnitude of future climate change, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and informing climate-related actions and decisions, and, where relevant, should develop partnerships with other research and decision-making entities working at local to international scales. CAPACITY BUILDING The scale, importance, and complexity of the climate challenge implies a critical need to increase the workforce performing fundamental and decision-relevant climate research, implementing responses to climate change, and working at the interface between science and decision making. Thanks to more than three decades of research on climate change, the research community in the United States and elsewhere is strong, at least in research areas that have received significant emphasis and support. However, level or declining climate research funding over the past decade (as documented, for example, in NRC [2009l]) has limited the number of young scientists and engineers entering the research workforce at just the point when an influx of young scientists and engineers is critically needed to revitalize the nation’s climate research WOW! This nails it. The federal government needs to give these people jobs! Funding has remained steady or declined. That's bad, seeing how many researchers are looking for work. The National Academies Press gives a hint about what this is. The National Academies provide recommendations to policymakers. There is no original science in it. It's taking existing science and making policy directives. So, if you want me to deny the report's recommendations, I'll have a hard time doing it. But in reviewing what they recommend, it appears to me that they are stating that they recommend that a large amount of funding be given for further interdiciplinary climate research. It's a recommendation to increase funding. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #6 May 26, 2010 >oh, do me a favor and come up with something rational that can explain >why the fossil records show global warming and cooling - quite extreme in > some cases . . . Meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, the alteration of our atmosphere by blue-green bacteria, Milankovitch cycles, emission of CO2 through human activities - would you like any other reasons, or are those sufficient? >and in a rational way show how humans caused it Only the last one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>emission of CO2 through human activities< >and in a rational way show how humans caused it Only the last one. Too bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #8 May 26, 2010 >since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. Yep. It's been declining since 2005. It also declined between 1942 and 1980. But even when there was a decline for almost 40 years, the trend has been clearly upwards over the past 200 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #9 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>emission of CO2 through human activities< >and in a rational way show how humans caused it Only the last one. Too bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #10 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>emission of CO2 through human activities< >and in a rational way show how humans caused it Only the last one. Too bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Billions of years old and you think we have been around long enough to see a long term trend . . . Uh huh.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteToo bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Like this long term trend, you mean?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #12 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteToo bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Like this long term trend, you mean? See post #6 of this thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #13 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteToo bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Like this long term trend, you mean? See post #6 of this thread. So what are you claiming happened betwen 800 and 1010 on the scale?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteToo bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Like this long term trend, you mean? See post #6 of this thread. I believe that mention of "superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends" seems an appropriate answer to that, don't you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #15 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteToo bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Like this long term trend, you mean? See post #6 of this thread. I believe that mention of "superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends" seems an appropriate answer to that, don't you think? Define what YOU mean by long and short, and we can have a discussion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteToo bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. That's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Like this long term trend, you mean? See post #6 of this thread. I believe that mention of "superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends" seems an appropriate answer to that, don't you think? Define what YOU mean by long and short, and we can have a discussion. How about YOU refute the graph posted, first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 May 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>emission of CO2 through human activities< >and in a rational way show how humans caused it Only the last one. Too bad the data doesn't support it, since the trend is now declining even with increasing CO2. It is a scientific fact that increasing the concentration of CO2 in a volume, subjecting it to shortwave IR, which is reflected by the opposite surface as longwave IR, increases the temperature of the volume because of the ability of CO2 to absorb the lonwave IR radiation. Considering that the CO2 increase over the last ten years is 1.977 ppm, then we would have expected to see roughly .2 C warming over the last decade. Oops. The results in the real world do not match up with the results in a lab because the lab environment is conducive to takign variables out. ((1-a)S)/4=eoT^4 This is the global climate equilibrium equation. That "S" on the left stands for the sun. The "a" is for albedo. CO2 affects emissivity of the earth. The funny thing is that, in a closed universe, small trends would be just as important. "Signal/noise ratio" merely means "What we're looking for/alternative forcings" correlations. The CO2 is but one factor in that equation. THOUSANDS of other relationships affect it. How we subjectively weight the effect of stratospheric sulfur aerosols v. tropospheric black carbon v. stratospheric black carbon v. etc. is up for debate. The fact, John is that there has been a pause in warming - warming that has, staistically, not happened in the last ten years DESPITE an increase in the amount of CO2 concentration. There havne't been any volcanoes or strong La Ninas to account for it. That's where we scratch our heads and say, "What's goign on? Models dont' predict this." Short term trends are important BECAUSE they give us a running tally. They are not dispositive, but they do tell us, "We've got a lot left to understand." QuoteThat's the funny thing about the superimposition of short period cycles on long term trends. Well, it depends on the trend. If we look really long term, the earth is cooling and will continue to do so for the next several billion years.. Check out the dinosaur era - it was hot. That's why dinosaurs got so big - they didn't need energy for keeping warm so they used it to grow. We can all pull out trends wherever we want. Mike pulls his. You pull yours. I pull mine. Etc. I can find a trend to show what I want to show. Want a period where the earth cooled? I'll show you plenty. Earth wamred? I'll show you some, too. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,646 #18 May 26, 2010 Quote[ We can all pull out trends wherever we want. Mike pulls his. You pull yours. I pull mine. Etc. I can find a trend to show what I want to show. Want a period where the earth cooled? I'll show you plenty. Earth wamred? I'll show you some, too. The nice thing about time series analysis is that it can produce an UNBIASED assessment of the trends and cycles. That's the kind of analysis climate scientists do. Lawyers, OTOH, just try to confuse a jury.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #19 May 26, 2010 >We can all pull out trends wherever we want. Mike pulls his. You pull >yours. I pull mine. Yep. Imagine a doctor who did that: "Your temperature? Sure, it seems high. But I'll bet it was higher at some point. And before you were born it didn't exist, and after you're dead it will probably be lower. Unless you get cremated; then it will be really high - way, way higher than your temperature is now, so just keep that in perspective. Besides, there are varying medical opinions as to how your body regulates temperature." "So there's really no meaning to your temperature, we have no idea what might have caused it, we can't predict anything from it, and we probably can't do anything about it anyway. The science just isn't settled. Here's your bill; come back next week. Have a nice day." You might be inspired to go to a better doctor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #20 May 27, 2010 Quote The nice thing about time series analysis is that it can produce an UNBIASED assessment of the trends and cycles. That's the kind of analysis climate scientists do. Lawyers, OTOH, just try to confuse a jury. Perfect! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #21 May 27, 2010 Quote So, if you want me to deny the report's recommendations, I'll have a hard time doing it. But in reviewing what they recommend, it appears to me that they are stating that they recommend that a large amount of funding be given for further interdiciplinary climate research. It's a recommendation to increase funding. When's the last time the Academies released a report stating that an issue has been settled and no more funding/research is needed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #22 May 27, 2010 QuoteMeteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, the alteration of our atmosphere by blue-green bacteria, Milankovitch cycles, emission of CO2 through human activities Noone seems to want to explain which ones, or combinations of the above quoted phenomenon caused the data on the chart MNealTX provided.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #23 May 27, 2010 Right. Let's say my doctor finds out my temp is 101.3. He decides that I have bacterial infection and prescribes an antibiotic. Let's also say that the doctor doesn't know that I am sweating profusely and my temperature was 104.9 three hours ago. Which factor is more important? That I am febrile or that my fever appears to be breaking? Let's say the doctor finds my INR to be 1.9 and prescribes me an extra dose of warfarin because my last reading was a 2.5. Trending downward to him, but it was 1.2 yesterday because I missed a dose. Which trend do we want to look at? The low INR or the trending upward INR? It turns out that the immediate trends often do not tell the full story. This is not to deny that they often DO tell the story... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #24 May 27, 2010 >Noone seems to want to explain which ones, or combinations of the >above quoted phenomenon caused the data on the chart MNealTX >provided. No problem. Below is a graph of temperature from about a dozen proxy sources over the past 2000 years. Note that the ones that favor Northern Hemisphere proxies show the "medieval warm period" and "the little ice age." Even taking the most aggressive one, we saw about .6C change from the MWP to the LIA, nothing like the 1.5C change in MNeal's graph. Also note that it only goes to 2004 and every proxy (and actual measurement) still shows a dramatic increase starting around 1850 AD. However, if you look at the world as a whole, even that's not all that significant. From NOAA: ========= The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect. ========= In other words, nothing caused that bit of global warming - because globally it didn't exist. Now, do you have a theory on why the Northern hemisphere warmed while the balance of the planet remained at or below average temps? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #25 May 27, 2010 >Right. Let's say my doctor finds out my temp is 101.3. He decides that >I have bacterial infection and prescribes an antibiotic. >Let's also say that the doctor doesn't know that I am sweating profusely >and my temperature was 104.9 three hours ago. That would be a very important bit of information! As would any mention that when your temperature was 104.9 you had just run a triathalon in California in the summer, or that you were a methamphetamine user. To claim that none of those things matter would be foolish, and it would be a poor doctor indeed that would ignore them because he did not 'believe' in body temperature as a diagnostic sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 1 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,646 #18 May 26, 2010 Quote[ We can all pull out trends wherever we want. Mike pulls his. You pull yours. I pull mine. Etc. I can find a trend to show what I want to show. Want a period where the earth cooled? I'll show you plenty. Earth wamred? I'll show you some, too. The nice thing about time series analysis is that it can produce an UNBIASED assessment of the trends and cycles. That's the kind of analysis climate scientists do. Lawyers, OTOH, just try to confuse a jury.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #19 May 26, 2010 >We can all pull out trends wherever we want. Mike pulls his. You pull >yours. I pull mine. Yep. Imagine a doctor who did that: "Your temperature? Sure, it seems high. But I'll bet it was higher at some point. And before you were born it didn't exist, and after you're dead it will probably be lower. Unless you get cremated; then it will be really high - way, way higher than your temperature is now, so just keep that in perspective. Besides, there are varying medical opinions as to how your body regulates temperature." "So there's really no meaning to your temperature, we have no idea what might have caused it, we can't predict anything from it, and we probably can't do anything about it anyway. The science just isn't settled. Here's your bill; come back next week. Have a nice day." You might be inspired to go to a better doctor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #20 May 27, 2010 Quote The nice thing about time series analysis is that it can produce an UNBIASED assessment of the trends and cycles. That's the kind of analysis climate scientists do. Lawyers, OTOH, just try to confuse a jury. Perfect! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #21 May 27, 2010 Quote So, if you want me to deny the report's recommendations, I'll have a hard time doing it. But in reviewing what they recommend, it appears to me that they are stating that they recommend that a large amount of funding be given for further interdiciplinary climate research. It's a recommendation to increase funding. When's the last time the Academies released a report stating that an issue has been settled and no more funding/research is needed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #22 May 27, 2010 QuoteMeteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, the alteration of our atmosphere by blue-green bacteria, Milankovitch cycles, emission of CO2 through human activities Noone seems to want to explain which ones, or combinations of the above quoted phenomenon caused the data on the chart MNealTX provided.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 May 27, 2010 Right. Let's say my doctor finds out my temp is 101.3. He decides that I have bacterial infection and prescribes an antibiotic. Let's also say that the doctor doesn't know that I am sweating profusely and my temperature was 104.9 three hours ago. Which factor is more important? That I am febrile or that my fever appears to be breaking? Let's say the doctor finds my INR to be 1.9 and prescribes me an extra dose of warfarin because my last reading was a 2.5. Trending downward to him, but it was 1.2 yesterday because I missed a dose. Which trend do we want to look at? The low INR or the trending upward INR? It turns out that the immediate trends often do not tell the full story. This is not to deny that they often DO tell the story... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #24 May 27, 2010 >Noone seems to want to explain which ones, or combinations of the >above quoted phenomenon caused the data on the chart MNealTX >provided. No problem. Below is a graph of temperature from about a dozen proxy sources over the past 2000 years. Note that the ones that favor Northern Hemisphere proxies show the "medieval warm period" and "the little ice age." Even taking the most aggressive one, we saw about .6C change from the MWP to the LIA, nothing like the 1.5C change in MNeal's graph. Also note that it only goes to 2004 and every proxy (and actual measurement) still shows a dramatic increase starting around 1850 AD. However, if you look at the world as a whole, even that's not all that significant. From NOAA: ========= The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect. ========= In other words, nothing caused that bit of global warming - because globally it didn't exist. Now, do you have a theory on why the Northern hemisphere warmed while the balance of the planet remained at or below average temps? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #25 May 27, 2010 >Right. Let's say my doctor finds out my temp is 101.3. He decides that >I have bacterial infection and prescribes an antibiotic. >Let's also say that the doctor doesn't know that I am sweating profusely >and my temperature was 104.9 three hours ago. That would be a very important bit of information! As would any mention that when your temperature was 104.9 you had just run a triathalon in California in the summer, or that you were a methamphetamine user. To claim that none of those things matter would be foolish, and it would be a poor doctor indeed that would ignore them because he did not 'believe' in body temperature as a diagnostic sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
