0
rushmc

I was wrong. It didnt end in 1998

Recommended Posts

It seems AGWing ended in 1997

My bad:P

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html[/url]

Quote

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years



In any event
It is more data to go over
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It seems AGWing ended in 1997

My bad:P

Article

Quote

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years



In any event
It is more data to go over


This illustrates the key problem I have with the "Climate Change" crowd - the old "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Getting someone technically illiterate, such as Algore, to discover one factor in the equation and conclude that it prevails in all cases is one thing. Requiring professional scientists to adhere to such dogma to receive funding is another thing altogether.

If someone living in Kansas was to conclude that the earth is flat, there would be considerable merit in their observation. Topographically, Kansas is substantially flatter than a pancake.

Similarly, if someone was to note that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere had an effect on global temperatures, that, too, would have merit in the same sense.

However, for someone to then claim that CO2 concentration was the driving force in global temperature - to the exclusion of all others - more than is quorum is necessary to establish such a principle.

An SISO (Single Input Single Output) system is the Holy Grail of System Theory. A great deal of effort is applied to decoupling various interactions, and the skill necessary to achieve even limited results is nontrivial.

Any physician worth their salt will find amusing the claim that a given pharmaceutical is without side effects (even PLACEBOS have side effects).

Thus, the rule of thumb that increasing atmospheric CO2 can be related to an increase in global temperatures is less definitive than the rule of thumb that the speed of an airplane is controlled by pitch and its altitude by power (try taking active then pushing the yoke forward to accelerate for take off...).

When people cling to a model with religious conviction, the model becomes massively suspect. Calling those who wish to check the calculations "deniers" (heretics) calls into doubt the soundness of principle itself. A researcher who is not a skeptic has little to bring to the table.

It would be nice if anything was as simplistic as Algore and his devout followers would have you think, but that is rarely the case in practice.

If the sun burns out, I don't think putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere will warm things up much.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It seems AGWing ended in 1997

My bad:P

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html[/url]

Quote

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years



In any event
It is more data to go over



This whole discussion is weird.
You guys are claiming that they are distorting or misreading the datas, but David Rose is notoriously famous on doing just that!


or when you call someone:
Quote

technically illiterate



Aren't you guys also "technically illiterate"? (in the sense that you guys don't seem like scientists). Otherwise, wouldn't it be better if you guys had a much more argumentative structure?

Something in the format of:
CASE 1 This is his argument
Rebuttal: Why the model is completely wrong

CASE 2 This is his argument
Rebuttal: Why he is wrong again
etc...



This whole debate by casual people always seems without substance.

I'm more of an economist/business analyst so I won't comment too much on the whole climate issue. However, its disturbing for people to keep using:
"Oh the climate-warner's arguments are SOOO simplistic"

yet the criticisms themselves are even more simplistic.

These kind of discussions always feel like: "I argue so I can win the argument" rather than "I argue to learn about both sides". I guess I'm still naive enough to think that people want to argue in good faith.

JMO
Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It seems AGWing ended in 1997

My bad:P

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html[/url]

Quote

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years



In any event
It is more data to go over



This whole discussion is weird.
You guys are claiming that they are distorting or misreading the datas, but David Rose is notoriously famous on doing just that!


or when you call someone:
Quote

technically illiterate



Aren't you guys also "technically illiterate"? (in the sense that you guys don't seem like scientists). Otherwise, wouldn't it be better if you guys had a much more argumentative structure?

Something in the format of:
CASE 1 This is his argument
Rebuttal: Why the model is completely wrong

CASE 2 This is his argument
Rebuttal: Why he is wrong again
etc...



This whole debate by casual people always seems without substance.

I'm more of an economist/business analyst so I won't comment too much on the whole climate issue. However, its disturbing for people to keep using:
"Oh the climate-warner's arguments are SOOO simplistic"

yet the criticisms themselves are even more simplistic.

These kind of discussions always feel like: "I argue so I can win the argument" rather than "I argue to learn about both sides". I guess I'm still naive enough to think that people want to argue in good faith.

JMO
Cheers!


you must be new here....

It's ok, you'll come to understand in time :P
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't you guys also "technically illiterate"?



Not hardly.

Quote

(in the sense that you guys don't seem like scientists).



In all fairness, I am degreed as an Engineer, so I do not really claim to be a Scientist. I did, however, teach University Physics for a couple of years, so I'm close.

Quote

Otherwise, wouldn't it be better if you guys had a much more argumentative structure?

Something in the format of:
CASE 1 This is his argument
Rebuttal: Why the model is completely wrong

CASE 2 This is his argument
Rebuttal: Why he is wrong again
etc...



No.

What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest.

It is a trivial exercise, left to the reader, to verify that this assumption is invalid.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No.

What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest.

It is a trivial exercise, left to the reader, to verify that this assumption is invalid.




You have taken a decisive side in regards to the discussion and it would be up to you to back your own findings with evidence.

When you claim that someone is "illiterate" or that people who believes in climate change is a "cult", then you are bringing a strong judgment and accusation.

Wouldn't someone who teach Physics want his students to bring compelling and conclusive arguments than relying on their prejudice?

Anyway,
cheers and happy Sunday! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

No.

What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest.

It is a trivial exercise, left to the reader, to verify that this assumption is invalid.




You have taken a decisive side in regards to the discussion and it would be up to you to back your own findings with evidence.

When you claim observe that someone is "illiterate" or that people who believes in climate change is are a "cult", then you are bringing a strong judgment and accusation stating the obvious.

Wouldn't someone who teaches Physics want his students to bring compelling and conclusive arguments rather than relying on their prejudice?



Please clarify - who are the students, and what is their "prejudice?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, for someone to then claim that CO2 concentration was the driving force in global temperature - to the exclusion of all others - more than is quorum is necessary to establish such a principle.

I don't believe that's what most credible scientists say. They do say it is a variable which we can mitigate, and with the conclusive science we do have; better safe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, for someone to then claim that CO2 concentration was the driving force in global temperature - to the exclusion of all others - more than is quorum is necessary to establish such a principle.

I don't believe that's what most credible scientists say. They do say it is a variable which we can mitigate, and with the conclusive science we do have; better safe....



The number of credible scientists among the voices clamoring for controlling "greenhouse gases" is vanishingly small. Add to that the fact that most approaches to mitigating the variable are brute force and ignorance at their worst, and the suspicion arises that the cure may be worse than the disease.

Triage is important in addressing crises. Focusing on "climate change" with religious fervor at the expense of the more immediate crises we face is on a par with a first responder ignoring a patient's arterial bleeding in order to focus on their psoriasis.

"Climate change" (or whatever is the preferred eco-hysteria) is a symptom of much more potentially disastrous problems, and anyone who considers it to be a primary concern is clueless.

What the hell, if ignorance is bliss, who am I to ruin people's happiness? Since nobody lives forever, we are all fundamentally doomed from the get-go.

Given that stupidity is our only inexhaustible, eternally renewable resource, I suppose I should applaud Algore for his ability to harness it so skillfully.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
=========
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.
=========

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

=========
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.
=========



There you go again Bill, confusing the argument with actual evidence. ;)
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

=========
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.
=========



There you go again Bill, confusing the argument with actual evidence. ;)


After having suitable 'value added' by Hansen et al, of course.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."



Backatcha Babe...

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/



You lost me.

You link an article that supports the aforementioned contention on my part for what purpose?

Do you suppose that my objection to junk science by one party somehow supports junk science by another party?

Do tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."



Backatcha Babe...

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/



You lost me.

You link an article that supports the aforementioned contention on my part for what purpose?

Do you suppose that my objection to junk science by one party somehow supports junk science by another party?

Do tell.



+1
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

No.

What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest.

It is a trivial exercise, left to the reader, to verify that this assumption is invalid.




You have taken a decisive side in regards to the discussion and it would be up to you to back your own findings with evidence.

When you claim observe that someone is "illiterate" or that people who believes in climate change is are a "cult", then you are bringing a strong judgment and accusation stating the obvious.

Wouldn't someone who teaches Physics want his students to bring compelling and conclusive arguments rather than relying on their prejudice?



Please clarify - who are the students, and what is their "prejudice?"




Did you not just say that youlectured at a University in Physics "for a few years"?

Seems like a lot of blah blah as you refuse to bring any evidence to back any of your prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No.

What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest.

It is a trivial exercise, left to the reader, to verify that this assumption is invalid.




You have taken a decisive side in regards to the discussion and it would be up to you to back your own findings with evidence.

When you claim observe that someone is "illiterate" or that people who believes in climate change is are a "cult", then you are bringing a strong judgment and accusation stating the obvious.

Wouldn't someone who teaches Physics want his students to bring compelling and conclusive arguments rather than relying on their prejudice?



Please clarify - who are the students, and what is their "prejudice?"




Did you not just say that youlectured at a University in Physics "for a few years"?

Seems like a lot of blah blah as you refuse to bring any evidence to back any of your prejudices.



Please lay off the hand-waving and get specific.

To precisely which "prejudices" do you refer, and what evidence do you seek?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No.

What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest.

It is a trivial exercise, left to the reader, to verify that this assumption is invalid.




You have taken a decisive side in regards to the discussion and it would be up to you to back your own findings with evidence.

When you claim observe that someone is "illiterate" or that people who believes in climate change is are a "cult", then you are bringing a strong judgment and accusation stating the obvious.

Wouldn't someone who teaches Physics want his students to bring compelling and conclusive arguments rather than relying on their prejudice?



Please clarify - who are the students, and what is their "prejudice?"




Did you not just say that youlectured at a University in Physics "for a few years"?

Seems like a lot of blah blah as you refuse to bring any evidence to back any of your prejudices.



Please lay off the hand-waving and get specific.

To precisely which "prejudices" do you refer, and what evidence do you seek?




"What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. "

A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start.

Else your post feels like another version of:
"He's an idiot"
"What makes him an idiot exactly?"
"I don't know.. Because he's an idiot!"


Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. "

A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start.



Shirley, you jest!

The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me.



Quote

Else your post feels like ...



Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Triage is important in addressing crises. Focusing on "climate change" with religious fervor at the expense of the more immediate crises we face is on a par with a first responder ignoring a patient's arterial bleeding in order to focus on their psoriasis.

"Climate change" (or whatever is the preferred eco-hysteria) is a symptom of much more potentially disastrous problems, and anyone who considers it to be a primary concern is clueless.



In your opinion, what is the vastly more important problem (or disease for which climate change is a symptom) on which forward thinking folks ought to be focused? Population growth?

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Triage is important in addressing crises. Focusing on "climate change" with religious fervor at the expense of the more immediate crises we face is on a par with a first responder ignoring a patient's arterial bleeding in order to focus on their psoriasis.

"Climate change" (or whatever is the preferred eco-hysteria) is a symptom of much more potentially disastrous problems, and anyone who considers it to be a primary concern is clueless.



In your opinion, what is the vastly more important problem (or disease for which climate change is a symptom) on which forward thinking folks ought to be focused? Population growth?



IIRC, the text translates to "be fruitful and multiply" - not exponentiate. I think that item justifies the use of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!"

It's gonna be fun trying to feed everyone when we run out of petroleum (and other finite resources). Whether it is warm or cold while you starve to death is a secondary consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

In your opinion, what is the vastly more important problem (or disease for which climate change is a symptom) on which forward thinking folks ought to be focused? Population growth?



IIRC, the text translates to "be fruitful and multiply" - not exponentiate. I think that item justifies the use of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!"

It's gonna be fun trying to feed everyone when we run out of petroleum (and other finite resources). Whether it is warm or cold while you starve to death is a secondary consideration.



When greater than 80% of the global population subscribes to one religion or another, and all religions seem to believe in using sex as a weapon, by trying to out-breed competing belief systems, well, climate change is honestly just a much easier sell. When the churches tell people to go forth and have more sex, and you says less sex, more condoms, well guess who's gonna win. Throw in the evolutionary compulsion to live longer through offspring, and yeah, there go the brakes on this train. We are fundamentally a parasite on this planet. The question is whether our space expansion technology can develop before our population expansion wipes us out. Those who call for conservation of natural resources, reduction of environmental degradation, and slowing of our exponential breeding aren't actually trying to stop those things, they're just trying to give the scientists a few more years to work their magic and save our species.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

In your opinion, what is the vastly more important problem (or disease for which climate change is a symptom) on which forward thinking folks ought to be focused? Population growth?



IIRC, the text translates to "be fruitful and multiply" - not exponentiate. I think that item justifies the use of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!"

It's gonna be fun trying to feed everyone when we run out of petroleum (and other finite resources). Whether it is warm or cold while you starve to death is a secondary consideration.



When greater than 80% of the global population subscribes to one religion or another, and all religions seem to believe in using sex as a weapon, by trying to out-breed competing belief systems, well, climate change is honestly just a much easier sell. When the churches tell people to go forth and have more sex, and you says less sex, more condoms, well guess who's gonna win. Throw in the evolutionary compulsion to live longer through offspring, and yeah, there go the brakes on this train. We are fundamentally a parasite on this planet. The question is whether our space expansion technology can develop before our population expansion wipes us out. Those who call for conservation of natural resources, reduction of environmental degradation, and slowing of our exponential breeding aren't actually trying to stop those things, they're just trying to give the scientists a few more years to work their magic and save our species.

Blues,
Dave



What is there to suggest that, given our track record in destroying the optimal habitat in which we now find ourselves, we might do any better elsewhere?

If we can't get it together here, I'm afraid it's game over.

So long as we address consequences rather than causes, we're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What is there to suggest that, given our track record in destroying the optimal habitat in which we now find ourselves, we might do any better elsewhere?

If we can't get it together here, I'm afraid it's game over.

So long as we address consequences rather than causes, we're screwed.



There's absolutely nothing in our record to indicate we'll do better elsewhere, but that's how parasites work. The trick is making this host last long enough for us to move to another, and right now, we don't seem to be on pace for that.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***If the sun burns out, I don't think putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere will warm things up much.


BSBD,

Winsor
Quote



Fair enough, and a lot like the old joke about what controls airspeed; elevator or throttle.

OK, so you don't think CO2 is the issue. If it's not CO2, then what is the issue?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0