I'm glad TKE-Teg is able to debunk the global warming conspiracy with his PhD in Rush Limbaugh studies.

Just cause one person has become a poster boy profiteer by hyping up a scientic theory that is still being evaluated does not rule out all credibility.

Jim Cramer says i should invest in x, y, and z stocks; doing this will make 500% return in 2 years!
While Jim Cramer does have his own interests, his thesis on x stock his wrong, and i may only make a 10% return on z stock; this does not mean i should not invest in the stock market b.c Jim Cramer was wrong and hyped up x y z stocks.

Worst Case we fall for the Global Warming Conspiracy and enact policies to prevent it:
- We find out its all bullshit, ExXon loses 2% profit over what it would have w/o carbon emission regulations, I spend $50/yr if the so called hypothetical carbon tax is passed (i doubt it will be), and we have trended toward technology that is better for the environment all around.

Worst if we ignore the experts in climatology claiming that global warming is part of the unamerican liberal agenda:
- Al Gore's worst nightmare comes true.

While i do not agree with all the radical changes, regulations, and policies most liberals are trying to pass on capital hill; I do think the AGW does have some credibility. At most it should be a steady trend in policy/technology as continued research is uncovered to give credit to such human made climate change .

aaronburro, TKE-Teg, LoneSnark are all tools proving the 45th law of power

Quote :

"Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once-"

Quote :

"Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement of the past"

Obama and the dem congress need to dial back the Change a bit

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 5:44 PM. Reason : l]

4/24/2009 5:36:06 PM

Quote :

"Look, let's put it this way - even the science of skeptics doesn't really back you up on this point. At this point, we're into full-blown denial territory. And again - I am perfectly willing to listen to arguments that some of the "mainstream" sources have over-hyped their conclusions - chief among them being the IPCC. But I find it a little hard to take seriously the notion that massive increases in CO2 concentration due to human activity have a "negligible" effect. Particularly given what we've observed with other industrial pollutants, like NOx and SOx, in terms of how much concentration is required to manifest in noticeable ways."

Well, I'm sorry, but that's kind of what the evidence actually shows. I have seen other sources that question exactly how much CO2 itself can contribute to warming in any concentration, and they were in agreement.
However, I find it ironic that you mention the other "industrial pollutants," given that they are, actually, pollutants. It's ironic, because our efforts to remove them from the atmosphere probably has played a huge role in the uptic in perceived warming. Obviously I'm not proposing that we start pumping out sulfur again, but I wonder if any one has even bothered to think about the fact that before there was all this CO2 now, there were these other pollutants, too. I'm willing to bet they didn't.

Quote :

"Lindzen's comments are based upon his proposed "Iris Effect" regulating temperature. This effect, suffice it to say, has not exactly been vindicated by the evidence thus so far."

And what evidence are you talking about? The rigged evidence of the hockey stick? Again, CO2's forcing is logarithmic. Other sources vindicate this claim.

Quote :

"Hmmmm....yes, no agenda for this man. Margaret Thatcher loved restrained markets."

Who cares what his fucking agenda is? Is his science sound? YES IT IS. that's all that fucking matters here. If you are going to toss out people with agendas, then you sure as fuck better toss out Al Gore and his cronies who have been lying to the UN for quite some time now...

Quote :

"If you thought - honestly thought - that you were trying to save the world, and a group of people wanted to (in your mind) waste the government's time by testifying to the committee you're trying to get to save the world, would you allow them to do so?"

I don't think they, the Democrats, believe they are trying to save the world. I honestly believe they just want more money. Either way, can you seriously defend stifling the voice of the opposition?

Quote :

"Worst Case we fall for the Global Warming Conspiracy and enact policies to prevent it: - We find out its all bullshit, ExXon loses 2% profit over what it would have w/o carbon emission regulations, I spend $50/yr if the so called hypothetical carbon tax is passed (i doubt it will be), and we have trended toward technology that is better for the environment all around."

The effect is far worse, actually. You think the economy is bad now? What happens when we can't even turn on our fucking lights because Congress decides that we need to "save the planet?" What happens when American businesses can't compete with Chinese companies because America has taxed it's manufacturers out of business?

Quote :

"Worst if we ignore the experts in climatology claiming that global warming is part of the unamerican liberal agenda: - Al Gore's worst nightmare comes true."

1) The "experts" have been proven to be frauds.
2) The "worst case estimates" have also been proven frauds.

Finally, HUR, have you even bothered to read Monkton's reply? Have you even bothered to read the Wegman report? Have you even bothered to read about the humongous scientific fraud that is Mann's vaunted Hockey Stick, the very tool that launched the IPCC into action? if not, then shut the hell up. You are just as uninformed as the "republican tools" you rant and rave against. At least Chaos bothered to read some of it.

4/24/2009 6:04:40 PM

I did read it. So am I supposed to drop further investigation and throw out the possibility of human made climate change over one report?

You bash the do-gooder liberals about cherry picking studies and automatically believing the theory due to one guys speech (usually Al Gore). Yet you do the exact same thing. One report come in the contrary and its "PROOF I KNEW AGW WAS WRONG ALL ALONG; THIS GUY IS DEFINITLY 100% right"

4/24/2009 6:17:31 PM

Actually, I've read several sources, pro- and con-, and based upon that I make my stance. The very real evidence of fraud perpetrated by Mann pushed me over the edge. I happily listen to the other viewpoint, and even address their points. So, tell me, what about those papers doesn't convince you? Why don't you actually join the discussion, instead of basing those with whom you apparently disagree?

4/24/2009 6:27:16 PM

Quote :

"Well, I'm sorry, but that's kind of what the evidence actually shows. I have seen other sources that question exactly how much CO2 itself can contribute to warming in any concentration, and they were in agreement."

Uh, no. That's not "what the evidence actually shows."

Again, leaving out questionable datum like Mann's "hockey stick" that you so love to rail on (speaking of strawmen, could you bother to point out where I mentioned it? Because I don't think I've actually cited that as any of my arguments...), the evidence shows a fairly clear upward trend.

Look, really? This goes back to core science (again - you know, that discipline in which it is your hobby horse to compare to religion). Radiative forcing is something which can be demonstrated. CO2 reflects infrared, admits other wavelengths. The result is a trapping of solar radiation reflected from the surface. Not exactly rocket science.

Meanwhile, we double the concentration and you simply expect nothing to happen. Lunacy.

Quote :

"However, I find it ironic that you mention the other "industrial pollutants," given that they are, actually, pollutants. It's ironic, because our efforts to remove them from the atmosphere probably has played a huge role in the uptic in perceived warming. Obviously I'm not proposing that we start pumping out sulfur again, but I wonder if any one has even bothered to think about the fact that before there was all this CO2 now, there were these other pollutants, too. I'm willing to bet they didn't."

Look, I know where your argument is going better than you do, here. Because what you're referring to is not NOx or SOx, but aerosols - like soot. Particles that reflect the sun's rays in their aeresolized form. By reducing pollutants like soot, we've lowered the reflectivity of the atmosphere.

If you want to talk to me about unintended consequences, fantastic. Go right ahead - you'll hardly find an argument from me. But you're going to have to go a long way to show that the removal of soot is solely responsible for observed warming over the last century.

Quote :

"And what evidence are you talking about? The rigged evidence of the hockey stick? Again, CO2's forcing is logarithmic. Other sources vindicate this claim."

Dude, is it too much to ask that you stick to one topic at a time? Really?

The evidence I am talking about is studies upon the proposed "Iris Effect." People have actually studied it as a serious hypothesis because, and get this - Lindzen actually proposed it as a serious hypothesis. With falsifiability and everything! (But there we go again with that "science" noise - even Lindzen, it would seem, is simply Yet Another Scientific Fundamentalist...)

The problem is that so far, studies have not vindicated the predictions of the Iris Effect. Hence, relying on that model is questionable, given that the data has not followed from its predictions.

4/24/2009 6:41:38 PM

Quote :

"Again, leaving out questionable datum like Mann's "hockey stick" that you so love to rail on (speaking of strawmen, could you bother to point out where I mentioned it? Because I don't think I've actually cited that as any of my arguments...), the evidence shows a fairly clear upward trend."

And on what evidence are you relying? Evidence that is done in the same vein as Mann's? Evidence that relies on CO2-influenced variables, such as tree rings? Or are we talking about ice-cores, which show CO2 lagging by a couple 100 years? or are you talking about the current thermometer record, which has been shown to be unreliable?

Quote :

"Radiative forcing is something which can be demonstrated. CO2 reflects infrared, admits other wavelengths. The result is a trapping of solar radiation reflected from the surface. Not exactly rocket science."

And this forcing is logarithmic. Which the UN does NOT readily admit. At the very least, the way it calculates the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT take this in to account. Moreover, Lindzen also makes the claim that we are shielded from the effects of this trapped heat by the H20 in the atmosphere. I'll readily admit that I accept this claim with skepticism, as it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

Quote :

"If you want to talk to me about unintended consequences, fantastic. Go right ahead - you'll hardly find an argument from me. But you're going to have to go a long way to show that the removal of soot is solely responsible for observed warming over the last century."

I would never argue for such a thing. I certainly can't disagree that removing soot from the air was a bad thing.

Quote :

"The problem is that so far, studies have not vindicated the predictions of the Iris Effect. Hence, relying on that model is questionable, given that the data has not followed from its predictions."

Great. WHY DON'T YOU APPLY THIS TO THE CO2 PREDICTIONS? They have failed MISERABLY with the observed temperatures for the past decade! The only way we can even get close to having them work is if we rig the numbers, ala James Hansen and his buddies.

4/24/2009 8:09:51 PM

^ You know what? You're barking up the wrong tree here, buddy. I do criticize the UN models as overly pessimistic. I do recognize the fact that their models are massaged. This is not the argument I rely upon, nor the one I cite.

My argument is and always has been that simple thermodynamics indicates a radiative forcing from CO2, which regardless of whether or not it's logarithmic, has a noticeable and significant effect upon climate, as well as other undesirable effects (such as ocean acidification).

Hence it is my contention that the real debate is over the magnitude of this forcing, which is where the models truly appear to differ.

So really. Enough with "RAWRAWR JAMES HANSEN RAWR HOCKEYSTICK RAWRRAWR SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY!"

4/24/2009 9:17:22 PM

then tell me. Where is the evidence that it has a "noticeable and significant effect upon climate?" To look at CO2 in a vacuum of all the other effects on climate is, in a word, naive.

4/24/2009 9:21:33 PM

What evidence are you looking for, exactly? No, really. What evidence would you find "persuasive?"

^^^Something else about Lindzen's claim re: H2O is suspect; H2O is opaque to infrared. But this actually would make it function as a more effective greenhouse gas; to wit, solar radiation which enters the atmosphere and is reflected off of the earth's surface downscatters (i.e., UV, Visible -> Infrared). Which would mean H2O is actually going to trap infrared the same way CO2 does.

Lindzen's "Iris Effect" implies changes in albedo from rising ocean temperatures; i.e., increased surface ocean temperatures lead to increased cloud formation, which acts as a reflector for the sun's rays (particularly say, infrared). Hence, increasing the albedo decreases the amount which reaches the earth's surface (reflecting it back into space).

Studies have not been able to confirm these findings, however.

4/24/2009 9:31:03 PM

Quote :

"this guy's (Monckton) a business consultant handpicked by a Texas Republican (no conflict of interest there) to testify. Yeah"

Al-Gore was the dems hand-picked "expert." He has personally made millions off the global warming schtick. Talk about conflict of interest.

4/24/2009 10:17:06 PM

Al Gore donates the money he makes from green business to charity.

[Edited on April 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2009 12:02:32 PM

^bullshit.

4/25/2009 12:04:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Climate_Protection

He donates to this non-profit.

4/25/2009 12:09:33 PM

that's not a donation - that's a tax shelter.

4/25/2009 12:37:38 PM

Quote :

"Hence it is my contention that the real debate is over the magnitude of this forcing, which is where the models truly appear to differ"

Republicans see the world as Black or White trying to arguing differing levels of magnitude and trying to reason using scientific logic is to much for "us versus them" crowd. Any consideration of the plausibility of global warming makes you a gloom and doom Al Gore believer liberal hippy douche.

[Edited on April 25, 2009 at 7:14 PM. Reason : k]

4/25/2009 7:13:43 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?hpw

4/26/2009 8:28:02 AM

Liberal Lies the fossil fuel industry would never try to sway or bias the research/ideas of their climate study scientists. Only Al Gore and Friends do this!!

4/26/2009 11:41:59 AM

Quote :

"Al-Gore was the dems hand-picked "expert." He has personally made millions off the global warming schtick. Talk about conflict of interest."

Well really what it comes down to is whose science they're using. Al Gore didn't do the research, he's just a messenger. Same with the other guy.

Besides, fuck nobility.

4/26/2009 1:02:04 PM

Quote :

"What evidence are you looking for, exactly? No, really. What evidence would you find "persuasive?""

Well, for starters, it's going to take some honest evidence, #1. It's going to also take CO2 models that have predictive validity. Finally, it's going to have to include the fucking elephant in the room of solar activity.

4/28/2009 12:20:37 AM

Well then, let's start with the solar activity hypothesis and work from there. Here's two good sources:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Basically; solar forcing (i.e., changes in the Sun's natural cycles) are significant but cannot possibly account for the entirety of temperature changes observed over the last century. Meanwhile, significant papers on the subject show signs of improper data handling - i.e., fitting unfiltered data points to smoothed curves.

Basically - I don't think anybody has thrown out solar forcing. But, the IPCC 2007 report - for whatever value it's worth - generally limits its magnitude to about 20% (down from 40% in prior estimates). Which is an awful lot less than "100%."

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/134835/SPM2feb07

So, no. Solar forcing does not and cannot entirely account for the balance.

4/28/2009 1:49:31 AM

^^Do you even read scientific websites or anything? You're so behind the times and uninformed about global warming it's pathetic. This stuff has been studied for years and is readily available if you look somewhere other than right-wing conspiracy sites.

Try esciencenews.com. There are articles published daily about new studies on GW.

4/28/2009 2:16:30 AM

^ haha, nice.

^^ So, what do you say about the obvious signs of fraud in the temperature record, then? Such as removing adjustments for UHI, not accounting for the loss of Soviet weather stations, terrible placements of stations, and the fantastic sensors that are known to range high?

I also find it hilarious that the first paper you cited blasts the solar-theorists for using "reconstructions." Hilarious.

4/28/2009 6:43:57 AM

Quote :

"what do you say about the obvious signs of fraud in "

The Al Gore Liberal Douchebag Hippy unamerican artificial global warming conspiracy?


Unless of course the fraud is an artifical lowering of global temps by "respected" scientists/consultants hired by the fossil fuel industries. In this case it is a patriotic endeavor to save america and capitalism by discrediting AGW.

4/28/2009 7:32:36 AM

Quote :

"^^ So, what do you say about the obvious signs of fraud in the temperature record, then? Such as removing adjustments for UHI, not accounting for the loss of Soviet weather stations, terrible placements of stations, and the fantastic sensors that are known to range high?"

I'd ask you what they have to do with the topic at hand I just proposed, that being the solar forcing contribution.

In other words - be my guest. Revise the temperature number downwards; correct for bad data. I'm all in favor of better, more honest science. I don't see how this refutes the main point at hand, however; solar forcing cannot account for the whole of the warming.

4/28/2009 10:02:17 AM

Perpetual Question Overwhelming Scientific Consensus Thread

4/28/2009 10:07:54 AM

Who wants to bet me $50 that the global temperature continues to decline this year? And how about $100 for 2010?

4/28/2009 4:25:08 PM

I know! Let's reduce long-term physical trends to speculation upon precise data points! To hell with statistics!

4/28/2009 4:29:27 PM

Let's see. So the earth's temperature has been going up gradually for the last 150 years, which happens to coincide with a very very active sunspot period for the sun. And since around the turn of the century the sunspot activity has been very low. If it continues it's current trend it could get to be as low as the Dalton Minimum. And temperatures have been declining quite significantly as the sun's gotten quieter. Of course the IPCC, Hansen, and Al Gore have no explanation for this, but they are the experts...

4/28/2009 4:41:13 PM

If you're going to re-hash the same conspiracy theories over and over, the very least you could do is to read and rebut the literature I posted characterizing solar forcing just a few posts ago.

But I know. Let's waste everybody's time instead. Yes, that will lead to a fruitful discussion and debate.

4/28/2009 5:02:41 PM

I'll reiterate, HUR

Quote :

"So, tell me, what about those papers doesn't convince you? Why don't you actually join the discussion, instead of basing those with whom you apparently disagree?"

Quote :

"I know! Let's reduce long-term physical trends to speculation upon precise data points! To hell with statistics!"

Ironically, that's what the AGW movement is all about, you know.

Quote :

"Perpetual Question Overwhelming Scientific Consensus Thread"

Science isn't about consensus. It's about data. The moment you resort to "consensus," then you are admitting you lack data.

Quote :

"I'd ask you what they have to do with the topic at hand I just proposed, that being the solar forcing contribution. "

And I would answer that if you have issues with some slightly questionable numbers in the arena of solar forcing, then you should have even larger issues when it comes to the doctored studies for CO2.

Quote :

"In other words - be my guest. Revise the temperature number downwards; correct for bad data. I'm all in favor of better, more honest science. I don't see how this refutes the main point at hand, however; solar forcing cannot account for the whole of the warming."

As would I. Because, when you get down to it, there is little evidence of rising temperatures until we start doctoring the numbers to stop accounting for obvious cases where the numbers are skewed high, such as UHI and the loss of Soviet stations.

^^ Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that temperatures were inversely correlated with sunspots. Or is it inversely correlated w/ sunspot length?


Finally, Chaos, I feel it necessary to point out that the first article you listed was published pre-2005, when Mann's hockey stick was torn to shreds. If, indeed, there has been little rise in temperatures, then the sun-spot correlation would be spot-on with the "corrections" posed by that article. Just saying...

As well, I'll happily admit some ignorance when it comes the question of fitting "unfiltered" data points. Does this mean they just picked happy points that fit their hypothesis without choosing enough to be fair, or am I missing something? Sorry if it is a stupid question.

4/28/2009 6:22:44 PM

Quote :

"And I would answer that if you have issues with some slightly questionable numbers in the arena of solar forcing, then you should have even larger issues when it comes to the doctored studies for CO2."

I've shown you several reputable studies which both acknowledge solar forcing but also constrain its impact to an envelope of 20% - or 40%, which has been the historical number if you choose to discount the IPCC report, which is dated 2007.

Another shows serious data handling errors by those who argue that there is a total correlation. This isn't one you just get to "mulligan" by claiming the other guys get it wrong, too.

Quote :

"As would I. Because, when you get down to it, there is little evidence of rising temperatures until we start doctoring the numbers to stop accounting for obvious cases where the numbers are skewed high, such as UHI and the loss of Soviet stations."

I sure would like to see a source for this one - that is, a demonstration that a warming trend completely disappears, especially in light of alternative sources of evidence - yes, including satellite data and ice cores.

Quote :

"^^ Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that temperatures were inversely correlated with sunspots. Or is it inversely correlated w/ sunspot length?"

Sunspots are a marker of decreased solar activity; i.e., solar radiation is caught up in magnetic field lines, which reduces surface temperature (i.e., convection is inhibited).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots

Quote :

"A sunspot is a region on the Sun's surface (photosphere) that is marked by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection, forming areas of reduced surface temperature. They can be visible from Earth without the aid of a telescope. Although they are at temperatures of roughly 4,000–4,500 K, the contrast with the surrounding material at about 5,800 K leaves them clearly visible as dark spots, as the intensity of a heated black body (closely approximated by the photosphere) is a function of T (temperature) to the fourth power. If a sunspot were isolated from the surrounding photosphere it would be brighter than an electric arc."

Quote :

"Finally, Chaos, I feel it necessary to point out that the first article you listed was published pre-2005, when Mann's hockey stick was torn to shreds. If, indeed, there has been little rise in temperatures, then the sun-spot correlation would be spot-on with the "corrections" posed by that article. Just saying..."

I feel it necessary at this point to remind you that two wrongs don't make a right. Fudged, mishandled data does not ameliorate fudged, mishandled data. It just makes for something which is more incorrect.

Quote :

"As well, I'll happily admit some ignorance when it comes the question of fitting "unfiltered" data points. Does this mean they just picked happy points that fit their hypothesis without choosing enough to be fair, or am I missing something? Sorry if it is a stupid question."

My basic understanding is that this is a process of statistical sampling - but basically, data which comes out of natural experiments is typically very "noisy" - hence my remark to TKE-Teg

Basically, a quote from the second article I cite:

Quote :

"However,close analysis of the central graphs in all of these articles reveals questionable handling of the underlying physical data. In the 1991 article, the impressive agreement of the solar curve with terrestrial temperatures during the global warming of the recent decennia had been a major factor in the article’s strong impact. But this agreement was actually an artifact: it had simply been obtained by adding, to a heavily smoothed (“filtered”) curve, four additional points covering the period of global warming,which were only partially filtered or not filtered at all."

Basically - the global temperature data was smoothed and data points lying far outside the mean (outliers) are removed. (Obviously, I'm not a statistician, and it's much more complex than this - but basically a filter function is applied).

Yet this was not the case for the sunspot data - certain data points were simply pasted on and extrapolated where such an extrapolation was statistically inappropriate:

Quote :

"The rationale for adding them without proper filtering was that the proper filtering of these points could not be performed because the observational data necessary for the filtering were not yet available in 1991. So instead of restricting the curve to the proper data that were available at the time,a curve was presented that consisted of different types of data where the agreement with global warming was due to the non-filtered data alone.Today, in the year 2004,more data have become available, and the four points can be plotted more correctly (see Figure 1c,which shows properly filtered solar cycle lengths).Now the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention,has totally disappeared."

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 6:44 PM. Reason : Sunspot data handling]

4/28/2009 6:36:26 PM

Quote :

"Another shows serious data handling errors by those who argue that there is a total correlation. This isn't one you just get to "mulligan" by claiming the other guys get it wrong, too."

Certainly it doesn't give you a mulligan, and I would agree with that. As well, though, I would be equally suspicious of a claim of total correlation, as that is simply absurd. it's absurd in the case of CO2, and it's equally absurd in the case of sunspots.

While your studies acknowledge solar forcing, I think they constrain it far too much, especially since they are so heavily reliant on CO2. And the IPCC is about as reputable as the tobacco companies in the case of health effects of tobacco. So, I am happy to discount the "higher" number as given by them. Especially since I think it is higher than even that.

Quote :

"I sure would like to see a source for this one - that is, a demonstration that a warming trend completely disappears, especially in light of alternative sources of evidence - yes, including satellite data and ice cores."

Do ice cores reliably go back only a decade? I'm asking honestly, here.
Further, the question of a "warming trend" is entirely dependent upon the time scales chosen. Over the past 100 years, one might claim an upward trend. Over the past 100,000? We are "below average," according to ice cores. And of course, with the best cherry-picking I can muster, over the last 10 years we have a downward trend. Moreover, the claim that the warming is at an unprecedented rate is also false, as shown by parallel upward trends that occurred well before the industrial revolution.

Quote :

"I feel it necessary at this point to remind you that two wrongs don't make a right. Fudged, mishandled data does not ameliorate fudged, mishandled data. It just makes for something which is more incorrect."

And, as I read the article, it seemed to take issue with the end of the data series. Maybe I read it wrong, but I was under the impression that it did not have as much of a problem with the earlier data as it did the more recent data points. Either way, the correlation for sunspots is still much higher than it is for CO2. AND, the sunspots don't lag a 100 years past the temperature change as the CO2 does.

4/28/2009 7:00:35 PM

Quote :

"While your studies acknowledge solar forcing, I think they constrain it far too much, especially since they are so heavily reliant on CO2. And the IPCC is about as reputable as the tobacco companies in the case of health effects of tobacco. So, I am happy to discount the "higher" number as given by them. Especially since I think it is higher than even that."

This is why I offer you both sets of numbers for your consideration; the fact remains, however, that I feel my point has been adequately demonstrated: solar forcing cannot alone totally account for the warming trend.

Quote :

"Do ice cores reliably go back only a decade? I'm asking honestly, here."

My understanding is that the way ice cores measure CO2 concentration is in the trapped atmospheric gasses in the ice; we can look at CO2 concentration both from the partial concentration of CO2 and of daughter isotopes of isotopes such as C14 (these isotopes can also be used somewhat as a proxy for solar activity - i.e., C14 comes from cosmic rays - ionized particles created neutron showers in the atmosphere, activating carbon).

Quote :

"Further, the question of a "warming trend" is entirely dependent upon the time scales chosen. Over the past 100 years, one might claim an upward trend. Over the past 100,000? We are "below average," according to ice cores. And of course, with the best cherry-picking I can muster, over the last 10 years we have a downward trend."

The question is not simply whether a warming trend exists, but whether such a trend is human-influenced. In the unfortunate absence of an ability to a more controlled experiment, this requires extrapolating out the "baseline" trend before human activity to the actual data to find the "delta."

If anything, the argument that a large downward trend has prevailed over the past 100,000 years would support the thesis of AGW; i.e., human activity has managed to counteract the larger trend of global cooling.

But the reason a 100-year time period would be identified would be simple - this is the most major period of human industrialization. Again, the effect of other gasses indicates that it is not unreasonable to expect that human activity has no impact upon climate and the environment, thus it is reasonable to examine this period, particularly over the context of the more overriding trends.

Quote :

"Moreover, the claim that the warming is at an unprecedented rate is also false, as shown by parallel upward trends that occurred well before the industrial revolution."

Again, a source please? Furthermore, the raw change in temperature is not what is in dispute - it is also the change in temperature over the change in time. What effect does this have on ecosystems? (Mass changes in climate have typically been quite... disruptive to ecosystems.) What effect would this have economically?

Quote :

"And, as I read the article, it seemed to take issue with the end of the data series. Maybe I read it wrong, but I was under the impression that it did not have as much of a problem with the earlier data as it did the more recent data points. Either way, the correlation for sunspots is still much higher than it is for CO2. AND, the sunspots don't lag a 100 years past the temperature change as the CO2 does."

The last four points make or break that data.

Check Figure 2; this makes the point far more clear. Basically, it's a spurious correlation; notice how you see "noise" in the data (oscillations). Statistically, one cannot make a correlation - the signal is not distinct enough (statistically) from the "noise."

Furthermore, we see a large uptick in the 20-year period of 1980-2000 with no corresponding increase in solar activity. This is crucial.

4/28/2009 7:30:54 PM

Quote :

"Let's see. So the earth's temperature has been going up gradually for the last 150 years, which happens to coincide with a very very active sunspot period for the sun. And since around the turn of the century the sunspot activity has been very low. If it continues it's current trend it could get to be as low as the Dalton Minimum. And temperatures have been declining quite significantly as the sun's gotten quieter. Of course the IPCC, Hansen, and Al Gore have no explanation for this, but they are the experts"

I was not aware that Al Gore was an expert about global warming nor a climatologist.

Oh No we had a cold winter ONE year proof that global warming does not exist!!!
for fucks sake pat for an engineer your understanding of teh scientific method, statistics, and research techniques is lacking.

Sure crazy sun spots it one of MANY MANY variables that effect global temperature along with thermohaline circulation as effected by drift
of the continents, precision of the equinoxes, change in obliquity of the orbit, and atmospheric composition of which CO2
is a part. This is ignoring non cyclical factors such as volcanoes and other random variables.

Fuck it all though! Since Al Gore and liberals are all in on the global warming scheme we should pay it no attention and act link there
is no way in hell it could be possible.

There should be no consensus on the "truths" of global warming (human driven) it is a hypothesis that should be either further
proven or discredited with on-going research. Simply tossing the idea in the dumpster b.c Al Gore uses it for his political
gain is retarded. Hell there are still physicists who still do not believe in special relativity.

4/28/2009 7:48:15 PM

the only proof I need that global warming is nothing but a complete crock, is the fact that all the environmental scientists out there are desperately trying to re-label it as "climate change"..... HMMMMM.... I wonder why they would be so desperate to label it "climate change".......

and, IMO, any scientist that tries to prove a tautology like "climate change" is nothing more than a fraud.


[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 8:09 PM. Reason : s]

4/28/2009 8:06:32 PM

Quote :

"If you're going to re-hash the same conspiracy theories over and over, the very least you could do is to read and rebut the literature I posted characterizing solar forcing just a few posts ago."

I respect your opinion, DrSteveChaos. However I'm not arguing that sunspots caused the warming. I'm welll aware radiant heat energy from that does not make a large enough difference. However I'm a believer in the theory that sunspots strengthen the sun's magnetic field helping to keep out the cosmic rays (from outside the solar system) that, when they enter our atmosphere, encourage cloud formation through the ionization of water molecules. The clouds, that reflect back more of the sun's rays.

And I apologize about not always reading what you post, but when at work I usually can't.

4/28/2009 8:07:30 PM

Quote :

" However I'm not arguing that sunspots caused the warming. I'm welll aware radiant heat energy from that does not make a large enough difference. However I'm a believer in the theory that sunspots strengthen the sun's magnetic field helping to keep out the cosmic rays (from outside the solar system) that, when they enter our atmosphere, encourage cloud formation through the ionization of water molecules. The clouds, that reflect back more of the sun's rays."

What you are describing is really the reverse (i.e., sunspots mark places where energy is tied up in magnetic tubes which fold back into the sun - what you are describing, the solar wind, actually occurs after the field lines break and release a massive stream of charged particles.) However, the main issue of contention with sunspots is that they mark periods of increase in solar brightness (which, counterintuitively, I find now that more sunspots = more radiation. Despite the complicated physics involved).

Basically (and rather counter-intuitively), sunspots decrease convection at the point of the field lines - but apparently, they increase convection more around the edges (this is new to me):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots

Quote :

"The number of sunspots correlates with the intensity of solar radiation over the period (since 1979) when satellite measurements of absolute radiative flux were available. Since sunspots are darker than the surrounding photosphere it might be expected that more sunspots would lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding margins of sunspots are hotter than the average, and so are brighter; overall, more sunspots increase the sun's solar constant or brightness. The variation caused by the sunspot cycle to solar output is relatively small, on the order of 0.1% of the solar constant (a peak-to-trough range of 1.3 W m-2 compared to 1366 W m-2 for the average solar constant).[6][7] Sunspots were rarely observed during the Maunder Minimum in the second part of the 17th Century. This coincides with a period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age."

Anyways, the physics you describe - about cloud formation through cosmic rays - is also covered in the second article I cited. Again - data problems.

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM. Reason : sunspots]

4/28/2009 8:19:07 PM

maybe we're not hearing each other properly, b/c what you just said doesn't disagree with what I said.

4/28/2009 8:57:02 PM

Quote :

"If anything, the argument that a large downward trend has prevailed over the past 100,000 years would support the thesis of AGW;"

Not really. it wouldn't support it one way or the other.

Quote :

"But the reason a 100-year time period would be identified would be simple"

You are damned right it's simple: it fits the hypothesis better than any other starting date. I think picking 100 years is a bit too short of a time-frame, mainly because you can't see any trends that are longer than 30 years very well. Given that we know the solar cycle has 22 year cycles, this a dangerous thing to choose from the get-go. And, since there is some evidence for a 30-year and even a 60-year cycle, picking only 100 years is, to say the least, a bad plan.

Quote :

"Again, a source please? "

Coming up...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
Red Flag #9, specifically the graphic on the bottom of page 8.

Quote :

"Furthermore, the raw change in temperature is not what is in dispute - it is also the change in temperature over the change in time. What effect does this have on ecosystems? (Mass changes in climate have typically been quite... disruptive to ecosystems.) What effect would this have economically?"

And I agree. Red Flag #9 specifically deals with the fallacy of "this rate of change has never occurred before."

Quote :

"Furthermore, we see a large uptick in the 20-year period of 1980-2000 with no corresponding increase in solar activity. This is crucial."

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
I beg to differ. page 2 shows an increase, as does page 4. Plus, both of these occur with a much higher r^2 value than for CO2. I will admit that page 8 shows the sketchy sunspots graph mentioned before.

Quote :

"Oh No we had a cold winter ONE year proof that global warming does not exist!!! for fucks sake pat for an engineer your understanding of teh scientific method, statistics, and research techniques is lacking."

No, we've had SEVEN years of cooling temperatures. All of which fly in the face of the original claim that increasing CO2 leads to increasing temperatures.

4/28/2009 10:57:51 PM

but see its not about global warming anymore... its about "climate change"

4/28/2009 11:02:04 PM

Quote :

"we've had SEVEN years of cooling temperatures"

What fucking planet are you living on????
Not that I am saying its "proof" of global warming but 2005 was the 2nd hottest year on record with a mean 0.58°C (1.04°F); the only hotter year being 1998 at 1.12F above the average in the period since records go back to 1880. (some scientists think 2005 actually may be the warmest but the temperature was underestimated in some of the calculations)

2006 was the 5th warmest globally and the 2nd warmest for the continental US.

2007 bumpted 2006 to 6th since it became the 5th warmest 0.55°C (+0.99°F) above average.

2008 though with 0.49°C (0.88°F) above average was only the 9th and the coolest year globaly since 2000.

I have not seen the data yet but i'd argue the Dec-March Winter at least for the US was BELOW average; just as food for thought.

All the annual reports are right here for you..


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html

OH NO THE FEDERALLY FUNDED NOAA HAS BEEN HACKED BY JAMES HANSEN WHO HAS CHERRY PICKED AND FUDGED THE GLOBAL CLIMATE DATA OF THE LAST 10 YEARS TO FALSELY PROVE HUMAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. IF ONLY BUSH HAD ENSURED THE REAL DATA WAS MADE AVAILABLE......



[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM. Reason : l]

4/28/2009 11:52:04 PM

Quote :

"What fucking planet are you living on????"

This one, dude.

Quote :

"Not that I am saying its "proof" of global warming but 2005 was the 2nd hottest year on record with a mean 0.58°C (1.04°F); the only hotter year being 1998 at 1.12F above the average in the period since records go back to 1880. (some scientists think 2005 actually may be the warmest but the temperature was underestimated in some of the calculations) 2006 was the 5th warmest globally and the 2nd warmest for the continental US. 2007 bumpted 2006 to 6th since it became the 5th warmest 0.55°C (+0.99°F) above average. 2008 though with 0.49°C (0.88°F) above average was only the 9th and the coolest year globaly since 2000. I have not seen the data yet but i'd argue the Dec-March Winter at least for the US was BELOW average; just as food for thought. All the annual reports are right here for you.. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html"

It's too bad that ALL of those claims have been thoroughly refuted. You do realize that Hansen's work has pretty much been discredited at this point. He fucking changed a shit-ton of data to make those numbers work. How convenient that the OTHER THREE records show, you know, the exact opposite. Don't believe me? Here's the result of Hansen's "corrections," corrections which conveniently REMOVE previously applied adjustments for the widely accepted UHI-effect and which DON'T fix problems with faulty sensors and poorly-sited weather-stations.

Quote :

"OH NO THE FEDERALLY FUNDED NOAA HAS BEEN HACKED BY JAMES HANSEN WHO HAS CHERRY PICKED AND FUDGED THE GLOBAL CLIMATE DATA OF THE LAST 10 YEARS TO FALSELY PROVE HUMAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. "

Actually, that's pretty much what he has done. Need proof? here you go:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/giss-releases-october-2008-data/
http://digg.com/environment/Error_Found_in_GISS_Dataset_1934_NOT_1998_the_Hottest_Year_on_Record
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/print.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/24359/Warmest_October_Claim_Was_Wrong_NASA_Admits.html

Fucking do some research before you spout off bullshit like that, man.

And You said you had read some of the links I posted. Now I KNOW you are full of shit, because if you had, you wouldn't have been spouting off such lies

4/29/2009 12:39:04 AM

I think you have lost it bro...

you really expect me to trust data from some website called heartland.org and wattsupwiththat.com
over the noaa.

Damn the republicans are really starting to lose it and are going off the deep end in their paranoia of the
left-wing gov't involved hippy conspiracy about human made global warming EVEN if the rise in temperatures
as measured is just due to "natural" cycles.

As much as I distrust the gov't i find it difficult to believe the national climate data center is out to burn the books fudging data just to prove some hypothesis to trick the Amurican people to drive their cars into lakes, shut down CO2 polluting factories, and to help Toyota's stock of Prius's increase.


[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 6:51 AM. Reason : L]

4/29/2009 6:42:55 AM

alright. now I know you are trolling. thx. what would it take to make you believe those numbers have been altered? What if you looked at 3 other temperature records that show strikingly different things? Oh wait, YOU CAN!

Composite of all 4 major indexes.


All 4 individually can be found here on page 8
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mar_09_co2_report.pdf

But, I know you won't look at it.

4/29/2009 7:21:19 AM

Thanks aaronburro for uncovering me the truth so I can now buy stock in North Face and Natural Gas since at a rate of 3deg/century we are heading into the next glaciation period!

4/29/2009 7:48:11 AM

A .1 degree decline over the past 6 years is not long or fast. If you look at the temp data for the last century, there have been longer and faster declines, and yet the overall trend still indicates rising temperatures starting with the industrial revolution.

4/29/2009 8:04:33 AM

^ Take your liberal lies elsewhere.

4/29/2009 8:12:00 AM

Why have all the environmentalists suddenly tried to start re-labeling global warming as "climate change" within the past few years?


Just answer that, please. Its the crux of the argument.

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 8:26 AM. Reason : s]

4/29/2009 8:26:16 AM

Because in the past few years we have seen a lot of weather disasters?
Because stupid people dont know whats bad about "Global Warming"?
Because Republicans did to the phrase "Global Warming" the same thing they did to the word "liberal"?
Because there will be localized cooling in some areas, and that can confuse people?
Because "Global Warming" is a misleading term?

I think its because "Climate Change" reports get better network ratings than "Global Warming" reports.

4/29/2009 9:41:48 AM

Quote :

"Because in the past few years we have seen a lot of weather disasters?"

Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and say that's blatantly false. There is absolutely no proof of that.

Quote :

"so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can't actually see. Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith - bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased. Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves. Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk." "

So for all you individiuals that think this global cooling trend is insignificant, please explain to me why the IPCC, Al Gore, James Hansen, etc have no answer to explain it. Its difficult to buy into their scheme when year after year they spout off about how everything's getting worse (as it doesn't) and that if we "don't act now it'll be too late". And instead, the earth gets cooler, polar ice is at or above its 30 year average, and even your precious polar bear is thriving, with a population multiple times what it was in 1980.

And for comic relief, here's an article blaming cat overpopulation on "warmer temperatures"

http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/04/29/07/0346-82/index.xml

Quote :

"Oh No we had a cold winter ONE year proof that global warming does not exist!!! for fucks sake pat for an engineer your understanding of teh scientific method, statistics, and research techniques is lacking."

And that's got to be the funniest thing posted on this page. The hypocrisy is just dripping off your quote.

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 9:52 AM. Reason : sigh]

4/29/2009 9:50:33 AM